Coye Cheshire & Andrew Fiore June 30, 2015 // Computer-Mediated Communication Media Richness

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore1 Because hyperpersonal CMC yields impressions that are above average and because the physical appearance of most normal people is, by definition, average, receivers’ impressions may be dampened if physical reality intrudes. — Walther et al “ ”

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore2 Farnham & Riegelsberger 2004 Text profiles Photo profiles Gaming partner preference (1 = Do not want to play) Count

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore3 Media richness theory proposes that media differ in the ability to facilitate changes in understanding among communicators. “ ” — Kahai & Cooper 2003

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore4 Richer media, the theory claimed, enabled users to … better understand ambiguous or equivocal messages and … would lead to better performance on equivocal tasks. In contrast, leaner media were better for low equivocality tasks because rich media provided communicators with too much information. “ ” — Dennis & Kinney 1998

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore5 — Clark & Brennan (1991), courtesy of Adam

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore6 Comparing media richness studies Kahai & Cooper  94 undergrads (71% M, 29% F)  31 groups of 3 or 4  4 media conditions:  FTF  FTF + software  CMC 1: bulletin board  CMC 2:  2 negotiation tasks:  Similar equivocality Dennis & Kinney  132 undergrads (62% M, 38% F)  66 dyads (pairs)  4 media conditions:  AV-immediate  AV-delayed  CMC-immediate  CMC-delayed  2 tasks:  {Low, high} equivocality

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore7 Dennis & Kinney hypotheses  H1a: Performance improves as multiplicity of cues increases …  H1b: … more for more equivocal tasks.  H2a: Performance improves as immediacy of feedback increases …  H2b: … more for more equivocal tasks.

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore8 Dennis & Kinney’s findings  Decision time  Decreased with greater multiplicity of cues  Decreased with greater immediacy of feedback  Increased with CMC (vs. AV) more for low equivocality task than for high equivocality task  Consensus change  More change with high equivocality task than low

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore9 Kahai & Cooper outcomes Intermediate outcomes:  Socio-emotional communication (+/–) [1]  Communication clarity [2]  Perceived ability to identify deception [2]  Perceived ability to identify expertise [2]  Task-oriented communication [1] Final outcome: Decision quality [3] [1] Researchers coded [2] Participants reported [3] Experts evaluated

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore10 Path models D E F A DB C A B C Latent variables F1F1 F2F2 E1E1 E2E2 E F

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore11 Path models  More info (than you probably want):

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore12 Kahai & Cooper 2003

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore13 Kahai & Cooper 2003

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore14 Comparing media richness studies  What are these studies actually measuring?  Which one is more convincing? Why?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of Dennis & Kinney? Of Kahai & Cooper?  How would you design a study to determine how media richness affects communication? Decision-making?

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore15 As implied by the vast array of mixed empirical findings in the media richness literature, our findings suggest that the simple answer to this question is that there is no simple answer. One cannot make such global statements, but rather should at least take into account the confluence of task and participants. “ ” — Kahai & Cooper 2003

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore16 Interim reports and final projects

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore17 Interim report and project draft  Re-specify your research or design problem and its justification based on our comments.  Tell us the scope of your project.  Describe what you plan to do and how you will do it.  Be as specific as possible.  Try to make your assumptions explicit.  Don’t worry — we don’t expect you to have everything “figured out” yet!

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore18 Interim report details  What to include: Relevant literature, sketch of argument, initial design ideas, etc.  Around 5 pages, double-spaced, 12-point  No maximum if you want to tell us more  If you’re working in a group, write one report together.  DUE: 3 pm Friday Oct. 19, two copies in Coye’s mailbox (102 South Hall)

6/30/2015Computer-Mediated Communication — Cheshire & Fiore19 Final project  Track I: Research paper  Minimum 20 pages of body text, plus abstract and references section  Single author  Track II: Designing for CMC  Highly detailed design sketches and/or prototypes  Minimum 5-page paper describing problem and how your design addresses it  Main focus for both: Defining, analyzing, addressing your problem!