Media Choice 福利哥
Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984, 1986; Daft, Lengel &
Trevino, 1987) attempts to describe the conditions under which a specifi c
medium is chosen for communication. The theory assumes a rational selection process that matches media choice with levels of uncertainty and
equivocality. Uncertainty refers to a state experienced by an individual when
information is insuffi cient or altogether absent (Garner, 1962); it may be reduced through the exchange of accurate, relevant and suffi cient amounts of
data through the use of appropriate media. Equivocality refers to ambiguity
inherent within information itself (Daft & Lengel, 1986); it becomes manifest when communicators interact from different frames of reference. Equivocality may be reduced through the clarifi cation and explication of data via
appropriate media. The mere provision of data does not necessarily reduce
equivocality.
Daft and Lengel (1984, 1986) and Daft, Lengel & Trevino (1987) proposed that media differ in the amount of “rich” information they can convey.
Richness in this context is a function of four factors: the capability of a medium (1) to provide immediate feedback, (2) to transmit verbal and non-verbal communication cues, (3) to provide a sense of personalization and (4) to
simulate natural language. Media were ranked along each of these factors
from richest to leanest.
Research studies (Daft et al., 1987; Rice, 1992; Steinfeild, 1986; Trevino, Lengel & Daft, 1987) investigated and ranked communication media
according to richness. Face-to-face communication was found to be the richest medium followed by telephone, email, written addressed documents and
unaddressed documents. Face-to-face communication became the baseline
for describing media richness thereby excluding advantages of other media
from the criteria for analyzing the richness of a medium. For example, faceto-face communication affords synchronous feedback whereas asynchronous
forums afford asynchronous feedback that might, in fact, be richer, more relevant, more accurate and more comprehensive than immediate feedback.
In summary, Media Richness Theory contends that effective communication reduces uncertainty levels by achieving a good match between media
and the level of equivocality in a message. This central claim was supported
in a large number of studies examining managers’ hypothetical media choice
(Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2001), but received less support, if any, in laboratory control tests (Dennis & Kinney, 1998; Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler
2000).
Other researchers found that additional factors, not just the reduction
of equivocality and uncertainty, infl uence media choice. Social Infl uence
Theory (Fulk, 1993) contends that factors such as group norms and peer attitudes also affect media selection and use. It was found that initial trials and
subsequent use of new media were affected by the social “climate” in an
organization (Fulk, 1993; Fulk & Boyd, 1991; Webster & Trevino, 1995) or
in a society at large (Kraut, Rice, Cool & Fish, 1998).
Media Symbolism Theory (Trevino, Lengel & Daft, 1987) suggests that
media choice is linked to symbolic meanings associated with different me-
dia, a claim in accord with McLuhan’s (1964) often-cited assertion that “the
medium is the message.” According to this theory, a posted letter often expresses formality while a fax expresses urgency. Trevino, Webster and Stein
(2000) reported that perceived media symbols were associated with attitudes
toward traditional media (meetings, letters), but not toward newer media
(email, fax).
Experience Account (King & Xia, 1997) contends that media choice is
correlated with one’s prior experience with media. Factors such as the individual’s skill and comfort in using a medium affect his or her perceptions
of that medium (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Gaining more experience with a
medium may revise the perception of that medium’s appropriateness for certain tasks. Moreover, Foulger (1990) reported that experienced users rated
some text-based media (like email and discussion groups) “as rich” or even
“richer” than face-to-face conversation. Thus, a “richness” criterion, initially base-lined with face-to-face meetings, may no longer be an appropriate
scale for media choice.
Furthermore, it is clear that prior experience with a medium begins
with and depends upon an initial decision to adopt and to use an innovative
technology. Making this initial decision is often an obstacle. In the realm of
higher education, Novek (1999) reported that the most diffi cult barrier to
effective technology integration is the resistance that some professors have
to change. Some faculty members do not see any need to adopt “nontraditional” instructional methods based on innovative communication media.
Indeed, they may see these methods as inferior, cost-saving substitutes primarily promoted by administrators (Allison & Scott, 1998).
Another barrier to technology adoption is the anxiety that sometimes
accompanies the expectation of change. Novek (1999) found that some faculty members are too anxious even to try innovative media since they may
fear their own incompetence and a subsequent loss of control. In addition,
Steel and Hudson (2001) reported that some faculty members believe technology could be used to short-change students by replacing high levels of
interaction and contact with much lower ones.
Another factor that infl uences media choice is the context in which the
selection is made (Trevino et al., 1987; Trevino et al., 2000). It was shown
that media choice is a function of the physical distance between communicators and of the number of messages they posted and read (Trevino et
al., 2000). In academic settings, the number of recipients may vary from
hundreds in basic courses learning at a distance to a very few that meet in
weekly seminars. The number of messages may also vary accordingly from
few to many.
In summary, it has been shown that media choice is multi-dimensional
and infl uenced by (1) an individual’s need to reduce uncertainty, (2) a medium’s capability to reduce equivocality, (3) social infl uences, (4) symbolic
meanings associated with media, (5) the user’s prior experience, skill and
comfort in using a medium and (6) contextual factors such as an individual’s
anxiety, the physical distance between communicators and the number of
messages they posted and read.
==============================================================
格式么就一切随缘吧～
恩！就酱！
Trevino, 1987) attempts to describe the conditions under which a specifi c
medium is chosen for communication. The theory assumes a rational selection process that matches media choice with levels of uncertainty and
equivocality. Uncertainty refers to a state experienced by an individual when
information is insuffi cient or altogether absent (Garner, 1962); it may be reduced through the exchange of accurate, relevant and suffi cient amounts of
data through the use of appropriate media. Equivocality refers to ambiguity
inherent within information itself (Daft & Lengel, 1986); it becomes manifest when communicators interact from different frames of reference. Equivocality may be reduced through the clarifi cation and explication of data via
appropriate media. The mere provision of data does not necessarily reduce
equivocality.
Daft and Lengel (1984, 1986) and Daft, Lengel & Trevino (1987) proposed that media differ in the amount of “rich” information they can convey.
Richness in this context is a function of four factors: the capability of a medium (1) to provide immediate feedback, (2) to transmit verbal and non-verbal communication cues, (3) to provide a sense of personalization and (4) to
simulate natural language. Media were ranked along each of these factors
from richest to leanest.
Research studies (Daft et al., 1987; Rice, 1992; Steinfeild, 1986; Trevino, Lengel & Daft, 1987) investigated and ranked communication media
according to richness. Face-to-face communication was found to be the richest medium followed by telephone, email, written addressed documents and
unaddressed documents. Face-to-face communication became the baseline
for describing media richness thereby excluding advantages of other media
from the criteria for analyzing the richness of a medium. For example, faceto-face communication affords synchronous feedback whereas asynchronous
forums afford asynchronous feedback that might, in fact, be richer, more relevant, more accurate and more comprehensive than immediate feedback.
In summary, Media Richness Theory contends that effective communication reduces uncertainty levels by achieving a good match between media
and the level of equivocality in a message. This central claim was supported
in a large number of studies examining managers’ hypothetical media choice
(Fulk & Collins-Jarvis, 2001), but received less support, if any, in laboratory control tests (Dennis & Kinney, 1998; Mennecke, Valacich, & Wheeler
2000).
Other researchers found that additional factors, not just the reduction
of equivocality and uncertainty, infl uence media choice. Social Infl uence
Theory (Fulk, 1993) contends that factors such as group norms and peer attitudes also affect media selection and use. It was found that initial trials and
subsequent use of new media were affected by the social “climate” in an
organization (Fulk, 1993; Fulk & Boyd, 1991; Webster & Trevino, 1995) or
in a society at large (Kraut, Rice, Cool & Fish, 1998).
Media Symbolism Theory (Trevino, Lengel & Daft, 1987) suggests that
media choice is linked to symbolic meanings associated with different me-
dia, a claim in accord with McLuhan’s (1964) often-cited assertion that “the
medium is the message.” According to this theory, a posted letter often expresses formality while a fax expresses urgency. Trevino, Webster and Stein
(2000) reported that perceived media symbols were associated with attitudes
toward traditional media (meetings, letters), but not toward newer media
(email, fax).
Experience Account (King & Xia, 1997) contends that media choice is
correlated with one’s prior experience with media. Factors such as the individual’s skill and comfort in using a medium affect his or her perceptions
of that medium (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Gaining more experience with a
medium may revise the perception of that medium’s appropriateness for certain tasks. Moreover, Foulger (1990) reported that experienced users rated
some text-based media (like email and discussion groups) “as rich” or even
“richer” than face-to-face conversation. Thus, a “richness” criterion, initially base-lined with face-to-face meetings, may no longer be an appropriate
scale for media choice.
Furthermore, it is clear that prior experience with a medium begins
with and depends upon an initial decision to adopt and to use an innovative
technology. Making this initial decision is often an obstacle. In the realm of
higher education, Novek (1999) reported that the most diffi cult barrier to
effective technology integration is the resistance that some professors have
to change. Some faculty members do not see any need to adopt “nontraditional” instructional methods based on innovative communication media.
Indeed, they may see these methods as inferior, cost-saving substitutes primarily promoted by administrators (Allison & Scott, 1998).
Another barrier to technology adoption is the anxiety that sometimes
accompanies the expectation of change. Novek (1999) found that some faculty members are too anxious even to try innovative media since they may
fear their own incompetence and a subsequent loss of control. In addition,
Steel and Hudson (2001) reported that some faculty members believe technology could be used to short-change students by replacing high levels of
interaction and contact with much lower ones.
Another factor that infl uences media choice is the context in which the
selection is made (Trevino et al., 1987; Trevino et al., 2000). It was shown
that media choice is a function of the physical distance between communicators and of the number of messages they posted and read (Trevino et
al., 2000). In academic settings, the number of recipients may vary from
hundreds in basic courses learning at a distance to a very few that meet in
weekly seminars. The number of messages may also vary accordingly from
few to many.
In summary, it has been shown that media choice is multi-dimensional
and infl uenced by (1) an individual’s need to reduce uncertainty, (2) a medium’s capability to reduce equivocality, (3) social infl uences, (4) symbolic
meanings associated with media, (5) the user’s prior experience, skill and
comfort in using a medium and (6) contextual factors such as an individual’s
anxiety, the physical distance between communicators and the number of
messages they posted and read.
==============================================================
格式么就一切随缘吧～
恩！就酱！
还没人赞这篇日记
