Sunday, March 31, 2019
The Computer Mediated Communication Media Essay
The figurer Mediated Communication Media EssayComputer-mediated parley is defined by Metz as cited in Miller Brunner, 2008 as any communication patterns mediated by a computer. The notion of CMC was first discussed in Licklider and Taylor (1968), which posits men will be able to communicate much effectively through a simple machine (i.e., a computer) than face to face. After almost two decades of studies, searchers set out build it increasingly fit outful to regard computers, through which communication is mediated, as a mess hall average (Morris Ogan, 1996).With changes winning place in various spirits of livelihoodtime today due to proliferation of communication, Miller Brunner (2008) hold that query into CMC has become increasingly prominent. CMC studies in both education and business do chief(prenominal)s do been restoreed around the effects of computer as a medium of sess communication (Morris Ogan, 1996). This is largely due to the adjacent characteristic s of CMC that Morris (as cited in Chen, 2009) has identified ubiquity, transp atomic number 18ncy, asynchronism, hyper-reality, and interactivity.Contrary to its factual potential, earlier ideas about CMC advocated a lack of capacity to deliver comfortable mixer schooling due to text-based and visually anonymous environment (Yao Flanagin, 2004). CMC had been criticised to pay inherently pr horizontalted interpersonal communication and encouraged impersonal interactions much(prenominal) as bashings on the mesh (Kiesler, Siegel, McGuire, 1984). Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and McGuire (1986) project that computer-mediated groups tend to found more than truculent deportment such(prenominal) as name-calling and swearings, as compargond to groups that workout opposite interactions.Nevertheless, such a deterministic view was challenged in subsequent studies. For instance, it is claimed the email plays a positive role by deconstructing organisational structures, go outing fo r greater information exchange among more people, and improving kindlyisation (Spence, 2002). Besides, CMC drug users are open up to be able to reconcile to the virtual environment and develop interpersonal tattleships that resemble relationships formed face-to-face (Yao Flanagin, 2004). It is too found that group collaboration in CMC has contributed to group mathematical operation outcomes deemed innovative and democratic (Miller Brunner, 2008).2.2 A shift on the netThe earnings is evolving into a PeopleWeb, which indicates a shift from a network comprised of pages to one inhabit by people and their artifacts and interactions (Ramakrishnan Tomkin, 2007). In that regard, hearty networking sites such as Facebook and Friendster that allow information sharing and sourcing, hold in become extremely popular in the rude(a) media (Lipsman, as cited in Pfeil et al., 2009), and agree to Bausch and Han (2006), will continue to gain users in a large number.Users are moving a way from a state of anonymity on the Internet (McKenna Bargh, 2000) with the evolvement of computer technologies. For instance, popular Chinese social networking site RenRen is concluded to be an ex tension of users real life as self-disclosure phenomenon elicited by reality kind of than anonymity is found present on the site (Yu Wu, 2010). mend web 1.0 is getting replaced by applications in the web 2.0 era such as blogs, wikis, and collaborative projects (Kaplan Haenlein, 2009), cognitive contentedness now can be modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative manner rather than on an exclusive basis (Kaplan Haenlein, 2009 Cheung, Chiu, Lee, 2010). With the rise of the social networking sites, their popularity is gauged not only by the size of it of the user base, but overly the ability to provide users with the most crucial amount of interaction (Cheung et al., 2010).It is reported in Bausch and Han (2006) that users of the top ten social networking sites i n the U.S. had grown from 46.8 million in 2006 to 68.8 million in the following year. The growth of social media has influenced social interaction among people and contributed to a spick-and-span meaning of the interaction, where scholars sacrifice begun looking into (as cited in Lipsman, Pfeil et al., 2009).The ramification of the crude media is, as Grossman (2006) puts it, a community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. The web 2.0 a revolution is as if a new edition of somewhat old software (Grossman, 2006). Papacharissi and Rubin (2000) grow identified online empowerment of individuals linking to instrumentality, interactivity, activity, and recreate group as the causes of influence of the new web. On the other hand, Jacobs et al. (2009) attribute the speedy growth of social media to its ability to allow users to produce and share content.While the ready reference supposition has been shunned as far as conventional media is concerned, Livingstone (1999) hi ghlights the importance of audience activity in both the design and use of interactive media. In fact, the shift in media user activity has been discussed since as early as 1963, when Klapper (as cited in Chigona et al., 2008) put forth the idea that UG focuses on what people do with mass media, rather than what mass media does to people. throw together (2009) calls the UG come near a paradigm shift from traditional media research, where focus was placed on media effects (e.g., what media does to people). A review of the UG surmise can be found after this sub-chapter.2.3 Uses and gladnesss (UG) theoryThe UG theory, otherwise known as the shoots and gratifications theory (Roy, 2009, revolves around why and how people use reliable media (Lo Leung, 2009). The term gratifications was coined by psychologist Herta Herzogto in 1944 to illustrate specific dimensions of radio audiences usage satisfaction, following which mass communication theorists had pick out and adapted the conce pt to study various mass media such as TV and electronic bulletins (Luo, 2002).The UG theory is built upon the raw material assumption that audience has their own agenda and is deemed as active and goal-oriented rather than passive consumers of information (McQuail, Blumler, Brown, as cited in Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 1974). By assuming the audience to be active and goal-directed, the UG perspective posits that they opt for and consume certain media and content that would satisfy their psychological fill up, which explains the penury of their media use (Katz, Gurevitch, Hass, 1973 Rubin, as cited in Roy, 2009 Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, as cited in Kim, Sohn, Choi, 2010). Such fulfillment of involve as a reference of motivation, is proposed to be affecting user gratification of media use (Sangwan, 2005).The UG theory has been follow and adapted over the years to study the use of various media ranging from the more conventional mass media to the new media and after to vi gorous technology (Stafford et al., 2004 Chigona et al., 2008 Roy, 2009 Shin, 2009 Liu et al., 2010). Although some scholars vex questioned UGs utility in studying the digital media, Ruggiero (as cited in Quan-Haase, 2012) posits the involve to seriously overwhelm the UG approach in any attempt to hypothesise on the proximo direction of mass communication theory. Besides, it is contended that whenever a new technology makes its way into the arena of mass communication, users underlying motivations and decisions to use the new communication tool could be explained by applying the UG paradigm (Elliott Rosenberg, Liu, Cheung Lee, 2010).However, in gild to effectively study and touchstone the new media by utilise the UG scales think for traditional media research, Lin (as cited in Shin, 2009) holds that a revision to the scales will be required. ordered with Lins idea is Angleman (as cited in Shin, 2009), who believes existing theories require amendments in order to take on new media studies. Application of the UG theory in various new media studies has been reviewed and an overview of those studies with their several(prenominal) motivations is presented in Table 1.Table 2.1 Overview of Prior Studies on New Media UG author and yearResearch areaMotivations identifiedJames, Wotring, Forrest (1995)Electronic bulletin poster (i.e., forums)Transmission of information and education, socialising, medium appeal, computer or other business, pleasureKorgaonkar Wolin (1999)InternetSocial escapism, transaction, privacy, information, interaction, socialization, economic motivationsPapacharissi (2002)Personal home pagesPassing time, entertainment, information, self-expression, passe-partout advancement, communication with friends and familyStafford et al. (2004)InternetProcess resources, search engines, searching, surfing, technology, web sites field education, information, knowledge, learning, researchSocial chatting, friends, interactions, peopleKo, Cho, Ro berts (2005)InternetInformation, convenience, entertainment, social-interactionDiddi LaRose (2006)Internet newsSurveillance, escapism, pass time, entertainment, habitCheung Lee (2009)Virtual comminityPurposive value, self-discovery, entertainment value, social enhancement, maintaining interpersonal interconnectivityHaridakis Hanson (2009)YouTubecommodious entertainment, convenient information seeking, co-viewing, social interactionMendes-Filho Tan (2009)User-generated contentContent information consistency, source credibility, argument quality, information framingProcess medium entertainmentSocial recommendation consistency, recommendation ratingLiu, Cheung Lee (2010) chitterContent dis nurtureation of self-documentation, disconfirmation of information sharingProcess disconfirmation of entertainment, disconfirmation of passing time, disconfirmation of self-expressionSocial disconfirmation of social interactionTechnology disconfirmation of medium appeal, disconfirmation of conve nience2.4 Media user gratificationsKatz et al. (1974) suggest research on gratifications has revolved around media- tie in necessarily that serve to satisfy media consumers at least in part who are deemed active and goal-oriented. Despite having a problem with ambiguity as far as definition is concerned, Weiss (1976) asserts that related key terms standardized uses, needs, satisfactions, gratifications, and motives are being used interchangeably across different papers and within single papers.Stafford et al. (2004) define gratifications as some facets of user-reported satisfaction. It has been found that satisfaction of user motivations is positively correlated with future internet usage (Papacharissi Rubin, 2000). Before resorting to a certain behavior of media use, historic experiences of individuals and whether or not their motivations can be satisfied by certain behaviors will be evaluated (McLeod Becker, as cited in Johnson Yang, 2008).Sangwan (2005) puts forth the id ea that gratification can be used as a proxy measure to evaluate the success or failure of a virtual community, which is standardized to that used in information systems. He proposes that gratification of media users will be affected by fulfillment of media needs that acts as a motivator. In this research, a total of 22 questions on social media use are employed as the instrument to evaluate and explain users motivations. By taking up the proposal by Sangwan (2005), the research outcome will spread abroad if users motivations have an effect on the gratifications or satisfaction of media users. Detailed information on the research instrument can be referred to in Chapter 3.2.5 Categorisations of needs and gratificationsThe UG theory proposes five categories of needs, namely cognitive, affective, personal integrative, social integrative and tension release needs (Katz et al., 1973). Over the years, researchers appropriating the UG theory to study various media have discovered a pleth ora of different needs. While some of these needs are rather consistent with one of the earliest classifications of needs by Katz et al. (1973), others are not.In a study that examines the relations between web usage and satisfaction, Luo (2002) employs three constructs drawn from previous traditional media UG research, namely informativeness, entertainment, and irritation, in order to assess how each of them affects user attitude towards the web. Research results have confirmed the said constructs were what determine users attitude towards the web. Also employs similar constructs include such researchers as Eighmey (1997), Eighmey and McCord (1998), as well as Kargaonkar and Wolin (1999).Livaditi, Vassilopoulou, Lougos, and Chorianopoulos (2003), in their interactive TV applications UG study, catogorise media needs into the two basic constructs of ritualised and instrumental. Other researchers who have choose such a classification of needs are Metzger and Flanagin, as well as Rub in (as cited in Ran, 2008), who have found that gratifications, as motivations, do demand to both ritualised and instrumental use of media.In Sangwan (2005), several types of needs have been identified to explain the motivations behind the use of virtual community platforms, such as forums functional, emotive, and contextual needs. However, it is posited that although the research sample has been assumed to be active participants of virtual communities, there are also passive participants whose latent needs have yet to be identified (Sangwan, 2005).Cutler and Danowski, as well as Stafford and Stafford (as cited in Chigona et al., 2008) divide motivations into the categories of process and content. Later, an special category known as social motivations has been identified and included (Stafford Stafford, as cited in Chigona et al., 2008). Stafford et al. (2004) describe this spare social dimension as unique to Internet use. Although found to be the weakest variable among others, social motivations serves as a vital construct in the Internet-specific UG research (Stafford et al., 2004).Chigona et al. (2008), who appropriate the motivation categories verified in Stafford et al. (2004) to study vigorous Internet UG, have confirmed the presence of all three constructs. Peters, Amato, and Hollenbeck (2007), as well as Mendes-Filho and Tan (2009) are among other researchers who have adopted the three constructs in their celebrateively studies of radio advertising and user-generated content. Also adopting the instruments is Shin (2009), who, on top of the three motivation types, has added embedded gratifications to study wireless Internet use. Besides, Liu et al. (2010) also employ the three motivations types on top of an additional technology gratification to study Twitter use.2.6 Process, content, and social motivationsThis study bases its main framework on one developed by Stafford and Stafford (as cited in Chigona et al., 2008), and later verified by Staf ford et al. (2004) the three motivation types of process, content, and social. The rationale behind this excerption has been explained in Chapter 1 under Statement of problem (p.zz). What is defined by each of the process, content, and social motivations, is illustrated in the next few paragraphs.Content gratifications from the UG theory are characterised by their relation to information content, such as reaping or store information (Stafford Stafford, as cited in Stafford et al., 2004) and place concern on messages carried by the medium (Stafford et al., 2004). Such motivations are stemmed from the use of mediated messages for the receivers intrinsic value (Cutler Danowski, as cited in Chigona et al., 2008). Content motivations take consideration into to the messages that a medium carries (Stafford et al., 2004 Stafford, 2009), which may be informative or entertaining (Stafford, 2009). Roy (2009) asserts that content is normally skewed towards entertainment and dispersion in UG studies of non-Internet media, as compared to informativeness in those of Internet.Nevertheless, certain Internet users may be cause by such usage process as random browse and site navigation (Hoffman and Danowski, as cited in Stafford et al., 2004). Process motivations are operate by the actual use of the medium per se (Cutler Danowski, as cited in Chigona et al., 2008 Stafford et al., 2004 Stafford, 2009), such as enjoyment of the process of using the Internet (Hoffman Novak, as cited in Stafford et al., 2004 Stafford, 2009). On the other hand, social motivations include such aspects as chatting, friendship, interactions, and people (Chigona et al., 2008).2.7 Social dimension and the rising encroachmentSocial contacts and interactions have shifted from offline to online realms (Boyd, as cited in Smeele, 2010) and this social dimension defines what users understand about themselves and their relation to the communities (Dyson McMillan Chavis, as cited in Jacobs et al., 2009) . Stafford et al. (2004) posit the importance of looking into the potential UG of the Internet as a social environment, as researchers may be evaluate to discover emergent social gratifications for Internet use.Research by Jacobs et al. (2009) shows a majority of the students utilise social media in a manner that resembles the social friends and family setting. Besides, Ellison, Steinfield, ande Lampe (as cited in Ross, Orr, Sisic, Arseneault, Simmering, Orr, 2009) also assert that maintenance of pre-existing social relationships has been make possible and may be stronger through online platforms. Users now turn to the Internet more frequently to socialise with people they know and expand their go of friends (Jones, as cited in Correa, Hinsley Ziga, 2010).Active participation on sites like Facebook, communication via texting and chat programmes, as well as creation of blogs have become a way of life for the new generation according to Jacobs et al. (2009). Correa et al. (2010) a re of the opinion that individuals who choose not to engage online may be limiting their ability to advance socially as it is an increasingly user-generated environment.2.8 The need to quantify social dimensionStafford et al. (2004) concede that there is contain narrate in support of the distinct social aspect to Internet use. pursuit the identification of social motivations in Stafford and Stafford (as cited in Chigona et al., 2008), researchers are trying to affirm this emerging motivation type, which eventually has been found present in studies by such researchers as Chigona et al. (2008), Haridakis and Hanson (2009), as well as Norway Brandtzg and Heim (as cited in Kim et al., 2010).Miller and Brunner (2008) hold that studies that focus specifically on the social aspect of online communicators and its theoretical foundations are lacking. For instance, although the social dimension is found present in a mobile Internet UG study by Chigona et al. (2008), the researchers merely confirm its existence without providing much elaboration into how it fares in contrast to content and process motivations the latter of which according to Aoki Downe Leung Wei Rubin Stafford Gillenson Stafford et al. (as cited in Chigona et al., 2008), are the most pronounced motivation types found on traditional Internet use. Besides, several social media studies also show that the social dimension does not live up to the medias supposedly social nature (e.g., Liu et al., 2010 Smeele, 2010 Xu, Ryan, Prybutok, Wen, 2012).2.9 Genders and UGGender differences have been identified as an all-important(prenominal) aspect in computer-related research (Gunawardena McIsaac, as cited in Kim Chang, 2007). The issue of limited women in the fields of technology and ICT remains a topic of interest for both the scientific community and decision-makers today (Sinz Lpez-Sez, 2010). Some studies have suggested that females may be more inclined to have computer disquiet and lower self-effi cacy due to the socio-cultural background of gender (Halder, Ray, Chakrabarty, 2010). Gutek and Bikson (as cited in Harrison Rainer, 1992) also see that men tend to demonstrate computer-related skills at workplace. In another instance, Wilder, Mackie, and make (as cited in Harrison Rainer, 1992) find that males show greater interest in using a computer compared to females.In more recent research, Leung (2003) finds socioeconomic status such as gender, with the exception of age, to be predictive of Internet use, and that reasoned users of the web are usually males. Although Okazaki (2006) asserts that effect of gender on mobile Internet service adoption is uncertain, married women indicate more invalidating perceptions than married men. Besides, a study on mobile phone UG by Ran (2008) reveals that males are significantly skewed towards a certain news-seeking need. Roy (2009) also discovers gender-related differences in perceived Internet use. In terms of social media UG, gen der-related differences have also been found in a slew of studies such as Sveningsson elm (2007), Joinson (2008), Jones, Millermaier, Goya-Martinez, and Schuler (2008), Thelwall (2009), as well as Thelwall, Wilkinson, and Uppal (2010).Volman, van Eck, Heemskerk, and Kuiper (2005) contend that the development of software, websites, and even teaching materials needs to have gender sensitivities taken into consideration in order to facilitate better learning among male and female pupils, who demonstrate very different preferences and attitudes towards ICT. Also in line with their idea are Halder, Ray, and Chakrabarty (2010), who suggest the importance of studying behavioral differences between people with respect to information processing and searching as such behaviors have to be more holistically understood and generalised before information retrieval systems and user support services are designed.Those are some implications of how gender differences could impact human behavior assoc iated with the acceptance of information and technologies. With gender being miss as a significant variable, studying human information behavior will remain incomplete (Nahl Harada Roy, Taylor, Chi, as cited in Halder, Ray, and Chakrabarty, 2010). It is, therefore, of the essence to find out if the influence of gender is valid in this social media UG study. If valid, which aspect of motivations is users social media experience influenced the most?