Benutzerdefiniertes Design erstellen
0
reading reflection #3 - (Mis-)Communication by email
Geschrieben von
thomas t
,
21 April 2009
·
319 Aufrufe
Computer-Mediated Communication
Most people think, they are good in CMC. Their messages are clear to everyone. There should be no problem with misunderstanding, but there is. Why is that so?
There are studies which suggests that social judgment is incredibly egocentric. In other words: “I am the best and you are nothing.† In this case a lot of people act like this. It's like you tapping the rhythm of a song. In your mind you hear the entire song, but your friend just hear the taps.
To give you a clue I want to discuss those five studies in short:
Study 1
Students had to read 10 topics and write 2 statements of each - one serious and one sarcastic. Scientist think that the writers overestimate their ability to communicate sarcasm. In fact 84% of the statements were correctly encoded, but the writers thought that 97% would.
Study 2
They wanted do display the contrast between the overconfidence in e-mail and in face-to-face in sarcasm. There it was different. In face-to-face 73% of the sarcasm was found, in e-mail just 56%. There the ones who talked or mailed to them suggest that 78% was found. It doesn't matter if it's e-mail or face-to-face.
Study 3
They thought that not only the voice transports info, it's also gesture and mimic. And that it's easier to communicate with people you know than with strangers. The effect is, that knowing each other makes a different in CMC. There 62% of the sarcasm was found. But in voice-only and face-to-face it doesn't matter. Both are 73%. The suggested accuracy was a lot higher: 88-90%
Study 4
Scientists thought that the overestimation is part of egocentric behavior. So they want to test it by giving students a list with half serious and half sarcastic statements. They had to found out which was what and than talk them in a microphone. One half of the students should say as they thought, and the other half the other way round. The talking doesn't effect the accuracy (both 62%), and the partners, who should anticipate the accuracy overconfidence it in the same talking (81%) but were nearly right in the opposite talking (62%).
Study 5
In this study scientists want to took a view on an other source of misunderstanding in e-mail: humor. One half read the jokes and mailed them, the other half saw a video of the jokes and than mailed them. Than they had to suggest who funny they are for the other person. The video-group suggested the jokes a lot more funnier than they were for the others, while the read-group shows no difference with the others.
These studies show that we overestimate our selfs. It should be in mind for everyone, that just 50% of what is said is understand - especially in such complicated things like humor or sarcasm. Quite astonishing this is.
On the other hand, I thought it was even worst, because in the writing-communities I am it's common word that just 30% of that you think you write reaches the mind of the audience and the true art is to make this percentage as high as possible.
Readings:
Truger, J.; Epley, N.; Parker, J. & Zhi-When, N. (2005). Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6), 925-936.
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. In: Academy of Management Review 33(2), 309-327.
Thomas Templ 0002097
There are studies which suggests that social judgment is incredibly egocentric. In other words: “I am the best and you are nothing.† In this case a lot of people act like this. It's like you tapping the rhythm of a song. In your mind you hear the entire song, but your friend just hear the taps.
To give you a clue I want to discuss those five studies in short:
Study 1
Students had to read 10 topics and write 2 statements of each - one serious and one sarcastic. Scientist think that the writers overestimate their ability to communicate sarcasm. In fact 84% of the statements were correctly encoded, but the writers thought that 97% would.
Study 2
They wanted do display the contrast between the overconfidence in e-mail and in face-to-face in sarcasm. There it was different. In face-to-face 73% of the sarcasm was found, in e-mail just 56%. There the ones who talked or mailed to them suggest that 78% was found. It doesn't matter if it's e-mail or face-to-face.
Study 3
They thought that not only the voice transports info, it's also gesture and mimic. And that it's easier to communicate with people you know than with strangers. The effect is, that knowing each other makes a different in CMC. There 62% of the sarcasm was found. But in voice-only and face-to-face it doesn't matter. Both are 73%. The suggested accuracy was a lot higher: 88-90%
Study 4
Scientists thought that the overestimation is part of egocentric behavior. So they want to test it by giving students a list with half serious and half sarcastic statements. They had to found out which was what and than talk them in a microphone. One half of the students should say as they thought, and the other half the other way round. The talking doesn't effect the accuracy (both 62%), and the partners, who should anticipate the accuracy overconfidence it in the same talking (81%) but were nearly right in the opposite talking (62%).
Study 5
In this study scientists want to took a view on an other source of misunderstanding in e-mail: humor. One half read the jokes and mailed them, the other half saw a video of the jokes and than mailed them. Than they had to suggest who funny they are for the other person. The video-group suggested the jokes a lot more funnier than they were for the others, while the read-group shows no difference with the others.
These studies show that we overestimate our selfs. It should be in mind for everyone, that just 50% of what is said is understand - especially in such complicated things like humor or sarcasm. Quite astonishing this is.
On the other hand, I thought it was even worst, because in the writing-communities I am it's common word that just 30% of that you think you write reaches the mind of the audience and the true art is to make this percentage as high as possible.
Readings:
Truger, J.; Epley, N.; Parker, J. & Zhi-When, N. (2005). Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6), 925-936.
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. In: Academy of Management Review 33(2), 309-327.
Thomas Templ 0002097
