Media-Richness Theory

The media richness theory will explain the part “technological characteristics” in the task-technology fit model. The media richness theory is presented and discussed, in order for the authors to use it critically to discuss Facebook, and its attributes and characteristics.

Figure
3
Media
Richness
hierarchy.
Daft,
Lengel
and
Trevino
(1987)

Daft, Lengel and Trevino (1987) characterized media as high or low in richness, based on the capability to facilitate shared meaning. A medium that is rich has the ability to provide insight and rapid understanding. The figure above ranks mediums in terms of their capacity for processing equivocal information. The four classifications are as follows: face- to- face, telephone, addressed documents and finally unaddressed documents. This model is included because the authors believe that the ability to facilitate multiple cues and understanding is important when using a medium in order to deliver service.

Background

The media-richness theory was developed in the mid-1980s, and has since then been one of the fundamental theories of communication media adoption and use (Kock, 1997). The theory claims that task performance will improve when task-information processing requirements are matched to the medium’s ability to convey rich information (Suh, 1998).

Another way of saying it is that the media-richness theory claims that communication

effectiveness is influenced by the capabilities of the chosen medium (Dennis and Valacich, 1999).

The theory argues that communication media that is able to send rich information consisting of multiple cues is better suited for equivocal tasks, where the available information can be interpreted in numerous ways. However, the results from applying the theory empirically have not been very convincing. This is particularly the case when new media is involved (Dennis and Valacich, 1999). The criteria of media richness are based upon its feedback capabilities, the communication channels utilized, language variety, and personal focus. The more the media incorporates these factors, the richer it is considered to be (Suh, 1998).

According to the media-richness theory, the richness of the medium is what makes people able to interpret and reach agreement about complex issues. A less rich medium is more appropriate for conveying routine activities. It is also argued that different types of tasks require different media capabilities (Suh, 1998).

The four criteria of media-richness

Face to face communication is considered the richest communication medium. This is because it allows for rapid mutual feedback and also simultaneous communication of multiple cues. Head nods, smiles, eye contact, tone of voice, and other nonverbal behavior can be used to regulate, modify, and control the communication exchange. Face to- face communication also uses high variety of natural language and conveys emotion.

The richness of each medium is based upon a mix of four criteria that will be elaborated on below. The point of this theoretical discussion is that for effective communication to occur, the richness of the medium should match the level of message ambiguity.

Feedback

The feedback aspect entails that questions can be asked and corrections made. According to Dennis and Kinney (1998), most communication consists of the sender presenting a message and a receiver accepting it. In order for the communication to be successful, both sender and receiver must agree that that the receiver has understood the message. Dennis and Kinney (1998) also mention two types of feedback; concurrent and sequential. Concurrent feedback is delivered simultaneously with the message. This often takes the form of non- verbal

signals, and will not interrupt the sender. Nodding can be an example of concurrent feedback.

The other form, sequential, is when the receiver makes inputs that make the sender pause and give response to the receiver (Dennis and Kinney, 1998).

Multiple cues

A message can contain several cues, such as physical presence, voice inflection, body gestures, words, numbers and graphic symbols. The more cues a medium is able to deliver, the richer it is considered to be (Daft, Lengel and Trevino, 1987).

Language variety

Language variety refers to how well the medium is able to convey meaning and

understanding. Natural language can be used to express understanding of a broader set of concepts and ideas, while numbers have the ability to convey a greater precision of meaning (Daft, Lengel and Trevino, 1987).

Personal focus

If personal feelings and emotions are part of the communication, a message will be conveyed more fully. Some messages can be tailored to the needs and current situation of the receiver.

A media that is able to convey such a message is considered to be rich (Daft, Lengel and Trevino, 1987).

Previous use of the media-richness model

Text, audio, video and face-to-face communication has been examined together with the impact on task performance. The researchers found that their study did not support the media-richness theory, which are quite similar to the results of other studies (Suh, 1998). No

perceived benefits occurred from using a richer medium to complete a task.

A study comparing computer-mediated and face-to-face work groups to test the task-media fit has also been conducted. The study found that face-to-face communication outperformed computer mediated groups for negotiation and intellective tasks. There were however no significant differences between the two groups when performing decision and regular tasks.

The media-richness theory was thus only partially supported. The research also found that the relationship between communication and task performance appeared to be more dependent on previous experience the individuals have with the medium than the type of task to be performed (Suh, 1998).

It is also worth noting that empirical testing of the media-richness theory for new media, such as computer-mediated communication has not provided the theory with a lot of support. The authors suggest that the media-richness theory should be redefined to be able to support new media, or that a new theory should be developed altogether (Dennis, Fuller and Valacich, 2008). This is important to take notice of when using this model in the analysis.

Criticism of the Media-Richness Theory

The media-richness theory fails to take situational elements into consideration, which might shape the perception of the media. It has also been argued that most tests of the theory have examined the media choice of the senders, and not by examining the actual performance effects of media use. This is not beneficial because perceived effectiveness and actual effectiveness may not be entirely the same (Suh, 1998). This is an important argument for observing the actual communication that happens on Danske Bank’s Facebook page.

The media richness theory argues that different media can be placed along a continuum, stretching from lean to rich media. Some studies have found empirical support for this continuum, but it has also been argued that placing communication media on such a continuum without considering the context may be inappropriate. In addition to this

argument, communication medium has evolved considerable over the recent years. Tan, Wei, Raman and Sia, (1999) therefore argue that there is a need for an update of the

media-richness model (Tan, Wei, Raman and Sia, 1999).

Dennis and Valacich (1999) have also argued that the richest medium is the one that provides the best capabilities for a given situation. Thus no media is the “richest” in every given situation (Dennis and Valacich, 1999). Task has been a key element in media-richness

theories, and for example Kock (1997) is of the opinion that the key to effective use of media is to match media capabilities to the fundamental communication processes required to perform the task. Studies that test the media-richness theory have often operated in a

controlled setting, and not in reality (Kock, 1997). It is thus proposed that the media-richness theory cannot be used alone to explain technology adoption and usage (Kock, 1997). This is an important argument for combining the Media richness model with the task-technology fit model discussed above. This allows the authors to examine the media capabilities with the task requirements.

It was predicted that when newer communication mediums were introduced in the late 1970s, it would replace face-to-face communication. Although a lot of communication takes place through such media, the prediction of it replacing face-to-face communication has not become a reality (Tan, Wei, Raman and Sia 1999). Even though a number of new

communication media has emerged to facilitate organizational communication, the users do not necessarily view them as beneficial, preferring communicating face-to-face (Suh, 1998).

It is important to take note of the criticism of the media-richness model when using it in an analysis. The amount of criticism against the media-richness model is an argument for combining the model with other models. Even though newer communication media has not replaced face-to-face communication, it is a fact that a lot of communication takes place

online and in social media rooms. It is therefore argued that in spite of the criticism, using the media-richness model in combination with the task-technology fit model will be beneficial for this paper.

Sum up

• The media richness model characterizes media as high or low in richness on the basis of its capacity to facilitate shared meaning. Communication effectiveness is

influenced by the chosen medium’s capabilities.

• The more a medium incorporates these: feedback, multiple cues, personal focus and language variety, the richer it is considered to be. Face to face communication is considered the richest medium.

• The model has been criticized for being out of date, of among other things. It does not support newer mediums for example. Also, no medium is the richest in every given situation.