Optimization and Its Alternative in Media Choice: A Model of Reliance on Social-Influence Processes

Abstract

In the reconciliation of rational-choice and social-influence approaches to media choice offered here, the choice process is decomposed into two subprocesses. In the first subprocess-that of rational choice-decisional ambiguity frustrates complete optimization. Optimization is partial, yielding a set of effectively interchangeable media alternatives over which the user is indecisive. In the second subprocess-that of social influence-imitation, deference, and other cues act on the set of interchangeables, yielding a single ultimate choice. If in the social-influence subprocess there are benefits to coordinating with others, group choice crystallizes around a single media alternative. If these benefits are absent, individual choice remains idiosyncratic, with each decision maker making random choices within the set of interchangeables. In organizational life, media choice transpires sequentially, with each choice conditioning a succeeding one. In its dynamic form, the present model explicitly incorporates such sequential environments: The twofold choice process transpires iteratively within individual decision sites (in the multiple purchasing decisions of a committee, for example) and sequentially across decision sites (from committee to individual, for example). The model generates considerable empirical implications. As decisional ambiguity grows, the rational-choice component of the choice process shrinks, implying upper-bound conditions for the explanatory power of rational-choice statistical models.

Towards an ecological account of media choice: a case study on pluralistic reasoning while choosing email

“…Some attempts have been made recently to resolve these limitations. For example, Donabedian () argued that media choice forms a dynamic process in which users tack between the rational domain (i.e. decisional ambiguity) and the social domain (i.e.…”

“…() highlighted the complementary nature of the media‐based and social interaction factors and discussed the salience of understanding their interactions. Donabedian () illustrated users' adaptive choice when he analysed how users hop among media while pursuing the ‘optimal’ choice. Dennis et al .…”

“…For example, Trevino et al (2000) highlighted the complementary nature of the media-based and social interaction factors and discussed the salience of understanding their interactions. Donabedian (2006) illustrated users' adaptive choice when he analysed how users hop among media while pursuing the 'optimal' choice. Dennis et al (2008) proposed a theory of media synchronicity that belabours the new characteristics of media and how they influence communication tasks.…”

Communication media selection in buyer‐supplier relationships

“…On the other hand, uncertainty reduction is required when data is lacking, and the challenge can be met by gathering quantities of data. In this less ambiguous environment, communication can be managed using less rich media (Donabedian, 2006).…”

SYNCHRONOUS ONLINE DISCUSSIONS - Participation in a Group Audio Conferencing and Textual Chat as Affected by Communicator's Personality Characteristics and Discussion Topics

“…According to this theory, face-to-face communication is considered the most efficient way to convey complex messages. Empirical research regarding the influence of media richness on communication provides mixed results: some studies found evidence supporting it (for recent review see Donabedian, 2006), while other findings pointed to the fact that a rich medium provides distracters that may negatively affect communication (Blau & Caspi, 2008;Caspi & Levin, 2008;Setlock, Quinones & Fussell, 2007). Some researchers even claimed that a "lean" communication medium (such as e-mail or textual chat) may provide rich interpersonal communication.…”