Sender preferences for delivering feedback: channels, privacy, and synchronicity

Westerman, Catherine Y. Kingsley; Reno-Rich, Katie M.; Heuett, Kyle B.; Spates, Stephen A.; Westerman, David

doi:10.1080/08824096.2019.1646638

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation is congruent with recent research on the IMM that suggests mutual – more than self or other – face concern to be the best predictor of channel preferences in close relationship conflicts (Ledbetter & Herbert, 2020). Two (not mutually exclusive) explanations are conceivable: First, self-presentation concerns are less salient in close relationships (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Schlenker, 2013) while a more genuine (i.e., less buffered) impression of each other’s reaction might support relationship maintenance (Frisby & Westerman, 2010; Westerman et al, 2019). Second, since channel choices also hold symbolic meaning, choosing a channel with a lower buffer effect may send a message in itself by signaling the personal value of the relationship (McLuhan, 2010; Westerman & Westerman, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To this end, we build on the IMM (O’Sullivan, 2000) but extend the original study by investigating whether people’s channel choices actually reflect differences in buffer effects (Study 1) and by examining variation depending on the relationship between the persons involved (Study 2). While O’Sullivan lumped preferences for all CMC channels together, we follow a characteristic rather than holistic approach (Fox & McEwan, 2017; Westerman et al, 2019; Westerman & Westerman, 2013), which also accounts for changes in channel perceptions over the last two decades. Conceptually, we apply the IMM classification of episodes along the general dimensions of valence (i.e., positive or negative) and locus (i.e., affecting one’s own or the other’s self-presentation).…”

Section: The Impression Management Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Buffer Effect

Tretter

Diefenbach

2022

Journal of Media Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The mediating nature of communication technologies (e.g., telephone, voice message, or chat) can buffer the experience of conversations by establishing a figurative shield between sender and receiver. From a psychological perspective, this buffer effect may affect senders’ communication channel choices depending on their respective communication goals. Building on the impression management model of strategic channel use ( O’Sullivan, 2000 ), we examine how valence and locus of a message and the interlocutors’ relationship lead to differences in the buffer effect people establish through their channel choices. In two vignette-based, mixed-design studies, participants indicated which channel they would choose to communicate with a receiver in different situations, depending on the valence of the episode (positive vs. negative; Studies 1 and 2), who is at the center of the issue (self vs. other; Studies 1 and 2), and their interpersonal closeness (friend vs. acquaintance; Study 2). In Study 1, people chose channels with a higher buffer effect for negative (vs. positive) issues and episodes that focused on themselves (vs. the receiver). Study 2 supported a moderating effect of relationship. While people still chose channels with higher buffer effects for negative (vs. positive) issues in the acquaintance condition, the opposite was true when people were to communicate with friends. We attribute this to the higher salience of relational compared to self-presentational communication goals under increasing interpersonal closeness. The present studies expand the impression management model by focusing on the subjective buffer effect of communication channels and introducing the decisive role of relationship in its application.

show abstract