Making Connections: Complementary Influences on Communication Media Choices, Attitudes, and Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theorizing about communication media attitudes and behaviors has drawn upon multiple theories (e.g., media richness, social influence). But these theories have often been pitted against each other rather than considered as complementary in more comprehensive studies. Furthermore, previous research has tended to focus more on newer communication media such as electronic mail rather than more traditional media. Finally, communication media research has studied attitudes toward media, use of media, and only occasionally media choice. Yet, all three dependent variables are important. This comprehensive survey hypothesized and tested multiple influences (based on multiple theories) in a study of media attitudes and behaviors. The media included electronic mail, fax, letters, and face-to-face meetings. The outcomes included media choice (an individual's decision to use a medium in a particular communication incident), media use (an individual's general pattern of use over time), and media attitudes (an individual's general subjective evaluation of media). Results suggested that a number of factors differentiated among media choices, including medium symbolism, message equivocality, distance between message partners, perceived media richness, number of message recipients, and perceived message recipients' attitudes. General attitudes toward the different media were influenced most consistently by perceived medium richness. New media attitudes were also influenced by person/technology interaction factors. General medium use was influenced by different factors for the different media. The results generally supported a comprehensive theoretical approach to understanding media attitudes and behaviors. All of the theories have some merit in explaining media attitudes and behaviors. But different factors, derived from different theories, were more important in accounting for each of the dependent variables'media choices, attitudes, and use. We hope that this investigation will help research in this area move toward the development of more integrative theoretical models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".