Cited by 310Digital Communication and LanguageInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationMedia and Digital Communication

Finding a happy medium: explaining the negative effects of electronic communication on social life at work

Markus, M. L.·1994·ACM Transactions on Information Systems

Abstract

The sometimes observed negative social effects of electronic communication technology are often attributed to the characteristics of the technology itself. Electronic mail, for instance, filters out personal and social cues and provides new capabilities not found in traditional media, and it has been argued that these factors have consequences such as “flaming” and depersonalization. Alternative theoretical perspectives on the impacts of information technology suggest that our ability to explain these outcomes might be enhanced by attending to users' intentional choices about how to use technology and to unpredictable technology usage patterns that emerge when users interact with the technology and each other. These alternative perspectives are examined in the context of an exploratory case study of a complex organization in which electronic mail was heavily used. Users were found to select email deliberately when they wished to avoid unwanted social interactions. At the same time, they actively took steps to avoid negative outcomes, such as depersonalization of their relationships with subordinates. However, despite their well-intentioned efforts, some negative social effects did occur that cannot entirely be attributed to the technological characteristics of electronic communication. Instead, they appear to be ironic side effects of users' thoughtful efforts to use email effectively. These results suggest the value of according a prominent role in explanations of technology…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/196734.196738

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Communication literature reflects six user-oriented dimensions of interactivity that should be useful for the U&G approach: threats, benefits, sociability, isolation, involvement, and inconvenience.

    “Communication literature reflects six user-oriented dimensions of interactivity that should be useful for the U&G approach: threats (Markus, 1994), benefits (S. Ang & Cummings, 1994), sociability (Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge, & Ryan, 1996), isolation (Dorsher, 1996), involvement (Trevino & Webster, 1992), and inconvenience (Stolz, 1995; Thomas, 1995).”

    From Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century (2000) · cites this paper as Markus, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Markus, M. L.
Affiliations
Claremont Graduate University (US)
Corresponding author
Markus, M. L.
Venue
ACM Transactions on Information Systems
Published
1994-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
119-149
ISSN
  • 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2868
OpenAlex
W2162228590
Cited by
310
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 10
FWCI
15.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Digital Communication and Language
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
Keywords
email, depersonalization, flaming, email etiquette, workplace communication, organizational communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review