In Communication Channels and Word of Mouth: How the Medium Shapes the Message, Jonah Berger and Raghuram Iyengar argue that messages can be (and are) different depending on what communication channel is being utilized. Specifically, they claim there is a difference in messages delivered depending on if it is through written communication or oral communication. 

Berger and Iyengar show that the delivered message is altered by the type of communication medium used by conducting several studies and examining data sets. In these experiments, the causal implications of the communication medium and the roles of asynchrony/self-enhancement were measured. Based on their findings, the authors show that “interesting” things are more likely to be talked about in written communications because people have the opportunity to collect and refine their thoughts. Since written communication is often asynchronous, it allows for people to engage in selective self-presentation and self-enhancement, which leads to discussing interesting topics. 

On the other hand, accessibility is a big factor when it comes to oral communication. Since oral communication is instantaneous and less thought out, individuals speak about what is most accessible to them, which is not always the most interesting topics. In the conducted studies, the researchers allowed individuals to sometimes have more time to see if that would alter what they talked about. Berger and Iyengar found that, “…it could be the extra time to think about what they are saying that leads people to talk about interesting products or brands.” In other words, pauses and more time to reflect in oral communications allows for more interesting topics to be talked about. These pauses and chances to think during oral communications reflected the asynchronous nature of written communications.  

Berger and Iyengar’s argument seems to be valid and well-explained. Initially, it seemed unclear and unlikely to me that channels of communication could affect the type of things that people talk about. After reading the article and understanding the studies they conducted, it makes sense that the ability to think and self-enhance alters if a person is likely to discuss something compelling or not. For example, writing this blog post allows for more reflection and greater understanding of the topic, whereas class conversations can be off the cuff and are based on the most accessible information possible. A counterargument to these claims would be that people are sometimes impulsive and irrational online. In other words, people can have the time and space to think more about what they are trying to convey when communicating online, but they do not always utilize it. Since online interactions are not face-to-face and the internet can feel more private, people sometimes do not give as much thought to what they are saying and impulsively communicate. 

Communicating online allows people to think longer about what they want to say and how they want to exactly say it, which shows that the medium can affect the message. Like Berger and Iyengar said, “our findings underscore the old maxim of thinking twice before you open your mouth.” Overall, it is evident that online communications are given more thought and allow for more interesting topics to be discussed, whereas oral communication is based on more accessible topics.