Another outcome of the experiment could suggest that we put more meaning behind tangible messages. In the experiment, scientists also discovered that, when making a decision about buying a tangible product, we make more justified reasoned decisions then making a decision about buying a intangible product. In other words, we put more thinking behind dealing with a tangible attribute then when dealing with an intangible product. If we would apply this result to messages, we could say that while dealing with a tangible messaging, we judge the message with more reasoning and thinking then we would with an intangible message. Also this could work the other way around; while writing a tangible message, we write it with more reason and though, and maybe therefore, the message will contain more meaning.
Considering that the medium changes the creditability of the message, our current way of communicating is not going into the right direction. We don’t focus on the actual message, we don’t really read what it says and if we read it, it seems like we don’t really understand the meaning of it anyway. Of course this would be an outrages blunt way to say it, but it does explain why people doubt the credibility of communicating through the internet. Some even raise the discussion if we can still call it communication. Therefore I checked the definition of communication; Sharing or exchanging information, news or ideas. So yes, even the way we send messages now is still communicating.
6
Though then maybe the question should be; is written messaging and internet messaging so different from each other that we have to make sub divisions under the general term ‘ communication’? Or should we make a division between communicating and sharing information?