a cross-sectional investigation of the effects of instant messaging usage on young adult...
TRANSCRIPT
A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Effects of Instant Messaging Usage On
Young Adult Relationship QualityRyan Prins
Anthony TrotterRufino Virata
Jamie Yaptinchay
Initial Thoughts
• Previous research readings
• Personal interest on topic
• Personal experience
• Newly recognized prevalence of IM-use in relationships – As opposed to traditional methods
• Personal gain
Defining the Research Question
• What is the effect of instant messaging on the quality of communication between two persons dating?
Importance
• Research caters to large population• Potential economic gain for stakeholders
in the instant-messaging market• Identification of effective communication
methods to support healthy relationships• Provides further study for future
development of communication technologies
• Stakeholders not limited to businesses: counseling providers, social groups
Conceptual Definitions
• IM communication and non-IM communication quantity
• IM communication and non-IM communication quality
• Quality of Relationship– Support– Conflict– Harmony– Accepting Influence– Relationship Duration
Conceptual Definitions
• IM communication and non-IM communication quantity– Amount of time spent
communicating with IM versus without
• IM communication and non-IM communication quality – Perceived level of communication
quality by the subjects– Between IM and non-IM use
Conceptual Definitions
• Quality of Relationship– Consists of: Support, Conflict, Harmony,
Accepting Influence, Relationship Duration
– As previously defined by “The Effect of Communication Quality and Quantity Indicators on Intimacy and Relational Satisfaction”
• Emmers-Sommer (2004)
Conceptual Definitions
• Quality of Relationship Consists of the Following:– Support
• Perceived degree, by each person dating, of supportiveness that each person in the relationships offers to the other
– Conflict• Perceived degree of conflict, by each person dating, of conflict
between the two persons in the relationship – Harmony
• “Frequent supportive interactions and infrequent conflictual interactions” (Gavin and Furman)
– Accepting Influence• The conditional probability of one person in a dating relationship
to be persuaded or influenced by the other person efforts to do so
– Relationship Duration• Measures the length of time in which both persons concurrently
believe that they are in an exclusive relationship with one another
Measurement of Variables
• IM Communication/non-IM Communication Quantity– Time “Actively chatting”
• IM Communication/non-IM Communication Quality– Subject Perception (Likert Scale)
• Relationship Duration– Least agreed upon value of time
Measurement of Variables
• Taken from the QRI– Support
• By Scale
– Conflict• By Scale
– Harmony• Support minus Conflict
– Accepting Influence• Partner rating
Sampling
• Young adult couples who use instant messaging as a form of communication– Young Adult: Ages 18-25– Couple: Two persons who testify
that they’re involved in a monogamous dating relationship
• Sample Area– King, Snohomish, and Pierce
counties
Selection Procedures
Generalizability
• Why It Is…– Simple Random Sample– Size of Sample
• Why It Is Not…– Certain Location Demographic
Our Research Design
• Cross-sectional
• Quantitative
• Questionnaires
• Non-participant observation
• ANOVA
Limitations of Our Study
• Limited sampling frame
• Age range assumption for online use
• Cross-sectional design over longitudinal (but cheaper!)
Studies of Reference
• Emmers-Sommer, T. M. “The Effect of Communication Quality and Quantity Indicators on Intimacy and Relational Satisfaction” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21 (2004) 399-411
• Galliher, R. V., Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., Kawaguchi, M. C. “Interaction and Relationship Quality in Late Adolescent Romantic Couples” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21 (2004) 203-216
Q & A
• Questions?
• Answers?
• Comments?