A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Effects of Instant Messaging Usage On Young Adult Relationship Quality Ryan Prins Anthony Trotter Rufino 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 –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) 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)
Q & A Questions? Answers? Comments?