1. A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Effects of Instant Messaging Usage On Young Adult Relationship Quality Ryan Prins Anthony Trotter Rufino Virata Jamie Yaptinchay

2. 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

3. Defining the Research Question What is the effect of instant messaging on the quality of communication between two persons dating?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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

10. Measurement of Variables Taken from the QRI –Support By Scale –Conflict By Scale –Harmony Support minus Conflict –Accepting Influence Partner rating

11. 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

12. Selection Procedures

13. Generalizability Why It Is… –Simple Random Sample –Size of Sample Why It Is Not… –Certain Location Demographic

14. Our Research Design Cross-sectional Quantitative Questionnaires Non-participant observation ANOVA

15. Limitations of Our Study Limited sampling frame Age range assumption for online use Cross-sectional design over longitudinal (but cheaper!)

16. 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

17. Q & A Questions? Answers? Comments?