Transcript A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Effects of Instant Messaging

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 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?