Transcript Relational Evaluation

‘Rachel is typing…’: The Influence of Instant Messaging on
Anxiety, Likeability, and Relational Evaluation
Antoine Lebeaut, Ashley Strunk, Matt Landy, & Dr. Megan Knowles
Franklin & Marshall College
Background
• Rapid technological advancement over the past two decades
has fundamentally changed the way in which people
communicate (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2012).
Emails: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sample Conversation
Short Response
BLUE = Confederate
WHITE = Participant
Long Response
BLUE = Confederate
WHITE = participant
• Two-thirds of the American population owns a smartphone
(United States Census Bureau, 2013) .
• As online communication continues to grow in usage, the
conversations become deeper, allowing for text or instant
messages to carry much more emotionally sensitive information
and weight (Gonzales, 2014).
State Anxiety
The main effect of message speed (F(1,70) = 1.28, ns) and length
(F(1,70) = .422, ns) on state anxiety was not significant. There
was no significant interaction between message speed and length
on reported level of state anxiety, F(1,70) = .114, ns.
• Couples use online communication for relational
maintenance (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2012), as well as
relationship dissolution (Ramirez & Broneck, 2012).
• Online communication delays social interactions, because the
message has to be written, sent, received, and then opened by
the other party (Ramsey et al., 2013).
• In a recent NY Times article, the typing awareness indicator
creates anxiety as a person awaits a response, referred to as
“texting anxiety”, showing that the person is typing; however, not
what they are typing, and thus anxious over the possibility of a
negative response (Bennett, 2014).
• Despite, the noted prevalence of “texting anxiety” by Bennett
(2014), there is no empirical evidence to support its existence.
• We explored whether both the rate and length of an instant
message response can affect an individual’s level of state
anxiety and their subsequent perceptions of their relationship
with the person they are communicating with online.
• We hypothesized that individuals who have received short
and delayed messages would have higher levels of state
anxiety and would be more negative in how they perceived
(likeability) and evaluated their relationship (relational
evaluation) with the confederate.
Discussion
• Our results illustrate that message length significantly impacts
• DV: Participants completed…
likeability and relational evaluation.
• Anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, 1-4 pt. scale
• Suggesting that people may derive meaning of the quality of
(Spielberger, 1983).
their relationships from online communication, viewing
• Likeability of Confederate: Reysen Likeability Scale, 1-5
message length as a test of friendship.
pt. scale (Reysen, 2005)
• Results do not support that the “typing awareness indicator”
• Relational Evaluation of relationship with confederate:
creates anxiety; anxiety was not elicited by message speed
Relational Communication Scale, 1-5 pt. scale (Hale,
and/or length.
Burgoon, & Householder, 2005),
• Results showed that those currently involved in romantic
Results
relationships experienced higher levels of anxiety when placed
in
the
immediate
response
group.
Likeability
•
Future
studies
should
investigate
the
impact
of
online
A main effect of message length was found on participant’s
communication
on
romantic
relationships;
as
it
is
is
both
likeability of the confederate, F(1,70) = 5.135, p = .027, eta2 =
used
for
relational
maintenance
and
relationship
dissolution
.07. Participants who received long instant message responses
(Ramirez
&
Broneck,
2012;
Weisskirch
&
Delevi,
2012).
had significantly higher scores of likeability for the confederate
than participants who received short instant message responses.
Message speed did not significantly impact likeability
(F(1,70)=.057, ns).
Methods
Participants & Design
• 74 undergraduate students from Franklin & Marshall College (46
female, 28 male), Mean age = 19.22 years; 31 currently involved
in a romantic relationship, 43 single.
• 2 (Messaging speed: delayed vs. immediate) x 2 (Message
length: short vs. long) between-subjects design.
Procedure
• The Facebook Instant Messenger conversation was highly
structured, using a modified Closeness Induction Task
(Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1999).
• The participant would have a list of questions to ask the
confederate via Facebook Messenger.
• Confederate had script to answer all questions asked and had a
list of questions to ask the participant.
Relational Evaluation
A main effect of message length was found on participant’s
evaluation of their relationship with the confederate, F(1,70) =
5.194, p = .026, eta2 = .07. Participants who received long instant
message responses had significantly higher scores of relational
IV: Confederate answers: short (5-7 words) or long (20-30 evaluation than participants who received short instant message
words) sent on a 45 sec. delay (delayed) or 15 sec. delay Message speed did not significantly impact relational evaluation
(F(1,70)=.120, ns).
(immediate)
• Due to time restraints, we were unable to conduct a Facebook
conversation that was meaningful enough to induce anxiety.
• Future studies could conduct a longitudinal study, in which
the participants interact with the confederate, via online
communication, for an extended period of time to help
develop a meaningful relationship.
• There is a need for future studies to investigate the role of
message length and speed on interpersonal relationships and
anxiety, as it is through these mediums that consequences can
unfold.
References
Bennett, J. (2014, August 29). Bubbles carry a lot of weight: Texting anxiety caused by little bubbles. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/fashion/texting-anxiety-caused-by-little-bubbles.html
Gonzales, A. G. (2014). Text-based communication influences self-esteem more than face-to-face or cellphone communication. Computers In Human
Behavior, 39, 197-203.
Hale, J. L., Burgoon, J. K., & Householder, B. (2005). The relational communication scale. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures:
Going beyond words. 127-139. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ramirez, A., & Broneck, K. (2012). ‘IM me’: Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 26(2-3), 291-314. doi:10.1177/0265407509106719
Ramsey, M. A., Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). College students' use of communication technology with
parents: Comparisons between two cohorts in 2009 and 2011. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 16(10), 747-752.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0534
Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen likability scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(2), 201-208.
Sedikides, C., W.K. Campbell, G.D. Reeder, & A.J. Elliot (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 23, 1-4.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
United States Census Bureau. (2013). Computer & Internet Trends in America. Retrieved October 20th, 2014, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/files/2012/Computer_Use_Infographic_FINAL.pdf
Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2012). Its ovr b/n u n me: Technology use, attachment styles, and gender roles in relationship dissolution.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 15(9), 486-490. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0169