A New Age of Communication: How Different Relationships Influence Text Messaging Behavior

As of 2014, 90% of people in the USA own a cell phone and 81% of their activity is attributed to text messaging.

18-29 = 98%30-49 = 97%

60-54 = 88%

65+ = 74%

Its one of the few appliance that, when it goes missing, it has an immediately impact on your life.

Cell Phones and Messaging Have Taken Over Our Lives

(PEW Research Center, 2014)

So why is text messaging so cool bro?

C.A.P.Control the transmission of information

Arrange “face” to meet presentational goals

Preserve aspects of Personality, and disposition

New # who dis?

It also allows recipients to focus on reciprocating the emotions, or intentions of the sender.

… And avoid social embarasment.

“So what did I do for my study?

IV:Sex

• Male• Female

Relationship Type

• Family • Friend• Romantic interest

2x3 Mixed design

DV:WordsEmotioncs Abbreviations Durations

N = 9361F, 32M Sona (n = 42)21F, 21MOnline (n = 51)40F, 11MAge18-23 (49.5%)24-65+ (50.5%)

Table 1.

Mean Amounts for Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations preferred by Males and Females for Interaction Effects.

Males Females _________________ __________________

Relationship Type M (SD) M (SD)

Family Relationship Words 2.81 (.21) 3.28 (.15)* Emoticons 1.43 (.23) 1.55 (.17) Abbreviations 1.88 (.4) 2.71 (.28)* Durations (minutes) 216.5 (66.6) 136.9 (48.2)

Friend Relationship

Words 2.75 (.26) 3.48 (.16)* Emoticons 1.71 (.38) 2.63 (.28)* Abbreviations 2.84 (.4) 2.96 (.26) Durations (minutes) 130.9 (105.5)* 297.1 (76.4)

Romantic Relationship

Words 3.13 (.12) 3.31 (.14) Emoticons 2.41 (.39) 2.45 (.28) Abbreviations 2.5 (.4) 2.16 (.27) Durations (minutes) 157.6 (69.7) 102.2 (50.5)

Females, Family, Friend, Words* F(1,91) = 5.635, p = .02, η2 = .058 Females, Family, Abbreviations* F(1,91) = 7.578, p = .007, η2 = .077 Females, Friend, Emoticon* F(1,91) = 7.78, p = .006, η2 = .079 Male, Friend, Duration* F(1,91) = 5.459, p = .022, η2 = .057

Table 2. Mean Amounts for Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations preferred by Males and Females for Main Affects. Words Emoticons Abbreviations Durations

IV M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Relationship Type

Family 3.1(.13) 1.49(.14)* 2.29(.24) 176.74(41.1) Friend 3.1(.13) 2.17(.23) 2.91(.22)* 214(65.12) Romantic 3.21(.12) 2.43(.24) 2.33(.23) 129.92(41.1)

Sex

Male 2.89(.18) 1.85(.29) 2.41(.33) 168.35(67.1) Female 3.35(.13)* 2.22(.21) 2.61(.24) 178.77(48.58)

Female, Words* F(1,91) = 4.176, p = .044, η2 = .044. Friend, Abbreviations* F(1,91) = 18.864, p < .000, η2 = .172 Family, Emoticons* F(1,91) = 24.713, p < .000, η2 = .214.

Place your screenshot here

iPhone project

Show and explain your web, app or software projects using these gadget templates.

Table 3. Mean Amounts of Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations Self-Coded by Males and Females. Words Emoticons Abbreviations Durations

IV M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Relationship Type

Family 28.5 (5.6) 1.12 (.26) 1.74(.41) 535.24(171.01) Friend 32.6(4.1) 1.41 (.4) 2.2 (.4) 282.34(97.94 Romantic 32.4(4.3) 2.24(.52) 2.7 (.758 80.848(27.3)*

Sex

Male 27.1(4.1) 1.2 (.3) 1.8 (.63) 362.22(91.42 Female 35.22(4.1) 2.03 (.5) 2.63 (.63) 236.73(93.67)

Relationship Type, Durations* F(1,39) = 6.895, p = .012, η2 = .15

Durations (In Hours)

Table 4. Mean Amounts of Words, Emoticons, Abbreviations, and Durations Preferred by Relationship Status. Family Friend Romantic Relationship Status M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Single/Dating

Words 2.93 (1.9) 2.8(.19) 3.23(.18) Emoticons 1.28 (1.33) 2.18 (2.4) 2.5 (1.2) Abbreviations 1.7(.15) 2.6 (.17) 2.3 (2.01) Durations (minutes) 1.97.85(432.7) 143.55(379.34) 145.3(501.9)

Exclusive

Words 3.3 (.16) 3.5 (.17)* 3.3(.16) Emoticons 1.7 (1.3) 2.4 (2.1) 2.4 (2.42) Abbreviations 2.98 (2.43)* 3.17 (2.3) 2.3 (2.22) Durations (minutes) 139.06 (329.6) 312.6 (716.9) 103.2(290.7)

Abbreviations, Family * F(1,91) = 8.431, p = .005, η2 = .085.

Words, Friends* F(1,91) = 5.712, p = .019, η2 = .059

# of Words

# of Emoticons

Words* F(1,40) = 8.084, p = .007, η2 = .168Emoticons* F(1,40) = 7.889, p = .008, η2 = .165

Future Research

Thanks!

References

Angermuller, A., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014).  The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis John.  Philadelphia, PA:  Benjamins Publishing Company.

Derks D., Bos A. E. R., & Grumbkow J. K. (2008). Emoticons and online message interpretation. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 379-388.

Huang A. H., Yen D. C., & Zhang X. (2008).  Exploring the potential effects of emoticons.  Information Management, 45, 466-473.   

Herring, S. C., & Zelenkauskaite, A. (2009). Symbolic capital in a virtual heterosexual market: Abbreviation and insertion in Italian iTV SMS. Written Communication, 26, 5-31.  DOI:10.1177/0741088308327911

Kato, Y., & Kato, S. (2015).  Reply speed to mobile text messages among Japanese college students:  When a quick reply is preferred and a late reply is acceptable.  Computers In Human Behavior, 44, 209-219.

Ling, R., (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Lo, S. K. (2008).  The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication.  CyberPsychology &

Behavior, 11, 595-597.

Oksman, V., & Turtiainen, J. (2004). Mobile communication as a social stage: Meanings of mobile communication in everyday life among teenagers in Finland. New Media & Society, 6, 319–333.  DOI:10.1177/1461444804042518

PEW Research & Internet Life Project  (2014).  Mobile technology fact sheet: Highlights of the Pew Internet Project’s research related to mobile technology.  Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/

Reid, F., & Reid, D. (2010).  The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging.  Behavior & Information Technology, 29, 3-22.

Thurlow, C. (2003).  Generation txt?  The sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging.  Discourse Analysis Online.  http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2002-003/thurlow2002003.html

Wolf, A. (2000).  Emotional expression online:  Gender differences in emoticon use.  CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 827-833.