Choosing the Chains that Bind Us: A Closer Look at Technology Use in Communication (Featured Article

“You’re not my supervisor,” the television blurted out; I was scrolling through my phone contacts in my brother’s kitchen, from which I could hear snippets of the Archer episode escaping from the adjoining room where I had just been reclining. I found her number and punched the dial button; eight rings later I heard the message she had recorded for her voicemail. This was the second time I tried calling the cute teller that worked at the bank where many of my accounts were held. She had the most radiant smile that, along with her searching eyes, one could stare at for hours if they dared without feeling a minute of their time was wasted. Needless to say she was just my type and after meeting her the previous day, I rode back over to the old brick building where she worked for no other reason than to obtain her number. However, this attempt to reach her was no more satisfying than the first, and I thought that surely I must have misread the sweet exchange we shared the previous day. I walked back into the living room where my brother sat on the couch finishing up the current episode of archer without me, and mentioned the scenario to him in vague detail. “She obviously wants you to text her,” he responded. “Girls these days don’t answer their phones when they ring.” Hopeful, I sent the text and received a response within three minutes. We made a connection and dated for a short time, but through this time she never felt inclined to answer her phone and would always respond though text. This behavior bothered me because I could not get real-time feedback, and also because texting is impersonal in nature. What has changed in the recent past to encourage this behavior throughout much of society, and is this change a step forward or a step back? These were the questions I asked myself which led me to the doorstep of technology use and its effects on social interaction and eventually critical thinking skills. Through the review of many studies conducted in these areas, in addition to my personal experience, I have concluded that the technology itself is not the underlying cause of these negative effects; but rather its misuse. I assert that inappropriate or excess use of technology can have a detrimental effect on social etiquette and relationships.

As a young adult in today’s technological age, I can appreciate the benefits that technology provides, but at the same time, I am appalled by how its prevalence directly contributes to the decline of basic social etiquette and the need for human interaction displayed by those who abuse it. Today, we will consider the roles technology plays in social etiquette and relationships. First, we will examine several studies conducted in this area and consider the conclusions they draw from their research. Second, we will determine the underlying factors that drives the use of electronic communication and the effects it has on both the sender and recipient. Next, we will consider what one proponent for electronic communication has to say about its advantages, and discuss them in detail. Finally, we will assimilate our concerns and ascertain the state of society in this communication age. By the conclusion of this paper, we will be able to discern the role we play as enablers and will have the ammunition we need to make adjustments in our own lives to better fight these fundamental breakdowns; knowing that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

A study of S.M.S. usage was conducted by Shahyad Shima, Shahla Pakdaman, Mohamood Heidary, Mohammadreza HasanZadeh, MirnaderMiri, Masoud Asadi, and Asghar ShirAlipour. They documented the results in their article, “A Study of Psychometric Characteristics of the Questionnaire on the Type of Usage of S.M.S.” This study centers on data gathered through a questionnaire completed by 585 teenagers between 15 to 19 years of age and analyzed using factorial analysis (Shima 932). The goal of this research was to better determine the driving factors that motivate the use of S.M.S., the information sent, and the frequency of transmission. This study found that there are “four factors with regard to the purview of motivation and they are: economical motivation, common motivation, sending information for assurance, and avoid of face-to-face relationship” (Shima 934). They state in their assessment that, “Avoid of face-to-face relationship refers to the fact that some people can communicate via S.M.S. without being worried about their communicative weaknesses such as shyness or about their lack of social skills” (934). In regards to content, the study categorize these factors into three groups. These factors were uncommon content, gibe content, and impersonal information content (Shima 934). Important to note here, uncommon content “refers to messages whose content is not socially acceptable. These include sexually explicit content, strong language, cursing, etc.” (Shima 934). This research indicates that the S.M.S. medium is being used as a buffer to distance the subjects from possible reactions or consequences of such displays in person.

Similarly adhering to the study of electronic communication, M. L. Markus’ article, “Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work,” is devoted to the study of email exchange throughout a large corporation. This heavy email use was mandated by the company chairman and encouraged on down through the chain of command. In addition to monitoring email usage at all levels, Markus also disseminated a questionnaire to understand the employee’s affinity and concerns for its use. One open answer response returned to him was as follows: “I believe that the real downside of email is interpersonal. I believe people say things to others through the computer that they would not say either by phone or in person. The instances of people being ‘beat up’ though email are too great” (Markus 135). This discontent with email use further down the corporate chain was shared by many and effected the work relationships of most involved. Throughout his study, Markus discerns which of these conveyances were simply products of the communication medium, and which were directly propagated by the users: “The belief that the negative social effects of electronic communication are cause by technological characteristic is an optimistic theory. On the other hand, what if the negative outcomes result, not from the technology itself, but from how people use it” (120)? However optimistic he claims one theory may be, Markus examines the collected data from a purely objective standpoint. When asked on the questionnaire what medium would be best used in situations characterized by conflict, dislike, anger, and intimidation; the results were overwhelmingly in favor of email (Markus 136). In response to these findings Markus states that, “It seems that the technological characteristics of email—its ability to filter out personal or social cues and to make communication asynchronous—can be perceived by user as a benefit when they do not want personal interaction” (136). His findings indicate that the sender appreciates the impersonal nature of email, while they recipients are often repulsed by its use when the nature of conversation is not neutral.

Just as Markus draws attention to how electronic communication was jockeyed into the workplace, Jeffrey McQuillen relates how its use is more so propagated by corporate technology titans in his article, “The Influence of Technology on the Initiation of Interpersonal Relationships.” He writes:

All of this increased social isolation is encouraged and validated. The AT&T slogan, ‘Reach out and touch someone,’ encapsulates the ideology being spread by the Techno Barons like Bell, Microsoft, Apple, Time-Warner, etc. The enthymematic force of this slogan advances the position that mediated contact, virtual interaction, and computer-mediated-communication are synonymous to face-to-face communication. (617)

This AT&T slogan was designed to implant the notion in listener’s minds that all communication mediums are similar and the goals achieved through one form can be just as easily achieved through another. McQuillen goes on to speak about some of the differences: “Because a response is not due in real-time, asynchronous exchanges allow for a cognitive/interactive ‘time out’ that is not typical of face-to-face interactions. Delaying real-time feedback changes the nature of the situation and its demands” (622). This ability to carefully consider differing responses and word choice changes a “conversation” into an exchange of created works. Throughout his article, McQuillen compares and contrasts computer-mediated-communication to face-to-face communication with the hopes of shattering any perceived similarities between the two. He argues that the easier connecting with others becomes, the further apart we seem to be drifting.

Congruent studies to those mentioned are not uncommon, but the commodities in question are hard to measure because intent and restrictions imposed by the medium can only be discerned from one another by the honesty of the study participants. These cases are in agreement on several points. The first, is that texting and spoken word are used for different purposes within the communication spectrum and cannot be directly compared, except through cost benefit analysis. Here the benefits must outweigh the cost, and since there are two parties involved, a sender and a recipient, costs and benefits must be weighed for both. Not only do we fill both roles at different points of an exchange, but we would be selfish not to consider what effect our actions have on those they are directed towards. In the case of Shahyad Shima et al., participants recognize language that should not be used in person, and instead of refraining from using such language, they allow their animalistic need to be satisfied in this area to take over and resort to texting the message instead. Texting and email are great ways to communicate information, but as a rule, if there is something so crude in nature that one would not dare say it in person to the intended recipient, then it should never be communicated through electronic means either. These types of messages can fall under the category of inappropriate use of technology.

In regards to excess use, these cases primarily reflect on the social skills, or lack thereof, of the sender. My related personal experience with the beautiful bank teller is one example of such a case. First contact aside, if someone decides that a phone call better suits their needs than a quick message, then the recipient should respond in like manner. If they are were unable to take the call at that time, there should be a return call at their earliest convenience as opposed to a text response such as, “I see you called, what was it about”? If a text message would have fulfilled their original needs best then they would have simply sent the message in the first place; for this reason, we should not resort to the medium that we show preference or deem more convenient for us, but rather consider their choice. I find this to be the largest contributing factor to the negative effects of electronic communication. Arguments for the capabilities of modern forms of communication and how they are so similar to face-to-face conversation that the differences are negligible, are dwarfed by the fact that much of society opts out of using these capabilities. Yes, video chat can relate facial expression and force responses in real-time; however, if the person with which I wish to speak declines a video chat request and immediately responds with a simple phone call or text message, then any advantage of such technologies existing is lost.

These common occurrences cause me to further study the reason for such behavior. Kang Sun-Mee and Martha Munoz write in their article, “Preference for Online Communication and its Association with Perceived Social Skills,” that, “Individuals with poor social skills may be attracted to online communication partly because they do not need to deal with the rich nonverbal cues that are normally present during face-to-face interactions. With diminished nonverbal cues, online social communication is possibly much simpler and easier to handle” (199). Sun-Mee and Munoz in their article carefully consider this bias towards the more basic forms of electronic communication to be a direct reflection on the poor social skills of the user. Tamyra Pierce offers similar conclusions in her article, “Social Anxiety and Technology: Face-to-Face Communication versus Technological Communication among Teens;” however, contrary to my stance that many forms of technology, if used inappropriately or in excess, can have a detrimental effect on social etiquette, Pierce argues that these interactions are in fact benefits: “[A] positive aspect of heavy use of socially interactive technology may be an increase to confidence in communicating with others face-to-face due to a perception of social support online” (Pierce 1368). While she offers insight into the their reason for choice, she takes the stance that these occurrences are beneficial to the user by providing a confidence boost and may encourage those who suffer from social anxiety to step outside their comfort zone.

While not every case is equal, I argue that encouraging these behaviors, rather than outing them as deficiencies, is a mistake that only prolongs the social awkwardness of those involved. I must insist that she is comparing apples to oranges. Social interaction online and in-person have many dissimilarities that cannot be overlooked. In my own experiences communicating online, I often notice that someone’s persona changes when there is no immediate repercussions to obscene or impertinent behavior. I cannot begin to count the number of times in my own experience that someone will direct a crude or vulgar comment towards me that they would never dream of communicating if the internet and many miles of space did not exist between us. Also, true character cannot be determined by mere electronic means. The same reason that the socially awkward choose the internet as a medium; to choose their interactions, consider their responses carefully in their own time, and not expose themselves to any critique that they do not deliberately reveal; are the same reasons that those on the other end of that medium made the same choice. These interactions are often a farce, but in the best case scenario still short of gaining a relationship fostered in a face-to-face environment where ones whole self is there to be judged. One of my military instructors once told me that if you want to get good at pull-ups, you do not go to the gym and throw dumbbells around all day, you do pull-ups. One cannot hope to get better at face-to-face personal relationships by any other means than by showing up, being there, and putting in the effort.

Unless our tendency to protect our anonymity and individualism is contrasted with consideration for those with whom we come into contact, then society will continue down the path that it has chosen. Developments in technology will continue to flourish and create even more means for us to grow distant from those around us. Not long from now, texting, email, and message boards will all be connected and we will have the means to post to any or all of them from a single message box. We will be receiving instantaneous updates of all communications regardless of our location or immersion in the task at hand, but we will wait just as long to respond to any of them until we have formulated that perfect response. We will send each other voice messages but will avoid any communication in real-time because these exchanges we hold little control over. English novelist Aldous Huxley once said, “Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards” (Huxley 42). He has noticed that for years, the devices that were designed to improve our quality of life, have carried with them many drawbacks. Today, we carefully considered the role technology plays in communication, and how inappropriate or excessive use can have a detrimental effect on social etiquette and relationships. Habits are hard to break, and if we find ourselves resorting to simple forms of communication for convenience or out of disregard for the recipient, we can now more easily recognize their shortcomings and what simple adjustments are necessary to make sure our sentiments are relayed as accurately as possible with consideration for both parties. If there are any readers that suffer from social anxiety and turn to online communication as consolation, I hope that through our time together we were able to discern the differences these mediums hold, and to encourage one another to take the next step towards developing healthy, lasting relationships that do not hide behind a virtual barrier. Understanding responsible technology use is a foundational tool for nurturing an environment where understanding of codependent needs can overcome our selfish tendencies of attempting to maintain the high ground and hide in the safety of our own fortresses which we control.

I can understand the uncertainty of answering a private number with no knowledge of who is on the other end, and would not pass judgement on any young ladies that use this as a method of screening calls. However, these actions could cause me to take notice of their other communication habits and be watchful for any displayed favoritism in their medium selection. History has been shown to repeat itself and I cannot be certain similar circumstances will not present themselves, but when that time arrives I will know exactly what about the exchange I find discomforting, and can respond appropriately.

Image from http://relationshipsreality.com/relationships-require-communication-texting/

Works Cited

Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for Their Realization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937. Print.

Markus, M. L. “Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work.” ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12.2 (1994): 119-149. Web. 20 Jul 2015.

McQuillen, Jeffrey S. “The Influence of Technology on the Initiation of Interpersonal Relationships.” Education 123.3 (2003): 616-23. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.

Pierce, Tamyra. “Social Anxiety and Technology: Face-to-Face Communication versus Technological Communication among Teens.” Computers in Human Behavior 25.6 (2009): 1367-1372. Web. 24 Jul 2015.

Shima, Shahyad, Shahla Pakdaman, Mohamood Heidary, Mohammadreza HasanZadeh, MirnaderMiri, Masoud Asadi, and Asghar ShirAlipour. “A Study of Psychometric Characteristics of the Questionnaire on the Type of Usage of S.M.S.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011): 932-936. Web. 24 Jul 2015.

Sun-Mee, Kang, and Martha J. Munoz. “Preference for Online Communication and its Association with Perceived Social Skills.” Individual Differences Research 12.4-B (2014): 198-208. Web. 5 Aug 2015.