+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications...

Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications...

Date post: 30-Mar-2015
Category:
Upload: allie-furze
View: 214 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
34
Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen, Psychology Department California State University, Dominguez Hills
Transcript
Page 1: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Relational Communication Preferences Across Three

Generations

Nancy Cheever, Communications Department

L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department

Larry Rosen, Psychology Department

California State University, Dominguez Hills

Page 2: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Introduction

Technological advances

have increased the use of

e-mail, text messaging,

and instant messaging,

especially among the

younger generations.

Page 3: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Introduction

Americans spend

more time on the computer

and using new modes of

communication than they

do using traditional forms of

media and engaging in

other daily tasks

Page 4: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Introduction

Scholars agree that traditional forms of communication—face to face and telephone—are rapidly declining among young people

Page 5: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Introduction

Have face to face

and other

synchronous

communication

modes become a

thing of the past?

Are there generational differences?

Page 6: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Introduction

How do the

preferred modes

change based

on levels of

depression and

shyness?

Page 7: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Purpose

• This study examines the preferred

communication methods and relational

differences among three generations

• Looks at how these differences relate to

levels of depression and shyness

Page 8: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Three Generations

– Net Generation Born 1980-1999

– Generation X Born 1965-

1979

– Baby Boomers Born 1946-1964

Page 9: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Method“Please indicate your preferred way of communicating

with each person listed below:”

– Parents

– Children

– Best friend

– Good friend

– Acquaintance

– Significant other

– Brother/sister

– Other relatives

– Teacher or boss

– Doctor/dentist

– Someone asking for help

with school or work

– Cousins

– Make a date

– Break a date

– Break up with someone

Page 10: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Method

• Measured shyness levels (online and F2F)

– Self-reported

– “When I communicate face to face I am”

– “When I communicate online in am”• From very shy to very outgoing

• Measured depression levels

– “I frequently feed sad or depressed”• Strongly agree to strongly disagree

Page 11: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with SIGNIFICANT OTHER

Chi-square 87.08, p < .001

Page 12: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with CHILDREN

Chi-square 23.78, p < .01

*Net Generation removed

Page 13: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with PARENTS

Chi-square 92.93, p < .001

Page 14: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with BEST FRIEND

Chi-square 99.70, p < .001

Page 15: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with GOOD FRIEND

Chi-square 158.43, p < .001

Page 16: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with ACQUAINTANCE

Chi-square 288.47; p < .001

Page 17: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with DOCTOR/DENTIST

Chi-square 43.73; p < .001

Page 18: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with TEACHER/BOSS

Chi-square 46.96, p < .001

Page 19: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Communication with MAKE A DATE

Chi-square 85.63, p < .001

Page 20: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Chi-square 86.80, p < .001

Communication with BREAK A DATE

Page 21: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

SOMEONE ASKING FOR SCHOOL/WORK HELP

Chi-square 193.27, p < .001

Page 22: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by

SHYNESS LEVEL IN PERSON

__________________________________________________________

Relation In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Significant other**

Shy 76% 14% 10%

Outgoing 83% 12% 5%

Children*

Shy 76% 21% 3%

Outgoing 85% 13% 3%

Best friend**

Shy 61% 24% 16%

Outgoing 65% 25% 10%

*p < .05; **p < .01

Page 23: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by

SHYNESS LEVEL IN PERSON

__________________________________________________________

Activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Make a date*

Shy 37% 47% 17%

Outgoing 40% 50% 11%

Break a date*

Shy 25% 50% 26%

Outgoing 28% 55% 16%

Break up with someone**

Shy 64% 20% 14%

Outgoing 78% 14% 6%

*p < .05; **p < .01

Page 24: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by

SHYNESS LEVEL ONLINE

__________________________________________________________

Relation In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Acquaintance**

Shy 29% 40% 32%

Outgoing 21% 26% 54%

Teacher or boss**

Shy 49% 27% 24%

Outgoing 54% 13% 32%

*p < .05; **p < .01

Page 25: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by

SHYNESS LEVEL ONLINE

__________________________________________________________Activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Break a date**

Shy 25% 63% 9%

Outgoing 26% 53% 21%

Break up with someone*

Shy 60% 30% 8%

Outgoing 75% 15% 8%

Someone asking for help with work or school**

Shy 41% 30% 27%

Outgoing 33% 32% 35%

**p < .01

Page 26: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by

DEPRESSION LEVEL

__________________________________________________________Relation/activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Make a date**

Depressed 42% 47% 11%

Not depressed 30% 53% 17%

Relatives*

Depressed 54% 39% 5%

Not depressed 46% 47% 5%

*p < .05; **p < .01

Page 27: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by GENDER __________________________________________________________

Relation In person Phone IM Text E-mail________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Acquaintance**

Male 28% 31% 8% 17% 17%

Female 20% 27% 8% 21% 24%

Cousins**

Male 48% 34% 2% 7% 7%

Female 39% 35% 4% 8% 13%

Good friend**

Male 53% 31% 3% 9% 5%

Female 43% 32% 5% 13% 7%

Relatives*

Male 56% 36% 1% 2% 3%

Female 49% 44% 1% 0% 4%*p < .05; **p < .01

Page 28: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Preferred communication methods by GENDER

__________________________________________________________

Activity In person Phone IM Text E-mail________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Make a date**

Male 28% 31% 8% 17% 17%

Female 20% 27% 8% 21% 24%

Break a date**

Male 34% 50% 1% 11% 3%

Female 23% 55% 3% 16% 4%

**p < .01

Page 29: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

No. 1 Preferred method of communication N=1,319__________________________________________________________

Relation/activity No. 1 preference (%) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Significant other In person (71%)

Parents In person (67%)

Brother/sister In person (58%)

Best friend In person (56%)

Break up with someone In person (56%)

Teacher/boss In person (51%)

Doctor/dentist Telephone (48%)

Good friend In person (46%)

Relatives In person (44%)

Break/make a date Telephone (43%/40%)

Acquaintance Telephone (25%)

Page 30: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Discussion

• In general, the No. 1 preferred method of communication is in person

• In general, people would prefer to communicate either in person or on the telephone

• The use of e-mail, text, and instant messaging is not the most preferred method of communication in any category

Page 31: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Discussion• As the relationship presumably gains more distance, the

preferred method of communication becomes more

technological

• As age categories increase, preference for face-to-face

communication decreases in almost all categories

• Baby Boomers prefer e-mail more than any other

generation (very few use instant messaging)

• Net generation prefers face to face more than any other

generation

Page 32: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Discussion

• No panic about technology “stealing” children away from synchronous communication modes

• Older adults may be too busy to use face-to-face communication methods

Page 33: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Discussion

• Asked their preferred method of communication NOT how they typically communicate

• People may prefer to communicate in person, but cannot because of their busy lives

• Technology makes it easier for people to stay connected

Page 34: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,

Thank You


Recommended