A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Effects of Instant Messaging Usage On

Young Adult Relationship QualityRyan Prins

Anthony TrotterRufino 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?