Daniel Sullivan

hat is the question. In my daily life, text messaging

is a core component of my communications with oth-

ers. I use it for everything from planning events, to casual

conversation and getting help on homework; but I also

use it to flesh out issues with my partner and others close

to me. Recently, I have wondered why we have turned to

text messaging for the majority of our conflicts. Prior to

doing outside research, I created a few theories as to

why, for some, text messaging is a more assessable

means of conflict resolution. Due to text messaging‘s limit

of 160 characters, people have to make their arguments

concise and to the point. It might also be easier for peo-

ple who are shy, since they have time to formulate what

they want to say, instead of feeling intimidated by a face-

to-face conversation.

To see how texting can be used, we must first

look at how it has been used. A 2004 study at London

South Bank examined who used texting, and why. Their

results showed that those who are younger tend to send

and receive a greater number of messages that those

who are older (Faulkner). The study also looked at what

kinds of messages were sent and found that the majority

of texts were asking questions, sending farewells, and

sending personal information.

In order to gain a broader perspective, I conduct-

ed my own study, in the form of an online survey. There

were a total of 389 responses. After analyzing the data,

and comparing it to Faulkner's survey, there are drastic

differences. The first is the percentage who text. Accord-

ing to their collected data, 16% of their result set said they

did not text. In my data, only 8% did not text, a reduction

of half. Figure 1 shows a comparison between the age

groups analyzed and the percentage of each who text.

Another extrapolated comparison to Faulkner's data is

that texting activity declines when age increases, a fact

that remains true.

When looking at the types of messages sent, we

see a contrast. The two most popular uses for texting are

event planning and casual conversation. The key distinc-

tion is “conversation”— not simply reminders or single

questions. So text messaging has become more of a dia-

logue between people, rather than “fire and forget.”

Dan: What do you think; is text messaging a viable

means for conflict resolution?

World: No, text messaging is for short messages only,

not confrontations or debate.

Dan: I agree that was the intended purpose, but it has

progressed over time. What are people using it

for now?

World: According to a survey in 2004, people are asking

questions and sending reminders, not having

conversations. (Faulkner)

Dan: From my research in 2010, I've found the most

common uses to be event planning and gossip/

casual conversation, categories with a “back and

forth.”

World: Argh, I'll give you that. But what about people

using texting as a safety blanket? It's destroying

the closeness of mankind! (Pressner)

Dan: What about people using texting for “romantic

interactions?” And who's to say people can't be

close over non-verbal communications?

World: Or what about the fact that it's difficult for people

to get their meaning across in text? (Pressner)

Dan: Actually, people think they get their meaning

across.

World: Wah? But whole relationships have fallen apart

from misunderstandings! (Pressner)

Dan: Then maybe it depends on other factors?

World: Well, like what?

Text Messaging and Conflict Resolution

T

Figure 1

Armed with

the information that a

sizeable percentage

of people have text

message conversa-

tions, the next step is

to see who has argu-

ments over text mes-

saging. Of the 360

people who use tex-

ting, 51% have had

arguments. They all

say it happens rarely

or very infrequently.

Due to the non-

confrontational na-

ture of the medium,

an assumption could

be made that people

who are less outgoing

might prefer texting,

to other means of

communication. A

study at the University

of Plymouth by Reid

examined the general

use of text messaging

vs. other mediums,

looking to see if those

persons who are shy

and social anxious

would prefer it more.

The results of the study coincided with their hypothesis;

social anxious individuals are more likely to resort to text

messaging. I looked at this idea more deeply, seeing if

their conclusion correlated with arguments over text as

well.

Figure 2 shows the results of this comparison. We

see that there is no real correlation between someone's

personality, and whether or not they have an argument

over text. Returning to Faulkner's study however, and

looking at the ages instead, there is a trend. As age in-

creases, the amount of people who say they have argu-

ments over text decreases. This agrees with Faulkner's

thoughts, “It might be that the teenage users having grown

up with text messaging are far more comfortable with it

and therefore see it as just another means of communi-

cating with their circle” (14).

The rea-

sons for the argu-

ments differ, but a

consensus among

analysts seems to

be that misunder-

stands due to the

medium are a large

cause. Etiquette

expert Ceri Marsh,

in an interview for

USAToday, had the

following to say:

"Couples have ar-

guments over text

because of a sim-

ple misunderstand-

ing in wording or

tone. They'll say

'What exactly did

you mean by that

emoti-

con?'" (Pressner).

From my research,

it appears that

those who say

they've been in an

argument agree

that it is usually a

misunderstanding.

However, if we look

at how often peo-

ple feel that they got their meaning across; we see that

51% of people feel that nine out of ten times they do in-

deed transmute their thoughts effectively into text. Despite

this however, there is no correlation between getting their

meaning across and how often they have arguments. This

goes against Marsh's thoughts and texters' own thoughts

as well.

Let's take a step back and look over what we've

examined so far. Texters are nowadays comprised of a

broad range of ages. They primarily have conversations

and plan events. Only half of them have arguments. This

half is comprised of a variety of people though, only barely

separated by age The next step is—are these arguments

being solved, and by whom?

Figure 2

Figure 3

The short answer is—generally not. If we look at

figure 4, we can see most people find that their arguments

go unresolved. Past “rarely,” there is a slowly decreasing

trend, but it is minimal.

“But what about people who effectively use texting,” I

thought. Looking at the data from my survey, there is once

again no correlation. Those who rarely get their meaning

into text solve conflicts at the same rate as those who con-

stantly articulate their thoughts accurately. This is interest-

ing, because if someone can get their meaning across,

what is preventing them from using the same tools they

use verbally in text effectively?

With these results, I was compelled to look at my

own experience again. Text messaging works for me as a

means of conflict resolution, but why? With the prior ques-

tion in mind, I thought about what I know about solving

conflicts. My experience is rather unique; I spent the ma-

jority of my youth volunteering at an organization called

The Peace Center, in Langhorne, PA. There I learned (and

subsequently taught) the tools needed to effectively re-

solve conflicts. The major points are to be clear about

your own feelings, listen to the other(s), and to be open to

compromise. Is applying these guidelines to text argu-

ments the difference in their success or not? The research

conducted did not look at this, but future research should

consider it, as it might just be the magic factor for resolv-

ing text arguments. With the collected data, however, it

almost seems as though the medium has no effect on peo-

ple's ability to solve conflicts. There is however, one more

factor to consider; does the “disconnect” of the situation

aid people in solving conflicts?

Reid's study, which looked at social anxiety, con-

cluded “SMS [allows] users to disengage from the de-

mands of immediate interactive involvement, releasing

time and attentional resources to compose and edit mes-

sages” (11). Meg Hallissy, a student from Fairfield Univer-

sity, thought similarly, “[We] are constructing our argu-

ments, or manipulating them. We rough-draft what we real-

ly mean to say; then edit, cut, paste, or fit it into 160 char-

acters. The final draft is often the nicer version of our origi-

nal statements, without the swearing and name-

calling” (Hallissy). This was one of my hypotheses, and

even after all of the data showing that there are a very

small number of conflicts resolved over text messaging, I

still think it is true.

Based off my own positive experience, there must

be a set of factors that allow someone to effective use text

messaging as a means of conflict resolution, but I have not

narrowed them down. If anything, this exploration of the

subject shows that it requires a significantly deeper insight

into the individual than a quick survey could possibly hope

to show. More questions have been raised, and their an-

swerers might hold the key to a better understanding of

how we can effectively resolve arguments.

Figure 4

Works Cited

"Conflict Resolution - Resolving Conflict Rationally and Effectively." Mind Tools. 10 June 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_81.htm>.

Faulkner, Xristine, and Fintan Culwin Culwin. "When Fingers Do the Talking: a Study of Text Messaging." Interacting

with Computers 17.2 (2005): 167-85. 25 Dec. 2004. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.

Hallissy, Meg. "Y R U Mad? Mediated Conflict Resolution | The Fairfield Mirror." The Fairfield Mirror. 21 Oct. 2009.

Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://fairfieldmirror.com/2009/10/21/y-r-u-mad-mediated-conflict-resolution/>.

Kasallis, Theresa. "Text Messaging Affects Student Relationships." Universe. 5 July 2005. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

<http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/60307>.

Pressner, Amanda. "Can Love Blossom in a Text Message?" USATODAY.com. 29 Jan. 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2006-01-29-love-texting_x.htm>.

Reid, Donna J., and Fraser J.M. Reid. "Text or Talk? Social Anxiety, Loneliness, and Divergent Preferences for Cell

Phone Use." CyberPsychology & Behavior 10.3 (2007): 424-435. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1

Nov. 2010.

Sullivan, Daniel. “Text messaging and Conflict Resolution.” Web Survey. 07 November 2010.