- Email: [email protected]
2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’ reports of when text messaging is social breach
The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij
2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’ reports of when text messaging is social breach Marissa A. Harrison ∗ , Christine E. Bealing, Jessica M. Salley Psychology Program, Penn State Harrisburg, Olmsted W 311, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 August 2014 Received in revised form 19 February 2015 Accepted 19 February 2015 Available online 9 March 2015 Keywords: Text messaging Texting Social breach Norms Culture
a b s t r a c t Evidence suggests that those who engage in text messaging, particularly young individuals, tend to text in what many people may deem socially inappropriate or odd situations, such as while speaking face-to-face with someone else, while at work, while in the shower, or even while having sex. The present study investigates whether young texters are creating a new etiquette where these are socially acceptable practices or whether they deem these practices to be social breaches, but do it anyway. The data support the latter; college students report texting in many situations they did not deem socially acceptable. The importance of texting to this generation and future research directions are discussed. © 2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Cellular phones have become so popular that of the world’s approximately 7 billion people, 6 billion have access, compared with the 4.5 billion who have access to operational toilets (United Nations News Centre, 2013). As of January 2014, 90% of adults in the United States had a cell phone, with nearly a third believing they could not live without them (Pew Research Center, 2014). Of course, mobile technology most often comes with the ability to send and receive text messages (Pew Research Center, 2011). Text messaging or texting has become a major part of daily communication, with many people reporting that they send and receive hundreds of texts in a single day ˜ 2010; Pew Research (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Jin & Pena, Center, 2012) and thousands per month (Crosswhite, Rice, & Asay, 2014). Evidence from around the globe suggests this computermediated communication has permeated society, as many
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 717 948 6068. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Harrison), [email protected] (C.E. Bealing), [email protected] (J.M. Salley).
people greatly prefer text messaging versus cellular phone or land line calls as a method of communicating with others (Faulkner & Culwin, 2005; Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Ishii, 2006; Skierkowski & Wood, 2012). Certainly, texting offers inexpensive immediacy and convenience of communication, but one wonders if this mode is changing the etiquette of social interactions. As an example, some individuals use text messaging to communicate with others in seemingly inopportune situations such as while attending religious services, having sex, or even to break up with romantic partners (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012). The present study investigates college students’ use of text messaging in various social situations to determine whether they consider such actions socially appropriate or think such actions are indeed social breaches.
2. Background There are many beneficial reasons why text messaging has become an extremely popular means of communication, particularly to young people. Chen and Katz (2009) report that college students believe mobile phones, including texting, are necessary for keeping in contact with family
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.02.005 0362-3319/© 2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
members in order to ensure role fulfillment and to receive emotional and social support; students even teach their parents how to text so they can stay in touch. Crosswhite et al. (2014) also document that young adults text with family members to make plans or simply to converse. Similarly, Harrison and Gilmore (2012) show that college students feel text messaging is important for feeling socially connected, such as communicating with friends, significant others, and family members, and Drouin and Landgraff (2012) stress that texting and sexting are common and important to college students in their romantic relationships. Indeed, Reid and Reid (2004, 2007) posit that even those who are lonely or socially anxious can create productive interpersonal relationships via text messaging. In addition to interpersonal use, text messaging can be a useful systemic and administrative tool. It is used effectively for behavioral change and disease management, with many therapists and health-related agencies using text messages to support clients. Notably, this success is observed across age, ethnicity, and nationality (Cole-Lewis & Kershaw, 2010). Furthermore, through various cellular carriers, the US government offers Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), which are text messages conveying natural or human-made disasters or amber alerts (CTIA-The Wireless Association, 2013). Many college campuses also offer emergency alerts via text messages among other safety warning technologies (Choney, 2010). These examples illustrate the positive aspects of texting; nonetheless, as with any technology, with texting use likely comes the potential for misuse. Evidence suggests there is a downside to text messaging. For instance, the behavior of many texters can become a compulsion or addiction (Igarashi & Yoshida, 2003; Lu, Katoh, Chen, Nagata, & Kitamura, 2014; Sultan, 2014). Pew Research Center, 2014 finds that nearly half of cell phone owners sleep with their phones next to them because they are afraid they might miss text messages or calls, and two-thirds of cell owners report frequently checking their phones for messages, even in the absence of message notification (rings, vibrations). Additionally, Sultan (2014) documents that the majority of users of certain texting applications (apps) admit they are or have concerns they are addicted to the technology. For many, texting is so important that the dangers of participating in text messaging in some situations go unrealized or ignored. Although numerous studies have shown the dangers of distraction by text messaging while driving (Hosking, Young, & Regan, 2009), the behavior persists. Harrison (2011) shows that even though college students agree that texting and driving is dangerous and should be illegal, 91.2% admit to texting while driving anyway. Similarly, Atchley, Atwood, and Boulton (2011) report that 92% of their sample had read a text, 81% had replied to, and 70% had sent a text while driving, even though they acknowledge these behaviors are very dangerous. In addition to the physical danger described above, evidence suggests that text messaging can place one in social danger. Texting is associated with social negativity, such as ostracism, bullying, fighting, distracting or harassing others, and even infidelity (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Smith & Williams, 2004; Short & McMurray, 2009;
189
Thomee, Eklof, Gustafson, Nilsson, & Hagberg, 2007). Notably, Mahatanankoon and O’Sullivan (2008) suggest that texting facilitates self-esteem and an internal locus of control, positively reinforcing texting behavior, likely making it more acceptable to engage in during various situations—even negative ones. Younger people tend to be more immersed in and tolerant of texting behaviors (Pew Research Center, 2014), possibly because they were reared with mobile communication as part of their culture (Campbell, 2006). News reports indicate that the first text message was sent/received in 1992 (ABC News, 2012), and text messaging has increased in popularity exponentially since then, which means those in college as of this writing would likely not remember a social life absent of texting. To wit, Thurlow (2003) labels these individuals as generation text. Ling (2010) speculates that age may dictate the social acceptability of texting and that texting may be socially expected in younger cohorts, even in seemingly odd situations. Harrison and Gilmore (2012) address this point by documenting self-reports of the texting habits of colleges students, focusing on the social contexts of text message use. They show that college students, mean age 22.7 (SD = 5.7), use text messaging in benign situations and circumstances, such as for romance and staying socially connected. However, many people also use texting in situations and circumstances that people may consider a breach of social etiquette. For example, 30% say they have texted while in the shower, 33% say they have texted during a religious service, and 13% say they have texted while they were having sex. Further, 85% report texting while they were going to the bathroom. With respect to interpersonal situations, 93% say they have texted someone while they were having an in-person conversation with someone else; 46% say they texted someone they were romantically interested in while they were on a date with someone else, and 19% say they have used texting as a tool for infidelity. Additionally, some used texting for maleficence, with 73% report using texts for fights, and 53% report using texts to insult someone. Further, participants did engage in sexting, with 65% admitting to sending salacious texts. Although Harrison and Gilmore note text use in these situations, they do not ascertain whether or not participants thought messaging in these situations was or was not socially acceptable. Nonetheless, it appears young people use texting in situations that breach what many may label proper social etiquette. But what if traditional culture has changed? Cohen (2009) suggests that the behaviors associated with mobile communication and texting could be considered a new culture. So, is texting while in the shower, or during sex, or while going to the bathroom the new normal? Whereas the landscape of our social correctness may have changed, it is also possible that it has not, and that young people are going to text in various, seemingly odd social scenarios, knowing it is a social breach. . .but are doing it anyway. The present study investigates this phenomenon. 3. Method All procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board. Participants were 154 college students from
190
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
a mid-sized university in the northeastern United States who took part in the study in exchange for course credit. One individual did not provide any information after beginning the study. Another individual provided incomplete demographic information and was excluded from the analysis. The resulting sample of 152 people consisted of 88 women and 64 men with a mean age of 19.7 (SD = 3.6). Reported ethnicities were 55.1% White, 21.1% Asian, 8.8% African–American, 6.8% Hispanic, 2.7% Middle Eastern, and 5.5% other. The 70-item questionnaire study was administered online via SurveyMonkey.com. The instrument asked demographic questions, as reported above, as well as participants’ frequency of texting use, their perceptions of the appropriateness of text messaging in various social situations, and whether or not they have engaged in such. Because this study is concerned with the behavior of those who use text messaging, respondents were also asked, “About how many texts do you send/receive a day?” and “About how many times per hour do you check your phone for incoming text messages?” To analyze perceptions of the acceptability of text messaging in various social settings and circumstances, respondents were presented with 33 scenarios in which people text message each other and asked participants to rate the extent to which they found each situation socially acceptable. These scenarios were based largely on Harrison and Gilmore’s (2012) scenarios and categories of text messaging social occurrences. Participants gave ratings of each social situation on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = very inappropriate, 2 = appropriate, 3 = neutral, 4 = appropriate, and 5 = very appropriate. Gender-neutral names, and no pronouns, were used to avoid the effects of sex role perceptions on ratings.
The next section of the instrument listed the same scenarios without actors’ names; participants were asked to indicate whether they had used text messages in each. For example, we asked “Have you used text messaging to flirt with someone” and “. . .to report to your family where/how you are?” Participants responded yes or no to these items, which were presented in a randomized versus categorical manner.
4. Results Results are presented in Fig. 1. Two participants (1.3%) indicated they send/receive no messages per day, and their data were excluded from further analysis. Of note, 34.3% of participants reported they send/receive 100 or more text messages per day. Further, responses indicate that participants check their phone for incoming text messages a mean of 15.9 times per hour (every 3.78 min) for texts, with a great degree of variability (SD = 24.5; range 1 to 200 times per hour).
4.1. Perceptions of social acceptability The new normal? Using one-sample t-tests, participants’ responses to each text messaging scenario were examined to determine whether they considered texting in the given social situation to be socially acceptable (significantly greater than a rating of 3 = neutral), and a Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons was used. Table 1 lists text messaging scenarios, reports mean ratings, and notes scenarios that meet the study’s criterion for social acceptability.
Fig. 1. Participants reported number of text messages sent/received per day.
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
191
Table 1 Participants’ (N = 150) perceived appropriateness of texting in social scenarios: mean responses, acceptability, and percentage who reported texting in each. Category and item
M
Rated as socially acceptable*
% Who said they have done this
Romance Quinn sent Jordan a text message saying, “I love you.”
4.15
.91
Yes t = 15.43, p < .001 Yes t = 14.45, p < .001 Yes t = 11.01, p < .001 Yes t = 6.09, p < .001
83.3
Taylor is sending romantic text messages to Casey.
4.01
.86
Jean is texting Kendall flirtatious text messages.
3.87
.97
Alex sent Sam a text message asking Sam out on a date.
3.53
.97
Staying connected Logan is sending a message to Logan’s family to check in on them.
4.24
.87
Yes t = 17.41, p < .001 Yes t = 15.12, p < .001 Yes t = 6.15, p < .001
93.3
Pat is sending a text message to Pat’s family to report where Pat is.
4.18
.96
Harper is sending a text message to Harper’s significant other to report where Harper is. Escaping the present Ashton is sending text messages while eating.
3.62
1.24
3.51
1.12
88.7
1.13 1.00 1.33 .95 1.01 1.18 .92 .92 .82
Yes t = 5.49, p = .000 Yes t = 5.36, p = .000 No No No No No No No No No
Lee is sending text messages while going to the bathroom.
3.48
1.10
Morgan is sending text messages during a movie Morgan paid to see. Quinn is texting during class. Shannon is texting while on an airplane during the flight. While Dee was supposed to be working, Dee sent text messages on the job. Terry is sending Erin text messages while Terry is drunk. Tracy is sending text messages while taking a shower. Erin is texting during the Pledge of Allegiance. Riley is texting during a religious service. Sam is sending text messages while having sex. Interpersonal breaches Jessie is on the phone with Casey when Jessie receives a text message from Quinn. Instead of hanging up the phone with Casey first, Jessie responds to Quinn’s text message while still talking on the phone. Jordan is sending text messages while talking in a hallway to Kendall. Jean is sending text messages to a friend while hanging out with Pat. Kendall is texting while feeding Kendall’s child. Taylor is texting at a restaurant while the waiter is writing down Taylor’s order. Alex is texting while on a date with someone else. Sam is texting while being examined at a doctor’s appointment. Logan is romantically interested in Harper. Logan is texting Harper while on a date with Morgan. Terry sent a break-up text to Lee. Skyler is sending text messages when Skyler is at a funeral. Tracy is cheating on Dee through text messages with Erin. Jessie is texting during a job interview. Maleficence Shannon is fighting with Ashton through text messages. Riley is sending insulting text messages to Skyler. Sexting Logan is sexting Pat. (Sexting is describing sexual intent or actions.) Jean is sending Harper text messages that contain sexually explicit material.
2.81 2.75 2.70 2.63 2.61 2.39 1.76 1.72 1.51
70.7 84.7 22.0 78.7 49.3 34.0 11.3 22.7 7.4
3.07
1.12
No
75.3
2.97 2.93 2.63 2.21 1.90 1.89 1.71
1.03 .97 1.11 1.08 .97 .89 .95
No No No No No No No
79.3 83.9 54.0 37.3 52.0 12.7 21.5
1.60 1.52 1.51 1.23
.98 .80 .84 .67
No No No No
26.0 10.1 15.1 2.7
2.77 1.95
1.01 .99
No No
66.0 38.3
2.43 2.31
1.15 1.10
No No
42.0 36.0
SD
79.3 90.0 49.3
94.9 87.3
83.3
Notes. Responses given on a Likert scale where 1 = very inappropriate, 2 = appropriate, 3 = neutral, 4 = appropriate, and 5 = very appropriate. * Indicates a mean value of significantly greater than 3 = neutral.
. . .But I do it anyway. Participants’ reports indicate the frequency they engage in text messaging in each scenario, and the response frequencies are shown in Table 1 as well. Of note, there is a strong, positive correlation between mean ratings of social acceptability of texting in various scenarios and the percentage of people who reported they had texted in those scenarios, r(32) = .88, p < .000. Texting while drunk: A by-product of legal age? A post-hoc analysis shows no statistical relationship between being under age 21 or over age 21 – the legal drinking age in the
US – and reports of whether or not one texted while drunk, 2 (N = 149) = 3.31, p = .069, although numerically a greater percentage of those 21 and older (66.7%) reported doing this compared to those under 21 (46.4%). 5. Discussion Texting is obviously a prevalent and important communication mode. The college students in this study report sending and receiving dozens – often hundreds – of text
192
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
messages every day, and they typically do not go more than four minutes without checking their phones for text messages. Indeed, people have at their fingertips the exciting opportunity to connect with someone else at any second (Carr, 2011), and receiving and sending texts can even be literally biologically stimulating in terms of sympathetic nervous system activity (Lin & Peper, 2009). With the opportunity for use, however, comes the opportunity for misuse. Harrison and Gilmore (2012) document that college-age individuals tend to use text messaging in situations that are seemingly socially inappropriate, such as while one is supposed to be working, while one is on a date, and while one is attending a religious service, or even in outright bizarre situations, such as while in the shower or while having sex. This raises the question, then: since younger individuals are more tolerant of texting (Pew Research Center, 2014), do they consider these actions to be socially appropriate, essentially creating a new normal etiquette, or do they think these activities are indeed social breaches but do it anyway? Results show a very strong, but not perfect, relationship between ratings of the acceptability of text messaging in various social situations and the proportion of people who said that they had actually texted in these situations. Since texting behavior is not completely explained by perceptions of social etiquette, it is interesting to consider when social etiquette would be maintained or breached. There is no formal set of rules for what constitutes etiquette; etiquette it is a set of community-established rules for proper conduct and decorum (Dictionary.com, 2014). When, then, does the young adult community think it proper to use text messaging? As expected, participants deem it socially acceptable to use texts for romance, and the overwhelming majority report using texts for the purpose of flirting and for conveying love and other romantic sentiments. One exception was using texting to ask someone out on a date; although college students agree this is socially acceptable, only about half say they have done this. A post-hoc analysis shows no sex differences in responses; therefore, sex roles are not likely a factor here. It may be the case that these young individuals – nearly three-quarters were 18 or 19 years old – have not had the opportunity to do this yet. Still, there are texting taboos with respect to romance and dating. Participants do not feel it is socially appropriate to break up with someone via a text message, use texts for infidelity, or text someone a romantic potential while on a date with someone else. The majority of participants did not engage in texting in these situations, although some did, with one out of four participants sending break-up texts, one out of five texting someone else they were interested in while on a date with another, and nearly one in six people using texting as a tool of infidelity. Also as expected, participants deem it socially acceptable to use text messages to stay connected to their families and their romantic partners. Almost all participants say they use texts to check on their families, report their location to their families, and report their location to their significant others, evincing the true benefits of this communication mode.
Still others believe it is socially appropriate in some circumstances to use texting to pass the time, and they use the technology in this manner. About 89% of participants report texting while eating, and about 83% said they have text messaged while going to the bathroom. Whereas some people may deem this odd, most college students agree that eating and toilet texts are the new normal. In the above, participants’ attitudes toward texting etiquette were, for the most part, congruent with their behaviors. However, there are instances of incongruence across texting categories, several scenarios in which people deem texting to be a social breach but have done it anyway. With respect to using texting to escape the present, participants report it is not socially acceptable to text during a movie they paid to see, but over 70% did it anyway. Also, participants deem it unacceptable to text while at work and supposed to be working, but three-quarters of the sample did it anyway. Further, participants agree that it is not socially acceptable to text during class, but more than eight out of ten students say they have done this. In these instances, participants are texting even when they know it is socially wrong and it does cause loss, such as distraction from entertainment one has paid for, or can cause loss, such as getting reprimanded or fired from work, or losing points or being dismissed from class. In addition, participants report that texting while drunk is socially appropriate, but half of participants say they did this. It is difficult to interpret this participants were not asked whether they consumed alcohol. There was no statistical relationship between being under or over the legal US drinking age and engaging in drunk texting, although numerically more participants of legal drinking age report doing so. The lack of statistical significance may be a product of a small sample of older individuals (n = 21). Further, most participants engaged in texting in seeming disregard of the people physically present – those with whom they were supposed to be interacting – even when they believe it is not the socially correct thing to do. College students do not think it is socially acceptable to text while one is on the phone with someone else, while talking with and hanging out with friends, while on a date, and while caring for a child. However, most participants text messaged in these situations anyway. It is of interest that people choose to commit interpersonal breaches and compromise being fully, interpersonally engaged with the important people around them by connecting with others in a faceless, often incomplete, impersonal mode, even when admitting this is not the right thing to do. Investigators may want to examine why texting technology can distract and therefore detract from in-person interactions. This does make sense, however, from an adaptive or evolutionary point of view, as ever-changing text messages command attention with flashes, colors, and sounds, yet people are able to habituate quickly to fellow humans present in the environment. Even babies prefer and will attend to moving, noisy, flashing objects versus stationery ones (Slater & Bremmer, 1989). Nonetheless, there are social circumstances in which participants say text messaging is not socially acceptable, and the majority did not engage in texting in these
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
conditions. However, some participants did. Respondents say it is not socially appropriate to text while in the shower, 34% did; during an airplane flight, 22% did; or while a server is trying to take your order in a restaurant, ∼37% did. In addition, ∼23% texted during a religious service; ∼11% during the Pledge of Allegiance (a nationally-known recitation of loyalty to the United States); ∼13% while being examined by a doctor; and ∼7% while having sex; participants ascribe even lower acceptability ratings to text messaging during these events. Even more taboo is texting while attending a funeral, although about 10% of participants did this anyway. Similarly, although texting during a job interview received one of the lowest acceptability ratings of any item in the instrument, about 3% of participants say they have done this. The participants rate fighting and insulting text messages to be socially inappropriate; however, most have fought with others using text, and more than a third insulted others via texting. Further, although deemed not socially appropriate, a 42% of participants used texts to convey sexual intent to another, and 36% sent sexually explicit texts. Interestingly, these are lower sexting percentages compared to the results of Harrison and Gilmore (2012) and as reported Kisler (2011). Sexting frequency may be decreasing. It is possible the younger generation has realized the interpersonal or even legal consequences that may come from such. Regardless, participants believe it is socially wrong, but many do it anyway. Some caution must be used to interpret this information, however, as it is not clear whether the texting itself is considered socially wrong or the fighting and sexual behavior is considered socially taboo. This study aimed to answer the question of whether or not younger texters are creating a new normal, transforming social etiquette into a world where ignoring current circumstances, situations, and people is acceptable. The findings indicate that college students’ perceptions of what is socially acceptable do not reflect a transformation—only a willingness to breach that which is considered acceptable. Perhaps this is due to the immediately rewarding properties of text messages (Mahatanankoon & O’Sullivan, 2008). Of course, when one anticipates a rewarding outcome from breaching social expectations, a willingness to breach is not limited to text messaging. Thirty years ago, even before text messaging existed, Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) warned that computermediated communication can be uninhibited, depersonalized, and immature. Evidence in the present study suggests their prophecy was correct. . .it certainly can be. Add to this list that it can be disrespectful, such as in the case of texting while on a job interview, in class, or while attending a funeral, and that at times texting behavior verges on the preposterous, such as texting while in the shower or having sex. For the most part, then, young texters sense a difference between right and wrong socially, but do not necessarily abide. This study examines the behavior of college students, a proxy for young people’s behavior. However, the sample included an unexpectedly wide age range (18 to 44 years), and it is possible that the attitudes of older individuals might differ from younger individuals with respect
193
to the social appropriateness of text messaging in various situations. There were only seven individuals age 25 and over in our sample, rendering between-group statistical comparison difficult. Making a Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons, analyses showed that these two groups differ significantly only in their opinions of the acceptability of text messaging during class, with younger students (<25 years) (M = 2.83, SD = .95) considering this behavior to be far more acceptable than older students (M = 1.14, SD = .38), t(149) = 4.67, p < .001, d = 2.34. Nonetheless, as the aim was to study the behavior of college students, older students’ data was retained for analysis within the sample. However, to understand better the texting attitudes and behavior of the younger generation, it would be prudent to recruit a larger sample of older texters for comparison. Of course, it would also be interesting to study the attitudes of non-texters of the same age to determine if attitudes toward social acceptability of this mode of communication affected their decision to refrain from its use. 5.1. Limitations and conclusions There are limitations to this study. As with all self-report data, participants’ answers are dependent on memory and estimates, and they may reflect personal biases and social desirability (Hyde & DeLamater, 2011). For example, college students may have underreported or underrated the social acceptability of texting during class because they are taking the survey of a university research team and many university course syllabi expressly forbid texting during class. In addition, access to technology may skew the results. It is possible that individuals with unlimited text messaging may have different perceptions and experiences than those who are on restricted text plans. Further, the attitudes of this sample of college students may not generalize to non-college individuals, or even younger people, who may have different social expectations about texting. The data from college students also may not generalize to other geographic areas, countries, ethnicities, or socioeconomic statuses of the general population. Future studies may wish to collect community samples to explore this phenomenon. In sum, the data suggest that text messaging is not necessarily creating a new culture – a new normal – but it is conducive to allowing someone to believe they transcend social boundaries or that those social boundaries do not apply to them in the texting moment. References ABC News. (2012). Happy 20th birthday, text message, but you’re past your prime. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/happy20th-birthday-text-message-now-past-prime/story?id=17864096. Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 134–142. Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280–294. Carr, D. (2011). Keep your thumbs still when I’m talking to you. New York, NY: The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/04/17/fashion/17TEXT.html?pagewanted=all.
194
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
Chen, Y. F., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 67, 179–191. Choney, S. (2010). NBC news: Campus alerts go beyond text messaging. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36566978/ns/ technology and science-security/t/campus-alerts-go-beyond-textmessaging/#.U9J1YmbD85s. Cohen, R. (2009). When texting is wrong. New York, NY: The New York times. Retrieved from http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/ when-texting-is-wrong/. Cole-Lewis, H., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management. Epidemiologic Reviews, 32(1), 56–69. Crosswhite, J. M., Rice, D., & Asay, S. M. (2014). Texting among United States young adults: An exploratory study on texting and its use within families. The Social Science Journal, 51, 70–78. CTIA-The Wireless Association. (2013). Wireless emergency alerts. CTIAThe Wireless Association,. Retrieved from http://www.ctia.org/yourwireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-emergency-alerts. Dictionary.com. (2014). Etiquette. Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/etiquette. Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’ romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 444–449. Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2005). When fingers do the talking: A study of text messaging. Interacting with Computers, 17, 167–185. Harrison, M. A., & Gilmore, A. L. (2012). U txt WHEN? College students’ social contexts of text messaging. The Social Science Journal, 49, 513–518. Harrison, M. A. (2011). College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1516–1520. Hosking, S. G., Young, K. L., & Regan, M. A. (2009). The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Human Factors, 51, 582–592. Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2011). Understanding human sexuality (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Igarashi, T., & Yoshida, T. (2003). The effect of the use of mobile phone text messages on freshmen’s loneliness during the transition to college. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 379–385. Ishii, K. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in everyday life. Journal of Communication, 56, 346–365. ˜ J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationJin, B., & Pena, ships: Mobile phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23(1), 39–51. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kisler, T. S. (2011). Sexting among college students [Television broadcast]. In NBC-10 WJAR nightly news. Providence, RI: WJAR. Lin, I. M., & Peper, E. (2009). Psychophysiological patterns during cell phone text messaging: A preliminary study. Applied Psychophysiological Biofeedback, 34, 53–57.
Ling, R. (2010). Texting as a life phase medium. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 15(2), 277–292. Lu, X., Katoh, T., Chen, Z., Nagata, T., & Kitamura, T. (2014). Text messaging: Are dependency and excessive use discretely different for Japanese university students? Psychiatry Research, 216(2), 255–262. Mahatanankoon, P., & O’Sullivan, P. (2008). Attitude toward mobile text messaging: An expectancy-based perspective. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13, 973–992. Pew Research Center. (2011). Americans and text messages. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/2011/09/19/americans-and-text-messaging/. Pew Research Center. (2012). Teens, smartphones, and texting. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/2012/03/19/teens-smartphones-texting/. Pew Research Center. (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/. Reid, D., & Reid, F. (2004 February). Insight into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging. Journal of the British Computer Society,. Retrieved from http://www.160characters.org/ documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf. Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. M. (2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent preferences for cell phone use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(3), 424–435. Short, E., & McMurray, I. (2009). Mobile phone harassment: An exploration of student’s perceptions of intrusive texting behavior. Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 5(2), 163–180. Skierkowski, D., & Wood, R. M. (2012). To text or not to text? The importance of text messaging among college-aged youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 744–756. Slater, A., & Bremmer, G. (1989). Infant development. East Sussex, UK: Erlbaum. Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 291–301. Sultan, A. (2014). Addiction to mobile text messaging applications is nothing to “lol” about. The Social Science Journal, 51, 57–69. Thomee, S., Eklof, M., Gustafson, E., Nilsson, R., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults: An explorative prospective study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1300–1321. Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. In Discourse analysis online. Retrieved from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003paper.html. United Nations News Centre. (2013). Deputy UN chief calls for urgent action to tackle global sanitation crisis. United Nations News Centre. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=44452&Cr=sanitation&Cr1=#.U9ALKGOGePj.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Social Science Journal journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij
2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’ reports of when text messaging is social breach Marissa A. Harrison ∗ , Christine E. Bealing, Jessica M. Salley Psychology Program, Penn State Harrisburg, Olmsted W 311, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 August 2014 Received in revised form 19 February 2015 Accepted 19 February 2015 Available online 9 March 2015 Keywords: Text messaging Texting Social breach Norms Culture
a b s t r a c t Evidence suggests that those who engage in text messaging, particularly young individuals, tend to text in what many people may deem socially inappropriate or odd situations, such as while speaking face-to-face with someone else, while at work, while in the shower, or even while having sex. The present study investigates whether young texters are creating a new etiquette where these are socially acceptable practices or whether they deem these practices to be social breaches, but do it anyway. The data support the latter; college students report texting in many situations they did not deem socially acceptable. The importance of texting to this generation and future research directions are discussed. © 2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Cellular phones have become so popular that of the world’s approximately 7 billion people, 6 billion have access, compared with the 4.5 billion who have access to operational toilets (United Nations News Centre, 2013). As of January 2014, 90% of adults in the United States had a cell phone, with nearly a third believing they could not live without them (Pew Research Center, 2014). Of course, mobile technology most often comes with the ability to send and receive text messages (Pew Research Center, 2011). Text messaging or texting has become a major part of daily communication, with many people reporting that they send and receive hundreds of texts in a single day ˜ 2010; Pew Research (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Jin & Pena, Center, 2012) and thousands per month (Crosswhite, Rice, & Asay, 2014). Evidence from around the globe suggests this computermediated communication has permeated society, as many
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 717 948 6068. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Harrison), [email protected] (C.E. Bealing), [email protected] (J.M. Salley).
people greatly prefer text messaging versus cellular phone or land line calls as a method of communicating with others (Faulkner & Culwin, 2005; Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Ishii, 2006; Skierkowski & Wood, 2012). Certainly, texting offers inexpensive immediacy and convenience of communication, but one wonders if this mode is changing the etiquette of social interactions. As an example, some individuals use text messaging to communicate with others in seemingly inopportune situations such as while attending religious services, having sex, or even to break up with romantic partners (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012). The present study investigates college students’ use of text messaging in various social situations to determine whether they consider such actions socially appropriate or think such actions are indeed social breaches.
2. Background There are many beneficial reasons why text messaging has become an extremely popular means of communication, particularly to young people. Chen and Katz (2009) report that college students believe mobile phones, including texting, are necessary for keeping in contact with family
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.02.005 0362-3319/© 2015 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
members in order to ensure role fulfillment and to receive emotional and social support; students even teach their parents how to text so they can stay in touch. Crosswhite et al. (2014) also document that young adults text with family members to make plans or simply to converse. Similarly, Harrison and Gilmore (2012) show that college students feel text messaging is important for feeling socially connected, such as communicating with friends, significant others, and family members, and Drouin and Landgraff (2012) stress that texting and sexting are common and important to college students in their romantic relationships. Indeed, Reid and Reid (2004, 2007) posit that even those who are lonely or socially anxious can create productive interpersonal relationships via text messaging. In addition to interpersonal use, text messaging can be a useful systemic and administrative tool. It is used effectively for behavioral change and disease management, with many therapists and health-related agencies using text messages to support clients. Notably, this success is observed across age, ethnicity, and nationality (Cole-Lewis & Kershaw, 2010). Furthermore, through various cellular carriers, the US government offers Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), which are text messages conveying natural or human-made disasters or amber alerts (CTIA-The Wireless Association, 2013). Many college campuses also offer emergency alerts via text messages among other safety warning technologies (Choney, 2010). These examples illustrate the positive aspects of texting; nonetheless, as with any technology, with texting use likely comes the potential for misuse. Evidence suggests there is a downside to text messaging. For instance, the behavior of many texters can become a compulsion or addiction (Igarashi & Yoshida, 2003; Lu, Katoh, Chen, Nagata, & Kitamura, 2014; Sultan, 2014). Pew Research Center, 2014 finds that nearly half of cell phone owners sleep with their phones next to them because they are afraid they might miss text messages or calls, and two-thirds of cell owners report frequently checking their phones for messages, even in the absence of message notification (rings, vibrations). Additionally, Sultan (2014) documents that the majority of users of certain texting applications (apps) admit they are or have concerns they are addicted to the technology. For many, texting is so important that the dangers of participating in text messaging in some situations go unrealized or ignored. Although numerous studies have shown the dangers of distraction by text messaging while driving (Hosking, Young, & Regan, 2009), the behavior persists. Harrison (2011) shows that even though college students agree that texting and driving is dangerous and should be illegal, 91.2% admit to texting while driving anyway. Similarly, Atchley, Atwood, and Boulton (2011) report that 92% of their sample had read a text, 81% had replied to, and 70% had sent a text while driving, even though they acknowledge these behaviors are very dangerous. In addition to the physical danger described above, evidence suggests that text messaging can place one in social danger. Texting is associated with social negativity, such as ostracism, bullying, fighting, distracting or harassing others, and even infidelity (Harrison & Gilmore, 2012; Smith & Williams, 2004; Short & McMurray, 2009;
189
Thomee, Eklof, Gustafson, Nilsson, & Hagberg, 2007). Notably, Mahatanankoon and O’Sullivan (2008) suggest that texting facilitates self-esteem and an internal locus of control, positively reinforcing texting behavior, likely making it more acceptable to engage in during various situations—even negative ones. Younger people tend to be more immersed in and tolerant of texting behaviors (Pew Research Center, 2014), possibly because they were reared with mobile communication as part of their culture (Campbell, 2006). News reports indicate that the first text message was sent/received in 1992 (ABC News, 2012), and text messaging has increased in popularity exponentially since then, which means those in college as of this writing would likely not remember a social life absent of texting. To wit, Thurlow (2003) labels these individuals as generation text. Ling (2010) speculates that age may dictate the social acceptability of texting and that texting may be socially expected in younger cohorts, even in seemingly odd situations. Harrison and Gilmore (2012) address this point by documenting self-reports of the texting habits of colleges students, focusing on the social contexts of text message use. They show that college students, mean age 22.7 (SD = 5.7), use text messaging in benign situations and circumstances, such as for romance and staying socially connected. However, many people also use texting in situations and circumstances that people may consider a breach of social etiquette. For example, 30% say they have texted while in the shower, 33% say they have texted during a religious service, and 13% say they have texted while they were having sex. Further, 85% report texting while they were going to the bathroom. With respect to interpersonal situations, 93% say they have texted someone while they were having an in-person conversation with someone else; 46% say they texted someone they were romantically interested in while they were on a date with someone else, and 19% say they have used texting as a tool for infidelity. Additionally, some used texting for maleficence, with 73% report using texts for fights, and 53% report using texts to insult someone. Further, participants did engage in sexting, with 65% admitting to sending salacious texts. Although Harrison and Gilmore note text use in these situations, they do not ascertain whether or not participants thought messaging in these situations was or was not socially acceptable. Nonetheless, it appears young people use texting in situations that breach what many may label proper social etiquette. But what if traditional culture has changed? Cohen (2009) suggests that the behaviors associated with mobile communication and texting could be considered a new culture. So, is texting while in the shower, or during sex, or while going to the bathroom the new normal? Whereas the landscape of our social correctness may have changed, it is also possible that it has not, and that young people are going to text in various, seemingly odd social scenarios, knowing it is a social breach. . .but are doing it anyway. The present study investigates this phenomenon. 3. Method All procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board. Participants were 154 college students from
190
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
a mid-sized university in the northeastern United States who took part in the study in exchange for course credit. One individual did not provide any information after beginning the study. Another individual provided incomplete demographic information and was excluded from the analysis. The resulting sample of 152 people consisted of 88 women and 64 men with a mean age of 19.7 (SD = 3.6). Reported ethnicities were 55.1% White, 21.1% Asian, 8.8% African–American, 6.8% Hispanic, 2.7% Middle Eastern, and 5.5% other. The 70-item questionnaire study was administered online via SurveyMonkey.com. The instrument asked demographic questions, as reported above, as well as participants’ frequency of texting use, their perceptions of the appropriateness of text messaging in various social situations, and whether or not they have engaged in such. Because this study is concerned with the behavior of those who use text messaging, respondents were also asked, “About how many texts do you send/receive a day?” and “About how many times per hour do you check your phone for incoming text messages?” To analyze perceptions of the acceptability of text messaging in various social settings and circumstances, respondents were presented with 33 scenarios in which people text message each other and asked participants to rate the extent to which they found each situation socially acceptable. These scenarios were based largely on Harrison and Gilmore’s (2012) scenarios and categories of text messaging social occurrences. Participants gave ratings of each social situation on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 = very inappropriate, 2 = appropriate, 3 = neutral, 4 = appropriate, and 5 = very appropriate. Gender-neutral names, and no pronouns, were used to avoid the effects of sex role perceptions on ratings.
The next section of the instrument listed the same scenarios without actors’ names; participants were asked to indicate whether they had used text messages in each. For example, we asked “Have you used text messaging to flirt with someone” and “. . .to report to your family where/how you are?” Participants responded yes or no to these items, which were presented in a randomized versus categorical manner.
4. Results Results are presented in Fig. 1. Two participants (1.3%) indicated they send/receive no messages per day, and their data were excluded from further analysis. Of note, 34.3% of participants reported they send/receive 100 or more text messages per day. Further, responses indicate that participants check their phone for incoming text messages a mean of 15.9 times per hour (every 3.78 min) for texts, with a great degree of variability (SD = 24.5; range 1 to 200 times per hour).
4.1. Perceptions of social acceptability The new normal? Using one-sample t-tests, participants’ responses to each text messaging scenario were examined to determine whether they considered texting in the given social situation to be socially acceptable (significantly greater than a rating of 3 = neutral), and a Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons was used. Table 1 lists text messaging scenarios, reports mean ratings, and notes scenarios that meet the study’s criterion for social acceptability.
Fig. 1. Participants reported number of text messages sent/received per day.
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
191
Table 1 Participants’ (N = 150) perceived appropriateness of texting in social scenarios: mean responses, acceptability, and percentage who reported texting in each. Category and item
M
Rated as socially acceptable*
% Who said they have done this
Romance Quinn sent Jordan a text message saying, “I love you.”
4.15
.91
Yes t = 15.43, p < .001 Yes t = 14.45, p < .001 Yes t = 11.01, p < .001 Yes t = 6.09, p < .001
83.3
Taylor is sending romantic text messages to Casey.
4.01
.86
Jean is texting Kendall flirtatious text messages.
3.87
.97
Alex sent Sam a text message asking Sam out on a date.
3.53
.97
Staying connected Logan is sending a message to Logan’s family to check in on them.
4.24
.87
Yes t = 17.41, p < .001 Yes t = 15.12, p < .001 Yes t = 6.15, p < .001
93.3
Pat is sending a text message to Pat’s family to report where Pat is.
4.18
.96
Harper is sending a text message to Harper’s significant other to report where Harper is. Escaping the present Ashton is sending text messages while eating.
3.62
1.24
3.51
1.12
88.7
1.13 1.00 1.33 .95 1.01 1.18 .92 .92 .82
Yes t = 5.49, p = .000 Yes t = 5.36, p = .000 No No No No No No No No No
Lee is sending text messages while going to the bathroom.
3.48
1.10
Morgan is sending text messages during a movie Morgan paid to see. Quinn is texting during class. Shannon is texting while on an airplane during the flight. While Dee was supposed to be working, Dee sent text messages on the job. Terry is sending Erin text messages while Terry is drunk. Tracy is sending text messages while taking a shower. Erin is texting during the Pledge of Allegiance. Riley is texting during a religious service. Sam is sending text messages while having sex. Interpersonal breaches Jessie is on the phone with Casey when Jessie receives a text message from Quinn. Instead of hanging up the phone with Casey first, Jessie responds to Quinn’s text message while still talking on the phone. Jordan is sending text messages while talking in a hallway to Kendall. Jean is sending text messages to a friend while hanging out with Pat. Kendall is texting while feeding Kendall’s child. Taylor is texting at a restaurant while the waiter is writing down Taylor’s order. Alex is texting while on a date with someone else. Sam is texting while being examined at a doctor’s appointment. Logan is romantically interested in Harper. Logan is texting Harper while on a date with Morgan. Terry sent a break-up text to Lee. Skyler is sending text messages when Skyler is at a funeral. Tracy is cheating on Dee through text messages with Erin. Jessie is texting during a job interview. Maleficence Shannon is fighting with Ashton through text messages. Riley is sending insulting text messages to Skyler. Sexting Logan is sexting Pat. (Sexting is describing sexual intent or actions.) Jean is sending Harper text messages that contain sexually explicit material.
2.81 2.75 2.70 2.63 2.61 2.39 1.76 1.72 1.51
70.7 84.7 22.0 78.7 49.3 34.0 11.3 22.7 7.4
3.07
1.12
No
75.3
2.97 2.93 2.63 2.21 1.90 1.89 1.71
1.03 .97 1.11 1.08 .97 .89 .95
No No No No No No No
79.3 83.9 54.0 37.3 52.0 12.7 21.5
1.60 1.52 1.51 1.23
.98 .80 .84 .67
No No No No
26.0 10.1 15.1 2.7
2.77 1.95
1.01 .99
No No
66.0 38.3
2.43 2.31
1.15 1.10
No No
42.0 36.0
SD
79.3 90.0 49.3
94.9 87.3
83.3
Notes. Responses given on a Likert scale where 1 = very inappropriate, 2 = appropriate, 3 = neutral, 4 = appropriate, and 5 = very appropriate. * Indicates a mean value of significantly greater than 3 = neutral.
. . .But I do it anyway. Participants’ reports indicate the frequency they engage in text messaging in each scenario, and the response frequencies are shown in Table 1 as well. Of note, there is a strong, positive correlation between mean ratings of social acceptability of texting in various scenarios and the percentage of people who reported they had texted in those scenarios, r(32) = .88, p < .000. Texting while drunk: A by-product of legal age? A post-hoc analysis shows no statistical relationship between being under age 21 or over age 21 – the legal drinking age in the
US – and reports of whether or not one texted while drunk, 2 (N = 149) = 3.31, p = .069, although numerically a greater percentage of those 21 and older (66.7%) reported doing this compared to those under 21 (46.4%). 5. Discussion Texting is obviously a prevalent and important communication mode. The college students in this study report sending and receiving dozens – often hundreds – of text
192
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
messages every day, and they typically do not go more than four minutes without checking their phones for text messages. Indeed, people have at their fingertips the exciting opportunity to connect with someone else at any second (Carr, 2011), and receiving and sending texts can even be literally biologically stimulating in terms of sympathetic nervous system activity (Lin & Peper, 2009). With the opportunity for use, however, comes the opportunity for misuse. Harrison and Gilmore (2012) document that college-age individuals tend to use text messaging in situations that are seemingly socially inappropriate, such as while one is supposed to be working, while one is on a date, and while one is attending a religious service, or even in outright bizarre situations, such as while in the shower or while having sex. This raises the question, then: since younger individuals are more tolerant of texting (Pew Research Center, 2014), do they consider these actions to be socially appropriate, essentially creating a new normal etiquette, or do they think these activities are indeed social breaches but do it anyway? Results show a very strong, but not perfect, relationship between ratings of the acceptability of text messaging in various social situations and the proportion of people who said that they had actually texted in these situations. Since texting behavior is not completely explained by perceptions of social etiquette, it is interesting to consider when social etiquette would be maintained or breached. There is no formal set of rules for what constitutes etiquette; etiquette it is a set of community-established rules for proper conduct and decorum (Dictionary.com, 2014). When, then, does the young adult community think it proper to use text messaging? As expected, participants deem it socially acceptable to use texts for romance, and the overwhelming majority report using texts for the purpose of flirting and for conveying love and other romantic sentiments. One exception was using texting to ask someone out on a date; although college students agree this is socially acceptable, only about half say they have done this. A post-hoc analysis shows no sex differences in responses; therefore, sex roles are not likely a factor here. It may be the case that these young individuals – nearly three-quarters were 18 or 19 years old – have not had the opportunity to do this yet. Still, there are texting taboos with respect to romance and dating. Participants do not feel it is socially appropriate to break up with someone via a text message, use texts for infidelity, or text someone a romantic potential while on a date with someone else. The majority of participants did not engage in texting in these situations, although some did, with one out of four participants sending break-up texts, one out of five texting someone else they were interested in while on a date with another, and nearly one in six people using texting as a tool of infidelity. Also as expected, participants deem it socially acceptable to use text messages to stay connected to their families and their romantic partners. Almost all participants say they use texts to check on their families, report their location to their families, and report their location to their significant others, evincing the true benefits of this communication mode.
Still others believe it is socially appropriate in some circumstances to use texting to pass the time, and they use the technology in this manner. About 89% of participants report texting while eating, and about 83% said they have text messaged while going to the bathroom. Whereas some people may deem this odd, most college students agree that eating and toilet texts are the new normal. In the above, participants’ attitudes toward texting etiquette were, for the most part, congruent with their behaviors. However, there are instances of incongruence across texting categories, several scenarios in which people deem texting to be a social breach but have done it anyway. With respect to using texting to escape the present, participants report it is not socially acceptable to text during a movie they paid to see, but over 70% did it anyway. Also, participants deem it unacceptable to text while at work and supposed to be working, but three-quarters of the sample did it anyway. Further, participants agree that it is not socially acceptable to text during class, but more than eight out of ten students say they have done this. In these instances, participants are texting even when they know it is socially wrong and it does cause loss, such as distraction from entertainment one has paid for, or can cause loss, such as getting reprimanded or fired from work, or losing points or being dismissed from class. In addition, participants report that texting while drunk is socially appropriate, but half of participants say they did this. It is difficult to interpret this participants were not asked whether they consumed alcohol. There was no statistical relationship between being under or over the legal US drinking age and engaging in drunk texting, although numerically more participants of legal drinking age report doing so. The lack of statistical significance may be a product of a small sample of older individuals (n = 21). Further, most participants engaged in texting in seeming disregard of the people physically present – those with whom they were supposed to be interacting – even when they believe it is not the socially correct thing to do. College students do not think it is socially acceptable to text while one is on the phone with someone else, while talking with and hanging out with friends, while on a date, and while caring for a child. However, most participants text messaged in these situations anyway. It is of interest that people choose to commit interpersonal breaches and compromise being fully, interpersonally engaged with the important people around them by connecting with others in a faceless, often incomplete, impersonal mode, even when admitting this is not the right thing to do. Investigators may want to examine why texting technology can distract and therefore detract from in-person interactions. This does make sense, however, from an adaptive or evolutionary point of view, as ever-changing text messages command attention with flashes, colors, and sounds, yet people are able to habituate quickly to fellow humans present in the environment. Even babies prefer and will attend to moving, noisy, flashing objects versus stationery ones (Slater & Bremmer, 1989). Nonetheless, there are social circumstances in which participants say text messaging is not socially acceptable, and the majority did not engage in texting in these
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
conditions. However, some participants did. Respondents say it is not socially appropriate to text while in the shower, 34% did; during an airplane flight, 22% did; or while a server is trying to take your order in a restaurant, ∼37% did. In addition, ∼23% texted during a religious service; ∼11% during the Pledge of Allegiance (a nationally-known recitation of loyalty to the United States); ∼13% while being examined by a doctor; and ∼7% while having sex; participants ascribe even lower acceptability ratings to text messaging during these events. Even more taboo is texting while attending a funeral, although about 10% of participants did this anyway. Similarly, although texting during a job interview received one of the lowest acceptability ratings of any item in the instrument, about 3% of participants say they have done this. The participants rate fighting and insulting text messages to be socially inappropriate; however, most have fought with others using text, and more than a third insulted others via texting. Further, although deemed not socially appropriate, a 42% of participants used texts to convey sexual intent to another, and 36% sent sexually explicit texts. Interestingly, these are lower sexting percentages compared to the results of Harrison and Gilmore (2012) and as reported Kisler (2011). Sexting frequency may be decreasing. It is possible the younger generation has realized the interpersonal or even legal consequences that may come from such. Regardless, participants believe it is socially wrong, but many do it anyway. Some caution must be used to interpret this information, however, as it is not clear whether the texting itself is considered socially wrong or the fighting and sexual behavior is considered socially taboo. This study aimed to answer the question of whether or not younger texters are creating a new normal, transforming social etiquette into a world where ignoring current circumstances, situations, and people is acceptable. The findings indicate that college students’ perceptions of what is socially acceptable do not reflect a transformation—only a willingness to breach that which is considered acceptable. Perhaps this is due to the immediately rewarding properties of text messages (Mahatanankoon & O’Sullivan, 2008). Of course, when one anticipates a rewarding outcome from breaching social expectations, a willingness to breach is not limited to text messaging. Thirty years ago, even before text messaging existed, Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) warned that computermediated communication can be uninhibited, depersonalized, and immature. Evidence in the present study suggests their prophecy was correct. . .it certainly can be. Add to this list that it can be disrespectful, such as in the case of texting while on a job interview, in class, or while attending a funeral, and that at times texting behavior verges on the preposterous, such as texting while in the shower or having sex. For the most part, then, young texters sense a difference between right and wrong socially, but do not necessarily abide. This study examines the behavior of college students, a proxy for young people’s behavior. However, the sample included an unexpectedly wide age range (18 to 44 years), and it is possible that the attitudes of older individuals might differ from younger individuals with respect
193
to the social appropriateness of text messaging in various situations. There were only seven individuals age 25 and over in our sample, rendering between-group statistical comparison difficult. Making a Bonferroni correction to alpha for multiple comparisons, analyses showed that these two groups differ significantly only in their opinions of the acceptability of text messaging during class, with younger students (<25 years) (M = 2.83, SD = .95) considering this behavior to be far more acceptable than older students (M = 1.14, SD = .38), t(149) = 4.67, p < .001, d = 2.34. Nonetheless, as the aim was to study the behavior of college students, older students’ data was retained for analysis within the sample. However, to understand better the texting attitudes and behavior of the younger generation, it would be prudent to recruit a larger sample of older texters for comparison. Of course, it would also be interesting to study the attitudes of non-texters of the same age to determine if attitudes toward social acceptability of this mode of communication affected their decision to refrain from its use. 5.1. Limitations and conclusions There are limitations to this study. As with all self-report data, participants’ answers are dependent on memory and estimates, and they may reflect personal biases and social desirability (Hyde & DeLamater, 2011). For example, college students may have underreported or underrated the social acceptability of texting during class because they are taking the survey of a university research team and many university course syllabi expressly forbid texting during class. In addition, access to technology may skew the results. It is possible that individuals with unlimited text messaging may have different perceptions and experiences than those who are on restricted text plans. Further, the attitudes of this sample of college students may not generalize to non-college individuals, or even younger people, who may have different social expectations about texting. The data from college students also may not generalize to other geographic areas, countries, ethnicities, or socioeconomic statuses of the general population. Future studies may wish to collect community samples to explore this phenomenon. In sum, the data suggest that text messaging is not necessarily creating a new culture – a new normal – but it is conducive to allowing someone to believe they transcend social boundaries or that those social boundaries do not apply to them in the texting moment. References ABC News. (2012). Happy 20th birthday, text message, but you’re past your prime. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/happy20th-birthday-text-message-now-past-prime/story?id=17864096. Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 134–142. Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280–294. Carr, D. (2011). Keep your thumbs still when I’m talking to you. New York, NY: The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/04/17/fashion/17TEXT.html?pagewanted=all.
194
M.A. Harrison et al. / The Social Science Journal 52 (2015) 188–194
Chen, Y. F., & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 67, 179–191. Choney, S. (2010). NBC news: Campus alerts go beyond text messaging. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36566978/ns/ technology and science-security/t/campus-alerts-go-beyond-textmessaging/#.U9J1YmbD85s. Cohen, R. (2009). When texting is wrong. New York, NY: The New York times. Retrieved from http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/ when-texting-is-wrong/. Cole-Lewis, H., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management. Epidemiologic Reviews, 32(1), 56–69. Crosswhite, J. M., Rice, D., & Asay, S. M. (2014). Texting among United States young adults: An exploratory study on texting and its use within families. The Social Science Journal, 51, 70–78. CTIA-The Wireless Association. (2013). Wireless emergency alerts. CTIAThe Wireless Association,. Retrieved from http://www.ctia.org/yourwireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-emergency-alerts. Dictionary.com. (2014). Etiquette. Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/etiquette. Drouin, M., & Landgraff, C. (2012). Texting, sexting, and attachment in college students’ romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 444–449. Faulkner, X., & Culwin, F. (2005). When fingers do the talking: A study of text messaging. Interacting with Computers, 17, 167–185. Harrison, M. A., & Gilmore, A. L. (2012). U txt WHEN? College students’ social contexts of text messaging. The Social Science Journal, 49, 513–518. Harrison, M. A. (2011). College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1516–1520. Hosking, S. G., Young, K. L., & Regan, M. A. (2009). The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Human Factors, 51, 582–592. Hyde, J. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2011). Understanding human sexuality (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Igarashi, T., & Yoshida, T. (2003). The effect of the use of mobile phone text messages on freshmen’s loneliness during the transition to college. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 74(4), 379–385. Ishii, K. (2006). Implications of mobility: The uses of personal communication media in everyday life. Journal of Communication, 56, 346–365. ˜ J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationJin, B., & Pena, ships: Mobile phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23(1), 39–51. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Kisler, T. S. (2011). Sexting among college students [Television broadcast]. In NBC-10 WJAR nightly news. Providence, RI: WJAR. Lin, I. M., & Peper, E. (2009). Psychophysiological patterns during cell phone text messaging: A preliminary study. Applied Psychophysiological Biofeedback, 34, 53–57.
Ling, R. (2010). Texting as a life phase medium. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 15(2), 277–292. Lu, X., Katoh, T., Chen, Z., Nagata, T., & Kitamura, T. (2014). Text messaging: Are dependency and excessive use discretely different for Japanese university students? Psychiatry Research, 216(2), 255–262. Mahatanankoon, P., & O’Sullivan, P. (2008). Attitude toward mobile text messaging: An expectancy-based perspective. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13, 973–992. Pew Research Center. (2011). Americans and text messages. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/2011/09/19/americans-and-text-messaging/. Pew Research Center. (2012). Teens, smartphones, and texting. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/2012/03/19/teens-smartphones-texting/. Pew Research Center. (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/. Reid, D., & Reid, F. (2004 February). Insight into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging. Journal of the British Computer Society,. Retrieved from http://www.160characters.org/ documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf. Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. M. (2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent preferences for cell phone use. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(3), 424–435. Short, E., & McMurray, I. (2009). Mobile phone harassment: An exploration of student’s perceptions of intrusive texting behavior. Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 5(2), 163–180. Skierkowski, D., & Wood, R. M. (2012). To text or not to text? The importance of text messaging among college-aged youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 744–756. Slater, A., & Bremmer, G. (1989). Infant development. East Sussex, UK: Erlbaum. Smith, A., & Williams, K. D. (2004). R U there? Ostracism by cell phone text messages. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 291–301. Sultan, A. (2014). Addiction to mobile text messaging applications is nothing to “lol” about. The Social Science Journal, 51, 57–69. Thomee, S., Eklof, M., Gustafson, E., Nilsson, R., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults: An explorative prospective study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1300–1321. Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. In Discourse analysis online. Retrieved from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003paper.html. United Nations News Centre. (2013). Deputy UN chief calls for urgent action to tackle global sanitation crisis. United Nations News Centre. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=44452&Cr=sanitation&Cr1=#.U9ALKGOGePj.