By Guest Author Elizabeth Worlein
As a busy woman, a girlfriend in a long-distance relationship, and friend that is hard to reach by phone, I have wondered how my use of technology impacts my relationships. What does my use of e-mail say about my relationships with my friends, my romantic partner, and my family?
Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, and Wigley attempt to answer this question in a recent study. Two hundred and twenty-six college students submitted their personal e-mail messages that they received in one week. The researchers examined how the e-mails maintained the students’ relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. The researchers also examined how relationships were maintained between people that were geographically close, and those that were long-distance. Researchers observed five main behaviors people exhibited to maintain their relationships in the three types of relationships:
Family:
- Openness (sharing your experience, feelings, etc.)
- Social Networks (references to events, school, or other relationships)
- Positivity (e.g. “Have a great day!”)
- Assurances (e.g. “I love you.”)
- Joint Activities (e.g. “See you Monday!”)
Friends:
- Openness
- Social Networks
- Positivity
- Joint Activities
- Miscellaneous (Sign-offs, emoticons, etc.)
Romantic Partners:
- Assurances
- Openness
- Positivity
- Social Networks
- Referring to cards, letters, or calls
This study illustrates that through the use of e-mail, we can continue to maintain our relationships when we are not face-to-face. What we communicate over e-mail, such as assurances or positivity, is similar to what we use to maintain our relationships when we are face-to-face with the person. The results indicate that our interactions over e-mail are not very different if we are near to or far away from the person.
What does this study’s finding say about our relationships? Perhaps what we are communicating illustrates what we value in that relationship. For example, we may maintain friendships and family relationships to talk about our everyday experiences. For our romantic partners, we seek to communicate the importance of our relationship through assurances and openness. From all of these relationships, we are seeking positivity and openness, among many other values. Nothing radical happening on e-mail compared to any other venue–just another venue upon which to share the human condition.
Johnson, A., Haigh, M., Becker, J., Craig, E., & Wigley, S. (2008). College Students’ Use of Relational Management Strategies in Email in Long-Distance and Geographically Close Relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381-404.
Burleson’s research suggests that these four factors lead to different levels of satisfactory support. He finds that the amount of cognitive processing or thought a person applies to support messages is related to how useful that solace is evaluated as. The research also suggests that one’s ability to process the message and motivation to do so vastly changes the perceived effectiveness. People who are increasingly upset have more motivation to process support (and thus apply more cognitive processing). Additionally, people who are better able to process support messages benefit more from them. He found that in all of these situations supportive communication was taken more positively, and was reported to have a greater effect. There is a tipping point, in that people that who are extremely upset have a diminished ability to process supportive communication, and less likely to regard it as useful or positive.
As any Oprah watcher can tell you, texting while driving is a problem. We can make it illegal (it is in a majority of States), but that doesn’t necessarily eliminate what to many still seems like an innocuous act. A coinciding approach involves looking at the reasons people engage in the behavior, and engaging motivations by starting with intentions. Nemme and White took this approach, a variation of the Theory of Planned Behavior, in their study of 17-24 year-old Australian students.