Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications...
-
Upload
allie-furze -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications...
![Page 1: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Relational Communication Preferences Across Three
Generations
Nancy Cheever, Communications Department
L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department
Larry Rosen, Psychology Department
California State University, Dominguez Hills
![Page 2: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
Technological advances
have increased the use of
e-mail, text messaging,
and instant messaging,
especially among the
younger generations.
![Page 3: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
Americans spend
more time on the computer
and using new modes of
communication than they
do using traditional forms of
media and engaging in
other daily tasks
![Page 4: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction
Scholars agree that traditional forms of communication—face to face and telephone—are rapidly declining among young people
![Page 5: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Introduction
Have face to face
and other
synchronous
communication
modes become a
thing of the past?
Are there generational differences?
![Page 6: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Introduction
How do the
preferred modes
change based
on levels of
depression and
shyness?
![Page 7: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Purpose
• This study examines the preferred
communication methods and relational
differences among three generations
• Looks at how these differences relate to
levels of depression and shyness
![Page 8: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Three Generations
– Net Generation Born 1980-1999
– Generation X Born 1965-
1979
– Baby Boomers Born 1946-1964
![Page 9: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Method“Please indicate your preferred way of communicating
with each person listed below:”
– Parents
– Children
– Best friend
– Good friend
– Acquaintance
– Significant other
– Brother/sister
– Other relatives
– Teacher or boss
– Doctor/dentist
– Someone asking for help
with school or work
– Cousins
– Make a date
– Break a date
– Break up with someone
![Page 10: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Method
• Measured shyness levels (online and F2F)
– Self-reported
– “When I communicate face to face I am”
– “When I communicate online in am”• From very shy to very outgoing
• Measured depression levels
– “I frequently feed sad or depressed”• Strongly agree to strongly disagree
![Page 11: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Communication with SIGNIFICANT OTHER
Chi-square 87.08, p < .001
![Page 12: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Communication with CHILDREN
Chi-square 23.78, p < .01
*Net Generation removed
![Page 13: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Communication with PARENTS
Chi-square 92.93, p < .001
![Page 14: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Communication with BEST FRIEND
Chi-square 99.70, p < .001
![Page 15: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Communication with GOOD FRIEND
Chi-square 158.43, p < .001
![Page 16: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Communication with ACQUAINTANCE
Chi-square 288.47; p < .001
![Page 17: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Communication with DOCTOR/DENTIST
Chi-square 43.73; p < .001
![Page 18: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Communication with TEACHER/BOSS
Chi-square 46.96, p < .001
![Page 19: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Communication with MAKE A DATE
Chi-square 85.63, p < .001
![Page 20: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Chi-square 86.80, p < .001
Communication with BREAK A DATE
![Page 21: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
SOMEONE ASKING FOR SCHOOL/WORK HELP
Chi-square 193.27, p < .001
![Page 22: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by
SHYNESS LEVEL IN PERSON
__________________________________________________________
Relation In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Significant other**
Shy 76% 14% 10%
Outgoing 83% 12% 5%
Children*
Shy 76% 21% 3%
Outgoing 85% 13% 3%
Best friend**
Shy 61% 24% 16%
Outgoing 65% 25% 10%
*p < .05; **p < .01
![Page 23: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by
SHYNESS LEVEL IN PERSON
__________________________________________________________
Activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Make a date*
Shy 37% 47% 17%
Outgoing 40% 50% 11%
Break a date*
Shy 25% 50% 26%
Outgoing 28% 55% 16%
Break up with someone**
Shy 64% 20% 14%
Outgoing 78% 14% 6%
*p < .05; **p < .01
![Page 24: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by
SHYNESS LEVEL ONLINE
__________________________________________________________
Relation In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acquaintance**
Shy 29% 40% 32%
Outgoing 21% 26% 54%
Teacher or boss**
Shy 49% 27% 24%
Outgoing 54% 13% 32%
*p < .05; **p < .01
![Page 25: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by
SHYNESS LEVEL ONLINE
__________________________________________________________Activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Break a date**
Shy 25% 63% 9%
Outgoing 26% 53% 21%
Break up with someone*
Shy 60% 30% 8%
Outgoing 75% 15% 8%
Someone asking for help with work or school**
Shy 41% 30% 27%
Outgoing 33% 32% 35%
**p < .01
![Page 26: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by
DEPRESSION LEVEL
__________________________________________________________Relation/activity In person Phone Technology (IM, E-mail, Text)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Make a date**
Depressed 42% 47% 11%
Not depressed 30% 53% 17%
Relatives*
Depressed 54% 39% 5%
Not depressed 46% 47% 5%
*p < .05; **p < .01
![Page 27: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by GENDER __________________________________________________________
Relation In person Phone IM Text E-mail________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acquaintance**
Male 28% 31% 8% 17% 17%
Female 20% 27% 8% 21% 24%
Cousins**
Male 48% 34% 2% 7% 7%
Female 39% 35% 4% 8% 13%
Good friend**
Male 53% 31% 3% 9% 5%
Female 43% 32% 5% 13% 7%
Relatives*
Male 56% 36% 1% 2% 3%
Female 49% 44% 1% 0% 4%*p < .05; **p < .01
![Page 28: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Preferred communication methods by GENDER
__________________________________________________________
Activity In person Phone IM Text E-mail________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Make a date**
Male 28% 31% 8% 17% 17%
Female 20% 27% 8% 21% 24%
Break a date**
Male 34% 50% 1% 11% 3%
Female 23% 55% 3% 16% 4%
**p < .01
![Page 29: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
No. 1 Preferred method of communication N=1,319__________________________________________________________
Relation/activity No. 1 preference (%) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Significant other In person (71%)
Parents In person (67%)
Brother/sister In person (58%)
Best friend In person (56%)
Break up with someone In person (56%)
Teacher/boss In person (51%)
Doctor/dentist Telephone (48%)
Good friend In person (46%)
Relatives In person (44%)
Break/make a date Telephone (43%/40%)
Acquaintance Telephone (25%)
![Page 30: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Discussion
• In general, the No. 1 preferred method of communication is in person
• In general, people would prefer to communicate either in person or on the telephone
• The use of e-mail, text, and instant messaging is not the most preferred method of communication in any category
![Page 31: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Discussion• As the relationship presumably gains more distance, the
preferred method of communication becomes more
technological
• As age categories increase, preference for face-to-face
communication decreases in almost all categories
• Baby Boomers prefer e-mail more than any other
generation (very few use instant messaging)
• Net generation prefers face to face more than any other
generation
![Page 32: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Discussion
• No panic about technology “stealing” children away from synchronous communication modes
• Older adults may be too busy to use face-to-face communication methods
![Page 33: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Discussion
• Asked their preferred method of communication NOT how they typically communicate
• People may prefer to communicate in person, but cannot because of their busy lives
• Technology makes it easier for people to stay connected
![Page 34: Relational Communication Preferences Across Three Generations Nancy Cheever, Communications Department L. Mark Carrier, Psychology Department Larry Rosen,](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062511/5518ba5b550346991f8b52f8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Thank You