Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?

7/27/2019 Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?

1/15

Reality Check: Discovering Human Identity in a Digital World

Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?

University of Asia and the Pacific (Pasig City, Philippines):

Instructor: Mr. Robert Cortes

Lecturer, English Department

University of Asia and the Pacific

[email protected] ; +639291311485

Lanz Andre Oliveros

3rd Year School of Sciences and Engineering student

University of Asia and the [email protected]; +639065088242

Joseph Michael Arbilo2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences studentUniversity of Asia and the Pacific

[email protected]: +639158112738

William Charles Galvez

2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences student


[email protected]; +639278484023

Jose Miguel Marasigan




Joseph Mari Mundo

2nd Year School of Communication student



Joseph Andrew Ticzon




Jose Fernando Gonzales

1st Year School of Sciences and Engineering studentUniversity of Asia and the Pacific


Paper presented at the

UNIV Asia Forum 5th University Congress

Manila, January 2013 (1st Prize Winner)


2/15

ABSTRACTThe last few decades have seen an accumulation of literature and the formation of a generalopinion that declares that technology has a generally negative effect on human relationships.

Specifically, the affirmation goes that the more technology advances, the more mediated

interpersonal communication becomes, the less face-to-face communication occurs, andultimately, the less personal human relationships become. However, Jevonss ComplementarityCorollary (named after the English economist William Stanley Jevons who formulated a related

theory) that is being used as a theoretical framework of this study, states that "improvements ininformation technology can lead to more face-to- face contact, thus affirming the exact opposite.

Using a survey, the researchers determined the validity of Jevonss Complementarity Corollaryamong students of eight major university campuses in Metro Manila based on their experience of

mediated interpersonal communication in relation to face- to-face communication. The studysresults affirm that present-day Filipino youth still value face-to-face communication more than

mediated interpersonal communication, although the latter has become an almost-necessarysupplement to the former. Through the results, the study hopes to contribute to the ongoing

conversation regarding the actual effects of technology on human relationships.

INTRODUCTIONFor years, there has been a fear that an increase in technological development would result in

people directly interacting with each other less.1

This fear may be due to the way technologychanges the content of interactions

2, meaning that as technology progresses, communication

between human beings would become more and more impersonal. This idea was expounded byMark Federman when he explained Marshal McLuhans medium-is-the-message concept. He

proposed that what McLuhan was trying to say was that the consequences of any medium ...result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by

any new technology. 3There has also been a perception, seemingly evident since the 1970s, that technologicaldevelopment has made human activities run in an overly accelerated pace, as well as made

human contact less and less authentic. As a consequence of this, there has risen a fear that peopleinteracting face-to-face with one another may become a worn-out process. According to Dr.

Marike Finlay-de Monchy, New communications technology, by threatening to usurp the placeof many face-to-face transactions, such as shopping, and by interposing a new language (other

than everyday language) between participants is indeed an increasingly ubiquitous mediator.4

This claim is related to what theorists feared during the proliferation and popularization of

computers in the late 1970s that computer-mediated communication would lead to impersonal,task-oriented relationships. 51

Fischer, C.S.. "Personal Calls, Personal Meanings." InAmerica Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia - Berkeley, 1992. 222-254.2 Freedman, Vicki, Emily Agree, Linda Martin, and Jennifer Cornman. "Trends in the Use of Assistive Technology and Personal Care for Late-

Life Disability, 1992-2001." Gerontologist46, no. 1 (2006): 124-127.3 Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message? ." University of Toronto.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm (accessed December 12, 2012).4

Finlay, Marike. "How Much Can A Computer Move?." InPowermatics: a discursive critique of new communications technology. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. 125 - 126.5

Jablin, Fredric M.. "Information Technologies." InHandbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury

Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987. 420 - 443.


3/15

What these fears and perceptions seem to show is that computer-mediated communication, alsoknown as Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC), is reaching the same level of

effectiveness, efficiency, and importance in the life of human beings as Face-to-FaceCommunication (FFC). FFC, or direct interpersonal communication, according to George

Rodman

6

, refers to individuals interacting face-to-face, the oldest form of direct, one-to-onecommunication. On the other hand, MIC is another type of one-to-one communication brought

by technological development. Essentially, it is the sharing of personal messages through aninterposed device.

7Is MIC in fact as effective already as FFC? Certain theories recognize the difficulties involved

with the use of MIC. 8 Feng-Chia Li, Chad Lin, and Ying-Chieh Liu synthesized eleven MICstudies since 1994 and suggested that MIC allows the person to be prone to higher conflict and

difficulties and having lower satisfaction.9

Nevertheless, the Media Naturalness Perspective10

argues that many of the troubles people face with MIC come from their difficulties in adapting to

the technologies they deal with. If time is given for people to adapt to technology, MIC can be atpar with FFC. One study claims that when motivated, people can overcome reduced cues by

taking advantage of other features of the technology used to communicate. 11In fact, MIC can prove to be more efficient than FFC. Prashant Bordia mentions that when there

is limited time, computer-mediated groups do better than face-to-face groups on tasks with less,and on tasks requiring more, social-emotional interaction.

12The Media Synchronicity Theory

13

points out that the benefits involved in modern technology, for some purposes, prove to be moreefficient than FFC. Essentially, it says that with FFC, only one person can talk at a time, while

some technologies make it possible for many persons to talk simultaneously; with FFC,dominant speakers get to have more time to speak, while with MIC, everyone has an equalchance to speak.

14However, certain studies exist which claim that Face-to-Face communication (FFC) is betterthan Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC). With FFC, it is easier to achieve mind-

reading, which involves being able to decipher what a person is thinking through his words andactions.

15FFC makes it easier to transmit messages, particularly those involving attitudes and

emotions. Such messages require non-verbal and paraverbal cues, which are the other aspects

6

Rodman, George. "Introduction." InMass Media In A Changing World. 2005. Reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 10 - 11.7

Ibid.8

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?"

Journal of Planning Literature 25, no. 2 (2010): 111-122.9 Liu, Ying-Chieh, Chad Lin, and Feng-Chia Li. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Comparison of ExperimentalLiterature." Global Electronic Business Research Center.

iceb.nccu.edu.tw/proceedings/APDSI/2005/SessionIndex/Innovative%20Education/Innovative%20Education-02.pdf (accessed December 31,

2012).10

Kock, N. "Evolution and media naturalness: A look at e-communication through a Darwinian theoretical lens."Proceedings of the 23rd

International Conference on Information Systems 1 (2002): 373 - 382.11

Walther, Joseph. "Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction." Communication Research 19, no. 1 (1992): 52-90.12 Bordia, Prashant. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature."Journal of Business

Communication 34, no. 1 (1997): 99-118.13 Dennis, Ar, and Js Valacich. "Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity." System Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32.

Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on 1 (1999): 1017.14

Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on teamprocesses and outcomes in dyadic planning."International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 5 (2009): 411-423.15

Singer, Tania. "The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research."

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6 (2006): 855-863.


4/15

of messages aside from the words themselves, such as the tone and pitch of voice, and eyecontact. 16 These cues cannot be expressed with MIC.The Media Richness Theory by Daft and Lengel

17affirms the last idea just mentioned, even

going further to say that FFC is the richest among all the communication media because of the

many cues it invokes.

18

19

20

21

The theory presents that the richness of the medium depends onthe degree of emotional, normative, or attitudinal cues present.22

23

Also, according to thetheory, the lowest in the range of richness is electronic communication such as e-mail and

computer documents.24

After more than 40 years, the concern of having less face-to-face communication as a

consequence of or as an accompaniment to the development of technology continues today, asmore recent studies have shown. With the rise of the digital natives

25and the increasing

attachment of people to technology26

the immediacy of access that technological developmentbrings to human beings is now giving more basis for this fear. According to John Stankey in

IBMs The Changing Face of Communication, communications overall is shifting from point-

to-point to many- to-many in order to socialize and enjoy an experience more deeply.

27

Thismeans that today, communication patterns are changing from a more direct interpersonalcommunication to Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) apparently in order to become

more collaborative, i.e. to be augmented with links, videos, photos, and other multimediacontent that substantially enrich the communications experience.

28Amidst this long-standing, almost half-a-century concern, though, one theorist rose as a voice

crying in the wilderness (Jn. 1:23). He is Harvard economist Edward Glaeser29

- and hismessage? MIC does not only not compete with FFC; it even complements it. He calls his

proposition Jevonss Complementarity Corollary in honor of British economist and logician,William Stanley Jevons.As early as two centuries ago, William Stanley Jevons formulated a theory for the steam engineindustry. Jevons stated that the consumption of coal is increased with the efficiency brought

16 Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?."17 Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design."Research in

Organizational Behavior 6 (1984): 191 - 233.18

Ibid.19

Montoya, Mitzi, Anne Massey, Yu-Ting Hung, and Brad Crisp. "Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product DevelopmentTeams."Journal of Product Innovation Management26, no. 2 (2009): 139-155.20

Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on teamprocesses and outcomes in dyadic planning."21 Warkentin, Merrill E., Lutfus Sayeed, and Ross Hightower. "Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based

Conference System."Decision Sciences 28, no. 4 (1997). http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/730/paper/doe1.pdf (accessed January 6, 2013).22 Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design."23

Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team

processes and outcomes in dyadic planning."24

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?."25 "What's Your Box?."McCann Inter-generation Study 1 (2006): 2.26 Richtel, Matt. "Your Brain on Computers - Attached to Technology and Paying a Price - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking

News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3& (accessed November

1, 2012).27

Lozinski, Zygmunt, Ekow Nelson, and Rob van den Dam. "The Changing Face of Communication."IBM Global Business Services 1 (2008): 6.28

Ibid.29

Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener,

healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 38.


5/15

about by the technological advances of the steam engine.30

Jevons Paradox, as it later came tobe known, stated that as technology progresses there will be an increase in the use of resources in

a given time with an increase in the rate of the consumption. Glaeser, in his book entitledTriumph of the City, applied Jevonss Paradox to technological development in

communication:Jevonss Complementarity Corollary, which follows naturally from Jevonss paradox,

predicts that improvements in information technology can lead to more demand for face-to-face contact, because face time complements time spent communicating

electronically.31

As if agreeing with Glaesers affirmation, Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus, in his message for the43rd World Communications Day, the theme of which was New Technologies, New

Relationships: Promoting a culture of Respect, Dialogue, and Friendship, hints that MIC shouldcomplement FFC.

32He said that the desire for connectedness and the instinct for

communication that are so obvious in contemporary culture are best understood as modernmanifestations of the basic and enduring propensity of humans to reach beyond themselves and

to seek communion with others. He further stated that men should never trivialize the conceptor the experience of friendship. It would be sad if our desire to sustain and develop on-line

friendships were to be at the cost of our availability to engage with our families, our neighboursand those we meet in daily reality...This idea that Jevonss Complementarity Corollary suggests, which is that MediatedInterpersonal Communication (MIC) complements Face-to-Face Communication (FFC), along

with the ideas of Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus about man and his desire to be in communionwith others had the researchers asking whether in fact the conflict between technology andhuman relationships is more apparent than real. Does Jevonss Complementarity Corollary

suggest the authentic connection between MIC and FFC? How true is it at least in the case for

the youth of Metro Manila who the researchers believe are representative of present-day Filipinoyouth in general?

The researchers felt that these questions are important since they think it is high time that a more

realistic assessment of technology vis--vis human relationships is affirmed, especially in this erawhen technology is already an unstoppable and ubiquitous presence. It is hoped that the results

of this study may point towards that more realistic assessment which will, in turn, enable thepresent-day Filipino youth to treat technology appropriately. Lastly, the researchers hope that the

results may give a clue as to how MIC relates to FFC among other youth from the rest of theworld.

30 Jevons, William Stanley. The Coal Question. S.l.: Macmillan, 1866.31

Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener,

healthier, and happier.32

Ratzinger, Joseph. "Message for the 43rd World Communications Day, Benedict XVI." Vatican: the Holy See.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communications-

day_en.html (accessed November 14, 2012).


6/15

METHODOLOGYIn order to find out whether Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) does in factcomplement Face-to-Face Communication (FFC), the researchers conducted a survey among

students from various universities, namely: University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P),

University of Santo Tomas (UST), Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), De La SalleUniversity (DLSU), University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD), University of the PhilippinesManila (UPM), Miriam College (MC) and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM). The

researchers chose to focus on university students because, aside from UNIV being aninternational congress for university students, they are the ones most exposed to advancing

technologies. Indeed, they are part of Generations Y & Z, which according to Schroer aretechnology wise and Internet savvy, much more than the generations before them.33Students from majority of the mentioned institutions, namely UA&P, ADMU, UST, DLSU, andPLM, were given hard copies of the survey, while students from both campuses of the University

of the Philippines were surveyed online due to time constraints. The survey ran from November

28, 2012 to December 28, 2012. The survey questions can be viewed in the Appendix.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe survey questionnaires were given to students of eight major university campuses in Metro

Manila, namely: University of Asia and the Pacific, University of Santo Tomas, Ateneo deManila University, De La Salle University, University of the Philippines Diliman, University of

the Philippines Manila, Miriam College, and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. There were374 respondents of whom 38% were male and 61% were female. The ages of the respondents

ranged from 16 to 23 years old, which belongs to the 2 most digitally native age brackets: 15to 19, the digital natives of Generation Z

34, and 20 to 24. The small turnaround (of completed

survey questionnaires, vis-a-vis the number of universities surveyed) is due mainly to timeconstraints; the duration of the survey was from November 28 to December 28, 2012. Complete

demographic information & all graphs are found in http://univcharts2013.wordpress.com.The survey consisted of questions related to the relationship between Mediated InterpersonalCommunication (MIC) and Face-to-Face Communication (FFC) in the respondents carrying out

of everyday activities. In one of the first questions, the respondents were asked to rank someactivities that they do using their digital devices according to how important they are to them.

The graph below (Fig. 1) shows the survey results:

33

Schroer, William J.. "Generations X,Y, Z and the Others...Social Librarian Newsletter - WJ Schroer Company." WJ Schroer Company.http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm (accessed December 26, 2012).34

Ibid.


7/15

Figure 1. Average ranking of activities that students do using their digital devices according to importance

The following is an explanation of Figure 1. The average ranking for each activity was computedin order to determine its priority in the respondents day-to-day human contact. Specifically, all

the rankings attributed to every activity by each respondent were added and then divided by thenumber of respondents. The activity with the smallest weighted average, i.e. the activity closest

to 1.0 is the most prioritized.The graph shows that among the activities that students do using their digital devicescommunication comes as the most prioritized activity, that is, communication is, for university

students, the most important purpose of digital devices. Leisure activities were least prioritized,and thus are seen to be of lesser importance as compared to communication.To gauge which type of communication (whether FFC or MIC) is more dominantly used by

university students, they were asked to what extent they employ their digital devices ascompared to face-to-face communication in some academic / professional, spiritual and social

activities and . The results are in the graph (Fig. 2) below:

Figure 2. Extent of Usage of FFC and MIC in different activities The results show that majority of the respondents use FFC either more than or equal to MIC inmost of the activities. FFC more than MIC ranked highest in five (5) activities: interacting with


8/15

family (59%), interacting with friends (51%), holding meetings (44%), engaging in any games &sports related activity (36%), and attending social gatherings (35%). It also placed second in four

(4) other activities: organizing meetings (32%), inviting to spiritual activities (25%), attending(or engaging in) spiritual activities (26%), and to buy and sell goods and services (28%). These

results hint that even with the technological advancements in communication, MIC still has not

overtaken FFC in human interaction. FFC only even became the top option in attendingspiritual activities with 33% of the respondents. This can be attributed mainly to the fact that,while communication aided by devices has been proven beneficial to human life, direct personal

(face-to-face) interaction is still indispensable in fulfilling everyday activities.Seeing that technology has taken over many functions formerly done by human beings

35, the

researchers asked the respondents whether FFC was still important and relevant to them despiteadvancing technologies. According to the survey results below (Fig. 3), FFC is still necessary to

university students (i.e. cannot be done without) in fulfilling some everyday activities.

Figure 3. University students belief on the necessity of Face-to-Face to do everyday activitiesThe results of organize meetings (43% SA, 44% A), hold meetings (62% SA, 30% A), interact

with family (77% SA, 20% A), interact with friends (69% SA, 27% A), organize/invite to socialgatherings (32% SA, 49% A), attend social gatherings (60% SA, 35% A), and invite to spiritual

activities (38% SA, 43% A) clearly show that majority of the university students agree orstrongly agree that FFC is necessary in their activities.

However, the results below (Fig. 4) also show that university students believed in the necessity

of digital devices in fulfilling some everyday activities.

35

Kantor, Andrew. "Don't let technology rob you of the fruits of doing things the hard way - USATODAY.com." USA TODAY: Latest Worldand US News - USATODAY.com. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-06-21-math-writing_N.htm (accessed

February 20, 2013).


9/15

Figure 4. University students belief on the necessity of Digital devices to do different everyday activities in

percentageThe survey also sought to find out which form of communication the respondents deemed more

proper (i.e. more appropriate regardless of any consideration) to use for the most common humaninteractions (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. University students perception on which means of communication is more proper to use in differenteveryday activities

In all situations, FFC ranked first as the means of communication the respondents deemed the

most proper to use. According to the survey, the main reason students deem FFC the mostappropriate means is that they generally thought FFC conveys a better sense of sincerity, as

compared to MIC. Following this reasoning, MIC ranked as least preferred in all. These resultsshow that face-to-face contact is valued as the best means of expression as far as everyday

human contact is concerned. This is because, as results show, there is a general sense that therewould be less room for misunderstanding when talking to someone face to face. Some

respondents implied in their answers that since bodily gestures and eye contact are also involved,it would be easier to read someones emotions/disposition when the other person is physically


10/15

present, and this more accurate reading of reactions in turn leads to better understanding of themessage and its importance.Finally, the researchers wanted to know if there were any differences or gaps between whatmeans the respondents deemed as most proper (which could be only theoretical) and what means

they actually used in practice for the same day-to-day activities mentioned above (Fig. 6).

1 = You use FFC only in the following situations.2 = You use MIC also BUT you use FFC MORE in the following situations.

3 = You use FFC and MIC equally in the following situations. 4 = You use FFC also BUT you use MIC MORE in the following situations.

5 = You use MIC only in the following situations. Figure 6. Means of communication that university students actually use in different everyday activities

In five (5) out of ten (10) situations, namely: greeting/congratulating, sharing good news,requesting favors, commanding, and reminding, majority of the students answered that they use

FFC and MIC equally. In four other situations, namely: apologizing, thanking, breaking badnews, and reprimanding, majority said they would also use MIC but use FFC more. In sharing

intimate things, on the other hand, majority said they would use FFC only. Interestingly enough,FFC only averaged as the third highest preference in actual practice whereas, in theory (see

Figure 5) it is deemed as the most proper medium for all day-to-day activities. There thus seems to be a disparity between theory and practice as far as FFC is concerned. Put

another way, whereas most students think that FFC is the more proper medium to use in thementioned day-to-day activities, it is actually hardly used exclusively in these activities - why is

this so? If students think that the more proper medium to be used is FFC why not use itexclusively instead of using it in tandem with MIC in varying degrees, which is more often the

case?

The clue to the answers to the questions above is provided by the type of activities in which FFCis not exclusively used. These activities can be grouped into two. The first group could be termed

indifferent as these are activities that prioritize immediacy over direct personal interaction in


11/15

their fulfillment, i.e. its more important to get the message through sooner regardless of whetherone does it face-to-face or not; direct personal contact is a mere bonus. Included under this group

are actions such as greeting/congratulating, thanking, sharing good news, requesting favors,commanding, and reminding. The reason for not using FFC exclusively in these is that the

immediate fulfillment of the activity rather than the personal touch put into it seems to be the

more important consideration. Since one cannot always get to a person physically immediatelywhile access to digital devices is quite easy, MIC then proves to be of great help in carrying outwhat are perceived to be urgent. This means that MIC was made to complement FFC.

The second group could be termed inconvenient as these activities, because of their verypersonal nature, would have been more properly addressed through FFC, but because of the

inconvenience they pose to both or all parties, press people to use MIC as a crutch. Under thisgroup are actions such as apologizing, thanking, breaking bad news, and reprimanding. The

explanation to the non-exclusive use of FFC in these activities is quite different from theprevious group. A survey published by Gallup in November 2012 shows that Filipinos are the

most emotional group of people in the world.36

This emotionalism is one possible explanation to

a Filipinos preference for delivering a message through an interposed device, i.e. MIC.Moreover, Philippine culture is dominated by certain values that highlight their regard for othersopinions about them, i.e. hiya (sense of shame) and amor propio (self-respect), which cause them

to steer clear of conflict and grudges being held against them.37

Nevertheless, what is quite clearly shown in the survey is that on the whole, FFC is still thepreferred medium more than MIC in actual practice, even if it may not be exclusively used. This

result is in agreement with other results in this study that affirm the respondents preference forFFC because it better captures the clarity of words, tone of voice, bodily gestures, facial

expressions, and each partys sincerity than MIC.

At the end of the survey, 96% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that FFC is

more important than MIC. On the other hand 26% either agreed or strongly agreed that MIC ismore important. The fact that 96% and 26% do not add up to 100% can be explained by thepossibility that some respondents had other considerations when answering these questions that

the researchers did not consider beforehand or that some were simply careless when answeringthe question. In any case, the difference between 96% and 26% is still huge enough to convey

the message that a great majority of the respondents do think that FFC is more important MIC.The next results show something more puzzling. While 88% believed that it is MIC that

complements (stimulates/enhances) FFC, the same percentage also believed the exact opposite -that it is FFC that complements MIC. Assuming that the respondents answered the survey

seriously, as the rest of the survey seems to show, one possible explanation for this perplexing

result might be the fact that this generation of students (Generations Y and Z) are already so usedto technology that they cannot seem to distinguish which complements which.

3836 Clifton, Jon. " Singapore Ranks as Least Emotional Country in the World." Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Polit ics,Economy, Wellbeing, and World. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158882/singapore-ranks-least-emotional-country-world.aspx#2 (accessed February

20, 2013).37

Bloom, Greg. "The Culture." InPhilippines. 10th ed. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet, 2009. 40.38

Bellman, Chris, and Gita Pupedis. "Shove over Gen Y: Gen Z is almost here ." SURVEYING & SPATIAL SCIENCES BIENNIALCONFERENCE 2011 1 (2011): 333 - 334. http:/ /www.sssc2011.com/assets/Papers/Reviewed/PUPEDISGitaBELLMANChrisShove-over-Gen-

YGen-Z-is-almost-here.pdf (accessed February 20, 2013).


12/15

Nevertheless, despite the seeming confusion about which medium complements which, takinginto consideration the results of the entire survey, the study clearly shows that students consider

FFC as the more important medium, and MIC serves as a much-used, if not necessary,supplement to FFC.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe study suggests that for Filipino university students, Face-to-Face Communication is stillmore important than Mediated Interpersonal Communication. This means that although it is

widely perceived that MIC is the preferred mode of communication for members of GenerationsY and Z, the reality seems to be the opposite: present-day Filipino youth still need and value FFC

more than MIC. The results of the study show that they believe that it is more appropriate to useFFC in most situations and it is notable that majority of them still prefer to use FFC in the

different activities of human contact given. They also agreed that FFC is more necessary andproper in fulfilling day-to-day activities than MIC.The study further found that FFC is seen as the more valued method because of its ability totransmit messages with more sincerity and authenticity. This sincerity is achieved throughcertain elements of tone and pitch of voice, bodily gestures and facial expressions that are only

present in FFC as Rhoads similarly affirmed.39

In addition, this means is favored when theactivities have a strong affective component (e.g. sharing intimate things), even though certain

other considerations provoke people to use MIC as a support.However, although FFC is perceived as more significant, the study also noted the importance ofMIC for students in fulfilling their ordinary daily activities. In fact, most of them do not

completely depend on FFC but also use MIC in varying degrees, depending on the givencircumstance. One of the results showed that many of the respondents use FFC as frequently as

MIC in some of the provided situations. This finding indicates that MIC is now seen as animportant, even indispensable, tool in communication. As one of the respondents stated, MIC

works to aid FFC especially during emergencies and for convenience. In the end, however,Face-to-Face Communication stands as the irreplaceable means of human communication as far

as this study shows. Furthermore, MIC complements FFC and helps to develop more socialinteraction and understanding among people.The study suggests that in the case of Filipino university students, the fear of technologicaldevelopment taking over Face-to-Face Communication may not be necessary at all, and this will

not come about in the near future. Nevertheless, if despite that affirmation, some continue to fear,perhaps they need only consider one simple means that can be used with regard to Mediated

Interpersonal Communication in order to ensure that this baseless fear will not come about: thevirtue of temperance.

39

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?."


13/15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bellman, Chris, and Gita Pupedis. "Shove over Gen Y: Gen Z is almost here ." SURVEYING &

SPATIAL SCIENCES BIENNIAL CONFERENCE 2011 1 (2011): 333 - 334.

http://www.sssc2011.com/assets/Papers/Reviewed/PUPEDISGitaBELLMANChrisShove-over-Gen-YGen-Z-is-almost-here.pdf (accessed February 20, 2013).

Bloom, Greg. "The Culture." InPhilippines. 10th ed. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet, 2009. 40.

Bordia, Prashant. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of theExperimental Literature."Journal of Business Communication 34, no. 1 (1997): 99-118.

Brenner, Susan W.. "Law and Consumer Technology." InLaw in an era of "smart" technology.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 95.

Clifton, Jon. " Singapore Ranks as Least Emotional Country in the World." Gallup.Com -Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158882/singapore-ranks-least-emotional-country-world.aspx#2 (accessed February 20, 2013).

Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and

organizational design."Research in Organizational Behavior 6 (1984): 191 - 233.

Dennis, Ar, and Js Valacich. "Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of mediasynchronicity." System Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual

Hawaii International Conference on 1 (1999): 1017.

Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message? ." University of Toronto.http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm (accessed

December 12, 2012).

Finlay, Marike. "How Much Can A Computer Move?." InPowermatics: a discursive critique ofnew communications technology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. 125 - 126.

Fischer, C.S.. "Personal Calls, Personal Meanings." InAmerica Calling: A Social History of the

Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California - Berkeley, 1992. 222-254.

Freedman, Vicki, Emily Agree, Linda Martin, and Jennifer Cornman. "Trends in the Use ofAssistive Technology and Personal Care for Late-Life Disability, 1992-2001."

Gerontologist46, no. 1 (2006): 124-127.

Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how ourgreatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York:

Penguin Press, 2011. 38.


14/15

Jablin, Fredric M.. "Information Technologies." InHandbook of organizational communication:an interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987. 420 -

443.

Jevons, William Stanley. The Coal Question. S.l.: Macmillan, 1866.

Kantor, Andrew. "Don't let technology rob you of the fruits of doing things the hard way -USATODAY.com." USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-06-21-math-writing_N.htm (accessed February 20, 2013).

Kiesler, Sara, Jane A. L. Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. "American Psychologist." In Social

psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie-Mellon University, Committee on Social Science Research in Computing, 1984. 39;

1123-1134.

Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of timepressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic

planning."International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 5 (2009): 411-423.

Kock, N. "Evolution and media naturalness: A look at e-communication through a Darwiniantheoretical lens."Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information

Systems 1 (2002): 373 - 382.

Lawley, Elizabeth Lane. "Lawley--Bourdieu Paper." ITCS: Internet Training & ConsultingServices. http://www.itcs.com/elawley/bourdieu.html (accessed November 20, 2012).

Liu, Ying-Chieh, Chad Lin, and Feng-Chia Li. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-MediatedCommunication: A Comparison of Experimental Literature." Global Electronic BusinessResearch Center.

iceb.nccu.edu.tw/proceedings/APDSI/2005/SessionIndex/Innovative%20Education/Innovative%20Education-02.pdf (accessed December 31, 2012).

Loomis, K. "Art With a Needle: Internet friends 1." Art With a Needle.

http://artwithaneedle.blogspot.com/2011/09/internet-friends-1.html (accessed September11, 2012).

Lozinski, Zygmunt, Ekow Nelson, and Rob van den Dam. "The Changing Face of

Communication."IBM Global Business Services 1 (2008): 6.

Montoya, Mitzi, Anne Massey, Yu-Ting Hung, and Brad Crisp. "Can You Hear Me Now?Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams."Journal of Product Innovation

Management26, no. 2 (2009): 139-155.

Ratzinger, Joseph. "Message for the 43rd World Communications Day, Benedict XVI." Vatican:the Holy See.


15/15

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communications-day_en.html (accessed

November 14, 2012).

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell

Us and What Have We Learned so Far?."Journal of Planning Literature 25, no. 2(2010): 111-122.

Richtel, Matt. "Your Brain on Computers - Attached to Technology and Paying a Price -NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&(accessed November 1, 2012).

Rodman, George. "Introduction." InMass Media In A Changing World. 2005. Reprint, New

York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 10 - 11.

Schroer, William J.. "Generations X,Y, Z and the Others...Social Librarian Newsletter - WJSchroer Company." WJ Schroer Company.

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm (accessedDecember 26, 2012).

Settersten, Richard A.. "Diversity and Family Relations in an Aging Society." InHandbook of

sociology of aging. New York: Springer Verlag, 2011. 137.

Singer, Tania. "The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review ofliterature and implications for future research."Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

30, no. 6 (2006): 855-863.

Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler. "Management Science." InReducing social context cues:Electronic mail in organizational communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986.

32; 1492-1512.

Walther, Joseph. "Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction." CommunicationResearch 19, no. 1 (1992): 52-90.

Warkentin, Merrill E., Lutfus Sayeed, and Ross Hightower. "Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face

Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System."Decision Sciences28, no. 4 (1997). http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/730/paper/doe1.pdf (accessed

January 6, 2013).

"What's Your Box?."McCann Inter-generation Study 1 (2006): 2.

Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?

Documents

Transcript of Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?