1

Grayson S. Phillips

James Madison University

SCOM 383: Experimental Research Methods 

Dr. Jennie Rosier

April 28th, 2021

 
 2

Introduction

         The new normal in our everyday lives revolves around humans moving their hands from

our pockets to our face, about 7-10 inches away, holding a metal technological device that

connects us to the entire world with just a few clicks and swipes. “With their continual growth,

mobile phones have found their way into almost all aspects of everyday life, from our sleep

hygiene (e.g., the Sleepbot app) and dietary habits (e.g., the MyFitnessPal app) to our

entertainment choices (e.g., mobile gaming, videos, and social media) and work practices (e.g.,

email, calendar apps). Today, it is estimated that 46% of all Americans check their phones at

least 25 times per day (Deloitte 2017) with the average user spending approximately 3 h and 45

min daily on mobile phone use” (Sciandra, Inman & Stephen, 2019, p. 574).

Our communication skills as humans have been restructured and altered through the use of

technology. Humans devote so much time to looking at screens and communicating with these

small metal boxes that it’s easy to forget what human interaction can do on a daily level. As of

March 23rd, 2020, there was a major jump in video and calling communication by upwards of

40% (Wakabayashi, Nicas & Lohr, 2020). In person, human interaction is becoming less

common, and certainly with the recent year as the pandemic was a major surge throughout all of

the tech world. When the pandemic hit our country, we said goodbye to a massive amount of

face-to-face interaction. “The most obvious changes are that most of us now have less face-to-

face, in-person interaction with others, and when we are face to face, we are wearing masks…

we have less interaction overall with people outside of the people we live with, and we spend

more time on Zoom, Skype and other mediated platforms.” (Taunton 2020, p.1). Levine (2020)

argues that while social distancing is the best solution for right now, it is “not healthy long term”
 3

to keep up this practice of social isolation. The purpose of this study is to see how people

respond to communication through face-to-face or over technology.

Review of Literature

Interpersonal Communication

         Interpersonal communication is the first step of realizing how important human

interaction is and how it helps us navigate our options in life. However, with technology, this

area has been clouded and the norm is not so normal anymore. “The line between face-to-face

and electronically mediated communication (EMC) has become increasingly blurred as we text,

email, and Skype with our friends and share the latest news and views via Facebook, MySpace,

LinkedIn, Twitter, and blogs.” (Beebe, Redmond, Geerinck & Salem-Wiseman 2015, p.13). The

question that needs answering is how do we figure out the correct amount of face-to-face

interaction a human needs, and the limit at which they should connect with others through

technology.

With more time passing each day our youth is being trained to communicate with their peers

through any social media platform other than face-to-face. The perception for this younger

generation is to use technology for anything you can think of that will make your life easier to

just sit back and relax. A subdivision of interpersonal skills is stereotyping, a generalization you

have about a group of people. It could be said that this younger generation has made a new

stereotype of technology, and if you’re not involved then you’re disconnected from society. This

then encourages anyone without technology to find a way inside the circle to feel a sense of

belonging and comfortability. In reality, it should be groups of people in person that share ideas

and converse face-to-face about everyday topics. The perception for this younger generation
 4

should be that dealing with interactions in-person will make you more confident and leave your

message for others to share and explore themselves.

Smartphone Addiction

         Humans naturally become addicted to items in our life with multiple uses back to back

we can form habits in days. Since the start of cell phones & advanced/computer technology, our

culture has unanimously held the value really high for cell phones and this has trickled down to

the younger generation. In fact, “Young found 58% of students suffered from poor study habits,

poor grades, or failed school due to excessive internet use. Increasingly, college administrators

are recognizing that they have put all this money in an educational tool that can easily be

abused” (Young 2004, p. 408).

 We have put this insane tool in the hands of our youth and a majority of them abuse the power

and instead of it being beneficial it has become harmful. Park (2005), explains how no one has

looked into the negative views of cell phones specifically. “With the proliferation of mobile

phone use, not a single study has dealt with the possible negative consequences of mobile phone

use despite the fact that there is some evidence that mobile phone use can have negative effects.

Some of the popularized negative consequences of mobile phone use include dangers of driving

while on the mobile phone and harmful effects of radiation emitted from the mobile phone itself”

(Sandstrom et al., 2001). However, these reported ill-effects of mobile phone use result from

either the medium’s machinery itself (e.g. radiation, heat) or ill-coordination of physical

movement” (Park 2005). The younger generation is growing up with technology that can really

be dangerous and detrimental to mental health and even physical health. Our face-to-face

interaction is being depleted by one device that is changing our world forever.

Rationale
 5

         The purpose of this study is to see how technological devices, specifically smartphones

and some cases computers, are affecting the choices of humans when it comes to having to

interact with one another face-to face, and not over a phone/device. “We take for granted the

centrality of face-to-face interaction for individuals and society. In Goldschmidt’s (1972) words,

“Social interaction is the very stuff of human life. The individuals of all societies move through

life in terms of a continuous series of social interactions. It is in the context of such social

encounters that the individual expresses the significant elements of his/her culture whether they

are matters of economics, social status, personal values, self-image, or religious belief” (Duncan

& Fiske 2015).  We need social interaction to be human, but smartphones and computers are

making that very difficult to keep around. Our words need validity and humans need to keep

confidence when interacting with one another, but that is all disappearing. According to

Lengacher (1997) 0% of thirteen year olds in his study owned a mobile device. By 2001, 90% of

teens owned some sort of communication device. This way of life is so new, that humans all took

off and ran with the idea, that there should be studies on how phones have affected the ways of

human interaction.

H1: Individuals who prefer human interaction when communicating will have more confidence

in themselves than individuals who prefer technological communication.

This hypothesis is directed to find out what the person is like behind the mask of technological

communication and to investigate what humans are finding normal now behavior wise.

H2: Individuals who prefer human interaction when communicating will be more influential with

their message than individuals who prefer technological communication.

Method
 6

To examine our first hypothesis, the independent variable was type of communication

from the participant 1) through face to face, or 2) through technology. The dependent variables

were perception of being influenced and perception of confidence.

Participants

Participants were recruited from a large Mid-Atlantic university who were enrolled in

communication studies courses.    The study was offered to over 4,000 students via the

department’s online recruitment system, SONA. The full range of students in these courses in

terms of sex/race/ethnicity/national origin were recruited for participation. However, only

students who were 18 years or older were eligible to participate.

Our actual study consisted of 350 undergraduate students. Approximately 243 were female and

107 were male and their ages ranged from 19 to 31 with an average age of 21.

Procedure

         Once participants were at their designated location, they were told the purpose of the

study was to see how face-to-face vs technological communication are linked to the perceptions

of being confident or influential. Since we had a large sample size we asked participants if they

felt willing to keep continuing in the study. Participants were provided with an information sheet

regarding the rest of the layout for the experiment.

Manipulations and Measurements

         The study used a 5 point Likert scale to score what we wanted to find out from

participants. The scales are set to measure perception of confidence and influence. All three

hundred and fifty participants will fill out and complete the five questions regarding perception

of confidence and influence.

 7

Our first dependent variable, perception of being influenced, was measured via the Likert

scale which had five questions with answer choices ranging from, 1 being strongly disagree, and

5 being strongly agreed. The questions will highlight whether participants are influential or not.

         The second dependent variable, perception of confidence, was measured also via the

Likert scale ranging from 1) strongly disagree, to 5) strongly agree. This will hopefully let us see

who has more influence over others.

Results

Methods of Analysis

For hypothesis 1, the independent variable was individuals who prefer human interaction when

communicating and the dependent variable was individuals will have more confidence. For

hypothesis 2, the independent variable was individuals who prefer human interaction when

communicating and the dependent variable was individuals will be more influential. For both of

the hypotheses, we chose a t-Test because the independent variable was nominal with two levels

and the dependent variable was interval/ratio.

Findings

         Hypothesis one, it was predicted that individuals who prefer human interaction when

communicating will have more confidence in themselves than individuals who prefer

technological communication. The results from the t-Test showed that individuals who

communicate through face to face (M = _3.7217) have/are more confidence than __individuals

who communicate through technology (M = 2.9183), t (78) = 3.917, p < .05, Cohen’s d =.018.

These findings revealed an insignificant difference between the levels of our independent

variable groups on our dependent variable, with a small effect size. Thus, the results support our

hypothesis.
 8

Hypothesis two, for hypothesis 2, it was predicted that individuals who prefer human interaction

when communicating will be more influential with their message than individuals who prefer

technological communication. The results from the t-Test showed that human

interaction/communication (M = 4.8783) are more influential than individuals who prefer

technological communication (M =4.0317), t (65) = 3.917, p > .05, Cohen’s d = .02. These

findings revealed a significant difference between the levels of our independent variable groups

on our dependent variable, with a small effect size. Thus, the results do not support our

hypothesis.

Discussion

The goals of this study were to examine human communication via face-to-face or over

technology to see how confident and influential an individual is based on their preferred ways of

communication. This was based off of a literature review and two hypotheses’.

Discussion of results

         After conducting the t-test for this experiment, it was discovered that our first hypothesis

had no significant difference and small effect size, while hypothesis number two had significant

differences and a small effect size.

         Previous literature (i.e. Beebe, Redmond, Geerinck & Salem-Wiseman 2015, p.13) was

on the correct path for examining how individuals have lost touch with how we’re actually

supposed to be communicating, but they didn’t go as far as adding in emotions displayed by

individuals. There is a blurred line where we don’t know whether to ask someone to lunch or just

give them a call on the phone. Individuals who prefer to speak with other individuals in person

hold a higher confidence level of themselves. While the literature doesn’t explicitly say humans

are more confident in themselves when speaking face-to-face, the hypothesis was supported.
 9

         Hypothesis two was not supported by the t-test, but could end up being an experimental

design or experimenter flaw. Previous literature from (Duncan & Fiske 2015) explained how

social interaction is the one thing that makes us human. Being able to be in person

communicating with other individuals will have way more of an impact on you than rather than

technological communication. So, while hypothesis number two was rejected, there is hope

another researcher will be able to take our work and try another route to support our hypothesis.

Strengths and Weaknesses

         The individual strengths of this experiment include a very simple methods section which

includes 5 questions for each hypothesis that can quickly determine how individuals think of

themselves as either confident or influential. It also gives certain situations where they have to

think about their reactions in the specific scenario.

         The study itself was quite simple putting it into a t-test to see the end results. Lining up

all the numbers and information was a smooth transition for the methods section. The design at

first took many tries to finalize the hypothesis, but once the correct wording was found the

design was very easy to carry out. Having gained experience from writing a previous research

paper helped move the experiment along without many setbacks or having to change routes. The

experiment itself is looking at something that’s only been around for a short time, yet has

overtaken our daily lives. This was a strength on its own, looking at a problem that could be

potentially huge down the road and deciding to research it now will only help prevent the

potential downfall of no human communication.

         The weaknesses of this design were minimal in numbers, but larger in the full scheme.

Our second hypothesis was not supported by our research and literature review. Our variances

had a significant difference and the means had no statistical significant difference with a small
 10

effect size. While the potential research we discovered could be wrong, most likely it has to deal

with a research design flaw, or researcher flaw. The potential t-test for our second hypothesis

could be where the problem lies.

         Specifically relating to the two hypotheses, there was not a lot of information on

individuals being confident or influential based on their amount of face-to-face interaction

compared to technological interaction. It was tough to find specific quotes that could really give

a strong point on the hypothesis, but this topic will be important in the years to come as our

human interaction is depleting.

Implications

         The reason this study was conducted was simply to the fact of what the literature review

covered. Technology has made such an impact in individuals daily lives and while most people

see it as positive, a group views it as negative. Our human interaction, not involving screens, is

very minimal and with recent events such as COVID-19 the screen interaction has only risen. We

found support for our first hypothesis with individuals who communicate without technology are

more confident than those who communicate via technology. However, our hypothesis

supporting how influential one individual can be was not supported, but hopefully left a

guideline for another researcher to pick up where this experiment left off. If we better understand

that face-to-face communication is much better than technology communication, then our overall

community grows in a positive direction.

Future Research

         Future research should conduct this exact experiment again to see if the experimental

design was executed properly. If the same findings come back then, hopefully this research will

give a rough outline to furthermore see how individual traits correspond with how one
 11

communicates daily. This topic is new and not much previous research has been done so

hopefully in the coming years there will be much more on technological communication and its

downfalls.

Conclusion.

         Overall this research design and experiment was executed as planned and completed in a

timely manner. This design will help communication lay the ground work for human vs.

technological communication. There are many potential experiments designs one could build off

of this design, but hopefully it will continue to follow this specific topic. This topic should not be

ignored for future research design and if anything should be the first steps to many more great

discoveries surrounding communications.

 
 12

References

Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (2020). Interpersonal communication: Relating to

others (6th Canadian ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Dale, R., Fusaroli, R., Duran, N. D., & Richardson, D. C. (2013). The Self-Organization of

Human Interaction. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43–95.

https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407187-2.00002-2

DUNCAN, S. T. A. R. K. E. Y. (2017). Face-To-Face Interaction: research, methods, and

theory. ROUTLEDGE.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media. The

Information Society, 18(5), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108195

Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication.

Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press.

Kaveri Subrahmanyam, & Patricia Greenfield. (2008). Online Communication and Adolescent

Relationships. The Future of Children, 18(1), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006

Lengacher, L. (2015). Mobile technology: Its effect on face-to-face communication and

interpersonal interaction. Retrieved March 07, 2021, from

https://kon.org/urc/v14/lengacher.html

Park. (2019). Internet and Mobile Phone Addiction. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03897-

605-9

 Passman, S. (2013). Scientific and Technological Communication. Burlington: Elsevier Science.

 13

Sciandra, M. R., Inman, J. J., & Stephen, A. T. (2019). Smart phones, bad calls? The influence of

consumer mobile phone use, distraction, and phone dependence on adherence to shopping

plans. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 574–594.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00647-9

Waldron, V. R., & Applegate, J. L. (1998). Person‐centered tactics during verbal disagreements:

Effects on student perceptions of persuasiveness and social attraction. Communication

Education, 47(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529809379110

 Young, K. (2004). Internet addiction: A new CLINICAL phenomenon and its consequences -

KIMBERLY s. Young, 2004. Retrieved March 07, 2021.

 
 14

Appendix A

Perception of Confidence

1) I need you to go pick up the pizza I just ordered for dinner can you go get it?

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

2) My boss wanted to know if you could come give a quick 2-minute elevator speech

to him…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

3) The basketball coach asked someone to put up the final shot of the game, and you

see this as your opportunity…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

4) The person you’ve had a crush on for months just walks into the bar and you

decide to make a move…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

5) The Jersey Mikes put onions all on your sub after you specifically told them not

too… you decide you’re going to ask them to make you another sandwich.

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

 
 15

Appendix B

Perception of influence.

1) I need someone to go and deliver a casual speech to a crowd who is moderately

interested in a new product…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

2) Your teacher asks a question in class, you’re the first person to shoot your hand

up…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

3) You’re in a conversation and you hear something being said incorrectly and burst

out to correct the group ...

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

4) You were the underage kid who was getting others to “drink” and be “cool” …

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree

5) You enjoy taking over a conversation when it isn’t something that interests you…

1-Strongly Disagree      2-Disagree  3-Not sure   4-Agree       5-Strongly Agree