A Student's Perspective:
Online Versus Face-to-Face
A Student's
Perspective: Online Versus Face-to-Face
Jasmyn
Thornton
Pacific Lutheran
University
Table
of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction....................................................................................................................................4
Literature Review ..........................................................................................................................4
Method ............................................................................................................................................6
Participants...........................................................................................................................6
Results..................................................................................................................................7
Figure 1 & Analysis .................................................................................................7
Figure 2 & Analysis .................................................................................................8
Application......................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................11
Discussion......................................................................................................................................11
References .....................................................................................................................................12
Abstract
A study was
conducted by surveying students
at Pacific Lutheran
University about their
preference to expressing
emotion
online or face-to-face with
an individual. The survey also
questioned why or
why not
they chose their preference.
Those
results were compared to other recent studies,
scholarly journals and a textbook taught
in
a Communication 101 course at Pacific Lutheran University. The purpose of
the study was to come to a conclusion of why or why not students today prefer
online or face-to-face communication. Due to the extreme differences in
research, it is
the
conclusion that humans are not completely satisfied with the
tools provided by either
form
of communication. The study also reveals that humans may have
preferences due
to selfishness and
self-fulfillment and that the impact of online and
face-to-face
communication
may
not have a significant difference.
Keywords: Social Networking,
Social Media, Nonverbal
Communication, Verbal
Communication, Communication, Theory
Introduction
For
the fast-paced human
race, face-to-face communication is not enough. Over the
last decade social media has become a
dominant source of
communication. It is
almost impossible to adequately function in society without it.
Most schools and businesses use
social networking to communicate
with
associates and market
to broader audiences. For obvious
reasons social networking is beneficial to
any organization
or company looking to globalize its brand.
Now that society is well acquainted with social media people
are
quick to point out its flaws.
Social
networking may not be efficient
enough
for
today's selfish world.
Literature Review
The
study required the research
of verbal
and nonverbal communication. It also required the research of
what
online and face-to-face communication entails. It
is needed
to understand
the aspects of communication to comprehend the conclusion
of the data. Using a textbook
taught at
Pacific Lutheran
University will help
to analyze the
data from a closer perspective. It will give
a better
understanding of what communication
is as stated by the
surveyed
students.
Nonverbal communication is defined as,
nonverbal behavior (actions
that people perform)
that has symbolic meaning (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin,
2013,
p. 158). Nonverbal behavior can consist
of waving, smiling or any form of gesture. Kinesics and Paralinguistics are
common
ways
one can recognize nonverbal
behavior (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin,
2013, p.163-165). Kinesics
is defined as,
nonverbal communication sent
by
the body, including
gestures, posture, movement, facial expressions and
eye behavior.
Paralinguistics are all aspects
of spoken language except
the
words themselves. Paralinguistics
include rate, volume, pitch and
stress. There are specific
nonverbal functions
that will help explain the reasoning of why specific
students chose one form
of communication over
the
other(Alberts, Nakayama
& Martin, 2013,
p.173-174). Nonverbal
behaviors are used to clarify verbal messages, regulate interaction, expressing attraction,
to exercise influence over others and
to signal close
involvement between
people in impersonal relationships and
contexts. Nonverbal
behavior
is an essential part of communication. Part of
this study is to
determine what
function students care about
the
most and what are the intentions of communicating one's emotions.
Verbal communication
is described as
the exchange of written
or oral words (Alberts, Nakayama & Martin,
2013). There are seven
main functions of communication that describe the roles
and reasons of why individuals communicate
with
one another (Alberts,
Nakayama & Martin, 2013, p.125). Instrumental is the function of using language to obtain
a want or desire. Regulatory is the use of language to
control the behaviors of
others. Informative is
to simply express
factual information.
Heuristic is to acquire knowledge. Interactional is
to establish relationships. Personal is
to express individuality and
imaginative is to express oneself
creatively. The functions of verbal communication
are
important in discovering the reason behind
the
preference of online or
face-to-face contact.
Face-to-face expression obviously entails verbal
and nonverbal communication. These
aspects may not
be completely obvious
in online communication.
Verbal communication on social networking sites
can
be expressed through a personal message. There are also
instant messaging options. The
social networking site Facebook specifically gives users
the options to post status updates
to one's newsfeed or timeline, or
to comment on those status
updates. The social networking site Twitter gives
its users the option of posting short status
updates called
'tweets' to a newsfeed also known as 'timeline.' Nonverbal
communication is not as
easy to identify on social networking sites but it
will be discussed in the Application. This background
information is essential
to understand the results of the
survey.
Method
Participants
The
study was executed by surveying 21 PLU students. The gender
and ages were randomly selected. No
demographics or psychographics were
analyzed
in the survey. There were no additional participants in
the study. Students were used to participate
in the study because
of the generational
relation to the usage of social
networking sites and
online communication.
Materials and Procedures
The
survey was quick
and asked the following questions:
Do you
feel
comfortable
expressing your
emotion on social
networking sites? Why or why not? Do you feel more comfortable expressing emotion on social
networking sites
than in person? Why or why not? The students were then asked to
write their
answers on a sheet of paper.
The answers were concealed. Because the
answers were concealed and
the survey did not
require additional information, the students
would remain anonymous. In order to properly organize the data, each
student response would be labeled with
a letter A through
U.
Results
Figure 1: Do you feel comfortable
expressing your emotion on social
networking sites? Why or
why
not?
Question 1, Answer: No
|
|
Question 1, Answer: Yes
|
||
Why or why not?
|
Student
|
Why or why not?
|
Student
|
|
Judgment/ Personal
Attacks
|
A, D, M, T
|
Only If
Appropriate
|
B, C, F, H, K
|
|
No Privacy
|
G, L, P, Q, S
|
Time to Think Before
Posting
|
E
|
|
Not Personal
|
J, U
|
If Site Is Private
|
I, O
|
|
Mis-communication
|
Q
|
Natural
|
N
|
|
Pointless
|
S
|
Convenient
|
R
|
Analysis A:
Table
1 shows that the majority of the students surveyed
do not feel comfortable expressing emotion
on social networking sites
because of the lack
of privacy and possibility of
judgment and personal
attacks.
Of the students who do feel comfortable expressing emotion online, 50% of
students say it is
okay
to do so if done appropriately. There is
a drastic change in the students that feel
comfortable communicating online on Table
2. Even though they give justifiable reasons for why it is
acceptable to express
emotion online, they believe the
impact of face-to-face communication
is greater than
that on social networking sites.
Figure 2: Do you feel more comfortable
expressing emotion
on social networking sites
than in
person? Why or
why not?
Question 2, Answer: No (In Person)
|
|
Question 2, Answer: Yes
|
||
Why or why not?
|
Student
|
Why or why not?
|
Student
|
|
Judgment/ Personal
Attacks
|
J
|
Only If
Appropriate
|
|
|
Privacy
|
C, D, P, T
|
Time to Think
Before Posting
|
|
|
More Personal
|
G, H, K, L, M, N ,S, U
|
If Site Is Private
|
I
|
|
Mis-communication
|
A, C
|
Natural
|
|
|
Well-adjusted
|
B
|
Convenient
|
I
|
|
More Enjoyable
|
N
|
|
||
Quickness
of Response
|
Q, S
|
|||
Visual Verification of
Emotions
|
E, O, Q, R
|
|||
More Genuine
|
F,
R
|
Analysis B:
Table
2 shows that only Student I feels
more comfortable
sharing emotions
on social networking sites
as long as the site is
private. Student I also
likes the convenience of
social
networking sites. Of
the students who prefer face-to-face contact
when expressing
emotions,
40%
of students say that face-to-face communication is
more personal. Students
S, Q and R's reasoning may be closely related,
as
all three students
gave more than one reason. Students
S, Q and R have reasons that are related
based
on the synchronization of the
data. This shows the quickness of response and the need
for visual verification of
emotions is a strong tie to whether or not
the
students feel like the information they receive
is personal or genuine.
Application
The
following researched journals
give
examples
of social networking and online communication and
show the differences in the way individuals must send and
receive messages.
Verbal and nonverbal background
knowledge was applied to these studies
to gain a better
understanding of intentions. Each article and
study
conducted reaped
different
results, however
the results are comparable to the initial data.
A study from Malaysia
concluded
in results similar to those gathered
in the PLU survey (Maesin,
Mansor,
Nayan, Osman
& Shafle,
2011). The studies
suggested that the students were confident their preferred social
networking site provided adequate protection
regarding their
personal relationships
but not information related to
lifestyle. This is
parallel to the PLU survey
data as the majority of
students
did not feel comfortable
expressing their emotion online
because of the lack of privacy.
The
study in Malaysia
provided data
tables that show what
privacy concerns the students had regarding their preferred social networking sites. The data shows
71% of students are more concerned about
the
privacy of information
lifestyle related on their profile via photos and blogs
(2011, p.159).
A study performed in the Netherlands tested 81 individuals
and randomly assigned
them to three experimental conditions: face-to-face communication, visual
computer-mediated communication
(CMC) with a webcam,
and text-only CMC. It concluded that individuals
feel uncertainty in
the
absence of nonverbal cues although
the individuals made a "greater
proportion of affection
statements than
face-to-face interactants"
(Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg &Peter,
2013, p.757). As stated before, it may be more difficult for one to identify nonverbal
cues
through text-based communication, especially with
the absence of emoticons.
Through the Netherlands' study,
it is shown that people substitute nonverbal cues for
other sources
of
information. Antheunis claims
"although some CMC applications,
such as email, are predominantly text based, other
environments offer
self-descriptions,
photos, and wall postings that may all be used to passively observe social
information, which may help
to form impressions" (2011,
p.759). This is
the most common way individuals form impressions
based
on social networking sites.
Next to the lack of privacy, nearly 40% of
PLU students said they did not feel comfortable expressing their emotion on social
networking sites
because
of the possibility of
judgment
and personal attacks. This is
interesting because commonly online, an
individual will judge the connotation
of one's words by the
profile
associated with the blogger.
Also, only 20% of students
in the PLU study preferred visual
verification
of reactions. Although
individuals may form
a general
impression
of the person they are communicating
with, in the issue of
uncertainty individuals
will make more affectionate
statements and communicate
more informatively and
heuristically.
Experience shows
there are communication challenges online
and that social media can
be used to harass, annoy, threaten and
intimidate other online users.
Studies show in a 300 student survey 1
out of 5 students experience miscommunication
in social networking sites
with relationships (Clipson, DuFrene & Wilson, 2012). Comparing the 20% with
the data in the PLU survey, not very many students are concerned with
misconstrued messages. This
may
be contradictory of the reasoning that face-to-face confiding is more personal
or genuine.
In another
recent study,
data
shows students are comfortable showing support and
expressing emotion on social
networking sites from other users
from the perspective of
homophily and attraction (Wright,
2012). This means individuals
feel comfortable expressing
emotion
and supporting other online users through
social and physical attraction. The study examined
the results of 283 respondents who assessed
statements to other individuals
regarding
specific traits.
The coefficiency of
the respondents to their social
network partners
was
71%
similarity,
81%
in physical
attractiveness
and 75% homophily, and emotional support
was 85%.
Conclusion
Ultimately,
there are differences
between
social networking and
face-to-face
communication,
but the impact between the two is not significant. From the
research provided
one may conclude the reason more students prefer face-to-face contact
rather than
text based is because of self-fulfillment. With
text
based
communication one is forced to
use language of
informational and
heuristic purposes. Through
face-to-face communication
one does not need to ask
the receiver questions.
Most students prefer instantaneous feedback from
others and feel they
have more control over the content
of the conversation.
Discussion
Changes
in the PLU study could have helped to strengthen
the theory.
The questions should have been tailored
to be more specific.
This paper has opened
up possibilities to deeper
research
about the differences between
face-to-face and online communication.
References
Alberts, J. K., Nakayama,
T. K. & Martin, J.
N. (2013). Human communication
in society.
Boston,
MA: Pearson Learning
Solutions.
Antheunis, M. J., Schouten,
A. P., Valkenburg, P.
M. & Peter, J.
(2012), Interactive uncertainty reduction
strategies and verbal affection
in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 39 (6), 757-780.
Clipson,
T. W., DuFrene, D.D. &
Wilson, S. A. (2012), The
social networking arena: Battle of the sexes. Business
Communication Quarterly,
75 (1), 64-67.
Maesin,
A., Mansor, M., Nayan,
S., Osman, N. & Shafie, L. A. (2011). Privacy, trust and social network sites of university students in Malaysia.
Research Journal of International Studies, 20.
154-162.
Wright, K. B. (2012),
Emotion
support and perceive stress
among
college students
using facebook.com: An
exploration
of the relationship between
source perceptions and
emotional
support. Communication Research Papers, 29 (3), 174-184.