A Student's Perspective: Online Versus Face-to-Face

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.