Perceptions of Mobile Instant Messaging Apps Are ... - SAGE Journals

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting

1235

Perceptions of Mobile Instant Messaging Apps Are Comparable to Texting for Young Adults in the United States Shannon K.T. Bailey, Bradford L. Schroeder, Daphne E. Whitmer, & Valerie K. Sims University of Central Florida In recent years, text messaging (“texting”) has become the dominant method of communication for young adults. This prevalence of texting has led to research exploring the beneficial and detrimental behaviors associated with texting, indicating wide-ranging social and human factors implications. As texting continues to take precedence over other forms of communication and research begins to address texting behaviors, the question arises about whether people use other mobile instant messaging applications (“IM apps”) similarly. The current study expands on the research of texting behaviors by asking how similarly young adults view apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) to texting. Results indicated that young adults in the United States use texting more frequently than text-based apps, but that these apps are viewed similarly to texting. The implication is that research addressing texting behaviors may apply to other forms of text-based communication; however, texting remains the most prominent mode of communication, justifying its own continued examination.

Copyright 2016 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931213601288

INTRODUCTION Text messaging (“texting”) is widely used in the United States by young adults (approximately 18-24 years). Over the past ten years, texting has become the preferred form of communication over face-to-face talking, email, or phone conversation in this demographic (Harley, Winn, Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007; Haste, 2005; Lister, 2010; Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010; Smith, Rainie, McGeeney, Keeter, & Duggan, 2015). Because texting forms the basis of young adult communication, researchers have begun to identify texting behaviors as well as individual differences that may predict whether a person engages in problematic texting behaviors (e.g., texting… while driving, while in a meeting, while in a face-to-face conversation, etc.). For example, individuals who are more prone to sensation seeking are more likely to engage in unsafe behaviors, such as using a cell phone while driving (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013; Schroeder & Sims, 2014). Problematic texting behaviors also have been predicted by an individual’s characteristics. Those who have a lower need for cognition are more likely to text during social situations such as while having a face-to-face conversation with someone else (Bailey, Schroeder, & Sims, 2015). There is a growing area of research on understanding texting behaviors as they impact safety and social situations (Schroeder & Sims, 2014), yet texting is not the only form of text-based mobile communication. A response to the recent research on texting behaviors is whether these findings can be applied to other forms of mobile text-based communication, such as instant messaging applications (“IM apps”). IM apps are functionally similar to texting in that they allow relatively short text communication between people on mobile devices. If IM apps are used with frequency and in a similar manner to texting, research regarding texting behaviors may apply to an even greater number of communication platforms as mobile internet use continues to increase internationally (OFCOM, 2015). Currently, research is sparse on how similarly texting and IM apps are perceived and used. Adding to this literature will

increase our understanding about mobile text-based communications and can benefit future research. How does texting differ from IM apps? Texting (Short Messaging Service, or SMS) is integrated into the phone and is frequently part of the cell phone plan (OFCOM, 2015), whereas IM apps are often separately downloaded third-party programs accessed through mobile internet. One benefit of IM apps for text-based communication is that they are usually free to download and can be accessed without a cell phone plan if wireless internet is proximally available, so cost is a factor influencing IM app use (Church & de Oliveira, 2013). The increased use of apps may also be due to convenience because several IM apps permit users to sync and access their messages across multiple devices (e.g., mobile phone, tablet, computer), which standard SMS texting does not allow. IM apps also may allow for different functions not available in text messaging, such as sending videos that may only be viewed for a short duration and are then deleted (e.g., Snapchat). Although there has been recent speculation about the longevity of texting in the midst of increasingly popular IM apps (Gerpott, 2015), texting remains a dominant form of communication in the United States for young adults (Smith et al., 2015). Much of the research on IM apps is from other countries that differ in texting and mobile internet usage (Church & de Oliveira, 2013; Gerpott, 2015; OFCOM, 2015), so it is unclear how these apps compare to texting in the United States. The current study aims to address these questions about IM app use and perception compared to texting in a young adult sample from the U.S. THE CURRENT RESEARCH The Current Study To determine the applicability of research on texting behaviors to text-based mobile instant messaging apps, the current study investigates to what degree people use IM apps in comparison and concurrence with texting, and whether these forms of communication differ in frequency of use. Additionally, the current study expands on the research of

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting

texting behaviors by asking how similarly people view IM apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) to text messaging. The objective of this study is to provide information about how young adults use mobile instant messaging apps in addition to text messaging. Research on texting behaviors has yet to address how similarly people use apps to communicate. Further, this study will address the extent to which IM apps and texting are related.

1236

Escapist Texting – Texting to withdraw from social interaction or new experiences, (3) Distracted Texting – Texting to distract oneself from the current environment or task, (4) Audacious Texting – Texting with disregard for social norms that may be perceived as aggressive or disrespectful, (5) Nurtured Communication Texting – Texting that fosters relationships through kind or thoughtful behaviors, (6) Driving – Texting that occurs in the context of vehicle operation. Procedure

METHOD

One hundred ninety participants volunteered to complete the questionnaires for class credit. Of the participants, 128 (67.4%) were female, 61 were male, and 1 participant preferred not to respond. The ages of participants ranged from 18-55 years (M=21.29, SD=6.14). Seventy percent of the participants described their ethnicity as White (Non-Hispanic), 14% described their ethnicity as Hispanic, 10% described their ethnicity as African-American, 10% described their ethnicity as Asian, 1% described their ethnicity as Pacific Islander, 1% described their ethnicity as Arabian/Middle Eastern, 1% described their ethnicity as Native American, 2% described their ethnicity as “Other,” and 1% chose not to respond (participants were able to select multiple options to more accurately describe their ethnicity; percentages were rounded). Every participant reported sending text messages (n=190), and 89% reported texting “Often” or “Very Often.” Of these participants, 99% reported having a smartphone (e.g., Apple iPhone, Android phone, Windows phone, Blackberry, etc.), one participant did not respond, and only one participant reported having a Non-smartphone (these participants were excluded from the analyses regarding IM apps for smartphones). The majority of participants reported having cell phone plans that include unlimited texting (92.6%), although only 32.1% of participants reported having unlimited data phone plans. In accordance with the American Psychological Association, participants were treated according to ethical guidelines for empirical research.

Participants were recruited from the university’s research participation system. After reviewing an informed consent form, participants completed the questionnaires and TBX online. Class credit was awarded for participation. The present analysis on use and perception of IM apps compared to texting is a subset of a larger study. RESULTS Frequency of Use Participants reported on a 6-point Likert scale (“Very Often” to “Don’t know/Never heard of this”) using built-in phone texting most frequently, followed most closely by iMessage, Snapchat, and Facebook Messenger, while the remaining IM apps were used much less frequently (Figure 1). Frequency of Texting and IM App Use Texting

More Often

Participants

iMessage Snapchat Facebook Messenger

Very Often

Often

Sometimes

WhatsApp YikYak Rarely

Participants responded to a questionnaire that asked about frequency of use and perception of IM apps compared to texting, along with demographic questions. These apps were selected for this study based on pilot feedback from undergraduate research assistants. Texting Behaviors Index (TBX; Schroeder & Sims, 2016) The TBX consists of 45 items that assess a wide range of texting behaviors (e.g., “how often do you text …while waiting in line,” “…while eating a meal with others,” “…to makes someone jealous?”). Items were rated on a 6-point scale to indicate the frequency of each texting habit, from “Not Applicable” to “Very Often.” The TBX consists of six factors that were derived from factor analyses: (1) Social Connection Texting – Texting to socially connect, such as with daily communication or “generalized social texting,” (2)

Kik Other

Never

Google Hangouts

Less Often

Materials

Whisper WeChat 0

Don't know/ Never heard of this

100 200 Frequency of Responses

Figure 1. The frequency of texting and using mobile instant messaging apps is shown such that those listed higher on the y-axis are used more frequently.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting

Paired samples t-tests were used to test the extent to which texting frequency differs from IM app use. The reported frequency of texting (M=5.54, SD=0.83) was significantly greater than the frequency of use for each of the text-based communication apps (Table 1). Table 1. Paired Sample T-tests Comparing Use of Texting to IM Apps Compared to Texting App

M

SD

Mdiff

SDdiff

tdf=188

d

4.20

1.32

1.34

1.46

12.69*

1.21

WhatsApp

2.40

1.39

3.14

1.57

27.50*

2.74

Snapchat

4.62

1.57

0.92

1.71

7.35*

0.72

1.90

0.93

3.64

1.21

41.26*

4.13

Facebook Messenger

Google Hangouts Kik

2.23

1.01

3.31

1.30

34.94*

3.58

b

WeChat

1.42

0.57

4.11

0.98

57.41*

5.76

iMessage

4.84

1.76

0.70

1.99

4.83*

0.52

YikYak

2.37

1.17

3.18

1.43

30.49*

3.14

Whispera

1.60

0.64

3.94

1.02

53.01*

5.33

Note. d=Cohen’s d; *p