The Efficacy of Text Messaging to Improve Social Connectedness and Team Attitude in Student Technical Communication Projects

Abstract

This experimental study investigates the impact of short-messaging service (SMS)—text messaging—on social connectedness and group attitude in student technical communication projects. It also investigates message types and communication medium preferences. Using a between-subjects design, the experiment compares two student groups: SMS only and non-SMS. The results indicated several statistically significant differences. Compared to students in the non-SMS group, students in the SMS-only group (a) communicated more, (b) felt more connected, and (c) sent more questions, answers, and nonproject-related messages. These results provide empirical evidence for using SMS in team contexts.

Keywords

text messaging SMS social connectedness collaboration media choice teamwork

Considerable technical communication scholarship has investigated computer-mediated communication, particularly e-mail and instant messaging (Ishii, 2005; Lam, 2011; Lam & Mackiewicz, 2007; Lee & Lee, 2009; Mackiewciz & Lam, 2009; Pendharkar & Young, 2004; Volkema, Fleck, & Hofmeister, 2011). But no studies in technical and professional communication have examined text messaging in any capacity. Text messaging, or short-messaging service (SMS), however, is a worthwhile topic for technical communication scholars, instructors, and practitioners because it represents an exponentially growing medium. As technical communicators, it is essential to our scholarship and profession to grow and evolve as technology does. According to Nielson mobile, in 2008, SMS users aged 45 and under used SMS more than they used actual phone calls (Nielson Mobile, 2008). Thus, the primary mode of communication on mobile phones is no longer the traditional phone call, but rather SMS. Further, in 2010, 72% of adult mobile phone users reported using SMS regularly (Pew Research Center, 2010). SMS, then, is clearly a communication medium that is highly used—and not just by teenagers and college students. According to Pew’s data, however, SMS use for work-related communication is limited: Only 15% of adult SMS users reported using SMS for work several times a day.

Outside of the technical communication field, one prevalent stream of research in SMS has focused on the social component, specifically the role of SMS in relationship building and maintenance. For example, Rettie (2003) found that “connectedness” was a factor in media choice among teens and college students. Further, participants reported higher levels of connectedness when using SMS as opposed to e-mail. Similarly, Reid and Reid (2005, 2010) reported that users of SMS formed deeper relationships with people in their “text circles” due to the immediacy, perpetual contact, and near conversational nature of SMS. Wallace and Mundell (2003) also found that college students using SMS “develop(ed) a good working relationship with their partner” (p. 105). Although research on SMS in the workplace is limited, the research that does exist has reported similar findings, linking SMS to managing work relationships (Ekanjume, 2009; Kim, Kim, Park, & Rice, 2007).

As a response to the lack of research on SMS in the workplace and as an extension to the ample research on the role of SMS in relationship building, my study empirically examines the impact of SMS use in work-related communication. More specifically, this article describes an experiment involving students who are working on a technical communication team project. The experiment compares two conditions, one in which the participants used only SMS and the other in which the participants used any communication medium except SMS. Because no studies on SMS exist in technical communication scholarship, this will be the first study to guide technical communicators in this growing medium. Additionally, no studies have used experimental methods to test the efficacy of SMS.

First, I provide an overview of the relevant literature followed by a detailed outline of the hypotheses and research questions that drive the study. Then, I describe and justify my method for the study. I present the results for each major hypotheses and research question and then a discussion on each. This discussion includes the implications of the findings for scholars, instructors, and practitioners of technical communication. Finally, I point out the limitations of this study and directions for future research.

Literature Review

SMS is a unique communication medium even when compared to other computer-mediated forms of communication such as e-mail. For example, SMS allows users to have “greater command over the expressive content of a communication” because they can carefully construct a message or response without the “multiple distractions of real-time social interaction” (Reid & Reid, 2010, p. 4). Although e-mail and other forms of computer-mediated communication also allow for this careful construction, SMS users report that they use the medium conversationally, making it function much more in real time than e-mail does (Fox, 2001; Grinter & Eldridge, 2003). Additionally, SMS allows users to think about and manage face (defined by Goffman, 1969, as positive self-image) relationships (Ling, 2004; Ling & Yttri, 2002). Finally, SMS may allow users to be more honest and candid compared to other communication media (Hashimoto, 2002; Ito, 2003; Plant, 2001).

In the following literature review, I survey research from a few relevant areas. First, I present research that intersects SMS use and interpersonal relationships, then I briefly discuss SMS use in professional settings, and finally, I describe research on functional uses for SMS.

SMS, Interpersonal Relationships, and Connectedness

One SMS topic that has been thoroughly investigated is the impact of SMS on interpersonal relationships. Much of this research suggests that people who regularly use SMS report having increased feelings of social connectededness, which Ijsselsteijn, Van Baren, and Van Lanen (2003) have defined as the “feeling of being in touch with the other” (p. 928). SMS seems to be an effective medium for creating a sense of connectedness because SMS users can perpetually be in contact with fellow users (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). Providing further evidence linking SMS to connectedness, Faulkner and Culwin (2005) categorized a corpus of SMS messages written by U.K. teenagers and found that more than half of these messages were used for interpersonal maintenance. Similarly, Döring (2002) also categorized and coded SMS messages and found that more than half of the messages were used “primarily [to] maintain relationships” (p. 3). Pettigrew (2009) investigated SMS use specifically within dyads in which the partners already had a close relationship. Results indicated that users found that SMS allowed them to be in perpetual contact with their partners, which in turn led to their increased feelings of connectedness. In the same vein, Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, and Grant (2011) examined SMS use within dyads in which the partners were involved in romantic relationships. Overall, the results indicated that SMS was used by these participants more than any other communication medium and was often used as means to express affection and stay connected.

Reid and Reid (2010) found that SMS users, particularly young, single, and socially anxious users, “take advantage of the social functionality” of the medium to “enrich their personal relationships” (p. 3). Similarly, the notion of virtual copresence, the concept that people who are geographically apart can still feel present with one another, has been linked to the SMS medium (Hjorth, 2005; Ito & Okabe, 2005). Even between strangers, SMS has been found to create virtual intimacy via virtual copresence (Grinter & Eldridge, 2003; Ling, 2000; Ling & Yttri, 2002). Kim, Kim, Park, and Rice (2007) surveyed South Koreans about their communication preferences and found that respondents used SMS specifically to expand relationships with “weak ties” (p. 1183). Finally, Lin and Tong (2007) pointed out that SMS can be used to maintain interpersonal relationships not only by providing a sense of intimacy but also by eliminating negative aspects of face-to-face interactions or other synchronous forms of computer-mediated communication:

[SMS is used to] maintain social relations in modern society, and affords resources to achieve a sense of co-presence of intimacy with both existing friends and new acquaintances, while avoiding having to deal with the fluster and embarrassment of a face-to-face interaction or the intrusive disturbance of a phone call. (p. 312)

Thus, even though negative aspects of SMS communication exist (e.g., limited autonomy), a significant amount of research focusing on SMS and interpersonal relationships provides strong evidence suggesting that there are many positive relational outcomes of SMS use. SMS can be used to foster and maintain relationships between people who are already close with each other, as well as between acquaintances who do not know each other well. Much of this research, however, has been conducted in contexts that differ from that of my study. That is, many of the studies in this literature review rely on self-reports from participants who reside in countries outside the United States, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, Pakistan, Finland, and Australia. Results from those international studies, therefore, may not be directly applicable to this study. Although this study is not specifically focused on culture as a variable, we need to keep in mind cultural differences. For example, according to Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010), each national culture cited in this literature review scores lower on the individualism dimension than does U.S. culture. These cultural differences could perhaps influence the effect that SMS might have on connectedness and other relational outcomes. Because of the lack of research on the impact of SMS on interpersonal relationships that uses U.S. university students as participants and because previous research has yet to examine how SMS might affect interpersonal relationships in this specific context, this study explores the connective nature of SMS in the specific context of student team projects at a U.S. university.

SMS in Professional Settings

While a majority of the research on SMS has studied non nonprofessional contexts, a small body of literature has investigated SMS in professional contexts. Ekanjume (2009) conducted a sociolinguistic analysis of the use of SMS by an academic staff at a university. In that analysis, the author described SMS as a medium that is “dynamic, mobile, individualistic and bonding largely due to its unique linguistic style” (p. 15). This theme of “bonding” or connection arises even in research focusing on professional contexts. In Kim et al.’s (2007) study, more than 60% of the respondents to their South Korean national survey worked for a living in some capacity (i.e., they were not students). One major finding of this study was that among those full-time workers, SMS was used specifically for “management of work relations” (p. 1203). Much like Ekanjume (2009), Kim et al. found that SMS can indeed be used to manage relationships within the workplace, providing further evidence that the use of SMS to manage relationships extends to contexts outside of social relationships. Finally, Galushkin (2003) presented an argument for SMS use in distributed organizations, asserting that SMS may be effective in organizations because it can help remove hierarchical boundaries. More specifically, it allows subordinates to carefully craft and edit responses to their leaders without having to worry about other information cues such as body language. These assertions are similar to Lin and Tong’s (2007) findings.

Although limited research specifically examines SMS in professional contexts, the research that does exist suggests that the unique affordances of SMS might also apply in professional contexts. This study extends this line of research by examining how SMS may affect relationships on a team project. Although the population of this study is undergraduate students, the context in which the participants communicated closely resembles that of a professional workplace. More important, this study investigates SMS as work-related communication as opposed to personal communication.

Functional Uses for Text Messages

In addition to the literature on SMS in interpersonal relationships and on SMS in professional settings, there is research that may aid in shifting the paradigm of typical SMS usage. SMS is often stereotyped as a medium that young people use to communicate informal messages, such as scheduling leisure activities with friends. But recent research has investigated more functional uses for SMS. Several studies examine text messaging as a means for communicating an intervention or training protocol. For instance, SMS has been tested and found to be useful as a communication reminder that aids schizophrenics in their daily functions (Pijnenborg et al., 2012), a support tool for parents who experience violence from their adolescent children (Howard, Friend, Parker, & Streker, 2010), and a system for deliverying an intervention to people with eating disorders (Bauer, Okon, Meermann, & Kordy, 2012).

Similarly, several studies examine text messaging as a communication medium for health professionals. Joyce and Weibelzahl (2006) reported on a program that used SMS to communicate vital mental health messages to depressed youth. Two studies have found that SMS can be an effective tool for promoting awareness about sexually transmitted diseases to high-risk groups (Dobkin et al., 2007; Gold et al., 2010). Another study has found that using SMS as a reminder system increases patients’ attendance at doctor’s appointments (Geraghty, Glynn, Amin, & Kinsella, 2007). Finally, two studies have tested SMS as a means for helping adolescents and young adults to stop smoking. These studies suggest that sending SMS interventions is a relatively inexpensive and effective way of promoting smoking cessation (Haug, Meyer, Dymalski, Lippke, & Ulrich, 2012; Rodgers et al., 2005).

Based on the studies cited in this literature review, SMS is clearly a more robust communication medium than stereotypes might suggest. Furthermore, scholars outside of the technical communication field have begun to embrace a paradigm shift, now viewing SMS as a highly functional medium. SMS, of course, will not replace traditional forms of communication or intervention programs, and research does not suggest that it will. But SMS can effectively supplement traditional forms of communication as technology and our relationships to technology continue to evolve. It is time to empirically examine this technology that we once dismissed as juvenile in order to determine what benefits SMS might provide for scholars, teachers, and practitioners of technical communication.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Based on the research described in the literature review, I propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Participants who communicate via SMS communicate more than participants who do not use SMS.

Multiple studies have shown that SMS is often used conversationally, making the medium feel more like real time than do many other forms of computer-mediated communication (Fox, 2001; Grinter & Eldridge, 2003). This conversational aspect of SMS may encourage participants in the SMS group to communicate more than do participants in the non-SMS group.

Hypothesis 2: Participants who communicate via SMS feel more connected than do those who do not use SMS.

Hypothesis 3: Participants who communicate via SMS have better attitudes about their group than do participants who do not use SMS.

Hypotheses 2 and 3 fall directly in line with previous literature that has pointed out the impact that SMS use has on interpersonal relationships (Grinter & Eldridge, 2003; Lin & Tong, 2007; Ling, 2000; Ling & Yttri, 2002; Reid & Reid, 2010). Further, research in professional contexts supports the notion that SMS use has an impact on working relationships (Ekanjume, 2009; Galushkin, 2003; Kim et al., 2007). Although previous research provides a strong basis for these hypotheses, no empirical studies have tested these hypotheses specifically in team projects. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical model that this study tests.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model and hypotheses.

In addition to those three hypotheses, this study examines some additional research questions. These questions are not presented as hypotheses because they have not been addressed in previous literature, so they are better served as areas for inquiry:

Research Question 1. What medium will the non-SMS group use most?

As part of my research design, I randomly assigned participants either to use SMS exclusively or to not use SMS at all. Because participants in one of the groups are allowed to choose any medium but SMS, I am interested in discovering what medium they will choose most. Medium choices and patterns can provide insight into communication behavior in team projects. Examining such insights are essential in order to assess and target areas for improvement in student communication behavior.

Research Question 2. Does the communication medium alter the types (speech acts) of messages sent?

As part of the research design, I instructed participants to log all communication, including the date, time, sender, receiver, and type of message. Throughout the study, I categorized and adapted the types of messages based on linguistic speech act theory (Austin, 1955; Searle, 1976) in order to investigate whether the communication medium has an impact on the types of messages participants are willing to send. For example, because SMS only allows users to send messages of 140 characters or less, will participants who use SMS be less likely to send messages that involve important questions about the project? By examining the types of messages each group sends, I may be able to determine what, if any, medium restrictions SMS poses.

Method

Before presenting the results of this investigation, I need to describe my method for the study—the participants, research design, instruments, and procedure. This study was approved by my university’s Institutional Review Board.

Participants

I recruited a total of 49 participants from a population of undergraduate students enrolled in technical communication courses at a large state university in the southern United States. I used an a priori power analysis, which employs statistical assumptions to calculate the optimal sample size for a particular statistical test, to determine the sample size. The analysis assumed an α level of .05, a power level of .8, and an effect size of .4 based on previous benchmarks set in psychological research. The results of this analysis indicated that 52 participants would be an appropriate sample. My sample of 49 participants, therefore, is appropriate based on the power analysis.

Participation in the study was voluntary. Students received background information about the study and were informed that they would earn a small amount of extra credit in exchange for participation. Of these 49 participants, 26 were women and 23 were men. The median age of the participants was 21.

Each participant was enrolled in one of the two technical communication courses: a course on Web writing, design, and development and a second course on manual and procedures writing. Both courses required team projects and worked with the same external client. I recruited participants enrolled in these two courses because both courses are writing intensive and highly collaborative.

Research Design

The research was designed as a simple between-subjects experiment, so each participant, and their subsequent responses, belonged to only one experimental group. The study had one independent variable, communication medium, with two levels: SMS only and non-SMS. The SMS-only group used only text messaging for all team communication done outside of class throughout the duration of the project. The non-SMS group used any other communication medium except SMS throughout the duration of the project. The study had two dependent variables: mediated social connectedness and group attitude. I collected data for the two dependent variables twice during the study: once after 4 weeks and again after 8 weeks. I collected data twice in order to provide a view of the teams at two unique stages of the project.

Instruments

To measure the data, I used two instruments: the Mediated Social Connectedness scale and the Group Attitude scale.

The Mediated Social Connectedness scale (Gonzales, 2009) measures the effectiveness of a technology tool in establishing social connections. The internal reliability for this 5-item scale is high (α = .76), but it has only been initially validated and would benefit from further validation. Here is one of the items that this scale measures: “When I am using this system, I don’t feel that others are concerned about me as a person.”

The Group Attitude scale (Evans & Jarvis, 1986) measures the attraction that group members have to their group. This 20-item scale has a high internal reliability (ᾳ = .90–97). Here is one of the items that this scale measures: “I feel involved in what is happening to my group.”

Procedure

After introducing students to the study and receiving their consent, I randomly assigned them to one of two experimental group conditions: SMS-only or non-SMS. I achieved random assignment using an online random-number generator. After assigning students to experimental groups, I then randomly divided them into 11 four-person teams and 1 five-person team. Between the two technical communication courses, then, there were 12 teams, with 6 teams in each experimental group. But I did not treat the two courses as separate populations; instead, I treated the 49 participants from both courses as the entire study sample. Furthermore, I did not make statistical comparisons across courses. That is, I randomly assigned students from both courses to a specific communication medium (SMS-only or non-SMS), so each of the two groups contained a nearly equal number of participants from each course, thereby reducing any bias that may arise from course differences. Both sets of participants completed projects that were identical in length and spanned the final 8 weeks of the semester.

After assigning students to their experimental group and team, I gave them documentation with detailed instructions and an outline of the study parameters. Each participant needed to follow two major parameters: First, participants were to use only the communication medium that they had been assigned to for all of their out-of-class communication (except if their health or well-being was threatened, they should use whatever medium is appropriate). Second, participants were to log all communication they had with their team members outside of class. I gave each participant a log sheet for recording the date, communication medium, sender, receiver, and type of message. I created message categories based on major speech acts, including questions, answers, scheduling, directives, and announcements. A sixth category for nonproject-related communication was also an option. Other than following those two major parameters, students were to proceed with their team projects as they normally would.

I was particularly interested in how team members became acquainted with one another and began functioning as a team. Therefore, after the first 4 weeks of the project, I asked students to complete a 26-question survey that measured mediated social connectedness and group attitude. In addition to measuring initial team formation at the project’s midpoint, I wanted to measure students’ connectedness and group attitude at the end of the project, so in the 8th week, I asked students to complete the same survey. Students turned in their communication logs on the last day of class.

Results

In this section, I present the results for each of the three hypotheses and then for each of the two research questions.

Hypothesis 1: Participants who communicate via SMS communicate more than do participants who do not use SMS.

The quantity of communication produced by teams that were assigned to the SMS-only group was nearly 40% higher (M = 43.62, SD = 27.43) than that produced by teams in the non-SMS group (M = 27.04, SD = 14.82). I conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the quantity of communication for the SMS-only group with that of the non-SMS group. The results of the ANOVA indicated that a significant difference existed between the two groups. I used an adjusted F value based on the results of Levene's test for equality of variances (F = 6.64, p = .013). With these adjusted values, the SMS-only group communicated significantly more than did the non-SMS group (F = 6.585, p = .014, d = .73). Table 1 presents the complete ANOVA source table, which includes the results not only for communication quantity but also for mediated social connectedness and group attitude. As a follow-up to the ANOVA, I also calculated the effect size for this significant difference. Statistical significance is an important indicator of group differences, but effect size allows us to see the magnitude or strength of the difference between the two groups. Guidelines surrounding the interpretation of effect size indicate three basic levels of effect: small (d = .2), medium (d = .5), and large (d = .8). The effect size for this significant difference in the quantity of communication between the two groups (d = .73) was large (Cohen, 1992). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported with a large effect.

Table 1.

ANOVA Source Table for Communication Quantity, Mediated Social Connectedness, and Group Attitude.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p
Communication quantity	3077.87	1	3077.87	6.59	.014*
Mediated social connectedness (Weeks 1–4)	1.99	1	1.99	4.84	.033*
Mediated social connectedness (Weeks 5–8)	1.08	1	1.08	2.17	.148
Group attitude (Weeks 1–4)	.39	1	.39	.64	.429
Group attitude (Weeks 5–8)	.92	1	.92	1.89	.176

*Significant at < .05 level.

In addition to the ANOVA, I conducted post hoc follow-up analyses. After examining the overall data for quantity of communication, I found that most of the participants’ communication occurred during the first 4 weeks of the project. Communication seemed to drop off during the last 4 weeks. To statistically examine this observation, I conducted a repeated measures t-test that compared the quantity of communication from week 1 to week 4 with the quantity of communication from week 5 to week 8. The results showed that participants communicated significantly more in weeks 1 through 4 (M = 22.93, SD = 16.59) than they did in weeks 5 through 8 (M = 12.37, SD = 10.24), (t = 3.43, p = .001, d = .55). Figure 2 shows a visual summary of the quantity of communication for both experimental groups over the 8-week period. The effect size for this significant difference (d = .55) is medium. This finding provides insight about interpreting subsequent results of this study. That is, because significantly more communication took place in the first 4 weeks of the study, data collected at the end of week 4 might provide a clearer picture of the group differences than would data collected at the end of the project. I discuss this finding in more detail later in the discussion section.

Figure 2.

Change in the quantity of communication over the 8-week period.

Hypothesis 2: Participants who communicate via SMS feel more connected than do those who do not use SMS.

Data collected from weeks 1 through 4 yielded significant differences for mediated social connectedness between the SMS-only and the non-SMS groups. I conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare mediated social connectedness between the two groups. The results indicated a significant difference (F = 4.84, p = .033, d = .63) between the SMS-only group (M = 3.51, SD = .65) and the non-SMS group (M = 3.11, SD = .64). Follow-up analyses for effect size showed a medium to large effect (d = .63), indicating that SMS users felt more connected than did non-SMS users in this first round of data collection, thus supporting Hypothesis 2 (see Table 1).

In the second round of data collection (weeks 5–8), the SMS-only group again reported greater feelings of connectedness (M = 3.52, SD = .67) than did the non-SMS group (M = 3.22, SD = .74). But the one-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference (F = 2.17, p = .15, d = .42) between the two groups. Therefore, in this second round of data collection, Hypothesis 2 was not supported (see Table 1).

Hypothesis 3: Participants who communicate via SMS have better attitudes about their group than do participants who do not use SMS.

In the first round of data collection (weeks 1–4), I conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare group attitudes between the SMS-only and the non-SMS groups. Although the SMS-only group had a higher mean score for group attitude than did the non-SMS group, the ANOVA results revealed that the SMS-only group (M = 5.84, SD = .85) and the non-SMS group (M = 5.66, SD = .69) did not significantly differ (F = .637, p = .429, d = .23). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported in the first round of data collection.

In the second round of data collection (weeks 5–8), the SMS-only group (M = 5.81, SD = .73) again had a higher mean score for group attitude than did the non-SMS group (M = 5.53, SD = .66). But a one-way ANOVA revealed that the two groups did not significantly differ (F = 1.883, p = .176, d = .39). Thus, as in the first round, Hypothesis 3 was not supported in the second round of data collection (see Table 1).

Research Question 1: What medium will the non-SMS group use most?

Because participants in the non-SMS group had their choice of any communication medium besides text messaging, I investigated which medium was most popular. Overwhelmingly, participants in the non-SMS group chose to communicate via e-mail. Of the 569 total communications, only 13 were conveyed via a medium other than e-mail. Facebook™ (2) and phone calls (11) were the only other media that participants used.

Research Question 2: Does the communication medium alter the types (speech acts) of messages sent?

To determine whether the communication medium had any effect on the types of messages, I conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare types of messages sent by the SMS-group with those sent by the non-SMS group. I used a total of six message types: questions, answers, scheduling, directives, announcements, and nonproject-related. Table 2 presents the frequencies, by group, for each of the six message types. The ANOVA results indicated significant differences between the two groups in three of the six message types. The SMS-only group sent and received significantly more questions (F = 11.433, p = .002, d = 1.02), answers (F = 8.284, p = .009, d = .87), and nonproject-related messages (F = 5.157, p = .041, d = .68) than did the non-SMS group. Differences in both questions and answers had a large effect, d = 1.02 and d = .87, respectively. The effect size for nonproject-related messages was medium to large (d = .68). Table 3 presents the full ANOVA source table for the six message types. The results from the ANOVA revealed no significant differences for scheduling (F = 1.128, p = .294, d = .32), directives (F = .68, p = .414, d = .25), and announcements (F = .453, p = .504, d = .20). Table 4 presents a summary of all the significant findings from investigating the hypotheses and research questions.

Table 2.

Frequencies for Communication Type.

Communication Type	SMS Only	Non-SMS	Total
Questions	182	72	254
Answers	324	140	464
Scheduling	109	71	180
Directives	50	88	138
Announcements	206	194	400
Nonproject	29	4	33
Total	900	569	1,469

Note. SMS = short-messaging service.

Table 3.

ANOVA Source Table for Communication Type.

Source	SS	df	MS	F	p
Questions	253.702	1	253.702	11.433	.002*
Answers	957.940	1	957.940	8.284	.009*
Scheduling	48.572	1	48.572	1.128	.294
Directives	22.925	1	22.295	.680	.414
Announcements	20.746	1	20.746	.453	.504
Nonproject	15.993	1	15.993	5.157	.041*

*Significant at < .05 level.

Table 4.

Summary of Statistically Significant Findings and Their Effect Sizes.

Finding	p Value	Effect Size
SMS users sent a larger quantity of communication	.014*	Large (d = .73)
SMS users felt more connected than non-SMS users^a	.033*	Medium (d = .63)
SMS users sent more questions	.002*	Large (d = 1.02)
SMS users sent more answers	.009*	Large (d = .87)
SMS users sent more nonproject-related messages	.041*	Medium (d = .68)

^aResult for weeks 1–4.

*Significant at < .05 level.

Discussion

The results of this study have several implications for technical communication scholars, instructors, and practitioners. In the following discussion, I explain the study findings regarding each hypothesis and research question and the implications of these findings.

SMS Use Led to a Larger Quantity of Communication

Hypothesis 1 posited that SMS users would communicate more throughout the project. The study found that the SMS-only group produced a significantly larger amount of communication than did the non-SMS group: The quantity of communication produced by the SMS-only group was almost 40% higher than that produced by the non-SMS group. This finding extends the suggestion of previous research that texting is a medium that allows for constant connection and conversational, quasi-synchronous communication. Because the medium itself is limited to short messages (usually less than 140 characters), these short bursts may lend themselves to a conversation in a way that e-mail does not (Fox, 2001; Grinter & Eldridge, 2003). Furthermore, in several studies, SMS users have reported that they feel a necessity or responsibility to respond to an incoming message in a timely manner (Horstmanshof & Power, 2005; Laursen, 2005; Pettigrew, 2009; Thurlow, 2003). This sense of responsibility to respond promptly to an incoming message may provide a strong explanation for this study’s finding that the SMS-only group produced significantly more communication than did the non-SMS group. Because e-mail is less conversational in nature than SMS is, users may not feel this responsibility to respond so promptly. E-mail users cannot reasonably be expected to respond immediately although some e-mail can be time sensitive. Further, because e-mail allows users to include more information in a single message, interlocutors can send fewer messages with more information.

This finding has a few important implications for instructors who assign student projects and for practitioners who work in team projects. Because the population of this study was made up of undergraduate students, these implications cannot be directly generalized to the work of technical communication practitioners. As a technical communication instructor, I can attest to a general lack of communication between students working on team projects. For example, each semester in which I have taught, students have complained that other team members have not contacted them the entire semester, or completed their assigned work, or shown up to team meetings. The results of this study provide evidence that instructors of technical communication can use to advocate for using SMS in team projects. Furthermore, according to several studies, students may feel obligated to respond to text messages. Thus, SMS use might aid in student accountability within teams by creating a culture in which students feel a sense of responsibility and obligation to their fellow team members. As such, SMS may be a medium that does not allow a single student to avoid work by fading into the background of a team project. In addition, previous research has shown that SMS might allow people with anxiety to express themselves more freely than do other media (Hashimoto, 2002; Ito, 2003; Plant, 2001), so SMS use might motivate students who experience social anxiety or awkwardness in team settings to communicate more frequently. That is, the use of SMS may lower the inhibitions of team members, allowing a variety of personalities to contribute to a project.

For practitioners, some of the unique affordances of SMS will likely extend into professional contexts. For example, the conversational nature of SMS is relevant not only for undergraduate students. Similarly, the sense of responsibility to promptly respond to an incoming message that SMS evokes would also likely extend into professional settings. Therefore, practitioners seeking to communicate more often with teammates may want to consider the use of SMS in their overall communication strategy. Although research shows that SMS is rarely used by professionals for work-related communication (Pew Research Center, 2010), they might find that using this medium is a step forward in certain team projects. Professionals, however should not simply begin using SMS without a strategic plan. Instead, they should first clearly understand the advantages and disadvantages of specific communication media and set forth expectations at the beginning of team projects about when and how to use a variety of media. The use of SMS by practitioners working on team projects is clearly an area for future research, and I intend to continue building a testable framework based on empirical evidence.

SMS Use Led to Feelings of Connectedness

Hypothesis 2 suggested that the SMS-only group would report greater feelings of mediated social connectedness. This hypothesis was supported in the data collected from weeks 1 through 4. The results for weeks 5 through 8 may be less valid than the first round of data collection simply because groups communicated significantly more in the first half of the project. One possible explanation for this decrease in communication is that several smaller assignments were due before week 4. In weeks 5 through 8, however, the teams simply worked on the final deliverables. This dynamic may have required the teams to do more planning and communicating in the first half of the semester. Another possible explanation is that teams communicated more during the first half of the project because they were trying to get to know each other.

Regardless of the reason for this decrease in communication, I will focus here on the significant finding in weeks 1 through 4. Previous research may provide a possible explanation for this feeling of connectedness experienced by the SMS-only group. Studies indicate that SMS may allow users to be more open and honest with one another, especially with new acquaintances (Grinter & Eldridge, 2003; Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002). This might provide a strong explanation for the feeling of connectedness that the SMS-only group reported. The participants were randomly assigned to teams, and the team members did not have previous relationships with each other, so most of the participants were merely acquaintances. Therefore, according to previous research, the acquaintances in this study may have benefited from the affordances of SMS. The non-SMS group, however, communicated primarily via e-mail, which might not provide the same open and honest line of communication that SMS does.

Additional research might extend this explanation. That is, the freedom to be honest and open might also have contributed to the SMS-only group’s quick formation of text circles (Reid & Reid, 2005). The concept of text circles stems from the idea that individuals form a variety of social networks, some based on specific communication media. For example, individuals may have one social network on Facebook and a different one on Twitter™. Reid and Reid argued that social networks can form based on the people you text message regularly. Generally, individuals feel closer or more connected to people in their text circle than they do to people whom they may be willing to e-mail but are outside of their text circle. For example, individuals may feel less socially strained by simply sending an e-mail to a potential client whom they have never met than they would by sending a text message to that same client who is not yet in their text circle. Consequently, the participants in this study who used SMS may have quickly formed a text circle with their teammates, which in turn helped to foster feelings of connectedness, openness, and honesty.

The finding that SMS users felt more socially connected than did non-SMS users has important implications for both instructors and practitioners. It may have special significance for projects in which team members are merely acquaintances or have just met. This context is particularly pertinent for undergraduate instructors. As an instructor, you rarely find a group of students who have previously worked with one another although it is more common in courses specifically aimed toward majors. And even if some of the students have worked together previously, they may be better served educationally by working with a different, more diverse set of students. In professional settings, teammates are much more likely to have worked together on multiple projects. But in some instances, often in distributed environments, a new team is formed, and the individuals know little about each other. In such contexts, an argument could be made for implementing SMS in addition to other team-building activities. Although it does not replace traditional forms of team building, such as a team dinner or game-based icebreaker, SMS may be useful in speeding up the process of building a social network because it inherently forms an intimacy between users that is not inherent with other mediums like e-mail. If SMS can add a layer of connectedness between new team members, it may be worth investigating at the least.

SMS Use Did Not Change Group Attitude

Hypothesis 3 suggested that the SMS-only group would have a more positive group attitude than would the non-SMS group. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. Although the difference between groups was not significant, the SMS-only group did report a higher level of group attraction than did the non-SMS group. Even though the data did not support this hypothesis, they present some interesting context for the overall model (see Figure 1). One possible explanation for the study’s not finding a significant difference in group attitude between the two groups is that team dynamics are simply too complex for a simple communication medium to control. Although SMS has clear advantages, it is not a cure-all for negative team dynamics. Team members have different personalities, majors, and work ethics, among a host of other demographic differences. Therefore, even if SMS users communicate more and feel more connected with their teammates, these outcomes do not ensure that they will necessarily like working with their teammates. Further, such outcomes do not ensure that the final product will be of high quality. In a different context, however, the results might have differed—for example, in an advanced undergraduate or graduate course in which students all have the same major or in a workplace in which all team members are equally invested. Therefore, these results suggest that group members’ attitude toward their group cannot be significantly affected by a communication medium.

Although the results did not show a statistically significant difference in group attitude between the two groups, this finding still has implications. For example, changing group members’ attitude toward their group can be a difficult task, particularly when that group is composed of people who are incredibly different from each other. Also, there is more than one solution to the complex issues that arise in teams, so attempts to address issues and change behaviors and attitudes should be made from a broad perspective by experimenting with various solutions and seeking the optimal combination of solutions for the given context. This finding also has particular importance to technical communication scholars as an area for future research. Although SMS was not a predictor of group attitude, scholars should examine additional variables that might affect group attitude within an adjusted framework.

When Given a Choice, Students in the Non-SMS Group Overwhelmingly Chose E-Mail

Based on an analysis of the communication logs of each of the participants in the non-SMS group, these students clearly favored e-mail over other communication media. A possible explanation for this finding is that the prevailing technoculture has steered students toward e-mail, a medium that is more commonplace than any other and used widely in social, professional, and educational settings. Additionally, e-mail might simply have been the most convenient way for team members to send messages to multiple recipients. Another possible explanation is that participants might not have felt comfortable enough with each other to make a phone call, send an instant message, or perform a video chat. Finally, the participants may have preferred e-mail because of its asynchronicity. Synchronous communication forces both participants to be active in the communication act simultaneously. Further, synchronous communication requires, at the least, a short-term commitment to the communication act. Students who juggle multiple courses and projects may find such a commitment, even if it is short, unfeasible or, more likely, inconvenient. E-mail’s asynchronicity may also allow team members to more easily give bad news to their teammates. For example, students may feel more comfortable sending an e-mail, as opposed to a phone call or instant message, if they are going to miss a team meeting or have not completed their portion of the project. Although there are several other possible explanations for selecting e-mail as a primary form of communication, it is likely due to a combination of the previous explanations.

The finding that participants in the non-SMS Group overwhelmingly chose e-mail as a primary form of communication has implications for scholars—and particularly for future research. Although I examined what media participants chose, it was outside the scope of this study to determine exactly why they chose a particular medium. That is, the fact that participants overwhelmingly chose e-mail could indicate that they did not make a conscious effort in choosing a medium. Rather, they more likely simply chose the most convenient or agreed-on medium. Understanding why individuals choose a medium can guide instructors and practitioners because they will be able to examine the root causes for medium choice.

Considering this finding that students overwhelmingly choose e-mail rather than other non-SMS media, instructors may want to explicitly provide instruction about medium choice. Aside from SMS, there are a host of other media and collaboration tools that are potentially more effective than e-mail. For example, group-authoring software is available for free via Google™. Similarly, there are several options for free videoconferencing software. Groups that want to author collaboratively may find these software tools to be more effective than e-mail, which requires group members to send and receive attached versions of files.

SMS Users Sent More Questions and Answers Than Did Non-SMS Users

The study found that the SMS-only group sent significantly more questions and answers than did the non-SMS group. There are a few possible explanations for this finding. The medium of text messaging may be more conducive to a conversational, back and forth style of communication that often entails asking questions and providing answers. Further, text messaging is a medium that possesses characteristics of both synchronous and asynchronous communication. It is synchronous in the sense that when you send a message, barring a technological failure, you can reasonably expect that the other person will immediately receive the message. You can also expect the receiver of the message to respond if appropriate. Extenuating circumstances, however, can make text messaging asynchronous. For example, the receiver’s cell phone may be turned off, or the receivers may get the text messages but choose to ignore it or respond at a later time. If the participants in the SMS-only group used text messaging synchronously, as the data suggest, they may have been more apt to send questions regarding the project because they could reasonably expect an answer to the question.

To fully understand the uniqueness of questions and answers as speech acts, we need to see how they are different from other speech acts reported in this study. Questions and answers encouraged active communication. That is, team members used questions and answers in order to achieve a specific communication objective. A question is a speech act that by nature requires feedback: The person asking the question requires and expects a response. But other speech acts investigated in this study are much less active. For example, both experimental groups sent scheduling, directive, and reminder messages. These three speech acts do not require a response. They are simply one-sided messages. Furthermore, in this study, scheduling is a speech act that actually put off project work until the time of an actual face-to-face meeting. This speech act differs vastly from questions and answers. When participants asked a question, they not only expected an answer, they presumably used that information to actively work on the project. Therefore, because the SMS-only group sent significantly more questions and answers than did the non-SMS group, the SMS-only group may have been more effective in using communication outside of face-to-face meetings to actively complete portions of the project. In contrast, the non-SMS group may have used their interactions simply to schedule future actions.

The finding that SMS users sent more questions and answers than did non-SMS users has did has implications for both instructors and practitioners. Instructors of team projects could approach this finding in one of two ways: They could encourage their students to use text messaging as a means to achieve more active communication outside of class or they could simply encourage students to ask each other more questions outside of class using whatever medium they choose. Practitioners working in teams might also consider using text messaging for time-sensitive material. Although such practical advice may seem obvious, teams might find it beneficial to set out their communication expectations and boundaries at the beginning of the project. Often times, people have difficulty sending a text message to someone with whom they are not well acquainted, and they may prefer to send an e-mail. But if a team specifies particular contexts in which text messaging is appropriate, the team members may be able to more effectively communicate with each other outside of face-to-face interactions.

SMS Users Sent More Nonproject-Related Messages Than Did Non-SMS Users

The study also found that the SMS-only group sent significantly more nonproject-related communication than did the non-SMS group. A possible explanation for this finding is that because the participants in the SMS-only group felt more socially connected to their team members, they may have felt more comfortable discussing nonproject-related topics. Further, the medium of text messaging may have allowed team members to feel that they were part of an intimate text circle. That is, because participants in the SMS-only group had no choice but to communicate via text, they may have quickly adopted the medium and accelerated the process of forming a social circle. The formation of these text circles may have made it easier for participants to communicate on a more personal level. The nonproject-related messages may also indicate that the use of text messaging may encourage team members to move beyond a working relationship and into a deeper, more meaningful relationship with one another.

This finding, like many of the other findings I have discussed, implies that the benefits of SMS in team environments may outweigh the restrictions that are inherent in the medium. For instance, if the goal is to quickly bond as a team, using text messaging may be quite beneficial.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. As with any experimental design, the findings are not necessarily generalizable outside of the studied population. Therefore, we must view the findings of this study in the context in which they were discovered. This limitation, however, lends itself directly to future research. Future studies should investigate SMS use in a variety of contexts, especially in professional contexts. Technical communication scholars should investigate SMS use in professional settings both quantitatively and qualitatively. This topic is severely understudied in professional contexts, and it would benefit greatly from a variety of research methodologies.

There are a couple of limitations concerning the data collection. First, although the measure for mediated social connectedness achieved initial validation, it should be further validated. This limitation is difficult to overcome when studying a relatively new topic, which often produces more ideas, research questions, and hypotheses than results. Second, the participants categorized their own messages. Although they were trained to categorize their communication, and the communication categories were fairly apparent, obtaining copies of the actual messages and having an expert code them would be a stronger alternative to self-reporting.

Another limitation of the study is the way in which e-mail and SMS, as communication media, were treated. That is, e-mail can be sent and received through multiple hardware environments. For example, e-mail can be sent and received through mobile devices, Web clients, and desktop clients. Each of these environments could perhaps affect a user’s experience with e-mail. In stark contrast, SMS messages are usually sent and received through one environment, mobile devices. Therefore, a major limitation of the current study is that the non-SMS group did not categorize the hardware environment for their communication. Future studies, then, should collect data concerning the actual environment through which messages are sent and received. I would have been able to statistically examine whether the actual environment of a particular interface had any effect on connectedness and group attitude.

A final limitation of the study was the scheduling of the group project itself. It is not possible to control all variables in a classroom experiment, but the study may have benefited from a different schedule. For example, a longer project (more than 8 weeks) might provide a stronger longitudinal basis for measuring connectedness and other relational variables. Furthermore, spacing out assignments so that students would be encouraged to communicate more consistently throughout the study might provide a more holistic view of relationships.

Research in SMS is young but promising. SMS is a prevalent medium that is beginning to find its way into a variety of contexts, including the workplace. To gain a strong understanding of the impact that SMS may have on interpersonal relationships, we must continue to add, remove, and test more variables. We must build on the findings in this study and move forward the knowledge that will ultimately benefit scholars, instructors, and practitioners of technical communication.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank the University of North Texas for its generous support for this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Austin

J. L.

(1955). How to do things with words (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bauer

Okon

Meermann

Kordy

(2012). Technology-enhanced maintenance of treatment gains in eating disorders: Efficacy of an intervention delivered via text messaging. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Advance online publication. 80, 700–706

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Coyne

Stockdale

Busby

Iverson

Grant

(2011). “I luv u :)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60, 150–162.

Dobkin

Kent

Klausner

McCright

Kohn

Levine

(2007). Is text messaging key to improving adolescent sexual health? Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, S14.

Döring

(2002) Abbreviations and acronyms in SMS communication. Retrieved from http://www.nicola-doering.de/

Ekanjume

(2009). A sociolinguistic survey of the use of SMS-text messages among NUL academic staff. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication, 3, 14–32.

Evans

Jarvis

(1986). The group attitude scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Research, 17, 203–216.

Faulkner

Culwin

(2005). When fingers do the talking: A study of text messaging. Interacting With Computers, 17, 167–185.

10.

Fox

(2001). Evolution, alienation and gossip: The role of mobile telecommunications in the 21st century. Oxford, England: Social Issues Research Centre.

11.

Galushkin

(2003). Text messages: A potentially rich medium in distributed organizations. Prism, 1, 1–13.

12.

Geraghty

Glynn

Amin

Kinsella

(2007). Patient mobile telephone “text” reminder: A novel way to reduce non-attendance at the ENT out-patient clinic. Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1, 1–3.

13.

Goffman

(1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, England: Allen Lane.

14.

Gold

Lim

Hocking

Keogh

Spelman

Hellard

(2010). Determining the impact of text messaging for sexual health promotion to young people. Sex Transmitted Diseases, 38, 247–252.

15.

Gonzales

(2009). Validation of an inventory of social connectedness. In Voide

(Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 375–376). Sanibel Island, FL: Association for Computing Machinery.

16.

Grinter

Eldridge

(2003). Wan2tlk? Everyday text messaging. In Cockton

Korhonen

(Eds.), Proceedings of CHI2003 (pp. 441–448). New York, NY: ACM Press.

17.

Hashimoto

(2002). The spread of cellular phones and their influence on young people in Japan. In Kim

S. D.

(Ed.), The social and cultural impact/meaning of mobile communication (pp. 102–112). Chunchon, Korea: School of Communication, Hallym University.

18.

Haug

Meyer

Dymalski

Lippke

Ulrich

(2012). Efficacy of a text messaging (SMS) based smoking cessation intervention for adolescents and young adults: Study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 12, 1–7.

19.

Hjorth

(2005). Locating mobility: Practices of co-presence and the persistence of the postal metaphor in SMS/MMS mobile phone customization in Melbourne. Fibreculture Journal, 6 Retrieved from http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6.

20.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Horstmanshof

Power

(2005). Mobile phones, SMS, and relationships: Issues of access, control and privacy. Australian Journal of Communication, 32, 33–52.

22.

Howard

Friend

Parker

Streker

(2010). Use of SMS to support parents who experience violence from their adolescents. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 16, 187–191.

23.

Ijsselsteijn

Van Baren

Van Lanen

(2003). Staying in touch: Social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. In Jacko

Stephanidis

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 924–928). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Ishii

(2005). The human side of the digital divide: Media experience as the border of communication satisfaction with email. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35, 385–402.

25.

Ito

(2003). Mobile phones, Japanese youth, and the replacement of social contact. In Ling

Pedersen

(Eds.), Front stage/back stage: Mobile communication and the renegotiation of the public sphere (pp. 331–366). Grimstad, Norway: Agder University College.

26.

Ito

Okabe

(2005). Intimate connections: Contextualizing Japanese youth and mobile messaging. In Harper

Palen

Taylor

(Eds.), The inside text (pp. 127–145). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

27.

Joyce

Weibelzahl

(2006). Text-messaging as a means to lowering barriers to help seeking in students with depression. Retrieved from http://www.iadis.net/dl/final_uploads/200604S110.pdf

28.

Kasesniemi

E. L.

Rautiainen

(2002). Mobile culture of children and teenagers in Finland. In Katz

Aakhus

(Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 170–192). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Katz

Aakhus

(Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Kim

G. J.

Park

H. W.

Rice

(2007). Configurations of relationships in different media: FtF, email, instant messenger, mobile phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1183–1207.

31.

Lam

(2011). Linguistic politeness in student-team emails: Its impact on trust between leaders and members. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54, 360–375.

32.

Lam

Mackiewcz

(2007). A case study of coherence in workplace instant messages. In Proceedings of the International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC) 2007 (pp. 1–6). Seattle, WA: IEEE.

33.

Laursen

(2005). Please reply! The replying norm in adolescent SMS communication. In Harper

Palen

Taylor

(Eds.), The inside text (pp. 53–73). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

34.

Lee

(2009). Emailing the boss: Cultural implications of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52, 61–74.

35.

Lin

Tong

A. H. M.

(2007). Text-messaging cultures of college girls in Hong Kong: SMS as resources for achieving intimacy and gift-exchange with multiple functions. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 21, 303–315.

36.

Ling

(2000). Direct and mediated interaction in the maintenance of social relationships. In Sloane

Rijn

F. V.

(Eds.), Kluwer home informatics and telematics: Information, technology and society (pp. 61–86). Boston, MA: ACM.

37.

Ling

(2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Kaufmann.

38.

Ling

Yttri

(2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In Katz

Aakhus

(Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139–169). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Mackiewicz

Lam

(2009). Coherence in workplace instant messages. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39, 417–431.

40.

Nielson Mobile. (2008). In U.S., SMS text messaging tops mobile phone calling. Nielsen Wire. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/in-us-text-messaging-tops-mobile-phone-calling/

41.

Pendharkar

P. C.

Young

(2004). The development of a construct for measuring an individual's perceptions of email as a medium for electronic communication in organizations. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47, 130–143.

42.

Pettigrew

(2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 697–716.

43.

Pew Research Center. (2010). Cell phones and American adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Adults_Cellphones_Report_2010.pdf

44.

Pijnenborg

G. H. M.

Withaar

F. K.

Brouwer

W. H.

Timmerman

M. E.

Van den Bosch

R. J.

Evans

J. J.

(2012). The efficacy of SMS text messages to compensate for the effects of cognitive impairments in schizophrenia. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 259–274.

45.

Plant

(2001). On the mobile: The effects of mobile telephones on social and individual life. Motorola.

46.

Reid

D. J.

Reid

F. J. M.

(2005). Textmates and text circles: Insights into the social ecology of SMS text messaging. In Hamill

Lasen

(Eds.), Mobile world: Past, present and future (pp. 105–118). London, England: Springer-Verlag.

47.

Reid

D. J.

Reid

F. J. M.

(2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behaviour and Information Technology, 29, 3–22.

48.

Rettie

(2003). A comparison of four new communication technologies. In Jacko

J. A.

Stephanidis

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Theory and practice (Part 1; pp. 686–690). Florence, KY: CRC Press.

49.

Rodgers

Corbett

Bramley

Riddell

Wills

Lin

R.-B.

Jones

(2005). Do u smoke after txt? Results of a randomised trial of smoking cessation using mobile phone text messaging. Tobacco Control, 14, 255–261.

50.

Searle

(1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–24.

51.

Thurlow

(2003). Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, 1. Retrieved from http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html

52.

Volkema

R. J.

Fleck

Hofmeister

(2011). Getting off on the right foot: The effects of initial email messages on negotiation process and outcome. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54, 299–313.

53.

Wallace

Mundell

(2003). Crafting a cyber assignment: The first cut. Business Communication Quarterly, 66, 102–106.