Two Conversations for One: Synchronous Multimodal Communication
TWO CONVERSATIONS FOR ONE: SYNCHRONOUS MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Communication, Culture and Technology
By
Shannon Elizabeth Mair, B.A.
Washington, DC August 5th, 2020
Copyright 2020 by Shannon Elizabeth Mair All Rights Reserved
ii TWO CONVERSATIONS FOR ONE: SYNCHRONOUS MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION
Shannon Elizabeth Mair, B.A.
Thesis Advisor: Jeanine W Turner, Ph. D.
Abstract
Multicommunication is "two or more overlapping, synchronous conversations" (Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley, 2008, p.391). The study of multicommunication has not explored the potential to have multiple conversations with the same person synchronously. An in-class discussion uncovered many online posts on "having two conversations with the same person at the same time, but keeping them separate," yet found no academic literature on this behavior
(Sam1896121, n.d.). By analyzing existing multicommunication research, this paper will outline and discuss how computer-mediated communication and instant messaging-interfaces increase the number of conversations possible with one audience. This paper seeks to understand better how technology has changed communication behavior and to explore and define to what extent, if at all, the ability to have multiple conversations with the same person synchronously fits in with existing multicommunication research. For this study, Synchronous Multimodal
Communication (SMC) is the behavior of having multiple conversations on separate platforms with one set of participants at the same time. An exploratory study of 15 in-depth interviews with individuals who use or used social media. Limitations of the study are small sample size and narrow field of study. All participants interviewed expressed the belief that having "multiple conversations with the same person at the same time" is possible. The findings consist of two sections: the first defines and explores (analysis of) the themes discussed in the interviews; the
iii second constructs a behavioral framework. The findings show that the number of people does not determine if a behavior is perceived as multicommunication. Inconsistency amongst interviewees regarding the level of closeness when initiating SMC. The number of topics discussed impacts conversation. The platform compartmentalizes each conversation and determines how topics of conversation begin. Channel switching results in both conversations merging into a single conversation.
iv Acknowledgement
I dedicate this Thesis and research to my Grandparents, who believed in growth, education, and gezelligheid. I want to express my most profound appreciation to my intelligent and compassionate advisors, Dr. Turner and Dr. Tinkcom. Your guidance, patience, and understanding enabled me to maneuver the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic without giving up on my work. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Owen and my thesis colloquium for your valuable advice, support, and friendship during this hectic time. To my dear friends and kindhearted roommates, thank you for your willingness to help and listen. My sincere thanks to all of the participants interviewed. 2020 is a chaotic year. Thank you to all the essential workers, first responders, and people who care about the lives and well-being of others. Lastly, I cannot leave Georgetown University without mentioning my Mom, Dad, and Sister for providing me with unwavering support and continuous encouragement for everything I do. Thank you for believing in me even when I stopped believing in myself, this thesis would not have been possible without you.
Many thanks, Shannon Mair
v Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1
Literature Review...... 3
Computer-Mediated Communication ...... 3
Uses and Gratifications ...... 4
Social Interaction ...... 5
Information Seeking...... 5
Convenience Utility ...... 6
Communicatory Utility ...... 6
Information Sharing ...... 7
Multitasking and Synchronous Communication ...... 7
Channel Switching ...... 9
What is Multicommunication ...... 11
Synchronous Multimodal Communication ...... 16
History of Instant Message Communication...... 19
Early Modern Instant Messaging ...... 20
Messaging on Mobile Devices ...... 21
Smartphone Instant Messaging Applications and Social Media...... 22
Interpersonal Communication Apps ...... 22
Publicly-shared Content Platforms aka Social Media ...... 23
Private, Direct, and Personal Messages on a Social Media App ...... 23
vi 2020 and the COVID-19 Global Pandemic ...... 24
Methodology ...... 27
Outcomes of This Paper ...... 29
Coding ...... 33
When does SMC happen? ...... 33
Where do people do SMC? ...... 34
How do people SMC? ...... 36
When does SMC end? ...... 37
Findings and Analysis ...... 38
Behavior Pertaining to Synchronous Multimodal Communication ...... 38
Definitional Variations...... 40
Segmented and Evolving Definitions ...... 40
Behavior Consistent in the Sense of "Two Platforms," Two "Conversations" and One
Person ...... 41
Role of Platforms ...... 41
Pre-existing Shared Content (PSC) versus Organic...... 41
Role of Topic ...... 44
Closeness (Relationship) ...... 46
Reach of Conversations ...... 50
Termination of Synchronous Multimodal Communication ...... 51
Merging ...... 51
vii Impatience "Respond to My Other Message" ...... 52
Cognitive Load, i.e., "Let's Just Message Here, It's Easier" ...... 53
Dying Off ...... 55
Non-SMC Discussion on COVID-19 and Beyond ...... 56
Proposed Synchronous Multimodal Communication Framework and Requirements ...... 59
Conclusion ...... 60
Appendix: Publicly Posted Examples of Synchronous Multimodal Communication ...... 62
References ...... 65
viii Introduction
The initial motivation to study SMC was in an organizational communication class. In discussion with the other students, the topic of multicommunication arose. Specifically, in regard to the number of conversations, we can be having at any given time. The class then started talking about how they will be talking to the same person on multiple social media platforms while just disregarding the notion of multiple conversations with the same person. The professor was shocked that so many students have done this behavior, but it has gone unmentioned by other semesters' students. After a quick Google search, there were extensive social media posts about this behavior, but there did not seem to be any widespread academic literature that documented this behavior in which the majority of students participated in frequently. Upon thorough digging, it has come to my attention that there could be a behavior that is occurring that has not been addressed within the scholarly communication works so far.
As mentioned, there is talk on various social media platforms addressing a mutually shared behavior of communication. Smartphone-facilitated communication platforms allow for synchronous and simultaneous real-time interactions between the same two participants, a new communication phenomenon. Two participants can have two distinct conversations on two separate platforms about two distinct topics in real-time with minimal latency. Someone has
"two different conversations, on two different social media apps, at the same time... with the same person"; neither conversation overlaps the other platforms Whisper, n.d.). Existing theories of multi-communication do not account for this previously unstated phenomenon, and this thesis will explore this behavior. The topic had only been acknowledged and discussed in nonacademic settings. For example, one tweet commented that "Millennial culture is having 3 different
1 conversations with the same person across multiple platforms simultaneously" and gained roughly 45,460 Retweets, 139,230 Likes, and 600 comments (@attnwhxre, 2017).
The purpose of this paper is to understand better how technology has changed the way people communicate and to explore where, if at all, this observed behavior fits in with existing multicommunication theory. Multicommunication does not need to be with multiple people but two speech events (Reinsch et al., 2008). Speech Events have the assumption that at least three people are participating in the multicommunication – the Focal, Person 1 (having two or more conversations), Person 2 (one or more conversation), and Person 3 (one conversation or more).
Thus far, research has only addressed multicommunication as three distinct sets of audience members are required, when etymologically, it is only necessary to have two compartmentalized conversations happening synchronously. This paper will begin by addressing the evolution of
Instant messaging and the impact on communication. Then discuss existing multicommunication research and theories related to technology-mediated communication and social media. From there, a detailed explanation of SMC behavior suggested both non-academically and in this paper. Lastly, an in-depth analysis of interviews regarding the behavior pertaining to SMC and the proposed behavioral model
Modern technology, such as instant messaging, social media, and chatting platforms, further the potentiality of multicommunication. Multicommunicator's combine "two or more technologies to meet their needs and how their choices restructure interactions thereof shapes and restructures social interaction" (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 392). The use of technology adapts overtime. What humanity thought was impossible, but 20 years ago, now seems like ancient history. From the year 2020's perspective, the flip phone is as obsolete as the floppy disk compared to smartphones and cloud storage. Both flip phones and floppy disks were less than 20
2 years ago, the peak of technological advancements. The United States has now reached an age where young adults have been unaware of the world without smartphones and the internet.
Historical precedence for successfully suppressing technology is scarce; "more likely scenario is that we will find ourselves redefining acceptable patterns of interpersonal communication, with progressive amnesia about the way things used to be" (Baron, 2008, 2008, p.190).
Literature Review
Computer-Mediated Communication
Computer-Mediated Communication or "CMC" is the usage of technology and digital medium such as the internet or connected network software to communicate (Wong, 2007). As shown above (see history of IM), the use, penetration, and adaptability of CMC have been a constant in today's society. Traditionally the term CMC is specifically used to include other people (humans), but there is an increased use of communication with humans to Artificial
Intelligence (Guzman, Lewis, 2019). CMC interactions are typically text-based and allow the potential for asynchronous communication, both of which are beneficial and supportive communication (Rains, Wright, p.181). For active users of CMC, the technology can affect almost every aspect of their communication processes, and multimodality has become the primary channel characteristic of interpersonal relationships (Walther, 2011, p. 471). A few mentioned benefits of CMC are that more attention can be given to the construction and tone of a message, and also alleviate some anxiety the recipient might have if it were a face-to-face exchange. (Rains, Wright, 2016). But with every benefit, there is a perceived drawback. Cyber- bullying, feelings of isolation, lessening of self-worth, increased miscommunication or misunderstanding; and dishonesty are all negative consequences of CMC. (Wong, 2007). In
3 short, "the technology, the concepts and processes of mediation" shape our sense of what constitutes communication (Yao, Ling, 2020, p.5). It is important to remember that "the 'net is not just about what you get, but also who you get" when using social media online (Walthers,
2004 p.391).
Social media is a very common CMC that serves different purposes and allows for different functions. What is a benefit of CMC to one will likely be displeasure for another, but the capabilities and uses of CMC are consistent? The more communicative and expressive functions any one platform have, the closer the CMC will mirror the gratifications of face-to-face interactions (Yao, Ling, 2020, p.7). CMC researchers suggest that studies should not emphasize studying the new tools and features that communication technology develops, but instead focus on the technological advancements as a manifestation of communication phenomena, which then encourages the development of tools (Yao & Ling, 2020). This stance matches well with the progression from the World Wide Web (post-dotcom bubble) era of MCM to 'Web 2.0' (rich media social media, user-generated content, cloud computing) (Hosch, 2017). "The term rich media is often used casually in the literature to signify multimodal or greater- bandwidth media" platforms that support multiple verbal and nonverbal cue systems (Walther, 2011, p. 448).
Uses and Gratifications
Uses and Gratification Theory (UGT) states that users are not passive consumers of media. Historically UGT is centered around mass published content from places like newspapers or broadcasters, but social media is by and for any population – niche or mass (Katz, Blumler, &
Gurevitch, 1973, p.511). In mass media, the audience plays an active role in the consumption, interpretation, and integration for themselves. Specific types of "content serve certain functions,
4 or that one medium is deemed better at satisfying certain needs than another" (Katz et al., 1973, p.515). It is up to the user's discretion to choose the content and location, resulting in platforms and information channels competing for viewers' gratification (Katz et al., 1973). UGT adapted from mass media research to social media research "to deeper understand the fulfilment and motives users have when interacting with specific mediums" (Hossain, 2019, p.16). Whiting and
Williams published a paper identifying ten possible uses and gratifications for using social media. Of the ten identified; (1). Social Interaction, (2). Information Seeking, (3). Convenience utility, (4). Communicatory utility, and (5). Information sharing best apply to social media and multicommunication. (2013)
Social Interaction
Social interaction "is defined as using social media to communicate and interact with others" "Survey participants reported that they use social media to interact with many different types of people ranging from friends, family, spouses, co-workers, old friends, old acquaintances, and new friends" (Whiting, Williams, 2013, p.366). The desire to be connected is consistent amongst social media users, but different challenges, methods, and platforms are established to get to the outcome of disconnectedness or visibility to the masses. The "preference for different media for different kinds of connections" can be adapted to fit social media platforms and smartphone applications Katz & Blumler, p.513). Like multitasking, the "audience must be conceived as active" in wanting to have a conversation (Katz & Blumler p.511).
Information Seeking
Information Seeking This category of social media use is defined as communication facilitation and providing information to share with others. Information seeking encompasses
5 data gathering for 'real-world' events and activities, including information businesses and commerce, events and parties, and self-education (DIY's, How-to's, tutorials (Whiting, Williams,
2013, p. 366).
Convenience Utility
Convenience utility This category of social media usage is defined as providing convenience or usefulness to individuals. Social media removes physical limitations, time restrictions and allows users to "communicate with a lot of people at one time" (aka multicommunication) (Whiting, Williams, 2013, p. 367). Similarly, to the historical use of UGT, the Social Media model focuses and explains why specific platforms versus alternatives or similar platforms are chosen (Cheung, Chiu, Lee, 2010). Content and application familiarity could play a significant role in this, as well. With so many communication options, users might utilize a platform they personally like to use but also know the intended recipient also has a presence on. A Focal's favorite app for sending memes might be Twitter, but their recipient did not want to download the mobile app on their phone, so it is less likely they will get the message as intended than if it were on a mutually utilized app.
Communicatory Utility
Communicatory utility is "communication facilitation and providing information to share with others" to help facilitate communication instead of having social interaction as described above (Whiting, Williams, 2013, p.364). Social media acts as a tool to stimulate conversation involved from the content posted on a platform Whiting (Williams, 2013, p.367). Social media mass and interpersonal communication permeate each other more than ever before. Business and
Personal profiles co-exist on social media platforms and result in a co-creation of content and a
6 two-way interaction. Business can use accounts to communicate with their consumers the same way that two individuals do (Pelletier, Krallman, Adams, & Hancock, 2020, p.279).
Information Sharing
Information sharing is defined "as using social media to share information about you with others" (Whiting, Williams, 2013, p.367). Social media is by design interactive, so unlike TV or the Internet, it allows "consumers to communicate and share information via a two way dialogue in many different ways" (p.367). Someone's tweet or twitter thread (conversation) can go 'viral' to billions of individuals without effort, curation, or intention (Whiting, Williams, 2013;
Williams et al., 2012). Mass-communication used to be solely a gatekept medium, and now anyone with internet access can attempt. Being active on social media is not a guarantor that your content has the possibility to reach a mass audience uninhibited. In addition to audience reach, Social media affords a person to present to others or hide their unideal self selectively.
Users can choose to present themselves differently based on whom they want their social media account to reach. A different aspect through LinkedIn than on a Finsta account (secretive
Instagram accounts presenting content a user is "too afraid" to post on their public-oriented accounts) (Rantmonster2319, 2016; see (Malik, 2019).
Multitasking and Synchronous Communication
Multitasking is engaging in two or more tasks at the same time Stephens, 2009).
Multitasking can be one or more communicative interactions or individually-based pursuits
(eating, watching tv, folding laundry) (Baron, 2008, p. 139). Multicommunication considered a subsection of multitasking and will be addressed in detail later. Previous research, on par with the technology of the time, emphasizes when, if, and how multitasking occurs. Multitasking is
7 best when the tasks "do not interfere with one another" (Baron, 2008, p.187). The key here is that these do not interfere with one another. The same way that one app-specific convo, regardless of the recipient, does not have to interfere with the prospects of the other. IM on computers was "a private medium for communication but see its interruptive nature as unfair" (Cameron, Webster,
2005, p.98).
Theories of polychronic communication demonstrate the differences in how people can be engaged synchronous or intermittently during a given period of time (Bluedorn, Kaufman, &
Lane, 1992). Synchronous communication has a temporary, spatial void that exists between all kinds of interactions, including turn-based, in-person communication (Reinsch et al., 2008, p.
392). Synchronous refers to the lack of conscious, intentional gap in response time and occurring at the 'same time' (immediate as humanly possible). Either through CMC or FtF, if two people are engaging in one conversation and there is a significant delay in response, they will feel awkward or have a negative social connotation. However, in terms of multicommunication, a participant's attention is divided between at least two separate speech events, and this reduces the expeditiousness in responses, creating awkward lulls or moments of silence (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 392). Budgeted social presence focus is less on securing the audience's attention and more on meeting the communicator's needs to manage time and availability (Tuner, Reinsch, 2007, p.36).
Multitasking has a connotation that it is done consciously, with a certain element of challenge and stress, and results in the degradation of both tasks. Some have suggested that even attempting multitasking is damaging to your brain (Gorlick, 2009). However, multitasking occurs in "ordinary tasks that make simultaneous demands of our cognitive or physical faculties"
(Baron, 2008, p.182). Baron uses driving a car as an analogy for humans' ability to multitask.
When driving a car, you must use your legs to push the peddles, hands to steer, and maybe even
8 shift gear, all while paying attention to the entire 360 degrees visual of your car, other cars, and the road itself.
The analogy above is reductive; driving a car is much more taxing and complicated, so it requires schooling, practice, and enforcement. However, many adults around the world can drive a car as if it were second nature. Baron suggests that we can plausibly lessen the alleged performance degradation "if we practice multitasking with ICTs, our brains will adapt" (p.184).
The normalcy, reliance, and pervasiveness of ICT (in this case, smartphones) in 2020 is an argument that people have learned to multitask better to the point that it happens without realizing, or informally discussing the adaptation (see Dux, 2009). Baron wrote that it was very unlikely for someone to hold a Single IM conversation where no other online or offline activity done synchronously. One student out of 20 perceived it rude to hold simultaneous IM conversations. Students "overwhelmingly responded 'No'" when I asked the question above
(Baron, 2008, p.186). One student found that not multitasking would be "too weird" since IM conversations are a "background activity" to other tasks (Baron, 2008, p.139). IM's do not exist in isolation, but the participants "control whether to make a particular conversation active (i.e., synchronous) or let it lie dormant (i.e., asynchronous) without formally closing the interchange"
(Baron, 2008, p.186).
Channel Switching
Channel switching, the act of jumping from one channel, medium, or platform to another during a "single communication episode" (Scissors, 2013, p.240).
9
Figure 1. Examples of reported patterns of channel switching during a single communication episode (Scissors, 2013, p.240)
Channel switching has been studied intensively in workplace settings, but Scissors infers that the studies available were more focused on the logistics and outcomes rather than the interpersonal ways people might channel switch (2013, p. 238).
Related to channel switching is the practice of channel blending uses "multiple modes of communication at the same time, allowing individuals to coordinate and share experiences"
(Scissors, 2013, p. 238). the integration of interactions and content over multiple channels into one coherent conversation, often including both local and remote participants. When channel blending, people attempt to ``merge" their local and remote worlds into one coherent interaction when sharing content and experiences with friends through their devices (Isaacs, Szymanski,
Yamauchi, Glasnapp, & Iwamoto, 2012, p.9). Channel blending is the opposite of multitasking because it attempts to merge multiple tasks into one, rather than switching attention back and forth between them (Isaacs et al., 2012).
In sum, Multitasking channel switching in channel blending all are furthered by technology, specifically CMC. Multitasking is doing multiple tasks at the same time, but not necessarily any communication. Channel switching is when you were having one conversation
10 migrate from one area to another. Channel blending happens when a person attempts/intends to merge all open lines of communication on to one platform and, therefore, one conversation.
What is Multicommunication
Multicommunication is broadly "the use of technology to participate in several interactions at the same time" (Cameron & Webster, 2005, Turner & Tinsley, 2002; cf Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 39). The definition was then expanded to "two or more overlapping, synchronous conversations" (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 391). Multicommunication is a subcategory of multitasking as defined in Reinsch et al., (2008) and Reinsch and Turner (2019). Multitasking differs from multicommunication because it involves the simultaneous juggling of two or more tasks as opposed to conversations. The multitasking behavior does not have to include two acts of communication; it can be watching television and responding to text messages.
The most concise definition positions multicommunication as' 'behavior rather than a preference or an attitude, occurs when a person (the focal person) simultaneously participates in two or more interactions that might require a speaking turn" (Reinsch & Turner, 2019). This paper uses the definition above as the overarching definition of multicommunication. The current definition of multicommunication identifies it as a group of behaviors that allow for "variations in number, pace, social roles, and topics" (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 393). The culmination of these aforementioned factors produces a heightened level of multicommunication intensity. As technology changes, what it means to have a conversation needs to be updated and to adapt with the rapid change of cognitive processes.
11 Table 1. Concepts Related to Multicommunicating. Representative Concept Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Sources Bardhi et al 2010); Media multitasking No No No No No Pea et al 2012) Stephens and Electronic multitasking Yes No Yes No No Davis (2009); Wasson (2004) Dennis, Rennecker, and Invisible whispering Yes No Yes Yes No Hansen (2010); Rennecker et al 2010) Be ́langer and Independent, concurrent, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Watson-Manheim mediated interacting (2006) Cognitive multitasking No No No No No Baron (2008a).
Social multitasking— narrow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Baron (2008a)
Yes Yes Yes No No Baron (2008a) Social multitasking— broad Didomenico and Copresent interacting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Boase (2013) Synchronous Multimodal Yes No Yes No Yes* Communication Question 1. Does the concept encompass some examples of multicommunicating (MC)? Question 2. Does the concept encompass all examples of MC? Question 3. Does MC encompass some examples of the concept? Question 4. Does MC encompass all examples of the concept? Question 5. Is this concept equivalent to MC? Adapted from Reinsch and Turner 2019, P. 145
The definition of multitasking does apply to multiple actions on a smart device unless there is no element of communicative exchange. For example, the definition of multitasking does not apply when someone is 'liking' at memes on Instagram and texting a friend on iMessage since this would be two acts of communication (one media consumption, one idea exchanging); but could apply if online shopping at a department store while on the phone.
In addition to having the ability to have multiple conversations solely on in a virtual landscape, the multicommunicating experience is more severe, depending on the pace of the
12 interactions (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 393). For example, if a person receives 12 messages within
30 seconds, it will feel more cognitively strenuous than 12 messages over a longer duration.
Asynchronous conversations give more time to process information. Of the many ways to delineate what a conversation is, topic segmentation is a natural joint. Unlike social roles between different people, a topic can be the same across different interlocutors (Reinsch et al.,
2008, p. 393). You could be talking about the 2019 Super Bowl with multiple people or in multiple 'places,' but the conversations are still isolated.
However, multiple topics do not inherently mean you are multicommunicating. As in IM or even the natural flow of conversation, both FtF and CMC – two topics can be synchronously discussed using one channel. For example, if two people are discussing a post from a high school classmate on Facebook Messenger, then one brings up that the President had just tweeted something in addition to responding to the classmate's comment. This paper uses the rationale that the topic is an important aspect of defining what differentiates one conversation from another but is not enough to be a standalone divider. "Compartmentalization if it makes an interaction with the focal person unavailable to the focal person's other conversation partners"
(Reinsch, Turner 2019, p.143). Compartmentalization configuration can allow unobstructed ways to divide and provide attention amongst multiple speech events – an essential enabler for multicommunication (Reinsch et al., 2008, p 396).
Multicommunication does not have one consistent definition given the inconsistencies in the framework of what one task is versus another, and how much time can pass before they are no longer simultaneous (Reinsch, 2019, p.144). Specific characteristics of multicommunicating are reliant on “task independence” (at least two separate conversations with different partners) and performance concurrency (interleaved speaking turns)" (Benbunan-Fich, Adler, and
13 Mavlanova, 2011; Reinsch, 2019, p.144). "Interleaved speaking turns" means the two conversations are intertwined (Reinsch et al., 2008, p.393). The term emerged in noting how computer-mediated interaction "differed from typical face-to-face interaction" (Reinsch, 2019, p.144).
Conversations are traditionally, but not strictly formatted by an introductory acknowledgment, in the form of a greeting along with a closing remark, signifying an ending to the speech event (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 392). This is not the case since texting, and social media communication rarely have a permanent closure or recursive opener. Conversations via text message or social media DM's are often closed by a terminal such as read or seen receipts or an arbitrary long enough period without a response. Ghosting is an example of a terminal that is both a conclusion of a conversation and a conclusion of relationships. Oxford Dictionary defines ghosting as the "practice of ending a personal relationship with someone by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication" (Ghosting, n.d.).
In the event a conversation begins and ends without traditional acknowledgments of arrival and departure, it is still possible to recognize the pattern and sequence in which the speech acts result in a "successful conclusion" of that event (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 393). There are affordances within messaging platforms that give users awareness if they are participating in synchronous communication. In iMessage, it is the thought bubble with an ellipsis; in WhatsApp, a written notice by name which is typing at that moment is not the aspect of the technology that makes it comparable to above. The platform and technology allow the choice to respond as soon as the message is seen (as if you were in the same room). or take time to respond without having the conversation end/conclude (control over the pace of tempo) (Reinsch, 2019, p.143)
14 As quoted in Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley, using technology does not invariantly mandate a person to multi communicate, but only when the "social dynamic" of that situation calls for it (2008, p.391). A commonly occurring trait of multicommunication – however not a prerequisite – is that the behavior is not apparent to every communication partner active with the observed actor. Simply put, not everyone involved in the multicommunication will know that it is happening. This subsection of multicommunication is known as Invisible Whispering (Dennis,
Rennecker, Hansen, 2010). Invisible whispering involves two independent speech events – the physical element (meetings, lectures) and 'side conversation' (text chat, emails, passing notes)
(Reinsch, p.146). Swapping back-and-forth between communication partners leads to a hierarchical change in position; the focal communicator has to make transitions between "roles or subroles as the individual moves among the conversations" (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 393).
People are more likely to have certain conversations on certain apps (Memes on twitter, making plans on iMessage, etc.) Global Digital Overview, 2020; See Gray et al., 2018). Of course, there is no one-behavior-fits-all – but just like how a parent will have to code-switch between a subordinate and their teenager, there might be a similar code switch or topic isolation between apps (Turner, Reinsch, 2007, p.53).
Someone who is multicommunicating is engaged in two or more interleaved conversations synchronously. By this effect, the amount of open conversations occurring via multiple media platforms is compartmentalized (each one topic confined to one platform and vice versa) (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 396). This is an indicator of the extent to which the multicommunicator can attentively participate in each speech event (Reinsch et al., 2008, p.
393). However, that does raise the question – is it the number of people and, therefore,
15 conversations that determine 'multicommunication,' or is it the distinctiveness of conversations occurring at the same time?
Synchronous Multimodal Communication
Synchronous Multimodal Communication (SMC) is the behavior of having multiple conversations on separate platforms with one set of participants at the same time. "One set of participants" means that there are the same people involved in all conversations. The "set" can be two people total or one group of two or more people. This paper focused on the interactions involving one set of participants that remain the same for the duration of this behavior. The behavior in the interviews is addressed as "one person" to attempt to limit confusion, but SMC can be done with multiple participants as long as all participants remain the exact same across conversations. This study focuses on the person interviewed and the "one other person" (the recipient) they would possibly be doing the SMC behavior with. The stage spotlight is on the
Focal person, but the recipient is still on stage, participating in the performance.
Multimodality is a succinct term to describe how "contemporary relationships are not conducted through one medium or another but often through a great variety of channels"
(Walther, 2011, p. 471). Using Walther's description, "Multimodal" will refer to the various channels, platforms, and mediums that allow for communication to occur. "Synchronous" refers to the conversations occurring simultaneously in regard to the other conversation. Synchronous in the definition accounts for minimal latency between responses of each conversation
(Conversation 1, Conversation 2) and not the elapsed time between people (timed response between Person 1, Person 2). For example, Person 1 may send conversation 1 and conversation 2 at 10:30 am, and Person 2 might not respond until 11:45 am, but when they do respond, they
16 respond to both conversations within the same session of screen time. "Screen time" is the amount of time spent using an electronic device. Multicommunication is "two or more overlapping, synchronous conversations" (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 391).
The figure below shows different types of multicommunication and where SMC fits in.
Each letter is representative of one person. The arrow's direction indicates the exchange of information. So ↔ means there is an exchange of language from people. Whomever the arrow is pointing at is receiving information but is not responding with words. Each row is a conversation active at the same time (synchronous).
Table 2. Conversation Behaviors In multicommunication. One-on-One Parallel Invisible Conversation Conversations Multicommunication Whispering SMC A ↔ B A ↔ B A ↔ B A ↔ B A ↔ B C ↔ D A ↔ C A ← C A ↔ B E ↔ F A ↔D
Adapted from Reinsch and Turner 2019, P. 145
Multicommunication has this inherent assumption that there have to be more than 2 people with at least two conversations. The standard, traditional scenario of a conversation the person at the other end makes it one conversation. The second untethered person would materialize the second conversation. It is not the platform or physicality of the conversations
(phone, in-person, AIM) in which you communicate; it is who is at the receiving end. No longer does that apply within this framework because the number of physical persons no longer plays a role.
17 Under either definition, SMC would be multicommunication since multiple overlapping interactions/conversations are happening synchronously. However, where SMC differs is, there is no third-party interaction. The notion that conversation is a one-on-one exchange between two groups. There is no third-party involved. Parallel conversation is what we think of as public or class conversations, like at a party or when people break off into groups and discuss something in the middle of a lecture, arguably even email or telephone call. The conversations are happening all the same time, but there is no overlap in either topic of people involved. 'A' need not be one person, and it could be one group to another group or one group to a single person.
The quantity of people is not the important part; it is the lack of overlap in members. E ↔
F could be talking about the same thing that A ↔ B is, but they are not affected by the others involvement in the same topic. Two distinct conversations. Parallel conversations likely have a definitive start and stop even if those are informal. SMC strays from the current definition of multicommunication because both parties are aware that two distinct conversations are occurring synchronously. For example, if a student is sitting in a lecture, taking notes but swapping back- and-forth between notes and iMessage, all while listening to the professor. Of course, nonverbal cues may lead the professor to believe the student is not focusing on the lecture entirely, but there is no telling on what the student is saying to the person they are messaging, and the professor has no control over the occurrence of, or involvement in that conversation (See
Invisible whispering versus SMC, table 2).
In 2004, Walther emphasized that future studies should focus on channel switch (going back and forth between two platforms – see literature review) in CMC scholarship, stating
"relationships are not single-channeled, despite the tendency of much of our research to control, partial, and force these limitations for the purpose of study" (Scissors, 2013, p. 238). Even at the
18 early stages of technological development, they forecast that SMC would only become more prevalent in the future and might become "no more challenging than playing the piano with both hands, and no more worthy of remark" (Baron, 2008, p.190). The same way in which something like riding a bike becomes second nature and unless someone asks how it is unlikely, the biker will consciously think about the mechanics of riding as they are doing it. SMC is one possible adept affordance brought on by the maturation of smartphones and the familiarity with their spatial, temporal, and communication capabilities.
It is important to note that SMC touches on many facets and uses of social media and smart technology, but the behavior itself does not apply to all possibilities on said apps. For example, on Facebook, you can post to your wall, have a Facebook Messenger Conversation, respond to a comment on a post on another person's page. SMC is interested in communications with an intended audience regardless of the content of the conversation. This paper does not attempt to address how or why users choose their platforms or topics. If this study's findings are significant, the behavioral framework for what constitutes a single conversation and
Multicommunicating could be redefined. If the findings of this study are significant, there will be a new behavior or subcategory of multicommunication that addresses the possibilities of one-on- one interactions. This paper's significance is that if SMC does indeed occur, this could be the first time in a multicommunication study that there has been no physical component or corporeal emphasis and divide on distinguishing one conversation from another.
History of Instant Message Communication
This section will go over the predecessors to the current synchronous-capable communication technologies. Beginning in the late 1990s with early mass-used instant
19 messaging and text messaging, the jump to social media and the emerging uses in 2020. In the last 20 years, society's use of technology has drastically progressed, even when beginning at the modern invention of pagers to smart technology and beyond COVID-19.
Early Modern Instant Messaging
Instant messaging technology existed before the 1990s, but it was not until American
Online (AOL) instant messaging called AIM controlled the American Market in the early 2000's that IM apps took off (De Hoyos, 2020). AIM is best known for popularizing the "buddy list" and slang acronyms' (think LOL, OMG, BRB) (Baron, 2008, 2013, p.135). AIM was only on desktop computers and required both people to be physically at the computer and connected to the internet to communicate in real-time. Just like phones before voicemail, if you did not answer, you did not get to leave a message for the intended recipient. Another option was that
AIM would be left running, and you could send an IM, but the person would not see it until they returned. This behavior was common enough to include buddy list statuses such as online, away from keyboard (AFK) auto-populated messages, and appear, offline (Baron, 2013, p.141).
Assuming nobody had to make a phone call while you were online, IM was accessible all hours of the day as long as your 'friends' were online. Since AOL instant messenger, early adopters of the technology have grown and developed the technology even faster than the aging of its users.
IM allowed for the real-time conversations the same way telephones did, just with the written language. IM was most common around technology-centric professionals, academics and then moved on to the mass market, widely used by adolescents and youth adults (Baron, 2013, p.138-
9)
20 Messaging on Mobile Devices
In 2001 about 30 million text messages were sent per month in the United States
(Desjardins, 2016). In 2005, of the 134 million American adults with cell phones, around 27% used SMS "short message service" (Rainie, 2005). By 2006, 12.5 billion SMS texts were sent each month in the United States. Desjardins, 2016). Even just four years later, 72% of adults send and receive text messages regularly (Lenhart, 2010). However, the most noteworthy is that even though 72% of adults with cell phones text regularly, teenagers polled "on average, 5 times more texts per day than adult texters" (Lenhart, 2010). Messaging on cell phones allows for basic instant message functioning but done "asynchronously," and for images and video to be sent
(MMS messages). (Baron, 2013, p.152, Openmarket, 2016). There was less market saturation of mobile phones in 2010 (smart- or otherwise) as there is in 2020. These studies above do not account for data-driven messages mobile apps like iMessage, WeChat, WhatsApp, etc.
The IM of the past has not been put on the shelf to collect dust but adapted to include features of traditional IM, texting, group chats (multiple-recipients in the same message), and more media-rich channels. Smartphones and smart devices are now so embedded into society; they feel like an extension of one's person. In 2007 Apple iOS (iPhone) was released, and a year later, the Android operating systems were sold to the masses (History of Mobile, 2020). Pew
Research center polled that currently, 99% of adults aged 18-29 own a cellular device, and 96% of those are smartphones (iPhone, Android, etc.) (Demographics of Mobile, 2019). Since then, smartphones have situated themselves in nearly every aspect of social life. Smartphones are mobile phones "that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded applications" (Smartphone, n.d.). It is important to distinguish the evolution from cell phone
21 SMS to smartphone social platform-based messages because the latter is a maturation of both technological advancements and the pushing of preconceived communication limitations.
Smartphone Instant Messaging Applications and Social Media
Any smartphone user can download third-party applications that are accessible with the same content across operating systems. The rise of social networking and smartphones, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter developed mobile applications, while companies such as Snapchat and Instagram grew out of and reside predominantly on mobile devices (De Hoyos, 2020;
Desjardins, 2016)
Interpersonal Communication Apps
WhatsApp, Android Messenger, and iMessage are all more private IM-applications in the same way that emails and AIM are private. There are indicators that a focal person is currently using the application, but only those who that focal explicitly sends that message can see its content. Using iMessage as an example: iMessage is messaging software that runs primarily on data and favors messaging other Apple users (Apple, n.d.). iMessage is available on all Apple devices sold and syncs messages on any device the user may own. There is no isolation between devices as there was with IM or with cell phones. You can 'text' from your cell phone, watch, iPad, laptop, or desktop computer as long as it is an apple product (Apple, n.d.). Other (non-
Apple). devices can get your messages, but it is through a third party, and we are not focusing on those for the purpose of the study. iMessage also includes emoji, "gif keyboards," photo/video messages, voice memos, handwriting, group chats and more features that enable more media-rich communication (Apple, n.d.).
22 Publicly-shared Content Platforms aka Social Media
Social media apps allow users to post content with no need for direct or private recipients. Publicly-shared content is content (videos, text, images, art) for an indefinite audience
(either public mass-consumption or gatekept). Posting to the Facebook wall, Instagram meme pages, and sharing content from outside sources (linking a BBC article to twitter) or company- owned accounts are a few of almost endless examples of publicly-shared content on social media mobile apps. So unlike interpersonal communication apps, there is a level of intended mass- consumption to an open-ended audience when posting to social media (Fiesler et al., 2017). A user can expressly limit who can gain access to their page – making it private – but if someone has access to or "follows" that user, it is fair game for any of their followers to see anything that the user has posted (Magid, 2013). As mentioned above, meme pages are profiles that aggregate internet memes. Some accounts are private, others are public, but meme accounts are among the largest publicly-shared content creators discussed in this study (see analysis section).
Private, Direct, and Personal Messages on a Social Media App
As of 2020, nearly all market-dominating social media platforms have some type of IM- style interface, making the apps a "mixture of public content and selectively shared, non-public content" (Fiesler et al., 2017). Whether the IM-interface was an upgrade to the original platform
(Instagram direct messaging, Facebook Messenger), the initial intent (Snapchat, Slack, WeChat), or acquisition (Microsoft buying Skype, Facebook buying WhatsApp); social media apps see value in having an IM-interface on their respective platforms (De Hoyos, 2020). Personal
Messages take on many names depending on the platform in question, but the function remains the same. This paper will use Instagram's Direct Message (DM) as the term to describe the
23 function to send an in-app private message only accessible and visible by the users participating in the message (Instagram Help Center, n.d.; see Twitter, n.d.; Facebook, n.d.). Snapchat allows users to send private "snaps" that are only temporarily visible. Unlike other social media apps,
Snapchat has evolved from an Interpersonal Communication App to a hybrid app to include "a mix of private and public content, including brand networks and coverage of live events"
(Desjardins, 2016).
Even behemoth apps not mentioned in this paper, all have DM functions on them either as the Initial intent and main utility of the app (Tinder, Grindr, Nextdoor, Kik) or a secondary- feature such as (TikTok or YouTube Live Chat). Regardless of the direction of evolution, Social media platforms have interpersonal IM capabilities, but not vice versa. So a messaging app like iMessage does not hold the same functions as Instagram, but Instagram does have the functions of iMessage (De Hoyos, 2020). This allows for the possibility of hybrid usage of publicly shared content to be sent interpersonally within the same application (Direct Message, 2019; Fiesler et al., 2017).
2020 and the COVID-19 Global Pandemic
"Public social media platforms have transformed rapidly to play the role of content consumption sources, and the private messaging platforms created the difference by engaging users into more meaningful conversations and recommendations, while keeping them all active together" on the same platform (excluding companies, public figures, meme/fan accounts, and social media influencers) (Malik, 2019). Global Digital Overview found that 3.96 billion people use social media as of July 2020, which makes up about 51% of the current global population
(Kemp et al., 2020). A study by GlobalWebIndex and We Are Social found that "Facebook
24 Messenger was the most popular to share content on (82 percent), followed by WhatsApp (56 percent), direct message on Instagram (34 percent) and Snapchat (32 percent)" (Kemp et al.,
2020). Social media no longer just a bulletin-board style communication platform, rather more of a media-rich private message platform. Of the 3,100+ people surveyed, only 48% felt
"comfortable enough to be themselves and could think about sharing the same content on a public forum" as they did in a private-message Malik, 2019).
This paper is written during the height of the global pandemic COVID-19 quarantine and worldwide lockdown (See CDC.gov; WHO.int). It would be remiss to omit the effect COVID-19 is having on the world. There are very few aspects of life that the Corona Virus has not affected; most importantly is the loss of human life. The world came to what felt like an abrupt halt as the virus covered every "corner" of the global within weeks. Work-from-home orders, self- quarantining, and mandatory lockdowns of business and public spaces have changed how society uses technology. Ecommerce and communication platforms are two of the most 'essential' platforms of 2020.
The 'Digital 2020 July Global Statshot Report' (Digital 2020 July) is a global trend report published by We Are Social and Hootsuite discussing the "latest insights into how people around the world use the internet, social media, mobile devices, and ecommerce" (Global Digital
Overview, 2020, slide 2). The data comes from surveys conducted between January through
March of 2020 and accredits COVID-19-related lockdowns to people spending even more time using social media each day (Kemp et al., 2020). Across the board, the coronavirus will have an
'enduring' behavioral impact. Digital 2020 July's finding show that internationally Internet Users
(Ages 16-64) are spending 70% more time on their smart- or mobile phones due to Covid-19
(Global Digital Overview, 2020, slide 11). Since COVID, there has been about a 22% increase in
25 eCommerce compared to pre-pandemic numbers, and almost 50% say "they expect to shop online more frequently even after the pandemic ends" (Global Digital Overview, 2020, slide 162
& 159).
Unsurprisingly due to COVID-19, there is a reported increase in online and digital activities. Internet users reported spending more time on social media (43%), messaging services
(42%), and general mobile apps (36%) than pre-pandemic behavior (Global Digital Overview,
2020, slide 13). Digital 2020 July also reported that 99% of Internet Users "used a social network or messaging service in the past month" (slide 64). "Text-based communication is associated with helping people within their community to help cope with their health conditions" (Rains,
Wright, 2016, p.181). Of course, it is likely that once the pandemic concludes, more people can go outside, and as a result, might not be as active on their phones for the same duration. The users may have a different relationship with their social messaging and private messaging apps' ability to achieve the same level of connectivity and closeness once reserved for in-person meetings.
Today the world, as predicted by McLuhan, is a Global Village of technological
communications but it's also a Global Village engaged in a battle against a common
enemy, COVID-19. The rules of engagement, however, have to be written taking into
account new codes of ethics and social and interpersonal behaviour (Duffy, Baluch,
Welland, 2020).
26 Methodology
The following section addresses the purpose, scope, and limitations of SMC to outline where it fits into this study clearly. This paper is interested to see if SMC is distinguishable from not only existing academic literature. This is a communicative behavior that might feel automatically or done unconsciously to those who do it. A level of "I've never really thought about that" must be considered to see if there is a reason to consider SMC as discernable from the historical uses of communication technology. The criteria for those interviews only that they use or have used social media and smartphones. Geographically, participants were located across the United States and spanned multiple 'generations' and professions. The majority of those interviewed were college graduates not limited to one specific field of study and after-college profession (retiree, social media influencer, sales are some examples).
For the purpose of the interviews conducted, terms including "platform," "interaction," and "conversation" were defined. The platform is in reference to any mobile, tablet, computer, or smart device connected to other devices via the internet or cellular data. Concerning interpersonal communication, the term platform usually refers to "social media" (What is Social,
2017). Scholars and the public alike have differing framing for defining the scope of the term social media. Social media used as a "catch-all term for a variety of internet applications that allow users to create content and interact with each other" (What is Social, 2017). Tangentially, the term "platform" is used alongside social media to indicate either the lumping of multiple company software (Snapchat Facebook Instagram) or as a way to act as an elevated messaging service for public discourse (such as posters, soapboxes, free-speech zones). What defines a social media platform varies from interpersonal public and scholarly perspective. No one definition fits all. For example, it is more likely that Instagram and Facebook are seen as social
27 media platforms, but iMessage or Slack (business messaging platform) might not be considered a social media platform. Similarly, WhatsApp is not operating system specific unlike iMessage, but people are more likely to consider WhatsApp a social media platform or just a platform rather than iMessage.
Similarly, video conferencing platforms such as Zoom, or Skype do not get the same widespread labeling as social media as something like Twitch or TikTok. Keeping these idiosyncrasies in mind, the study defines "platform" as not just public-facing social media platforms, but anything that you can use in a tech-mediated circumstance to potentially converse with at least one other person. The caveat of potentially is included since there is no guarantee that an individual or mass impressions (viewers or consumers of content) will see the communicative acts. For example, posting on Facebook does not mean that someone will see your content.
To better illustrate what behavior this study was interested in, visual aids of the proposed behavior were shown (see Appendix A). The first four figures used in the interview are like a
"textbook" example of SMC. They are all just stated in slightly different ways, and purposely had many because different people latched onto different aspects of each example. Even with all four figures, they are just synonyms for the same behavior; people recognized that this is something that is a new and emerging phenomenon and trend. One interviewee could not imagine that even a decade ago, this behavior could happen at all, let alone as penetrative as it has become for them. "I've never thought about this kind of stuff. It just happened. Again, going back to like the way Gen Z and millennials kind of grew up with this, it all sort of like is a little bit intuitive, instinctive, almost" (Interview 2). SMC is going to become more prominent with
28 time, and what it means to have a conversation will no longer apply in the structure of how somebody thinks.
How we process information is a crucial aspect of multicommunication. Increasing the intensity of a conversation will enhance the effectiveness of the multicommunicative abilities, followed by a plateau before becoming overwhelming and leading towards a potentially sharp decline (Reinsch et al., 2008, p. 394). It is understandable that there are multiple conversations between two people, but where the confusion and nuances kick in is what distinguishes one conversation from another. It is important to state this limitation that once people overlap the conversations, SMC in this paper ends. At least for the scope of this paper, SMC is not going to address why or how people choose to merge the two conversations – only the when and if they actually do. The minute you reference one conversation in another location, it is no longer the separate conversations, it is just one conversation happening across platforms (arguably this is just one more-media-rich conversation).
Outcomes of This Paper
1. This could possibly be an academically untested phenomenon that occurs with active
social media users that does not fall aptly into any one existing framework.
2. If this suspected phenomenon occurs, there will be a new component to the existing
overarching theory, and it will be the first time in human history, one audience is able to
multicommunicate simultaneously.
3. If data supports SMC's behavior, a framework to aid in identifying and distinguishing
SMC from other Multicommunication behavior can act as a model for future studies.
29 For those who are not social scientists or communication scholars, the term "conversation" is likely to remain formally undefined. It is just something that happens when you use the word whenever it fits – A catch-all term that has some characteristics required to occur, but these characteristics again vary from person to person. Initially, while doing these interviews, I did not realize that I had to clarify and open up the definition of conversation. To some, the conversation can be nonverbally (excluding ASL), and for others, there has to be some type of written or spoken/signed intent. So, for the purpose of this study, "conversation," "interaction," "act," and
"communication," all were used synonymously, and the participants should use whichever words they felt comfortable with and to update and change definitions as the interview progressed. For example, I would always use the word conversation, and at some point, if a participant did not feel like the word conversation matched, they would update the definition to match their feelings.
I disclosed to the participants that I would not be giving them any textbook definitions because I was interested in their thought processes and not the thought processes framed around existing research and theories. Having participants define "conversation," "communication,"
"interaction," and various other terms only remained consistent in the fact that at least they themselves were involved. The term multicommunication was eventually removed from the interviewers' question bank and only mentioned if the participants mentioned it first or as a last resort to help them understand a question. SMC itself was not defined unless asked at the interview's conclusion.
All interviews conducted happened during a global pandemic. So, as a safety precaution and in regulation with federal and University guidelines, all interviews were conducted physically distant, on the video conferencing platform, Zoom. An important note is that one of the prerequisites' for participating in the study was to have been or be an active user or social
30 media and smart technology. Moreover, since the target audience was already in possession of a smart device, there were no additional barriers or exclusions caused by the online-only interview since Zoom is a platform you can download for free.
A total of 15 interviews were conducted. Interviews were recorded and stored in the secure folder with transcriptions from the recordings. Identifying information has been removed from the transcriptions. However, the audio recordings have been left unaltered. The deleted video recording ensures the privacy of the participants. No visual record of the participants h If the recording feature failed on them, backup was recorded, which would then be transcribed and saved in the same process as outlined above, only with no accompanying video. The interviewer's script consisted of 15 prompts and accompanied visual aids. All 15 questions might not have been asked for directions since sometimes one question would be asked, and the participants would answer multiple questions in the process. Interviews lasted approximately one hour and gave participants the opportunity to input any additional thoughts and opinions and questions at the end.
Since this paper is trying to answer the research question of how, if possible, can two conversations happen with the same person at the same time, exploratory methods allow for the opportunity for the openness and depth of each individual's experience? If this behavior already had an academic precedent at the time of production, then quantitative measure is a suitable method of testing the scope and reliability of SMC. Grounded theory can be achieved by methodical, nonprobability sampling until enough data satisfies the theoretical assertion (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
31 Purposive sampling (aka selective, subjective, judgment) is an information-gathering process in which a researcher relies upon their judgment in choosing the participants for the study. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling occurring when the "elements selected for the sample are chosen by the judgment of the researcher" (Dudovskiy, n.d.). In this method, researchers believe that they can achieve an accurate representation of a sample group by acting on their best judgment, thus saving them time and money. This study's approach is similar to that of TV reporters stopping people in the street to ask their opinions about current events is the most common, real-world example of this sampling method. Alternatively, purposive sampling methods are effective when only a select group of individuals can meet the criteria acting as a knowledgeable source of information for the study's nature. For example, a researcher wanting to analyze the effects of personal tragedy and grief, such as a death in the family affecting the performance of a senior executive, the researcher may apply their own judgment of which senior executive may be the best candidate for an interview (Dudovskiy, n.d.).
Using purposive sampling, in-depth interviews, and elicit responses in terms of social media (Whiting, Williams, 2013). With the sole criteria being the participants' use or used social media frequently to have multiple conversations – 15 interviews were conducted. Due to the small scope of this study, the behavior cannot be generalized to a larger population. Researchers experimenting with purposive sampling argue that nonprobability methods are better suited for in-depth qualitative research when the goal is to understand complex social phenomena (Tracy,
2013). Qualitative data show not only how certain phenomena unfold but why social life takes the forms we observe (Tracy, 2013). "Rich and varied data light the path for causal explanation, facilitating the ability to identify key explanations and to exclude competing theories" (Tracy,
2013, p.219). Furthermore, the conclusions of in-depth analyses of a small-scale non-purposive
32 sample invite a deep understanding of discovering and identifying patterns and "causal mechanisms" that do not create the assumption of context and time (Dudovskiy, n.d.).
Coding
First cycle coding employed in vivo coding, which is assigning a label that reflects a theme or subject of a direct quote from an interview (Tracy, 2013, p.190). First cycle coding resulted in about 430 quotes from 16 hours of interviewing. Using the constant comparative method in grounded theory, the secondary cycle axial codes resulted in emergent categories. The basis of this category construct is to understand broadly if SMC does happen then; (1) When does SMC happen, (2) Where does SMC happen, (3) How do people do SMC, and (4) When does SMC conclude. This paper focuses on the possible behavior, scope, and theoretical framework of SMC, but many interviewees expressed different rationales for why this behavior occurs. Then why was notated and will be referenced for context but is not intended to be the focus. From these four emergent categories uncovered three patterns of behavior, or themes, which help answer the question, "How, if possible, can two conversations happen with the same person at the same time?"
When does SMC happen?
This code is mainly interested in the behavior that occurs as described by interviewees when they consider themselves active in SMC. This code is interested in seeing under what circumstances the interviewee has given their own examples of SMC or looked at the provided figures, which lead them to discuss if they thought it was "right" or to what extent the provided figures' behavior holds true for them. To be included in this category, the behavior has to be
33 discussing the actability of instance within that story. So, any example of SMC they think is a correct and appropriate response to the first and second prompt of the interview (Has there ever been a time that you have had multiple conversations with one person on different platforms at the same time? or Look at the examples provided, does anything stand out to you?). In this code, if a participant says this behavior has not happened to them or cannot occur, it is not included.
Typical examples include any acknowledgment that respondents shared the figures or provided examples of their own SMC experiences.
An acknowledgment need not be unconditional support for, but merely some SMC elements were mentioned in their story or of the examples. Atypical exemplars (surprising examples of this code); The response does not need to be positive or affirming. If a response is something like "yeah that happens, but I would never do that" – that tone and opinion are included in this code. The argument that since one conversation influenced the other in tone, they are, in fact, one "media-rich" conversation, but I would like to posit that any conversation might influence another if that basis of the analysis is: of 'emotion.' If I get in a fight with my parents and leave the fight with residual sadness, then the emotion and tone of any subsequent or ongoing conversation can switch in tone as well – regardless of who causes the shift, and who is receiving the focal shift. Close instances not coded are that of exemplars who talk about circumstances in which SMC does not occur. For example, if they give examples of Invisible
Whispering or Channel Blending (starting a conversation in-person and carrying it on via text).
Where do people do SMC?
Where is focused on what platforms SMC takes place on. By design, SMC must make use of two or more platforms. So, this code is interested in seeing which platforms are favored or
34 most used by the interviewees. To be included in this criterion, there must be multiple platforms
("But like, as far as the actual conversations that usually stay pretty distinct on different platforms") (Interview 2). Alternatively, ambiguous distinction mentioned ("It is less common, not unheard of, for me to find a piece of content on one platform and share it on a different platform") (Interview 1). included in this code can also be the topics and not mention the platforms explicitly. For example, "I feel like it happens with my boyfriend a lot too, just because like we're talking a lot too. So like, I'll be texting him being like, do we need anything from the grocery store, but I can also send him a picture of like a cat or something" (Interview 5).
The person made it clear that they are having in their opinion two conversations by naming one method, texting, and then referring to the topic of another. To restate, a platform is as any CMC application used to have a text or visual conversation.
Exclude data from this code are non-visual conversations such as facetiming, talking on the phone, or any asynchronous conversations. It is important not that although this code focuses solely on non-verbal, or 'human' synchronous conversation, that does not mean future studies cannot find SMC occurring with more rich media methods. A typical example of this code is "I feel like I can be carrying on a conversation with someone about like, how their day was going, or something of that fashion via iMessage. But then, something ad hoc is what I would capture via snapshot. So we would discuss it for instance, if, like, I made something, something really good, I wanted to show them that I could get some kind of response about that" (Interview 10).
Frequently, depending on the question asked to the interviewee, the topic would be the distinguisher of the multiple conversations. One participant said, "I think it's topic specific" when asked about where they choose to have their conversations (Interview 10). The separation of the conversation by topic is important and is included in another code (see 3).
35 How do people SMC?
This code is interested in the behavior's execution. Think of this code as more the mechanic's behavior than how it has enacted. Even if multiple people claim to do the same behavior to the method in which they describe how they do it, think about it, and rationalize, it can vary. This code is interested in how people distinguish SMC versus other conversation behaviors. Any notation of how people distinguish SMC from other behavior. Must include some stance on how a communication act is different from another regardless if it is in accordance with the SMC framework.
Not included if there is no reference relating to multiple topics, platforms, or conversations. So, a response such as "I would tend to think of that as just one conversation" does not include any insight on why or how that impacts their perceptions and therefore not included (Interview 2). An obvious example from the same interview of this code is "Like that'd be like, almost impossible to do, actually face to face. But I feel like I could do that if I'm talking to you on iMessage about going to [redacted] and then, as I'm typing that out, you're texting me on Instagram, about adopting a dog, I can send the message on iMessage, and then switch to responding to your dog message Instagram as you respond to the dinner plan or movie plan on a message. So like, there's like, it lets you have two different conversations in a way that you couldn't do face to face. Could be happening at the exact same time, in my opinion, but it's like to do it actually face to face would be mind-bogglingly confusing" (Interview 2). When asked if they are participating in multiple conversations, the interviewee responded, "If they text back,
Yeah," is an atypical exemplar. It included the criteria for them to be engaged in multiple conversations but does not directly reference multiple 'anything' as a standalone quote (Interview
4). This is a solid example of how intrapersonal perception matters and how people perceive
36 their role in SMC. Lastly, if there is mention of a conclusion of multiple conversations even if it describes the process of how it concluded, it is not included.
When does SMC end?
The When code is interested in when conversations merge or when this behavior concludes. When one conversation references the existence of the other conversation; when one conversation is opened and not responded to; when both topics move to a single platform – these are behaviors that fall outside the SMC framework and result in a conclusion of SMC but a continuation of communication between the single-audience members. "One of the things that I have is like if the person that I'm communicating with, like, naturally brings the first conversation to the second one, so that we're just like, talking about the same thing" (Interview
8). Any behavior that does not discuss the conclusion, ignoring, or merging multiple conversations simultaneously does not fit the criteria for this code. A surprising example of this code is
So for me, I'm thinking of one friend in particular, who doesn't check her phone very
often, so she'll be catching up on conversation starters. I've sent her on different
platforms over the past few days. And she'll answer them all at the same time, on different
platforms and then decide, "oh, let's just stick to one" [S: *laughs*] I am more frequently
connected than she is (Interview 1).
This is technically in SMC parameters because although the interviewee has sent multiple messages across multiple platforms, asynchronously, the friend responded to all of them at once, which is when SMC begins. This is a rare example of the entire lifecycle of SMC. Coding the
37 appear to fit the criteria but does not is any told scenario that does not include all four criteria for
SMC; Synchronous, multiple platforms, multiple topics, and same audience.
In response to the question, "why does this matter"; there are many benefits to understanding that the existing multicommunication theories do not account for the new cognitive and communicative capabilities that younger generations have developed being alongside smart technology before cognitive developmental stages. Nevertheless, this paper did not want to explore the psychology behind intent, perception, and rationalization of why SMC could be happening. If findings within this sample are supported, a more extensive qualitative study could benefit from addressing the "why" once SMC is significant across a broader sample.
Findings and Analysis
The coding above grants insight into SMC's possible "existence" and determines the boundaries of the behavior. This portion of the paper focuses on an in-depth analysis of interviews regarding the themes that emerged from the coding: Platform, Topic, and Reach of conversation.
Behavior Pertaining to Synchronous Multimodal Communication
The findings show that the amount of people does not determine if a behavior is perceived as multicommunication. Inconsistency amongst interviewees regarding the closeness level when initiating SMC is likely in part to the small sample size. The number of topics discussed impacts the perception of what a conversation is. Platform compartmentalizes each conversation and facilitates how topics begin. Channel switching results in both conversations merge into a single conversation.
38 During the interview, this paper's research question was: "has there ever been a time that you've had multiple conversations with one person at the same time" off the bat, all but one interviewee said yes. Secondly, then when asking people to look at examples of SMC, this is when it started to become cherry-picked what you want to see for interviews. When shown examples of traditional multicommunication, people were able to distinguish that this (channel switching fig 5, invisible whispering fig 6) behavior looks different, feels different, and is different from the examples SMC. People can distinguish what feels like one linear conversation versus what feels like multiple conversations, which was an unexpected finding of this research.
Even within the established designation of synchronous communication within multicommunication theory, the enacted behavior still occurs. Meaning, if you showed someone a timestamped archive of multiple conversations and took away the names of the people involved, the time order paired with the topic was most important to what made it multicommunication, not the number of people.
Within the parameters of "two conversations at the same time, with one person," the responses of what was "conversation" were inconsistent both intra- and interpersonally. The definition of multicommunication not given, and the term itself evaded if possible. Instead the interviewer would use "multiple conversations" or "multiple conversations at the same time" to avoid latching on pre-existing definitions. This paper's definition of "conversation" was shared with the interviewees, but during the interview, there would either be 1. contradictory or 2. segmented and evolving definitions depending on the question.
39 Definitional Variations
Contradictory definitions: When an interviewee would respond to question scenarios, the figures, or clarification on their definition, there would be distinctly different explanations throughout the interview. Contradictory definitions found in the interviewer's analysis and, on rare occasions, the interviewee themselves. Qualifiers such as "now I'm contradicting myself," "I feel like I really just contradict myself," and "so probably gonna be going completely back on everything I said earlier" were said by 2 participants when realizing their explanations went contradictory to earlier claims. The contradiction does have a negative connotation, but as in any learning experience, you can start with one opinion and develop a different one over time. This is not to say that their explanations or verbatim definitions always developed in support of this paper's hypothesis but simply that one definition does not apply every framework or scenario a definition of "conversation" plays in multicommunication.
Segmented and Evolving Definitions
Similarly to contradictory definitions, segmented and evolving definitions changed over time, but contradictory definitions had no intention of not using a blanket or catch-all term and happened either linearly or fragmented. Instead, a conversation was dependent on the value or willingness the focal received from the interaction. For example, if someone is not in the mood to have a conversation on Instagram, they are less likely to look at that message as a conversation. "I guess in theory, there can be two wildly different conversations going on at one time for me. But it almost doesn't feel communicative” (Interview 4) The behavior itself is not in question just what the term a “conversation” implies. A definitional insistence that some (30%) participants necessitated was that "back-and-forth" between the focal and the participant to be a
40 conversation. To some, there needed to be a matched response to others a "thumbs up," "heart," or a "read" receipt was enough. Regardless if participants defined something as a conversation, interaction, message, communication, etc. It is noteworthy that all 15 interviewees agreed that you can have two conversations with one person at the same time – even if they have ‘not done it themselves’ (Interview 15).
Behavior Consistent in the Sense of "Two Platforms," Two "Conversations" and One Person
SMC within this sample is supported, so Multicommunication could benefit from considering this behavior as a subsection. With SMC, one cannot get "left in the dark" per se.
You cannot keep a secret from someone who is there, whom you are already having a conversation with. The people interviewed can have multiple conversations with the same person synchronously in the same capacity as if it was with multiple people. The distinction of who is on the receiving end of the message makes no difference to whether it is multicommunication as framed in SMC.
Role of Platforms
Pre-existing Shared Content (PSC) versus Organic
The role of platforms in SMC is more telling as to what type of conversation will begin.
If one of the two conversations in SMC began on Instagram, it is more likely that PSC Will be the instigating content verses on a platform like iMessage where interviewees perceived that platform as organic, targeted instigation (text message, IM). The location of shared content paints a picture as to why certain people choose to do SMC. A "public-facing" (an app that is like a bulletin board) Snapchat Instagram Twitter Reddit, those apps and those "conversations do
41 not necessarily start from the focal person's creation. Public-facing apps allow for the focal person to send thoughts, ideas, memes, and images that they did not create. For PSC, the
"content of the conversation is actually more dominant than the platform itself" (Interview 10).
But by sending them to a specific person, it then becomes a conversation in itself. In places like iMessage, WhatsApp, WeChat, or email, you have the option to send IM. With pre-existing shared contact, you're more than likely to draft and create the content of the message yourself – so the location of the information is "Organic" from the person's brain. "I feel like topic is what defines where the conversations are, like, where they start or where they might like transfer"
(Interview 8).
This comment talks about the fact that two topics synchronously are discussed, which plays a role in making it multiple conversations, but states how the perception outweighs the topic and expectation of what conversation is okay on a specific application. Regardless of app preference for IM'ing with the recipient, the original location of the post supersedes the interpersonal preference. A few interviewees seemed shocked that they were asked about content sharing locations and seemed as if the answer was so obvious it was annoying for that to be a question. "Well, yeah, why would I go out of my way to send an Instagram meme through iMessage?" (Interview 7).
The original location of the content will supersede a focal person's preference for communication. For example, Megan is scrolling through Instagram and stumbled across an infographic on South African apartheid. Megan knows that Mackenzie studied abroad in South
Africa during college. Megan will DM Mackenzie on Instagram the photo even though Megan likes to have conversations in general on Facebook messenger. Megan usually reserves
42 Instagram DM's for either flirtatious or funny conversations, but because the infographic was on
Instagram, she just shared it there.
Separation and distinctness between two platforms play a crucial role in distinguishing one conversation versus another. A platform is a natural joint in distinguishing the amount of conversations happening synchronously but can be overwritten if there is one topic discussed across platforms. One participant noted that SMC might not necessarily intentionally sought out.
In general, the less cognitive load (discussed more later on) or the less conversations active, the better (Reinsch et al., 2008). However, if SMC does occur – content and platform compartmentalization become more important than the number of conversations open. "It is less common, not unheard of, for me to find a piece of content on one platform and share it on a different platform. So if something innately showed up on one platform, that's where I would talk about it, unless the person did not have that platform, so I couldn't send it inside. Or if I was talking to a group and I want all three reactions at the same time" (Interview 1). Attempting to merge the conversations into one would then a part cause more cognitive load since it is more work to merge the conversations than to keep them platform-specific. The quote does mention group chats and platform availability. So, sending content within an app might not always be a choice, but via the app allows both people to have a boundary and 'tangible' expectation of what will where conversations occur.
Usage of multiple communication apps by a Focal does not mean that multiple conversations are happening simultaneously. Sometimes apps do not matter – group chat, separate individual convos, and overlapping conversations can happen within apps and across apps.
43 I'll kind of like have multiple conversations with them in one text, but I'll separate like by
like a paragraph or sentence or whatever. So I guess theoretically, that is having multiple
conversations at one point in time, but it's with one person via the same platform. But it
also would probably be like the same thing if you were to have like all those
conversations on different platforms as well (Interview 3).
This person demonstrates that even within 1 IM platform, users will have a physical/visible distinction between topics. The distinction between keeping them separate even within the same platform is a good indicator that structure (both of the message and the compartmentalization) affect if the exchange is multicommunication or not. The app does not mean there will be two conversations because the topics can be the same, and the channel-switching aids the furtherment of the interaction as a whole. Opposingly, two conversations can occur on two applications in isolation of each other, and the existence of one does not affect the other (other than the fact that the two participants are conscious of their existence), which is what SMC argues.
Role of Topic
Unlike the Role of Platforms discussed above, the topic affects SMC depending on the number of platforms involved. For the most part, the only time you can have multiple conversations synchronously is using two or more platforms. The simplicity of the chart below is designed specifically around IM-interfaces and social media. Number of topics + the number of platforms = Number of conversations.
44 Table 3. Perceived Number of Conversations Number of topics Number of platforms Number of Conversations 1 1 1 1 2+ 1 2+ 1* 1 2+ 2+ 2+
This is consistent with what has already said about multicommunicating and existing theories. Platform in the case of SMC is strictly digital and IM communication (no rich media), but it does demonstrate how unique of a behavior SMC is because there is only one combination that is multicommunication. The role that topic plays in distinguishing when the interviewee thought it was one conversation or two is dependent on the number of platforms involved. So, if you have two platforms, Instagram and Snapchat, but you are talking about the same topic on both of them, it is one conversation. Opposingly if you have one platform for multiple topics is being addressed synchronously, that was widely still perceived as one conversation.
Oh, you know, like, how many people you talking to you right now? I'd be like one. But I
would also know that I'm having two separate conversations because it's not the same
conversation like both conversations are not about the same topic. So that they are with
the same person, but not about the same topic or subject or content (Interview 3).
Rank ordering the importance of what makes their described interaction multiple conversations; most important is the topic and then the person. It feels almost counterintuitive and slightly humorous to say that the other person involved is the least important factor. But although this a specific quote- the attitude was found to be shared amongst the majority of those interviewed. When saying that the other person (recipient) is the least valuable in distinguishing one conversation from another, it is not to say that whom they are talking to does not affect the
45 content tone, quality, and even the likelihood of SMC occurring. The existence of the other person affects the conversation, but how conversations are broken down does not end when you reach one specific person. Looking at this from the top-down funnel as if demographics or statistics is a population, a sample, a small group, and one-on-one communication. SMC argues that within a one-on-one structure, the conversation can be narrowed further by the number of active conversations.
When talking about "topic one on Snapchat and topic one on Instagram…" the interviewee responded with, "Oh, then yeah, I think that is the same conversation" (Interview
14). This case is a fascinating response because when they 0were asked if two topics isolated on two apps was one conversation, they said "yes" as well. They are both recognizing that the behavior of having SMC exists and occurs, and they died themselves, but they do not see it as multicommunicating. It is just one conversation because there is only one person. Recalling the car driving analogy, this example demonstrates Barons' point well as it relates to the number of conversations. It seems that this person views using CMC in general as one task and then extending one conversation.
Closeness (Relationship)
Although the number of people does not equal the number of conversations, the relationship between people will determine if somebody will participate in SMC. SMC happens
"…with people who I like, and like have the kind of relationship with where I like joke around with them a lot because then like we do get like very easily sidetracked…" (Interview 5).
Participants mentioned that they would participate in SMC behavior with friends, romantic partners, and family members. There is a level of familiarity that seems to allow for these
46 specific people to innocently let their guard down and not have to think twice about where they send the information because they already have that existing relationship with the recipient. So, with interpersonal relationships, there is no self-monitoring level, and split-second thought of this is the right channel to distribute this information.
For the most part, people do SMC with people they are close to. In the discussion of when they would utilize SMC, all participants gave personal life examples, but the use in an office/work setting amongst participants was much more varied. Most opinions were very blank and white weather or not SMC would be used in the workplace. It was not so much of an argument if it could be, but more that it would not be appropriate. There was an emphasis placed on the potential for misunderstanding in a workplace setting by using multiple platforms for multiple topics. Specifically, with coworkers, you have not met in person or have a level of disconnect. "I feel like in a business setting, unless you're close with the worker. Like I feel like things could be taken out of context or interpreted differently, like I just don't feel like I you know there's that saying there's a time and a place for everything. And I don't feel like that is the time" (Interview 12). So, it seems that it is not necessarily the behavior of having multiple conversations on multiple platforms as much as it is the established relationship allowing for effective use of SMC.
The majority of people who brought up workplace SMC discussed that if they are friends with their coworkers, SMC might be more likely to occur. An example, Jekyll is working on a project for work with his college friend, Hyde. Jekyll could be messaging Hyde on Slack about the logistics and budget of the project and then on Snapchat sending messages talking about a party he went to last night (adapted from Interview 7). SMC was most reported amongst coworkers of the same level on a hierarchy, whether they had a pre-existing relationship before
47 starting to work together. It is interesting to note that although SMC was most commonly done amongst peers when SMC was done crossing higher or lower on a hierarchy, the instigator of the behavior was more likely to be a subordinate than a senior.
One participant is a project leader for a large consulting firm. He discussed how he will participate in SMC with other project leaders and that people will instigate SMC with him. He will participate in SMC with neutrality. He will not initiate SMC with his boss since he does not
"want to come across as like unprofessional or confusing" when the recipient's initiate SMC to him it does not appear unprofessional or confusing but if he were to do it to his boss it would to him (Interview 10). Interestingly there was no mention between who starts SMC amongst his peers. All instigation of SMC occurred to him were with subordinates or those attempting to get recruited.
Another participant specifically describes how a coworker explicitly asked to keep the topics separated by conversation employing platform isolation. She and her coworker will be messaging on iMessage, and the focal person would mention something about work that was happening in real-time (in this case, it was assigning a task and deadline reminder) and then continued talking about what they were originally discussing. Later on, the focal followed up with the recipient asking if they had completed the task by the deadline. The recipient then, in part, responded no and asked that if the focal had a work-related thing to discuss to keep it on
Slack because they will lose track of the information. The interviewee said, "I don't notice whether I do that intentionally or not. and I – and then once he brought it up, I started getting more intentional not merging conversations that were like, between work and social" (Interview
8). She was unaware that this was even happening. There is a level of fracture or disassociation that comes in play with this behavior as if you were talking to another person. The recipient, in
48 this case, has (to put colloquially) a "work brain" and a "personal brain" associated with the communication stream. Moreover, depending on which stream the information came up, determines if it is committed to long-term memory.
One of the interviewees was a social media influencer with a substantial amount of following centered around street fashion. They were the only person to say that there does not need to be any established familiarity or attachment for them to engage in SMC. They go on to describe how people will message them on both their personal Instagram account in addition to the public influencer account. Sometimes, information is the same across the two accounts other times, and there could be a swapping back-and-forth with a certain level of detachment. When asked, "So in your opinion, there does not need to be a level of familiarity in order to sustain two conversations with a person," their entire response was "yeah" (Interview 11).
The social media influencer said that they would keep two conversations happening on two apps separate only if they were interested and engaging with both those conversations then would otherwise they would consolidate messages across platforms and merge them into one, and it attempts not to have to repeat themselves (Interview 11). Social media influencer is a job title, but unlike other mentions of work-based SMC, this was the only example where no closeness was needed. Although merely contextual speculation, it could be mainly in part due to the nature of what it means to be a social media influencer or a distinguished personality. At least within the people interviewed, this was the only mention of the same app, different profiles, and the same person. For the purpose of this paper, for future study might address this since this could be a subsection of SMC, which itself is a subsection of multicommunication and so on.
49 Reach of Conversations
The perception of conversations is more along the lines of the weight and value of the conversations. In turn, the focal person has a message/conversation they perceive as a higher priority than the other conversation, so if the lower weighted conversation gets a response first, there is a higher desire to merge the conversations. And if the intent is not to merge the conversation, it is to expedite the response in which they receive the information thereafter.
Compartmentalization now includes instances of not merging (discussed below). Some people mentioned that they are consciously thinking about the fact that they are having two conversations, and they do not want any overlap between the two (Interview 8). Some went as far as to say it is "weird" to acknowledge that it would make them uncomfortable, and they should naturally just remain separate conversations happening at the same time (Interview 2,
Interview 9, Interview 10, Interview 5). This particular participant thinks that when there is an acknowledgment of the existence of one conversation on another active conversation, there is a level of humor due in part to the "breaking the fourth wall, but for text messaging" but also because of the conscious realization that they are talking on two separate platforms at the same time (Interview 2)
The notion of mentally shifting gears between two conversations is something that came up in multiple interviews. Outside of SMC, when the conversation switches "gears" you can only be in one gear at a time. Accounting for the synchronicity of any multicommunication SMC form differs because you can both "shift" into a new topic mediated through the specific app utilized in addition to being in the previous "gear" of a topic. Mentally shifting between topics or conversations is not new behavior, nor does this paper wish to argue that. However, both in user experience and theoretical framework, the notion of switching between topics and applications to
50 communicate with one person is novel "because you're talking about like two different things and you're like, mentally like, shifting gears between these two things where it's like, that's not something you can ever really do in person" (Interview 5)
Participants mention group chats, channel blending, and mixed-method multicommunication frequently. This paper did not include group texting in framework or motivation but important. Group chats have an element of webbing to them. I am in a group chat with my housemates and will be talking to them in that chat. I will have side conversations on the same topic as discussed in the group chat or irrelevant with my best friend (who also is my housemate). My best friend is also in another group chat with me that my other housemates are not in. It gets very complex. So, the motivation behind why this is happening is not important for this paper, but it happens in real life, and that in itself is important.
Termination of Synchronous Multimodal Communication
Below discusses what happens when the two conversations are no longer synchronously happening. SMC was described to be concluded by either merging the conversations, coming to a natural conclusion of one conversation, and lastly, dormancy (one conversation is paused while the other continues).
Merging
Conversations usually "broke the fourth wall" out of impatience or necessity (Interview
2). One conversation on iMessage would be happening, and then the recipient responds to a separate conversation on Instagram, but the initiator wanted her to respond to what is in the iMessage first. Regardless of the recipient's intent (or not) to respond, the iMessage was second
51 and, at that point in time, ignored. At this time, the initiator would message on Instagram and say, "respond to my iMessage," making the other conversation no longer is its own conversation.
It is now the same conversation because their topics and existence are consciously and verbatim mentioned. So now the conversations have merged. SMC can terminate here or can restart and continue with the separate conversation. It would still be a separate conversation in the same way the Phoenix is still the same bird. When one conversation referenced the other conversation, they, at that moment, became one.
Social multitasking focuses on "social and cognitive undertakings, but in which concern focuses on the social consequences of mingling these activities" (Baron, 2008, p.182). As in
Social multitasking, SMC has the possibility that more attention is directed to one conversation and can lead to the cognitive termination of the other one. If on Instagram, the recipient just pretends as if the "respond to my iMessage" did not happen and goes on to send more memes and talking on iMessage then it is still a separate conversation. So, it still works within the framework of SMC, but it is a new, separate conversation that resurfaced the original topic.
Impatience "Respond to My Other Message"
Discussed above was the affordances different platforms have based on content location.
Getting a little more specific now, the topic of that content also impacts SMC. For the most part, as long as an application has an IM interface, anything can be discussed. The perceived weight and value of one topic compared to the other will determine the maintenance of SMC. For example, trying to "get a plan locked down" while "just talking to someone about something else" (Interview 8). Think of this as a matter of balance. Topic one and topic two can
52 continuously be discussed until both conversations reach a natural end, or one conversation topic becomes more important than the other.
If one platform is responded to either more quickly or the topic with the lower weight is responded to first, the focal person will channel shift in an attempt to receive the information expeditiously. The shift onto the other platform will be done with a message such as "Alright, but like, are we going out tonight or something" (Interview 5). which the sudden merge is considered a "disruption in the flow of the conversation more than anything else" (Interview 5)
Cognitive Load, i.e., "Let's Just Message Here, It's Easier"
Cognitive load was a pretty common rationale behind why a conversation would die off if switching back-and-forth between two applications no longer feels like utility being compartmentalized is beneficial, then it just becomes stressful and too much to process. Not just with SMC, but with many forms of communication, it usually plays a role in stopping a particular communication behavior from occurring. Cognitive load also seems to occur once the person realizes that they are participating in SMC. "There have been times where, like, it seemed silly to me, like I've realized I've been doing it and so I've had to be like, Okay, I'm just going to text you from here on out" (Interview 4). Once they are consciously aware of their behavior and deem it not ideal, the utility of compartmentalizing conversations concludes, and the desire to merge into one begins. The platform plays a role in indicating if a person will experience cognitive load under SMC. A few interviewees mentioned that channel switching could be "a little too much work" on apps like Snapchat (Interview 1). Snapchat messages disappear once you leave the thread or close the platform, so not only are you maintaining two conversations, but you are also burdened with knowledge retention.
53 Yeah, I think it would, it probably most commonly happens when there's some form of
details that are being discussed about, like an imminent meeting. So for instance, if
friends contacted me via Snapchat, about going to a bar or going somewhere to meet
them, and we continue that conversation, somewhat for a few messages back and forth on
Snapchat, then I would typically suggest that we switch to iMessage so that I can have
some traceability to those details (Interview 10).
This is an example of both cognitive load and impatience. It is an example of cognitive load because this person is after traceability and a concise, cohesive plan in real life. Switching back-and-forth between apps to make one plan feels like too much effort and work. It is also impatience because of the cognitive load. They just want an answer on where to go, where to meet, 'don't want to have to be doing all this effort to get one answer.
Sometimes the cognitive load was just as simple as 'I don't like using this app for this purpose, so if I have the opportunity I'm going to remove myself from it to a more preferred app.'
Reasoning as to why this happens in the app is not preferred could be a transition away from lighthearted commentary. As the conversations progress, and the MSC behavior continues
"further and further away from like a one liner kind of stupid punch line and closer towards a real conversation" (Interview 4). The person wants to move the evolving conversation from "a non-traditional app…" and at this time, they will tell the other, "Okay, I'll just text you"
(Interview 4). The longevity and duration of both conversations occurring (maintenance of SMC) also affected the perception of the appropriateness of the platform. Once the point is reached that maintenance of SMC is not the best option, users will attempt to remove the cognitive load by either merging or letting a conversation "die off" Sometimes the cognitive load is brought on by the app itself, not the topic of the conversation. The conversation could be perceived as 'correct'
54 for the platform's affordances, but the person's objective dislike still affects their desire to switch away from the app. Opposingly, a person could have such a strong preference for one app, that all utility and affordances are superseded by their partiality (Interview 6)
Rarely was cognitive load merging by the recipient instead of the focal person during the interview. When confronted with the message "responding here because it's easier," the interviewee examples how the participant "feels like a little bit too much work. So they hop on to just the one" (Interview 1). No person brought up during their interview that if somebody were to ask to merge the conversations that they would say "no."
When in a conversation with her romantic partner, this interviewee said that she will respond to her partner's message, ignore the fact that the fourth wall was broken, then go back to talking on the separate apps is different (Interview 5). The request was not to make the conversations merge/easier. There is not a specific request to alleviate cognitive load that was disregarded or ignored or denied. It seems that social cues and expectations in the audience's comfort level supersede any utility. In short - Nobody is going to care if somebody wants to merge a conversation. It is not a request that somebody will deny because why would you want to make somebody you are talking to uncomfortable or stressed with the mechanics of a conversation you are having.
Dying Off
"Dying off" is the process where one conversation concludes unmentioned while the other continues. Every participant that mentioned "dying off' had a different reason as to why they stopped responding on one app versus another. Some reasons include cognitive load, said lack of interest and another saying conversation had run its natural course, and there was no need
55 to continue. Similarly to the cognitive load's effect on merging a conversation, the maintenance of SMC became too much work. "you get tired of talking to different apps like I'll just stop responding on like Instagram and just keep texting them" (Interview 6). Instead of keeping both topics of conversation active, the cognitive load caused one topic to be terminated. One participant, in particular, said that after a conversation already dies out that "I would say until the next time that conversation is struck up again on the first platform," the SMC is concluded
(Interview 8). This is an interesting point to consider because it suggests that even if a conversation has reached its natural end, that because the platform's existence and the ability to be called upon at any time SMC can restart and is the only barrier to reentry
Non-SMC Discussion on COVID-19 and Beyond
Coronavirus has affected countless lives. Although this is an analysis of people's experience with communication, this is not an attempt to disregard how devastating COVID-19 has been for people and families. All interviews were conducted via video conferencing, and that in itself is a newer affordance of communication. As of the time of writing this paper, the
COVID-19 spread across the nation is not slowing down. The majority of the interviews were conducted during the Coronavirus's rise when many states were on very strict lockdown. Four months later, states have lessened restrictions, but cases are still climbing, and people are still largely at home. Put simply by one interviewee that is echoed amongst the rest – "quarantine has forced you to look to other methods of communication" (Interview 13).
Many people reported that they do not communicate more or less in general than before
COVID-19, but the quality has changed. The opinion that interaction happens "in person less, but
I just think it's shifted from an interacting in person to interacting more digitally" was consistent
56 (Interview 11). Given the purpose of this study, it is not surprising that people continue to communicate using CMC and are supplementing FtF with video conferencing. Behavior is consistent for those in this interview pre-pandemic, as is it during, with all platforms except for those that are more media-rich. Video and Audio platforms and interfaces now act as a direct supplement for face-to-face interactions. Instead of going to bars or people are planning at-home hangouts to simulate the pre-COVID-19 behavior. The same way friends would schedule a time to go out to dinner before; people now treat video conferencing. There is "only certain times and place where you can have like a phone conversation or face to face," but texting and social media can continue all day long (Interview 12).
Every participant who mentioned COVID discussed the gap left by FtF interactions.
"People are talking to more people outside their day-to-day interactions. So the frequency of me engaging the people who I would typically my closer friends who typically hang out with on the weekends and everything hasn't changed too much but I have found myself reconnecting with people who I maybe haven't engaged with in the past year or like the past few months"
(Interview 10) However, those conversations are not perceived as substantial or as interesting. It has now shifted to what seems like quantity over quality of conversation; "I still talk to people, but like I don't communicate as much" (Interview 12).
For those who described their conversations, there are heavy emphasis places on
"checking up" (what have you been up to during quarantine? What is it like in your city?) during quarantine and not an actual discussion of non- COVID topics (Interview 3). There is now more time to talk to people, mostly because it is almost a guarantee that people will be home, but the conversations do need to seem to pass the threshold of COVID-19-centric discussion. There are many fewer topics to be discussed, "but you've got more people to like, talk to to ask about it"
57 (Interview 3). The notion of waiting to have a conversation was a significant impact on how
COVID changed communication. For those following the guidelines of social distancing, it is not
"acceptable" to interact with people outside your house. "Now that you know you're not going to see them there's no point in like waiting to have like a conversation. So you might as well have it now" (Interview 3). The gratification and value that FtF reactions gave to news (good or bad) are stripped away. The value of withholding information is replaced with a sense of apathy. One person suggested that the lack of in-person exchanges will "increased the amount of multicommunicating that we will do during this time" since when something needs to be shared there is no driving force to postpone that conversation (Interview 3).
How business is conducted has changed in every industry. There is a divide between working remotely and "essential" workers (employees who need to go into their jobs physically to keep society running and, therefore, cannot self-isolate or work from home). No participants interviewed identified themselves as essential workers. Two participants mentioned their experience working from home and their professional future. Within the corporate professional industry, the frequency and time spent in formal meetings have increased in addition to "a heightened sense of a need for over-communication" (Interview 10). There is no room for grey- area. Everyone involved in a project needs to be 'on the same page' in an attempt to lessen the uncertainty. Over time, as teams become more accustomed to working remotely, the "over- communication" may lessen. Both interpersonally and professionally, people want to be able to interact face-to-face again. One interviewee mentioned that she is "so looking forward to, like, going back to work" and will "continue to opt towards face-to-face interactions" (Interview 13).
The Coronavirus has "really highlighted" the "value" that working in-person has on a team
(Interview 13). Nevertheless, even with the (what feels like) overnight shift from a blend of FTF
58 and CMC, how people use the technology remained consistent. The most-reported difference since COVID was the gap left by FtF interactions and their value going forward.
Proposed Synchronous Multimodal Communication Framework and Requirements
Figure 2. Synchronous Multimodal Communication Framework
Above is a framework that shows the process of SMC. ‘C’ represents one conversation on a unique platform. The SMC behavior does not start until there is at least two active conversations. Below is a concise outline of the behavior that was discussed in the analysis section. This outline could help distinguish various forms of multicommunication and also as a jumping-off point for future studies.
• Initiation o One conversation is active o The second starts, and this is when the channel switching launches • Maintenance o Responses are synchronous and consistent to the other conversation ▪ Happening within limited time between observed responses • (if you do not check your platform 1 for a while but respond when you see it, in addition to your platform 2 conversation.) • Termination of behavior o Merging ▪ Impatience • "Respond to my Instagram DM" ▪ Cognitive Load • "Let's just message here, it's easier"
59 o Dying off ▪ One conversation concludes unmentioned while the other continues
Conclusion
Regardless of the varied published definitions of multicommunication, the study of the
SMC phenomenon itself helps the observed is largely unaddressed. Multicommunication theory has taken for granted the idea that a person's body and mind are inseparable. In 1776, the ability to be standing in Manhattan and have someone in Amsterdam hear your voice in real-time was not possible, given where technology was at the time. Eventually, the telephone was invented, and people had to expand their minds and understand what was possible. One of the beauties of growth and advancement is that something is building upon the existence of something else.
However, that does not necessarily imply that the predecessor is no longer valid. So, the number of people defined for multicommunication exists and works for existing theory, it worked in the past, but that does not mean it works for this proposed framework or others in the future. Clarifying that it is possible to have multiple conversations with one person is supported by the findings in this study. The topic impacts the perceived amount of conversations. Multiple topics can be discussed in the span of one conversation but must be in one location and likely occur asynchronously. The number of platforms impacts perception of multicommunication. If multiple topics are discussed on unique platforms (one on Instagram, another topic on Snapchat), this was considered multicommunication. If one topic is discussed on multiple platforms (same topics on both Instagram and Snapchat), then is seen as one conversation. Specific Platforms afford certain conversations and depending on which platform the conversation starts on will impact whether that topic is acceptable. Once a conversation is perceived as too much work or is
60 no longer worthy of discussion, the conversations will either merge into a single conversation on one application or will die-off. Both merge and dying-off are seen as the behavioral termination of SMC.
This study has a small sample size, and all findings are significant in determining the participants' behavior. Future research would benefit from seeing if the proposed SMC behavior can be replicated and applied to a larger, generalizable audience. Further research into the impact of group chats on SMC is paramount.
Yeah, if one person that I'm talking to solo for example, on Instagram wants to make a private comment about something a group is talking about. I'm a part of, for example, in Snapchat, then they have said they have referenced the Snapchat thread before and said, "Wow, this seems a little crazy," or "how do you feel about this" to me privately on the other platform. If we were talking simultaneously about different things, a check in from the group thread on one platform will happen in the [separate] conversation on a different platform. (Interview 1)
It is speculated that SMC can occur alongside the behavior described above. So, a person can be in a group chat on two platforms, and also discussing that group chats with a member of the group in addition to having an unrelated conversation with that same group member they are invisible whispering with. Many participants brought up group chats, and the role they play in
SMC has yet to be researched. Furthermore, insight on SMC would benefit from interviewing a focal and recipient and getting perspective from all members on the same interaction.
61 Appendix: Publicly Posted Examples of Synchronous Multimodal Communication
Below is a chart of SMC figures taken from social media and the internet.
SMC Examples.
Transcript Source Screenshot Fig Having two conversations with the Someeecards, 1 same person at the same time, but Meme keeping them separate.
Fig Those moments when you’re having Whisper, 2 two different conversations, on two Meme different social media apps, at the same time… with the same person
Fig Millennial Culture is having two wildly Transjemder & 3 different conversations with the same poorlytimed, person on two different apps at the iFunny, meme exact same time
Conversation 1: cheese borger Conversation 2: that’s why I think I’m so afraid of making myself vulnerable, because my father taught me I couldn’t ever truly trust anyone
62 Fig Millennial culture is having 3 different @attnwhxre, 4 conversations with the same person @SelfAwarePr across multiple platforms otag, & simultaneously @j_d_fielder, Twitter, 2017, Or 3 different conversations with 1 tweet person across 4 platforms
Wife & I are Gen Xers, & she’s been known to call, FB message & text me almost simultaneously #dontmakemegetmycaneyouyoungwhi ppersnappers But not me… this old bird is single task all the way! #rememberschangingthechanneldialby hand Fig when you and your best friend are Retrieved May 5 having a conversation over snap pics, 14th, 2020 snap chat, insta dm, imessage and tik from @Girls, tok (674.4K “likes” Tiktok, video 28.9K “comments”).
*black circle added for privacy
63 Fig yeah but each chat is on something Comments 5 different *cry laughing emoji* (33.6K @naniloamalia cont. “likes”, 112 replies). @m_694 @couplesthing and then u have to quickly scroll thru sssss all ur apps just to respond to that same person hahaha (12.4K “likes”, 14 replies).
I like it when your mad at each other on one app but besties on another app *skull emoji* (9029 “likes”, 164 replies).
@yo.its.mikki
64 References
@attnwhxre. (2017, October 25). Millennial culture is having 3 different conversations with the same person across multiple platforms simultaneously. Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://twitter.com/attnwhxre/status/923219570864873475?lang=en
Apple. (n.d.). Support. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://support.apple.com/explore/messages
Baron, N. S. (2008). Adjusting the Volume: Technology and Multitasking in Discourse Control. Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, 177-194. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262113120.003.0014
Baron, N. S. (2013). 6. Instant messaging. Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 135-161. doi:10.1515/9783110214468.135
Benbunan-Fich, R., Adler, R. F., & Mavlanova, T. (2011). Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(2), 1-22. doi:10.1145/1970378.1970381
Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy of Management Perspectives, 6(4), 17-26. doi:10.5465/ame.1992.4274453
Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2005). Unintended consequences of emerging communication technologies: Instant Messaging in the workplace. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(1), 85-103. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.12.001
CDC.gov. (2020). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. (2010). Online social networks: Why do students use facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337-1343. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990, December 12). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Retrieved from http://www.digizeitschriften.de.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/dms/resolveppn/?PID=GDZ PPN002005247
De Hoyos, B. (2020, February 20). A Look Back on the History of Instant Messaging. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.lifewire.com/im-a-brief-history-1949611
Demographics of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United States. (2019, June 12). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/
65 Dennis, A. R., Rennecker, J. A., & Hansen, S. (2010). Invisible Whispering: Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making with Instant Messaging. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 845- 886. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00290.x
Desjardins, J. (2016, November 17). The Evolution of Instant Messaging. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-instant-messaging/
Direct message (DM) - Personal messages on social networks - One: Social Marketing. (2019, April 28). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://socialmediaagency.one/direct-message- dm-personal-messages-on-social-networks/
Dudovskiy, J. (n.d.). Purposive sampling. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://research- methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/purposive-sampling/
Duffy, L., Baluch, B., & Welland, S. (2020, July 06). COVID-19 Just Proved That We Are a Global Village. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.psychreg.org/covid-19-global- village/
Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Harrison, S., Rogers, B. P., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009). Training Improves Multitasking Performance by Increasing the Speed of Information Processing in Human Prefrontal Cortex. Neuron, 63(1), 127-138. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.005
Facebook. (n.d.). How do I send a message on Facebook?: Facebook Help Center. Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://www.facebook.com/help/154917244574299?helpref=uf_permalink
Fiesler, C., Dye, M., Feuston, J. L., Hiruncharoenvate, C., Hutto, C., Morrison, S., . . . Gilbert, E. (2017). What (or Who) Is Public? Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998223
Ghosting: Definition of Ghosting by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Ghosting. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/definition/ghosting
Global Digital Overview - DataReportal – Global Digital Insights. (2020, July). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview
Gorlick, A. (2009, August 24). Media multitaskers pay mental price, Stanford study shows. Retrieved July, 2020, from https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask- research-study-082409.html
Gray, J., Khiljee, S., Lynn, J., Raval, P., Bin Habib, A., & Møller, B. (2018). What is your favorite social media platform? Why? Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-favorite-social-media-platform-Why
66 Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human– Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70-86. doi:10.1177/1461444819858691
History of mobile phones: What was the first mobile phone? (2020, June 04). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.uswitch.com/mobiles/guides/history-of-mobile-phones/
Hosch, W. (2017, September 07). Web 2.0. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Web-20
Hossain, M. A. (2019). Effects of uses and gratifications on social media use. PSU Research Review, 3(1), 16-28. doi:10.1108/prr-07-2018-0023
Instagram Help Center. (n.d.). Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://help.instagram.com/1750528395229662
Isaacs, E., Szymanski, M., Yamauchi, Y., Glasnapp, J., & Iwamoto, K. (2012). Integrating local and remote worlds through channel blending. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '12, 617-626. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145299
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and Gratifications Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509. doi:10.1086/268109
Lenhart, A. (2010, September 2). Cell phones and American adults. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2010/09/02/cell-phones-and-american-adults/
Magid, L. (2013, December 12). Instagram Lets You Send Private Messages Via Instagram Direct. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/12/12/new-instragram-direct-lets-you-send- private-images-and-videos/
Malik, D. (2019, March 28). Study Shows That Internet Users Prefer Private Messaging Apps To Share Content. Retrieved from https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/03/the-rise- of-dark-social-networking.html
Openmarket. (2016, June 10). Everything You Ever Needed to Know About MMS. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.openmarket.com/blog/all-about-mms/
Pelletier, M. J., Krallman, A., Adams, F. G., & Hancock, T. (2020). One size doesn’t fit all: A uses and gratifications analysis of social media platforms. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 14(2), 269-284. doi:10.1108/jrim-10-2019-0159
Rainie, L. (2005, March 14). The Rise of Cell Phone Text Messaging. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2005/03/14/the-rise-of-cell-phone-text- messaging/
67 Rains, S. A., & Wright, K. B. (2016). Social Support and Computer-Mediated Communication: A State-of-the-Art Review and Agenda for Future Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 175-211. doi:10.1080/23808985.2015.11735260
Rantmonster2319. (2016, June 16). Finsta. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Finsta
Reinsch, L. N., & Turner, J. W. (2007, January). The Business Communicator as Presence Allocator: Multicommunicating, Equivocality, and Status at Work - Jeanine Warisse Turner, N. Lamar Reinsch, 2007. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0021943606295779
Reinsch, N. L., & Turner, J. W. (2018). Multicommunicator Aspirational Stress, Suggestions for Teaching and Research, and Other Insights After 10 Years of Multicommunication Research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(2), 141-171. doi:10.1177/1050651918816356
Reinsch, N. L., Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). Multicommunicating: A Practice Whose Time Has Come? Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 391-403. doi:10.5465/amr.2008.31193450
Sam1896121. (n.d.). [Having two conversations with the same person at the same time, but keeping them separate.]. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi1kMmMwMGMxY2Q5YzIyMj U5/?tagSlug=friendship
Scissors, L., & University, D. (2013, February 01). "Back and forth, back and forth": Channel switching in romantic couple conflict. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2441776.2441804
Smartphone: Definition of Smartphone by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Smartphone. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/smartphone
Tracy, S. K. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Twitter. (n.d.). About Direct Messages. Retrieved August 14, 2020, from https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/direct-messages
Walthers, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In The handbook of interpersonal communication (Vol. 4, pp. 443-479).
Waxman, B., Dubras, R., & Oxford, L. (2020, July 21). More than half of the people on Earth now use social media. Retrieved August, 2020, from
68 https://wearesocial.com/us/blog/2020/07/more-than-half-of-the-people-on-earth-now-use- social-media
What is Social Media? - Definition from Techopedia. (2017, April 26). Retrieved August, 2020, from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4837/social-media
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16(4), 362-369. doi:10.1108/qmr-06-2013-0041
WHO.int. (2019). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Retrieved 2020, from https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019
Wong, S. (2007, August 29). Simulate Me: A Study of Computer-Mediated Communication in a Contemporary Society. Retrieved August, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/honorscollege_theses/60/?utm_source=digitalcommons.p ace.edu%2Fhonorscollege_theses%2F60
Yao, M. Z., & Ling, R. (2020). “What Is Computer-Mediated Communication?”—An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 4- 8. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmz027
69