THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY

EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK AND TEXTING ON SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

RACHEL STEINBERG SPRING 2014

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Sociology and Advertising/Public Relations with honors in Sociology

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Samar Farage Senior Lecturer in Sociology Thesis Supervisor

Stacy Silver Associate Professor in Sociology and Human Development Honors Adviser

* Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i

ABSTRACT

Over the last fifteen years, new communication technologies have become ubiquitous among college-age citizens; people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five now routinely invest significant portions of their time on Facebook, texting, or other media. The excessive reliance on media technologies has been justified on the grounds of improving productivity, convenience, and recreational value. However, researchers have recently warned us of some serious ramifications of these technologies, including addiction, loss of communication, loss of social skills and loneliness. This thesis will focus on both the positive and negative effects of technology of the 21st century to inquire whether or not face-to-face relations are in jeopardy despite our increased connections. Through a campus-wide survey taken by almost 900 students, as well as theoretical research gathered from books, articles, and previous surveys, we find that people still prefer and value face-to-face relationships although they are increasingly incorporating technology into their everyday lives. Facebook and Twitter are expanding the number of networks of connection to others while posing a threat to their quality and depth.

Therefore, these technologies haven’t jeopardized face-to-face relations to their extinction just yet, but unless if moderations of these gadgets occurs, then they have the power to.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... iii

List of Tables...... iv

Acknowledgements...... v

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2 History ...... 4

Introduction ...... 4 Texting ...... 4 Early Developments ...... 4 The Beginning of Texting ...... 7 Texting in the 1990s-early 2000s ...... 8 Smartphones ...... 10 Facebook ...... 13 Early Developments and Modern Social Networking...... 13 Zuckerberg: Early life and Harvard Beginnings ...... 16 TheFacebook ...... 17 Facebook...... 21

Chapter 3 Survey...... 24

Introduction ...... 24 Methods...... 25 Participants ...... 25 Measures...... 25 Procedure...... 26 Results ...... 26 Cell Phone Demographics ...... 27 Facebook Demographics ...... 29 Likert scales...... 30

Chapter 4 Analysis ...... 32

Introduction ...... 32 Positive Effects of 21st Century Technology on Relationships...... 32 Continuous Communication...... 33 Portable and Concise Connections ...... 35 Democratic Communication...... 35 Maintaining Relationships...... 36 Safety...... 37 Negative Effects of 21st Century Technology on Relationships ...... 38 iii

Addiction ...... 38 Loss of Attention ...... 40 Privacy...... 42 Mood and Personality Disorders ...... 44 Loss of Social Skills ...... 48 Alienation and Loneliness ...... 51 More Connected yet More Alone...... 54

Chapter 5 Conclusion...... 56

What do we do now?...... 57 Appendix A Full Survey Questions and Results...... 60 Appendix B IRB Approval...... 77 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 78

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Orbitel 901, Business Insider...... 8

Figure 2: Nokia 9000i Communicator, Wikipedia...... 9

Figure 3: IBM Simon, Android Authority ...... 11

Figure 4: iPhone 3G, PC Mag...... 12

Figure 5: TheFacebook, Wikipedia...... 18

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Approximate phone usage per day for directly taking to people (call, text message, etc.) ...... 28

Table 2: Approximate phone usage per day for Internet, social media, and other applications...... 28

Table 3: Number of contacts in phone ...... 29

Table 4: Percentage of contacts in phone contacted on a weekly basis ...... 29

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my Thesis Advisor, Dr. Samar Farage, for all of her help over the past two years in efforts to complete my thesis. Through weekly meetings, her willingness to look over all of my drafts for each section, and her ability to network and help me spread my survey to more teachers, I would not have been able to complete my thesis in as organized of a fashion as I did. As a student in her spring 2012 “Sociological Theory” class, I admired her style of teaching and her passion about the subject and knew that she would be a reliable source.

Next, the work of both my past and present Honors Advisors in Sociology have allowed me to not only stay on pace to complete my thesis, but also provided me with plenty of time and guidance to make the thesis process not feel rushed. Through my previous Advisor Dr. Jeffrey

Ulmer, I was able to participate in a thesis class both in the fall and spring of my junior year

(SOC381H and SOC481H) that really allowed me to get ahead and remain calm during the stressful times of thesis completion. With Dr. Stacy Silver taking over as the Honors Advisor in the summer of 2013, it was easy to adjust to her style of work, as she helped me with the writing of my thesis and for last-minute advice.

In order to distribute my survey to almost 900 Penn State students, several teachers were willing to administer my survey to their classes which made getting results run smoothly. For this, I would like to thank Dr. Farage and Dr. Silver, Sociology Lecturers Sam Richards and

Lecinda Yevchak, and College of Communication professors Steve Manuel and Matthew Jackson for their help to spread my survey. Without these teachers, I wouldn’t have been able to have such as large sample to gather my results from.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for being so supportive during this process, as they were always there for anything I needed. 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

I remember exactly when I got my first cell phone. I was in Florida with my family over

President’s Day weekend in 2006, which usually falls right around several members of my family’s birthdays, including my own. I was in eighth grade at the time and was turning 14. Most of my friends had received phones in seventh grade and I often felt annoyed that if I had to communicate with my parents or anyone else important while at school, I would have to use one of their phones. In both seventh and eighth grade, I participated in after school sports as a three- sport athlete. One of the difficult things about participating in sports was the transportation home afterwards, as they ended right around 5pm. The “late bus” was a long trip, as my town was the last stop it dropped off, so sometimes my parents would decide to come pick me up instead so I would not have to sit on the bus for almost two hours. However, keeping track of all of those arrangements was a logistical problem, as we had no way of communicating with each other.

Because of all of this, I knew that getting a cell phone as my present would make communicating with my parents easier. My first cell phone was an AT&T camera flip-phone.

I also remember exactly when I created my Facebook profile. I was at my family friend’s house for a Labor Day party and we were in the basement when I saw him look on the desktop computer at what he called his Facebook profile. It was September 2006 (only seven months after receiving my first cell phone) and I was just entering high school. He was my companion in the same summer overnight camp and he told me that it was a good site to stay connected with his camp friends during the year. As someone who loved overnight camp and did not live close to a lot of my bunkmates, I knew that this new website was something that I wanted to partake in. 2

Although I already had a MySpace account, I figured that another social media account wouldn’t hurt. At the time, although Facebook had already become open to high school students, I still had to get accepted into my high school’s “network.” Out of the ten people who were in the Upper

Merion Area High School network, I only knew two of them: one of my brother’s friends and a girl who was two years older than me. I think it was the girl who accepted me first, but because of that, I was now affiliated to the Facebook network and could remain in contact with my camp friends.

Through both of these stories, my initial contact with these technologies had logical reasoning behind them. With Facebook, I wanted to stay connected with people who lived far away because we were only all together for two months out of the year. With texting, I wanted to be able to contact my parents for pick-up arrangements after sports.

Flash forward to my life today. I am a senior double majoring in Sociology and

Advertising and carry a phone that has access to Facebook as well as any other applications I could ever possibly dream of. Before I get out of bed in the morning, I check my email and various social media platforms. Surprisingly, I was one of the late bloomers to get a smartphone. I loved my camera slide phone so much that when it broke, I got an exact replica. It was not until junior year of college (Fall 2012) that I bought a smartphone and it was against my will. My slide phone’s screen went white randomly and broke so I had to get a new phone. At the AT&T store, I was told that it would only cost ninety-nine cents to upgrade to an iPhone 4. I called my parents because I was really scared of the switch, but ultimately decided to do it because of the price and because everyone else had one. Since the switch to a smartphone, technology has played a significant role in my everyday life.

Developing these trends correlated right around the time when I was beginning to think about my thesis and pick a topic. As a double major in a communications-focused curriculum, I wanted my thesis to incorporate both sociological aspects and communication. With becoming 3 used to having email and Facebook, as well as other applications now accessible without having to be stationary at a computer, I was flustered with all of the new possibilities I had at my fingertips. However, I did not want to get myself carried away with all that technology had to offer because before I had a smartphone, I was fine with not having these capabilities. The lifestyle became so normal so quickly and I wasn’t sure if there were negative effects with this transition. I was concerned with the amount of time I now spent on my phone and I wanted to study more about how it would affect my lifestyle as well as my relationships and interactions with others. Hence, the idea of studying how technology, specifically Facebook and texting, came to life, as I wanted to see if the direction that I and so many other people were heading in was a toxic one.

My thesis is organized by first explaining the history of both texting and Facebook in order to provide the framework for how both became so prevalent at such a fast pace. Then, I explore the rationale, methods and results of a survey that I made and administered throughout campus in order to see how their relationships and lifestyles are affected by both mediums. Using this information, I connected the results to past research as I went into depth about both of the positive and negative affects about each medium. Lastly, I conclude with how severe the effects are as well as how we can moderate them.

4

Chapter 2

History

Introduction

In this chapter, I start off by examining the evolution of what are now referred to as common methods of communication, texting and Facebook, in order to provide the framework to explore how these creations are affecting the relationships that people have with one another.

Within the past 20 years, both have become significant tools in our everyday lives, so it is interesting to see how they developed. Both were started by young men who were interested in technology at the beginning of its rapid expansion. Although both were successful in their endeavors, they were not able to predict just how crucial their ideas would become in the field of digital communications.

Texting

Early Developments

The invention of the telegraph paved the way for the creation of the telephone. The telegraph was “a communication technology with pervasive implications for the spatial organization of society, but also how news, information, and entertainment were circulated”

(Goggin, Gerard 35). It was the method for any type of long distance communication, as Samuel

Morse proved that messages could be transmitted by wire in 1835. His usage of “pulses of current to deflect an electromagnet, which moved a marker to produce written codes on a stop of paper” 5 allowed for his so-called “Morse Code” to transmit signals from one person to another (Bellis,

Mary). Through the mid-1850s, the telegraph increased in prevalence because of its involvement in global war, trade, colonialism, imperialism, and the laying of submarine channels.

Transmitting signals to one another was what led to the invention of the telephone in

1876 by Alexander Graham Bell through his business, The American Telephone and Telegraph

Company, commonly known today as AT&T. The telephone “allowed sound to travel along wires” (Goggin, Gerard 36) and was initially installed at a home or office. In its beginnings, the telephone was considered a part of the household business, as the industry persuaded buyers to get phones to help complete tasks.

In order to test lines as well as armies in battle, portable and transportable telephones were already being developed at the turn of the 20th century. The first wireless telephone call was made on December 23rd, 1900 in Washington, D.C. by Reginald Fessenden. He relied on radiotelephones that could send their signals through local towers in an effort to “transmit the human voice via radio waves, sending a signal from one radio tower to another” (Strickland,

Jonathan). The creation of car and radio telephones was the first effort to make phones portable, as police cars were able to use the one-way radio communication to report crime. Galvin

Manufacturing Corporation in Chicago established the two-way car radio in 1931, as the product

“Motorola” eventually became the company’s new name.

In Bell’s Laboratories in 1947, efforts were made to make more productive use of mobile radio communications by dividing the spectrum into “cells” that would get signal and service from nearby transmitter towers. While this was being developed, Alfred J. Goss developed the first telephone pager like device in 1949, which Motorola coined the term a decade later when they made a small receiver to which radio messages could be transmitted. In this form of messaging, a person would “phone an operator and request a text message be sent to another person” (Goggin, 44), as the receiver’s pager would beep when they have a new message. Similar 6 to the radio and car telephones, pagers were used in business and industrial contexts, as well as doctors and medical personnel.

In 1973, chief executive Martin Cooper of Motorola created the DynaTAC, which at 9 inches and 2.5 pounds was the first practical cell phone. At first, cell phones were limited because of low functionality, large size, and capabilities if the telecommunications network. Throughout the 1980s, the digitization of networks transformed cell phones from an analog to digital operation system. Standards for the second-generation cell phones were implemented, such as an address book to store contacts, clock, alarm, calendar, calculator, and games. The use of a SIM card made transferring contacts from one phone to another possible.

Initially, cell phones were seen by some as a status symbol. For example, a 1987 survey of United States cell phone users by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association concluded that

70% of cell phone users made more than $50,000 per year, which was well above the average worker who made less than $20,000. Although this reputation took some years to shake off, cell phones became popular in the early-mid 1990s, as young people thought that it was now an object of considerable commercial desire (Goggin, Gerard).

Along with the cell phone came other twentieth century developments, such as the walkie-talkie, the pager, the digital camera and computers with wireless access. These creations fueled an explosion of digital forms of writing, such as electronic mail (email) over standard snail mail. As the world engulfed in a digital revolution, a new phenomenon was already in the development that allowed quick messages to be sent from one device to another that would ultimately transform the world of communications. 7 The Beginning of Texting

Texting, also known as short message service (SMS), is a method of communication that sends typed words between cell phones. It “allows phone users to key-in characters via the alphanumeric keyboard of their device, compose short messages, and end those to other phone users” (Goggin, Gerard 49). Friedhelm Hillebrand and Bernard Ghillebaert developed the SMS concept in the Franco-German GSM (global system for mobile communication) cooperation in

1984. SMS had three services: mobile originated (a message sent from a handset by someone), mobile terminated (a message received on a handset by someone), and point to point (a message sent to many handsets) (Goggin, Gerard).

A feature that remains distinct about texting is how each message is short in content.

Hillebrand created a character limit because “almost every time he typed a random sentence or question and counted the characters, it was under 160” (Gayomali, Chris). This character limit was the stepping-stone for the character limit on a social media application that would launch in

2006, Twitter, and it defined the quick-pace, brief conversations that continue to exist today.

In 1992, “Merry Christmas”, a two-word, 15-character phrase was the first official sent text message. Neil Papworth, a 22-year-old developer at Sema Group Telecoms, wanted to wish his friend at Vodaphone, Richard Jarvis, a happy holiday. At that time, mobile phones didn’t have keyboards, so he typed the message on a personal computer. Jarvis could not say Merry

Christmas back because his “brick sized Orbitel 901 phone had no way of imputing text”

(Gayomali, Chris). As Papworth stated on his personal blog, he was “part of the team developing a Short Message Service Centre for our customer, Vodafone UK, and was chosen to go to their

Newbury site to install, integrate and test the software and get it all working” (Papworth, Neil).

He insisted that he thought that the idea was to use it as a paging service, as he reflected that “no one had any idea how gigantic the texting phenomenon would become." 8

Figure 1: Orbitel 901, Business Insider

Texting in the 1990s-early 2000s

Initially, SMS growth was slow, as texting was originally considered to be a minor service. Texts were free but could only be sent between two people on the same network. The average American user sent .4 texts per month in 1995. The most common method of texting was the “multitap” where each number on the phone, 0-9, had 3-4 letters of the alphabet that it could type. Cliff Kushler, Tegic co-founder, invented T9, which stood for “text on 9 keys” (Erickson,

Christine). T9 familiarized common phrases, as it launched a “predictive text technology that displays words from a single key press” (Erickson, Christine).

In 1993, Nokia became the first manufacturer to support user sending of SMS text messages. Combined with its “chic design values, customization, availability of accessories and different models, portability, and miniaturizations,” (Goggin, Gerard 57), Nokia helped to launch the phenomenon. In 1997, Nokia created the Nokia 9000i Communicator, the first mobile phone with a full QWERTY keyboard (Erickson, Christine). In 1999, texts could now be exchanged through different networks of cell phones, as college students admired the “inexpensive, quick- 9 fire technology” (Gayomali, Chris). By 2000, the average user now sent 35 texts per month

(Erickson, Christine).

Figure 2: Nokia 9000i Communicator, Wikipedia

In 2002, more than 250 billion SMS messages were sent worldwide (Gayomali, Chris).

One year later, the show “American Idol” had 7.5 million texts sent through A&T to vote. In

2005, text messages cost 10 cents apiece and increased to 20 cents per message three years later.

For the first time in December 2007, on average more text messages were being sent per month than calls (218 to 213). In 2008, the Super Bowl started what would launch texts to donate to causes, as United Way was the first charity to receive financial help through texts.

This helped for the relief due to the damage in Haiti in 2010, which from the American

Red Cross has received more than $10 million to date (Text Messaging...). President Barack

Obama used texting during his campaign, as he sent supporters a text message to announce that his Vice Presidential running mate would be Joe Biden. In 2010, 200,000 text messages were sent every minute, which were approximately 6.1 trillion text messages worldwide over the year

(Gayomali, Chris). On average, in 2011, users sent 357 texts per month. During this year, the common text phrase “LOL” (laugh out loud) was added to the Oxford Dictionary. Through 2011, text messaging has generated more than $585 billion (Text Messaging...). 10

Amidst a young culture, the language of texting “was neither especially novel nor especially incomprehensible” (Crystal, David 53). It was brief and to the point, which is what young people wanted amidst their lives in high school and college. Furthermore, texting proved to be extremely popular around sporting events and also was motivated by boredom, both common amongst the population. Lastly, the abbreviated language quickly became hip amongst the population, as texting “quickly emerged as an index of belonging” (Crystal, David 93) partly because the language was being self-created by the population. Although some swore that they would never abbreviate, eventually most people did for one of two reasons: because it is “easier and fun” (Crystal, David 65). As the population molded to life with texting, they “increasingly shaped their lives around portability” (Rosen, Larry 99).

Besides its popularity amongst youth, texting became popular in the new millennium because of its price and reliability. Paying for text messages was cheaper than engaging in long conversation. With texting, people were now able to say what they wanted to say efficiently and in a condensed matter. Also, people did not have to worry about a phone call getting disconnected, as texting was thought to be more efficient than fixed-lined networks.

Throughout the late 1980s into the dawn of the new millennium, phone manufacturers, equipment suppliers, and network operators sought to “make and secure a mass consumer culture for cell phones with global reach and local intelligibility and price” (Goggin, Gerard 76). Dozens of companies weaved with one another to foster the growth of the cell phone, as a new version of the now common device soon took over the industry.

Smartphones

Today, a smartphone is defined as “a cellular phone that is able to perform many of the functions of a computer, typically having a relatively large screen and an operating system 11 capable of running general-purpose applications” (Oxford Dictionary). Unbeknownst to most, the smartphone revolution has been going on for over twenty years. In 1992, IBM Simon launched the first of its kind, but it was not successful mainly because it was 15 years ahead of its time

(Erickson, Christine). It included a touchscreen, a notepad, an email client and a calendar, but most could not afford the high price of $899.00.

Figure 3: IBM Simon, Android Authority

Arguably one of the first big moves towards the 21st century smartphone was the creation of the camera phone, which was first created in Japan in 1999 by Japanese manufacturers. It was not until November 2001 that Nokia would launch a similar product, the 7650 (Goggin, Gerard).

This represented a basic shift because users who typically only carry their cell phone, along with a wallet and keys, would also now have access to a camera at all times

Once the camera started to become a common feature on cell phones, the smartphone revolution launched in 2002 with the creation of the Blackberry, as well as several other company’s versions of the similar product. At this time, several new features such as the MP3 player, camera, and wireless technology were now being included in these models.

Concerning MP3 players, Apple Macintosh’s computer iPod device was first released in

2001, which for an expensive price made music from different cassette disks available all on one portable medium. Over the course of its development, iPod users began to become accustomed to 12

“podcasting” which allowed radio content to be downloaded and listened to, as well as portable video that allowed users to not only listen to content but also watch it.

On January 9th, 2007, Steve Jobs, late CEO of Apple, delivered a keynote presentation that introduced the “wide screen-iPod with touch controls, a revolutionary mobile phone, and a breakthrough internet device all on one product” (Ritchie, Rene). The creation, deemed the iPhone, had a “multi-touch interface and virtual keyboard” which had “automatic spell check and correction, predictive text technology, and the ability to learn new words” (Erickson, Christine).

The iPhone 3G and the 3s increased the functionality of the phone while lowering the price. Then, the 4 and the 4s featured broader carriers, faster speeds, and higher quality displays. Most recently, the iPhone 5, 5s, and 5c launched a new, thinner look, and the latest software, iOS7

(Ritchie, Rene). One year later, Android hit the market, which was supported by Google, Intel,

HTC and other developers. Currently, Android serves as Apple’s primary competition.

Figure 4: iPhone 3G, PC Mag

Now, smartphones are not necessarily considered smart, but rather the norm. It is rare for people to have phones that do not have the capabilities of computers as well as touch-screen functions. Because of smartphones, people can essentially do anything electronic all on one mobile device. 13

The combination of texting and smartphones has allowed for quick, tech-savvy communication. As mentioned before, the character limit in texting paved the way for the character limit on Twitter. Texting, as well as applications on a smartphone, have become common agents for digitally socializing. However, one application stands alone in its power of manifesting a digital lifestyle, as it was created by a young man who grew up during this digital revolution.

Facebook

Early Developments and Modern Social Networking

A 1968 essay by J.C.R. Licklider and Robert W. Taylor titled “The Computer as

Communication Device” questioned what on-line interactive communities would be like, comparing it to, “geographically separated members…communities of common interest”

(Kirkpatrick, David 66), continuing that people would, “not send a letter or telegram; you will simply identify the people whose files should be linked to yours.” Taylor was an employee of the

Advance Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense, as he helped conceive what became the ARPAnet, which later became the Internet.

Long before the World Wide Web came, nontechnical users were first captivated by the

Usenet, which in 1979, “enabled people to post messages to groups dedicated to specific topics”

(Kirkpatrick, David 66). In 1985, an electronic bulletin board called The Whole Earth ‘Lectronic

Link, or Well was launched, in which users described their experience as a “virtual community” which is defined as, “a group of people who may or may not meet one another face to face and who exchange words and ideas though the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” 14

(Kirkpatrick, David 67). Being a user in this sense meant creating an account to the website in order to have an online identity.

Overseas, the French launched a national online service called Minitel in 1982. Three years later, America Online was created and soon dominated the market. Electronic mail was in its beginnings and people often used pseudonymous labels for themselves as opposed to their names. Creating personal home pages was started off by sites like TheGlobe.com, Geocities

(Mark Zuckerberg’s first platform for creating a website), and Tripod.

In the mid 1990s, websites meant for finding people were being created, as Match.com launched as a paid dating site, and then Classmates.com launched a year later to reconnect with former classmates.

In early 1997, a New York-based start-up, founded by Andrew Weinreich, called sixdegrees.com that was “the first online business that attempted to identify and map a set of real relationships between real people using their real names” (Kirkpatrick, David 68) launched. Even the company name itself translated into the fact that people can be connected through a chain of relationships. Members joined through receiving emails from existing members to create a personal profile. Two key features on the site were the ability to connect to someone as well as network with potential people. Although revolutionary at the time, sixdegress.com had expenses that were too high to manage people making connections on dial-up service. And, the site lacked photographs. By 1999, it had reached 3.5 million users, but was shut down in early 2000 after a larger company bought it and it did not generate much revenue.

From sixdegrees, other start-ups tried to create something similar, but it was not until

Friendster launched under Jonathan Abrams in February 2003 that people started paying attention, as it generated several million users within a short timeframe. Abrams was previously a part of a social network site, Ryze, which was used for businesspeople, but never really took off.

Friendsters breakthrough was that it gave users a “novel tool” (Kirkpatrick, David 71) to keep 15 track of people with, which included a picture with a profile. But once again, a company could not technologically manage its social success. Although Abrams was removed from CEO in

March 2004, he “cracked the code and defined the basic structure of what is now called a social network” (Kirkpatrick, David 72). From this, the lead investor in Friendster’s first financing founded LinkedIn, which is a professional social network that still exists today.

In Los Angeles, what started as a Friendster clone was the launch pad for MySpace, which was essentially, “a digital club where wild behavior was welcome” (Kirkpatrick, David

76). Unlike Friendster, where accounts that were not real were portrayed as fakesters, MySpace, as founder Tom Anderson described, was a site where “users could create any identity they liked”

(Kirkpatrick, David 74). MySpace officially launched on August 15th, 2003 and took a relaxed approach with restrictions of who could join. Also, people could design the appearance of their profile themselves through HTML code. MySpace was not focusing on connections from genuine friends, but with more than 1 million members, it was quickly becoming the nation’s dominant social network. “You did not go on MySpace to communicate. You went there to show yourself off. It was like one big narcissistic playground. It was throwing your brand out there and hoping someone paid attention to you” (Mezrich, Ben 139).

At the collegiate level, the first social network for college students was started at Stanford

University in November 2001 called Club Nexus, which was a way to improve students’ social lives. But, as the number of users went up, peaking at around 2500, the service became too complicated. However, it paved the way for more amateur social networking sites geared towards college students. 16

Zuckerberg: Early life and Harvard Beginnings

Mark Zuckerberg’s parents hired a private computer tutor, David Neuman, to work with

Mark once a week because of his passion for technology. His first ever website development was a messaging program through Atari BASIC (which his father used in his dental office) called

“Zucknet” (Mark Zuckerberg Biography). He also created computer games just for fun. But because Zuckerberg was already taking graduate courses at a nearby college, it was hard for the tutor to keep up with the tutee (Mark Zuckerberg Biography). In high school, Zuckerberg excelled in the classroom as well as on the fencing team, but still found his passion in computers.

He created Synapse, which became an early version of Pandora, which interested several companies, but he declined to be hired before graduation and before heading off to college at

Harvard (Mark Zuckerberg Biography).

Zuckerberg enrolled at Harvard in the fall of 2002 and by his sophomore year, his reputation was that he was the campus’s software developer. His first created software program while at Harvard was a site called Course Match, which was, “to help students pick classes based on who else was taking them” (Mezrich, Ben 16).

In September 2003, another Harvard student, Aaron Greenspan, established a web service called the houseSYSTEM, as a featured in it called ‘the Face Book’ was an online system for quickly locating other students (Markoff, John).

What generated more notoriety was Zuckerberg’s next task: to find the “hottest” girl at

Harvard. To do this, he used the “so-called facebooks maintained by each of the Harvard houses where undergraduates lived,” (Kirkpatrick, David 23) which were based off of each student’s

Harvard orientation photo. Zuckerberg did not find it difficult to hack into Harvard’s computer system and get these photos. “Breaking into Harvard’s computer system really was child’s play to him. He was smarter than anyone Harvard had employed to make the system, smarter than the 17 administration, and he was certainly smarter than the security systems Harvard had put into place” (Mezrich, Ben 46). Facemash opened on October 23rd, 2003 with the tagline, “Were we let in by our looks? No. Will we be judged by them? Yes” (Kirkpatrick, David 24). The site operated by comparing photos of girls on campus and students would be able to vote out of the two who was more attractive, and so on until “some complex algorithms calculated who were the hottest chicks on campus” (Mezrich, Ben 56). Although the site shut down because of the reaction from the Harvard administration, it proved one thing: “Zuckerberg had a knack for making software people could not stop using” (Kirkpatrick, David 25).

TheFacebook

Meanwhile, three Harvard students, Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya

Narendra were already thinking about creating an online site and recruited Zuckerberg to help develop it. They called it Harvard Collection and it was meant to, “put Harvard’s social life online,” (Mezrich, Ben 30). The website would complete this task by being, “an online place where Harvard guys and girls could find each other, share information, and connect. The site would have two sections: one for dating and one for connecting” (Mezrich, Ben 73). Essentially, the group wanted the site to be, “a dating site for the Harvard elite” (Mark Zuckerberg

Biography). Aside from his software skills, they thought that this new launch could repair his reputation from the creation of Facemash. However, Zuckerberg was already in the midst of creating something of his own.

Alongside friends Dustin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes, and Edward Saverin, Zuckerberg thought about what an online site would be like if the main purpose was not dating, but rather just to connect with friends. It would be, “an online community of friends-of pictures, profiles, whatever-they you could click into, visit, and browse” (Mezrich, Ben 79). He also wanted to 18 stress the exclusivity of the site because he wanted the users to actually know each other, which was different than most dating sites. He wanted people to be able to put up their own pictures of themselves, as well as a profile explaining more about them. Essentially, he wanted to “move the real social network onto the web” (Mezrich, Ben 80).

Figure 5: TheFacebook, Wikipedia

TheFacebook, which the name was based off of the where Harvard kept the orientation photos, was registered as a domain on January 11th 2004 for a one year term (Social Media

Today). It was not until February 4th in Zuckerberg’s Harvard dorm room that TheFacebook went public for people to create accounts. The first non-founder to join the social network was Arie

Hasit (Knoblauch, Max). It was modeled after Friendster, and within 24 hours, over 1,000 students were users (Social Media Today). It was easy to verify that the users were Harvard students because, “you could not join unless if you had a Harvard.edu email address and you had to use your real name,” (Kirkpatrick, David 31). After three weeks, TheFacebook had more than

6,000 users. After one month, it had over 10,000. Zuckerberg assumed that “it would take

Harvard years to implement the system that he and his buddies could put together in a week or so” (Social Media Today). 19

The success of TheFacebook came as dismay to the trio of HarvardConnection, who quickly accused Zuckerberg of stealing their idea and later filed a lawsuit for theft and fraud. The lawsuit would eventually be settled.

A key point of the site’s manifestation into society was that it was a brand new medium of communication aimed at the densest population: college students. In college, “people’s social networks are densest and where they generally socialize more vigorously than at any other time in their lives” (Kirkpatrick, David 39). Mating and dating are critical components of everyday interactions, so Zuckerberg’s idea of having “Looking For, Relationship Status, and Interested In” essentially “defined college life” (Mezrich, Ben 94). Another critical aspect of college students were that since born in the technology age, they would not be creeped out by all that is available on Facebook. “The older you are, the more likely you are to find Facebook’s exposure of personal information intrusive and excessive” (Kirkpatrick, David 202).

Along with its target audience, the appearance of the online site made it quick to learn and addicting. It has a “simple, clean, and uncluttered” (Kirkpatrick, David 11) look with “a simple idea, a sexy function, and an exclusive feel” (Mezrich, Ben 84) that together formed a dominant powerhouse. Zuckerberg did not stress anything flashy and overwhelming, but instead the experience of being able to connect with almost anyone a person has ever acquainted with.

Because the storm of Internet and technology has been led by today’s youth, it is not going away anytime soon. “Internet culture is not youth culture: it is mainstream culture. The people leading it will not be the nostalgic old but the idealistic youth” (Carr, Nicholas 227). And now that this lifestyle has become necessary to live by day in and day out, “the world cannot be detechnologized” (Carr, Nicholas 77).

Zuckerberg first opened up Facebook to a couple of other elite schools, including fellow

Ivy Leaguers Yale, Columbia, and Stanford (Mezrich, Ben 119). By June, Facebook was operating at 34 schools and had almost 100,000 users (Kirkpatrick, David 42). More importantly, 20

TheFacebook was being recognized. For starters, Sean Parker, the former co-founder of Napster, was interested in advising the company, and soon became the president. Also, Peter Theil, the founder of PayPal, also became TheFacebook’s first private investment, as his $500 thousand exchanged for 10.2% of the company (Social Media Today). With summer in bloom, Zuckerberg,

Moskowitz and others went to Palo Alto in California to Silicon Valley to get the site even larger.

The company’s only real costs were the servers and salaries of the workers (Kirkpatrick, David

59). With their hard work, 200,000 users were on TheFacebook by the summer’s end

(Kirkpatrick, David 64).

With TheFacebook becoming a full-time job, both Zuckerberg and Moskowitz did not need to think long about their decision to drop out of Harvard. For the first couple of months, all users had was a very basic looking profile that highlighted a profile picture, as well as “looking for, relationship status, and interested in, which were three concepts, in a nutshell, that defined college life” (Mezrich, Ben 94). But, Zuckerberg began to make the Facebook experience more social: by adding a wall for people to write posts to each other, as well as groups that people could become members of (Kirkpatrick, David 93).

TheFacebook had 1 million users as of December 30th, 2004 (Social Media Today). From

June-October 2005, TheFacebook grew from 3 million to 5 million users (Kirkpatrick, David

131).

TheFacebook was at the center of social media, as people could communicate about their lives to others virtually. During this time, social media was coming, “that permanent self exhibition zone of our new digital age where we are collectively publishing mankind’s group portrait in motion” (Keen, Andrew 2). It was the great third wave of technological innovation after the computer and the Internet. Essentially, “social media was actually becoming life itself- the central and increasingly transparent stage of human existence” (Keen, Andrew 2). 21

Facebook

TheFacebook was shortened to just Facebook in August 2005 for a $200,000 address purchase (Social Media Today). At the time, 85% of American college students were users and a full 60% of them returned to their profiles daily (Kirkpatrick, David 149). Facebook opened to high school students in September 2005, and by June 2006 Facebook had over 1 million high school users alone (Kirkpatrick, David 151). This increase in audience not only expanded the age usage, but also allowed Facebook to become a worldwide phenomenon. Then, in September

2006, with a valid email address, anyone over 13 years old could create an account.

In 2006, a broadcast platform called Twitter was created, as it established one-way connections between followers and users (Kirkpatrick, David 304). Twitter was seen as a competition for Facebook because it used the Facebook status’s function as its sole platform.

Many of Facebook’s later creations, such as the NewsFeed, LiveFeed and the Timeline resembled

Twitter’s fast-paced updates in order to keep up. In fact, on June 12th, 2013, Facebook began to support hashtags, which was Twitter’s signature of determining what news and sayings were popular at that current moment (Knoblauch, Max).

Facebook’s skyrocketing amount of users was captivated by the continuation of features on the site. Two of Facebooks most popular features, the photo application and the Newsfeed, both took the site by storm in 2005. The Newsfeed was “a newspaper that was custom-crafted and delivered to each user” (Kirkpatrick, David 188) through the site. Essentially, “it was as if you could see every single person you know over the backyard fence at all times” (Kirkpatrick, David

194).

On May 24th, 2007, Facebook hosted an event called “f8”, which basically meant that it was “Facebook’s fate to become a platform” (Kirkpatrick, David 222). At the time, there were 24 million users, with 150,000 new users being added everyday (Kirkpatrick, David 227). And with 22 the launch of f8, other applications could be launched through Facebook. With this came the popularity of playing games, which are now the most successful Facebook application

(Kirkpatrick, David 230).

Although Facebook had been given the value of 15 billion dollars, which was the highest valuation ever given to a private technology company (Kirkpatrick, David 245), it suffered a downfall with the interference of Beacon in terms of privacy and hijacking data (Kirkpatrick,

David 248). But, even during the economic crisis in 2008, Facebook still fared well. Even more significant was the election of president Barack Obama, who used Facebook to increase his fan base, as the election was deemed, “The Facebook Election” (Kirkpatrick, David 293).

In March 2009, “time spent of social networks by Internet users worldwide had for the first time exceeded the amount of time Internet users spent on email” (Kirkpatrick, David 274).

Two months later, Facebook surpassed MySpace in traffic for the first time. On October 1st, 2010, the movie “The Social Network” was released in theatres, which pictured the beginnings of

Facebook. (Social Media Today). By late 2010, 30 Facebook employees were former Googlers

(Kirkpatrick, David 327) and 75 languages, which represented 98% of the population, were used to translate the site (Kirkpatrick, David 277). Also in 2010, Time Magazine named Zuckerberg person of the year (Mark Zuckerberg Biography).

In recent years, Facebook made many additions to their platform. In June 2011, Facebook partnered with Skype so that users could video chat while on the site. Then, on December 22nd,

2011, Facebook launched Timeline, which would be the new profile for users to basically place their entire life in chronological form. In April 2012, Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion.

In May 2012, Facebook had its initial public offering (IPO), which made Facebook the biggest

IPO in history at $16 billion (Mark Zuckerberg Biography). Anyone could by a share of the company for just $38 a piece. In October 2012, Facebook reached 1 billion users (Social Media 23

Today). In May 2013, Mark Zuckerberg was featured on the Fortune 500 list as the youngest

CEO at age 28 (Mark Zuckerberg Biography).

On February 4th, 2014, Facebook celebrated its tenth birthday. Currently, there are over

1.23 billion users on the site (Knoblauch, Max). In the past ten years, there have been 201.6 billion friend connections on the site, over 7.8 trillion messages sent, and over 400 billion photos shared (Martin, Scott).

24

Chapter 3

Survey

Introduction

To determine how both Facebook and texting have affected face-to-face relations, I decided to administer an on-campus survey. With a campus of over 40,000 students between the ages of 17-mid twenties, I believed that I could be supplied with a diverse enough sample. Also, as mentioned in the last chapter, both of these forms of communication have only become popular within the past twenty years, making this age group the first eligible generation to be fully effected by the means.

My hypothesis is that Facebook and texting have affected face-to-face relations both positively and negatively, but we are not yet at the risk of losing face-to-face relations with one another.

Larry Rosen suggested in his book that people’s relationship to technology and media is toxic, stating that a new disorder, an “iDisorder” combines many psychiatric maladies that leave people technologically dependent and socially alienated. As the guinea pigs for a technological lifestyle starting as soon as we can process memories, it is important to see how these gadgets affect our lives so that any negative effects can be suppressed. 25

Methods

Participants

863 participants were recruited from Penn State University Main Campus. Of the 863 participants, more than half were female (n=525, 61%); the mean class standing was 2.11

(1=Freshman, 2=Sophomore, 3=Junior, 4=Senior, 5=Graduate Student, 6=Non-student)

(SD=1.23) and 80% were Caucasian (n=668).

My thesis survey was compiled through Qualtrics and was administered over a four-week period lasting from January 15th-February 12th 2014. To spread the word, I sent an email including the survey and an explanation about it to teachers through mainly the College of

Communications and the Liberal Arts College in order to have their students either complete it for class participation or extra credit. Included in the Appendix section is the IRB approval for this research.

Measures

Sixteen out of twenty-three questions were one-answer multiple-choice questions that detailed demographics and personal information about texting and Facebook habits. Five of the remaining questions (numbers 12, 17, 18, 20, and 21) had users indicating their answers through a likert scale system on a 1-5 scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Somewhat Disagree, 3=Neutral,

4=Somewhat Agree, 5=Strongly Agree).

The last two questions of the survey (22 and 23) allowed for students completing it for a class to write in their Penn State Access Id (abc1234) and their teacher’s last name, which I forwarded to the appropriate teacher at the end of the duration of the survey. That way, I was still able to send teachers what students of theirs completed the survey without knowing anything 26 more about them than their Access Id. I also sent out the survey to peers of mine either through my majors or through similar campus activities in order to spread my survey the best that I could.

Procedure

To analyze the information, I sorted out all of the survey questions into categories.

Questions 1-3 were demographic questions based on the standard sex, race, and age composition.

Next, questions 4-11 were phone-based demographic questions that surveyed users on their phone history (what kind of phone they have and when they first got a phone), as well as other numerically based questions (amount of time spent on phone, amount of contacts in phone, etc.)

Question 12 is the first likert scale with six statements that address effects of texting on relationships and lifestyle habits. Then, questions 13-16 were Facebook demographic questions that users can answer, such as amount of Facebook friends, when they created their account and amount of time spent on Facebook. Questions 17 and 18 are both Facebook likert scales, as 10 statements are asked that address the effects of Facebook on relationships and lifestyle habits.

Question 19 asks users how many close friends, which is the basis of the relationships component. The last two questions relevant to the survey (20 and 21) are likert questions that addressed their current relationships as well as future predictions on what will happen to their relationships in the future.

Results

The entire survey results can be found in Appendix A, but the main points are expressed in the following section. Comparing the results to my hypothesis, I was predominantly right when assuming that people still value face-to-face relationships regardless of the power of the negative 27 effects to overpower them. However, there were several components of my results that I was surprised about which I elaborate more on in this section.

Cell Phone Demographics

79% of survey respondents had an iPhone, 16% had an Android, and 2% had another form of a smart phone. All together, that makes 96% of the sample own smart phones, which have been around for a little over five years. Out of almost 900 respondents, one person did not own a cell phone.

79% of survey respondents received their first cell phones between the ages of 11-14

(with 44% being 13-14 years old). Since texting started in late 1992 and cell phones not too long before, it makes sense that the 11-14 years old is the common age. For college students now, that means that they received their first cell phone in middle school. It would be interesting to see what this result would be like in a survey done to an older target audience and a younger target audience.

Although cell phones are popular, 84% of users still own a home phone mainly due to the fact that most college students still live with their parents.

The most popular response for how often per day do people spend on their cell phones for directly talking to people and using the internet, social media, or other application is 1-3 hours each, totaling to 2-6 hours a day. Although there are percentage differences, the overall pattern is pretty similar. 28

Table 1: Approximate phone usage per day for directly taking to people (call, text message, etc.)

# Answer Response % Less than an 1 116 14% hour 2 1-3 hours 366 43% 3 4-6 hours 173 20% 4 Over 6 hours 198 23% 5 Not applicable 1 0% Total 854 100%

Table 2: Approximate phone usage per day for Internet, social media, and other applications

# Answer Response % Less than an 1 78 9% hour 2 1-3 hours 413 48% 3 4-6 hours 222 26% 4 Over 6 hours 119 14% 5 Not applicable 20 2% Total 852 100%

A clear sign that communication methods have become more technological is the fact that when asked the preferred method of communication when you want to talk to someone, over half (55%) said texting the person. Talking to the person face-to-face then beat out calling the person by only 4% (24 to 20). Only 1% said that they would use social media to get the message across.

Next shows the comparison between the amounts of contacts present in one’s cell phone versus the percentage of contacts a person actually connects with on a regular basis.

29

Table 3: Number of contacts in phone

# Answer Response % 1 Less than 100 242 28% 2 101-200 329 38% 3 201-300 172 20% 4 More than 300 109 13% 5 Not applicable 4 0% Total 856 100%

Table 4: Percentage of contacts in phone contacted on a weekly basis

# Answer Response % 1 Less than 25% 771 90% 2 26-50% 74 9% 3 51-75% 9 1% 4 More than 75% 1 0% Total 855 100%

This shows that people are not communicating with the majority of the numbers stored in their phones. However, this does make sense because people do not often scroll through their phones to delete contacts or have contacts for restaurants, bosses, or other important phone numbers that they need to keep but only need to communicate with on a rare basis.

Facebook Demographics

Similar to how 96% of the sample owned a smart phone, 96% also have a Facebook account. However, although cell phone users were averaging at about 1-3 hours per day each for directly communicating and for app usage, Facebook users are spending less than one hour a day on the site, according to 51% of the population.

When asked about the creation of the Facebook account, 58% said that they created theirs

5-7 years ago, leveling out at 2007-2009. This makes sense for the college survey, as Facebook opened to the public in 2006, as this sample was still in middle school. 30

Currently, 40% of the sample has roughly 501-1000 Facebook friends. 7% of the sample said that they have more than 1501 Facebook friends. In comparison, when asked how many close friends they have, 47% said less than 10 and 38% said 11-20, as only 15% said that they have more than 20 close friends.

Likert scales

The first likert scale supported brief communication and that although texting is popular, face-to-face is still preferred.

People mostly “somewhat disagreed” to feeling more comfortable talking to a person over the phone that face-to-face (M=2.48, SD=1.15). They further somewhat disagreed that they would be satisfied with just texting someone as opposed to seeing them face-to-face (M=2.52,

SD=1.13). And, they somewhat agreed that they feel less emotionally attached to someone when texting rather than talking to them in person (M=3.56, SD=1.18).

However, several interesting results were found. Although face-to-face was preferred, users mostly “somewhat agreed” to rather text a person than call them to avoid a long conversation (M=3.17, SD=1.27). Furthermore, texting does create the feeling of nervousness.

The results were split between agreeing and disagreeing for people getting nervous if they have to contact someone through their phone (M=2.73, SD=1.20). Also, people somewhat agreed to getting nervous if someone does not text them back at a fast pace (M=3.01, SD=1.20).

The second and third likert scales mainly discussed Facebook, and it was surprising to see the results.

The majority of the responses were strongly disagree for every category, including: a higher self esteem for more Facebook friends (M=1.67, SD=1.03), feeling more comfortable communicating via Facebook than through texting or in person (M=1.86, SD=0.98), feeling 31 pressured to keep their Facebook updated (M=2.05, SD=1.10), and comparing their profiles to other people (M=2.18, SD=1.25). It was interesting that in our society today where people are building an online profile and personality, the survey still said that they were not being too emotional about it. People also strongly disagreed that Facebook is the main social media application they use (M=2.73, SD=1.53), due to other popular applications such as Twitter,

Instagram, and SnapChat.

However, people strongly agreed that they do monitor what is being displayed on their

Facebook profile (M=4.01, SD=1.16). And, they somewhat agree that Facebook helps them to connect with people who live far away (M=3.81, SD=1.19).

The interesting contraction found was that although the highest category for updating statuses was strongly disagree (M=2.40, SD=1.32), the majority of users said that they somewhat agreed that they rely on Facebook to stay updated about other people’s lives (M=3.08, SD=1.30).

Therefore, although they aren’t posting statuses themselves, they are eager to see what others have to say. This can correlate to a sense of loneliness as opposed to narcissism because people are not boasting about themselves but instead want to see what their “Facebook friends” are up to regardless of how good of friends they actually are with the person.

The last likert scale talked about relationships in general and how technology has had an effect on them.

For most questions, the survey respondents strongly agreed on several aspects. They felt as though their friendships were worthwhile (M=4.58, SD=0.76), that it was easy to communicate face-to-face with friends (M=4.70, SD=0.69) and family (M=4.60, SD=0.77), and that they still maintain face-to-face communication (M=4.55, SD=.70).

However, users agreed that they find themselves drifting more towards technological methods of communication (M=3.04, SD=1.06) and that they have noticed how their communication methods have changed over the years (M=3.89, SD=0.95). 32

Chapter 4

Analysis

Introduction

In this chapter, we will examine both the positive attributes of 21st century technology that make Facebook and texting attractive to their users and the negative effects that researchers condone as detrimental to face-to-face relations.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a relationship is “the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or in the state of being connected.” Therefore, the foundation of this thesis will assess how both Facebook and texting, have affected the relationships people have with one another. Face-to-face relationships are connections that people establish and maintain with one another through physical presence. In these relationships, people can notice each other’s non-verbal cues, body language, and have difficulty filtering their speech.

Therefore, there is a clear difference between virtual and face-to-face relations. For centuries, relationships were dominantly face-to-face, but now virtual ties are starting to become more common.

Positive Effects of 21st Century Technology on Relationships

With these advanced gadgets, communication could essentially happen at any place at any time with anyone, creating ubiquitous, portable relationships. 33

Continuous Communication

For the first time, Facebook was a site that initiated online contact with friends and acquaintances about what was going on in their lives, as opposed to a dating or rating site of any kind. Furthermore, it allowed each user to be crafty with their profile, making them tech-savvy.

“Everyone can be an editor, a content creator, a producer, and a distributor” (Kirkpatrick, David

9). Facebook basically acts like a virtual time machine, as the site deals with real people and real events, creating “a reliable directory based on real information about students” (Kirkpatrick,

David 29). Although initially a very basic communications tool targeted to solve the “problem” of keeping track of schoolmates, Facebook quickly molded into everyday life.

Facebook has allowed people to want to take pictures of their experiences because now they are able to share with people through a common medium where they were and who they were with. With photos now easily sharable, they were “no longer little amateur works of art, but rather a basic form of communication” (Kirkpatrick, David 156). As Facebook incorporated itself into daily routines, it was also able to quickly adjust itself with new features that continuously impressed the users as described in Chapter 1. Throughout its development, Facebook created the notion that, “information is meant to be shared and pictures are meant to be looked at” (Mezrich,

Ben 53).

Facebook promised more than just friendship, as it sought to revive what it meant to be social. Zuckerberg insisted that Facebook would bring the world together, as it has become “an overarching common cultural experience for people worldwide” (Kirkpatrick, David 15).

Essentially, Facebook was a virtual database that allowed people to display their everyday lives for everyone else to see, promising that relationships would grow because both people would always know what the other person was doing, feeling, or who they were with. This invention was the first reliable directory based on real information, which truly was different than any 34 social networking site before it. Facebook has become the one medium where everyone’s life experiences and relationships can relate to one another, making the world seem smaller.

Zuckerberg wanted Facebook to “enhance relationships with people already known in the flesh”

(Kirkpatrick, David 12). He wanted people who knew each other of all different realms to come together on a site where keeping in touch would be easy. With Facebook, communication was continuous, as exchanging information about oneself over a website created a revolution for the constant ability to stay updated.

Meanwhile, texting allows never ending communication, as people can now communicate without overtly disrupting others. David Crystal stated that communication in noisy environments, public areas, and where voice or ringtone disturbance is undesirable could now happen. With this increased window of opportunity for communication, people can communicate more.

The phenomenon of texting, combined with the portability of cell phones, may signal the end of home phone lines in the future. 15% of survey respondents indicated that they no longer had a home telephone, and this number will only increase as the sample for the survey (age 18-

24) moves into their own homes and eventually start their own families. Texting can only be done through cell phones, further distinguishing their dominance over home phones.

Essentially, digital communication fosters interactions and relationships because even if people are technically busy, they can still send a quick virtual shout-out, which can still allow for people to connect. Furthermore, anything that a person posts to any sort of social media is a form of communication, as it shares what the individual is doing. With digital communications, people are always available to communicate. 35

Portable and Concise Connections

People have become accustomed to texting as a direct medium to communicate. The notion of “sending a message which gets to the point immediately” (Crystal, David 97) and avoiding small talk and awkward introductions really makes texting a vital communication source.

Texting allowed for digital communication to be portable, speedy, and reliant for the first time. Now with the opportunity to not have to be stationary when communicating work someone, portability with text messaging “is more convenient that instant messaging, where both sender and receiver have to be sitting at their computers” (Crystal, David 93). Unlike other mediums, texting allowed for concise messages to travel from sender to receiver regardless of location, which became a part of everyday life. Now, cell phones “the ubiquitous device that we now carry in our pockets and sleep with next to our beds” (Rosen, Larry 11).

Democratic Communication

The “reflect, retype, and edit” (Turkle, Sherry 187) nature of text messaging provides time for people to think and filter their thoughts, allowing relationships between different types of people to become more fluid. With digital communication, it does not matter “who you are, what you look like, and even whether you have difficulties relating to people” (Rosen, Larry 128) because everyone is now typing on the same platform. As Rosen states, “the ability to shield yourself behind a screen” (128) during communication can help both shy people who are not comfortable communicating effectively in person or to help them conquer their communication fears based on the psychological gratifications theory. 36

Within just the past 10 years, Facebook has become almost a common language. 96% of survey respondents have an account, as 58% of them created their account 5-7 years ago when they were in high school. Zuckerberg’s site was a hit that hooked people from the start and for years to come. Out of these 96%, 37% believe that Facebook is the main social media application that they use. Although the survey did not ask what other applications they use, other common applications include Twitter and Instagram.

Users who see technology as a way to keep a group of people together, to reconnect with someone after years of separation, and to keep track of events and birthdays, Facebook, texting, and any other digital medium is not necessarily bad. “If social media lets you organize a game of football among your friends, that is healthy” (Marche, Stephen).

Lastly, anyone could now communicate on the same platform because digital communications proved to be a cheap option to keep in touch. Texting proved to be less expensive than a voice call on mobile phones, which easily made it justifiable. And, creating a

Facebook profile is free of charge to all users. Facebook generates its revenue from advertising, which the common user does not have to worry about the financial aspects of. Therefore, relationships can be fostered on Facebook for zero cost.

Maintaining Relationships

In accordance to reconnecting with people from years ago, Facebook is a great solution for people who live far away from each other to maintain their bond, as 41% of survey respondents indicated that they see Facebook was a way of keeping this intact. By being able to stay in contact with people who live far away, relationships can strengthen because distance is not the factor that determines if the relationship stays strong. Also, with the heightened expenses of gas, flights, and other forms of transportation, Facebook is a good solution when people cannot 37 afford to see each other face-to-face. Digital communications has made the distance between people communicating all but eradicated, which is perfect for a mobile society. “These days, being connected depends not on distance from each other but from available communications”

(Turkle, Sherry 155). Now, common transitions such as college or full-time job opportunities are not as drastic because people can maintain those connections.

No other site parallels Facebook in its ability to reconnect people over the years.

“Facebook represents a chance to try again with crushes from high school or college, as so many people have renewed relationships this way” (Kirkpatrick, David 334).

Safety

Most importantly, digital communication allows for people to stay up-to-date on what their loved ones are doing and can let people know at a fast rate if they are in danger. Even through just a text, people know that their loved ones are safe. An example of this relation can be connected to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 where children and teenagers were without cell phones to ensure their families’ safety. That day “marked childhood with an experience of being cut off from all comfort, as cell phones later became a symbol of physical and emotional safety” (Turkle, Sherry 247). Now, families and friends have the ability to make sure that their loved ones are safe from danger. In fact, 79% of survey respondents received their first cell phone between the ages of 11-14 as preteens mainly in order to keep parents in the loop of their activities and to reach out to friends on a limited basis (since there was not unlimited texting at first). Most likely, kids are receiving cell phones sooner rather than later so that their safety is intact. Tragic events of the early 21st century, such as September 11 or Sandy Hook served as occasions where children’s safety was jeopardized. Therefore, families see having cell phones as essential to maintaining safety. 38

Negative Effects of 21st Century Technology on Relationships

In the face of the uncritical acceptance of technologies such as Facebook and texting, studies started to investigate the negative impacts of using digital communications daily. Ranging from physical, mental, emotional and social aspects of everyday life, a digital lifestyle has the power to affect the quality of relationships, raise issues of privacy, and have cognitive effects on individuals.

Addiction

With the newfound ability to keep track of other people on a website, most users quickly became addicted to the new digital lifestyle. Why should a person go out of their way to find out what new job his or her friend got when they can just wait to see what status that person makes about it? Why should everyone bring their cameras out on a weekend if one person can be in charge of uploading the photos to Facebook and tagging everyone else in the pictures? Why should a person call one other person to see if they are doing anything tonight when they can text ten people a simple, “What are you up to tonight?” phrase at a faster rate? As Turkle stated, people fell in love with what made technology easy: the efficiency, the speed, and consistency.

In the book “iDisorder,” Rosen discusses three situations. First, he mentions Jim, a computer company manager and has a wife and daughter who cannot leave the room without his

Blackberry, as he even has his phone out while on the dinner table. Second, Jane is characterized as checking Facebook before she gets out of bed in the morning and hates making phone calls to see what her friends are up to because the social network does that for her. Lastly, Rick, a grandfather, loves taking pictures on his smartphone of his family to send to distant relatives. All 39 three users are suffering from the addiction of “constantly checking our devices [which] becomes an out-of-control feedback loop” (54).

According to Rosen, users displaying symptoms of impulsivity, sensation seeking, and social deviance show signs of becoming addicted to technology. Users with these symptoms most likely are attracted to the less harmful online world because it takes less effort to communicate and with a screen mediating communication, it avoids the physical dangers of the situation.

However, the easier features of digital communications affect life in the real world. Even while on vacations or spending quality time with people, the digital world is never turned off.

Basically, a vacation could become “working from someplace picturesque” (Turkle, Sherry 165).

The beauty of face-to-face relationships is that each person has the ability to behave morally with empathy and compassion, but with technology in the way, the focus is distorted. Besides the occasional vacation, Facebook and texting can interfere with simple day-to-day tasks, initiating things such as “losing sleep, being late to work or school, and/or skipping face-to-face social activities (Rosen, Larry 63). Turkle agrees that technology keeps us busy, and since technology never stops, digital communications will always be busy. Therefore, sense of the “fear of missing out” is developed, as people do not want to fall asleep on a text message conversation or go to class before pictures from the previous night are posted in Facebook. This sense of always needing to stay updated and stay busy interferes with the potential that we have each day to interact with others face-to-face.

Texting has not only created the ability for people to be able to contact anyone at any time from any location, but also the addiction of being able to do so. “When unable to return a message right away, young people feel that a social expectation has been violated” (Crystal,

David 29). This is directly correlated to my survey, as 42% of the sample sometimes gets nervous when someone does not text them back at a fast pace. When forced to turn off a phone in a classroom or work setting, most people feel discomfort that they are only able to communicate 40 with people currently in the room with them. Although there are most likely other people in the room, people feel alone because with their cell phones, they have so much more potential to communicate with more people, even if it is just through a quick text message.

A sociological theory that can relate to the quick manifestation and addiction of technology is the idea behind Le Bon’s “Crowds” theory. Powerful changes allow for the

“crowd” of people to be able to adapt to it as the norm fast. Once a small group of people started to adapt to the world of technology, it quickly became the norm. “Man is by nature a social animal” (Keen, Andrew 8). Therefore, it is not surprising that a world where communication could simply be done through the fingertips caught on at a vicious pace. As Carr stated, in just the past 20 years, the Internet has become the communication and information medium of choice.

Loss of Attention

In 1890, psychologist and philosopher William James described attention as “taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.” He further stated that attention involves withdrawal from some things to deal effectively with others. As people became addicted to the new lifestyle of digital communications, it started to become difficult to connect with the people and places one was surrounded by in real time. Maggie Jackson researched that this sense of detachment caused an important variable, attention, to be at risk. She insisted that the way we live is “eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention,” (13) which is the stepping-stone for intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress. Without attention, one cannot have meaningful relationships with others.

Technologies now allow and encourage a digital lifestyle called multitasking, which is when a person tries to focus and complete more than one task at once, plays an integral role in 41 diminishing one’s attention span. For the first time, people were able to talk to more than one person at a time and were able to do several tasks at once that used to not be possible. Being able to communicate in any environment attracts people to communicate with others while trying to focus on something else. Now, most people would go crazy if, “we had to go back to computer that could run only one program or open only one file at a time” (Carr, Nicholas 113).

Multitasking plays an essential role in relationships, as the most effective relationships are formed when both people can focus entirely on the other person. But, with texting and social media always being available, this effectiveness is put into jeopardy. This is especially common during family occasions, dates, and professional gatherings, as people who are both engaging with the people in front of them and the people on their screen are hindering the potential they have with the people directly in front of them.

The most fearful effect of multitasking is when people are texting while in situations that could danger themselves or the lives of others. Most fearful is the habit of texting while driving.

Because young people live in a state of waiting for a connection from others, they are “willing to take risks to put themselves on the line” (Turkle, Sherry 171). The majority of the time, the driver does not need to be texting while behind the wheel, but rather wants the feeling of communicating with someone at all times. Therefore, relationships are strained behind the wheel because people are putting their lives, as well as others, in jeopardy simply because they want to send out a basic message.

Today, “increased pressures on time and short attention spans are increasingly the norm”

(Crystal, David 95), as texting has a unique way of interfering with thought. This has become more and more of an issue with students in the classroom, as teachers have become quick to punish those who think that texting will still allow for them to learn. Although the link has not been proven yet with digital communication, on March 5th of this year, College Board changed the design of the Standardized Aptitude Test (SAT) that shows the effects of a digital future. 42

Even though College Board is appealing to low and middle income students by allowing each student who takes the SAT to receive four fee waivers to apply to college and universal access to test prep materials, they are also redesigning the test to “focus on the few things that evidence show matter most for college and career readiness” (College Board). In the new text will return to the former 1600-point scale, have an optional as opposed to required essay, no longer deduct points for incorrect answers, math problems from fewer topics, and the deduction of “SAT words” which were commonly words that most students had never heard of. Lastly, by 2016, it is projected that the SATs will be administered both in print and by computer. Thus, the former test that gave students writers’ cramps in their hands and challenged their vocabulary will now fit the mold of losing attention in the classroom. The change in the SATs supports Nicholas Carr’s notion that attention relates directly to intelligence, as “our own intelligence is flattening into artificial intelligence” (224) due to losing focus.

Living in a digital communications world has the power to change how people process basic information, as the loss of attention driven by technology has the power to decrease productivity and memory loss. Carr supports that this world has allowed people to take information the way the Internet distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles, thus interfering with people’s attentiveness and the ability to stay focused on one thing.

Privacy

With Facebook stressing the endless availability of information available about people on its site, privacy issues are at the center of the integrity of the platform. “Privacy is taking a backseat to the notion that our every thought, action or desire should be publicized” (Keen,

Andrew 48). Therefore, when targeted at the college population, users posting images and statuses about things that they are doing in college most likely were not to their advantage when 43 the time came to apply to full-time jobs or for friends’ families to find out what activities they were doing on the weekend.

What Zuckerberg has done to help combat this on Facebook’s part is to provide the statement that, “we cannot and do not guarantee that user content you post on the site will not be viewed by unauthorized persons” (Kirkpatrick, David 204), which essentially prevents Facebook from lawsuits. Most of Facebook’s privacy problems are just a result of how frequently the site is used. Therefore, people have to pay extra attention on what is displayed about themselves and what others display about them in order to maintain a good reputation. The problem with privacy,

Facebook and relationships is that “a lot of people do not really consider the fact that once it is out there, it is out there” (Keen, Andrew 59), which can damage relationships if something private about someone is published onto Facebook, even just for a minute, by someone else. 76% feel the need to monitor what is being displayed about themselves on their Facebook profile. This sense of privacy has the power to highlight what a person does and does not want to feature on their profile.

Although this is a good quality for professionalism, it was not the case a decade ago that employers would be able to use Facebook as a mean for determining employment. Now, employers are constantly checking the online appearance of their employees to make sure that their company upholds a professional reputation .Furthermore, privacy issues come into play with screening potential applicants for employment, as employers have the power to reject applicants whose appearance on any social media site does not meet the company’s professional standards.

Professional sites like LinkedIn or personal online portfolios are meant to highlight a person positively online, however Facebook, Twitter and other sites still have the power to interject.

Not only is privacy a concern in the professional world, but the fact that communication on Facebook through features such as “The Wall,” pictures, and statuses are all public. Instead of going over to a friend’s house after a vacation to show the printed pictures, they do not even have 44 to talk about the trip because everyone can see the pictures the person posts onto Facebook at the same time. Besides direct messages and secret groups, every form of communication on

Facebook is public. Essentially, privacy is an issue because the personal relationships that people were formerly having with one another are now commonly exposed on a social media platform.

Employers may be looking at the degree of professionalism from an applicant’s social life, but friends and family have the ability, rather, desire to look at whom that person is interacting with.

A big component of privacy in relationships is the ability to display in Facebook who people are in relationships with. Saslow’s research in 2012 found that how an individual feels about his or her romantic partner spills into their online behavior, as Facebook profile pictures featuring the couple enhances the couple’s identity and how they feel about each other. In addition, posting photographs and status about one’s significant other predicts that they are satisfied with their relationship. This is fueled off of the ability to insert the other person’s name on Facebook as the person who they are in a relationship with. The now common expression

“Facebook official” is used to describe couples who decide to make their relationship known to the entire Facebook community. What was once considered a private bond between two people is now an online status symbol and a public domain, as people who do not post that they are in a relationship when they actually are has a role in testing the legitimacy of the relationship.

Mood and Personality Disorders

Due to research on brain plasticity, these gadgets are “rewiring our brains”, as the increase of technology directly relates to the likelihood of developing one of several clinical or personality disorders. As Rosen states, these disorders can be categorized as either Axis I mood disorders (such as depression, ADHD, and schizophrenia) or Axis II personality disorders 45

(including antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and obsessive- compulsive personality disorder).

These disorders are more common because not only does Facebook serve as a site to stay updated on other peoples’ lives and vice versa, but it also allows for people to keep constant tabs on people whom they are envious of. Facebook creates a sense of envy when some people go on vacation for breaks while others stay at home and sit on their computers and wait for those people to upload pictures. Facebook can easily compare peoples’ lifestyles, creating a sense of envy over others that leads to depression of a person’s own life.

It is common that preteens and teens spend a great deal on Facebook and other social media sites and then display symptoms of depression. However, usually depression is not caused by the amount of time spent on Facebook, but rather “on the quality of those online interactions”

(Rosen, Larry 85). If people are interacting with others on Facebook who live far away or who people might not talk to otherwise, than depression symptoms are not as frequent. It is establishing the median of healthy online relationships and Facebook overpowering the relationship.

Another mood disorder is the attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as the disorder causes people to have severe inattentiveness and lack impulse control, creating problems in various institutions such as school, work, and at home. Living in a technologically centered world, our dependence on these gadgets and their constant availability “makes us all behave as if we have ADHD” (Rosen, Larry 105).

Meanwhile, one of the most evident personality disorders as demonstrated by increased technological use is narcissism, which is defined as an, “excessive or erotic interest in oneself and in one’s physical appearance” (Oxford Dictionary). Any platform that stresses people to constantly update an accurate profile about themselves will enlighten some to develop narcissistic tendencies that would have otherwise not been displayed. In a nutshell, “social media is the 46 confessional novel that we are not only all writing but also collectively publishing for everyone else to read” (Keen, Andrew 23). Comparing this novel also to a play, Facebook embellishes the notion of “how we are all actors in a play and are presenting the image of ourselves that we want others to see” (Rosen, Larry 33). Along with becoming more self-centered, Facebook has propelled people to judge one another based on what is present on their profile, which is a shallow perception of each other. “You do not have to be on a lot, but you cannot be on so little that your profile is totally lame. So once you are on it, it makes you do enough so that you are not embarrassed” (Turkle, Sherry 250).

With the creation of Facebook came an even greater sense of maintaining the high standards of a socially acceptable profile. Although 63% do not feel as though they compare their

Facebook profiles to one another, there is still an increase in protecting one’s image. 20% do believe that they compare their profiles to others, which supports the notion that relationships weaken. These 20%, instead of allowing Facebook to increase bonds with one another, now feel the need to keep themselves represented well in comparison to the people who they are trying to remain friends with, whether just on Facebook or in the real world.

A study was done at the University of Michigan in 2010 that positively linked social media with narcissism and the loss of empathy, claiming that “Facebook is a mirror and Twitter is a megaphone.” The study stated that among young college students, people scored in certain types of narcissism posted more often on Facebook and Twitter. Furthermore, the study differentiated “narcissistic college students” and their “adult counterparts” and how they used social media, as they both wanted to boost their ego and control over others, but with college students doing it more drastically (Swanbrow, Diane).

The social standards and self-loathing that people experience during high school and college is only elevated because of the increased presence of Facebook in their daily lives. On

Facebook, “our social standing is in one way or another always in play and always at risk” (Carr, 47

Nicholas 118). What makes it more at risk is that, “social media is just a mirror, making the problem that nobody is forcing any of us to update” (Keen, Andrew 164). At the core of it, narcissism and judgment stem off of Facebook because at the end of the day, Facebook membership has always been voluntary. However, in 2014, “it is becoming unfashionable perhaps even socially unacceptable not to express oneself on the network” (Keen, Andrew 47), meaning that people are essentially obligated to keep their social media sites updated.

While some may find in Facebook a way to flaunt their best attributes, others are succumbed to the fear of social situations and interacting with others, as the social anxiety disorder causes reduced ability to stay composed around others on a day-to-day basis. Deemed as having “social phobia,” high anxiety levels makes them believe that others are constantly judging them, which can lead to panic attacks. People with social phobia generally “prefer the sanctuary of their home and their technology” (Rosen, Larry 125) as they often find it difficult to interact with others face-to-face. A research study in 2012 showed that although individuals with higher levels of social anxiety did not report or display higher Facebook usage, it was possible to distinguish an individual’s level of social anxiety from their Facebook profile. Individuals who posted a greater amount of information about themselves in every section of their profile (except activities) showed higher levels of social anxiety (Fernandex, Levinson, Rodebaugh). A reason for this could be that people want to make themselves appealing to others and find technology as the best medium to do so.

Larry Rosen’s “iDisorder” makes a direct attack on the addiction that technology fosters, claiming the disorder as “one that combines elements of many psychiatric maladies and is centered on the way we all relate to technology and media” (4). He further states that people in the 21st century have an “overreliance on gadgets and websites, which has created an enmeshed relationships with technology and this relationship can cause significant problems on our 48 psyche.” At the root of his so-called disorder is a relationship with technology that interferes with our lives in the real world.

Loss of Social Skills

With technology at the forefront of future communication, our society is succumbing to new online forms of etiquette that have the potential to overpower the way we interact with others face-to-face. As Christine Rosen states, we now face problems such as dealing with a “friend” who posts something inappropriate to your wall, if someone tags you in an embarrassing picture,

“defriending” a former significant other, or deciding whether or not to accept a friend request from a complete stranger. Furthermore, situations about texting can arise, such as whether to call or text someone about their plans that night, how to handle communicating with a new love interest, or accidentally texting the wrong person. These are now common ways that we interact with one another, as basic social skills that have been used until now, such as unfiltered talking, giving a professional handshake, or displaying publically love for one another are starting to become harder to retain.

The directness of text messaging forces the user to neglect common nonverbal cues to understand the message. For example, when communicating on a portable screen, people miss out on “how someone stands, the tone of their voice, the expression on their face, and the things your eyes and ears tell you” (Turkle, Sherry 268). Furthermore, the directness might hinder users from understanding the meaning of the message as well as creating bad habits because of the lifestyle of texting. Texts as jokes could be interpreted as serious and vice versa, with only the limited text as the deciphering factor. Furthermore, the abbreviated and casual lifestyle of texting “runs the risk of contravening indigenous norms of politeness and respect” (Crystal, David 97). With 49 texting, users have to be extra careful about how the way they communicate differs while on and away from their keyboard.

The loss of social skills can directly be related to the kind of culture that social media users are invested in: “liking” a post or photo, “favoriting” a tweet, or simply clicking on the heart on an Instagram photo to like it. With one click, users can elaborate on how they feel about that posted item. However, the user cannot click a dislike button because there is only the culture to promote likes. Although that initially seems positive, people think that clicking a button signals communication. A status, tweet, or photo with a lot of likes makes people feel good about themselves and that they communicated something right because “a status update that is met with no likes-or a clever tweet that is not retweeted-becomes the equivalent of a joke met with silence”

(Strauss, Neil). Ever since its creation in 2009, people are shying away from actually stating their opinion because one simple button appears to do the trick.

Additionally, this culture of clicking buttons to indicate feelings hinders a person’s ability to vocally express their feelings in detail. “Liking” a photo or a post does not explain why a person likes it. Instead, a person just does it. Even though this is such a little feature, it makes people talk with one another less.

With the power of Facebook, one can connect and reconnect with almost anyone one has met. However, as opposed to these connections creating stronger ties with one other, they instead quickly can become artificial and weak, as not a lot of the friendships on Facebook are substantial. With this in mind, Facebook makes as if “you could see every single person you knew over the backyard fence at all times” (Kirkpatrick, David 194), especially with the creation of the live Newsfeed. Although this is not entirely true, there is the notion that if someone wanted to find out something about someone else, most likely looking at that person’s Facebook profile would give them the answer. 50

Relationships are strengthened when they involve open communication and when time is not of the essence. Stronger relationships often talk to each other for longer amounts of time.

Therefore, the fact that 49% agree that they would rather text a person than call them to avoid a long conversation, it shows that the communication is time sensitive, which is not good for the strength of the relationship. 17% of the respondents were neutral to this answer, making agree be the largest segment.

Out of all of the listed methods of communication in my survey, when a person wants to talk to someone, over half (55%) said that they would prefer to text the person. Although the survey did not ask if the person is a family member, a friend, or an acquaintance or the importance of the text message, it is clear that texting dominates. Talking to the person face-to- face and calling the person were pretty close to each other in respondents, but texting gets the message across at the fastest, most direct rate. Also, with the briefness and directness of texting, it is not surprising that 61% feel less emotionally attached to someone when texting them than interacting with them face-to-face. With texting being confined to the small screen and keyboard, it is hard for the same emotions to come out than with face-to-face interactions.

By decreasing human connection face-to-face, our society is at risk of losing the most basic aspects of communication: openly talking, listening and valuing a mutual relationship. The more we surround ourselves with these digital norms, “the less we are able to experience the subtlest most distinctively human forms of empathy, compassion, and other emotions” (Carr,

Nicholas, 221). What we are able to accomplish on digital communication is similar to what robots can accomplish, as they can complete tasks but have no feelings attached. Similar to befriending a robot would be a “machine dream to never be alone but always in control, which cannot happen when one is face-to-face with a person” (Turkle, Sherry 157). Unlike a face-to- face relationship, a digitized relationship minimizes rejection, but it limits intimacy and really getting to know one another. 51

Alienation and Loneliness

Mark Zuckerberg’s five-year program when he started Facebook was to eliminate loneliness. In his second five years, Zuckerberg wanted to accumulate “a thousand times more information about each individual that will flow through Facebook” (Keen, Andrew 65).

Although Facebook can only continue to operate if people become “friends” with one another, therefore allowing interaction and the spread of more information, users commonly feel that they have less “real life” friends than Facebook friends. “We brag about how many we have friended on Facebook, yet Americans say that they have fewer friends than before” (Turkle, Sherry 280).

These friendships “may generate a false sense of companionship and over time increase a feeling of aloneless” (Kirkpatrick, David 14).

Only approximately 10% of the sample said that they have over 1500 Facebook friends.

However, only approximately 15% of the sample said that they have more than 20 close friends.

The disparity between Facebook friends and close friends can be related to loneliness because in reality, Facebook friends are not as substantial as close friends. Most close friends are also that person’s Facebook friends, but what does that leave for the rest of the Facebook friends? Are they friends? Most likely just mere acquaintances or a friend of a friend of a friend. Although it most likely would be weird if a Facebook user only had 20 friends, it would be that person’s closest friends, which was originally what Facebook was intended for: to keep close friends updated.

While Facebook is trying to “recreate the familiarity of a small town electronically”

(Kirkpatrick, David 332), this feeling is not the same as everyone interacting face-to-face in a legitimate small town. A small town does not have the feel of over 1000 “friends.” Also, a lot of events nowadays are not simply for people to go to and have a natural good time because one of the main points was now to go “with your digital camera [or today, your smartphone] so you and your friends could relive the party the next day or at two in the morning via Facebook” (Mezrich, 52

Ben 244). In accordance to the telephone, “when the telephone arrived, people stopped knocking on their neighbor’s doors,” as texting and communicating digitally filled the void.

With Facebook meant to help people stay updated about each other’s lives, people should still be able to stay updated through face-to-face conversation. However, 48% of the sample relies on Facebook to stay updated on other people’s lives. Even though this was Zuckerberg’s intention, it is crazy to believe that in just 10 years, a social media site is the way that people keep tabs on one another. This does show a weakness in relationships due to Facebook because now people feel more comfortable finding out important information about other people through a site and not as much through direct conversation. The most ironic thing about this is that even though almost half say that they rely on Facebook to stay updated on other people’s lives, 57% disagree with the fact that they themselves post important updates about their lives onto Facebook. This shows that people are more invested in just finding out what other people are doing as opposed to telling others what they are doing. Although this shows a positive step from narcissism, there is an imbalance between information shared.

Meanwhile, the contradiction of the amount of contacts in one’s phone related to the percentage that one contacts on a weekly basis could be connected to feelings of loneliness. With only 10% contacting more than 25% of their contacts in their phone weekly, it is as if most of the phone numbers are just placeholders. When texting was originally created, it was meant to keep family and best friends in the loop. Now, any phone number added most likely never gets deleted and instead just stored as a contact never meant for contacting. People commonly have phone numbers of people who they never contact, which could relate to text messaging weakening relationships.

As our society becomes more invested in digital communication, we become alienated from physical contact with other human beings, often making people feel more alone. Although

“networked we are together but so lessened are our expectations of each other that we feel utterly 53 alone” (Turkle, Sherry 154). Spending time in front of a screen negates the senses that we can capture from others when interacting face-to-face. In fact, Turkle continues that since the year

2000, young people have reported a dramatic decline in interest in other people due to becoming empowered to communicate through technology. This causes the loss of the “inner will and outer means to connect with one another” (Jackson, Maggie 186).

Like most other effects, loneliness and alienation often start as unknown to the user. “We go online because we are busy but end up spending more time with technology and less with each other” (Turkle, Sherry 281). She states that the future of a potential robotic companionship may seem like a solution to loneliness, as it would it consign people to a closed world.”

Sociologist Karl Marx drew a contrast between the freedom of the relationships that we have with others versus the enslavement that we have when the relationship is instead directed at objects. He suggested that, “we must distinguish the realization of the self, in free relations with others, from the alienation of the self in the system of things.” Amidst the developing capitalist society, Marx did not want people to become slaves to commodities in the market, thus subordinating the free interactions available with other people. Becoming alienated, which results from losing one’s sense of self and awareness of ones desires, can lead to what another sociologist, Max Weber, referred to as disenchantment and disconnection from the world.

Today, we live in a world where “the price we pay to assume technology’s power is alienation” (Carr, Nicholas 211). And, with the popularity of technology and its adaptation into every day life, neither it nor alienation will go away anytime soon. Our “web of connections has grown broader but shallower” (Marche, Stephen) because even though our possibilities of communicating with someone are endless, a sense of alienation comes with it due to the fact that we can communicate without having to be in his or her physical presence.

However, before concluding that all Facebook users are lonely, a few things must be considered. As Stephen Marche states, being alone and loneliness are not the same things, as 54 loneliness is not a physical state but rather a psychological one. Furthermore, a recent study by

Moira Burke, a recent graduate student at the Human-Computer Institute at Carnegie Mellon, completed a study of 1,200 Facebook users that examined the effects of Facebook on the broader population. She concluded that “the effect of Facebook depends on what you bring to it,” as passive consumption of Facebook can attract even more loneliness. But, her research still does not support the assumption that Facebook creates loneliness, as “the people who experience loneliness on Facebook are lonely away from Facebook, too” (Marche, Stephen). Basically,

Facebook and loneliness correlate with each other, but Facebook does not necessarily cause loneliness.

More Connected yet More Alone

Connecting with more people through various sites and applications such as Facebook,

Twitter, LinkedIn, and more, as well as having hundreds of phone numbers to communicate with simply through fingertips allows a person’s social circle to grow. The possibility to communicate with anyone at anytime is endless, as people have unlimited access to keep in touch with people from various points in their lives. However, as the realm of digital connections grows, face-to- face connections are becoming less frequent, leaving people to suffer from alienation and loneliness. Thus, the paradox of “the more connected we become, the lonelier we are” (Marche,

Stephen) is created because we are feeling more alone now than ever before yet we now have access to communicate with people more than we have ever had before.

This paradox relates to the fact that even though there is a greater potential for more relationships because of digital communications, the quantity of relationships does not satisfy one’s desire for quality relationships, leading to a series of negatively linked issues. Loneliness is ensuing depression and other mental illnesses because communicating through technological 55 means is limited to a screen with words and photos on it as opposed to the feelings and non- verbal cues felt when in-person. Maintaining connections throughout one’s life is a good thing, but distancing oneself away from others through using a digital mean to communicate most likely will leave the person feeling more alone instead of more connected. 56

Chapter 5

Conclusion

As proven by both the results of my distributed survey as well as previous research, technology of the 21st century, specifically Facebook and texting, have both benefitted and hindered the development of substantial relationships.

Positively, Facebook and texting have allowed for constant, portable, and efficient communication between two or more people. While Facebook stresses a sense of virtual immortality, as a person’s profile is supposed to remain intact for years and be used to connect or reconnect with people from different parts of their life, texting simply gets a message across at a fast pace, which is especially essential for monitoring safety.

Negatively, as the user becomes addicted to the benefits of these gadgets, they become at risk of many lifestyle and social changes. Frequent technology users get easily distracted, as they become more likely to develop forms of ADHD, narcissism, and social anxiety, as well as forms of chronic stress and other related mental or physical illnesses. While some users see technology as a way to enhance their reputation, others show signs of social anxiety, as they begin to lose the yearning for physical contact with other humans that often leaves them feeling a sense of loneliness.

Both the positive and negative effects display the basic paradox of feeling more connected yet more alone in relation to other people. Now more than ever, we are exposed to more connections to increase our network. But as the connections increase, it is impossible to avoid developing weaker ties with people. As we continuously increase the amount of time we spend online and in front of a screen, we become more physically absent from one another. 57

Looking towards the future, the sample did agree with the fact that technology is here to stay. 73% agreed that they noticed how their communication methods with others have changed over the years and 38.7% found themselves drifting more towards technological methods of communication.

According to my survey, most of the sample still value face-to-face relationships over relationships centered on digital media. 86.5% of the sample indicated that the felt closer to people when they communicate with them face-to-face. Only 13% in a different question said that they liked communicating with people digitally rather than face-to-face. The vast majority of respondents said that they found it easier to communicate with both their friends and family face- to-face. With all of this in mind, the sample at least feels that face-to-face communication has not been damaged by technological innovations.

However, the most important part of fostering relationships is the notion of staying social. Whether it is actively engaging in online content or regularly seeing others face-to-face, being social is what makes us human. To see that 68.6% of survey respondents agree that they see the future becoming more distantly social from one another is what people should directly try to combat.

What do we do now?

In 2014, people are forced more than ever to adapt to a lifestyle surrounded by technology, forcing face-to-face contact to become in jeopardy. Yes, there are positive effects that technology has on forming relationships, but we are faced with the challenge of not letting the negative impacts overcome the bonds that we have. Social media should not be considered a hindrance to developing relationships unless if it restricts someone from being social. “Facebook 58 does not destroy friendships, but it does not create them either,” (Marche, Stephen) as this relates back to the premise of Facebook friends being people the user actually knows.

Throughout history, our society has shifted from an agricultural/mechanical lifestyle into an industrial/organic one. But, if we do not moderate the usage of technology, the future could lead to a cyborg (half human half robot) way of life. In this, social bonds would form completely due to technology, acts being done face-to-face would be substituted by interactions via technology, and computer-mediated communication (CMC).

Moderation of technology use can be varied based on how much technology interferes with day-to-day tasks, relationships with others, and personal growth. While people with narcissistic tendencies need to take more time and empathize others as opposed to only noticing their own input, people who display signs of anxiety need to feel more confident about themselves and take more time to interact with others in real time. People who suffer from

ADHD, OCD, or any sort of addiction to technology need to engage in more recreational activities with others that relinquish them from their gadgets.

As for the people who are not medically diagnosed with a disorder or do not feel as though they are addicted to technology, they still need to take precaution so that they do not become susceptible. This can be a simple act, such as not bringing a cell phone to dinner or staying off Facebook during class, as both actions will allow for more attention on the people who are in the same room. As the last generation of people who will remember what it was like without technology constantly available, it is up to us to not become infected by technology.

Digital methods of communications are not meant to overpower the relationships that we form, as most people are still valuing the face-to-face ties that they uniquely share with others.

However, as new software updates, applications, and methods of communicating get invented, the human race is more susceptible to the negative effects that these creations come with. Unlike robots, humans have the power to resist the negative side effects and use these new methods as 59 helpful gadgets to foster relationships. It is only when we lose the ability that make us innately human that we risk losing the face-to-face relationships that keep us social. 60

Appendix A

Full Survey Questions and Results

Initial Report Last Modified: 02/20/2014 1. What is your gender? # Answer Response % 1 Male 338 39% 2 Female 525 61% Total 863 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.61 Variance 0.24 Standard Deviation 0.49 Total Responses 863

2. What is your race? (Please check all that apply) # Answer Response % 1 American Indian 8 1% 2 Alaska Native 0 0% 3 African American 44 5% Asian or Pacific 4 79 9% Islander 5 Caucasian 688 80% 6 Hispanic 56 6% 7 Other 35 4%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 7 Total Responses 863

61

3. What is your class standing? # Answer Response % 1 Freshman 373 43% 2 Sophomore 212 25% 3 Junior 120 14% 4 Senior 138 16% 5 Graduate Student 10 1% 6 Non-student 11 1% Total 864 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 2.11 Variance 1.51 Standard Deviation 1.23 Total Responses 864

4. What kind of cell phone do you own? # Answer Response % 1 iPhone 675 79% 2 Android 137 16% Other smart 3 14 2% phone 4 Non-smart phone 30 4% I do not own a 5 1 0% cell phone Total 857 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 1.30 Variance 0.47 Standard Deviation 0.68 Total Responses 857

5. When did you receive your first cell phone? # Answer Response % 1 10 and under 55 6% 2 11-12 years old 297 35% 3 13-14 years old 377 44% 4 15 and over 126 15% 5 Not applicable 1 0% Total 856 100%

62

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.67 Variance 0.65 Standard Deviation 0.81 Total Responses 856

6. Does your family own a home phone? # Answer Response % 1 Yes 722 84% 2 No 132 15% 3 Unsure 1 0% Total 855 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 3 Mean 1.16 Variance 0.13 Standard Deviation 0.37 Total Responses 855

7. Approximately how often do you use your phone per day for directly talking to people (call or text message)? # Answer Response % Less than an 1 116 14% hour 2 1-3 hours 366 43% 3 4-6 hours 173 20% 4 Over 6 hours 198 23% 5 Not applicable 1 0% Total 854 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.53 Variance 0.99 Standard Deviation 1.00 Total Responses 854

63

8. Approximately how often do you use your phone per day for the Internet, social media, or other phone-based applications? # Answer Response % Less than an 1 78 9% hour 2 1-3 hours 413 48% 3 4-6 hours 222 26% 4 Over 6 hours 119 14% 5 Not applicable 20 2% Total 852 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.52 Variance 0.85 Standard Deviation 0.92 Total Responses 852

9. When you want to talk to someone, what is your preferred method of communication? # Answer Response % 1 Call the person 172 20% 2 Text the person 466 55% Tell person via 3 10 1% social media Talk to the 4 person face-to- 206 24% face 5 Other method 1 0% Total 855 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.30 Variance 1.10 Standard Deviation 1.05 Total Responses 855

10. Approximately how many contacts in your phone do you have? # Answer Response % 1 Less than 100 242 28% 2 101-200 329 38% 3 201-300 172 20% 4 More than 300 109 13% 5 Not applicable 4 0% Total 856 100%

64

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.19 Variance 1.00 Standard Deviation 1.00 Total Responses 856

11. Approximately how many contacts in your phone do you contact weekly? # Answer Response % 1 Less than 25% 771 90% 2 26-50% 74 9% 3 51-75% 9 1% 4 More than 75% 1 0% Total 855 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 4 Mean 1.11 Variance 0.13 Standard Deviation 0.36 Total Responses 855

65 12. This next set of questions will be rated on a likert scale. Strongl Somewh Strongl Total y Neutra Somewh Mea # Question at y Respons Disagre l at Agree n Disagree Agree es e I feel more comfortable talking to a person over 1 183 286 191 134 43 837 2.48 the phone than I do face-to- face. I would rather text a person than call them to 2 104 180 142 287 122 835 3.17 avoid a long conversatio n. I feel less emotionally attached to someone 4 when I text 53 127 141 320 188 829 3.56 them rather than talk to them in person. I would be satisfied with just texting 5 someone as 181 260 212 149 34 836 2.52 opposed to seeing them face-to- face. I sometimes get nervous if I have to 7 contact 207 177 140 241 62 827 2.73 someone through my phone. I get 8 105 203 173 274 75 830 3.01 nervous 66

when someone does not text me back at a fast pace.

I would be I feel less I feel more satisfied I get I would emotionally I sometimes comfortabl with just nervous rather text a attached to get nervous e talking to texting when person than someone if I have to a person someone someone Statistic call them to when I text contact over the as does not avoid a long them rather someone phone than opposed text me conversation than talk to through my I do face- to seeing back at a . them in phone. to-face. them fast pace. person. face-to- face. Min 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value Max 5 5 5 5 5 5 Value Mean 2.48 3.17 3.56 2.52 2.73 3.01 Variance 1.32 1.61 1.39 1.28 1.73 1.44 Standard 1.15 1.27 1.18 1.13 1.32 1.20 Deviation Total Response 837 835 829 836 827 830 s

13. Do you have a Facebook account? # Answer Response % 1 Yes 797 96% 2 No 36 4% Total 833 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.04 Variance 0.04 Standard Deviation 0.20 Total Responses 833

67

14. Approximately how many hours a day do you spend on Facebook? # Answer Response % Less than one 1 428 51% hour 2 1-3 hours 313 38% 3 4-6 hours 47 6% More than 6 4 8 1% hours 5 Not applicable 38 5% Total 834 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 1.70 Variance 0.93 Standard Deviation 0.96 Total Responses 834

15. How many Facebook friends do you have? # Answer Response % 1 Less than 500 238 29% 2 501-1000 335 40% 3 1001-1500 167 20% 4 1501-2000 42 5% 5 More than 2000 20 2% 6 Not applicable 31 4% Total 833 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 2.24 Variance 1.45 Standard Deviation 1.20 Total Responses 833

16. When did you create your Facebook account? # Answer Response % Within the past 1 30 4% 2 years 2 2-4 years ago 234 28% 3 5-7 years ago 485 58% More than 7 4 56 7% years ago 5 Not applicable 30 4% Total 835 100%

68

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.79 Variance 0.59 Standard Deviation 0.77 Total Responses 835

69

17. This next set of questions will be rated on a likert scale. Strongl Somewh Strongl Total y Neutr Somewh Mea # Question at y Respons Disagre al at Agree n Disagree Agree es e The more Facebook friends I 1 515 141 93 55 14 818 1.67 have, the better I feel about myself. I feel more comfortable communicati ng with 2 people 389 234 143 52 8 826 1.86 through Facebook than I do via cell phone. I feel more comfortable communicati ng with 3 400 241 123 53 9 826 1.83 people over Facebook than I do face-to-face. I monitor what is 6 displayed on 55 35 104 272 347 813 4.01 my Facebook profile. I feel pressured to keep my 7 337 220 154 89 16 816 2.05 Facebook profile updated. I compare my Facebook 8 348 168 134 132 31 813 2.18 profile to other people.

70

I feel more The more I feel more I feel comfortable I monitor I compare Facebook comfortable pressured communicating what is my friends I communicating to keep with people displayed Facebook Statistic have, the with people my through on my profile to better I over Facebook Facebook Facebook than Facebook other feel about than I do face- profile I do via cell profile. people. myself. to-face. updated. phone. Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max 5 5 5 5 5 5 Value Mean 1.67 1.86 1.83 4.01 2.05 2.18 Variance 1.06 0.96 0.96 1.34 1.21 1.56 Standard 1.03 0.98 0.98 1.16 1.10 1.25 Deviation Total 818 826 826 813 816 813 Responses

71

18. This next set of questions will be rated on a likert scale. Strongl Somewh Total y Neutra Somewh Strongl Mea # Question at Response Disagre l at Agree y Agree n Disagree s e Facebook is the main 1 social 261 164 96 144 160 825 2.73 media applicatio n I use. I see Facebook as a way to connect 2 71 47 106 340 255 819 3.81 with people who live far away. I post important updates 4 291 178 145 148 59 821 2.40 about my life on Facebook. I sometime s white lie on Facebook 5 523 180 73 44 3 823 1.57 to give myself a better reputation . I rely on Facebook to stay 6 updated 153 114 157 308 90 822 3.08 on other people's lives.

72

I see I sometimes Facebook is I post I rely on Facebook as a white lie on the main important Facebook to way to Facebook to Statistic social media updates about stay updated connect with give myself a application I my life on on other people who better use. Facebook. people's lives. live far away. reputation. Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 2.73 3.81 2.40 1.57 3.08 Variance 2.34 1.42 1.74 0.79 1.69 Standard 1.53 1.19 1.32 0.89 1.30 Deviation Total 825 819 821 823 822 Responses

19. How many close friends do you consider yourself having? # Answer Response % 1 Less than 10 383 47% 2 11-20 314 38% 3 21-30 72 9% 4 31-40 26 3% 5 More than 41 23 3% 6 Unsure 5 1% Total 823 100%

Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 6 Mean 1.79 Variance 0.99 Standard Deviation 0.99 Total Responses 823

73

20. This next set of questions will be rated on a likert scale. Strongl Somewh Strongl Total y Neutr Somewh Mea # Question at y Respons Disagre al at Agree n Disagree Agree es e I feel as though the friendships 1 5 19 47 171 573 815 4.58 that I have are worthwhile. I find it easy to communicate 2 5 11 43 108 646 813 4.70 with my friends face- to-face. I find it easy to communicate 3 0 10 52 148 594 814 4.60 with my family face- to-face. I find that I still maintain face-to-face 4 1 7 69 203 530 810 4.55 communicati on with others. I find myself drifting more towards 5 technological 58 223 224 269 50 824 3.04 methods of communicati on. I have noticed how my methods of communicati 6 13 66 140 374 221 814 3.89 ng with others have changed over the years.

74

I have I feel as noticed how I find it I find it I find myself though I find that I my methods easy to easy to drifting more the still maintain of communic communic towards friendship face-to-face communicati Statistic ate with ate with technological s that I communicati ng with my friends my family methods of have are on with others have face-to- face-to- communicati worthwhi others. changed face. face. on. le. over the years. Min 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value Max 5 5 5 5 5 5 Value Mean 4.58 4.70 4.60 4.55 3.04 3.89 Varianc 0.57 0.47 0.59 0.49 1.12 0.90 e Standard Deviatio 0.76 0.69 0.77 0.70 1.06 0.95 n Total Respons 815 813 814 810 824 814 es

75

21. This next set of questions will be rated on a likert scale. Strongl Somewh Strongl Total y Neutr Somewh Mea # Question at y Respons Disagre al at Agree n Disagree Agree es e I feel safer talking to someone 1 162 285 189 165 24 825 2.52 electronically versus in- person. I feel more in control of a relationships when 2 233 250 162 146 32 823 2.39 communicati ng electronically . I feel closer with people when I 3 8 32 70 271 435 816 4.34 communicate with them face-to-face. I see the future as becoming 4 28 72 156 325 235 816 3.82 more distant socially from one another. I like communicati ng with 5 people 204 326 188 92 14 824 2.25 digitally rather than face-to-face. I like to maintain relationships solely 6 490 179 87 47 10 813 1.66 through electronic communicati on.

76

I see the I feel more I feel future I like to in control of I like I feel safer closer with as maintain a communicati talking to people becomi relationships relationships ng with someone when I ng more solely Statistic when people electronical communica distant through communicati digitally ly versus te with socially electronic ng rather than in-person. them face- from communicati electronicall face-to-face. to-face. one on. y. another. Min 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value Max 5 5 5 5 5 5 Value Mean 2.52 2.39 4.34 3.82 2.25 1.66 Variance 1.22 1.39 0.75 1.11 1.01 0.94 Standard Deviatio 1.10 1.18 0.87 1.05 1.01 0.97 n Total Respons 825 823 816 816 824 813 es

77

Appendix B

IRB Approval

Date: November 07, 2013

From: The Office for Research Protections - FWA#: FWA00001534 Stephanie L. Krout, Compliance Coordinator

To: Rachel E. Steinberg

Re: Determination of Exemption

IRB Protocol ID: 44182

Follow-up Date: November 6, 2018

Title of Protocol: Technological Effects on Social Relationships

The Office for Research Protections (ORP) has received and reviewed the above referenced eSubmission application. It has been determined that your research is exempt from IRB initial and ongoing review, as currently described in the application. You may begin your research. The category within the federal regulations under which your research is exempt is:

45 CFR 46.101(b)(2) Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior, unless: (i) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that human subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects; and (ii) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

Given that the IRB is not involved in the initial and ongoing review of this research, it is the investigator’s responsibility to review IRB Policy III “Exempt Review Process and Determination” which outlines: What it means to be exempt and how determinations are made What changes to the research protocol are and are not required to be reported to the ORP Ongoing actions post-exemption determination including addressing problems and complaints, reporting closed research to the ORP and research audits What occurs at the time of follow-up

Please do not hesitate to contact the Office for Research Protections (ORP) if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your continued efforts in protecting human participants in research. This correspondence should be maintained with your research records. 78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bellis, Mary. “The History of the Telegraph – Samuel Morse.” About.com Inventors. About.com,

5 Mar. 2014. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinvention/a/telegraph.htm

Burke, Moira. “Social Capital on Facebook: Differentiating Uses and Users.” Human-Computer

Interaction Institute. Carnegie Mellion University, 2011. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.227.6644&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Carr, Nicholas G. (2010). The Shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York:

W.W. Norton.

Crystal, David. Txting: the Gr8 Db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Erickson, Christine. “A Brief History of Text Messaging.” Mashable. N. p., 21 Sept. 2012. Web.

2 Feb. 2014. http://mashable.com/2012/09/21/text-messaging-history/.

Gayomali, Chris. “The text message turns 20: A brief history of SMS.” The Week. N.p., 3 Dec.

2012. Web. 2 Feb. 2014. http://theweek.com/article/index/237240/the-text-message-

turns-20-a-brief-history-of-sms.

Fernandez, Kayla, Cheri Levinson, and Thomas Rodebaugh. “Profiling: Predicting Social

Anxiety From Facebook Profiles.” Sage Publications. Society for Personality and Social

Psychology, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. http://spp.sagepub.com/content/3/6/706.

Jackson, Maggie. (2008). Distracted: the erosion of attention and the coming Dark Age. Amherst,

N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook effect: the inside story of the company that is connecting the

world. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print. 79

Keen, Andrew. #digitialvertigo: how today’s online social revolution is dividing, diminishing,

and disorienting us. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012. Print.

Knoblauch, Max. “The Facebook Decade: A review of the Social Giant’s Disruptive History.”

Mashable. N. p. 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.

http://mashable.com/2014/02/04/facebook-decade-infographic/.

Konnikova, Maria. “How Facebook Makes Us Unhappy.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 10 Sept.

2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/the-real-reason-facebook-

makes-us-unhappy.html.

Marche, Stephen. “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 2

Apr. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-

facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/.

“Mark Zuckerberg Biography.” Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 30. Jan. 2014.

http://biography.com/people/mark-zuckerberg-507402.

Markoff, John. “Who Founded Facebook? A New Claim Emerges.” The New York Times. The

New York Times. 1 Sept. 2007. Web. 1 Feb. 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/tecpagewanted=all&r=0.

Martin, Scott. “Status update: 10 years in, Facebok still a force.” USA Today. Gannett, 3 Feb.

2014. Web. 7 Feb. 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/03/facebook-

juggernaut/4849409/.

McCarty, Brad. “The History of the Smartphone.” TNW Network All Stories Rss. N.p., 6 Dec.

2011. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2011/12/06/the-history-of-the-

smartphone/

Mezrich, Ben. The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: a tale of sex, money,

genius, and betrayal. New York: Anchor Books, 2010. Print. 80

Narcissism [Def. 1]. (n.d.) In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/narcissism?q=narcissism.

“Noting Nokia’s History.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. n. d. Web. 2.

Feb. 2014.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303734204577467070114336912

?mg=reno64-

wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000142405270230373420

4577467070114336912.html

Papworth, Neil. “Sender of the world’s first SMS.” Neil Papworth. Restaurant Mantra, 21 Nov.

2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. http://neilpapworth.com/.

Ritchie, Rene. “History of iPhone: From revolution to what comes next.” iMore. Mobile Nations,

9 Sept. 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2014. http://www.imore.com/history-iphone.

Rosen, Christine. “Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism – The New Atlantis.” The New

Atlantis. N.p., 2007. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/virtual-friendship-and-the-new-narcissism.

Rosen, Larry D., Nancy A. Cheever, and L. Mark. Carrier. iDisorder: Understanding Our

Obsession with Technology and Overcoming its Hold of Us. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2012. Print.

Saslow, Lauren, Amy Muise, Emily Impett, and Matt Dubin. “Can You See How Happy We Are?

Facebook Images and Relationship Satisfaction.” Sage Publications. Society for

Personality and Social Psychology, 31 May 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/4/4/411.

Smartphone [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/smartphone?q=smartphone. 81

Strauss, Neil. “The Insidious Evils of ‘Like’ Culture.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones &

Company, 2 July 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304584004576415940086842866

Strickland, Jonathan. “Who invented the cell phone?” HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks, Inc, 12

Jan. 2011. Wed. 31 Jan. 2014.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/who-invented-the-cell-

phone.htm

Swanbrow, Diane. “University of Michigan News Service / You’re so vain: U-M study links

social media and narcissism.” University of Michigan News Service. N.p. 11 June 2013.

Web. 30 Mar. 2014. http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21517-you-re-so-vain-u-m-study-

links-social-media-and-narcissism.

“Text Messaging: A timeline of how 160 characters changed the way we communicate.” SMS

Marketing Blog. Tatango, n.d. Web. 2 Feb 2014. http://www.Text

Messaging....com/blog/history-of-text-messaging-timeline-wide/

“The College Board Announces Bold Plans to Expand Access to Opportunity; Redesigning of the

SAT.” The College Board. N.p., 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

https://www.collegeboard.org/releases/2014/expand-opportunity-redesign-sat

Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each

Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.

Zeebi, Daniel. “The Ultimate History of Facebook [INFOGRAPHIC].”

Socialmediatoday. N.p., 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2013. http://socialmediatoday.com/daniel- zeevi/1251026/ultimate-history-facebook-infographic.

ACADEMIC VITA

Rachel Steinberg [email protected] ______

Address: Campus: 316 West Beaver Avenue, Apartment 212 State College, PA 16801 Home: 259 Diana Court Gulph Mills, PA 19428

Contact information: Cell Phone: 610-405-0899 Online Portfolio: rsteinberg330.weebly.com

Education: Penn State University, University Park Schreyer Honors College Class of 2014 Bachelor of Arts: Advertising, Sociology Business and the Liberal Arts Minor John Curley Center for Sports Journalism Certificate Paterno Fellows Program

Coursework: Sports Writing, Sports Information, Introduction to the Sports Industry, Advertising Strategic Campaigns, Advertising Creative Strategies, Advertising Media Campaigns, Public Relations, Social Statistics, Communication and Technology, Mass Communication Law, Sociology of Deviance, Sociological Theory, Race and Ethnic Relations, Accounting, Finance, Economics

Skills: Photoshop, InDesign, IBM SPSS Statistics 20, Qualtrics, AP Style, Garageband, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft Office, WebEx, Salesforce.com, Blogging, iMovie

Awards: Phi Sigma Delta Sigma Educational Foundation Scholarship-2012-2014 Student Leader Scholarship-2012 James Wiggins and Christine Fleming Honors Scholarship in the College of Communications- 2013 Robert K. Zimmerman Memorial Internship Endowment-2013 Arlene M. and John H. Witmer Jr. Endowed Scholarship in memory of Tara Leah Witmer in the College of the Liberal Arts-2012-2014 Liberal Arts Enrichment Funds for Summer Research-2013

Professional Experience:

Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia: Advertising/Sales Intern, Summer 2013 -Maintained a Master Excel Spreadsheet of all Philadelphia Flyers 2013-2014 sponsorship elements -Partnered with the Marketing Department to organize two summer Philadelphia Phillies sponsorship events -Kept attendance of all summer Wells Fargo Center events and assisted with the fiscal year transition

Penn State Athletics: Athletic Communications Student Assistant, Fall 2012-Spring 2014 -Track in-game statistics and distribute official stats to press, media and staff throughout events -Transcribe game-day press conferences for publication on GoPSUSports.com -Assist broadcast and production teams for live television broadcasts on networks such as the Big Ten Network, ESPN, and CBSSports

Teach for America: Penn State Campus Campaign Coordinator, Fall 2012-Spring 2013 -Developed and executed a detailed, strategic marketing plan towards top students to apply for the corps -Managed Facebook and Twitter pages for campus profile and helped to digitally source applicants

Penn State Information Technology Services: Computer Lab Consultant-Fall 2012-Spring 2014 -Provide customer service by assisting lab users with machinery issues and unfamiliar software -Maintain cleanliness and efficient operation of campus labs and understanding of the lab material

Leadership Experience:

Penn State Hillel- Vice President-Fall 2012-Fall 2013 -Managed a 13-member student board by leading weekly meetings and facilitating student-run programs -Served as a full, voting member on the Hillel Board of Directors, overseeing a $600,000 budget -Coordinated the first ever Hillel Fall Leadership Retreat for approximately 30 PSU Jewish student leaders Marketing Chair: Fall 2010-Fall 2012 -Launched official Twitter account, @PennStateHillel, and managed all social media accounts -Created all print and digital ads for campus distribution and Managed a Marketing Committee -Helped Hillel to receive the 2011-2012 Outstanding Student Organization Award

Penn State Homecoming: Public Relations Captain: Graphic Design-Spring 2013-Fall 2013 -Designed the official Press Kit for media outlets and the Benefit Structure for potential donors -Collaborated with one co-captain to produce all digital and print promotional material for distribution Corporate Relations Captain: Merchandise Liaison-Spring 2011-Fall 2011 -Acquired all sponsorship logos to be displayed on the correct Homecoming apparel -Arranged logistically the backs of all Homecoming sponsored t-shirts based on the benefit level

Penn State Dance Marathon: Dancer-THON 2014 -Voted by Penn State Hillel to represent the organization during THON 2014 as a dancer for 46 hours Independent Dancer Couple Aspirant-THON 2013 -Independently fundraised over $8,000 towards THON 2013 through solicitations and fundraisers Committee Member-THON 2011-THON 2014 Served on Rules and Regulations, Communications, and Donor and Alumni Relations to help run the largest student philanthropy in the world

Penn State LeaderShape Institute: Participant-Spring 2013 -Participated in a six-day leadership development conference with seventy other Penn State students