All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

'IM Me': Instant Messaging as Relational Maintenance and Everyday Communication
Unformatted Document Text:  Instant Messaging, Page 22 = 4.49, p < .05, η 2 = .02; Change resulting from the communication, F (1, 228) = 14.85, p < .001, η 2 = .06; and Control of the interaction, F (1, 228) = 11.09, p = .001, η 2 = .05. Table 5 indicates that IM interactions conducted with males were rated similarly by both males and females in terms of communication quality, but differed on their rating of interactions with females. Females rated interactions with female partners much higher in communication quality than did males. However, interactions with opposite-sex partners were rated as more valuable and produced greater change than did their counterparts. The pattern of means also shows that greater mutual control was reported in same-sex interactions than in cross-sex ones for males; females reported similar levels irrespective of the gender of their partner. A significant modest effect also surfaced for Respondent Gender on Communication Quality, F (1, 228) = 5.88, p < .05, η 2 = .03, and Value of the interaction, F (1, 228) = 20.04, p < .001, η 2 = .08. As reflected in Table 4, females rated their IM interactions significantly higher in communication quality and more valuable than did males. Partner Gender also produced a significant effect on Control of the interaction, F (1, 228) = 14.13, p < .001, η 2 = .06, indicating that interactions with males produced less perceived control of the interaction than did those with females. The multivariate analysis assessing the Type of Relationship within the IM group produced a significant effect across the composite, F (16, 685) = 3.41, p < .001, Wilks Λ = .79. Accompanying univariate tests showed a significant effect on each of the four variables: Communication Quality, F (1, 227) = 4.54, p < .01, η 2 = .07, Value of the interaction, F (1, 227) = 3.56, p < .01, η 2 = .06, Change resulting from the interaction, F (1, 227) = 2.84, p < .05, η 2 = .05, and Control of the interaction, F (1, 227) = 5.07, p = .001, η 2 = .08. Table 4 shows that although most interactions were rated moderately high in communication quality (mean of 6 or above based on a 9-point scale), those with best friends were rated the highest, whereas

Authors: Ramirez, Artemio. and Broneck, Kathy.
first   previous   Page 22 of 41   next   last



background image
Instant Messaging, Page 22
= 4.49, p < .05,
η
2
= .02; Change resulting from the communication, F (1, 228) = 14.85, p < .001,
η
2
= .06; and Control of the interaction, F (1, 228) = 11.09, p = .001,
η
2
= .05. Table 5 indicates
that IM interactions conducted with males were rated similarly by both males and females in
terms of communication quality, but differed on their rating of interactions with females.
Females rated interactions with female partners much higher in communication quality than did
males. However, interactions with opposite-sex partners were rated as more valuable and
produced greater change than did their counterparts. The pattern of means also shows that greater
mutual control was reported in same-sex interactions than in cross-sex ones for males; females
reported similar levels irrespective of the gender of their partner. A significant modest effect also
surfaced for Respondent Gender on Communication Quality, F (1, 228) = 5.88, p < .05,
η
2
= .03,
and Value of the interaction, F (1, 228) = 20.04, p < .001,
η
2
= .08. As reflected in Table 4,
females rated their IM interactions significantly higher in communication quality and more
valuable than did males. Partner Gender also produced a significant effect on Control of the
interaction, F (1, 228) = 14.13, p < .001,
η
2
= .06, indicating that interactions with males
produced less perceived control of the interaction than did those with females.
The multivariate analysis assessing the Type of Relationship within the IM group produced a
significant effect across the composite, F (16, 685) = 3.41, p < .001, Wilks
Λ
= .79.
Accompanying univariate tests showed a significant effect on each of the four variables:
Communication Quality, F (1, 227) = 4.54, p < .01,
η
2
= .07, Value of the interaction, F (1, 227)
= 3.56, p < .01,
η
2
= .06, Change resulting from the interaction, F (1, 227) = 2.84, p < .05,
η
2
=
.05, and Control of the interaction, F (1, 227) = 5.07, p = .001,
η
2
= .08. Table 4 shows that
although most interactions were rated moderately high in communication quality (mean of 6 or
above based on a 9-point scale), those with best friends were rated the highest, whereas


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 22 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.