Article critique

The “Mere Presence” Hypothesis: Investigating the Nonverbal Effects of Cell-Phone Presence on Conversation Satisfaction Ryan J. Allred & John P. Crowley

Prior research has supported the mere presence hypothesis, which suggests that cell phones act as an environmental nuisance that negatively impact the quality of face-to-face inter- actions. This study conducted an experiment to determine whether cell-phone presence negatively influences conversation satisfaction. Specifically, network member dyads (N = 46) engaged in unstructured conversations where one partner’s cell phone was either absent or present. The results revealed that, whereas the mere presence of a cell phone did not influence conversation satisfaction, individuals’ recollection of whether or not a cell phone was present did significantly negatively impact their pre- to posttest reports of conversation satisfaction. Implications of these findings for research on the mere presence hypothesis as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: Cell Phones; Conversation Satisfaction; Mobile Technology; Nonverbal Communication; Personal Relationships

Research has recently begun to investigate the influence of mobile technology on variables related to the quality of face-to-face (FTF) interactions. Two studies, in particular, have sought to investigate whether the presence of a cell phone during FTF interactions acts as an environmental nuisance that creates negative conversation outcomes. The results of these studies support a “mere presence” hypothesis in both experimental (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012) and naturalistic settings (Misra, Cheng,

Ryan J. Allred (MA, Colorado State University) is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Connecticut. John P. Crowley (PhD, University of Washington) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Correspondence to: Ryan J. Allred, Department of Communication, 337 Mansfield Road Unit 1259, Storrs, CT 06269, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Studies Vol. 68, No. 1, January–March 2017, pp. 22–36

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) © 2016 Central States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1241292

Genevie, & Yuan, 2014), which postulates that the presence of a cell phone negatively impacts individual (e.g., empathy) and relational-level (e.g., closeness) conversation outcomes. Given the important implications of the environmental influence of cell phones on personal relationships, further research is needed to test limitations of the mere presence hypothesis.

This study seeks to extend previous research on the mere presence hypothesis in three predominant ways. First, whereas prior research has utilized experimental methods to investigate the impact of cell phones on stranger interactions (Przy- bylski & Weinstein, 2012), in order to determine whether relational type is a boundary condition of the mere presence hypothesis, the current study examines its effect on relationship partners (i.e., acquaintance, friend, romantic partner). Second, previous research has experimentally manipulated the conversation topic (i.e., meaningful vs. casual conversations; Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Wein- stein, 2012), but this approach fails to approximate realistic interpersonal interac- tions. Thus, the current study examines the mere presence hypothesis within unstructured conversations. Third, the study seeks to understand the effects of cell-phone presence on a communication variable, conversation satisfaction, influ- enced not only by environmental factors (Wagner, Bezuidenhout, & Roos, 2014) but also the level of understanding accomplished between conversation partners (Neuliep, 2012). That is, if cell-phone presence is an environmental nuisance that negatively impacts conversation quality through reduced understanding, it follows that it will reduce conversation satisfaction. Prior to explicating the experimental methods utilized to investigate the mere presence hypothesis in the ways described above, the rationale begins by reviewing relevant literature on the ubiquity of cell phones, their enhancing and disruptive influences on personal relationships, and, finally, delineating the hypothesized effects of their presence on conversation satisfaction.

Cell-Phone Ubiquity and Etiquette

A 2015 Pew survey indicated that 92% of American adults owned a cell phone and 65% owned smart phones. Not only are cell phones ubiquitous (Nakamura, 2015) but recent data also suggest that individuals have a mild emotional attachment to their phones. Pew Research data from 2014 demonstrated that 29% of cell-phone owners claimed that their cell phone is “something that they can’t imagine living without” (para. 18), that 67% of cell phone users routinely checked their phones despite the absence of alerts such as ringing or vibrating, and 44% slept with their phones near them so as to not miss alerts “while they are sleeping.” Indeed, the possibility that one’s cell phone may be inactive, for instance, is associated with increased reports of anxiety (Forgays, Hyman, & Shreiber, 2014). Cell phones also provide a means of social connection (Wei & Ven-Hwei, 2006), helping to reduce loneliness (Flanagin, 2005). Conversely, not responding to a text or phone call immediately may communicate disinterest or

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 23

threaten opportunities for social bonding (Nelson & Atchley, 2009). This may be particularly true among younger adults who rely more on cell-phone use for social connection (Forgays et al., 2014; Pew Research, 2015). Cell phones can have a positive influence on relationships by increasing the frequency of com- munication (Jin & Pena, 2010), as the affordances of text messaging and phone calls allow for communication when physical presence is not possible (Huh, 2006). Owning multiple mobile technologies may even contribute to health and well-being because they provide access to larger and more expansive social networks (Chan, 2015). Taken together, the numerous social affordances and emotional attachments to cell phones increase the likelihood that individuals place their phones in view during interpersonal conversations.

Research suggests that cell-phone presence may also present a challenge to roman- tic relationships, particularly because of the divided attention it can foster in con- versations (see Gergen, 2002). College students actively negotiate a struggle when spending time with their partners between wanting to be available to others who are not present by keeping their cell phones visible and also attending to their copresent romantic partners (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2016). The degree to which cell-phone pre- sence during a conversation affects conversation outcomes may depend on whether it is perceived as a breach of etiquette that violates expectations for the context such as when conversations partners expect undivided attention (see Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).

Recent research indicates that, although acceptable in some social settings (e.g., walking down a street, public transportation), many view cell-phone use as inappropri- ate in more intimate interpersonal contexts such as restaurants and family dinners (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015; Pew Research, 2015). Although young adults are more reliant on cell phones to maintain personal relationships (Ling, 2012), a recent study demon- strated that college students also deem cell-phone use to be inappropriate in such interpersonal contexts as talking and hanging out with friends (M = 2.97 and 2.93, respectively, on a scale from 1 = very inappropriate to 5 = very appropriate) despite also reporting (79.3% and 83.9%, respectively) to have texted in these situations (Harrison, Bealing, & Salley, 2015). It is therefore unsurprising that research has shown the misuse of cell phones to negatively impact the quality of interactions. Specifically, cell phones are shown to cause negative impressions when individuals answer a phone call during a conversation (Ebesu Hubbard, Han, Kim, & Nakamura, 2007), to inhibit understanding when used to text during class (Gingerich & Lineweaver, 2014), and to create negative gestalts among coworkers when used during both formal and informal meetings (Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014; Washington, Okoro, & Cardon, 2014). Thus, cell phones present a dilemma for users, as they are clearly useful in helping individuals maintain and developing personal relationships, but their usage may also violate expectations for appropriate behavior in interpersonal settings that lead to negative evaluations (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2016).

One explanation for why cell-phone usage negatively impacts relational outcomes may be the reduction of immediacy cues. Immediacy refers to nonverbal behaviors that

24 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

“signal availability, increase sensory stimulation, and decrease both the physical and psychological distance between interactions” (Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen, 1998, p. 502). Among the cast of more commonly cited immediacy cues are close proxemics, touch, gaze, and forward body lean (Andersen et al., 1998). Individuals communicating higher levels of immediacy are viewed as being more competent and generally evaluated as more favorable than those with lower immediacy (Manusov, 1991). Interestingly, however, the degree to which receivers view immediacy behavior as intentional or not is moderated by the degree to which the behaviors are perceived as immediate. That is, nonimmediate behaviors are perceived as being more intentional that those that are immediate (Manusov, 1991). Thus, because cell-phone usage disrupts behaviors central to immediacy formation, such as eye gaze and forward body lean, it may not only be received as a nonimmediate cue but also as an intentional breach of conversation etiquette. Given that research has shown how cell-phone activity is common during social interactions (see Pew Research, 2015), it is important to inves- tigate the range of cell-phone behaviors that may be viewed as nonimmediate. This study investigates the effects of the mere presence of cell phones during interpersonal interactions on conversation satisfaction. More specifically, it conceptualizes the pre- sence of cell phones as a nonimmediate environmental cue that signals decreased availability to receivers and therefore acts as a violation of conversation etiquette.

Mere Presence Hypothesis

As noted, research has begun to investigate the impact of cell phones on interpersonal interactions. Przybylski and Weinstein (2012), for instance, experimentally manipulated cell-phone presence or absence by placing a phone on a table near strangers whowere asked to discuss either a meaningful or casual conversation topic. The findings of their study revealed a negative effect of cell-phone presence on relationship quality, closeness, trust, and empathy, and that this effect was stronger when conversations were meaningful as opposed to casual. In their attempt to extend this research to a naturalistic setting, Misra et al. (2014) coded for cell-phone presence during conversations between natural social network mem- bers in a coffee shop. Their findings indicated that the presence of cell phones during conversations was negatively associated with reports of empathic concern. Despite the support for the mere presence hypothesis in the Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) study, it is important to examine unstructured conversations between social network members in which the presence or absence of their cell phones are manipulated to determine the real-world applicability of these findings. Furthermore, due to the quasi-experimental nature of the Misra et al. study design, the extent to which cell-phone presence had a causal effect on conversation quality is still unknown. Thus, this study extends previous research on the mere presence hypothesis through experimental observation of unstructured con- versations between social network members to determine the effect of cell-phone presence on conversation satisfaction.

Conversation satisfaction has been conceptualized as “a holistic affective response to the success of behaviors that are selected based upon expectations” (Hecht &

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 25

Marston, 1987, p. 62). That is, conversation satisfaction is an affective response to goal achievement (Hecht, 1978; Rubin & Rubin, 1989). As an individual accomplishes conversational goals (e.g., understanding, persuasion, information sharing), their satisfaction within the conversation increases. Given its associations with relationship stability (Forsythe & Ledbetter, 2015) and satisfaction in other contexts such as in the workplace (Steele & Plenty, 2015; Wagner et al., 2014), studies have sought to under- stand antecedents of conversation satisfaction. For example, research suggests that higher levels of understanding (Hecht & Marston, 1987; Neuliep, 2012) and imme- diacy (Fusani, 1994) lead to higher satisfaction levels after FTF conversations. Addi- tional research suggests that satisfaction levels are also significantly influenced by one’s environment as physical surroundings evoke cognitive, emotional, and physio- logical responses that influence individual perceptions of the encounter (Bitner, 1992). It may be that the physical presence of a cell phone acts as an environmental distraction that hinders understanding and perceptions of immediacy, thereby obstructing the process by which conversation partners feel satisfied. Thus, consistent with the mere presence hypothesis, it is predicted that, in conversations where cell phones are present, partners will report lower conversation satisfaction levels pretest to posttest, than in conversations where cell phones are absent.

Method

Procedure

Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, initial participants were recruited from undergraduate-level courses at a large Midwestern university and were offered extra credit for participation in this study. Participants signed up for laboratory appointments and were asked to bring a conversation partner of their choosing on the day of their appointment. Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants and their conversation partners were randomly assigned to either a cell-phone-presence or cell-phone-absence group and were then provided with a pretest survey. Participants completed a measure that assessed their general levels of conversation satisfaction with their conversation partners, whereas conversation partners only reported demographic data.

Once the pretest measure was completed, participants and conversation partners were escorted to benches randomly placed within common areas (hallways and lounges) of a large university building. Each bench was about 4 feet in length and approximately 20 feet away from any of the other benches utilized in this study with each participant and their conversation partner sharing a single bench. The investi- gator instructed each dyad to have a 10-minute conversation involving a topic of their choosing. Dyads were informed that a researcher would return to escort them back to the lab after 10 minutes had elapsed.

Participants and conversation partners assigned to the cell-phone-absence group were given no further directions. Conversation partners assigned to the cell-phone-presence group, however, were provided with sheets of paper that included the following instructions: “Please also take out your cell phone and place it in plain view.”Conversation partners were

26 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

instructed not to share this information with the participants. Neither participants nor conversation partners were informed of the true nature of the study until after the study had been completed. Although no formal record of cell-phone placement was recorded, con- versation partners were observed placing their phones on the bench in between themselves and the participant, placing their phones on their own lap or holding their phones in their hands.

Following the conversations, the investigator escorted participants to the laboratory to complete a posttest measure that assessed participants’ conversation satisfaction level concerning the discussion they were asked to have with their conversation partners, their recollection of cell-phone presence, perceptions regarding attitudes towards cell-phone presence in conversations, and demographic information. Partici- pants and their conversation partners were then given debriefing forms (required for the deceiving nature of the study) and dismissed.

Sample

Participants (N = 48) were 26.1% males and 73.9% females and identified as Cauca- sian (76.1%), Hispanic (10.9%), Black/African American (4.3%), or an ethnicity other than those represented on the questionnaire (8.7%). The age of participants ranged from 18 to 32 (M = 20.13, SD = 2.16). Conversation partners (N = 48), alternatively, were comprised of males (34.7%) and females (63.3%), and identified as Caucasian (77.6%), Hispanic (10.2%), Black/African American (6.1%), or an ethnicity other than those represented on the questionnaire (4%). The age range of conversation partners was from 17 to 31 years. Upon completion of the study, 2 (2.1%) participants asked to have their data removed.

Participants reported their conversation partners as being friends (n = 30, 62.5%), acquaintances (n = 10, 20.8%), significant others (n = 6, 12.5%), or other (n = 2, 4.2%). Length of relationships ranged from 1 month to 15 years (M = 1.73 years, SD = 0.10). Most participants had college credits but had not yet received a college degree (93.8%, n = 45) whereas 2.1% (n = 1) had a high-school diploma and 4.2% (n = 2) were working on graduate degrees. The sex composition of the dyads consisted of male/male (n = 9), male/female (n = 13), and female/female (n = 26) with 71.7% of dyads containing same-sex partners and 28.3% partners of differing sexes.

Measures

Conversation satisfaction Hecht’s (1978) Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction Inventory questionnaire was adapted to determine conversation-satisfaction levels. The measures asked parti- cipants to rate their level of agreement with 19 statements on a Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. At pretest, participants were asked to report their conversation-satisfaction levels using items about their overall communication satisfaction with their partners (e.g., “We tend to accomplish a lot in

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 27

our conversations,” “My conversation partner genuinely wants to get to know me,” and “My conversation partner lets me know when I am communicating effectively”), whereas, at posttest, participants were asked to report their conversation-satisfaction levels using items specific to their recent conversations (e.g., “We accomplished a lot in our recent conversation,” “My conversation partner genuinely wanted to get to know me,” and “My conversation partner let me know when I was communicating effectively”). Items were averaged together to create a composite satisfaction score at pretest and posttest. Higher scores reflect higher conversation satisfaction. Scale reliability was acceptable at pretest (α = .87) and posttest (α = .89).

Covariates Three potential covariates were considered in the analyses to account for unexplained variance in cell-phone presence and conversation satisfaction. First, pretest conversa- tion satisfaction was utilized as a covariate to determine if, once pretest conversation satisfaction was controlled for, significant differences emerged between groups with respect to their posttest satisfaction levels. Second, the mere presence hypothesis suggests that phones are an environmental distraction in conversations. To determine whether the presence of a phone, as opposed to individuals’ feelings about the presence of a phone, is accounting for the results supporting the mere presence hypothesis, participants were asked to consider their conversation partners’ use of cell phones during this or previous conversations. Specifically, participants were asked to report their level of agreement with the following statement on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, “I felt annoyed that my conversation partner had a mobile device out during our conversation.” Additionally, based on research that suggests differences in communication patterns between same- and mixed-sex dyads (Guerrero, 1997), the sex composition (mixed: n = 14; same sex: n = 32) of the dyad was considered as a covariate in the hypothesis testing. Bivariate correlations (one-tailed) demonstrated significant associations between posttest conver- sation satisfaction with participants’ level of annoyance with cell-phone use, r(45) = .48, p = .001, and pretest conversation satisfaction, r(45) = .38, p = .005. An independent- samples t test was utilized to assess whether the sex composition of the dyad differed with respect to their posttest conversation scores. The assumption for homogeneity of variances was examined using Levene’s test for equality of variances. The assumption for homogeneity was violated, t(45) = 4.8, p = .03, and the results were nonsignificant when equal variances were not assumed, t(45) = 1.63, p = .12. Therefore, only participants’ level of annoyance (M = 5.73, SD = 0.74) and pretest conversation satisfaction (M = 5.05, SD = 1.74) were included as covariates in the hypothesis testing.

Results

Statistical analyses began by assessing normality distributions of the conversation satisfaction scale at pretest and posttest. Using Kline’s (1998) guidelines for skewness and kurtosis (< 3 and < 10, respectively), the distribution of both measures fell within

28 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

acceptable ranges. Still, histogram plots indicated potential outliers in pretest and posttest conversation satisfaction. Therefore, outliers were assessed using Grubb’s (1969) test of significance. Two cases were considered outliers (p < .05) and were removed from subsequent analyses (resulting N = 44; GraphPad QuickCalcs, 2016).

Manipulation Check

Prior to conducting analyses, comparisons between participants’ reports of the absence or presence of a cell phone during their conversations and the actual experimentally manipulated absence or presence of a cell phone were conducted to determine if the experimental manipulation had the intended effect of being salient for participants. Importantly, neither the Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) nor Misra et al. (2014) studies examined whether their participants noticed the cell phone during their conversations as a manipulation check and it is therefore unclear whether perceptual salience is a necessary ingredient for the mere pre- sence of a cell phone to negatively affect a conversation. Interestingly, only 78.3% (n = 36) of participants correctly reported the absence or presence of a cell phone whereas 10.9% (n = 5) inaccurately reported the presence of a device and 10.9% (n = 5) inaccurately reported the absence of a device. Because the mere presence hypothesis indicates that the physical presence of a cell phone should be disruptive to conversations, and research has not specified whether perceptual salience is necessary for its effect to occur, both the experimentally manipulated variable of absence or presence as well as a new variable reflecting participants’ recollection of cell-phone absence or presence were included in separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) as independent variables. This procedure allows for greater insights regarding whether perceptual salience is a necessary cause for cell-phone presence to have a disruptive effect.

Main Analyses

Two ANCOVA models were utilized to test conditions (both the experimentally manipulated cell-phone-absence or presence variable as well as the participants’ recollection of cell-phone-absence or presence variable), as independent variables in each model, respectively. In both models, pretest conversation satisfaction was utilized as a covariate and posttest conversation satisfaction was utilized as the dependent variable (M = 6.06, SD = 0.71). Participants’ reported annoyance with cell-phone usage during conversations with their conversation partner was included as an addi- tional covariate.

The first ANCOVA model assessed the effect of the experimentally manipulated cell-phone condition on posttest conversation satisfaction. No significant difference was noted between the groups with respect to their satisfaction levels (p = .32). However, pretest conversation satisfaction (p = .02) and participants’ level of

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 29

annoyance with the phone (p < .01) were each related to posttest conversation satisfaction (see Table 1).

The second ANCOVA utilized participants’ recollections of whether or not a phone was present during their conversations as an independent variable. The results indicated (see Table 2) that the difference in recalled presence significantly influenced posttest conversation satisfaction (p = .03) while accounting for preconversation satisfaction levels (p < .01) and participants’ level of annoyance with the phone

Table 2 Descriptives and Results (ANCOVA Recalled Cell-Phone Absence or Presence)

Experimental

Conditions

Recalled

Cell-Phone

Presence

Preconversation

Satisfaction

Level of

Annoyance

N M SD df F p η2 F p η2 F p η2

(1, 41) 4.90 .03* .12 9.24 .01** .19 10.01 .01** .20

Recalled

Cell-Phone

Presence

21 5.92 0.80

Recalled

Cell-Phone

Absence

22 6.15 0.62

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 1 Descriptives and Results (ANCOVA Experimentally Manipulated Cell-Phone Absence or Presence)

Experimental

Conditions

Actual Cell-Phone

Presence

Preconversation

Satisfaction

Level of

Annoyance

N M SD df F p η2 F p η2 F p η2

(1, 41) 1.04 .31 .03 6.03 .019 .13 8.18 .01 .18

Actual Cell-Phone

Presence

20 5.90 0.82

Actual Cell-Phone

Absence

23 6.16 0.60

30 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

(p < .01). Post hoc comparisons indicated that participants’ who recalled a cell phone reported greater reductions in conversation satisfaction from pretest (M = 5.91, SD = 0.80) to posttest (M = 5.84, SD = 0.12) than those who recalled no cell phone from pretest (M = 6.15, SD = 0.62) to posttest (M = 6.23, SD = 0.12, p = .03). Thus, the predicted negative effect of cell phones received mixed support.

Discussion

Prior research has advanced a mere presence hypothesis, which suggests that cell phones act as an environmental nuisance that can incite negative outcomes for conversation partners. This study sought to test the mere presence hypothesis further through experimental observation of unstructured conversations between relationship partners in which the presence or absence of participants’ phones was manipulated. Two important findings emerged in the analyses that potentially clarify findings on the mere presence hypothesis. First, no significant differences on conversation satis- faction occurred between the experimentally manipulated cell-phone-absence and cell-phone-presence conditions and therefore these data fail to replicate previous research on the mere presence hypothesis. Second, significant differences did occur when groups were demarcated based on participants’ recollection of the absence or presence of cell phones during their conversations. Specifically, those participants who reported recalling a cell phone present during their conversations reported greater reductions in conversation satisfaction from pretest to posttest than those who reported not recalling a cell phone during their conversations. There are at least two important implications to these findings.

First, the mere presence hypothesis needs further explication. The findings indicate a change in satisfaction levels for individuals’ who reported the presence of a cell phone during their conversations. Prior research on the mere presence hypothesis (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012) does not clearly specify whether the negative outcomes associated with cell-phone presence rely on observers’ recollec- tions. In these studies, the phones are placed in the visual field of observers; however, it is unclear whether observers noticed the cell phones. Thus, the findings of the present study indicate that the presence of a cell phone may need to be perceptually salient to conversation participants in order for it to have a disruptive effect.

This finding is intriguing when considered in the context of previous work on expectancy violations. Specifically, research on expectancy violation theory (EVT; Burgoon & Hale, 1988) has demonstrated that an observer need not be consciously aware of a violation for it to have an effect on cognitions or interactions (Afifi & Burgoon, 1998). This study suggests, alternatively, that conscious awareness is potentially necessary for the mere presence hypothesis to occur; that is, when individuals recall a phone as a cue within the environ- ment, regardless of whether it actually is in the environment, satisfaction decreases com- pared to individuals who do not recall this cue in their conversation environment.

The findings of this study may support previous research that suggests cell phones are disruptive because they foster divided attention in conversations (Gergen, 2002).

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 31

As noted previously, the choice to keep a cell phone present during conversations is a decision that college students often struggle making because it can have both deleter- ious consequences for their ability to connect with their nonpresent social-network members as well as to their copresent conversation partners (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2016). Thus, participants’ recollection of cell-phone presence during their conversa- tions, despite whether or not it was actually visible, may foster the perception that their conversation partners’ attention was divided and thereby reduce their reports of satisfaction. As prior work has noted (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015), this may be parti- cularly important in conversations where the expectation is for undivided attention.

Second, the results suggest that the disruptive effect of cell phones may be distracting for a reason other than individual biases surrounding cell-phone presence. This study accounted for individual annoyance and found significant differences in satisfaction for those who recalled the presence of a cell phone. This lends further support for immediacy as an explanatory mechanism that can account for the negative impact of cell-phone presence on conversation quality. Specifically, because the pre- sence of a cell phone averts important immediacy cues such as eye gaze and body lean, it may be perceived as an intentional breach of conversational etiquette and subse- quently encourages lowered conversation satisfaction (Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen, 1998). This conclusion, however, is speculative and awaits further research to measure immediacy change as a mediator of the relationship between the recollec- tion of cell-phone presence and conversation quality.

Limitations and Future Directions

The findings of this study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, while this study advances previous research through the use of an experimental design of an unstructured conversation between social network members, conversation partners were instructed to put their cell phones in view during their conversations. This instruction may have biased conversation partners to the purpose of the study and disrupted the natural flow of the conversations. Second, the way in which phones were used during conversations may have altered perceptions of conversations in the cell-phone-present condition. The instructions to conversation partners in the cell-phone-present condition did not prohibit cell-phone usage. Whereas the lack of instruction here is more closely reflective of a naturally occurring conversation, and therefore consistent with the goals of the present study, it is unclear to what extent usage occurred in the conversation and whether it had an impact on conversation satisfaction. Future research should examine whether cell-phone usage during a conversation influences conversation outcomes differ- ently than its mere presence.

Third, previous research suggests that the type of conversation (i.e., casual/mean- ingful, simple/complex) may moderate the influence of cell-phone presence such that it is more impactful when conversations are more meaningful and complex (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012; Thornton et al., 2014). Hence, the failure to replicate previous research on the mere presence hypothesis (Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski &

32 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

Weinstein, 2012) through the experimentally manipulated presence and absence conditions may be due, in part, to the absence of analysis of conversation topics. Still, that significance differences did emerge when participants were demarcated based on their recollection of cell-phone presence underscores the need for further research to examine the impact of conversation topic on outcomes associated with cell-phone presence. It may be, for instance, that expectations for undivided atten- tion is a factor more central to perceiving cell-phone presence as a breach of etiquette than conversation topic (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015), as conversation part- ners can expect both casual and meaningful conversations to elicit undivided atten- tion. As research continues to explore the mere presence hypothesis in naturally occurring conversations where the expectations for undivided attention are poten- tially relaxed, important insights may emerge regarding the contextual factors that contribute to the negative effects of cell-phone presence.

Fourth, the sample was comprised of a student population, yet previous research suggests that generational differences play a role in cell-phone perceptions (Washington et al., 2014). Specifically, despite reporting perceptions of cell-phone- use appropriateness that are consistent with older adults (Forgays et al., 2014), younger generations may be less sensitive to environmental cues. Thus, a more diverse age range in the sample may help to clarify the limitations of the mere presence hypothesis. Future research should seek to diversify participant ages or to utilize a longitudinal approach to better understand the effects of this study over time. Additionally, conversation satisfaction levels at pretest were consistently high among participants and future research may benefit from screening participants in advance for a greater range in global conversation satisfaction scores.

Future research should focus on clarifying the mere presence hypothesis in three predominant ways. First, how the mere presence of cell phones negatively impacts conversation quality is still unclear. Possible explanatory mechanisms may include emotional arousal or physiological markers (e.g., cortisol, alpha amylase). Future research would benefit from couching predictions about the mere presence of cell phones within a theoretical framework such as EVT (Burgoon & Hale, 1988). Research has produced rich qualitative data to explain how EVT can help account for the influence of cell-phone behavior on individuals’ perceptions (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Future research could utilize EVT to empirically test whether cell-phone presence communicates nonimmediacy and therefore violates receivers’ expectations. Secondly, the scope boundaries of the mere presence hypothesis need to be considered further, as the current study indicates that the perceptual salience of a cell phone may be a necessary and sufficient condition for negative outcomes to occur for conversation partners. Finally, as previous research has thus far been unable to observe and report cell-phone effects in realistic settings, future studies should strive to understand the mere presence hypothesis in naturally occurring conversations that are unconstrained by contrived labora- tory settings.

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 33

Conclusion

The results of this study illuminate interesting outcomes related to cell phones and conversation satisfaction in two predominant ways. First, individuals’ recollections of cell-phone presence during conversations significantly reduced their conversation- satisfaction levels from pre- to posttest. Second, the effects on conversation satisfac- tion emerged after controlling for preconceived attitudes towards the use of phones during conversations, which suggests that future research should consider the influ- ence of individuals’ cell-phone biases on outcomes associated with cell-phone pre- sence and usage. These findings underscore the need for communication scholars to further investigate the impact of cell phones on personal and social relationships, as seemingly innocuous behavior like having a cell phone in view during a conversation may be disruptive to individuals’ conversation-satisfaction levels.

References

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1998). “We never talk about that”: A comparison of cross-sex friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Personal Relation- ships, 5, 255–272. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00171.x

Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange.Human Communication Research, 24, 501–535. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00429.x

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employ- ees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57–71. doi:10.2307/1252042

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79. doi:10.1080/ 03637758809376158

Chan, M. (2015). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technology adoption and interpersonal communication on well-being across the lifespan. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 3–18. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12089

Flanagin, A. J. (2005). IM online: Instant messaging use among college students. Communication Research Reports, 22, 175–187. doi:10.1080/00036810500206966

Forgays, D. K., Hyman, I., & Shreiber, J. (2014). Texting everywhere for everything: Gender and age differences in cell phone etiquette and use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.053

Forsythe, K. E., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2015). Relational uncertainty, self-other inclusion, and com- munication satisfaction as predictors of friendship relational maintenance, and how equity changes the story. Communication Studies, 66, 321–340. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1018444

Fusani, D. S. (1994). “Extra-class” communication: Frequency, immediacy, self-disclosure, and satisfaction in student–faculty interaction outside the classroom. Journal of Applied Commu- nication Research, 22, 232–255. doi:10.1080/00909889409365400

Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 227–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gingerich, A. C., & Lineweaver, L. T. (2014). OMG! Texting in class = u fail: Empirical evidence that text messaging during class disrupts comprehension. Teaching in Psychology, 41, 44–51. doi:10.1177/0098628313514177

GraphPad QuickCalcs [Computer software]. (2016). Retrieved from https://graphpad.com/quick- calcs/Grubbs1.cfm

34 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

Grubbs, F. (1969). Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, 11, 1–21. doi:10.1080/00401706.1969.10490657

Guerrero, L. K. (1997). Nonverbal involvement across interaction with same-sex friends, opposite-sex friends and romantic partners: Consistency or change? Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 14, 31–58. doi:10.1177/0265407597141002

Harrison, M. A., Bealing, C. E., & Salley, J. M. (2015). 2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’ reports of when text messaging is social breach. The Social Science Journal, 2, 1266–1273.

Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253–264. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978. tb00614.x

Hecht, M. L., & Marston, P. J. (1987). Communication satisfaction and the temporal development of conversations. Communication Research Reports, 4, 60–65.

Hubbard, A., Han, H. L., Kim, W., & Nakamura, L. (2007, May). Analysis of mobile phone interruptions in dating relationships: A face threatening act. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Huh, S. (2006, June). Mobile phone uses: Two channels in a medium and potentiality of ritualized use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden, Germany.

Jin, B., & Pena, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23, 39–51. doi:10.1080/08934211003598742

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principle and practice of structural modeling. New York, NY: Guilford. Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT Press. Manusov, V. (1991). Perceiving nonverbal messaged: Effects of immediacy and encoded intent on

receiver judgments. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 235–253. doi:10.1080/ 10570319109374383

Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 253–270. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371

Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2016). Competing discourses and meaning making in talk about romantic partners’ cell-phone contact with non-present others. Communication Studies, 67, 58–76. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1088876

Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone effect: The quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 24, 1–24. doi:10.1177/0013916514539755

Nakamura, T. (2015). The action of looking at a mobile phone display as nonverbal behavior/ communication: A theoretical perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 68–75. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.042

Nelson, E., & Atchley, P. (2009). The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, 438–444. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.01.006

Neuliep, J. W. (2012). The relationship among intercultural communication apprehension, ethno- centrism, uncertainty reduction, and communication satisfaction during initial interaction: An extension of anxiety and uncertainty management theory. Journal of Intercultural Com- munication Research, 41, 1–16. doi:10.1080/17475759.2011.623239

Pew Research. (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact- sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/

Pew Research. (2015). Technology Device Ownership: 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet. org/2015/10/29/technology-device-ownership-2015/

The Mere Presence Hypothesis 35

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Can you connect with me now?: How the presence of mobile communication influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 237–246. doi:10.1177/0265407512453827

Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1989). Communication apprehension and satisfaction in interpersonal relationships. Communication Research Reports, 6, 13–20. doi:10.1080/08824098909359827

Steele, G. A., & Plenty, D. (2015). Supervisor-subordinate communication competence and job and communication satisfaction. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 294–318. doi:10.1177/2329488414525450

Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology, 45, 479–488. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000216

Wagner, J. D., Bezuedenhout, M. C., & Roos, J. H. (2014). Communication satisfaction of profes- sional nurses working in public hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management, 23, 1–9. doi:10.1111/jonm.12243

Washington, M. C., Okoro, E. A., & Cardon, P. W. (2014). Perceptions of civility for mobile phone use in formal and informal meetings. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77, 52–64. doi:10.1177/1080569913501862

Wei, R., & Ven-Hwei, L. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media and Society, 8, 53–71. doi:10.1177/1461444806059870

36 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

Copyright of Communication Studies is the property of Central States Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.