English paper

Freshman Writing | 45-49

Honorable Mention

Daniel Sullivan

Text Messaging and Conflict Resolution: What Does That Emoticon Mean?

Dan: What do you think; is text messaging a viable means for conflict resolution?

World: No, text messaging is for short messages only, not confrontations or debate.

Dan: I agree that was the intended purpose, but it has progressed over time. What are people using it for now?

World: According to a survey in 2004, people are asking questions and sending reminders, not having conversations (Faulkner).

Dan: From my research in 2010, I’ve found the most common uses to be event planning and gossip/casual conversation, categories with a “back and forth.”

World: Argh, I’ll give you that. But what about people using texting as a security blanket? It’s destroying the closeness of mankind! (Pressner)

Dan: What about people using texting for “romantic interactions?” And who’s to say people can’t be close over non-verbal communications?

World: Or what about the fact that it’s difficult for people to get their meaning across in text? (Pressner)

Dan: Actually, people think they get their meaning across.

World: Wah? But whole relationships have fallen apart from misunderstandings! (Pressner)

Dan: Then maybe it depends on other factors?

World: Well, like what?

That is the question. In my daily life, text messaging is a core component of my communications with others. I use it for everything from planning events to casual conversation and getting help on homework; but I also use it to flesh out issues with my partner and others close to me. Recently, I have wondered why we have turned to text messaging for the majority of our conflicts. Prior to doing outside research, I created a few theories as to why, for some, text messaging is a more accessible means of conflict resolution. Due to text messaging’s limit of 160 characters, people have to make their arguments concise and to the point. It might also be easier for people who are shy, since they have time to formulate what they want to say, instead of feeling intimidated by a face-to-face conversation.

To see how texting can be used, we must first look at how it has been used. A 2004 study at London South Bank University examined who used texting, and why. Their results showed that those who are younger tend to send and receive a greater number of messages than those who are older (Faulkner). The study also looked at what kinds of messages were sent and found that the majority of texts were asking questions, sending farewells, and sending personal information.

In order to gain a broader perspective, I conducted my own study, in the form of an online survey. There were a total of 389 responses. After analyzing the data, and comparing it to Faulkner’s survey, there are drastic differences. The first is the percentage who text. According to their collected data, 16% of their result set said they did not text. In my data, only 8% did not text, a reduction of half. Another extrapolated comparison to Faulkner’s data is that texting activity declines when age increases, a fact that remains true.

When looking at the types of messages sent, we see a contrast. The two most popular uses for texting are event planning and casual conversation. The key distinction is “conversation”—not simply reminders or single questions. So text messaging has become more of a dialogue between people, rather than “fire and forget.”

Armed with the information that a sizeable percentage of people have text message conversations, the next step is to see who has arguments over text messaging. Of the 360 people who use texting, 51% have had arguments. They all say it happens rarely or very infrequently. Due to the non-confrontational nature of the medium, an assumption could be made that people who are less outgoing might prefer texting to other means of communication. A study at the University of Plymouth by Reid examined the general use of text messaging vs. other mediums, looking to see if those persons who are shy and socially anxious would prefer it more. The results of the study coincided with their hypothesis; socially anxious individuals are more likely to resort to text messaging. I looked at this idea more deeply, seeing if their conclusion correlated with arguments over text as well. My survey shows that there is no real correlation between someone’s personality, and whether or not they have an argument over text. Returning to Faulkner’s study however, and looking at the ages instead, there is a trend. As age increases, the amount of people who say they have arguments over text decreases. This agrees with Faulkner’s thoughts: “It might be that the teenage users having grown up with text messaging are far more comfortable with it and therefore see it as just another means of communicating with their circle” (14).

The reasons for the arguments differ, but a consensus among analysts seems to be that misunderstandings due to the medium are a large cause. Etiquette expert Ceri Marsh, in an interview for USA Today, had the following to say: “Couples have arguments over text because of a simple misunderstanding in wording or tone. They’ll say ‘What exactly did you mean by that emoticon?’” (Pressner). From my research, it appears that those who say they’ve been in an argument agree that it is usually a misunderstanding. However, if we look at how often people feel that they got their meaning across, we see that 51% of people feel that nine out of 10 times they do indeed transmute their thoughts effectively into text. Despite this, however, there is no correlation between getting their meaning across and how often they have arguments. This goes against Marsh’s thoughts and texters’ own thoughts as well.

Let’s take a step back and look over what we’ve examined so far. Texters are nowadays comprised of a broad range of ages. They primarily have conversations and plan events. Only half of them have arguments. This half is comprised of a variety of people, though, only barely separated by age The next step is—are these arguments being solved, and by whom? The short answer is—generally not. My survey shows that most people find that their arguments go unresolved.

“But what about people who effectively use texting,” I thought. Looking at the data from my survey, there is once again no correlation. Those who rarely get their meaning into text solve conflicts at the same rate as those who constantly articulate their thoughts accurately. This is interesting, because if someone can get their meaning across, what is preventing them from using the same tools they use verbally in text effectively?

With these results, I was compelled to look at my own experience again. Text messaging works for me as a means of conflict resolution, but why? With the prior question in mind, I thought about what I know about solving conflicts. My experience is unique; I spent the majority of my youth volunteering at an organization called The Peace Center, in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. There I learned (and subsequently taught) the tools needed to effectively resolve conflicts. The major points are to be clear about your own feelings, listen to the other(s), and to be open to compromise. Is applying these guidelines to text arguments the difference in their success or not? The research conducted did not look at this, but future research should consider it, as it might just be the magic factor for resolving text arguments. With the collected data, however, it almost seems as though the medium has no effect on people’s ability to solve conflicts. There is, however, one more factor to consider; does the “disconnect” of the situation aid people in solving conflicts?

Reid’s study, which looked at social anxiety, concluded “SMS [allows] users to disengage from the demands of immediate interactive involvement, releasing time and attentional resources to compose and edit messages” (11). Meg Hallissy, a student from Fairfield University, thought similarly, “[We] are constructing our arguments, or manipulating them. We rough-draft what we really mean to say; then edit, cut, paste, or fit it into 160 characters. The final draft is often the nicer version of our original statements, without the swearing and name-calling” (Hallissy). This was one of my hypotheses, and even after all of the data showing that there are a very small number of conflicts resolved over text messaging, I still think it is true.

Based on my own positive experience, there must be a set of factors that allows someone to effectively use text messaging as a means of conflict resolution, but I have not narrowed them down. If anything, this exploration of the subject shows that it requires a significantly deeper insight into the individual than a quick survey could possibly hope to show. More questions have been raised, and their answers might hold the key to a better understanding of how we can effectively resolve arguments.

Works Cited

“Conflict Resolution - Resolving Conflict Rationally and Effectively.” Mind Tools. 10 June 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. <http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/ newLDR_81.htm>.

Faulkner, Xristine, and Fintan Culwin Culwin. “When Fingers Do the Talking: a Study of Text Messaging.” Interacting with Computers 17.2 (2005): 167-85. 25 Dec. 2004. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.

Hallissy, Meg. “Y R U Mad? Mediated Conflict Resolution | The Fairfield Mirror.” The Fairfield Mirror. 21 Oct. 2009. Web. 01 Nov. 2010. <http://fairfieldmirror. com/2009/10/21/y-r-u-mad-mediated-conflict-resolution/>.

Kasallis, Theresa. “Text Messaging Affects Student Relationships.” Universe. 5 July 2005. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. <http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/60307>.

Pressner, Amanda. “Can Love Blossom in a Text Message?” USATODAY.com. 29 Jan. 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/ techinnovations/2006-01-29-love-texting_x.htm>.

Reid, Donna J., and Fraser J.M. Reid. “Text or Talk? Social Anxiety, Loneliness, and Divergent Preferences for Cell Phone Use.” CyberPsychology & Behavior 10.3 (2007): 424-435. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.

Sullivan, Daniel. “Text messaging and Conflict Resolution.” Web Survey. 07 November 2010.