CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

“I fear the day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The

world will have a generation of idiots.” Albert Einstein

Celebrity couple Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard star in a recent

Samsung Galaxy Tab S ad that follows them on a day in their lives repeatedly

distracted by technology. The couple decides to ditch their plans to go hiking

and, instead, spend the day completely attached to their tablets. The

commercial highlights the couple playing games on their separate devices at

dinner, video chatting each other from different rooms in their house, and

missing a black-tie event to watch a movie on their tablet instead. While it

seems as though this should be a PSA promoting face-to-face interaction

rather than screen-to-screen, it is just another ploy to sell more technology.

This ad, along with many others, has emphasized the fact that as the use of

devices and technology that allow people to communicate digitally increase,

face-to-face interaction decreases.

Little by little, technology has become an integral part of the way that

people communicate with one another and has increasingly taken the place of

face-to-face communication. Due to the rapid expansion of technology, many

individuals fear that people may be too immersed in this digital world and not

present enough in the real world. In reaction to the overwhelming replacement

1
of face time with screen time, a Massachusetts family decided to implement

an Internet Sabbath each weekend in which no video games, computers or

smartphones can be used. The father, William Powers, expressed the

difficulty of the weekly detox stating, “It almost had an existential feeling of, ‘I

don’t know who I am with the Internet gone.’ But after a few months it

hardened into a habit and we all began to realize we were gaining a lot from

it” (Adler, 2013). Many others have expressed shared concerns regarding the

overuse of technology and its impact on face-to-face communication, so much

so that some Los Angeles restaurants have banned the use of mobile devices

to ensure customers enjoy both their meal and their company (Forbes, 2013).

Throughout this study, the author sought to answer questions

regarding technology usage and investigated whether technology affects face-

to face communication negatively.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Personal interaction is and has always been an important function of

the human experience. Prior to the technological revolution and creation of

personal computers and cell phones, relationships were typically developed

and maintained by means of face-to-face interaction and verbal or written

communication. With the development of the Information Age, characterized

by the ability for people to freely and conveniently access and exchange

information through technology, the way in which our society interacts with

one another has continued to transform. Technological Determinism Theory

attempts to help explain how changes in methods of communication through

advancements in technology impacts general society. According to this

2
theory, media technology shapes how individuals in a society feel, act, and

think as well as influences how society functions as they move from one

technological age to another. In other words, people learn how to think and

feel the way they do based upon the messages they receive through the

current technology. This theory supports the belief that “the medium is the

message” and that people adapt accordingly and will utilize the means in

which society as a whole is using to communicate. As the medium changes,

so does society’s way of communicating. If the medium is impersonal, then

the message itself is also impersonal (Mcluhan, 1962).

The conceptual framework of this study was shown in Figure 1.

Effects of Technology on People's Ability

Perception of the Respondents

• Communication with Individuals in a

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

3
Statement of the Problem

This study focused on the perception of the North Central Mindanao

College Students on the effects of technology on face-to-face communication

for the year 2015-2016. Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:

1. How does the use of technology affect people’s ability to communicate

face to face?

2. Does the mere presence of technology affect people’s ability to

communicate with individuals in a public place?

3. Has the increase of technology decreased both quantity and quality of

face-to-face interactions?

Scope and Limitation of the Study

It is important to consider limitations to this study. The survey used a

convenience sample, and therefore, cannot be generalized to a greater

population. Additionally, the survey used a volunteer sample of self-selected

subjects to participate in the study, potentially bringing about biases. Another

potential bias is possible because only individuals with a Facebook account

had access to the survey, which excluded students who do not regularly

check or use the social media platform.

Significance of the Study

This study will be beneficial to the following:

Students. This would show them that one must not drive out by vast

changes of technology on their interpersonal communication. Technology may

be a helpful tool for communication but face to face interaction should be

enhanced more to improve better relation to one another.

interpersonal interactions.

Future Researchers. This study would be a basis for future related

study pertaining to technologies on interpersonal communication.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined conceptually and operationally:

 Communicate- share or exchange information, news, or ideas.

 Cyber-youth- those who have grown up with the Internet as an

important part of their everyday life and interaction rituals

 Face-to –Face Interaction- a concept in sociology, linguistics, media

and communication studies describing social interaction carried out

without any mediating technology.

 Perception- a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting

something; a mental impression

 Sample- a small part or quantity intended to show what the whole is

like.

 Technology- machinery and equipment developed from the application

of scientific knowledge

5
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In a national sample of over 2,000 8- to 18-year olds, the Kaiser Family

Foundation (Rideout et al., 2010) found that the average total time that

children reported experiencing media in “TV, Music/audio, Computer, Video

games, Print, and Movies” rose to 10 hr 45 min (treating simultaneous media

use as distinct activities) per day in 2009, up from 8 hr 33 min in 2004 and 7

hr 29 min in 1999—a 44% increase over a decade. These figures do not

include reported hours spent texting, phoning, or using computers for

schoolwork. Perhaps most remarkable is that the reported proportion of time

spent multitasking—the proportion of media time spent using more than one

medium concurrently—increased from 16% in 1999 to 26% in 2004 to 29% in

2009.

Apart from the increase in overall time spent consuming media is the

finding that youth consume 20% of their media on a “third screen” (other than

TV and computer): mobile smartphones and game consoles (Rideout et al.,

2010). The Pew Internet & American Life Project (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, &

Purcell, 2010) reported that 75% of 12- to 17-year-olds owned cell phones,

with 87% of them texting and half of the texters (over one third of all 12- to 17-

year-olds) sending 50 texts daily. Studying 8- to 18-year-olds, Rideout et al.

(2010) found that 66% of children owned their own cell phones and 76%

owned their own iPod/ music players. Fifty-eight percent of 12-year-olds now

own a cellphone (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010), up from 18% in

6
2004. Teens also increasingly use social network sites: A growing number

(73%) of online 8- to 18-year-olds use social network sites (Lenhart, Purcell,

et al., 2010) for an average of 37 min per day (Rideout et al., 2010). Given

this rapidly changing media ecology for the interactions that shape social

development, it is vital to conduct empirical inquiries to understand how this

new digital climate is being taken up by and is influencing youth.

Despite these findings on adult cognitive differences as a function of

chronic media multitasking, no research has yet examined media multitasking

by youth and its relationship to social wellbeing. Parents express concerns

about high media use by their children and children’s friends and its likely

developmental consequences (Wallis, 2010), and Rideout et al. (2010, p. 13)

found that those 8- to 18-year-olds who spent more time with media reported

being less content (as measured by an index composed of questions on

having lots of friends, getting along well with parents, being happy at school,

not being bored, not feeling sad and unhappy, and not getting in trouble a lot).

On the other hand, cell phones and other multitasking facilitators are also

experienced by youth as contributing to the developmental task of

individuation from parents (Lenhart, Ling, et al., 2010). Research has also

indicated that intimacy (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008), identity

(Huffaker & Calvert, 2005; Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan, 2008;

Valkenburg, Schouten, & Peter, 2005), developing existing friendships

(Bessie`re, Kiesler, Kraut, & Boneva, 2008; Gross, 2004; Valkenburg & Peter,

2007), and other developmental tasks are played out online, so one may

expect media use to potentially relate to the developmental challenges of

growing intimacy with friends and other aspects of social well-being.

7
 Many studies have been conducted regarding technology’s effect on

social interaction and face-to face communication since the rise of cellphone

and social media usage in the late 2000s. As Przybylski and Weinstein of the

University of Essex wrote in 2013, “Recent advancements in communication

technology have enabled billions of people to connect more easily with people

great distances away, yet little has been known about how the frequent

presence of these devices in social settings influences face-to-face

interactions”, (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012, p. 1).

One study examined the relationship between the presence of mobile

devices and the quality of real life, in-person social interactions. In a

naturalistic field experiment, researchers found that conversations in the

absence of mobile communication technologies were rated as significantly

superior compared with those in the presence of a mobile device (Misra,

Cheng, Genevie, & Yuan, 2014). People who had conversations in the

absence of mobile devices reported higher levels of empathetic concern,

while those conversing in the presence of a mobile device reported lower

levels of empathy (Misra et al., 2014).

In another study, Przybylski and Weinstein (2012) showed similar

results that proved the presence of mobile communication devices in social

settings interferes with human relationships. In two separate experiments, the

authors found evidence that these devices have negative effects on

closeness, connection, and conversation quality, especially notable when

individuals are engaging in personally meaningful topics.

8
 Though much research has shown the negative effects of technology

on face-to-face interaction, one study found that cell phone use in public might

make individuals more likely to communicate with strangers. In 2011,

Campbell and Kwak (2011) examined whether and how mobile

communication influences the extent to which one engages face to face with

new people in public settings. By accounting for different types of cell phone

uses, the study found evidence that mobile phone use in public actually

facilitated talking with co-present strangers, for those who frequently rely on

cell phones to get and exchange information about news.

Brignall and van Valey (2005) analyzed the effects of technology

among “current cyber-youth” – those who have grown up with the Internet as

an important part of their everyday life and interaction rituals. The two authors

discovered that due to the pervasive use of the Internet in education,

communication and entertainment, there has been a significant decrease in

face-to-face interaction among youth. They suggest that the decrease in the

amount of time youth spend interacting face-to-face may eventually have

“significant consequences for their development of social skills and their

presentation of self” (p. 337).

Many other authors have focused specifically on technology’s effect on

personal relationships. In Alone Together: Why We Expect More from

Technology and Less From Each Other, Turkle (2012) examined the effects of

technology on familial relationships. After interviewing more than 300 young

people and 150 adults, Turkle found that children were often times the ones

complaining about their parents’ obsession with technology. Turkle discovered

that many children believed their parents paid less attention to them than to
9
their smartphones, often times neglecting to interact with them face to face

until they had finished responding to emails.

Contrary to many researchers’ beliefs that technology impacts face-to-

face communication negatively, Baym, principal researcher at Microsoft

Research, does not share these concerns. Rather, Baym believes that

research suggests digital communications enhance relationships and that “the

evidence consistently shows that the more you communicate with people

using devices, the more likely you are to communicate with those people face

to face” (Adler, 2013).

10
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Qualitative and quantitative were used in this study. The survey or

descriptive research design was used in this study. The researchers

conducted field observations and a survey to measure the level of

engagement of college students in North Central Mindanao College in

Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte for the year 2015-2016 that have with their

cell phones, other technologies, and each other in face-to-face situations.

Research Environment

The municipality Lala with a population of about 58,395 and its 27

barangays belong to the partly urban areas in the Philippines. While some of

the barangays developed modern urban structures, some others, especially

those which are seated in the outlying areas, remained rural.

Maranding is one of the barangays which are in the outlying area of

Municipality Lala. This is highly urbanized barangay of Lala, the largest

Municipality of the second district Lanao del Norte. This place is a business

center serving not only the populace of Lala but even the people of Salvador

and Kapatagan. There are many commercial establishments and tertiary

schools offerings the poor farmers's children from neighboring places.

11
Figure 2 Location Map

Research Subjects/Respondents

The survey was administered to North Central Mindanao College

students who were recruited using a non-probability sample via Facebook.

Students were asked 11 questions regarding their technology use, habits, and

perceptions of face-to-face communication in the presence of technology, and

engagement both face to face and screen to screen, which would help better

answer the question of whether technology has a negative effect on face-to-

face communication

Instrumentation

The researchers used questionnaire to gather the data. An informed

consent was given before conducting the survey. The researchers explained

12
first the objectives of the survey to the respondents. This is to avoid confusion

of the survey conducted.

Data Gathering Techniques

Preparation of the Survey Questionnaire. The researchers prepared

the questionnaires to be used in this study. Researchers asked for English

instructors to check the grammar of the questionnaire to make it easier for

respondents to answer. An informed consent was also prepared prior to

conducting the survey.

Gathering of Data. The researchers had selected 100 respondents

from North Central Mindanao College. An informed consent was given before

conducting the survey. After selecting and giving informed consent,

questionnaires were sent via Facebook account to gather data. The data

collected will be the basis for this study. It will be analyzed and interpreted to

answer the study queries.

Statistical Treatment

The following were the statistical tools used in this study:

 Frequency – to know the number of respondents responded in each

item in the survey questionnaire.

 Percentage – this could be used in determining the percentage of the

respondents who answer in each choices on each items in the survey

questionnaires.

13
 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

All 50 respondents owned a smartphone or tablet. When asked how

frequently students use their cell phones, 58% of respondents said they use

their phone more than 4 hours a day, with 20% of respondents admitting to

more than 8 hours of usage a day. Almost all students (94%) bring their cell

phones or tablets with them every time they leave the house and only 2%

respondent said they rarely do. Some students (36%) reported that when

spending time with friends or family, they always use their cell phone or tablet.

The majority of students use their cell phone sometimes when they are with

family or friends (56%), and only 8% of students rarely use their phone in the

presence of friends and family. No respondents indicated that they never use

their cell phone or tablet when spending time with friends or family.

Additionally, 50 percent of respondents said they communicate with friends or

family more frequently via technology than in person, while 24% said the

opposite.

In an effort to determine what impacts technology has on face-to-face

communication, the survey asked students to rank the statement on a scale

from strongly agree to strongly disagree: “It bothers me when my friends or

family use technology while spending time with me”. Sixty-eight percent of

respondents said that they either agreed or strongly agreed with this

statement, while only 12% disagreed. Among respondents, 20% neither

agreed nor disagreed.

14
 Another survey question asked students whether they believed the

presence of technology, while spending time with others, affects face-to-face

interpersonal communication negatively. An overwhelming 82% of

respondents believed technology negatively affects face-to-face

communication, and only 8% did not. Only 10% of respondents neither agreed

nor disagreed.

A third question regarding the impacts of technology on face-to-face

communication asked students whether they noticed quality degradation in

conversation amongst the presence of technology. Seventy-eight percent of

respondents believed there was degradation, only 10% disagreed, 2%

strongly disagreed and 10% neither agreed nor disagreed.

When asked for additional feedback regarding technology use and

face-to-face communication, students provided a number of insightful

responses. One student said, “I don’t like using my phone when I’m with

friends in person, and I don’t like it when they use theirs, but if it is used in a

way to stimulate conversation – like showing a funny video, or documenting

our time together via Snapchat or photos – then I think it is acceptable.”

Another student agreed, mentioning that whether technology affects face-to-

face communication positively or negatively depends on how it is used. A third

student shared similar opinions stating, “I don’t mind if it’s used to enhance a

conversation (looking up important information or things relevant to a

conversation); otherwise, it typically takes away from the experience in

general as you can tell the other person(s) attention is divided and unfocused

on the present moment.”

15
 Many respondents voiced their concerns that technology is diminishing

society’s ability to communicate face to face. One student stated, “People

have lost the ability to communicate with each other in face-to face

interactions,” while another respondent said, “Technology is making face-to-

face communication much more difficult because people use technology as a

crutch to hide behind.” A third student responded, “I think technology impedes

our ability to interact with people face to face,” and a fourth agreed that

technology “both enhances what we share online and decreases what we say

face to face.”

Other students shared sentiments that using technology to

communicate is acceptable, but when used in the presence of others is

disrespectful. One student responded, “I think putting away phones and

technology is a sign of respect when having a conversation with someone and

shows that you have their full attention. Even though it’s sometimes hard to

have those times when people are not attached to their phones, I think it is

more important than ever.” Many students mentioned that while spending time

with friends or family, they have to make a conscious effort not to use

technology. It appears that despite being aware of their own behaviors and

habits regarding technology, the majority of students agree that face-to-face

communication and the quality of conversations are negatively impacted by

technology.

16
RESPONSES

How frequently do you use your cellphone or tablet

per day? N %

0-2 hours 1 2%

2-4 hours 20 40%

4-6 hours 13 26%

6-8 hours 6 12%

more than 8 hours 10 20%

How frequently do you bring your phone or tablet

with you when leaving the house? N %

Always 47 94%

Sometimes 2 4%

Rarely 1 2%

Never 0 0%

How often do you use your smartphone or tablet while hanging out with

friends or while spending time with family?

Always 18 36%

Sometimes 28 56%

Rarely 4 8%

Never 0 0%

It bothers me when my friends or family use

technology while spending time with me N %

Strongly agree 11 22%

Agree 23 46%

17
Neither agrees nor disagree 10 20%

Disagree 6 12%

Strongly disagree 0 0%

I communicate more frequently with friends and family via technology

than I do in person

Strongly agree 5 10%

Agree 20 40%

Neither agrees nor disagree 13 26%

Disagree 10 20%

Strongly disagree 2 4%

I think that the presence of technology while spending time with others

affects face-to-face interpersonal communication negatively

Strongly agree 15 30%

Agree 26 52%

Neither agrees nor disagree 5 10%

Disagree 4 8%

Strongly disagree 0 0%

I notice degradation in the quality of my conversations with others when

technology is present or being used

Strongly agree 12 24%

Agree 27 54%

Neither agrees nor disagree 5 10%

Disagree 5 10%

Strongly disagree 1 2%

18
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

The study had dealt with the perception of the North Central Mindanao

College Students on the effects of technology on face-to-face communication

for the year 2015-2016. It specifically aims to answer the following questions:

How does the use of technology affect people’s ability to communicate face to

face?, does the mere presence of technology affect people’s ability to

communicate with individuals in a public place?, and has the increase of

technology decreased both quantity and quality of face-to-face interactions?

In order to answer the researchers’ questions, a survey method was

used to gather data. Fifty respondents (college students) were selected using

convenience sampling (non-probability). Questionnaires were given for the

respondents to answer through Facebook. Statistical tools such as frequency,

and percentage were used to interpret the data collected. Qualitative and

quantitative approaches were used to describe the data gathered.

An analysis of previously conducted studies provided evidence that the

rapid expansion of technology is negatively affecting face-to-face

communication. People are becoming more reliant on communicating with

friends and family through technology and are neglecting to engage

personally, uninhibited by phones and devices, even when actually in the

presence of others. All 50 respondents owned a smartphone or tablet. When

19
asked how frequently students use their cell phones, 58% of respondents said

they use their phone more than 4 hours a day, with 20% of respondents

admitting to more than 8 hours of usage a day. Almost all students (94%)

bring their cell phones or tablets with them every time they leave the house

and only 2% respondent said they rarely do. Some students (36%) reported

that when spending time with friends or family, they always use their cell

phone or tablet. The majority of students use their cell phone sometimes

when they are with family or friends (56%), and only 8% of students rarely use

their phone in the presence of friends and family. No respondents indicated

that they never use their cell phone or tablet when spending time with friends

or family. Additionally, 50 percent of respondents said they communicate with

friends or family more frequently via technology than in person, while 24%

said the opposite. A majority of individuals felt the quality of their

conversations degraded in the presence of technology, and many individuals

were bothered when friends or family used technology while spending time

together. The results of the study also indicate strongly that face-to-face

interactions have decreased both in quality and in quantity.

Conclusions

The result of the data analysis has lead into formulation into the

following conclusions:

 The rapid expansion of technology is negatively affecting face-to-face

communication.

20
  A majority of individuals felt the quality of their conversations degraded

in the presence of technology, and many individuals were bothered

when friends or family used technology while spending time together

 The increase of technology decreased both quantity and quality of

face-to-face interactions.

Only time will tell what the long-term impacts of this radical shift in

communication methods will yield. Will employees be less able to

communicate with their employers and, therefore, less able to succeed in the

workforce? Or will the new skills developed through hours of cell phone use

and texting result in a workforce that is more nimble and more qualified to

multi-talk? Will Millennials be unable to communicate face to face with their

children, or will the new tools available to them bring their families closer

together? Will the new technologies bring us closer together as a community,

or result in fewer actual friends and a life that is more isolated and less

fulfilling? With technology advancing at the speed of light and human

interaction changing just as quickly, it may be impossible to predict the

results. However, everyone should be aware that human interaction as was

once known may have already changed forever.

Recommendation

Communication involves the ability to pay attention to what others are

thinking and feeling. In other words, an important part of communication is not

just talking, but listening to what others have to say. The researchers’

recommendations for the family, friends and future researchers were as of

follows:

21
Family and Friends

 Open a communication at all with someone in the absence of a digital

connection, and people with a deep connection or a really specific

mutual interest can probably manage to communicate pretty well

without resorting to "analog" relationship-building.

 Communication within the family is extremely important because it

enables members to express their needs, wants, and concerns to each

other. Open and honest communication creates an atmosphere that

allows family members to express their differences as well as love and

admiration for one another. It is through communication that family

members are able to resolve the unavoidable problems that arise in all

families.

 When communicating with young children, it is important for adults to

listen carefully to what the children are saying without making

unwarranted assumptions. It is also important to take into consideration

the ages and maturity levels of children. Parents cannot communicate

with children in the same way that they communicate with their spouse

because the child may not be old enough to understand.

 In addition to carefully listening to what is being said, effective

communicators also pay close attention to the non-verbal behaviors of

other family members. For example, a spouse or child may say

something verbally, but their facial expressions or body language may

be telling you something completely different. In cases such as these, it

is important to find out how the person is really feeling.

22
Future Researchers

 There should be a greater number of samples.

 There should be a field observation in a stratified sample size.

 Studies pertaining to the motivation factor of the respondents in using

technology in communication.

 There should be a consideration on gender factor and/or demographic

background of the respondents.

 Survey must be conducted both online and non-online.

23