X hits on this document

Word document

Running Head: Group-based Mobile Messaging - page 13 / 23





13 / 23

conditions was counterbalanced across groups, to better assess more standard usage, the first day’s usage was dropped from each group for this analysis. Given minor logistical issues, not all participants used each messaging modality exactly the same length of time. Usage results presented here are thus messages sent per day rather than an overall total. Unfortunately, 5 participants experienced technical difficulties that forced them to miss a substantial portion of one of the messaging conditions and were consequently dropped from the quantitative analyses. All statistical comparisons were evaluated with 2-tailed within subject t-tests.

Participants sent significantly more total messages in the group-based messaging condition (MG = 3.93 per person, per day) than in the one-to-one messaging condition (MO = 1.83; p < .05).  Total messages does include some group-only message types such as invitation and join messages for newly created groups. However, participants also sent more text only (MG = 2.93, MO = 1.39, p < .05) and photo messages (MG = .78, MO = .40, p < .05) each day when communicating group-wide (Figure 6).

As mentioned, all messages were coded for message type. The message types were chosen based on an initial analysis of messages in the system, as well as from previous coding schemes of text messages in the literature (Grinter and Eldridge 2001). Messages were coded into one of seven types: chatting, coordination, microcoordination, joking, experience sharing, intimate, and photo sharing. Worth noting is that each of these message types is leisure related, with each reflecting a unique aspect of leisure within a social context. An experimenter and an outside party coded the more than 1400 messages for message type, with disagreements discussed and resolved to produce a final coding.

The following criteria were used to distinguish the message types. Coordination messages contained specific dates, times, or plans (e.g., “are we all doing something tomorrow night with ty?”), while microcoordation messages reflected obvious mid-coordination text (e.g., “I’m on my way”). Slam event messages were counted as coordination messages. Experience sharing messages (“I just ate a chicken ceasar salad and [name] got into a bar fight”) made a statement about a current experience that was either detailed or emotionally meaningful, or both. This distinguished them from status messages (e.g., “I’m at work”), which were often a response to a greeting message, such as “what’s up?”. Status and greeting messages were both lumped into the chatting category.  

Photo sharing messages were messages that either contained only a photo and no text or text that obviously referred to the photo, such that the focus of the message was on sharing the photo (e.g., “this is my favorite thing in belltown. it’s a hand.”). Thus, many messages other than those coded as “photo sharing” contained photos. Intimate messages contained text that

Document info
Document views88
Page views88
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 21:10:54 UTC 2017