final paper

Kelly PitmanFinal Project

Self and Community in the Digital AgeDecember, 2009

Thriving Telecommunications and Long-Distance Friendships

The transition from high school to college is an ambivalent period; students are thrown into

new environments, and surrounded by hundreds of unfamiliar faces. New acquaintanceships are

formed, as relationships with those from home become long-distance friendships. A first term

college student myself, I have experienced this adjustment within the past few months. Modern

forms of telecommunications, such as texting, cell phones, and Facebook, have played an important

role in maintaining relationships with friends I can

no longer interact with in person. Undergoing this adjustment while simultaneously investigating the

"Digital World" during the design lab Self and Community in the Digital Age, I became interested in

discovering a connection between advancing telecommunications and relationships. My exploration

into this subject began with a brief study for my mid-term project, which I have continued and re-

inforced over the past few weeks by conducting a survey designed specifically for college graduates

of the 1990's, 2000's, and current students. Throughout the course of my study, I have discovered

that advancing telecommunications have affected long-distance relationships in many discrete, yet

intriguing ways.

Telecommunication has been rapidly advancing since 1876, when Alexander Graham Bell

patented the telephone. Transcontinental phones were installed throughout the United States in

1915; postage mail was no longer the only means of long-distance communication, and the take-off

of telecommunication began. According to AT&T, in 1945, the cost of a ten-minute call from New

York to Los Angeles was $56.80. This price dropped significantly to $1.50 in 1995 (both amounts

represented by the dollar value in 1945). Affordability of long-distance calls allowed people to call

friends and family who were across the country more often. Going into the recent half of my study

on relationships and telecommunication, I chose to focus on changes within long-distance

friendships between the 1990's and the present day. I created a survey with a classmate who was

also interested in the relationship between telecommunication and friendships. Having nearly

identical interests was an advantage, because unlike previous surveys that had been written in the

class, we were able to publish a questionnaire designed around our projects. Twelve questions

were included in this survey:

1) When did you move away from home (to college)?

2) What was your distance from home?

3) Via Telecommunication, whom did you communicate with more

frequently?

4) How often did you communicate with off-campus friends while at

college?

5) What were the top three ways you communicated with these friends?

6) If telecommunication had not been available, would you have been more

concerned with friends on campus?

7) What was the level of emotional connection to friends from home with

which you communicated with most often BEFORE moving? (One

through five; one being the least emotional closeness)

8) What was the level of emotional connection to friends from home with

which you communicated with most often AFTER moving?

9) Did telecommunication play a significant role in helping you maintain

long-distance relationships?

10) If you did not have telecommunication available to you, how many friends

from home would stay in contact with?

11) Do you feel the value of your relationships has been affected by

telecommunication as opposed to face-to-face communication?

12) In your opinion, has telecommunication had a positive, negative, or

neutral effect on long distance relationships?

Our allotted time to distribute the survey and collect responses was limited in order to have

sufficient time to analyze the data. The survey was published on Word Press on November 24,

2009, and responses submitted after December 1, 2009 were not used in this study. Thirty-three

respondents were included, twenty-eight of whom were current students and graduates of the

2000's. Five questionnaires were completed by graduates of the 1990's, representing fifteen

percent of the total sample (See Figure 1). I was pleased because the data sample from this survey

presented a more comparable ratio of respondents than that of the the questionnaire which was

used for my mid-term study. For instance, respondents of the previous survey consisted of four

graduates from the 1990's, six from the 1980's, fifteen from the 1970's, three from the 1960's, two

from the 1950's, and only one graduate from the 1940's; it was much more effective to limit the

population to students of the 1990's and 2000's for the purpose of a short study.

Distance between college and home, in miles, for each subject was a valuable set of data

collected from the survey. The survey offered a selection of five responses: less than 50 miles, 50 to

150 miles, 150 to 300 miles, 300 to 500 miles, and greater than 500 miles. Interestingly, the entire

sample of 1990's students did not move more than 150 miles from home. Forty percent moved less

than 50 miles away, and sixty percent moved 50 to 150 miles away (See Figure 2). Students of the

2000's, however, provided a variety of answers, the majority of which were distances of at least 150

miles (See Figure 3). Observing the two sets of data together, the greater spread of distance within

the sample of 2000's students is very clear (See Figure 4). This could have resulted from the smaller

sample size of the 1990's students. It is also possible that advancing telecommunications have

made students more comfortable moving further from home.

The third question on the survey did not provide surprising insights, but it does show a

pattern regarding the use of telecommunication. Sixty percent of 1990's students communicated

most frequently with off-campus friends via telecommunication, while the other forty percent used

telecommunication more to communicate with friends on-campus (See Figure 5). Sixty-one percent

of 2000's students use telecommunication most within off-campus interactions, and the remaining

thirty-nine percent use telecommunication more to contact people on-campus (See Figure 6). The

responses from the two sample groups are nearly identical, which suggests that telecommunication

is mainly used to contact individuals who are not within walking distance (See Figure 7); this is a fact

which does not seem to have changed within the past twenty years.

Respondents were also inquired about their frequency of long-distant communication.

Answers were broken into seven categories: daily, every other day, weekly, every few weeks,

monthly, every few months, and yearly. Graduates of the 1990's seemed to talk with friends from

very frequently; the majority of respondents claimed to have communicated with friends from home

daily (See Figure 8). Students of the 2000's, once again, provided a larger spread of data; the

majority said that they communicate with friends from home every few days (See Figure 9). The

larger range of answers of the 2000's sample suggests that even with modern telecommunication,

we do not converse with most long-distance friends on a daily basis. However, every respondent

claimed to have communicated with friends from home at least once a month, showing that

telecommunication does allow students to maintain long-distance relationships. The difference

between the spread of responses between each of the sample groups is clear when displayed

together (See Figure 10).

Another valuable section of the survey asked subjects to name their top three forms of

communication with off-campus friends. There is a noticeable divide between the responses

provided by the students of the 1990's and the students of the 2000's. For example, 1990's

students only mentioned three methods of communication: land-line telephones, e-mail, and "snail

mail" (See Figure 11). Responses from students of the 2000's provide evidence of advancing

technology, mentioning modern forms of telecommunication such as online networking, texting, cell

phones, video chat, and instant messaging (See Figure 12). The data pulled from these responses

provides evidence of a decrease in the use of both land-line telephones and "snail mail" has

occurred since the 1990's (See Figure 13).

The increasing presence of telecommunication corresponds to the loss off "snail mail" and

land-line telephones. Twenty percent of 1990's students claimed that telecommunication did not

play an important role in their long-distance relationships (see Figure 14), while only seven percent of

2000's students gave the same answer (See Figure 15). Observing the statistics of both groups

(See Figure 16), it would be logical to hypothesize that telecommunication is becoming more

essential within long-distance relationships as technology continues to advance. This led me to

wonder whether or not the increasing presence of telecommunication has created a disconnect

between students on-campus. Responding to question number six on the survey, the majority of

both sample groups responded that the presence of telecommunication has not reduced their desire

to interact with their local college community (See Figures 17-19). Therefore, despite the availability

of long-distance communication, it appears that students continue to pursue and appreciate face-to-

face interactions.

Relating to question of an increasing reliance on telecommunication in long-distance

friendships, subjects were asked to approximate the percent of friends from home they would

remain in contact with if no forms of telecommunication were available. I was surprised to discover

that the responses of the 1990's students projected a greater dependence on telecommunication

than 2000's students; it seems as though they contradicted themselves here. For instance, none of

the respondents from the 1990's sample predicted that they would stay in contact with 75 to 100%

of friends from home, while seven percent of students from the 2000's sample said they would be

able to maintain relationships with 75 to 100% of their friends from home without telecommunication

(See Figures 20-22). I found this interesting, since earlier in the survey the students of the 1990's

named "snail mail" and land-line telephones as their main forms of communication, which had lead

me to believe that they would rely less on telecommunication.

The levels of emotional connection that were submitted by each surveyed individual brought

me to conclusions which I found most fascinating. Each respondent assigned a numerical level of

emotional connection to their relationships with friends from home (one being the least connectivity,

five being the greatest connectivity) both before and after moving away to college. Regarding

students of the 1990's, the average level of emotional connection before moving was 4.03, and

after moving was 3.06 (See Figure 23). The average level of emotional connection for 2000

students was 4, and after moving was 3.03 (See Figure 24). Investigating these statistics further, I

discovered that the average difference of emotional connections before and after is .97 for both

sample groups(See Figure 25); this statistic represents the decrease of connectivity that occurs once

distance becomes a factor within friendships. Despite the difference between the communication

methods used in the 1990's and 2000's, the average relationship from each decade experienced an

identical decline as a result of losing constant face-to-face contact.

I chose to develop the data that was drawn from the levels of connectivity further; I used the

"top three" methods of communication to sort the responses into three sub-categories. The first

group, consisting of twenty-three subjects, excluded each answer that mentioned either "snail mail"

or land-line telephones (See Table 1). Eight people made up the second group, which included any

response mentioning "snail mail" or land-line telephones (See Table 2). Lastly, I excluded each

subject that mentioned any form of communication besides land-line telephones and "snail mail,"

and was left with three subjects (See Table 3). Doing this, I hoped to create a more concrete

correlation between the advancement of telecommunication and values of long distance

relationships. Average levels for groups one and two were identical, both showing a decline of .97

after moving away from home. Group three, however, broke the mold with an average decline of .

46.

Concluding the survey were two opinion-based questions, addressing whether or not

telecommunication, as opposed to in-person interactions, has altered the value of their relationships,

and if telecommunication has had a positive or negative effect on long-distance relationships. Over

half of the students from the 1990's sample answered that there had been no change in the value

of long-distance relationships (See Figure 26). The same is true for the students from the 2000's

sample (See Figure 27), however a greater percentage of 2000's students believe that

telecommunication has made long-distance more meaningful (See Figure 28). Regarding the

question of the overall effect of telecommunication on staying in touch with far-away friends, a fifth

of the students from the 1990's sample considered the effect to be negative (See Figure 29).

Responses from students of the 2000's contrast the other sample enormously, as none of them

replied that the effect has been negative (See Figure 30). Comparing the data from each sample,

as technology has advanced, more students have grown to view the influence of telecommunication

to be positive (See Figure 31).

This study has provided me with a greater understanding of long-distance friendships within

the "Digital Age" into which our society has evolved. Technology has continued to advance rapidly,

exponentially introducing people to more forms of communication. No longer do we have to rely on

post offices to deliver mail, or pay $56.80 to make a phone call to someone across the country; free

online networks such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter allow instant, free, and easy

communication to anyone. I am satisfied with the results of my project, but, knowing that

technology will always be an advancing field, this is a study that will never be over. In conclusion, it

is undeniable that telecommunication has affected long-distance communications I believe that the

most significant effect of advancing technology in relationships is our dependence on modern forms

telecommunication; it is not the values of long-distance relationships that have changed, but our

lifestyles.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

20%

20% 60%

1990’s Students: Frequency of Communication With Friends From Home

Daily Every Few Days

Weekly Every Few Weeks

Monthly Every Few Months

Yearly

Figure 9

4%11%

18%

39%

29%

Frequency of Long-Distance Communication for Students of 2000’s

Daily Every Few DaysWeekly Every Few WeeksMonthly Every Few MonthsYearly

0

1

2

3

4

Before After

Level of Emotional Connection to Friends From Home Before and After Moving

2000 Students

Figure 10

0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

Daily

Every

Oth

er

Day

Weekly

Every

Few

Weeks

Mo

nth

ly

Every

Few

Mo

nth

s

Yearly

Frequency of Communication With Friends From Home

1990 Students 2000 Students

Figure 11

30%

20%

50%

1990’s “Top 3” Methods of Communication

Land-Line Telephone Cell PhoneE-Mail Video ChatOnline Networking TextingInstant Messaging “Snail Mail”

0

1.025

2.050

3.075

4.100

Before After

Level of Emotional Connection Before and After

Graduates of the 1990’s

Figure 12

6%11%

21%

18%

14%

6%

23%

1%

2000’s Students “Top 3” Communication Methods


2000 Students: More Concerned With On-Campus Community Without Telecommunication?

Yes No

Figure 13

0

0.175

0.350

0.525

0.700

Land

-Lin

e P

ho

ne

Cell

Pho

nes

E-M

ail

Vid

eo

Ch

at

On

line N

etw

ork

ing

Textin

g

Insta

nt

Messag

ing

“Snail

Mail”

Popular Forms of Long-Distance Communication

1990 Students 2000 Students1990 Students 2000 Students

Figure 14

60%

40%

1990’s Students: More Concerned With On-Campus Friends Without Telecommunication?

Yes No

1990’s Students: Percentage of Friends They’d Keep In Touch With WITHOUT Telecommunication

<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


Figure 15



57%

43%


Yes No

Figure 16

0

0.175

0.350

0.525

0.700

ON-CAMPUS OFF-CAMPUS

Friends Students Communicate With Most Via Telecommunication



0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

Yes No

More Concerned with On-Campus Friends Without Telecommunication?


Figure 17



57%

43%


Yes No

Figure 18

60%

40%


Yes No


<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


Figure 19

0

0.175

0.350

0.525

0.700

ON-CAMPUS OFF-CAMPUS

Friends Students Communicate With Most Via Telecommunication



0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

Yes No

More Concerned with On-Campus Friends Without Telecommunication?


Figure 20


Yes No

20%

20% 60%


<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


Figure 21

7%11%

32%

50%

2000 Students’ Expected Percent of Long-Distance Relationships Maintained

<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

2000 Students Response to Whether Relationships have Become More or Less Meanigful

More Meaningful Less MeaningfulNo Change

Figure 22

0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Percent of Friends Remain in Touch Without Telecommunication


0

0.225

0.450

0.675

0.900

Positive Negative Neutral

Overal Effect on Long-Distance Relationships


Figure 23



0

1.025

2.050

3.075

4.100

Before After

Level of Emotional Connection Before and After

Graduates of the 1990’s

Figure 24

Frequency of Long-Distance Communication for Students of 2000’s

Daily Every Few DaysWeekly Every Few WeeksMonthly Every Few MonthsYearly

0

1

2

3

4

Before After

Level of Emotional Connection to Friends From Home Before and After Moving

2000 Students

Figure 25

0

1.25

2.50

3.75

5.00

Before After

Levels of Emotional Connections


0

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Yes No

Does Telecommunication Play Role in Relationships?


Table 1

Top 3 Ways of Communication with friends off-campus Level of emotional

connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional

connection to friends

from home AFTER

moving?

Cell Phones, Texting, Instant Messaging 4 3

Instant Messaging 4 4

E-Mail, Online Networking, Texting 3 3

Cell Phones, Online Networking, Texting 5 4

Cell Phones, E-Mail, Online Networking 4 3

Online Networking, Texting, Instant Messaging 4 4

Cell Phones, Video Chat, Online Networking, Texting 4 4


Video Chat, Online Networking, Texting 5 2

Video Chat, Online Networking, Instant Messaging 3 3

Cell Phones, Video Chat, Instant Messaging 5 4

Cell Phones, Online Networking, Instant Messaging 5 4



Cell Phones, Video Chat, Texting 5 4





Cell Phones, Video Chat, Online Networking 5 3


E-Mail, Video Chat, Texting 3 3


4 3.03030303030303

Top 3 Ways of Communication with friends off-campus Level of

emotional

connection to

friends with

Level of emotional

connection to

friends from home

AFTER moving?Land-line telephone, Snail Mail 4 3

Table 2


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?
























4 3.03030303030303


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?

Cell Phones, E-Mail, Snail Mail 4 3

Land-line telephone, Snail Mail 4 3

Land-line telephone, E-Mail, Snail Mail 4 2


Cell Phones, E-Mail, Video Chat, Texting, Instant Messaging, Snail Mail 5 4

Land-line telephone, Online Networking, Snail Mail 3 2

Cell Phones, Texting, Snail Mail 5 3

Snail Mail, Texting, Cell Phones 5 5

4 3.03030303030303

Decade of

Graduation

Friends Communicate

most with via

Telecommunication

Frequency of

Communication with

Friends OFF-CAMPUS

1990 Off-Campus Weekly

1990 Off-Campus Daily


1990 On-Campus Daily

1990 On-Campus Every Few Days


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?


Land-line telephones 5 5


4 3.54545454545455

Table 3


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?
























4 3.03030303030303


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?

Cell Phones, E-Mail, Snail Mail 4 3




Cell Phones, E-Mail, Video Chat, Texting, Instant Messaging, Snail Mail 5 4

Land-line telephone, Online Networking, Snail Mail 3 2

Cell Phones, Texting, Snail Mail 5 3

Snail Mail, Texting, Cell Phones 5 5

4 3.03030303030303

Decade of

Graduation

Friends Communicate

most with via

Telecommunication

Frequency of

Communication with

Friends OFF-CAMPUS

1990 Off-Campus Weekly



1990 On-Campus Daily

1990 On-Campus Every Few Days


connection to

friends with home

BEFORE moving?

Level of emotional


from home AFTER

moving?




4 3.54545454545455

Figure 26

Overall Effect of Telecommunication on 1990’s Relationships


60% 20%

20%

Effect on Meaningfulness of 1990’s Relationships

More Meaningful Less Meaningful No Change

Figure 27

2000 Students’ Expected Percent of Long-Distance Relationships Maintained

<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

42%

18%

39%

2000 Students Response to Whether Relationships have Become More or Less Meanigful

More Meaningful Less MeaningfulNo Change

Figure 28

0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

Mor

e M

eaning

ful

Less

Mea

ning

ful

No

Cha

nge

Telecommunication’s Effect on Meaningfulness of Relationships


Figure 29

40%

20%

40%

Overall Effect of Telecommunication on 1990’s Relationships


Effect on Meaningfulness of 1990’s Relationships

More Meaningful Less Meaningful No Change

Figure 30

2000 Students: Does Telecommunication Help Maintaining Relationships?

Yes No

14%

86%

2000 Students’ Opinion on Overall Effect on Long-Distance Relationships



Figure 31

0

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.60

<25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Percent of Friends Remain in Touch Without Telecommunication


0

0.225

0.450

0.675

0.900


Overal Effect on Long-Distance Relationships


final paper

Documents

longdistance relationships

campus friends

longdistance communication

advancing telecommunications

takeoff of telecommunication

college graduates

level of emotional connection

thriving telecommunications