Reality Check: Discovering Human Identity in a Digital World

Technology and Human Relationships: Friends or Foes?

University of Asia and the Pacific (Pasig City, Philippines):
Instructor: Mr. Robert Cortes Lecturer, English Department University of Asia and the Pacific robert.cortes@uap.asia; +639291311485 Lanz Andre Oliveros 3rd Year School of Sciences and Engineering student University of Asia and the Pacific lanz.oliveros@uap.asia; +639065088242 Joseph Michael Arbilo 2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences student University of Asia and the Pacific joseph.arbilo@uap.asia: +639158112738 William Charles Galvez 2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences student University of Asia and the Pacific galvezcharles@gmail.com; +639278484023 Jose Miguel Marasigan 2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences student University of Asia and the Pacific miggymarasigan@gmail.com; +639178058568 Joseph Mari Mundo 2nd Year School of Communication student University of Asia and the Pacific joseph.mundo@uap.asia; +639173396500 Joseph Andrew Ticzon 2nd Year College of Arts and Sciences student University of Asia and the Pacific jntandrew@gmail.com; +639154661082 Jose Fernando Gonzales 1st Year School of Sciences and Engineering student University of Asia and the Pacific josefernando.gonzales@uap.asia; +639152951200

Paper presented at the UNIV Asia Forum 5th University Congress Manila, January 2013 (1st Prize Winner)

ABSTRACT The last few decades have seen an accumulation of literature and the formation of a general opinion that declares that technology has a generally negative effect on human relationships. Specifically, the affirmation goes that the more technology advances, the more mediated interpersonal communication becomes, the less face-to-face communication occurs, and ultimately, the less personal human relationships become. However, Jevonss Complementarity Corollary (named after the English economist William Stanley Jevons who formulated a related theory) that is being used as a theoretical framework of this study, states that "improvements in information technology can lead to more face-to- face contact, thus affirming the exact opposite. Using a survey, the researchers determined the validity of Jevonss Complementarity Corollary among students of eight major university campuses in Metro Manila based on their experience of mediated interpersonal communication in relation to face- to-face communication. The studys results affirm that present-day Filipino youth still value face-to-face communication more than mediated interpersonal communication, although the latter has become an almost-necessary supplement to the former. Through the results, the study hopes to contribute to the ongoing conversation regarding the actual effects of technology on human relationships. INTRODUCTION For years, there has been a fear that an increase in technological development would result in people directly interacting with each other less. 1 This fear may be due to the way technology changes the content of interactions2, meaning that as technology progresses, communication between human beings would become more and more impersonal. This idea was expounded by Mark Federman when he explained Marshal McLuhans medium-is-the-message concept. He proposed that what McLuhan was trying to say was that the consequences of any medium ... result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology. 3 There has also been a perception, seemingly evident since the 1970s, that technological development has made human activities run in an overly accelerated pace, as well as made human contact less and less authentic. As a consequence of this, there has risen a fear that people interacting face-to-face with one another may become a worn-out process. According to Dr. Marike Finlay-de Monchy, New communications technology, by threatening to usurp the place of many face-to-face transactions, such as shopping, and by interposing a new language (other than everyday language) between participants is indeed an increasingly ubiquitous mediator.4 This claim is related to what theorists feared during the proliferation and popularization of computers in the late 1970s that computer-mediated communication would lead to impersonal, task-oriented relationships. 5
1

Fischer, C.S.. "Personal Calls, Personal Meanings." In America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California - Berkeley, 1992. 222-254. 2 Freedman, Vicki, Emily Agree, Linda Martin, and Jennifer Cornman. "Trends in the Use of Assistive Technology and Personal Care for LateLife Disability, 1992-2001." Gerontologist 46, no. 1 (2006): 124-127. 3 Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message? ." University of Toronto. http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm (accessed December 12, 2012). 4 Finlay, Marike. "How Much Can A Computer Move?." In Powermatics: a discursive critique of new communications technology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. 125 - 126. 5 Jablin, Fredric M.. "Information Technologies." In Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987. 420 - 443.

What these fears and perceptions seem to show is that computer-mediated communication, also known as Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC), is reaching the same level of effectiveness, efficiency, and importance in the life of human beings as Face-to-Face Communication (FFC). FFC, or direct interpersonal communication, according to George Rodman6, refers to individuals interacting face-to-face, the oldest form of direct, one-to-one communication. On the other hand, MIC is another type of one-to-one communication brought by technological development. Essentially, it is the sharing of personal messages through an interposed device. 7 Is MIC in fact as effective already as FFC? Certain theories recognize the difficulties involved with the use of MIC. 8 Feng-Chia Li, Chad Lin, and Ying-Chieh Liu synthesized eleven MIC studies since 1994 and suggested that MIC allows the person to be prone to higher conflict and difficulties and having lower satisfaction. 9 Nevertheless, the Media Naturalness Perspective10 argues that many of the troubles people face with MIC come from their difficulties in adapting to the technologies they deal with. If time is given for people to adapt to technology, MIC can be at par with FFC. One study claims that when motivated, people can overcome reduced cues by taking advantage of other features of the technology used to communicate. 11 In fact, MIC can prove to be more efficient than FFC. Prashant Bordia mentions that when there is limited time, computer-mediated groups do better than face-to-face groups on tasks with less, and on tasks requiring more, social-emotional interaction. 12 The Media Synchronicity Theory13 points out that the benefits involved in modern technology, for some purposes, prove to be more efficient than FFC. Essentially, it says that with FFC, only one person can talk at a time, while some technologies make it possible for many persons to talk simultaneously; with FFC, dominant speakers get to have more time to speak, while with MIC, everyone has an equal chance to speak. 14 However, certain studies exist which claim that Face-to-Face communication (FFC) is better than Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC). With FFC, it is easier to achieve mindreading, which involves being able to decipher what a person is thinking through his words and actions. 15 FFC makes it easier to transmit messages, particularly those involving attitudes and emotions. Such messages require non-verbal and paraverbal cues, which are the other aspects
6 7 8

Rodman, George. "Introduction." In Mass Media In A Changing World. 2005. Reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 10 - 11. Ibid. Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?" Journal of Planning Literature 25, no. 2 (2010): 111-122. 9 Liu, Ying-Chieh, Chad Lin, and Feng-Chia Li. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Comparison of Experimental Literature." Global Electronic Business Research Center. iceb.nccu.edu.tw/proceedings/APDSI/2005/SessionIndex/Innovative%20Education/Innovative%20Education-02.pdf (accessed December 31, 2012). 10 Kock, N. "Evolution and media naturalness: A look at e-communication through a Darwinian theoretical lens." Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems 1 (2002): 373 - 382. 11 Walther, Joseph. "Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction." Communication Research 19, no. 1 (1992): 52-90. 12 Bordia, Prashant. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature." Journal of Business Communication 34, no. 1 (1997): 99-118. 13 Dennis, Ar, and Js Valacich. "Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity." System Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on 1 (1999): 1017. 14 Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic planning." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 5 (2009): 411-423. 15 Singer, Tania. "The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6 (2006): 855-863.

of messages aside from the words themselves, such as the tone and pitch of voice, and eye contact. 16 These cues cannot be expressed with MIC. The Media Richness Theory by Daft and Lengel17 affirms the last idea just mentioned, even going further to say that FFC is the richest among all the communication media because of the many cues it invokes. 18 19 20 21 The theory presents that the richness of the medium depends on the degree of emotional, normative, or attitudinal cues present. 22 23 Also, according to the theory, the lowest in the range of richness is electronic communication such as e-mail and computer documents.24 After more than 40 years, the concern of having less face-to-face communication as a consequence of or as an accompaniment to the development of technology continues today, as more recent studies have shown. With the rise of the digital natives25 and the increasing attachment of people to technology26 the immediacy of access that technological development brings to human beings is now giving more basis for this fear. According to John Stankey in IBMs The Changing Face of Communication, communications overall is shifting from pointto-point to many- to-many in order to socialize and enjoy an experience more deeply.27 This means that today, communication patterns are changing from a more direct interpersonal communication to Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) apparently in order to become more collaborative, i.e. to be augmented with links, videos, photos, and other multimedia content that substantially enrich the communications experience.28 Amidst this long-standing, almost half-a-century concern, though, one theorist rose as a voice crying in the wilderness (Jn. 1:23). He is Harvard economist Edward Glaeser29 - and his message? MIC does not only not compete with FFC; it even complements it. He calls his proposition Jevonss Complementarity Corollary in honor of British economist and logician, William Stanley Jevons. As early as two centuries ago, William Stanley Jevons formulated a theory for the steam engine industry. Jevons stated that the consumption of coal is increased with the efficiency brought
16 17

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?." Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design." Research in Organizational Behavior 6 (1984): 191 - 233. 18 Ibid. 19 Montoya, Mitzi, Anne Massey, Yu-Ting Hung, and Brad Crisp. "Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams." Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, no. 2 (2009): 139-155. 20 Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic planning." 21 Warkentin, Merrill E., Lutfus Sayeed, and Ross Hightower. "Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System." Decision Sciences 28, no. 4 (1997). http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/730/paper/doe1.pdf (accessed January 6, 2013). 22 Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design." 23 Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic planning." 24 Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?." 25 "What's Your Box?." McCann Inter-generation Study 1 (2006): 2. 26 Richtel, Matt. "Your Brain on Computers - Attached to Technology and Paying a Price - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3& (accessed November 1, 2012). 27 Lozinski, Zygmunt, Ekow Nelson, and Rob van den Dam. "The Changing Face of Communication." IBM Global Business Services 1 (2008): 6. 28 Ibid. 29 Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 38.

about by the technological advances of the steam engine.30 Jevons Paradox, as it later came to be known, stated that as technology progresses there will be an increase in the use of resources in a given time with an increase in the rate of the consumption. Glaeser, in his book entitled Triumph of the City, applied Jevonss Paradox to technological development in communication: Jevonss Complementarity Corollary, which follows naturally from Jevonss paradox, predicts that improvements in information technology can lead to more demand for faceto-face contact, because face time complements time spent communicating electronically.31 As if agreeing with Glaesers affirmation, Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus, in his message for the 43rd World Communications Day, the theme of which was New Technologies, New Relationships: Promoting a culture of Respect, Dialogue, and Friendship, hints that MIC should complement FFC.32 He said that the desire for connectedness and the instinct for communication that are so obvious in contemporary culture are best understood as modern manifestations of the basic and enduring propensity of humans to reach beyond themselves and to seek communion with others. He further stated that men should never trivialize the concept or the experience of friendship. It would be sad if our desire to sustain and develop on-line friendships were to be at the cost of our availability to engage with our families, our neighbours and those we meet in daily reality... This idea that Jevonss Complementarity Corollary suggests, which is that Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) complements Face-to-Face Communication (FFC), along with the ideas of Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus about man and his desire to be in communion with others had the researchers asking whether in fact the conflict between technology and human relationships is more apparent than real. Does Jevonss Complementarity Corollary suggest the authentic connection between MIC and FFC? How true is it at least in the case for the youth of Metro Manila who the researchers believe are representative of present-day Filipino youth in general? The researchers felt that these questions are important since they think it is high time that a more realistic assessment of technology vis--vis human relationships is affirmed, especially in this era when technology is already an unstoppable and ubiquitous presence. It is hoped that the results of this study may point towards that more realistic assessment which will, in turn, enable the present-day Filipino youth to treat technology appropriately. Lastly, the researchers hope that the results may give a clue as to how MIC relates to FFC among other youth from the rest of the world.

30 31

Jevons, William Stanley. The Coal Question. S.l.: Macmillan, 1866. Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. 32 Ratzinger, Joseph. "Message for the 43rd World Communications Day, Benedict XVI." Vatican: the Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communicationsday_en.html (accessed November 14, 2012).

METHODOLOGY In order to find out whether Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) does in fact complement Face-to-Face Communication (FFC), the researchers conducted a survey among students from various universities, namely: University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P), University of Santo Tomas (UST), Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU), De La Salle University (DLSU), University of the Philippines Diliman (UPD), University of the Philippines Manila (UPM), Miriam College (MC) and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM). The researchers chose to focus on university students because, aside from UNIV being an international congress for university students, they are the ones most exposed to advancing technologies. Indeed, they are part of Generations Y & Z, which according to Schroer are technology wise and Internet savvy, much more than the generations before them.33 Students from majority of the mentioned institutions, namely UA&P, ADMU, UST, DLSU, and PLM, were given hard copies of the survey, while students from both campuses of the University of the Philippines were surveyed online due to time constraints. The survey ran from November 28, 2012 to December 28, 2012. The survey questions can be viewed in the Appendix. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The survey questionnaires were given to students of eight major university campuses in Metro Manila, namely: University of Asia and the Pacific, University of Santo Tomas, Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, University of the Philippines Diliman, University of the Philippines Manila, Miriam College, and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. There were 374 respondents of whom 38% were male and 61% were female. The ages of the respondents ranged from 16 to 23 years old, which belongs to the 2 most digitally native age brackets: 15 to 19, the digital natives of Generation Z34, and 20 to 24. The small turnaround (of completed survey questionnaires, vis-a-vis the number of universities surveyed) is due mainly to time constraints; the duration of the survey was from November 28 to December 28, 2012. Complete demographic information & all graphs are found in http://univcharts2013.wordpress.com. The survey consisted of questions related to the relationship between Mediated Interpersonal Communication (MIC) and Face-to-Face Communication (FFC) in the respondents carrying out of everyday activities. In one of the first questions, the respondents were asked to rank some activities that they do using their digital devices according to how important they are to them. The graph below (Fig. 1) shows the survey results:

33

Schroer, William J.. "Generations X,Y, Z and the Others...Social Librarian Newsletter - WJ Schroer Company." WJ Schroer Company. http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm (accessed December 26, 2012). 34 Ibid.

Figure 1. Average ranking of activities that students do using their digital devices according to importance

The following is an explanation of Figure 1. The average ranking for each activity was computed in order to determine its priority in the respondents day-to-day human contact. Specifically, all the rankings attributed to every activity by each respondent were added and then divided by the number of respondents. The activity with the smallest weighted average, i.e. the activity closest to 1.0 is the most prioritized. The graph shows that among the activities that students do using their digital devices communication comes as the most prioritized activity, that is, communication is, for university students, the most important purpose of digital devices. Leisure activities were least prioritized, and thus are seen to be of lesser importance as compared to communication. To gauge which type of communication (whether FFC or MIC) is more dominantly used by university students, they were asked to what extent they employ their digital devices as compared to face-to-face communication in some academic / professional, spiritual and social activities and . The results are in the graph (Fig. 2) below:

Figure 2. Extent of Usage of FFC and MIC in different activities

The results show that majority of the respondents use FFC either more than or equal to MIC in most of the activities. FFC more than MIC ranked highest in five (5) activities: interacting with

family (59%), interacting with friends (51%), holding meetings (44%), engaging in any games & sports related activity (36%), and attending social gatherings (35%). It also placed second in four (4) other activities: organizing meetings (32%), inviting to spiritual activities (25%), attending (or engaging in) spiritual activities (26%), and to buy and sell goods and services (28%). These results hint that even with the technological advancements in communication, MIC still has not overtaken FFC in human interaction. FFC only even became the top option in attending spiritual activities with 33% of the respondents. This can be attributed mainly to the fact that, while communication aided by devices has been proven beneficial to human life, direct personal (face-to-face) interaction is still indispensable in fulfilling everyday activities. Seeing that technology has taken over many functions formerly done by human beings35, the researchers asked the respondents whether FFC was still important and relevant to them despite advancing technologies. According to the survey results below (Fig. 3), FFC is still necessary to university students (i.e. cannot be done without) in fulfilling some everyday activities.

Figure 3. University students belief on the necessity of Face-to-Face to do everyday activities

The results of organize meetings (43% SA, 44% A), hold meetings (62% SA, 30% A), interact with family (77% SA, 20% A), interact with friends (69% SA, 27% A), organize/invite to social gatherings (32% SA, 49% A), attend social gatherings (60% SA, 35% A), and invite to spiritual activities (38% SA, 43% A) clearly show that majority of the university students agree or strongly agree that FFC is necessary in their activities. However, the results below (Fig. 4) also show that university students believed in the necessity of digital devices in fulfilling some everyday activities.

35

Kantor, Andrew. "Don't let technology rob you of the fruits of doing things the hard way - USATODAY.com." USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-06-21-math-writing_N.htm (accessed February 20, 2013).

Figure 4. University students belief on the necessity of Digital devices to do different everyday activities in percentage

The survey also sought to find out which form of communication the respondents deemed more proper (i.e. more appropriate regardless of any consideration) to use for the most common human interactions (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. University students perception on which means of communication is more proper to use in different everyday activities

In all situations, FFC ranked first as the means of communication the respondents deemed the most proper to use. According to the survey, the main reason students deem FFC the most appropriate means is that they generally thought FFC conveys a better sense of sincerity, as compared to MIC. Following this reasoning, MIC ranked as least preferred in all. These results show that face-to-face contact is valued as the best means of expression as far as everyday human contact is concerned. This is because, as results show, there is a general sense that there would be less room for misunderstanding when talking to someone face to face. Some respondents implied in their answers that since bodily gestures and eye contact are also involved, it would be easier to read someones emotions/disposition when the other person is physically

present, and this more accurate reading of reactions in turn leads to better understanding of the message and its importance. Finally, the researchers wanted to know if there were any differences or gaps between what means the respondents deemed as most proper (which could be only theoretical) and what means they actually used in practice for the same day-to-day activities mentioned above (Fig. 6).

1 = You use FFC only in the following situations. 2 = You use MIC also BUT you use FFC MORE in the following situations. 3 = You use FFC and MIC equally in the following situations. 4 = You use FFC also BUT you use MIC MORE in the following situations. 5 = You use MIC only in the following situations. Figure 6. Means of communication that university students actually use in different everyday activities

In five (5) out of ten (10) situations, namely: greeting/congratulating, sharing good news, requesting favors, commanding, and reminding, majority of the students answered that they use FFC and MIC equally. In four other situations, namely: apologizing, thanking, breaking bad news, and reprimanding, majority said they would also use MIC but use FFC more. In sharing intimate things, on the other hand, majority said they would use FFC only. Interestingly enough, FFC only averaged as the third highest preference in actual practice whereas, in theory (see Figure 5) it is deemed as the most proper medium for all day-to-day activities. There thus seems to be a disparity between theory and practice as far as FFC is concerned. Put another way, whereas most students think that FFC is the more proper medium to use in the mentioned day-to-day activities, it is actually hardly used exclusively in these activities - why is this so? If students think that the more proper medium to be used is FFC why not use it exclusively instead of using it in tandem with MIC in varying degrees, which is more often the case? The clue to the answers to the questions above is provided by the type of activities in which FFC is not exclusively used. These activities can be grouped into two. The first group could be termed indifferent as these are activities that prioritize immediacy over direct personal interaction in

their fulfillment, i.e. its more important to get the message through sooner regardless of whether one does it face-to-face or not; direct personal contact is a mere bonus. Included under this group are actions such as greeting/congratulating, thanking, sharing good news, requesting favors, commanding, and reminding. The reason for not using FFC exclusively in these is that the immediate fulfillment of the activity rather than the personal touch put into it seems to be the more important consideration. Since one cannot always get to a person physically immediately while access to digital devices is quite easy, MIC then proves to be of great help in carrying out what are perceived to be urgent. This means that MIC was made to complement FFC. The second group could be termed inconvenient as these activities, because of their very personal nature, would have been more properly addressed through FFC, but because of the inconvenience they pose to both or all parties, press people to use MIC as a crutch. Under this group are actions such as apologizing, thanking, breaking bad news, and reprimanding. The explanation to the non-exclusive use of FFC in these activities is quite different from the previous group. A survey published by Gallup in November 2012 shows that Filipinos are the most emotional group of people in the world.36 This emotionalism is one possible explanation to a Filipinos preference for delivering a message through an interposed device, i.e. MIC. Moreover, Philippine culture is dominated by certain values that highlight their regard for others opinions about them, i.e. hiya (sense of shame) and amor propio (self-respect), which cause them to steer clear of conflict and grudges being held against them.37 Nevertheless, what is quite clearly shown in the survey is that on the whole, FFC is still the preferred medium more than MIC in actual practice, even if it may not be exclusively used. This result is in agreement with other results in this study that affirm the respondents preference for FFC because it better captures the clarity of words, tone of voice, bodily gestures, facial expressions, and each partys sincerity than MIC. At the end of the survey, 96% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that FFC is more important than MIC. On the other hand 26% either agreed or strongly agreed that MIC is more important. The fact that 96% and 26% do not add up to 100% can be explained by the possibility that some respondents had other considerations when answering these questions that the researchers did not consider beforehand or that some were simply careless when answering the question. In any case, the difference between 96% and 26% is still huge enough to convey the message that a great majority of the respondents do think that FFC is more important MIC. The next results show something more puzzling. While 88% believed that it is MIC that complements (stimulates/enhances) FFC, the same percentage also believed the exact opposite that it is FFC that complements MIC. Assuming that the respondents answered the survey seriously, as the rest of the survey seems to show, one possible explanation for this perplexing result might be the fact that this generation of students (Generations Y and Z) are already so used to technology that they cannot seem to distinguish which complements which.38
36

Clifton, Jon. " Singapore Ranks as Least Emotional Country in the World." Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158882/singapore-ranks-least-emotional-country-world.aspx#2 (accessed February 20, 2013). 37 Bloom, Greg. "The Culture." In Philippines. 10th ed. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet, 2009. 40. 38 Bellman, Chris, and Gita Pupedis. "Shove over Gen Y: Gen Z is almost here ." SURVEYING & SPATIAL SCIENCES BIENNIAL CONFERENCE 2011 1 (2011): 333 - 334. http://www.sssc2011.com/assets/Papers/Reviewed/PUPEDISGitaBELLMANChrisShove-over-GenYGen-Z-is-almost-here.pdf (accessed February 20, 2013).

Nevertheless, despite the seeming confusion about which medium complements which, taking into consideration the results of the entire survey, the study clearly shows that students consider FFC as the more important medium, and MIC serves as a much-used, if not necessary, supplement to FFC. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study suggests that for Filipino university students, Face-to-Face Communication is still more important than Mediated Interpersonal Communication. This means that although it is widely perceived that MIC is the preferred mode of communication for members of Generations Y and Z, the reality seems to be the opposite: present-day Filipino youth still need and value FFC more than MIC. The results of the study show that they believe that it is more appropriate to use FFC in most situations and it is notable that majority of them still prefer to use FFC in the different activities of human contact given. They also agreed that FFC is more necessary and proper in fulfilling day-to-day activities than MIC. The study further found that FFC is seen as the more valued method because of its ability to transmit messages with more sincerity and authenticity. This sincerity is achieved through certain elements of tone and pitch of voice, bodily gestures and facial expressions that are only present in FFC as Rhoads similarly affirmed.39 In addition, this means is favored when the activities have a strong affective component (e.g. sharing intimate things), even though certain other considerations provoke people to use MIC as a support. However, although FFC is perceived as more significant, the study also noted the importance of MIC for students in fulfilling their ordinary daily activities. In fact, most of them do not completely depend on FFC but also use MIC in varying degrees, depending on the given circumstance. One of the results showed that many of the respondents use FFC as frequently as MIC in some of the provided situations. This finding indicates that MIC is now seen as an important, even indispensable, tool in communication. As one of the respondents stated, MIC works to aid FFC especially during emergencies and for convenience. In the end, however, Face-to-Face Communication stands as the irreplaceable means of human communication as far as this study shows. Furthermore, MIC complements FFC and helps to develop more social interaction and understanding among people. The study suggests that in the case of Filipino university students, the fear of technological development taking over Face-to-Face Communication may not be necessary at all, and this will not come about in the near future. Nevertheless, if despite that affirmation, some continue to fear, perhaps they need only consider one simple means that can be used with regard to Mediated Interpersonal Communication in order to ensure that this baseless fear will not come about: the virtue of temperance.

39

Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?."

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bellman, Chris, and Gita Pupedis. "Shove over Gen Y: Gen Z is almost here ." SURVEYING & SPATIAL SCIENCES BIENNIAL CONFERENCE 2011 1 (2011): 333 - 334. http://www.sssc2011.com/assets/Papers/Reviewed/PUPEDISGitaBELLMANChrisShov e-over-Gen-YGen-Z-is-almost-here.pdf (accessed February 20, 2013). Bloom, Greg. "The Culture." In Philippines. 10th ed. Footscray, Vic.: Lonely Planet, 2009. 40. Bordia, Prashant. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature." Journal of Business Communication 34, no. 1 (1997): 99-118. Brenner, Susan W.. "Law and Consumer Technology." In Law in an era of "smart" technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. 95. Clifton, Jon. " Singapore Ranks as Least Emotional Country in the World." Gallup.Com Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Politics, Economy, Wellbeing, and World. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158882/singapore-ranks-least-emotional-countryworld.aspx#2 (accessed February 20, 2013). Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. "Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design." Research in Organizational Behavior 6 (1984): 191 - 233. Dennis, Ar, and Js Valacich. "Rethinking media richness: towards a theory of media synchronicity." System Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on 1 (1999): 1017. Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message? ." University of Toronto. http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm (accessed December 12, 2012). Finlay, Marike. "How Much Can A Computer Move?." In Powermatics: a discursive critique of new communications technology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. 125 - 126. Fischer, C.S.. "Personal Calls, Personal Meanings." In America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940. Berkeley: University of California - Berkeley, 1992. 222-254. Freedman, Vicki, Emily Agree, Linda Martin, and Jennifer Cornman. "Trends in the Use of Assistive Technology and Personal Care for Late-Life Disability, 1992-2001." Gerontologist 46, no. 1 (2006): 124-127. Glaeser, Edward L.. "What do they make in Bangalore?." In Triumph of the city: how our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 38.

Jablin, Fredric M.. "Information Technologies." In Handbook of organizational communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1987. 420 443. Jevons, William Stanley. The Coal Question. S.l.: Macmillan, 1866. Kantor, Andrew. "Don't let technology rob you of the fruits of doing things the hard way USATODAY.com." USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-06-21-mathwriting_N.htm (accessed February 20, 2013). Kiesler, Sara, Jane A. L. Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire. "American Psychologist." In Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Pittsburgh, Pa.: CarnegieMellon University, Committee on Social Science Research in Computing, 1984. 39; 1123-1134. Kleij, Rick van der, Jameela Lijkwan, Peter Rasker, and Carsten De Dreu. "Effects of time pressure and communication environment on team processes and outcomes in dyadic planning." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, no. 5 (2009): 411-423. Kock, N. "Evolution and media naturalness: A look at e-communication through a Darwinian theoretical lens." Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems 1 (2002): 373 - 382. Lawley, Elizabeth Lane. "Lawley--Bourdieu Paper." ITCS: Internet Training & Consulting Services. http://www.itcs.com/elawley/bourdieu.html (accessed November 20, 2012). Liu, Ying-Chieh, Chad Lin, and Feng-Chia Li. "Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Comparison of Experimental Literature." Global Electronic Business Research Center. iceb.nccu.edu.tw/proceedings/APDSI/2005/SessionIndex/Innovative%20Education/Inno vative%20Education-02.pdf (accessed December 31, 2012). Loomis, K. "Art With a Needle: Internet friends 1." Art With a Needle. http://artwithaneedle.blogspot.com/2011/09/internet-friends-1.html (accessed September 11, 2012). Lozinski, Zygmunt, Ekow Nelson, and Rob van den Dam. "The Changing Face of Communication." IBM Global Business Services 1 (2008): 6. Montoya, Mitzi, Anne Massey, Yu-Ting Hung, and Brad Crisp. "Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams." Journal of Product Innovation Management 26, no. 2 (2009): 139-155. Ratzinger, Joseph. "Message for the 43rd World Communications Day, Benedict XVI." Vatican: the Holy See.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/communications/documents/h f_ben-xvi_mes_20090124_43rd-world-communications-day_en.html (accessed November 14, 2012). Rhoads, Mohja. "Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication: What Does Theory Tell Us and What Have We Learned so Far?." Journal of Planning Literature 25, no. 2 (2010): 111-122. Richtel, Matt. "Your Brain on Computers - Attached to Technology and Paying a Price NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3& (accessed November 1, 2012). Rodman, George. "Introduction." In Mass Media In A Changing World. 2005. Reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 10 - 11. Schroer, William J.. "Generations X,Y, Z and the Others...Social Librarian Newsletter - WJ Schroer Company." WJ Schroer Company. http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm (accessed December 26, 2012). Settersten, Richard A.. "Diversity and Family Relations in an Aging Society." In Handbook of sociology of aging. New York: Springer Verlag, 2011. 137. Singer, Tania. "The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research." Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 30, no. 6 (2006): 855-863. Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler. "Management Science." In Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986. 32; 1492-1512. Walther, Joseph. "Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction." Communication Research 19, no. 1 (1992): 52-90. Warkentin, Merrill E., Lutfus Sayeed, and Ross Hightower. "Virtual Teams versus Face-to-Face Teams: An Exploratory Study of a Web-based Conference System." Decision Sciences 28, no. 4 (1997). http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/730/paper/doe1.pdf (accessed January 6, 2013). "What's Your Box?." McCann Inter-generation Study 1 (2006): 2.