See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307946691

Perceptions of Mobile Instant Messaging Apps Are Comparable to Texting for

Young Adults in the United States

Article  in  Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · September 2016
DOI: 10.1177/1541931213601288

CITATIONS READS

16 2,948

4 authors, including:

Shannon K T Bailey Brad Schroeder

University of South Florida University of Central Florida
28 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daphne Whitmer
Instagram
25 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adaptive Training for Complex Decision Making View project

Adaptive Training for EW View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shannon K T Bailey on 30 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1235

Perceptions of Mobile Instant Messaging Apps Are Comparable to

Texting for Young Adults in the United States

Shannon K.T. Bailey, Bradford L. Schroeder, Daphne E. Whitmer, & Valerie K. Sims
University of Central Florida

In recent years, text messaging (“texting”) has become the dominant method of communication for young
adults. This prevalence of texting has led to research exploring the beneficial and detrimental behaviors
associated with texting, indicating wide-ranging social and human factors implications. As texting
continues to take precedence over other forms of communication and research begins to address texting
behaviors, the question arises about whether people use other mobile instant messaging applications (“IM
apps”) similarly. The current study expands on the research of texting behaviors by asking how similarly
young adults view apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) to texting. Results indicated that
young adults in the United States use texting more frequently than text-based apps, but that these apps are
viewed similarly to texting. The implication is that research addressing texting behaviors may apply to
other forms of text-based communication; however, texting remains the most prominent mode of
communication, justifying its own continued examination.

INTRODUCTION increase our understanding about mobile text-based

Text messaging (“texting”) is widely used in the United
States by young adults (approximately 18-24 years). Over the
past ten years, texting has become the preferred form of
communication over face-to-face talking, email, or phone
conversation in this demographic (Harley, Winn, Pemberton,
& Wilcox, 2007; Haste, 2005; Lister, 2010; Lenhart, Ling,
Campbell, & Purcell, 2010; Smith, Rainie, McGeeney, Keeter,
& Duggan, 2015). Because texting forms the basis of young
adult communication, researchers have begun to identify
texting behaviors as well as individual differences that may
predict whether a person engages in problematic texting
behaviors (e.g., texting… while driving, while in a meeting,
while in a face-to-face conversation, etc.). For example,
individuals who are more prone to sensation seeking are more
Copyright 2016 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931213601288
communications and can benefit future research.
How does texting differ from IM apps? Texting (Short
Messaging Service, or SMS) is integrated into the phone and
is frequently part of the cell phone plan (OFCOM, 2015),
whereas IM apps are often separately downloaded third-party
programs accessed through mobile internet. One benefit of
IM apps for text-based communication is that they are usually
free to download and can be accessed without a cell phone
plan if wireless internet is proximally available, so cost is a
factor influencing IM app use (Church & de Oliveira, 2013).
The increased use of apps may also be due to convenience
because several IM apps permit users to sync and access their
messages across multiple devices (e.g., mobile phone, tablet,
computer), which standard SMS texting does not allow. IM

apps also may allow for different functions not available in

likely to engage in unsafe behaviors, such as using a cell
phone while driving (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward,
& Watson, 2013; Schroeder & Sims, 2014). Problematic
texting behaviors also have been predicted by an individual’s
characteristics. Those who have a lower need for cognition
are more likely to text during social situations such as while
having a face-to-face conversation with someone else (Bailey,
Schroeder, & Sims, 2015). There is a growing area of
research on understanding texting behaviors as they impact
safety and social situations (Schroeder & Sims, 2014), yet
texting is not the only form of text-based mobile
communication.
A response to the recent research on texting behaviors is
whether these findings can be applied to other forms of mobile
text-based communication, such as instant messaging
applications (“IM apps”). IM apps are functionally similar to
texting in that they allow relatively short text communication
between people on mobile devices. If IM apps are used with
frequency and in a similar manner to texting, research
regarding texting behaviors may apply to an even greater
number of communication platforms as mobile internet use
continues to increase internationally (OFCOM, 2015).
Currently, research is sparse on how similarly texting and IM
apps are perceived and used. Adding to this literature will
text messaging, such as sending videos that may only be
viewed for a short duration and are then deleted (e.g.,
Snapchat). Although there has been recent speculation about
the longevity of texting in the midst of increasingly popular
IM apps (Gerpott, 2015), texting remains a dominant form of
communication in the United States for young adults (Smith et
al., 2015). Much of the research on IM apps is from other
countries that differ in texting and mobile internet usage
(Church & de Oliveira, 2013; Gerpott, 2015; OFCOM, 2015),
so it is unclear how these apps compare to texting in the
United States. The current study aims to address these
questions about IM app use and perception compared to
texting in a young adult sample from the U.S.
THE CURRENT RESEARCH
The Current Study
To determine the applicability of research on texting
behaviors to text-based mobile instant messaging apps, the
current study investigates to what degree people use IM apps
in comparison and concurrence with texting, and whether
these forms of communication differ in frequency of use.
Additionally, the current study expands on the research of
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1236

texting behaviors by asking how similarly people view IM
apps (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, etc.) to text
messaging.
The objective of this study is to provide information about
how young adults use mobile instant messaging apps in
addition to text messaging. Research on texting behaviors has
yet to address how similarly people use apps to communicate.
Further, this study will address the extent to which IM apps
and texting are related.
METHOD
Participants
One hundred ninety participants volunteered to complete
the questionnaires for class credit. Of the participants, 128
(67.4%) were female, 61 were male, and 1 participant
preferred not to respond. The ages of participants ranged from
18-55 years (M=21.29, SD=6.14). Seventy percent of the
participants described their ethnicity as White (Non-Hispanic),
14% described their ethnicity as Hispanic, 10% described their
ethnicity as African-American, 10% described their ethnicity
as Asian, 1% described their ethnicity as Pacific Islander, 1%
described their ethnicity as Arabian/Middle Eastern, 1%
described their ethnicity as Native American, 2% described
their ethnicity as “Other,” and 1% chose not to respond
(participants were able to select multiple options to more
accurately describe their ethnicity; percentages were rounded).
Every participant reported sending text messages (n=190),
and 89% reported texting “Often” or “Very Often.” Of these
participants, 99% reported having a smartphone (e.g., Apple
Escapist Texting – Texting to withdraw from social interaction
or new experiences, (3) Distracted Texting – Texting to
distract oneself from the current environment or task, (4)
Audacious Texting – Texting with disregard for social norms
that may be perceived as aggressive or disrespectful, (5)
Nurtured Communication Texting – Texting that fosters
relationships through kind or thoughtful behaviors, (6) Driving
– Texting that occurs in the context of vehicle operation.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from the university’s research
participation system. After reviewing an informed consent
form, participants completed the questionnaires and TBX
online. Class credit was awarded for participation. The
present analysis on use and perception of IM apps compared
to texting is a subset of a larger study.
RESULTS
Frequency of Use
Participants reported on a 6-point Likert scale (“Very
Often” to “Don’t know/Never heard of this”) using built-in
phone texting most frequently, followed most closely by
iMessage, Snapchat, and Facebook Messenger, while the
remaining IM apps were used much less frequently (Figure 1).
Frequency of Texting and IM App Use
Texting Very Often

More Often
iPhone, Android phone, Windows phone, Blackberry, etc.),
one participant did not respond, and only one participant iMessage
reported having a Non-smartphone (these participants were
excluded from the analyses regarding IM apps for Often
Snapchat
smartphones). The majority of participants reported having
cell phone plans that include unlimited texting (92.6%), Facebook
although only 32.1% of participants reported having unlimited Messenger
Sometimes
data phone plans. In accordance with the American WhatsApp
Psychological Association, participants were treated according
to ethical guidelines for empirical research. YikYak
Rarely
Materials Kik

Participants responded to a questionnaire that asked about Other

Never
frequency of use and perception of IM apps compared to
texting, along with demographic questions. These apps were Google
Hangouts
Less Often

selected for this study based on pilot feedback from

undergraduate research assistants. Whisper Don't know/
Texting Behaviors Index (TBX; Schroeder & Sims, 2016) Never heard
The TBX consists of 45 items that assess a wide range of WeChat of this
texting behaviors (e.g., “how often do you text …while
waiting in line,” “…while eating a meal with others,” “…to 0 100 200
makes someone jealous?”). Items were rated on a 6-point Frequency of Responses
scale to indicate the frequency of each texting habit, from
“Not Applicable” to “Very Often.” The TBX consists of six
Figure 1. The frequency of texting and using mobile instant
factors that were derived from factor analyses: (1) Social
messaging apps is shown such that those listed higher on the
Connection Texting – Texting to socially connect, such as with
y-axis are used more frequently.
daily communication or “generalized social texting,” (2)
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1237

Paired samples t-tests were used to test the extent to which Perceived Similarity to Texting
texting frequency differs from IM app use. The reported
frequency of texting (M=5.54, SD=0.83) was significantly Additionally, participants viewed iMessage and Facebook
greater than the frequency of use for each of the text-based Messenger most similarly to texting on a 5-point scale
communication apps (Table 1). (“Extremely similar to texting” to “Don’t know/Don’t use”).
The remaining apps were viewed less similarly to texting or
Table 1. Paired Sample T-tests Comparing Use of Texting to were not used by participants (Figure 2).
IM Apps
Compared to Texting Correlation among TBX Factors and App Use
App M SD Mdiff SDdiff tdf=188 d
Zero-order bivariate correlations were conducted between
Facebook responses to items on the TBX and responses to the items
4.20 1.32 1.34 1.46 12.69* 1.21 asking “Please rate how often you use the following
Messenger messaging methods to communicate with others…” (Table 2).
WhatsApp 2.40 1.39 3.14 1.57 27.50* 2.74 Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, a more
conservative cutoff value of p<.01 was used to report
Snapchat 4.62 1.57 0.92 1.71 7.35* 0.72 significant correlations. Frequency of each IM App use that
Google did not correlate with any factors on the TBX at p<.01 or less
1.90 0.93 3.64 1.21 41.26* 4.13 were not included in this subset of results. Results showed
Hangouts that frequency of Snapchat use was related to Social
Kik 2.23 1.01 3.31 1.30 34.94* 3.58 Connection Texting, Escapist Texting, Distracted Texting, and
b Audacious Texting. More frequent use of iMessage was
WeChat 1.42 0.57 4.11 0.98 57.41* 5.76 related to Social Connection Texting and Escapist Texting.
iMessage 4.84 1.76 0.70 1.99 4.83* 0.52 YikYak use also was related to Escapist Texting.
YikYak 2.37 1.17 3.18 1.43 30.49* 3.14 Table 2. Correlations between Factors on the TBX and
Whispera 1.60 0.64 3.94 1.02 53.01* 5.33 Frequency of Texting and App Use
Note. d=Cohen’s d; *p<.01 (two-tailed); a df=187; b df=185 Correlations
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Perceived Similarity of IM Apps to Texting
r .171 .093 .107 .118 .099 .097
Texting
p .019 .211 .148 .108 .175 .186
iMessage (SMS)
More Similar

Extremely n 187 183 185 187 188 189

Facebook similar to r .305 *
.501 *
.294 *
.192 *
.142 .174
Messenger texting
Snapchat p .001 .001 .001 .008 .051 .016
Snapchat Similar to n 188 184 186 188 189 190
texting r .197 *
.246 *
.111 .079 .107 .180
Kik
iMessage p .007 .001 .132 .279 .143 .013
Different n 188 184 186 188 189 190
WhatsApp
from texting r .133 .223 *
.126 .038 .063 .066
Google
YikYak p .068 .002 .087 .608 .391 .369
Hangouts
Completely n 188 184 186 188 189 190
YikYak different Note. *p<.01 (two-tailed); Factors on the TBX: (F1) Social
from texting
Less Similar

Connection Texting (F2) Escapist Texting (F3) Distracted

WeChat Texting (F4) Audacious Texting (F5) Nurtured
Don't Communication Texting (F6) Driving.
know/Don't
Whisper Use DISCUSSION
0 100 200
The current study examined the extent to which research
Frequency of Responses on texting behaviors may apply to IM apps by investigating
whether apps are used and perceived similarly to text
Figure 2. This figure depicts the perceived similarity of mobile messaging. Results indicated that texting is still the most
instant messaging apps to texting. Apps that are listed higher prevalent form of text-based communication for young adults
on y-axis are perceived as more similar to texting. in the United States, but IM apps are also used with high
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting
frequency, such as iMessage, Snapchat, and Facebook
Messenger. Although previous research has noted that the
cost of texting may entice people to use IM apps instead of
texting (Church & de Oliveira, 2013), almost 93% of people in
the current sample reported having unlimited texting as part of
their phone plan, implying cost is not a determining factor for
IM app use in this group. One explanation may come from
interviews conducted by Church and de Oliveira (2013) who
found that texting was often viewed as more reliable than
certain apps, because it is a paid service. However, these
qualitative reports were conducted in a non-U.S. sample, and
may not be generalizable to the current study.
Some IM apps also are perceived as similar to texting,
particularly those used very frequently (e.g., iMessage,
Facebook Messenger, and Snapchat). These results suggest
that IM apps may be relevant in research on texting behaviors,
yet texting remains a platform of interest. The results of this
study confirm that although texting apps are gaining
popularity in the United States, the dominant text-based
communication platform for young adults is still text
messaging (Smith et al., 2015), and communication research
should keep texting under consideration.
Additionally, texting behaviors as measured by the TBX
also may be applicable to certain types of communication apps
as indicated by the results from the correlation analysis. In
particular, frequency of Snapchat use was related to Social
Connection Texting, Escapist Texting, Distracted Texting, and
Audacious Texting. More frequent use of iMessage was
related to Social Connection Texting and Escapist Texting.
YikYak use also was related to Escapist Texting. These apps
seem to be related to behaviors that either foster social
connection or mental escape from one’s current task or present
environment. Although the features of these three apps differ,
they seem to have in common fostering social communication
or being used to mentally escape: iMessage is the most
similar in look and function to texting, mainly being used to
send short text communication between people. Snapchat
allows users to send others text-based messages, pictures, or
videos, along with the ability to share these pictures or videos
with everyone on their network for a certain period of time.
YikYak is used mostly for anonymous posting of text-based
messages, which differs from the direct messaging functions
of iMessage or Snapchat. More research is needed to
understand these links between texting behaviors and specific
popular apps. Because iMessage and Snapchat were among
the most frequently used apps next to texting, these may be of
particular interest in future research expanding on how texting
behaviors correspond with IM apps.
LIMITATIONS
A limitation of addressing mobile app use and perceived
similarity to texting is that apps change and new apps are
introduced quickly. The apps chosen for this study were based
on popular apps at the time of the study to address questions
arising from our previous research on texting behavior
(Bailey, Schroeder, & Sims, 2015; Schroeder & Sims, 2014);
however, the current results are informative on the prevalence
1238
of texting regardless of presently available text-based mobile
IM apps.
Further limitations include sampling from an
undergraduate university population of young adults. Texting
is prevalent in this population, but other demographics could
be sampled in future research to understand how others use
texting and IM apps. Another limitation is that responses were
self-reported, and participants may not report accurate amount
of use or truthful perception of apps, particularly if they think
responses may be socially undesirable; however, the questions
were presented to participants via computer, so honesty of
self-reported answers may not be of great concern (Feigelson
& Dwight, 2000).
CONCLUSION
The current study aimed at addressing how applicable
texting research is to IM apps by first determining if the
frequency of use is similar and then whether IM apps are
perceived similarly to texting. There was a perceived
similarity between texting and certain apps (e.g., iMessage,
Facebook Messenger) in addition to frequent use of some apps
(e.g., iMessage, Facebook Messenger, Snapchat). The
implication from the results is that research addressing texting
behaviors may apply to other forms of text-based
communication; yet, texting remains the most pervasive mode
of communication, warranting its own continued examination.
REFERENCES
Bailey, S.K.T., Schroeder, B.L., & Sims, V.K. (2015). Unsafe
texting and socially problematic texting: Need for
cognition as an underlying predictor. In Proceedings of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, 59, 971-975.
Church, K., & de Oliveira, R. (2013). What’s up with
WhatsApp? Comparing mobile instant messaging
behaviors with traditional SMS. In Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 15, 352-
361.
Feigelson, M.E., & Dwight, S.A. (2000). Can asking questions
by computer improve the candidness of responding? A
meta-analytic perspective. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 52(4), 248-255.
Gerpott, T.J. (2015). SMS use intensity changes in the age of
ubiquitous mobile Internet access – a two-level
investigation of residential mobile communications
customers in Germany. Telematics and Informatics, 32,
809-822.
Harley, D., Winn, S., Pemberton, S., & Wilcox, P. (2007).
Using texting to support students' transition to university.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
44(3), 229-241.
Haste, H. (2005). Joined-up texting: Mobile phones and young
people. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for
Responsible Marketers, 6(3), 56-67.
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010).
Teens and mobile phones: Text messaging explodes as
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1239

teens embrace it as the centerpiece of their

communication strategies with friends. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-
Phones.aspx
Lister, K.M. (2010). Compulsive text messaging: Do youth
need to kick the habit? (Dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=bgsu12769158
35
OFCOM, 2015. International Communications Market Report
2015. Office of Communications, London. Retrieved
from
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/c
mr15/icmr15/icmr_2015.pdf
Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Medeiros-Ward, N., &
Watson, J.M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-
tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability,
impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLOS ONE, 8(1), 1-8.
Schroeder, B.L. & Sims, V.K. (2014). Texting behind the
wheel and beyond: A look at problematic habits. In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society Annual Meeting, 58, 1376-1380
Schroeder, B.L. & Sims, V.K. (2016). Texting as a
multidimensional behavior: Individual differences and
measurement of texting behaviors. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Smith, A., Rainie, L., McGeeney, K., Keeter, S., & Duggan,
M. (2015). US smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research
Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-
smartphone-use-in-2015/

View publication stats