The Effects of Technology on Communication

Electric communication will never be a substitute for the face of someone who, with
their soul, encourages another person to be brave and true.
Charles Dickens

To communicate and to connect: communication and connection are two
aspects of life that we, as human beings, outwardly live by, survive by. Without
communication and connection, there would be no collective understanding of what
this that were all experiencing together really is; we would be disconnected from
reality on many levels. Communication, some argue, is what gives life shape. The
physical world will always exist regardless if we communicate it or not; however, it
is our communication that gives us an understanding of all that the physical world
consists of. A wall is a wall to us because of how we describe it, both to ourselves
and to each other. Likewise, a tree is a tree because of the ways in which we
communicate it and the ways we organize it into our realm of thought. The
communication, and therefore the connection, we hold with one another are so
important to gaining a better understanding of who we are as individuals, as well as
how we fit into the physical world around us. Without it, we would essentially be
lost, living lives with no true meaning and holding no true identity.

With communication and connection being so crucial to our understanding of
all that exists around us, as well as how we fit into the world, its baffling that there
are materials we have brought into existence that can both appeal to us and, as
many would argue, silence us at the same time. Nicholas Carr, American writer and
author of the article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?: What the Internet is Doing to Our
Brains, examines the, debatably, negative effects that self-created technologies
have on our brains. Retreating back to what many of us disassociate technology
with, the clock, Carr calls on his readers to consider its implications. While the clock
is a great tool, it has caused us to lose sense of our senses and to instead obey what
is external to us; for example, we now eat, sleep, work, rise, not according to when
2
our senses tell us our bodies are ready for those behaviors, but instead according to
what times become socially appropriate for each. This example of the clocks effects
on our daily lives is significant in examining technology as a wholeif technology as
simple as the clock encourages a certain form of living, what impact does
technology as complex as a cell phone or an iPad have on the ways in which we
live, communicate, and connect?

Simply distancing oneself from technology opens ones eyes to how prevalent
it has become in our livesso much, that it seems less us controlling technology
and more technology controlling us. My personal interest in this topic began the
spring semester of my freshman year (2011) here at James Madison University. I
was assigned in Dr. Eric Pappass GISAT 160 class on Problem Solving Approaches in
Science and Technology to spend three consecutive days without technology. The
three days that I had assumed would lead to the end of my social life (sarcasm
intended) actually ended up offering me a stronger one, as well as a newfound
appreciation for being in the moment. Essentially, after making it through the
assignment, I began noticing technology more, to the point of pure annoyance. When
I wasnt able to look down at my phone everywhere I went, it became blaringly
obvious how many of us do exactly that. If Nicholas Carrs assertions are correct, the
complex technologies we surround ourselves with minute in and minute out must
have some psychological effect on the ways we act and think.

Similar to his freshman-level class which sparked my initial interest in this
topic, Dr. Eric Pappass senior-level ISAT 480 class on Individual Sustainability
focuses on teaching students how to better connect with themselves as individuals
by disassociating with technology and practicing self-seeking activities. Assignments
include dating oneself (technology excluded), spending three consecutive days
without technology, practicing a four-step process towards more engaged listening,
etc. After doing well in Dr. Pappass GISAT 160 class, I was asked to be a teaching
assistant for him which, over the past two years, has given me the pleasure of sitting
in on enriching class discussions where deep talk about the effects of technology
3
exists. This has not only furthered my curiosity of technologys effects on
communication, it has also allowed me to learn through discussion and revelation.
New questions ascended to the surface: why have we become so attached to our
technologies? Why have our technologies suddenly become the primary means by
which we communicate? Why are we so afraid to face the reality outside of our
devices?

Sherry Turkle, Abby Rockefeller Mauz Professor of the Social Studies of
Science and Technology at MIT, and I share a strong interest in this topic. At the
TED2012 Conference held at the Monterey Conference Center in Long Beach,
California, she addresses in her talk titled, Connected, but Alone? how our
technological devices are redefining human connection and communication. Based
off of three decades of research, Turkle narrows what technology satisfies down to
three gratifying fantasies: we can put our attention wherever we want it to be, we
can always be heard, and we never have to be alone. These three fantasies, she
acknowledges, are all linked back to our fear of vulnerabilityour fear of intimacy
with others and in turn, our fear of being rejected. Technology appeals to us most
where we are most vulnerable, so we design more advanced technologies to create
the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship (Turkle).

Vulnerability, as Turkle touches on, is a largely acknowledged theme
connected to our dependency on technology. More and more research is being
conducted on this topic across many different fields of study, for the effects are of
great concern. The primary argument is not that technology is bad or detrimental to
mankind, although some theorists would argue it isit is instead that technology is
evolving too rapidly for us to understand it properly and to know how to use it in
ways that wont jeopardize our ability to communicate and connect with others
effectively. It is important that, in fully understanding the ways vulnerability relates
to our overuse of technology, we first become well educated in what vulnerability
actually means and from what it originates.

4
Similar to how people tend to describe heartbreak when asked about love,
when asked about connection, people tend to reminisce about disconnection
(Brown). Bren Brown, research professor at the University of Houston Graduate
College of Social Work, presents her findings regarding human connection at her
TED2010 talk titled, The Power of Vulnerability, in Houston, Texas. Through an
intensive six-year study involving thousands of pieces of data including interviews,
stories, and focus groups, she determines shame or the fear of disconnection to be
the ultimate barrier to human connection. Further investigating her qualitative
research, Brown finds that excruciating vulnerability underpins shame. This
means that fear of vulnerability is at the core of all issues associated with shame
(shame denoting Im not good enough), which includes issues dealing with
communication and connection.

Browns findings reveal why vulnerability is so essential to communication
and connection and why it is so important that we strive to make ourselves more
vulnerable. Worthiness, she finds, is absolutely crucial to creating and maintaining
deep relationships. In her talk, she states, People who have a strong sense of love
and belonging believe they are worthy of love and belonging. In essence, simply
believing one is worthy of anything will make one worthy. Brown finds that the
participants of her study with a very heightened sense of worthiness in common
display the courage to be imperfect, the compassion to be kind to themselves first
and then to others, the willingness to let go of who they think they should be in
order to be who they are, and the belief that what makes them vulnerable makes
them beautiful. She concludes her talk by saying that if these commonalities among
people with heightened senses of worthiness are practiced, including making
ourselves more vulnerable, we will feel more worthy of connection and in turn
become stronger, more connected individuals.

With the better understanding that Brown provides of the underlying
importance vulnerability plays in deeper relationships, it becomes clear that
Turkles theory of technology appealing heavily to those vulnerabilities is a big
5
issue. Technology is changing the ways in which we think about and even define
communication and connection. It used to be that communication and connection
could only exist within a definite spacenow, communication and connection can
exist wherever, whenever, and with whomever. By having the ability to
communicate and connect with those distant from us, its easy to assume that our
relationships with people would be enhanced because of the great barriers they
endure; however, the opposite seems to be happening. The more connected we are
to our technologies, the less we connect with those in our immediate presence. We
put reality on hold to live as we wish through technologyletting go of who we are
in order to present ourselves as we think we should be (exactly the opposite of what
Brown finds to be a characteristic of people with heightened senses of worthiness).

Everyday, I see my peers clinging to their technologies as if they were some
kind of life-sustaining devicethey joke about how if their devices suddenly
disappear, they would die. My sporadic, spur-of-the-moment questioning related to
technology that I have accumulated over the past two years working with Dr.
Pappas have recently combined to form the more focused question, Is technology
changing the ways in which we communicate? According to Carr, Turkle, and
Brown, as well as my own observations, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Change is
definitely happening. The responding question, I ask: How? How is technology
changing the ways in which we communicate and the ways in which we think about
communication? I cant help but wonder what overriding effects this behavior has
on our nature as human beings.

In my best attempt to better understand the how, I conducted two nominal
group studies on students in Dr. Pappass ISAT 480 class that I am a teaching
assistant for and students in Professor Karen McDonnells freshman-level GWRTC
103 class on Critical Reading and Writing the spring semester of my junior year
(2013). I thought it would be interesting to compare the study results of a senior-
level class that focuses on dissociating students from technology to a freshman-level
writing class where there is no clear focus on technology-use. The question posed in
6
both studies: Calling on your own experiences, observations, and beliefs, what in
your opinion is essential to a good conversation between two persons? In other
words, what must occur before, during, or after a conversation for it to be deemed
good? The vagueness of this question is both intentional and essential to the
research I was conducting, because it calls on the interpretation of good
conversation by the interviewee; for example, the interviewee could interpret a
good conversation as being one held through his or her phone, in person, on the
web, etc. I hypothesized before the study was carried out that the interviewees
interpretation of what a good conversation is in and of itself would provide a
separate, but equally important addition to the data collected. My hypothesis was
correct.

The data specific to both of the
nominal group studies yields surprising
and semi-disheartening results. To begin,
I created a chart that lists out all
responses vocalized by students in both
classes during the nominal group studies.
After analyzing what students labeled as
the three most essential parts of a good
conversation and the two least essential
parts, I put the data in an Excel sheet to
give it shape. Each column was labeled 5,
4, 3, 2, and 1, and each row was labeled
with all said responses. I then went
through the notecards from both classes,
tallied up the answers, and typed them into their appropriate boxes. Following that,
I labeled two columns positive and negative. The positive column counts up
answers 5, 4, and 3the answers that indicate traits of a good conversation. The
negative column counts up answers 2 and 1the answers that indicate what is least
15 Active Listening/Speaking from Both
7 Want for Conversation
6 Open-mindedness
4 Genuineness
3 No Awkward Pauses
3 Nonverbal Communication
2 Use Language Everyone Understands
2 Ask Questions
2 Personal, Emotional, Intellectual Discussion
2 Mutual Understanding of Conversation
2 Trust
2 Gained Understanding/Learning
1 Leaving a Lasting Impression
1 Equal Understanding When Leaving
1 Tone
1 Enough Time for Conversation
1 Opinion-Sharing
0 Good Balance
-1 Appropriate Environment for Conversation
-1 Calm/Willing to be in Conversation
-1 No Concern of Criticism
-4 Don't Use the Phone
-4 Use Constructive Criticism
-5 Sharing of Factual Information
-15 Firm Handshake
ABOVE: GWRTC 103 Nominal Group
Study Results
7
essential to a good conversation.
From there, I combined the two
columns in order to discover if
the response ranked more positive or
more negative; for example, comfort
has two votes for positive and one
vote for negative. Combined,
comfort rates +1, meaning it is seen
as a more positive aspect of
conversation, as shown to the left.

The product of organizing the
data according to which traits
students understand to be most
essential to a good conversation
compared to which traits students
understand to be least essential to
good conversation, really surprised me. According to the results of this study,
students believe that the choices in green are essential to a good conversation
choices like free expression of ideas without criticism, mutual engagement, and
open mindedness. The choices in white are neutral, meaning they have equal
responses from both sides, and the choices in red are negative, meaning more
students rated them least essential to a good conversation. The data in red is what
concerns me most, because many of the responses (for both classes, surprisingly)
indicate that a good conversation can happen over distance (and through
technology); for example, laughter ranked very highly as being unessential to a
good conversation.

The outcomes of these two studies not only highlight the research already in
existence, but also present a new way of looking at the topichow technology is
changing our perceptions of what communication actually is. Based on observation
11 Free Expression of Ideas Without Fear of Criticism
8 Mutual Engagement
7 Limited Distractions
5 Feeling Connected at the End
5 Open Mindedness
4 Knowing When to Speak and When to Listen
3 Genuine Interest in Thoughts of Other Person
3 Learning About Yourself or Others
3 Mutual Focus
3 Respect
2 Fulfillment
1 Comfort
1 Willing Participation
1 Good Flow/Pace
1 Continued Contemplation of Conversation
1 No Time Pressure
0 Vulnerability
0 Balanced Participation
0 No Criticism
0 Stimulating Topic
-1 In the Same Plane
-1 Asking Why
-1 Overall Tone
-1 Being Present
-1 Eye Contact
-2 Attitude Compatibility
-2 Length
-2 Feedback/Advice
-2 Follow Up
-5 Volume of Voice
-7 Laughter
-12 Planning of Conversation
ABOVE: ISAT 480 Nominal Group Study Results
8
of the education system, students are taught that the proper way to communicate is
by making good eye contact, having the appropriate tone of voice, speaking clearly,
etc. Similarly, students are told in and out of classes that the physical ways in which
individuals present themselves in professional interviews speak louder than their
actual qualifications. What does this mean? According to generations before my own
(again, based on observations of what is taught in schools and said to work well in
interviews), good, effective conversation has great emphasis placed on the physical
attributes of conversation; however, going back to the study that I conducted on
James Madison University students, the physical attributes were selected to be least
essential to a good conversation. Something significant has changed.

Prior to conducting the two nominal group studies, I hypothesized that the
results regarding students in Dr. Pappass ISAT 480 class would show that physical
attributes of conversation are necessary for good conversation to occur and that
the results regarding students in Professor McDonnells GWRTC 103 class would
have less emphasis placed on the importance of physical attributes to good
conversation. Essentially, I assumed that simple awareness of technological
prevalence in ones life would lead one to better control how much he or she relies
on his or her devices. I found instead that awareness has little to do with the
problem and thus cannot be of reliance when considering solutions. Why? As Carr
states, technology has the ability to rewire our brains, to make us act and think in
different ways. We have clearly progressed to a point where we have unconsciously
become victims of our technologies, not realizing that technology is taking away
what, fundamentally, makes us human and gives our lives purpose.

While my two studies only provide a new lens through which to look at what
other researchers have already discovered, I do believe that others discoveries, as
well as my own, could be united to form a more thorough, sensible theory. As
mentioned previously, a big theme related to our issues regarding communication
and connection is vulnerability. We have trouble revealing ourselves to others in
fear of rejection and disconnection. Since technology, as Turkle states, appeals to
9
our vulnerabilities, we flock towards itoppositely, since real, messy human
connection puts us in highly revealing situations that threaten our sense of self and
worthiness, we shy away from it. Technology gives us the feeling of companionship
without the threat of rejection and disconnection. This deranged relationship we
have formed with technology has caused what I understand to be a vicious cycle
one that will continue sucking us in until we have the courage to break free.

In a world with increasing emphasis placed on the outer-self through media
and advertisements, there is, understandably, something we find so appealing about
being able to change our image at the click of a button. The more prevalent
technology becomes in our lives, the more expectations we are presented with
through the media, and inevitably, the more pressure we feel to conform. This
increased pressure, I argue, is what makes us turn to our devices, our virtual
worldssometimes the only places we feel we can change ourselves and be
accepted. The more time we spend with technology, seemingly feeling connected,
wanted, understood, etc., the more disconnected we actually become with reality. I,
among many other researchers, including Turkle and Brown, find it in our nature as
human beings to fear vulnerability, rejection, and disconnection. In order to protect
our wellbeing, we must not fully reveal our individual selves to those we do not yet
trust. I argue, however, that technology makes our fear of vulnerability, rejection,
and disconnection more destructive, for it provides us with a way of hiding from our
fears rather than building ourselves up from them, as is ideal for self-growth.

There is no clear solution as to what needs to be done to solve this
increasingly severe problem we face regarding technology. Though determining if
the changes associated are for the best or the worst is debatable, communication is
unquestionably undergoing a transformation. It is becoming more about protecting
ones worthiness for connection as opposed to allowing oneself to open up to others
with the possibility of rejection and disconnection. Evidence suggests that the more
adapted we become to our devices, the more our devices become a part of our
lifestyle. This becomes dangerous when clinging to something so vital to connection
10
as communication. It is essential that we realize how communication is changing
due to technology and seriously consider if that change is one we think will lead us
to better ourselves and the world around us. I acknowledge that there is still a great
deal of research and work to be done on the topic; however, I find importance in
making the academic conversation one that connects ideas from all fields of study
and considers how communication is changing rather than if it is changing.





































11
Works Cited

Brown, Bren. The Power of Vulnerability. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading.
Texas Medical Center, Houston, TX. 11 June 2010. TEDHouston
Conference. Web. 12 Feb 2013.
Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making us Stupid?: What the Internet is Doing to Our
Brains. The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. 1 July 2008. Web. 5 April
2013.
Dickens, Charles. Electric Communication Quote. Brainy Quote. Brainy Quote. Web.
28 April 2013.
Galownia, Kelley. GWRTC 103 Nominal Group StudyWhat is Essential to a Good

Conversation? Nominal Group Study. 10 April 2013.

Galownia, Kelley. ISAT 480 Nominal Group StudyWhat is Essential to a Good
Conversation? Nominal Group Study. 1 April 2013.
Turkle, Sherry. Connected, but Alone? TED: Ideas Worth Spreading.
Monterey Conference Center, Long Beach, CA. 1 March 2012. TED2012
Conference. Web. 6 Feb 2013.