MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1535372941 · doi:10.18438/b82s56

Post-Secondary Students Prefer IM to Email for Personal and Social Communication

2008· article· en· W1535372941 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueDigital Communication and Language
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFeelingPsychologyLikert scaleSocial mediaComprehensionComputer scienceSocial psychologyWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A review of:
 Lancaster, Sean, David C. Yen, Albert H. Huang, and Shin-Yuan Hung. “The Selection of Instant Messaging or E-mail: College Students’ Perspective for Computer Communication.” Information Management & Computer Security 15.1 (2007): 5-22.
 
 Objective – This study investigates college students’ perceptions of instant messaging (IM) and e-mail for conveying emotions, aiding in relationship building, ease of use, and reliability.
 
 Design – A survey consisting of 59 questions was administered to 1,000 college students, resulting in 545 usable responses.
 
 Setting – The research took place at a midwestern university in the United States.
 
 Subjects – 1,000 Management Information Systems (MIS) college students.
 
 Methods – A 59-question survey was distributed to 1,000 MIS students during the 2005 academic year. 545 usable responses were returned. Participation was voluntary. During the pre-phase of the research, four categories were determined: emotion, relationship, usage, and reliability. Questions were then written for a pilot study using Likert scaling. The post-research phase involved evaluating the questions linguistically to ensure proper word usage, comprehension, and lack of bias.
 
 Main Results – The questions in the section on conveying emotion dealt with how well the two technologies (e-mail and IM) communicated feelings and emotions. While both technologies were acknowledged as being able to communicate more than merely text, IM was clearly preferred for expressing emotion. Fifty-two percent of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they used emoticons (originally symbols created with letters and special characters; later evolving into graphical images produced and made available by IM companies) to express emotion in IM, while fewer than 11% agreed or strongly agreed that they did so in e-mail. More than 70% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that their friends used emoticons in IM, while fewer than 14% strongly agreed or agreed that their friends used emoticons in e-mails. More than 75% of respondents agreed that it is easier to convey emotions in IM than via e-mail. 
 
 Analysis on the questions that dealt with the technologies as useful relationship builders again showed a preference for IM. IM was preferred by a greater number of respondents for fostering friendships, improving relationships with friends or team members, building relationships, social interaction, and social networking. This section also found that more than 75% of the respondents felt that IM was more useful than e-mail when interacting with friends. However, when asked about interacting with co-workers specifically, only 44% were in agreement. Nearly 32% were neutral on this point, while 24% were in disagreement. It appears that IM is preferred over e-mail for fostering social and friendly relationships, but is not preferred when the interaction is work-related and more professional.
 
 In terms of use, both technologies were considered easy to learn and use by more than 90% of respondents. In terms of preferred use, more than 60% of respondents use IM for personal and social interaction, while less than 1% uses IM for work-related activities. Nearly 80% of respondents preferred using e-mail for work, and nearly 75% preferred using IM for social interaction. Sixty-three percent of respondents did not agree that IM is just as effective as face-to-face meetings, while nearly 75% did not agree that e-mail can be as effective as meeting face-to-face.
 
 In the areas of reliability, security, and privacy of IM and e-mail, respondents perceived e-mail more favourably. Sixty-four percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that IM is very reliable, while 80% of respondents felt the same way about e-mail. Just over 30% of those questioned agreed that IM is very secure, while more than 50% felt that way about e-mail. However, the gap is narrower when users were queried as to whether or not they worry about security: 13% strongly agreed with the statement that users do not worry about their security when using IM, while 15% strongly agreed with the statement as it pertained to e-mail. The same types of questions were asked about perceived privacy. Nearly 50% agreed that their privacy is protected with e-mail, while just under 35% had the same belief about IM. More than 60% of respondents reported that they do not worry about privacy when e-mailing, while about 53% of respondents do not worry about privacy with IM.
 
 Conclusion – IM was perceived more favourably than e-mail in 3 of the 4 categories: conveying emotions, building relationships, and ease of use. In the reliability category, e-mail was perceived more favourably. However, there is a division between social interaction and professional communication. IM is preferred for personal and social relationships, while e-mail is preferred for work-related communication. Neither of the technologies is as desirable as face-to-face meetings.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,915
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,853

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,159
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle