Alsop 1

Kyle Alsop
Adam Padgett
English 102
22 November, 2016

Technologys Effect on Communication: Ruining Societies Ability to Have Interpersonal

Conversations

Commented [PA1]: This needs to be possessive.

Through recent years there has been a massive shift in the way people go about
communicating with one another the arrival of newer technologies such as smartphones, social
media, etc. have opened a door to a new way of communication: digital communication. Digital
communication is now the number one option people use when wanting to communicate with
other people; with this becoming the top choice people are becoming more distant, hostile, and
are losing grasp of what real face to face communication is and how to do it thus removing
people from physical real aspects of life in society. Digital communication is pulling people

Commented [PA2]: I do like that you are making a claim

here, but you are going to need to show evidence that this
is the case.

farther and farther away from the physical world, as Mark Glaser said in an articlewrote The
idea of being present in the moment is disappearing faster than you can say, Hey, Ive got to
take this call. We devalue our current situation, the friends and family around us, our
surroundings and setting, for something going on somewhere else. Digital communication is
dragging people away from physical interactions; people choose to type away behind a screen in
the comfort of their own home rather than get out and speak and interact with people, forever
changing the way humans communicate.
In recent years, there has been an immense shift in the way people communicate with
each other. People now can be in almost constant contact with each other through the Internet,
cell phones, and other technological devices. The current population of young people have had

Commented [PA3]: Youll have to explain what the

present moment means.

Alsop 2

the luxury of growing up with technology that allow them to talk to one another without being
face-to-face (Ceulemans 11). Digital communication allows for a very limited way of
communication; it allows people to type away at a keyboard and the recipient of this message to
read words off a screen. What digital communication lacks is the physical aspects of face-to-face
communication the recipient cannot see the senders body language, facial expression, tone, and

Commented [PA4]: What about Facetime or Skype?

other emotional indicators displayed through face-to-face communication. As adolescents

transition to adulthood they are lacking the in-person communication skills (Ceulemans 12).
Technology is on infinite incline; the use of technology will only go up in the future. With the
continuous advancements in technology comes more digital communication as these go hand in
hand, causing face-to-face communication skills to diminish. It may soon become increasingly

Commented [PA5]: Why is face-to-face so valuable?

difficult for people to pick up on the meaning of body language and facial expressions
(Ceulemans 26). With the continual usage of technology to communicate it will have an
immense negative effect on communication skills, but the effect will be greatest in the up and
coming generation of adults. It will be a generation of socially awkward individuals when having
to deal with one another face-to-face as digital communication may lead to people having

Commented [PA6]: How do you know it will make them

socially awkward? is this happening? Are you just
conjecturing?

difficulty expressing emotion, social anxiety, and effectively communicating.

Digital communication allows for faceless communication it replaces a face of the
person being communicated with to a screen with a name. This can have a profound effect on
individuals well-being as seen in recent years especially in adolescents there has been in
increase in hostility and exclusionary behavior (Kazmeyer). Forth three percent of kids have
reported they have suffered online bullying, with twenty five percent admitting they have been
bullied on more than one occasion. With there being just a name on the screen and not an actual
person it makes it easier for people to be mean, cruel, etc. (Not only does digital communication

Commented [PA7]: Forty-three?

Alsop 3

allow for this unjustifiable behavior), giving people a feeling of false hope. Milton Kazmeyer in

Commented [PA8]: This parenthetical is strange. Seems

like an incomplete thought.

an article says Social networks sometimes replace a small number of strong social connections
with a larger number of much shallower connections, leading to situations where a user may
have large numbers of friends but few real-world companions. This can lead to a feeling of
loneliness and depression in adolescents and even adults, per an article by Jessica Oilen, polling
suggests the number of adults who describe themselves as lonely has doubled since 1980, and
that spending more time online with social networks have an adverse effect on a users happiness
level. In a Homenet Study by Kraut et al., the researchers found that longer use of the internet
was related to increased depression, loneliness, and smaller social circles. This suggest that
Internet use isolates individuals from their friends and family, and has a negative impact on ones
psychological well-being (Ahn 1441). Although facts and research all point towards social
networking and the internet negatively effecting the wellbeing of people, they continue to use it.
The number of people joining social media rises every day, the percent of Americans using
social media has jumped from 48 percent in 2010 to 56 percent as last year reports by Jay Baer.
With the percent on a steady incline people technology/digital communication continues to
threaten the future of society, already affecting todays society immensely as seen in the shift in
adolescents becoming more hostile and demonstrating exclusionary behavior. Not only is digital
communication affecting the personal wellbeing of individuals it is affecting the quality of the
way people communicate.
In society, today there is now a Communication effectivity gap per Donovan
McFarlane, stemming from increased social and intercultural conflicts. The time spent in social
interaction, is a vital part of the communication process and has decreased dramatically in all
settings ranging from school, work, and even at home (McFarlane 2). As seen throughout the

Commented [PA9]: This is interesting.

Alsop 4

world there are always inventions that make a task quicker. The world is built around efficiency
with the inventions of cell phones, internet, etc., all types of digital communication have played
into the new shift towards efficiency. Granted, efficiency is a part of communication. Society has
leaned to use of efficient communication over effective communication, effective
communication as defined by McFarlane Is communication that requires effort, skill, and
careful construction which takes time and require individuals to invest in processes such as
listening, enunciation, proper pronunciation, appropriate effortful grammatical construction,

Commented [PA10]: First, this sentence reads really funny,

but I think I know what you are saying. Second, do you think
that texting or tweeting or blogging does not require skill
and/or cannot be effective? Im not so sure we can take
what McFarlane is saying wholesale, applying to
written/digital forms of communication.

repetition, reflection, and feedback. Digital communication is luring people in to only use the
efficiency side of communication, with it being so quick and easy to send an email or text people
are choosing efficiency over effectiveness in ways they communicate. People are looking past
having proper meaningful conversations to increase the rate at which they communication. This
although helpful in the business world says Miranda Morley, it is also more distracting. Morley
says Instant communication can make it harder for workers to deal with one task at a time when
their work is constantly being interrupted.. Quick and effective communication tools used

Commented [PA11]: However, there could be something

to be said about the limitations of skill and instant digital
communication, where there is a lack of an editorial
process.

throughout the business world that are theoretically making work faster can do the opposite, by
posing as constant distraction. On top of being distracting, quick and effective communication
leads to people detouring correctness in form and compromising quality in the means in which
they communicate (McFarlane 6). When individuals allow technology to absorb the human
element in communication, misusing technology and affecting their own personal growth and
development and those of their dialogical counterparts (McFarlane 7). Digital communication is
making people resort to quick solution, stunting the ability to think abstractly and outside of the
box taking away from the effectiveness of communication between individuals. With the rising

Commented [PA12]: Can you more clearly define the

human element

Alsop 5

use of digital communication making it easier to communicate comes a decline in the

sophistication of society, leading to a future of less educated individuals.
Adolescents are the population that has the greatest chance of being negatively affected
by digital communication, as seen by the graph below (Fig.1)

Fig. 1 Daily ways teens communicate with friends (2011). Pew Research
The information being provided by Pew Research Center and Amanda Lenhart, face-to-face
communication ranks 3rd just barely beating out social media as instant messaging ranks second
and texting leading the pack as ways teens communicate daily. This shows the shift that digital
communication is taking over, almost making face-to-face communication become obsolete in
the daily lives of adolescents. In a survey done by researcher John Drussell it was found that
texting is the new way of communicating. A question asked: I carry on conversations over text
rather than talking to people, with 64% agreeing. Another question was: I text people who are in

Commented [PA13]: I feel like you are largely summarizing

the sources, not getting a sense of your voice and your
specific thesis.

Alsop 6

the same place as me rather than talking, with 50% agreeing. Drussell s conclusion to these
findings were that the majority of respondents agreed they relied on texting and Facebook too
much... (Drussell 37). A different survey completed by Heidi Hemmer found, text messaging is
new technology and in the past all new technology has displaced face-to-face communication
(Hemmer 13). With text messaging emerging as the number one choice of communication in
teens, this poses a threat to them later in life. As previously mentioned referencing Pauline
Ceulemans digital communication does not allow the conversation to carry in physical attributes
such as body, language, facial expressions, vocal tone, and other emotional indicators
(Ceulemans 12). This is also supported by Erin Waltz, a psychologist that was interviewed by
fox news. Waltz said in the interview When teens text they cannot read facial expressions or
hear pauses when speaking, without understanding the visual ques it will affect teens later in life
communicating with family, friends, and even in the work place. Texting is a very dry form of
communicating, granted there are exclamation marks, emojis that attempt to show the senders
facial expressions over text with animated faces, etc. that try to express peoples emotion. This
does not come universally close to emotions being exchanged in face-to-face communication and
with texting and instant messaging being the two ways adolescents communicate daily it is not
allowing them to grasp real, physical emotions. Some forms of digital communication such as
skype or facetime try to incorporate face-to-face elements of communication more than texting,
but lack vital ones almost as much as texting away behind a screen.
The closest thing digital communication has achieved of being related closely to face-toface communication is apps such as Skype and Facetime. Allowing the user to talk but also have
a video feed, allowing it to be very close to a real face-to-face conversation. In the book The
Carolina Rhetoric, there is a short story by Caitlin Dewey as she explains her relationship with

Commented [PA14]: I would suggest finding peer-reviewed

research by this person as opposed to citing a Fox News
interview.

Alsop 7

her boyfriend through skype. Dewey describes skype as Ive read that 90 percent of human
communication is nonverbal. Skype captures that 90 percent on a low-resolution video camera,
compresses it, funnels it to a node computer and reproduces it on a screen anywhere in the
world (Dewey 520) Dewey and her boyfriend Will, reached the conclusion to see each other
and spend time in person after skyping for months. Dewey recalls the first night In real life,
Will started off at nothing while I talked. In real life, he had no questions ., also read his emails while we waited for our food (Dewey 520). As seen through Deweys first person
experience, no matter how close digital communication gets to real, face-to-face communication
it will never be quite the same. Deweys, repeated use of in real-life, as if skype wasnt reallife. Digital communication cannot represent real-life experiences and face-to-face
communication, as seen in Deweys case. Although the couple could talk for hours over skype
when put in a real-life situation technology absorbed the counterpart, technology draws people
away from real-life as they sit and look at a screen while they let life go by. Video chatting is the
closest form of digital communication to a real-life conversation and this still fails to produce the
feeling of being in someones presence. No matter what form of communication is done through
technology it will never come close to a real conversation, continuing individuals lack of the
ability to pick up on physical cues of communication.
The usage of digital communication is on a sleep acceleration, individuals continue to use
it more and more everyday. But was it always like this? A study in 2006 released data that says
otherwise (see Fig. 2)

Commented [PA15]: I feel like you still need to be clearer

about what you mean by this. Are you talking about people
who exclusively communicate through text-based forms?
How much digital, textual communication are you talking
about here? I need to know a bit more.

Alsop 8

Percent Rejected by Population surveyed

84.2

78.6
67.5

68.5

52.2

Send and
Receive Text
Messages

48.4

Send and
Receive Instant
Messages

Send and
Receive Email

Watch Video or Search features;

TV Programs Weather, stocks,
etc

Driving
Directions

Fig 2. 2006 survey of abilities of cell phones. Data Source Pew Research
The data collect by Pewresearch.org shows that in 2006 before the smartphone boom that began
in 2007-2008, people didnt want all these accessories and applications that now come with
smartphones. An astonishing 52.2% of people surveyed did not want to their cell phone to gain
the ability of texting, now with recent advancements in technology almost every cell phone can
text and people use this way of communicating rather than calling. With cellphones transforming
into information machines, it has users so caught up. Matt Richtel in The Carolina Rhetoric, talks
about society being hooked on technology. Millions of people daily have urges to be obsessed
and always on regarding technology, this cuts on creativity and deep thought, interrupting work
and family life as well (Richtel 481). Throughout the text Richtel uses many different examples
of individuals whose lives are being consumed by technology, Richtel mentions a opinion of one
Mr. Nass as he thinks the ultimate risk of heavy technology use is that it diminishes empathy by
limiting how much people engage with one another in the same room (Richtel 488). Mr. Nass
also said The way we become more human is by paying attention to each other he said It

Commented [PA16]: This is really interesting data here,

but youre not putting these pieces together for me. Can
you make a little more sense out of the idea that 52% of
people surveyed said they didnt want texting? What about
a more contemporary poll? What might this say about us,
the future and our relationships to our phones? Should we
just stop fighting and accept it? Connect the Richtel piece
and this data a little more clearly.

Alsop 9

shows how much you care. as a society we are at a pivitol point with technology, we can either
let it consume us daily taking away from the physical human aspects of life or there can be an
attempt to decrease the amount of time spent on technology and the amount we communicate
through it. If this attempt is not made there will be a future of indiviuals that are so hooked and
obsessed with technology and ways to communiate through it face to face communicate can
become obsolete.
Digital communication is effecting society heavily in a negative way, it is pulling people
away from real physical life. Individuals are now trending to use digital communication over a
face-to-face conversation, people are becoming lost due to the ways the use technology so
heavily. With this trend individuals are losing necessary skills in communication, becoming
more distant, and hostile, and are letting life pass while they give every second of their free time
glued to technology. Face-to-face communication has lost its popularity in recent years, people
are resorting to the easy quick way of communicating. If this trend continues society will be a
much more distant, socially awkward, and uneducated; so please put the phones down and go
talk to someone like your grandparents would when they were your age and have the future of
society from the curse of digital communication.
Kyle,
The breadth and scope of your topic is impressive, and I think you've done a good job walking
your audience through the complicated network of research you've compiled here. While I get a
general sense of your thesis, or what you generally want to argue and talk about, I don't have a
strong sense of what specific thesis ties this whole thing together. In other words, I need a bit
more focus here. Each paragraph should be pointing back to one specific thesis, and the entire
paper should maintain that level of focus. As I read, I get a little lost for a sense of purpose. But

Alsop 10

the research youve compiled here is compelling. (also, lots of typos here; proof read a bit
closer).

Work Citied
Ahn, June. "The Effect of Social Network Sites on Adolescents' Social and Academic
Development: Current Theories and Controversies." Wiley Online Library. Wiley Online
Library, 26 Apr. 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.
Baer, Jay. "Shocking New Social Media Statistics in America." Convince & Convert. N.p., 2013.
Web. 03 Nov. 2016. <http://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-research/11shocking-new-social-media-statistics-in-america/>
Ceulemans, Pauline W. "The Impact of Technology on Social Behavior." The Impact of
Technology on Social Behavior (2012): 1-32. University of Wisconsin-Stout, 12 Dec.
2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.
Dewey, Cailtin. "Even in Real Life There Were Screens between Us." The Carolina Rhetoric.
N.p.: Lee Bauknight and Trevor C. Meyer, 2016. 518-21. Print
Drussell, John, "Social Networking and Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Resolution
Skills among College Freshmen" (2012). Master of Social Work Clinical Research
Papers.Paper 21. Web. 18 Oct. 016

Alsop 11

Glaser, Mark. "How Cell Phones Are Killing Face-to-Face Interactions - MediaShift."
MediaShift. N.p., 19 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2016. <http://mediashift.org/2007/10/howcell-phones-are-killing-face-to-face-interactions295/>
Hemmer, Heidi. "Impact of Text Messaging on Communication." Cornerstone Journal of
Undergraduate Research. Cornerstone, 2009. Web. 9 Nov. 2016.
How Technology Is Affecting Kids Socially and Academically." WPMT FOX43. N.p., 03 Feb.
2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2016. <Http://www.facebook.com/fox43news.>
Kazmeyer, By Milton. "Negative Effects of Technology on Communication | Techwalla.com."
Techwalla. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2016.
Lee, Yu-Kang, Chun-Tuan Chang, You Lin, and Zhao-Hong Cheng. "The Dark Side of
Smartphone Usage: Psychological Traits, Compulsive Behavior and Technostress." The
Dark Side of Smartphone Usage: Psychological Traits, Compulsive Behavior and
Technostress. National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan, 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 22 Nov.
2016. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321300397X>
Lenhart, Amanda. "Teens, Technology and Friendships." Pew Research Center Internet Science
Tech RSS. N.p., 06 Aug. 2015. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.
McFarlane, Donovan A. "Social Communication in a Technology-Driven Society: A
Philosophical Exploration of Factor-Impacts and Consequences." Social Communication
in a Technology-Driven Society: A Philosophical Exploration of Factor-Impacts and
Consequences 12 (2012): 1-14. Frederick Taylor University, 2010. Web. 18 Oct.
2016.Ceulemans, Pauline. The Impact of Technology on Social Behavior (2012): 1-32.
University of Wisconsin-Stout, 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2016

Alsop 12

Morley, Miranda. "Effects of Technology on Business Communications." Effects of Technology

on Business Communications | Chron.com. N.p., 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.
<http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effects-technology-business-communications23045.html>
Olien, Jessica. "Loneliness Can Kill You. Dont Let It." Slate Magazine. N.p., 23 Aug. 2013.
Web. 22 Nov. 2016.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/08/dangers_
of_loneliness_social_isolation_is_deadlier_than_obesity.html>
Richtel, Matt. Hooked on Technology and paying the price. The Carolina Rhetoric. N.p.: Lee
Bauknight and Trevor C. Meyer, 2016. 481-88. Print