Group 2 Final

Running head: SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
The effect smartphones have on accelerating the development of romantic relationships
Allison Wong, Haley OBrien, Charlie Grant, and Kevin Connor
Loras College
SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................................................3
Introduction.5
Literature Review....8
Discussion of Methods..29
Analysis of Results....33
Summary...83
Limitations of the Study....85
Recommendations for Further Study.88
Conclusion.91
References.96
Appendices..102
Abstract
In this study, the researchers were interested in the topic of smartphones and the effect
the devices have on romantic relationships. Smartphones are interlaced into college students
everyday lives, and one would assume that this connectivity impacts their romantic relationships.
The researchers were specifically interested in how smartphone usage accelerates the
development of romantic relationships. So, the researchers developed a research question
asking, Which features of the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic
relationships? To search for evidence to answer this question, the researchers developed a
questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 141 students at a small, liberal arts college in
the Midwest.
Introduction
In this study a group of researchers sought to find out how the applications on a
smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships. According the English Oxford
Living Dictionaries, a smartphone is, a mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a
computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system
capable of running downloaded apps (para. 1). Smartphone popularity began in 2007 after
Apple released their first iPhone, (Trowbridge, 2014). Google unveiled their Android just a year
later, (Trowbridge, 2014). With this new form of technology that allows people to communicate
more often than ever before, communication within romantic relationships must be studied
further. One can text, voice call, and video call on a smartphone. One can also download
applications to connect and communicate further. In this particular study, the applications that
the researchers focused on studying were Facebook and Snapchat, along with text messaging,
phone calling, and video calling. The purpose of this study was to find out what applications of
the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships among college students at a
small, liberal arts college in the Midwest.
This topic merits research because the way people have communicated in romantic
relationships has changed over time. The way people begin relationships has also changed over
time. The invention of the smartphone and the applications one can use on it further complicated
how one can understand communication within a relationship and the beginning stages of that
relationship. This group of social scientists conducted research by distributing a questionnaire to
141 students. These researchers asked questions that aimed to find out how the applications on a
smartphone were used in the developmental stages of ones own romantic relationship. In order
to obtain a better understanding of modern communication within romantic relationships, the
researchers developed a research question: Which features of the smartphone accelerate the
development of romantic relationships? The researchers hypothesized: Smartphones accelerate

the development of romantic relationships.
Literature Review
Communication within romantic relationships is a topic that has been studied over and
over again by social scientists. The topic has only been made more complicated by the creation
of the cell phone. The first cell phone call was placed in 1973 by Cooper, then an employee of
Motorola, (Trowbridge, 2014). Ten years later, the first commercial cell phone was sold in
stores: the Motorola DynaTAC, which weighed 30 ounces, (Trowbridge, 2014). Throughout the
1990s, the cell phone continued to change and grow in popularity. In 1992, the first text message
was sent and received, and the first cell phone with a built-in camera was released in the year
2000 in Japan, (Trowbridge, 2014). While the device itself was changing and becoming more
sophisticated, so was the infrastructure. Networks grew from 1G, to 2G, to 3G, (Trowbridge,
2014). Then, in 2007, Apple released the first iPhone, and Google soon followed, unveiling their
Android just a year later, (Trowbridge, 2014). With the release of these devices, the age of
smartphones began. According the English Oxford Living Dictionaries, a smartphone is, a
mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen
interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded apps (para.
1).
Smartphones are now interlaced with young adults everyday lives that face-to-face
interaction seems barely relevant to the under 35 cohort of today, (Pettegrew & Day, 2015). The
capabilities of smartphones are wide ranging. The customizability, usability, and integration of
smartphones has had a huge effect on human communication. More than any other technology,
smartphones are at the forefront of technological convergence. Combining features of traditional
mobile phones, personal computers, and the web, smartphones hybridize not only technologies
and platforms but also user's own practices, habits, and modes of accessing media with
implications for personal communication, (Madianou, 2014).
10
Since the release of the smartphone, social scientists have explored how this device
changes the dynamics and development of romantic relationships. One can understand how
relationships are developed through Knapps (1978) relational development theory. It states that
relationships begin by coming together, which happens in five stages: initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding, (Knapp, 1978). Couples then engage in relational
maintenance before coming apart, which also happens in five stages: differentiating,
circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and, lastly, terminating, (Knapp, 1978). Examining a
wide-range of studies, one can see how smartphones have changed the way in which
relationships are developed, maintained, and fall apart. To explore the different ways in which
smartphones have effected relationships, its easiest to talk about separate features of a
smartphone. These include voice calling and text messaging, and applications such as Facebook,
Tinder, and Snapchat.
Voice Calls and Text Messaging
Smartphones have so many features and applications that its easy to forget about basic
voice calling and text messaging. However, these features on smartphones continue to impact
romantic relationships. For example, Jin and Pea (2008) found that a higher amount of mobile
communication between partners is closely related to positive outcomes in their relationship, (p.
2). In this study, students in introductory communication courses at a large, Southwestern
University received extra credit for their participation in an online survey, (Jin & Pea, 2008).
Although anyone could participate in the study, researchers only used data from those who were
currently involved in a romantic relationship, (Jin & Pea, 2008). Participants were asked to
estimate the amount of time they spent calling their partners in a day, the frequency of phone
calls, intimacy in the relationship, and relational uncertainty, (Jin & Pea, 2008). Results proved
11
that mobile phone use can improve positive aspects of romantic relationships, (Jin & Pea,
2008). Call time was significantly, negatively related to relational uncertainty, meaning that the
more participants placed voice calls with their partner, the less they felt uncertain about their
relationship, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p.12). Frequent and longer phone calls resulted in greater
relational intimacy, (Jin & Pea, 2008). The researchers inferred that more frequent mobile
communication helps couples coordinate their daily activities, which may lead to increased
feelings of closeness and intimacy, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p. 14). Lastly, this study found that
personalities factor into how much one uses cell phones to communicate with a romantic partner.
For example, participants using a lower number of voice calls within their dating relationships
reported higher tendency of avoidance, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p. 14). The researchers explained this
phenomena as that these people may feel uneasy being reachable at any time by their partner,
and, therefore, do not take advantage of cell phones, (Jin & Pea, 2008).
Other studies have found that relationships can be negatively impacted by the use of cell
phones. A study by Duran, Kelly, and Rotaru (2011) investigated the affect cell phones have on
perceptions of autonomy and connection within romantic relationships of college students, (p.
19). Two hundred and ten undergraduate students from a small, private, eastern comprehensive
university participated in the study, answering questions about their relationship type, describing
communication with their significant other, and how many times a day they initiated contact with
their partner by calling or texting, (Duran, et al., 2011). Upon examination of data, the
researchers concluded that participants who were dissatisfied with cell phone usage in their
relationship were more likely to be dissatisfied with time spent with their partner, (Duran, et al.,
2011, p. 29). Participants also reported feeling that their freedom was restricted by their
significant other because of how much that person expected cell phone usage, (Duran, et al.,
12
2011). In these instances, conflict arises when one partner feels that their freedom is being
restricted by the other. These results also suggest that those who are less satisfied with cell
phone use in their relationship and those who have more expectations that the other be available
for contact were more likely to report being controlling of their partner, (Duran, et al., 2011, p.
29).
This study by Duran, et al. (2011) also reveals how cell phones can cause conflict to arise
in relationships. The most frequent topics of cell phone conflict were not answering calls or
texts, not calling or texting enough, calling or texting too much, not returning calls or texts, and
receiving calls or texts from members of the opposite sex, (Duran, et al., 2011). The majority of
conflicts centered around too much or not enough calling or texting, as well as, timing of calls
and texts, which is indicative of autonomy issues, (Duran, et al., 2011).
All of this research reveals that cell phones are very important as a means of
communicating within a romantic relationship, (Miller-Ott, Kelly, & Duran, 2012).
Furthermore, satisfaction with cell phone usage within relationships is positively and strongly
associated with relational satisfaction, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). Two hundred and twenty seven
undergraduate students from a small, private Eastern comprehensive university confirm these
claims. In a study, these participants reported being happier with the use of cell phones in their
relationships if they reported having rules about not discussing interpersonal issues or fighting
over the phone, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012, p. 29). This suggests that couples might prefer face-toface interaction when serious matters need to be discussed.
In this same study, the researchers found that participants were more satisfied if they did
not have calling or texting rules established for one another, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). These
rules could include how often one is able to call the other, how many texts can be sent in a row
13
without a response, and expectations to pick up the phone. These findings suggest that partners
are more satisfied if they can be in constant communication with one another, with no rules
restricting communication, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). Furthermore, the researchers reason that
couples may not have cell phone rules set for each other because they already have their phones
on their person all the time anyways, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). People generally expect that
everyone has their phones on their person at all times, so couples may reason that there is no
cause to have rules if they should always have their phone with them. In addition to this,
participants reported they were more satisfied if they did not have rules prohibiting them from
checking one anothers call and text logs, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012, p. 30). This study as a whole
shows that couples have become more comfortable with being in constant contact with one
another and that having rules for calling and texting are not necessary.
For the purpose of the researchers study, instant text messaging includes short message
service (SMS), Apple iMessaging, and other Internet connected platforms which have a text
service. Instant text messaging and other forms of digital text communication may lead to
positive relational outcomes, (McEwan & Horn, 2016). Studies show that instant text messaging
can maintain a constant sense of presence between romantic partners, (Pettegrew, 2009) by
exchanging romantic messages (Ling, 2008) and coordinating daily schedules and future
interactions (Ling, 2008; & Ling & Donner, 2009). According to McEwan and Horn (2016), not
all relational communication necessarily has positive effects on romantic relationships.
Messages regarding relational development and maintenance are more likely to garner positive
outcomes in the relationship as a whole, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).
The continual presence of mobile devices, specifically smartphones, allows for all-day
communication within romantic relationships, (Duran, et al., 2011). A study by McEwan and
14
Horn (2016) concluded that instant text messaging, especially ones positively discussing
relational development and maintenance, plays a vital role in the quality, longevity, and
satisfaction of romantic relationships. McEwan and Horn surveyed 340 members of an
undergraduate research class at a comprehensive Midwestern University. They were asked to
participate in a study about instant text messaging in romantic relationships, (McEwan & Horn,
2016).
The results of the study done by McEwan and Horn (2016) suggest dating partners do use
instant text messaging to maintain and further develop their romantic relationships. When
instant text messages are exchanged regarding the maintenance of a romantic relationship, it
seems to leave a positive effect on the relationship as well as increase an individuals proclivity
to use text messaging, (McEwan & Horn, 2016). However, the results also suggest that when
instant text messaging is used in a manner not pertaining to relational maintenance, it results in
an individuals negative disposition towards instant text messaging within a romantic
relationship, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).
Another study finds that the frequency of instant text messages sent has a significant
influence on the development of romantic relationships. A study conducted by Walther (1996)
surveyed university undergraduates and their use and perceptions on instant text messaging
within romantic relationships. In fact, this study suggests that the use of instant text messaging
within romantic relationships can replace the perceived intimacy of face-to-face interactions,
(Walther, 1996).
When users have enough time to exchange cues and provide and receive social
information, computer-mediated-communication can be as intimate as face-to-face interaction assuming the content of the messages promote intimacy, (Walther, 1996). Although cellular text
15
messaging restricts the number of cues available in a single message, the culmination of many,
perhaps hundreds, of messages can clearly convey relational information, (Brody, et al., 2009).
Text messaging creates a sense of intimacy not found elsewhere in other forms of digital
communication. One study has shown that people regard those they text often (on a daily basis)
to be in closer relationships with them as opposed to other forms of digital communication, such
as email, (Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2011). This study done by
Morey, et al. (2011) found that the frequency of text messaging often suggests there is a strong
attachment among those in a romantic relationship. According to Morey, et al. (2011), there is
support for the prediction that individuals who perceive their relationship more positively also
report more frequent communication.
While the use of instant text messaging may suggest more positive outcomes of romantic
relationships, especially in the beginning stages, it can also inhibit verbal communication among
romantic couples further and more effectively than face-to-face interaction, (Knobloch and
Solomon, 2002). According to Knobloch and Solomon (2002), relational uncertainty, which is,
the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement within interpersonal
relationships, (p. 45) is a fundamental component of close relationships that shapes
communicative behaviors between partners, (p. 45). Verbal communication and the capacity it
has in a relationship plays a large role in the relational uncertainty felt by individuals engaged in
romantic relationships.
Instant text messaging and the preference most new romantic couples have with it has
been found to reduce relational uncertainty among romantic couples. According to Jin and Pea
(2010), there is evidence that message exchanges over time allow people to reduce uncertainty
about partners in computer-mediated settings as successfully as they do in face-to-face contexts.
16
Considering this, mobile phone use between partners should be related to their relational
uncertainty. Since increased verbal communication between partners tends to reduce relational
uncertainty, more mobile communication should be associated with less relational uncertainty,
(p. 41).
Much like how relational uncertainty plays a role in instant text messaging
communication among romantic couples, so does an individuals own attachment style and
personality, (Jin & Pea, 2010). One study shows that individuals with different attachment
styles communicate differently in close relationships, (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). For
instance, avoidant or anxious individuals are less likely to engage in self-disclosure (Grabill &
Kerns, 2000) and supportive communication (Mikulicner, Florian & Weller, 1993), as compared
with less avoidant and less anxious individuals.
One study has shown that individuals who have a higher avoidance level tend to rely less
on mobile phone usage, specifically voice calls, within romantic relationships, (Jin & Pea,
2010). Interestingly, while the usage of mobile phones for the purpose of voice calls is lower in
those with high avoidance tendencies, the use of mobile phones for the purpose of text
messaging was higher. Jin and Pea (2010) further suggested that participants who have higher
avoidance tendencies believed that using instant text messaging was a less awkward form of
communication.
While text messaging and voice calls may still have a hand in the development of
romantic relationships, other smartphone capabilities and features have an impact as well.
Smartphones, with the capability to connect to the Internet, have influenced the speed of
communication between individuals greatly within the last decade. Applications such as
17
Facebook, Tinder, and Snapchat are having an increasingly important effect in beginning stages
of romantic relationships.
Facebook
People use applications on a smartphone to communicate and/or connect. These
applications, or apps, include text messaging, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, or
even a dating app called Tinder. While there are many different apps one can use to
communicate, 97% of young adults ages ranging from 18-29 use text messaging as their main
form of communication, (Duggan & Rainie, 2012). Following text messaging, various forms of
social media are utilized, the most popular is Facebook, (Duggan, 2015).
Fully 72% of online American adults use Facebook, a proportion unchanged from
September 2014. Usage continues to be especially popular among online women, 77% of whom
are users. In addition, 82% of online adults ages 18 to 29 use Facebook, along with 79% of those
ages 30 to 49, 64% of those ages 50 to 64 and 48% of those 65 and older, (Duggan, 2015, p. 3).
Facebook is a for profit corporation launched by Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz,
Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, and Chris Hughes on February 4, 2004, (Facebook, 2016).
Facebooks mission statement reads as follows:
Founded in 2004, Facebooks mission is to give people the power to share and make the
world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and
family, to discover whats going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to
them, (Facebook-About, 2016).
Facebooks main features consist of an About Me section, a Status Update box, and a
Friends, News Feed, and Wall button, (Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2012, p. 4). Facebook
18
provides an instant messaging service, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 4), making it even easier to have
conversations with family, friends, and complete strangers online.
Once a person has access to a targets Facebook page, he or she has access to a breadth of
information about that individual: Education, religious and political affiliations, interests,
activities, group memberships, friends, and usually a considerable amount of photographs, (Fox,
et al., 2012, p. 5).
Thanks to this, Facebook and other social media have the potential to influence the
course of romantic relationship formation, maintenance, and deterioration, (Fox, et al., 2012, p.
4). With the breadth and occasional depth of information available on SNSs, it is possible to
learn a lot about another person without actually interacting with him or her, thus violating the
norms of appropriate rate of disclosure early in a relationship, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 6).
Young adults today have thus created a new form of romantic relationship certainty:
making their relationship Facebook Official, or FBO, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 2). Once you
specifically identify the person with whom you are in a relationship with, this information is
viewable to the public and spreads much faster than say, word of mouth, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 6).
This study drafted by Fox, et al. (2012), examined the implications of social networking websites
(SNSs) on romantic relationships, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 1). Specifically, Knapps (1978) stage
model of relationship is examined through a new lens wherein the role of SNSs, specifically
Facebook, is explored in the escalation stages of romantic relationships, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 1).
As mentioned earlier, Knapps model suggests that relationships develop through five different
stages: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding, (Knapp, 1978).
The Fox, et al. study sought to investigate the role of Facebook in the initiation and
formation of romantic relationships while keeping in mind this model, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 2).
19
According to Fox, et al. (2012), Knapps model has worked over an extended period of time, but
little extant research has examined the role of communication technologies in romantic
relationships through his framework, and that is why Fox et al. conducted and recorded this
study, (Fox, et al., 2012). This study specifically addressed how the medium of Facebook may
be changing how people enact, elaborate, and interpret their romantic relationships, as well as
how those relationships transpire, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 5). Because not much literature exists in
relation to the intersection of SNSs and romantic relationships, Fox, et al. used focus group
methodology, (Fox, et al., 2012).
The focus groups were conducted across a three-week period of time in the spring of
2011, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 7). In order to maintain continuity across the groups, the sessions
were conducted in the same building and in similar rooms, (Fox et al., 2012). There were seven
focus groups conducted by three moderators and all were video recorded to identify verbal and
nonverbal cues, (Fox, et al., 2012). The participants consisted of 10 men and 26 women ages
ranging from 18 to 23 from a small Midwestern university, (Fox, et al., 2012).
Each focus group was coded for verbal content related to relationship initiation,
relationship development, Facebook official, information seeking, relational problems,
creeping/monitoring, and social context. The researchers focused on content related to Knapps
(1978) stages of relational development (i.e., initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating,
and bonding), (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 9).
The results of this study can be divided into five different themes: Facebook has changed
the way people enter into relationships, Facebook plays an integral role in information seeking
about a potential relational partner, listing a relational status on Facebook is perceived as both a
20
social and interpersonal statement, clarifying the social meaning behind Facebook official, and,
lastly, that Facebook is both a blessing and a curse to relationships, (Fox, et al., 2012).
In summary, these first two themes indicate that Facebook impacts the initiating and
experimenting stages of developing relationships. Unlike peeling away the layers of an onion as
Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed in social penetration theory, however, Facebook allows one
to slice right into a targets personality and social history, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 15).
It was found that for some couples, Facebook is a tool for relationship maintenance while
for others, it is just a burden, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 20). The data here indicates that Facebook is
playing a crucial role in its user's romantic relationships. It has altered the way by which
college-aged students initiate relationships and information-seek about potential and current
partners, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 21). This study provided new insights to the sub-stages of
relational development within Knapps relational model, (Fox, et al., 2012, p. 22).
The results of this study conducted by Fox, et al. show that many relationships today are
initiated and maintained through social media websites such as Facebook. A more recent study
conducted by Dainton and Stokes (2015) sought to understand how people use Facebook to
maintain relationships. Dainton and Stokes (2015) hypothesized that individuals who indicate
strong agreement with using Facebook for relationship maintenance will enact more Facebook
assurances, positivity, openness, and online monitoring than will individuals who indicate
disagreement or moderate agreement with using Facebook for maintenance purposes, (p. 369).
Dainton and Stokes (2015) hypothesized that there will be significant, positive
relationships between cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy and the use of Facebook
for maintenance purposes, (p. 371). Dainton and Stokes (2015) wanted to determine the
relationships among Facebook maintenance behaviors (including online monitoring) and the
21
cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy, (2015, p. 370). Dainton and Stokes (2015)
distributed an online questionnaire to 189 (46 men and 142 women) college students to gather
information about Facebook use, jealousy, and Facebook relationship maintenance, (Dainton &
Stokes, 2015). The first hypothesis that Dainton and Stokes (2015) constructed was not
supported:
Because the unequal sample sizes of the three groups violate the assumptions of
ANOVA, the appropriate statistic is to use the Kruskal-Wallace test, a nonparametric
statistic that does not require a normal distributionresults indicate significant
differences between the groups in the use FB assurances, FB positivity, and FB
monitoring. The results support the hypothesis for FB assurances and FB positivity.
However, examination of the means suggests a curvilinear relationship for the use of
online monitoring, with high maintenance motivation individuals performing the least
amount of monitoring among the groups. As such, the hypothesis was not supported for
monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 375).
However, with regard to the research question, results were recorded as, Results
indicated significant relationships between the Facebook maintenance measures and reported
jealousy producing two linear combinations, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 375). Results also
indicated:
that individuals who are strongly motivated to use Facebook for relationship
maintenance are more likely to engage in Facebook assurances and monitoring but that
there is a curvilinear relationship between the maintenance motive and the use of online
monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 355).
22
As previously stated, the second hypothesis predicted that there will be significant,
positive relationships between cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy and the use of
Facebook for maintenance purposes, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 371). The results indicated
that the extent to which an individual used Facebook for maintenance purposes was positively
correlated with trait jealousy, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 376). So, maintaining a relationship
over Facebook by checking in on what the other partner is doing (what pictures they like or
comment on, or who they message), will increase jealousy within a romantic relationship.
However, results failed to show a significant difference in the mean scores of the groups.
Accordingly, the hypothesis was not supported, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 377).
Dainton and Stokes (2015) used the Uses and Gratification method in their study (2015).
This method was originally developed to explain one-way media such as television and film,
however, more recently, the approach has been used to understand newer media forms, including
social media, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 366). They found that this method overall was not
effective in explaining an experience of jealousy associated to Facebook, but that it did help
them explain variations in the usage of Facebook maintenance behaviors among a group of
college students, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015). Results largely supported the prediction that
individuals high in the maintenance motivation for Facebook reported significantly more use of
online assurances and positivity, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 377). Dainton and Stokes (2015)
were finally able to come to the conclusion that their results provided a clearer picture of the
relationships between specific online behaviors and jealousy, (2015, p. 378).
Tinder
As stated above, the evolution of the smartphone has allowed for users to connect
socially in many different ways.
23
The expansion of the Internet has reconstructed how we initiate and maintain personal
relationships. Through computer-mediated communication (CMC), users can exchange a
series of electronic messages and participate in different social activities exclusively
through cyberspace, (James, 2015, p.1).
Since smartphones are widely used and grant instant Internet access, people are generally
more accepting of using dating websites and/or applications, (James, 2015, p. 43). Generally,
online dating sites have become more socially accepted, (David & Cambre, 2016). In 2013, 23%
of adults said they have met a spouse or long-term relationship partner through online dating
sites or mobile applications, (Smith & Duggan, 2013). 59% agreed online dating is a good way
to meet people, and 21% said online daters are desperate, (Smith, 2013). Research exploring
how romantic relationships develop on the Internet has found that some people are more
comfortable talking online before meeting face-to-face, (Whitty & Carr, 2006).
Rad, co-founder and CEO of Tinder, whose app manages to gamify the search for
partners using location, images, and messages, had intended it to be, a simplified dating app
with a focus on images, (Grigoriadis, 2014). While its developers call it a social networking
app for meeting people and not for finding sexual partners, participants do include finding dates
and sexual partners among Tinders main functions. Its protocols require pre-setting a limited
geographical perimeter, age frame, choosing images, and device geolocalization for possible
matches to appear. These pre-set parameters make up the search criteria. Tinder recognizes the
users coordinates and locates other users within the perimeter and then scans those profiles to
meet the search criteria, (David & Cambre, 2016).
Those who sign up are given a limited number of images six from Facebook - and 500
words to present themselves, (David & Cambre, 2016). Tinders Facebook linking allows it to
24
display the so called verified profiles to reassure its users that if they have connections in
common, some measure of safety is ensured. For instance, one can visit any of the Facebook
profiles of common friends and in a couple of clicks find, verify, and explore a potential matchs
personal data and possibly make contact, (David & Cambre, 2016).
In order to have a match, both users must swipe right. After matching, a pop-up
animation shows both users photographs and enables direct messaging. A swipe to the left
discards a users profile and reveals the next card-like image. This gesture makes profile
skimming so easy and quick that it has prompted pundits and bloggers to describe the app as a
way of shopping for partners, (Baxter, 2013).
Tinder has irretrievably altered the digital dating-scape, processing more than, a billion
swipes left and right daily, (Bilton, 2014). On average, people log into the app 11 times a day,
(Bilton, 2014). Women spend as much as 8.5 minutes swiping left and right during a single
session; men spend 7.2 minutes. All of this can add up to 90 minutes each day, (Bilton, 2014).
People dont think of [Tinder] as online dating, they think of it as a game, or, as a
beauty contest plus messaging, while others see it as a, judging app, (Bosker, 2015). 96% of
Tinder users have never tried another dating application, (Colao, 2013.) Tinders unique mobile
design has generated a wide range of user applications as many download the software to locate
short-term relationships and/or casual sex, (James, 2015, p.1-2). Many have dubbed the selfselection mobile application the modernized version of Hot-or-Not, an online rating website
that allows people to evaluate the attractiveness of user-submitted photos, (James, 2015, p.14).
Precursors to swiping began in 2003 with Facemash, Facebooks antecedent, which
presented a binary hot or not game for Harvard students. Over time, many other similar online
dating sites emerged (i.e., Meetic.com, Match. com). While officially presented as dating sites,
25
all interviewees perceived such sites as operating like disguised hook-up sites, (David &
Cambre, 2016).
In a James (2015) study, it was found that Tinder users dont chat extensively on the app.
This could explain why conversations on Tinder often end quickly with users either deciding to
meet in person shortly after matching or discontinuing rapport all together.
Snapchat
New means of communication such as Snapchat are reshaping the way younger
generations communicate in their everyday lives, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 6). Snapchat is a
photo-sharing app that allows users to send photos or videos, so-called snaps, to one or several
friends, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48). Created in 2011 by two Stanford students, Spiegel and Murphy
conceived the idea of Snapchat for a final project in a product design class, (Colao, 2014).
Snapchat was created at a time when people worldwide were experiencing high levels of anxiety
regarding their online data, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 17). The app distinguishes itself from other
social media platforms by the ephemerality of its messages. "Snaps"photos or short videos
disappear after just a few seconds, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48). In 2013, Snapchat introduced a
personal-feed feature called Stories that allows users to compile a stream of photos and videos
that can be viewed for 24 hours, a kind of short-lived personal diary, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48).
The unique feature is that these snaps dissolve after a few seconds. Thus, in contrast to
Facebook and other social media where posts are persistent and often visible to a large
audience, the app offers opportunities for less persistent and more private
communication. Because Snapchat reduces the need for self-censorship, it has been
linked to more intimate, personal forms of sharing, including sexting, (Utz, Muscanell, &
Khalid, 2015, p. 141).
26
Young adults indicated that Snapchat allowed them to connect more congruently
(showing emotion with picture and text) and quickly than simply sending a text, (Vaterlaus,
Barnett, Roche, & Young, 2016, p. 600). According to studies regarding social media usage
done by the Pew Research Center (2015), it was found that 14% of online adults and 17% of
smartphone owners use apps that automatically delete the messages they send, such as
Snapchat. It was found that 41% of smartphone owners ages 18 to 29 use these services
(Snapchat), compared with just 11% of smartphone owners ages 30 to 49 and four percent of
those 50 and older. A study by Utz, et al. (2015) revealed that roughly 1320% of participants
engaged in (joke) sexting or sending snaps of legally questionable activities using Snapchat.
Social media has been presented as a way to initiate and progress social and romantic
relationships, (Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2014). The features of Snapchat were perceived to be
ideal for creating connection in the context of existing peer and romantic relationships,
(Vaterlaus, et al., 2016, p. 600). Young adults perceived that Snapchat could enhance
connections within their relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. Some young
adults even suggested Snapchat could strengthen their interpersonal relationships, (Vaterlaus, et
al., 2016, p. 599). Snapchat was typically not used by participants as a tool to initiate a
relationship, rather Snapchat was used as a more advanced step to build intimacy within an
existing young adult relationship, (Vaterlaus, et al., 2016, p. 600). Recent research further
demonstrates that private communication elicits stronger negative emotions, and that more
exclusive messages are seen as threatening to the relationship, (Utz, et al., 2015, p. 142).
Because Snapchat has the reputation for being a private communication channel that allows one
to send intimate communication more safely, learning of a partners communication with
unknown others on Snapchat may particularly elicit jealousy, (Utz, et al., 2015, p. 142).
27
Snapchat may facilitate private communication and be a step in the relational process that
enhances young adult relationships and, on the other hand, may have negative consequences for
interpersonal relationships, (Vaterlaus, et al., 2016, p. 596). Higher rates of young adult jealousy
were present for Snapchat use when a young adults' romantic partner added a previous romantic
partner to their network or their partner was communicating with someone of the opposite sex
that was unknown to the young adult, (Utz, et al., 2015). Young adults perceived that Snapchat
behaviors could lead to challenges within their family, social, and romantic relationships. The
types of challenges varied in severity from minor annoyance to relational infidelity, (Vaterlaus,
et al., 2016, p. 597).
According to Velten and Arif (2016), participants were asked about their use of Snapchat
within their relationships.
Participants noted that they use Snapchat as a tool to move interpersonal relationships
from the experimenting stage to the intensifying stage. This is done through flirtatious,
fun, simple selfies sent from partner to partner. Instead of sending an awkward text
stating, for example, I am thinking of you, partners can send a simple image of
themselves with no words, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 25).
Some of the participants observed that the sharing of images via this social media
reassures the level of trust between participants of this communication tool, (Velten & Arif,
2016, p. 26). One participant said, I think it can help further a relationship by specifically
connecting with the other person through sharing photos that are funny or something only they
would find interesting, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 26). As one of the participants observed,
Snapchat helps her maintain long distance relationships through trust that, she believed, is
communicated via sharing of images online, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 26).
28
Snapchat images provide an outlet for users to make clear efforts toward relationship
maintenance. On days when a relationship is struggling or simply in an effort to maintain that
cheery feeling of a relationship that is going extremely well, images sent via Snapchat seem to
carry a form of reassurance, as one participant stated, I use Snapchat to strengthen my existing
one [relationships], (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 27-28).
However, Snapchat can also play a role in a relationships demise.
As relationships sometimes unravel, one or both partners tend to avoid the other. In
general, this avoidance can be viewed in various ways (i.e. not answering a phone due to
caller-id). When a Snapchat image is sent from partner to partner during this stage of a
relationships demise, the receiver can avoid the sender by simply not replying. This lack
of reply, in itself, sends a clear message of avoidance, whether intended or not, (Velten &
Arif, 2016, p. 28).
Reviewing the literature on this topic led the researchers of this study to develop a
research question, a hypothesis, and their questionnaire. A detailed explanation of the process
the researchers took in their study on smartphone usage and the acceleration of romantic
relationships follows.
Discussion of methods
29
30
For this study, the researchers began their researching process by devising a concise and
poignant research topic. The researchers created a list of ideas and topics that would be of
interest and relevance to potential respondents, and then decided on the topic of smartphones and
the impact the devices have on romantic relationship. Once this broad topic was decided upon,
the researchers began to review previous studies done by social scientists on the topic of
smartphones and relationships. Each researcher delved into a specific area of the topic, such as
phone calling, text messaging, Facebook, Snapchat, Tinder, and video chatting. This review of
the literature led the researchers to create a list of references. After thorough research was
completed, the researchers then constructed their research question and hypothesis. The research
question states, what features of the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic
relationships? After the researchers reviewed the relevant literature on their topic and created a
research question, a questionnaire was written and then distributed to respondents.
To compose the questionnaire, the researchers first thought of basic questions to ask
respondents, such as age, gender, year in school, relationship status, and smartphone ownership.
Once these questions were composed and set in an appropriate order, the researchers created
questions which pertained more specifically to the study. Questions such as do you think that
Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship? and, which app or feature do you
believe played the most critical role in developing your romantic relationship? were some of the
questions the researchers devised to help find evidence to support or not support their research
question and hypothesis. The complete questionnaire had a total of 20 questions (Appendix B).
Each questionnaire was fitted with a consent form on the first page, ensuring the confidentiality
of the questionnaire to each respondent (Appendix D).
31
To gather the respondents for the survey the researchers selected random classes from the
complete Fall 2016 schedule of a small, Midwestern, liberal arts college (Appendix F).
Researchers then began to discern certain cohorts (grade levels including freshmen, sophomores,
juniors, and seniors) using color coordination and numerical ordering. Once the classes were
selected and divided to their appropriate cohort, the researchers began selecting classes from
each cohort. To select randomly, the researchers chose from a set of four numbers provided
from a numbers chart (Appendix A). Once the numbers were decided upon, one to two classes
were chosen from each cohort, each adding up to at least 25 students or more.
After classes were decided upon, the researchers then contacted the professors of each
course, asking for permission to distribute the questionnaire to their respective classes (Appendix
E). Once each researcher received a positive response from professors, the questionnaires were
distributed to individual students in each class.
In the Statistical Packages Social Sciences (SPSS) program, researchers then designated
certain nominal codes to signify and separate questions from the questionnaire. For example, the
question, Are you in a relationship? was given the code, Relationship. Researchers then
assigned numerical values to the options given in the answer key below each question. For
example, in a question with the optional responses Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree, Strongly Agree would be labeled with 1, Agree with 2, and so on.
After each question and subsequent answers were designated a name and number, the
researchers then identified the level of measurement appropriate for each question and answer
(nominal, ordinal or scale). In SPSS, each question was divided into their respective categories
to ensure proper analysis.
32
To analyze the data, the researchers ran a Frequency test on each question included in the
questionnaire. The Frequency test alone cannot answer the research question or find evidence to
support or not support the hypothesis, however, so the researchers ran Independent Samples Ttests for certain variables. For example, the researchers tested the variable Relationship, which
stands for the question, are you in a relationship? with the variable FBDevelopment, which
stands for the question, do you believe Facebook accelerated the development of your
relationship? Testing the variable Relationship with different variables regarding different
applications or features on smartphones allowed the researchers to analyze the data from only the
respondents who indicated that they are in a relationship. Once researches completed a test, they
created a bar graph to display the results. The researchers then analyzed all of the tests to answer
their research question and to analyze if they had support for their hypothesis or not.
Analysis of Results
33
34
Question 1: What year in school are you?

Year
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Freshman
33
23.4
23.4
23.4
Sophomore
41
29.1
29.1
52.5
Junior
28
19.9
19.9
72.3
Senior
39
27.7
27.7
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
Total
The first question of the questionnaire asked students to identify with one year in school:
freshmen, sophomore, junior, or senior. Of the 141 respondents, 23.4% (33) identified as
freshmen, 29.1% (41) identified as sophomores, 19.9% (28) identified as juniors, and 27.7% (39)
identified as seniors. The researchers worked to get at least 25 students to represent each cohort,
and succeeded in that goal.
35
Question 2: What is your gender?
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Male
76
53.9
53.9
53.9
Female
65
46.1
46.1
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
Total
The researchers asked students to identify as either male or female in the second question. Out
of 141 respondents, 53.9% (76) were male and 46.1% (65) were female. The researchers did not
set a specific goal to meet in regards to gender. However, it is close to an even divide, which
gives the researchers a good representation of both genders.
36
Question 3: Do you own a smartphone?
Smartphone
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
No
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
139
98.6
98.6
98.6
1.4
1.4
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
In question three, the researchers asked respondents to indicate if they own a smartphone. Out of
141 students, 98.6% (139) said they own a smartphone. Only 1.4% (2) respondents said they do
not own a smartphone. This question was asked to advise the researchers on how many of the
respondents actually own a smartphone, because if a considerable amount would have said that
they do not own a smartphone, then their answers to subsequent questions may have had to been
evaluated differently. Secondly, because the study is all about communication within romantic
relationships and smartphone usage, it was important to establish that the majority of students
own a smartphone.
37
38
Question 4: Are you in a relationship?
Relationship
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Yes
49
34.8
34.8
34.8
No
92
65.2
65.2
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
Total
The researchers asked respondents to identify their relationship status. Out of 141 respondents,
34.8% (49) said they are in a relationship, while 65.2% (92) said they are not in a relationship.
The researchers expected there to be respondents who were not in a relationship, however, they
did not expect as many as 65% to not be in a romantic relationship. This is considered as a
limitation to the study, which the researchers will discuss in a later chapter.
39
Question 5: How long have you been in a relationship?
RelationLength
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
N/A
Percent
61.0
62.3
62.3
1-3 Months
6.4
6.5
68.8
4-6 Months
10
7.1
7.2
76.1
7-9 Months
3.5
3.6
79.7
10-12 Months
5.0
5.1
84.8
21
14.9
15.2
100.0
138
97.9
100.0
2.1
141
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
86
13 Months or more
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to identify how long they have been in a relationship, if they
are in one at all. Out of the 141 respondents, 61% (86) chose the response, N/A. The
40
researchers assume that the 86 respondents who chose N/A did so to signify that they are not
in a relationship. This assumption is backed up by the 92 respondents who said they are not in a
relationship. Of those who identified the length of their relationship, 6.4% (9) of respondents
chose 1-3 months, 17.1% (10) of respondents chose 4-6 months, 3.5% (5) of respondents chose
7-9 months, 5% (7) of respondents chose 10-12 months, and 14.9% (21) of respondents chose 13
or more months.
41
Question 6: How many hours a day do you use your smartphone to communicate with
your significant other?
SPHours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
72
51.1
52.9
52.9
1-3
38
27.0
27.9
80.9
4-7
15
10.6
11.0
91.9
8-9
3.5
3.7
95.6
more than 10
4.3
4.4
100.0
136
96.5
100.0
3.5
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to estimate how many hours a day they use their smartphones
to communicate with their significant others. Out of the 141 respondents, 51.1% (72) chose 0
hours, 27% (38) chose 1-3 hours, 10.6% (15) chose 4-6 hours, 3.5% (5) chose 8-9 hours, and
42
4.3% (6) chose more than 10 hours. This question was asked to help the researchers gauge how
critical smartphones are to communicating within a romantic relationship. However, this
question did not include an N/A option, which could have been circled for those who indicated
that they are not in a relationship earlier in the questionnaire. Since the reseachers did not put
N/A as an option for this question, they are uncertain if the responses are indicative of those
who are in romantic relationships, because respondents who are not in a relationships could have
answered the question with a different meaning in mind. For example, a respondent not in a
relationship could have circled the option which reflected how often they use their phone for
communication in general, which could add up to many more hours than communication with
just one person.
43
Question 7: Do you have a Facebook account?
FB
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
No
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
138
97.9
97.9
97.9
2.1
2.1
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
The researchers wanted to know what respondents thought about specific applications that are
used on smartphones, for example, Facebook and Snapchat. Therefore, the researchers asked
respondents to indicate if they have a Facebook account. Out of 141 respondents, 97.9% (138)
of respondents said yes, while only 2.1% (3) of respondents said no. This question was asked to
gauge how many of the respondents have a Facebook account.
44
Question 8: How many hours a day do you use Facebook?
FBHours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
17.7
17.9
17.9
1-2
100
70.9
71.4
89.3
3-4
12
8.5
8.6
97.9
2.1
2.1
100.0
140
99.3
100.0
.7
141
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
25
more than 5
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to estimate how many hours a day they use Facebook. Out of
141 respondents, 17.7% (25) chose 0, 70.9% (100) chose 1-2, 8.5% (12) chose 3-4, and 2.1% (3)
chose more than 5. One respondent did not choose an option. For this question, the researchers
did not relate Facebook use to communication within a romantic relationship. Instead, they
asked how many hours a day Facebook is used, so respondents who were both in and not in a
relationship could answer this question generally.
45
46
Question 9: Do you think that Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship?
FBDevelopment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Strongly Agree
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
.7
.7
.7
Agree
12
8.5
8.6
9.3
N/A
87
61.7
62.1
71.4
Disagree
19
13.5
13.6
85.0
Strongly Disagree
21
14.9
15.0
100.0
140
99.3
100.0
.7
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Since the researchers were interested in knowing what respondents thought about the role
applications have in developing their romantic relationships, they asked specifically if
47
respondents believe Facebook accelerated the development of their relationship. Out of 141
respondents, .7% (1) chose Strongly Agree, 8.5% (12) chose Agree, 6.7% (87) chose N/A, 13.5%
(19) chose Disagree, and 14.9% (21) chose Strongly Disagree. One respondent did not choose a
response. The most popular response was N/A, which the researchers assume respondents who
indicated that they are not in a relationship chose this response. However, there is no way to be
certain of that assumption.
48
Question 10: Do you have a Snapchat account?
SC
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Yes
No
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
134
95.0
95.0
95.0
5.0
5.0
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
Wanting to know what respondents thought about specific applications and the impact each has
on romantic relationship development, the researchers asked respondents about Snapchat. This
question asked respondents to reveal if they have a Snapchat account. Out of 141 respondents,
95% (134) of respondents said yes, while 5% (7) of respondents said no.
49
Question 11: How many hours a day do you use Snapchat to communicate with your
significant other?
SCHours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
65
46.1
47.1
47.1
1-2
52
36.9
37.7
84.8
3-4
18
12.8
13.0
97.8
2.1
2.2
100.0
138
97.9
100.0
2.1
141
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
More than 5
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to identify the amount of hours a day that they use Snapchat
to communicate with their significant others. Out of 141 respondents, 46.1% (65) chose 0 hours,
36.9% (52) chose 1-2 hours, 12.8% (18) chose 3-4 hours, and 2.1% (3) said more than 5 hours.
50
Three respondents did not choose an option. The researchers assume that in this question,
respondents not in a relationship chose 0 to signify there lack of relationship status. The
researchers did not provide an option of N/A for single respondents to circle. However, even
respondents in a relationship could have circled 0 if they really do not Snapchat their
significant other.
51
Question 12: Do you believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your
relationship?
SCDevelopment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
12
8.5
8.6
8.6
Agree
31
22.0
22.3
30.9
N/A
76
53.9
54.7
85.6
Disagree
13
9.2
9.4
95.0
5.0
5.0
100.0
139
98.6
100.0
1.4
141
100.0
Total
Total
Valid Percent
Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to reflect on the influence Snapchat had in accelerating the
development of their romantic relationships. Out of 141 respondents, 8.5% (12) said they
52
Strongly Agree that Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship, 22% (31) said
they Agree, 53.9% (76) said N/A, 9.2% (13) said Disagree, and 5% (7) said Strongly Disagree.
Two respondents did not choose an option. The researchers assume that respondents who chose
N/A did so because they were either not in a romantic relationship, or because they truly felt that
Snapchat did not accelerate the development of their relationship. By only looking at this data,
however, the researchers cannot be certain.
53
Question 13: How many minutes a week do you spend talking on the phone with your
significant other?
PhoneMins
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
78
55.3
56.5
56.5
1-20
32
22.7
23.2
79.7
21-40
13
9.2
9.4
89.1
41-60
5.7
5.8
94.9
61 or more
5.0
5.1
100.0
138
97.9
100.0
2.1
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Also interested in the use of phone calls in romantic relationships, the researchers asked
respondents to estimate how many minutes a week they spend talking on the phone with their
significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 55.3% (78) said 0 minutes, 22.7% (32) said 1-20
54
minutes, 9.2% (12) said 21-40 minutes, 5.7% (8) said 41-60 minutes, and 5% (7) said 61 minutes
or more. Three respondents did not choose an option. The researchers did not give single
respondents an N/A option to indicate that they are not in a relationship, so they are not sure
what those respondents chose by looking at this test alone. They assume that most chose 0.
However, there also might be some respondents in a romantic relationship who chose 0
because they do not talk on the phone with their significant other.
55
Question 14: Do you believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your
relationship?
PhoneDevelopment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
Strongly Agree
11
7.8
7.9
7.9
Agree
35
24.8
25.2
33.1
N/A
84
59.6
60.4
93.5
Disagree
4.3
4.3
97.8
Strongly Disagree
2.1
2.2
100.0
139
98.6
100.0
1.4
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to identify if they believe talking on the phone accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 7.8% (11) said Strongly
Agree, 24.8% (35) said Agree, 59.6% (84) said N/A, 4.3% (6) said Disagree, and 2.1% (3) said
Strongly Disagree. Two respondents did not choose an option. More than half of respondents
(84) chose N/A, which the researchers assume indicates that they are not in a relationship, and
therefore do not have an opinion. However, by only looking at this test, the researchers are not
able to determine that assumption.
56
57
Question 15: How many text messages do you send to your significant other?
Text
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
69
48.9
50.0
50.0
1-20
20
14.2
14.5
64.5
21-40
6.4
6.5
71.0
41-60
19
13.5
13.8
84.8
61-80
5.0
5.1
89.9
81-100
4.3
4.3
94.2
101 or more
5.7
5.8
100.0
138
97.9
100.0
2.1
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers asked respondents to estimate the amount of text messages they send to their
significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 48.9% (69) said 0, 14.2% (20) said 1-20, 6.4% (9)
said 21-40, 13.5% (19) said 41-60, 5% (7) said 61-80, 4.3% (6) said 81-100, and 5.7% (8) said
58
101 or more. Three respondents did not choose an option. The researchers expected the answers
to indicate that the majority of respondents sent many text messages to their significant others,
but the most popular response was 0. However, only solely looking at the frequency for each
response, the researchers are not sure how many of those respondents who chose 0 did so
because they are not in a romantic relationship.
59
Question 16: Do you believe the amount of texting between you and your significant other
accelerated the development of your relationship?
TextDevelopment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
Strongly Agree
16
11.3
11.4
11.4
Agree
37
26.2
26.4
37.9
N/A
80
56.7
57.1
95.0
Disagree
4.3
4.3
99.3
Strongly Disagree
.7
.7
100.0
140
99.3
100.0
.7
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Wanting to know what respondents thought about texting and their relationship, the researchers
asked if they believed texting accelerated the development of their relationship. Out of 141
respondents, 11.3% (16) said Strongly Agree, 26.2% (37) said Agree, 56.7% (80) said N/A, 4.3%
60
(6) said Disagree, and .7% (1) said Strongly Disagree. One respondent did not choose a
response. Looking at these frequencies alone, the researchers are not able to tell what single
respondents chose, as the researchers did not give them a clear choice. However, the researchers
assume single respondents would have chosen the N/A response, or would have not chosen an
option at all.
61
Question 17: How many minutes a week do you spend video chatting (FaceTime, Skype,
etc.) with your significant other?
VideoMins
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
106
75.2
76.8
76.8
1-20
15
10.6
10.9
87.7
21-40
4.3
4.3
92.0
41-60
3.5
3.6
95.7
61-80
.7
.7
96.4
81-100
1.4
1.4
97.8
101 or more
2.1
2.2
100.0
138
97.9
100.0
2.1
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
Another major component of smartphones is applications that allow users to communicate via
video. The researchers wanted to know how many minutes a day respondents used video chat
62
methods to talk with their significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 75.2% (106) said 0, 10.6%
(15) said 1-20, 4.3% (6) said 41-60, 3.5% (5) said 61-80, 1.4% (2) said 81-100, 2.1% (3) said
101 or more. Three respondents did not choose an option. By only looking at the frequency of
each option, the researchers do not know what single respondents chose. Therefore, by only
looking at the frequency, the researchers may infer that single respondents chose 0 to indicate
that they are not in a relationship, or they did not choose a response at all.
63
Question 18: Do you think video chatting has accelerated the development of your
romantic relationship?
VideoDevelopment
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Strongly Agree
Total
Valid Percent
Percent
5.0
5.0
5.0
Agree
19
13.5
13.6
18.6
N/A
97
68.8
69.3
87.9
Disagree
6.4
6.4
94.3
Strongly Disagree
5.7
5.7
100.0
140
99.3
100.0
.7
141
100.0
Total
Missing
Percent
System
The researchers wanted to know if respondents believed video chatting accelerated the
development of their relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 5% (7) said Strongly Agree, 13.5%
(19) said Agree, 68.8% (97) said N/A, 6.4% (9) said Disagree, and 5.7% (8) said Strongly
Disagree. One respondent did not choose an option. The most popular option for this question
was N/A. However, by only looking at the frequency, the researchers are not able to tell if
respondents chose this response because they do not have an opinion on video chat, or if they
chose it because they are not in a romantic relationship.
64
65
Question 19: Do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic
relationship?
Apps
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Strongly Agree
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
4.3
4.3
4.3
Agree
42
29.8
29.8
34.0
N/A
32
22.7
22.7
56.7
Disagree
47
33.3
33.3
90.1
Strongly Disagree
14
9.9
9.9
100.0
141
100.0
100.0
Total
Having already asked about specific apps, the researchers asked respondents if they believe apps
on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 4.3%
(6) said Strongly Agree, 29.8% (42) said Agree, 22.7% (32) said N/A, 33.3% (47) said Disagree,
66
and 9.9% (14) said Strongly Disagree. This question was asked openly, so that respondents not
in or in a romantic relationship could answer it. This way, the researchers are able to draw
conclusions about what respondents as a whole think about apps accelerating the development of
romantic relationships. Between both single and committed respondents, the most popular
response is Disagree, with 47 respondents choosing that response. The second most popular
response is Agree, with 42 respondents choosing that option. Fourteen respondents chose
Strongly Disagree, while only 6 respondents chose Agree. By looking at these frequencies
alone, one can see that the respondents are leaning more towards disagreeing with this question.
However, the researchers cannot make any assumptions about the data by only looking at the
frequencies.
67
Question 20: Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in
developing your romantic relationship? (Only circle one)
Role
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
Facebook
.7
.7
.7
Snapchat
20
14.2
14.7
15.4
Video Chat
10
7.1
7.4
22.8
Text Messaging
31
22.0
22.8
45.6
Phone Calls
14
9.9
10.3
55.9
None
60
42.6
44.1
100.0
Total
136
96.5
100.0
3.5
141
100.0
System
Lastly, the researchers asked respondents to identify which app or feature most accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, .7% (1) chose Facebook,
68
14.2% (20) chose Snapchat, 7.1% (10) chose Video Chat, 22% (31) chose Text Messaging, 9.9%
(14) chose Phone Calls, and 42.6% (60) chose None. Five respondents did not choose an option.
By only looking at the frequency, the researchers are not sure what single respondents chose, but
they assume single respondents would have chosen None. Otherwise, single respondents
could have chosen which app or feature they believe would accelerate the development of a
romantic relationship if they were in one.
69
Relationship status x Facebook
Group Statistics
Relationship
FBDevelopment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
3.8163
1.18451
.16922
No
90
3.0778
.45537
.04800
dimension1
Wanting to know specifically what respondents in a relationship thought about certain questions,
the researchers ran Independent Samples T-Tests. The researchers were only interested in
knowing what respondents in relationships thought about certain question. Always testing the
variable, Relationship with variables regarding other applications or features on smartphones,
the researchers were able to gather data specifically on the respondents in relationships. This
Independent Sample T-Test tested the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
70
relationship?, with the variable FBDevelopment, which stands for the question, Do you
believe Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship? Testing these two
questions together, the researchers are able to specifically see what respondents who are in a
relationship think about the impact Facebook had on accelerating the development of their
relationships. Out of 49 respondents in a relationship, one respondent chose Strongly Agree,
nine chose Agree, six chose N/A, 15 chose Disagree, and 18 chose Strongly Disagree. The mean
answer from the respondents who said they are in a relationship is 3.8. In the researchers coding,
3 stands for N/A. Therefore, the mean response for respondents in a relationship is N/A.
The test yielded a significance value of .000. This significance value indicates that there is
strong evidence to support that respondents in a relationship do not have an opinion on the
impact that Facebook has in accelerating the development of their romantic relationship.
71
Relationship status x Snapchat
Group Statistics
Relationship
SCDevelopment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
2.7500
1.34481
.19411
No
90
2.8222
.57236
.06033
dimension1
The researchers wanted to know if respondents in a relationship believed Snapchat had an impact
on the development of their romantic relationships. To do determine this, they ran an
Independent Samples T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for the question,
Are you in a relationship?, and the variable SCDevelopment, which stands for, Do you
believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your relationship? Out of the 49
respondents in a relationship, nine chose Strongly Agree, 17 chose Agree, four chose N/A, 11
72
chose Disagree, and six chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response for respondents in a
relationship is 2.8. Based on the researchers coding, 2 stands for Agree, meaning the mean
response for respondents was Agree. With a significance level of .362, the researchers must
accept the null hypothesis. This means they have no evidence to prove that respondents believe
Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship.
73
Relationship status x Phone calls
Group Statistics
Relationship
PhoneDevelopment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
2.3469
.99060
.14151
No
90
2.8556
.55204
.05819
dimension1
The researchers wanted to know specifically if respondents believed phone calls accelerated the
development of their relationship. They tested the variable Relationship, which stands for,
Are you in a relationship?, with the variable PhoneDevelopment, which stands for, Do you
believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your relationship? Out of the 49
respondents in a relationship, seven chose Strongly Agree, 27 chose Agree, eight chose N/A, five
chose Disagree, and two chose Strongly Disagree. The Independent Samples T-Test shows that
the mean response for respondents in a relationship is 2.3. Based on the researchers coding, 2
stands for Agree, which means that the mean response for respondents in a relationship was
Agree. With a significance level of .001, the researchers have evidence to support that
respondents in a relationship agree that phone calls accelerated the development of their
relationship.
74
75
Relationship status x Text messages
Group Statistics
Relationship
TextDevelopment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
2.0000
.91287
.13041
No
91
2.8681
.47630
.04993
dimension1
The researchers wanted to know what respondents in a relationship thought about text messages
and if they played a part in the development of their romantic relationship. They ran an
Independent Samples T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? and the variable TextDevelopment, which stands for, Do you believe the
amount of texting between you and your significant other accelerated the development of your
relationship? Out of the 49 respondents in a relationship, 15 chose Strongly Agree, 24 chose
Agree, five chose N/A, and five chose Disagree. No respondent in a relationship chose Strongly
76
Disagree. For respondents in a relationship, the mean response is 2.0. Based on the researchers
coding, 2 stands for Agree, which means that the mean response for respondents was Agree.
With a significance level of .000, the researchers can reject their null hypothesis, meaning they
have strong evidence to suggest that respondents in a relationship believe text messaging
accelerated the development of their romantic relationship.
77
Relationship status x Video chat
Group Statistics
Relationship
VideoDevelopment
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
2.7755
1.19487
.17070
No
91
3.0330
.43335
.04543
dimension1
The researchers wanted to know if respondents in a romantic relationship believed that video
chatting accelerated the development of their romantic relationship. The researchers ran an
Independent Sample T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? and the variable VideoDevelopment, which stands for, Do you think video
chatting has accelerated the development of your romantic relationship? Out of the respondents
78
who said they are in a romantic relationship, seven chose Strongly Agree, 14 chose Agree, 17
chose N/A, five chose disagree, and six chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response is 2.8.
Based on the researchers coding, 2 stands for Agree, meaning they agree that Snapchat
accelerated the development of their romantic relationship. With a significance level of .075, the
researchers are not able to conclude that they have evidence to prove that respondents in a
romantic relationship believe Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship.
79
Relationship status x Apps
Group Statistics
Relationship
Apps
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
3.1224
1.16606
.16658
No
92
3.1630
1.05119
.10959
dimension1
The researchers asked respondents to indicate their belief on the importance of smartphone
applications in accelerating the development of their romantic relationships. Wanting to look
specifically at respondents who are in a romantic relationship, the researchers ran an Independent
Samples T-Test. They tested the variable, Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? with the variable, Apps, which stands for, Do you believe apps on smartphones
80
are crucial to developing a romantic relationship? Looking at the 49 respondents in a

relationship, three chose Strongly Agree, 17 chose Agree, four chose N/A, 21 chose Disagree,
and four chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response is 3.1. In the researchers coding system,
3 stands for N/A, which means that the mean response for respondents in a relationship was
N/A. With a significance level of .419, the researchers do not have evidence to prove that
respondents have an opinion on smartphone applications being crucial to the development of
81
Relationship status x Role
Group Statistics
Relationship
Role
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Yes
49
3.6939
1.21113
.17302
No
87
5.1034
1.41450
.15165
dimension1
The researchers wanted to know what apps or features on smartphones respondents thought were
most important to developing their romantic relationships. Looking at only respondents who
said they are in a relationship, the researchers ran an Independent Samples T-Test. They tested
the variable, Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a relationship? with the variable,
Role, which stands for, Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in
82
developing your romantic relationship? Out of the 49 respondents who are in a relationship,
one chose Facebook, nine chose Snapchat, eight chose video chat, 21 chose text messaging, six
chose phone calls, and four chose None. The mean response is 3.7. Based on the researchers
coding system, 3 stands for Video Chat. With a significance value of .000, the researchers
have strong evidence to support that respondents in a romantic relationship believe video
chatting played a critical role in developing their romantic relationship.
Summary
83
84
The purpose of the study that the researchers conducted was to find out what applications
of the smartphone have an effect on the development of romantic relationships among college
students at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest. After studying and researching previous
studies done on smartphones and romantic relationships, the researchers used a stratified random
sampling method to choose classes from each cohort at the college. After the classes were
chosen, a questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was distributed to the students. Out of the 141
participants that completed the questionnaire, 49 of these participants reported that they were
currently in a relationship.
The research question that the researchers sought to answer was: which features of the
smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships? The researchers found
significance values under .05 for the Independent Sample T-tests ran on phone calls and text
messages. Therefore, respondents at this small, Midwestern, liberal arts college believe that
phone calls and text messaging accelerated the development of their romantic relationships.
Thus, the answer to the research question is: phone calls and text messages accelerate the
development of romantic relationships.
The researchers hypothesized: smartphones accelerate the development of romantic
relationships. The researchers asked respondents to indicate if they believed apps were critical in
developing a romantic relationship. This test yielded a significance value of .419. Therefore, the
researchers did not have evidence to suggest that respondents believe that apps are critical to
developing a romantic relationship. Therefore, upon analyzing the data, the researchers do not
have evidence to support their hypothesis.
After analyzing the data, the researchers put together a list of limitations to their study
and recommendations for further study.
Limitations of the study
85
86
The researchers who conducted the study identified several limitations that could
influence the studys data and results. The first limitation is in regards to the overall sample size
for the study. The researchers had 141 participants fill out the questionnaire, however, only 49
respondents indicated they were in a romantic relationship. Since the purpose of the study was
to determine if certain smartphone applications accelerate the development of romantic
relationships, it would have been helpful to have more respondents who were in a relationship to
participate. This would have allowed the studys conclusions to be made with more statistical
confidence.
The majority of the questions in the questionnaire were directed primarily at those in a
romantic relationship. As only 49 participants involved in the study indicated that they were in a
relationship, many questions were irrelevant to the respondents who were not in a romantic
relationship. Clear instructions were not included in the questionnaire for single respondents, so
they could have answered the questions that were only aimed at respondents in a relationship.
This made it difficult to distinguish between respondents in a relationship and not in a
relationship.
Another limitation to the researchers study were the options available on some of the
questions. For example, one of the questions asked, do you believe that Snapchatting
accelerated the development of your relationship? The options for this question were, Strongly
Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. The option of answering N/A on the
questionnaire may have skewed the results of the data because N/A can have a different
meaning to each individual involved in the study. The researchers provided N/A as an option
for participants to indicate they did not have a strong opinion on that particular question. The
87
researchers never explicitly defined N/A, however, so respondents did not know that the
researchers assumed this definition for the option.
Lastly, participants in the study may have unintentionally underestimated the impact
smartphones have on their lives and relationships, therefore rating the effects of smartphones
lower than their real-world impact. Since all of the respondents involved in the study were
college students, it is likely that the participants have been exposed to smartphones for a majority
of their lives. Due to the millennial generations familiarity with smartphones, those involved in
the study may not realize how much they rely on their smartphones throughout everyday life,
including in their communication with their significant others.
Recommendations for further study
88
89
Stemming from the limitations of the study found by the researchers, there are several
recommendations for future studies. Since the overall sample size of 141 respondents only
yielded 49 subjects involved in a relationship and the study set out to find the effect of
smartphone use on romantic relationships, it would have been beneficial to obtain a larger
sample size to get a larger number of participants in a relationship. A sample size of 200 to 300
participants would provide researchers with more respondents that fell within the intended
demographic of the study and would have allowed the researchers to have drawn more
statistically confident conclusions from the study. Future researchers might find it beneficial to
only target individuals who are in romantic relationships.
Due to the fact that the questionnaire primarily consisted of questions pertaining to
people in a relationship, instructions telling those not involved with a significant other to
disregard questions about relationships should have been provided. A simple instruction stating,
if you are not in a romantic relationship, disregard questions 5-10, could have provided more
guidance for respondents. This would also automatically eliminate any respondents who are not
in a romantic relationship if they are included in the study.
For the questions asking the participants their feelings on how certain smartphone
applications accelerated their relationships, Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree were the options provided in this linear order. Future researchers may consider
eliminating the response N/A and instead telling respondents to skip the certain question if
they are not in a romantic relationship. If researchers do not want to include this instruction,
then the option N/A could be provided along with the option Unsure.
The researchers also suggest that future researchers consider only asking questions that
they will use at the end of their study. In this study, many questions were asked that didnt have
90
any tests ran on the data at all. For example, the questions, how many hours a day do you use
Facebook? and, how long have you been in a relationship? While the researchers ran a
frequency test all questions, no other tests were ran on these two questions and many more that
made it useful to answering the research question or hypothesis. Future researchers might find it
beneficial to only include questions in the questionnaire that they will use in data analysis.
Lastly, the researchers suggest that future researchers ask respondents about more
applications on smartphones. In this study, the researchers only asked about Facebook and
Snapchat. Future researchers could look into the effects that even more applications have on
romantic relationships, such as Tinder, Instagram, Twitter, and e-mail.
Conclusion
91
92
The findings of the study the researchers conducted suggests that they found a clear
answer to their research question, which features of the smartphone accelerate the development
of romantic relationships? The researchers found that the evidence they gathered from a small,
Midwestern, liberal arts college suggest that the use of phone calls and text messages play a
significant part accelerating the development of romantic relationships. Both text messaging and
phone calls received a significance value of lesser than .05, indicating that the respondents
believe that phone calls and text messaging accelerated the development of their romantic
relationships.
The hypothesis the researchers established, on the other hand, is not supported. The
researchers ran an Independent Samples T-test with the variable Relationship, which stands for
the question, are you in a relationship? and the variable Apps, which stands for the question,
do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship? This
test yielded a significance value of .419, which means that the researchers must accept the null
hypothesis, rejecting their hypothesis. Although the hypothesis is not supported, it is still
interesting to note the answer for the research question. Although respondents who indicated
that they were in relationship do not think applications on smartphones accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship, the tests show that respondents believe that phone
calling and text messaging accelerated the development of their romantic relationships.
The researchers researched this topic to find out what applications of smartphones
accelerate the development of romantic relationships among college students at a small,
Midwestern, liberal arts college. Conducting this research is important because the way in which
romantic relationships develop is always changing. Today, most individuals, especially collegeaged adults, have a smartphone. The significance of this study was to reveal how much the
93
invention of the smartphones and the use of their applications accelerate the development of
The researchers based their research on Knapps relational development theory (1978),
which states that there is five key stages of a relational development: initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding. The researchers also based their research on the findings
of a number of social scientists who studied smartphones and their functionalities relating to
romantic relationships. According to Pettegrew and Day (2015), smartphones play such a
significant role in romantic relationships today, so much so that face-to-face interactions seems
almost entirely irrelevant in the early stages of a relationship. Jin and Pena (2008) discovered
that the higher amount of mobile phone usage suggests positive outcomes within relationships.
McEwan and Horn (2016), as well as Pettegrew and Day (2015), suggest that the frequency and
positive discussion within text messaging often leads to positive outcomes overall within
romantic relationships. The researchers used this knowledge from previous researchers to
develop their research question, hypothesis, and compose their questionnaire.
Through distributing the questionnaire and analyzing the data, the researchers have
developed a list of limitations to their study. The first limitation is the sample size. Of the 141
participants studied, only 49 indicated that they were in a romantic relationship. The purpose of
the study was to examine those involved in romantic relationships, therefore the researchers were
only able to examine a little over a third of their respondents. The researchers did not examine
respondents who were not in a romantic relationship, because they did not believe it was
pertinent to their study.
The next limitation the researchers encountered were the questions in the questionnaire.
Since such a significant amount of respondents were not currently in a romantic relationship,
94
they may have answered the questions regardless of their current relationship status. For
example, they may have still answered the question, How many minutes a week do you spend
video chatting (FaceTime, Skype, etc.) with your significant other? This could have diluted the
final results and not given a reflective result of the sample we were intending to study (those
involved in romantic relationships). This is also why the researchers were only able to run tests
that would allow them to look only at the respondents in a romantic relationship, like the
Independent Samples T-test, for example.
Another limitation to the study is the options that were given in some of the questions.
For example, for the question, Do you believe Facebook accelerated the development of your
romantic relationship, the options respondents had was Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree,
and Strongly Disagree. The researchers believed that N/A could be an option that signified that
respondents were unsure or didnt have an opinion on the question. The researchers also
assumed that respondents not in a relationship would choose this option for questions that did not
apply to them. Having two different ideas of the meaning for the same response is confusing
when analyzing the results, though, and more options should have been presented to limit
confusion.
Based off these limitations, the researchers composed a list of recommendations. First,
the researchers recommend finding a larger sample size, one that includes more respondents who
are actually in a romantic relationship. Researchers with more resources or time might find a
way to only have people involved in romantic relationships answer the questionnaire in the first
place, instead of blindly having respondents fill out the question, not knowing their relationship
status before.
95
The next recommendation the researchers suggested is to construct a more specific

questionnaire. Researchers could do this by only asking questions that will be used at the end of
the study when analyzing the data, and by giving specific instructions for those who are not in a
romantic relationship. That way, if respondents who are not in a romantic relationship may be
filling the questionnaire out, they will know what to do with the questions that do not apply to
them.
The researchers recommend that future researchers provide more specific options to
answering the questions. For example, a question asking, Do you believe Snapchatting
accelerated the development of your relationship? would have the options Strongly Agree,
Agree, Unsure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and N/A. This way, respondents who are not in a
relationship have a clear option to circle, and respondents who are in a relationship but do not
have an opinion on the question can circle Unsure. The researchers also recommend that
future researchers ask respondents about more smartphone applications, such as Tinder, Twitter,
Instagram, or email.
The researchers findings and research have both answered questions as well as created
them. They have found that respondents at a small, Midwestern, liberal arts college believe that
only phone calls and text messages accelerate the development of their romantic relationships.
The researchers do not have evidence to suggest that other popular functions and applications,
such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Video Chat, accelerate the development of romantic
relationships.
References
96
97
Adler, E. M., & Clark, R. (2003). How its done: An invitation to social research (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Publishers.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226244.
Baxter, H. (2013). Many matches but no spark. Retrieved from
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2013/11/many-matches-no-spark.
Bilton, N. (2014). Tinder, the fast-growing dating app, taps an age old truth. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/tinder-the-fastgrowing-dating-app-taps-an-age-old-truth.html?_r=1.
Brody, N., Mooney, C., Westerman, S., & McDonald, P. (2009). Lts gt 2gthr l8r: Text
messaging as a relational maintenance tool. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 28,
109-127
Colao, J. J. (2014). The inside story of Snapchat: The worlds hottest app or a $3 billion
disappearing act? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2014/01/06/theinside-story-of-snapchat-the-worlds-hottest-app-or-a-3-billion-disappearingact/#36de223555ec.
Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students romantic relationships on Facebook:
Linking the gratification for maintenance to Facebook maintenance activity and the
experience of jealousy. Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 365-383.
doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1058283
David, G., & Cambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social
Media+ Society, 2(2). doi: 2056305116641976.
Duggan, M. (2015). Mobile messaging and social media 2015. The Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobilemessaging-and-socialmedia-2015-main-findings/.
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/25/additional-demographic-analysis-2/.
Duggan, M. (2015). The demographics of social media users. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the
dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59, 19-36.
Facebook-About | Facebook. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/facebook/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item.
Facebook. (2016). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, p. 1.
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic
relationship development An exploration of Knapps relational stage model. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771-794.
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal
Relationships, 7, 363378.
Grigoriadis V. (2014). Inside the hookup factory. Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/inside-tinders-hookup-factory-20141027.
James, J. L. (2015). Mobile dating in the digital age: Computer-mediated communication and
relationship building on tinder. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas State University).
98
99
Jin, B., & Pea, J. (2008). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: The relationship
between mobile phone use and relational uncertainty, intimacy, and attachment.
Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
Jin, B. & Pea, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use,
relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication
Reports, 23, 39-51
Knapp, M.L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Knapps Relational Model. Retrieved from http://communicationtheory.org/knapps-relationshipmodel/.
Lansky, S. (2016). The Self-Help Sage of Snapchat. Time, 187(18), 46.
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ling, R. & Donner, J. (2009). Mobile communication. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
McEwan B. & Horn, D. (2016). ILY & can you pick me up some milk: Effects of relational
maintenance via text messaging on relational satisfaction and closeness in dating
partners. Southern Communication Journal, 81, 161-181
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and
posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817826.
Miller-Ott, A., E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R., L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on
satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17-34.
100
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young
adults use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and
associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1771-1778
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text Messaging and Connectedness Within Close Interpersonal
Relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 697.
doi:10.1080/01494920903224269
Pettegrew, L.S. & Day, C. (2015). Smart phones and mediated relationships: the changing face
of relational communication. The Review of Communication, 15, 122-139.
Smartphone [Def 1]. (n.d.). English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved November 16, 2016,
from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smartphone.
Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013, October 20). Online Dating & Relationships. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships/.
The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp's
relational stage model. (2012). Conference Papers -- International Communication
Association, 1-32.
Trowbridge, A. (2014). Evolution of the phone: From the first call to the next frontier.
Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/evolution-of-the-phone-from-the-firstcall-to-the-next-frontier/.
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). Snapchat is more personal:
An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601.
101
Velten, J., & Arif, R. (2016). The influence of Snapchat on interpersonal relationship
development and human communication. The Journal Of Social Media In Society, 5(2),
5-43.
Yang, C. C., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of
electronic intimacy in college students' interpersonal relationships. New Media &
Society, 16(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1177/1461444812472486
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: 1A
comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 18(3), 141-146.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Witty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online
relationships. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Appendices
102
Appendix A
103
104
Appendix B
105
106
Directions: Please circle the most appropriate response.

For the purpose of this questionnaire, according to Merriam-Webster (2016), a smartphone
is defined as, a mobile telephone that can be used to send and receive e-mail, connect to
the Internet, take photographs, etc.
1. What year in school are you?
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
2. What is your gender?

Male
Female
3. Do you own a smartphone?

Yes
No
4. Are you in a relationship?

Yes
No
5. How long have you been in a relationship?

N/A
1-3 months
4-6 months
7-9 months
10-12 months
13 months or more
6. How many hours a day do you use your smartphone to communicate with your significant
other?
0
1-3
4-7
8-9
7. Do you have a Facebook account?

Yes
No
8. How many hours a day do you use Facebook?

0
1-2
3-4
more than 5
more than 10
107
9. Do you think that Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship?

Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10. Do you have a Snapchat account?

Yes
No
11. How many hours a day do you use Snapchat to communicate with your significant other?
0
1-2
3-4
more than 5
12. Do you believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your relationship?
Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13. How many minutes a week do you spend talking on the phone with your significant other?
0
1-20
21-40
41-60
61 or more
14. Do you believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your relationship?
Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15. How many text messages do you send to your significant other in a day?
0
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
101 or more
16. Do you believe the amount of texting between you and your significant other accelerated the
development of your relationship?
Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
17. How many minutes a week do you spend video chatting (FaceTime, Skype, etc.) with your
significant other?
0
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
101 or more
18. Do you think video chatting has accelerated the development of your romantic relationship?
Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
108
19. Do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship?
Strongly Agree
Agree
N/A
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
20. Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in developing your
romantic relationship? (Only circle one)
Facebook
Phone Calls
Snapchat
Video Chat
None
Thank you.
Text Messaging
Appendix C
109
110
Loras College Institutional Review Board

REQUEST FOR IRB REVIEW
Student Research Project
Please complete the following research application. Provide all information requested as part of
this application. Do not simply refer to other documents or grant applications. Once completed,
send this form, with the attached Research description, and all supporting documents (email
preferred) to the Institutional Review Board chair: Kathrin Parks, Sociology Program (5887819); irb@loras.edu
Ethics Certification: In submitting this review request, you agree to conduct this research as
described in the attached documents. You agree to request and wait to receive approval from the
IRB for any changes to the research proposal. You will comply with the policies for conducting
ethical research as outlined in the Belmont Report (at
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html .) and other applicable professional ethical
standards.
Please watch the video The Belmont Report: Basic Ethical Principles and Their Application from
the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
from the beginning of the program to minute 13, available at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up09dioFdEU . Your electronic signature in the space below
affirms that you have watched the video and understand the ethical principles presented:
1.
Student Investigator(s) and contact information:
a.
Allison Wong, Allison.wong@loras.edu
b.
Haley OBrien, Haley.obrien@loras.edu
c.
Charlie Grant, Charles.Grant@loras.edu
d.
Kevin Connor, Kevin.connor@loras.edu
2.
Title of Project:
a.
The role smartphones play in the development of romantic relationships
3.
Course Requring Project:
a.
Communication Research
4.
Faculty sponsor name and contact information:
111
Faculty sponsors should be satisfied the procedures outlined in this review application are in line
with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report as well as any appropriate professional ethical
standards. Faculty sponsors should email the IRB chair (irb@loras.edu) to indicate that they
have reviewed this application prior to it being submitted. Students, you should copy your
faculty sponsor on all IRB-related correspondence.
a.
Mary Carol Harris, marycarol.harris@loras.edu
5. Proposed duration of all project activities: From August 29, 2016 to December 2, 2016
6. Approximate number of subjects:

a. 140
8. Type of subject: (Mark all appropriate)
__ Adults, Non-student
_X_ Loras College students
__ Other college students
__ Minors (under age 18)
__ Persons with cognitive or psychological impairment
__ Persons with limited civil freedom
__ Persons with HIV+/AIDS
__ Pregnant women
9. Special considerations: (Mark all appropriate)
_X_ No special materials

__ Videotaping
__ Audio taping
__ Use of deception (explain in attachment)
112
113
__ Use of alcohol or drugs

__ Other (explain):
10. Funding source (other than Loras College):

a. Personl funding
.Please complete the Research Description outlined on the next page.

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION
Please address each of the following points below. If a question or section is not applicable to
your research, please state this.
1. Purpose & Significance of Project.
Briefly describe the purpose of your research.
The purpose of our research is to determine if students believe the use of smartphones accelerate
the development of romantic relationships.
Describe your hypotheses/goals. If you give background on previous research that
supports your goals, please include reference citations at end of this section.
Our hypothesis is, Smartphones accelerates the development of romantic relationships. Our
goal in this research is to better understand how various apps and features on smartphones, such
as Facebook, Snapchat, voice call, texting, and video call, impact the development of romantic
relationships.
Include an explanation of the expected outcome.
114
We expect the outcome to show that students will believe that smartphones accelerate the
development of romantic relationships.
Indicate why the information obtained might be useful or beneficial.
The information obtained will be beneficial because it will help researchers and others who are
interested to better understand what students in the Fall of 2016 at a small, Catholic, Midwestern
school believe about smartphones and romantic relationships.
2. Participants
Recruitment:
How will you recruit the participants?
We will recruit the participants by randomly selecting classes from each grade: first-year,
sophomore, junior and senior. Once a class is selected, we will ask the professor of that class to
grant us permission to give our questionnaire to his or her students.
Where will they be recruited from?
They will be recruited from Loras College.
How will they be selected?
The participants will be selected by using a stratified random sampling method. Every class in
the Fall of 2016 at Loras College is eligible, and classes with freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and
seniors will be randomly selected.
Justification is required if participants will be restricted to one gender, racial, or ethnic
group.
This is not applicable.
115
Consent:
How will you obtain consent?
We will ontain consent by having each participant sign a waiver on the front of the questionnaire
that will be distributed.
If, due to the nature of your research, a formal consent document cannot be used,
justification for this must be given.

Collaboration:
If you will be collaborating with other institutions in order to recruit participants and
conduct the research, please attach approvals that have been or will be obtained (e.g., school
districts, hospitals, other colleges). Preferably these will be letters on the cooperating
institutions letterhead, stating willingness to participate.
3. Methods and Procedure: Describe your research procedure.
What will you ask the participants to do?
We will ask the participants to fill out a questionnaire.
Where will they do this? Alone or in groups?
They will do this alone.
How long will the procedure take? How many sessions?
The procedure will take only one session and about 15 minutes.
116
Give details about any questionnaires or stimuli participants will be exposed to; be
specific in amounts or dosages of any substances participants will be asked to ingest.

(Participants may not consume alcoholic beverages in student research projects.)
Participants will only be exposed to one questionnaire which asks about 20 questions.
Instruments/Materials: Attach copies of all forms, surveys and instruments to be used.
4. Risk & Benefit Analysis
What are the psychological, physical, or social (loss of reputation, deception, privacy,
etc) risks subjects might encounter by participating? (Please do not say none. All activities
involve some risk, although it may be minimal.)
Participants may feel down about themselves if they are not in a romantic relationship, because
the whole questionnaire is about romantic relationships.
What precautions will you take to protect participants or reduce risk?
We will ensure their anonynomity so they know that no one will see their results.
What benefit, if any, will the participants gain from participating in this research?
(Please do not include compensation or course credit as benefit. If none, simply state that.)
They will gain nothing.
What compensation, if any, will participants receive (payment, gifts, course credit, etc.)?
(If none, simply state that.)

They will receive no payment.
What follow-up or debriefing procedures will you have after the research is concluded?
We will have no follow-up.
117
If any deception or withholding of information is required for this research, please
explain why it is necessary and how this will be handled in the debriefing. Attach debriefing
script.
There will be no debriefing.
5. Data Handling
How will the data be kept anonymous or confidential?
The data will be kept anonymous by immediately removing the signed cover letter from the
questionnaire. All cover letters and questionnaires will be kept in separate boxes once complete.
All cover letters will be destroyed.
Where will data be stored and for how long? Who will have access to the data?
Data will be stored in Dr. Mary Carol Harriss office at Loras College. Only Dr. Harris and
group members will have access to the data until the research is done in December.
Include specific details on the use and storage of any audio or video tapes.
We do not have any audio or video tapes.
Do you plan to share the results of this research in a class? If so, how?
Yes, we plan to share the results of this research in class. We will be giving a PowerPoint
presentation to the class on our findings.
Do you plan to share the results of this research outside of your class? If so, how?
We have no plans to share the results of this research outside of your class.
6. If Participants Will Be Minors (Under age 18)
Justify the inclusion of minors.
118
Specify how parental consent will be obtained
Specify how you will obtain assent of minor subjects.
Describe any activities planned for non-participants, if other children in a classroom will
be participating.
Describe how you will use nonverbal signs to indicate when young children wish to stop
participating.
6.
Investigator Background (Student researchers only)
What coursework have you had to prepare you for research?
We have had lessons on ethics in research, why social scientists conduct research, how to craft
hypotheses, research questions, and a questionnaire.
What is your previous research-related experience, if any?
None.
How will your faculty sponsor supervise or be involved?
Our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris, will be with us through the whole process. She helped
form the research topic, hypothesis, and research question. She will also help us to interpret our
data from the questionnaires.
7.
Consent Forms. Please attach one of the following options related to obtaining consent:
Written Consent Attach copy of all consent & assent forms. See Informed Consent
Checklist on the IRB website

(https://lorasedu.sharepoint.com/Academics/AcademicCommittees/IRB/default.aspx).
Oral consent Provide justification for not obtaining written consent and the text of the
script you will use to obtain oral consent.
119
Waiver of consent Provide written justification for waiving consent process. This is
rare and usually granted only if consent process itself adds substantial risk to the research.
Appendix D
120
121
Dear Student,
As students enrolled in the Communication Research course, we are very interested in assessing
Loras College students perception of technology and relationships. The course in which you are
currently enrolled has been randomly selected from the comprehensive list of Fall 2016 courses
to participate in our study.
Your participation in this study is voluntary; however, your feedback is important. Please print
and sign your name in the spaces provided below. Please do not put your name on the
questionnaire.
We, the researchers, guarantee your anonymity and the results will be confidential regarding all
responses and information shared in this study. Your responses will only be used for the
research being conducted in the Fall 2016 Communication Research course.
Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the front of this classroom. If
you have further questions, please contact our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris at
marycarol.harris@loras.edu.
Thank you for your participation in our study.
Sincerely,
Allison Wong
Haley OBrien
______________________
________________________
Charlie Grant
Kevin Connor
________________________
Date______________
________________________
Print your name______________________
Sign your name____________________________
122
Appendix E
123
124
Dear Professor _______________,
My name is ___________. My COM 485 Communication Research group is conducting a

study on technology and relationships
. Your course, (name of course), which meets on (days of the week) at (time of day), has been
randomly selected to be included in our study.
I would like to come to your class on ________________ and ask your students to complete our
questionnaire. It will take your students approximately 5 -7 minutes to complete the
questionnaire.
I appreciate your consideration of my request.
Please let me know if I may come to your class on __________ or tell me another date which
will work better for you.
Sincerely,
Your name.
Appendix F
125

LORAS COLLEGE SCHEDULE - FALL 2016 LAST UPDATED: 11/30/16
MAX USED WTLST
TIME
DAY
SYN
126
21:00
DEPT CAT SEC TITLE

BLDG ROOM
INSTRUCTOR(S)
CRED
30
29
09:00-09:50
7259 L.ACC 227 01 Managerial Accounting

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
25
10:00-10:50

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
26
08:00-09:20

TTH
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
31
09:30-10:50

TTH
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
KEAN 333
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
29
10:00-10:50
7265 L.ACC 331 01 Intermed Financial Acct I

MWF
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
3.0
28
26
08:00-09:20
7266 L.ACC 343 01 Cost Accounting

TTH
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
ARR
1
ARR
7928 L.ACC 394

ARR
Lammer, L
03 Accounting Internship
1-12
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Signature Required
25
20
08:00-09:20
7267 L.ACC 455 01 Federal Income Tax I

TTH
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
16
07:00-07:50
7268 L.ACC 468 01 Adv Financial Accounting

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
ARR
3
ARR
7926 L.ACC 494

ARR
Sturm, K
1-12
127
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
7934 L.ACC 494

ARR
Lammer, L
1-12
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
7
09:30-10:20
7543 L.ARC 101 01 Transition to College

TTH
WAHL 124
Gallagher, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2.0
24
22
10:00-10:50
5989 L.ATR 140 01 First Aid & Emergency Care

MWF
ROHL 143
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY FIRST YEAR AND SOPHOMORES
3.0
5991 L.ATR 280 01 Athletic Training Clinical I

ROHL 127
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $40.00
1.0
5992 L.ATR 290 01 Eval of Athletic Injuries I

MWF
GRAB 104
Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
12
11:00-11:50
20
13
08:00-08:50
15
10
01:30-02:20pm
25
24
09:30-10:50
15
9
01:30-02:20pm
5994 L.ATR 380 01 Athletic Training Clinical III

GRAB 104
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $40.00
7414 L.ATR 481 01 Pathophysiology

TTH
HENN 070
Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
7434 L.ATR 489 01 Athletic Train Clinical V

ROHL 127
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $40.00
1.0
3.0
1.0
25
26
12:30-01:50pm
7324 L.BAN 210 01 Essentials of Analytics

TTH
KEAN 334
Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
02:00-03:20pm
7318 L.BAN 210 02 Essentials of Analytics

TTH
KEAN 334
Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
9
06:00-09:00pm
7464 L.BAN 295 01 Topics: Data Analytics Lab

KEAN 334
Lehman, D
2.0
128
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
8
02:30-03:20pm
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
20
16
09:00-09:50
08:00-10:50
20
18
09:00-09:50
11:00-01:50pm
20
16
09:00-09:50
02:00-04:50pm
20
14
09:00-09:50
08:00-10:50
20
9
09:00-09:50
02:00-04:50pm
16
14
11:00-12:20pm
08:00-09:50
16
17
11:00-12:20pm
12:30-02:20pm
20
20
10:00-10:50
7317 L.BAN 330 01 Introduction to Data Science

MWF
HENN 270
Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7319 L.BAN 450 01 Marketing Analytics

KEAN 305
Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY
3.0
6775 L.BIO 115 01 Principles of Biology I

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F / Staff
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F / Staff
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6778 L.BIO 116 01 Principles of Biology II

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D / Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6779 L.BIO 116 02 Principles of Biology II

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D / Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6015 L.BIO 225 02 Human Anatomy & Physiology I

TTH
HENN 070
Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6016 L.BIO 225 03 Human Anatomy & Physiology I

TTH
HENN 070
Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6780 L.BIO 240 01 Plant Biology

MWF
SCIE 109
Sinha, A
4.0
129
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-03:20pm
TH
SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
18
10:00-10:50
09:00-10:50
20
20
01:30-02:20pm
01:30-03:20pm
7325 L.BIO 260 01 Human Anatomy & Physiology-AH

MWF
SCIE 134
Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 134
NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human Genetics-HV

3.0
WF
SCIE 049
Schnee, F
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 049
Clustered with 6742 L.PHI 317 01 Ethics &
New Genetics-HV
COURSE FEE: $20.00
12
11
10:00-10:50
02:30-04:20pm
12
12
10:00-10:50
02:30-04:20pm
12
10
10:00-10:50
02:30-04:20pm
25
14
03:30-04:20pm
16
13
12:30-01:20pm
02:30-04:20pm
16
16
12:30-01:20pm
02:30-04:20pm
6782 L.BIO 279 01 Exp Design/Biostat-AH

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
W
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
6784 L.BIO 389 01 Junior Seminar

SCIE 208
Schnee, F
Aug 29 - Dec 15
BIO & BIO RESEARCH MAJORS ONLY
1.0
6785 L.BIO 420 01 Vertebrate Physiology

MWF
SCIE 128
Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6786 L.BIO 420 02 Vertebrate Physiology

MWF
SCIE 128
Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
W
SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
25
15
02:30-04:20pm
6787 L.BIO 488 01 Senior Seminar Portfolio-PJ

SCIE 208
Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
130
2.0
28
26
02:30-03:50pm
5685 L.BUS 230 01 Prin of Management

MW
KEAN 334
Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
28
29
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
KEAN 011
Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
28
28
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
KEAN 011
Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
5687 L.BUS 240 01 Principles of Marketing

KEAN 333
Donovan, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
10:00-10:50
5688 L.BUS 240 02 Principles of Marketing

MWF
KEAN 303
Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
34
08:00-08:50
5690 L.BUS 250 01 Business Statistics

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Bus-255
3.0
25
27
09:00-09:50
5691 L.BUS 317 01 Business Law I

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
5693 L.BUS 335 01 Human Resource Management

KEAN 333
Norton, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
25
12:30-01:50pm
5694 L.BUS 343 01 Marketing Management

TTH
KEAN 009
Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
30
12:30-01:20pm
7327 L.BUS 349 01 Consumer Behavior

MWF
KEAN 334
Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
31
06:00-09:00pm
30
33
06:00-09:00pm
131
28
26
08:00-08:50
5697 L.BUS 350 01 Managerial Finance

MWF
KEAN 334
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
09:00-09:50

MWF
KEAN 011
Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
10:00-10:50

MWF
KEAN 305
Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
17
01:30-02:20pm
7328 L.BUS 353 01 Financial Institutions

MWF
KEAN 303
Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
09:30-10:50
7329 L.BUS 354 01 Personal Financial Planning

TTH
KEAN 303
Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
11
12:30-01:50pm
5700 L.BUS 358 01 LIFE Portfolio Application I

TTH
KEAN 305
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
06:00-09:00pm
5702 L.BUS 433 01 Global Leadership

KEAN 334
Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
22
09:00-09:50
5703 L.BUS 447 01 Marketing Research

MWF
KEAN 303
Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
19
09:30-10:50
5704 L.BUS 451 01 Intermed Financial Management

TTH
KEAN 333
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
3.0
25
0
12:30-01:50pm
5705 L.BUS 458 01 LIFE Portfolio Application II

TTH
KEAN 305
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED
3.0
40
29
10:00-10:50
6106 L.CHE 111 01 General Chemistry I

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 128
4.0
05:00-07:00pm

40
32
12:30-01:20pm
132

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 128
4.0
4.0
05:00-07:00pm

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 128
24
20
08:00-10:50
24
22
12:30-03:20pm
05:00-07:00pm
40
30
01:30-02:20pm
24
21
08:00-10:50
24
16
01:30-04:20pm
6173 L.CHE 111L 01 Gen Chemistry I Lab

0.0
SCIE 245
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-111
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0
SCIE 245
Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

0.0
TH
SCIE 245
Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
W

0.0
SCIE 245
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
12
12:30-03:20pm

TH
SCIE 245
Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0
15
11
01:30-02:20pm
6181 L.CHE 225 01 Quantitative Analysis

MWF
SCIE 109
Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 203
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6856 L.CHE 234 01 Organic Chemistry II

MWF
SCIE 109
Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
6857 L.CHE 234 02 Organic Chemistry II

MWF
SCIE 109
Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
12:30-04:20pm
18
16
08:00-08:50
08:00-10:50
18
12
08:00-08:50
12:30-03:20pm

24
24
08:00-08:50
08:00-09:50
24
22
10:00-10:50
12:30-02:20pm
133
6184 L.CHE 262 01 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH

MWF
SCIE 252
Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
7428 L.CHE 262 02 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH

MWF
SCIE 252
Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
30
25
09:00-09:50
6188 L.CHE 335 01 Introductory Biochemistry

3.0
MWF
SCIE 208
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-335L
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
18
08:00-10:50
6938 L.CHE 335L 01 Biochemistry Lab

TH
SCIE 125
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
6196 L.CHE 389 01 Junior Seminar

SCIE 242
Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
6797 L.CHE 489 01 Senior Seminar: Portfolio-PJ

SCIE 128
Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors
1.0
20
8
02:30-03:20pm
20
12
03:30-04:20pm
15
ARR
15
ARR
15
ARR
ARR
ARR
ARR
6204 L.CHE 491 01 Research

ARR
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Permission Required
1.0

ARR
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2.0

ARR
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
12:30-01:50pm
5706 L.CIT 110 01 Computing & Info Tech Basics

TTH
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
3.0
25
20
02:00-03:20pm
5707 L.CIT 110 02 Computing & Info Tech Basics

TTH
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
3.0
20
20
12:30-01:20pm
25
23
06:00-09:00pm
16
14
09:00-09:50
5709 L.CIT 115 01 Programming & Design Basics

MTWTHF
HENN 360
Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
5710 L.CIT 217 01 Network Management

KEAN 303
Burken, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
134
4.0
3.0
5712 L.CIT 219 01 Computer Organiz/Architecture

MWF
SCIE 231
Neebel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 231
4.0
20
16
08:00-08:50
5713 L.CIT 225 01 Data Structures & Algorithms

MTWTHF
HENN 250
Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
27
19
09:30-10:50
7330 L.CIT 321 01 Data Analysis

TTH
KEAN 305
Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
12:30-03:20pm
25
11
06:00-09:00pm
5714 L.CIT 322 01 Web 1 Basic HTML Authoring

1.0
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Sep 30
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CIT-
323*L.CIT-324
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
5715 L.CIT 323 01 Web 2 Adv HTML Authoring

1.0
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Oct 3 - Nov 4
322*L.CIT-324
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
5716 L.CIT 324 01 Web 3 Site Dev & Admin

1.0
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Nov 7 - Dec 16
322*L.CIT-323
25
9
10:00-10:50
7332 L.CIT 325 01 Algorithm Design & Analysis

MWF
SCIE 125
Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
11
09:30-10:50
5718 L.CIT 485 01 Systems Engineering

TTH
HENN 350
Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
3.0
25
21
08:00-08:50
6816 L.COM 131 01 Intro Mass Communication

MWF
HOFF 112
Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
23
10:00-10:50

MWF
HOFF 111
Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
135
25
20
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
HOFF 411
Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
22
12:30-02:20pm
5877 L.COM 158 01 Intro TV Production

TTH
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
3.0
16
16
09:30-10:50
7413 L.COM 164 01 Digital Imaging

TTH
HOFF 435
Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
3.0
25
24
08:00-09:20
5879 L.COM 190 01 Communication Theory

TTH
HOFF 411
Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
22
10:00-10:50
5883 L.COM 201 01 Prin of Public Relations

MWF
HOFF 412
Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
20
09:00-09:50
5884 L.COM 202 01 Public Relations Writing

MWF
HOFF 411
Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
30
10:00-10:50
5885 L.COM 225 01 Media Writing

3.0
MWF
HOFF 311
Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.COM-131
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
7409 L.COM 255 01 Interpersonal Communicatn-IV

3.0
TF
HOFF 311
Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business
Ethics-IV
22
20
09:30-10:50
7435 L.COM 257 01 Electronic Field Production

TTH
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
3.0
20
6
03:30-04:20pm
5887 L.COM 259 01 Mock Trials

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Oct 14
1.0
22
1
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
Oct 24 - Dec 15
1.0
16
16
12:30-01:50pm
5889 L.COM 264 01 Desktop Publishing

TTH
HOFF 435
Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR Majors Only
COURSE FEE: $50.00
3.0
136
25
20
02:30-03:50pm
5890 L.COM 280 01 News Analysis

3.0
MW
HOFF 412
Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
02:30-03:50pm
7410 L.COM 286 01 Identity/Comm in Rock&Roll-AI

MW
HOFF 136
Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
14
3
09:00-09:50
5892 L.COM 293 01 Media Studies Practicum Staff

MWF
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
W
HOFF 211
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0
20
20
10:00-10:50
5895 L.COM 351 01 Adv Public Relations Writing

MWF
HOFF 411
Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
1
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Oct 14
1.0
22
0
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
Oct 24 - Dec 15
1.0
20
15
09:00-09:50
5898 L.COM 380 01 Persuasion

3.0
MWF
HOFF 412
Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
12:30-01:50pm
5900 L.COM 390 01 Media Criticism

TTH
HOFF 411
Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
04:00-06:30pm
0
ARR
1
ARR
30
38
12:30-01:20pm
15
ARR
0
ARR
16
14
09:00-09:50
8020 L.COM 394 01 Internship

ARR
Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF CHAIRPERSON REQ
5902 L.COM 485 01 Communication Research
MWF
HOFF 512
Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR & MEDIA STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
5903 L.COM 492 01 Journalism Practicum
ARR
Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTOR REQ
5904 L.COM 493 01 Media Studies Practicum II
MWF
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
1-3
3.0
1.0
1.0
137
COURSE FEE: $25.00

25
19
09:00-09:50
5972 L.CRJ 120 01 Intro to Criminal Justice

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
06:00-07:20pm
5978 L.CRJ 120 02 Intro to Criminal Justice

TTH
HENN 250
Gau, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
35
35
06:00-09:00pm
5980 L.CRJ 224 01 Criminal Law

HENN 070
Corken, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
20
09:00-09:50
5987 L.CRJ 252 01 Criminology

MWF
WAHL 101
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
17
10:00-10:50
7334 L.CRJ 253 01 Corrections

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
10:00-10:50
7505 L.CRJ 280 01 CJ Ethical Considerations-AV

MWF
HENN 480
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
02:30-03:20pm
7506 L.CRJ 280 02 CJ Ethical Considerations-AV

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
27
06:00-09:00pm
30
26
08:00-08:50
7335 L.CRJ 312 01 Crime Prevention

WAHL 101
Corken, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6012 L.CRJ 320 01 Juvenile Delinq & Justice

MWF
HENN 480
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
7
05:00-08:00pm
10
1
08:00-08:50
10
1
08:00-08:50
3.0
3.0
7412 L.CRJ 400 01 Women and Crime

HENN 350
Tentis, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
6028 L.CRJ 490 03 Field Experience

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ONLY
FLD INSTRUCTION COORD PERMISSION
3.0

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0

10
0
08:00-08:50
10
0
08:00-08:50
10
0
08:00-08:50
10
0
08:00-08:50
10
0
08:00-08:50
15
15
12:30-01:50pm

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
5.0

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6.0

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
7.0

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
8.0

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
9.0
6522 L.CTL 100 01 MOI: The Four Marks-FI

TTH
SMYT 102
Osheim, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
21
21
01:30-02:20pm
6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for One-IV

MWF
KEAN 011
Lorenz, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6651 L.CTL 277 01
Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV
21
21
11:00-12:20pm
138
3.0
3.0
6651 L.CTL 277 01 Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV

3.0
TTH
KEAN 011
Wathier, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for
One-IV
18
15
06:00-08:00pm
6652 L.CTL 490 01 Leadership Sem for Soc Justice

TH
SMYT 102
C. Kuhl
Aug 29 - Oct 14
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
2.0
139
30
27
09:00-09:50
5719 L.ECO 221 01 Prin of Microeconomics

MWF
HOFF 512
Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
10:00-10:50
5720 L.ECO 221 02 Prin of Microeconomics

MWF
HOFF 512
Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
12:30-01:20pm
5722 L.ECO 222 01 Prin of Macroeconomics

MWF
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
29
01:30-02:20pm
5723 L.ECO 222 02 Prin of Macroeconomics

MWF
KEAN 333
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
10
09:30-10:50
5725 L.ECO 321 01 Intermed Microecon Theory

TTH
HOFF 312
Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
16
12:30-01:20pm
7337 L.ECO 346 01 Public Finance

MWF
HOFF 311
Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
ARR
1
ARR
7925 L.ECO 498

ARR
Smith, J
01 Directed Readings
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
08:00-09:20
6213 L.EDU 200 01 Foundations of Education

3.0
TTH
WAHL 143
Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-205
25
25
08:00-08:50
6215 L.EDU 205 01 Foundations/Special Education

3.0
MWF
WAHL 143
Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
6216 L.EDU 221 01 Learn Envirn & Collaborations

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
23
08:00-08:50
7549 L.EDU 221 02 Learn Envirn & Collaborations

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
09:30-10:50
6217 L.EDU 230 01 Children & Young Adult Lit-AA

TTH
WAHL 110
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS
3.0

26
25
02:30-03:20pm
140
6218 L.EDU 232 01 C/I in PE/Health/Wellness

1.0
WAHL 109
Schreiber, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Declared Elementary Ed Majors Only
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-
233*L.EDU-234
26
25
03:30-04:20pm
6219 L.EDU 233 01 C/I in Performing Arts

1.0
WAHL 109
Davis-Orwoll, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
232*L.EDU-234
26
25
04:30-05:20pm
6220 L.EDU 234 01 C/I in Visual Arts

1.0
WAHL 109
Lovell, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
232*L.EDU-233
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
6223 L.EDU 265 01 Multicultural Education-AC

TTH
WAHL 143
Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
6
08:00-09:20
6224 L.EDU 321 01 Infant/Toddlers Curriculum

3.0
TTH
WAHL 109
Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
19
5
03:45-06:45pm
15
ARR
1
ARR
3.0
6226 L.EDU 323 01 Preprimary Curriculum

3.0
WAHL 110
Steines David,T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
7552 L.EDU 323

ARR
Staff
02 Preprimary Curriculum
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
5
09:30-10:50
6225 L.EDU 327 01 Dev Curr & Methods Birth-Age 5

TTH
WAHL 109
Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
16
08:00-09:20
6227 L.EDU 331 01 Curr/Instr in Lang Arts

3.0
TTH
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
16
09:30-10:50
6228 L.EDU 332 01 Beginning Reading

TTH
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
3.0
141
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
15
03:15-07:15pm
12
12
08:00-10:50
6229 L.EDU 333 01 Curr/Instr in Math

WAHL 109
Nugent, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Meets at Fulton Elementary School
3.0
6231 L.EDU 334 01 Intermediate Clinical K-6

MWF
WAHL 124
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
7532 L.EDU 334 02 Intermediate Clinical K-6

ARR
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
7580 L.EDU 335 01 Curr/Instr in Soc Studies

WAHL 145
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
14
12:30-03:20pm
7444 L.EDU 336 01 Science Curr/Instruct

TH
WAHL 145
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 14
3.0
15
9
12:30-01:50pm
6230 L.EDU 337 01 Reading Across the Curriculum

WF
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
12
ARR
2
ARR
20
3
01:00-03:00pm
0
ARR
7535 L.EDU 339

Welsh, H
01 Differentiated Instr 5-12
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
03:30-06:30pm
6233 L.EDU 340 01 Differentiated Instruction K-6

WAHL 145
Winkel, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
10
03:30-06:30pm
6235 L.EDU 343 01 Assess Exceptionality Pre K-8

TH
WAHL 145
Winkel, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
16
09:00-09:50
6234 L.EDU 346 01 Learning/Behavior Strategies I

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
8
08:00-09:20
7339 L.EDU 352 01 Special Sec Methods: English

TTH
WAHL 124
Welsh, H
3.0
142
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
6
09:30-10:50
7340 L.EDU 353 01 Special Sec Methods: Math

TTH
HENN 180
Keller, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7533 L.EDU 354 01 Special Sec Methods: Science

WAHL 124
Monhardt, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
20
08:00-09:20
6240 L.EDU 357 01 Reading in Sec Schools

WF
WAHL 109
Welch, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
7
03:30-04:50pm
6241 L.EDU 361 01 Practicum/Instr Read Problem

TTH
WAHL 110
Lansing, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
4
04:00-07:00pm
30
ARR
6242 L.EDU 411 01 Student Tch Elem Music

5.0
WAHL 109
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
6243 L.EDU 412 01 Student Tch Sec Music

5.0
WAHL 110
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
30
ARR
30
ARR
ARR
ARR
ARR
6247 L.EDU 424 01 Stud Tch Early Child Sp Ed 0-5

5.0
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
6248 L.EDU 425 01 Student Tch Early Child 0-5
5.0
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
6249 L.EDU 426 01 Student Tch Primary K-3 ECE
5.0
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-
424*L.EDU-425
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
20
ARR
30
ARR
30
ARR
ARR
ARR
ARR
ARR
40
6
04:00-05:30pm
0
ARR
1
ARR
6250 L.EDU 432 01 Student Tch Elem School

ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
143
10.0
6251 L.EDU 441 01 Student Tch Inst Strat I K-8

5.0
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
6252 L.EDU 442 01 Student Tch El Ed Inst Strat I
5.0
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
6255 L.EDU 452 01 Student Tch Secondary School
ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
10.0
6256 L.EDU 490 01 Capstone Seminar/Portfolio-PJ

WAHL 101
Welsh, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2.0
7906 L.EDU 690

ARR
Keller, R
03 Institutes in Education
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $600.00
18
14
08:00-09:20
5860 L.EGR 105 01 Intro to Engineering I

TTH
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
5862 L.EGR 105 02 Intro to Engineering I

WF
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
16
11
01:30-02:20pm
5867 L.EGR 232 01 Engineering Dynamics

MWF
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
14
02:30-03:20pm
7341 L.EGR 335 01 Electric Circuits

MWF
SCIE 231
Neebel, D
3.0
09:00-09:50
18
14
08:00-09:20
09:00-09:50
144
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
15
12:30-03:20pm
1
ARR
7342 L.EGR 350 01 Engineering Laboratory I

SCIE 231
Neebel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
1.0
7924 L.EGR 398 01 Empirical Research: Hydrofoil

ARR
Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-4
10
6
12:30-01:20pm
6553 L.EGR 490 01 Capstone Engineer Design I-PJ

MWF
SCIE 118
Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
20
21
09:30-10:50
6557 L.ENG 111 01 Critical Writing-FW

TTH
HOFF 411
Stone, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
14
11:00-12:20pm

TF
HOFF 511
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
22
08:00-08:50

MWF
HOFF 511
Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
18
11:00-12:20pm

TF
HOFF 111
Clark, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
14
12:30-01:50pm
7343 L.ENG 224 01 African American Literature

TTH
HOFF 111
Stone, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
22
10:00-10:50
6563 L.ENG 232 01 The Novel-AA

MWF
HOFF 312
Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
ARR
25
26
11:00-12:20pm
7886 L.ENG 232 02 The Novel-IA

TF
HOFF 512
Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6670 L.HIS 230 01
Community/Identity Am West-IA
3.0
15
10
09:00-09:50
3.0
6564 L.ENG 238 01 Poetry Writing

MWF
HOFF 347
Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
145
15
18
02:00-03:20pm
7426 L.ENG 239 01 Creative Nonfiction Writing-AA

TTH
WAHL 124
Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of Nature/Ireland-CI

3.0
TF
HOFF 112
Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7355 L.HIS 245 01 The
Celts-CI
25
15
09:00-09:50
6565 L.ENG 285 01 Modn Irish Lit & Culture

MWF
HOFF 511
Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
8
02:30-03:50pm
7344 L.ENG 328 01 Am Lit Mod/Contemp Poetry

MW
HOFF 111
Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
14
02:00-03:20pm
7345 L.ENG 351 01 Milton & 17th C Literature

TTH
HOFF 112
Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
16
12:30-01:20pm
7346 L.ENG 355 01 English Novel 1800-1840

MWF
HOFF 111
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
13
06:30-09:30pm
15
10
06:30-09:30pm
7347 L.ENG 370 01 Fantastic Fiction

WAHL 143
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
6571 L.ENG 384 01 Adv Fiction Writing

HOFF 347
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
15
08:00-09:20
7433 L.ENG 395 01 Topics: Writing Social Action

TTH
HOFF 511
Clark, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
12
02:00-03:20pm
7503 L.ENG 395 02 Topics: Mod/Cont Brit/Am Drama

TTH
HOFF 312
Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
23
09:30-10:50
6576 L.ENG 468 01 Literary Criticism

TTH
ARCE 402
Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
12
01:30-02:20pm
6578 L.ENG 490 01 Senior Literature Capstone-PJ

MWF
HOFF 111
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
English Literature Major
3.0
25
ARR
12
ARR
15
10
12:30-01:20pm
15
ARR
4
ARR
ARR
ARR
6580 L.ENG 490D 01 Senior Lit Capstone Defense

ARR
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-490
6581 L.ENG 491 01 Senior Thesis Seminar
MWF
WAHL 124
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
Creative Writing Majors Only
146
0.0
3.0
6582 L.ENG 491D 01 Senior Thesis Defense-PJ

ARR
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-491
0.0
7570 L.ENG 498 01 Directed Readings

ARR
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3
20
18
02:30-03:20pm
7524 L.EXP 100 01 Foundation for College Success

MW
WAHL 101
Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
20
16
02:00-02:50pm
7525 L.EXP 100 02 Foundation for College Success

TTH
WAHL 101
Walsh, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
0
ARR
19
0
ARR
0
ARR
7904 L.EXP 294 01 Internship

ARR
Carroll, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-11
ARR

ARR
Carroll, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-11
ARR

ARR
Carroll, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-11
ARR
15
9
09:00-09:50
7351 L.GRS 101 01 First Yr Ancient Greek I

MWF
HOFF 212
Smith, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
10:00-10:50
7352 L.HIS 117 01 Roman Civilization

MWF
HOFF 212
Smith, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
08:00-08:50
6667 L.HIS 121 01 U S History to 1877

MWF
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
22
12:30-01:50pm
7353 L.HIS 141 01 Modern Europe Since 1750

TTH
HOFF 511
Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
26
11:00-12:20pm
147
6670 L.HIS 230 01 Community/Identity Am West-IA

3.0
MTH
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7886 L.ENG 232 02 The
Novel-IA
25
24
02:00-02:50pm
7354 L.HIS 231 01 History of U.S. Sexuality-AV

MWF
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7355 L.HIS 245 01 The Celts-CI

3.0
MTH
HOFF 112
Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of
Nature/Ireland-CI
25
21
09:00-09:50
6671 L.HIS 272 01 Japan in the Modern World-AI

MWF
HOFF 312
Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
23
02:00-03:20pm
7356 L.HIS 333 01 Imperial Geographies-AA

MW
HOFF 212
Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
ARR
1
ARR
7695 L.HIS 394 01 Internship

ARR
Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3
25
14
09:30-10:50
7357 L.HIS 395 01 U.S./China:partners Or Enemies

TTH
HOFF 511
Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
15
01:30-02:20pm
7358 L.HIS 395 02 Topics: Israel/Palestine

MWF
HOFF 312
Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
9
08:00-09:20
6712 L.HIS 490 01 Research Seminar

TTH
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
HISTORY MAJORS ONLY
3.0
0
ARR
1
ARR
ARR
ARR
8010 L.HIS 498 01 Ethics and Civil Rights - VA

ARR
Lorenz, A / Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3
8011 L.HIS 498

ARR
Kehren, M
1-3
02 IS: Contemp Urban Portugal

Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
17
08:00-09:20
7415 L.HON 100 01 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI

TTH
HENN 350
Grinde, L / VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
148

ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM
COURSE FEE: $60.00
22
11
11:00-12:20pm
7416 L.HON 100 02 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI

MTH
ROHL 143
Garrett, M / VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $60.00
3.0
6550 L.HON 250 01 Honors Research Seminar

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0

HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
1.0
50
25
11:00-11:50
12
6
02:30-03:20pm
50
0
03:30-04:20pm
50
8
11:00-11:50
50
9
02:30-03:20pm
50
0
03:30-04:20pm
50
7
11:00-11:50
50
10
02:30-03:20pm
149
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
5
03:30-04:20pm

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
1.0
20
13
04:30-05:50pm
7359 L.INS 489 01 Senior Seminar

MW
HOFF 212
Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
6
4
09:00-09:50
5997 L.KIN 050 01 Personal Fitness

MWF
ARR ARR
Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
3
4
01:30-02:20pm
7518 L.KIN 050 02 Personal Fitness

MWF
ARR ARR
Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
10
7
02:30-05:30pm
7539 L.KIN 070 01 Trap and Skeet Shooting

1.0
OFC OFC
Degenhardt, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Students enrolling in this course will be
required to purchase a
range membership ($80). Transportation to
Izaak Walton Club
shooting range is provided. Rifles are
provided - personal
weapons may not be used and may not be
brought to campus.
M
25
22
11:00-11:50
5999 L.KIN 074 01 Team Sports I

TTH
GRAB CT1
Tebon, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
25
25
08:00-08:50
6000 L.KIN 101 01 Introduction to Kinesiology

MWF
GRAB 206
Glover, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
09:00-09:50
6001 L.KIN 101 02 Introduction to Kinesiology

MWF
ROHL 143
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
12:30-01:20pm
6002 L.KIN 121 01 Personal/Community Health

MWF
GRAB 206
Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
10:00-10:50
6003 L.KIN 145 01 Nutrition

MWF
GRAB 206
Glover, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
150
25
27
01:30-02:20pm
7360 L.KIN 145 02 Nutrition

MWF
ROHL 143
Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
09:30-10:50
6004 L.KIN 235 01 Sports Officiating

TTH
GRAB 206
Tebon, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY EDUCATION OR KIN MAJORS
3.0
15
16
09:00-09:50
6005 L.KIN 322 01 Physiology of Exercise

MWF
SCIE 019
Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
14
12:30-01:20pm
6006 L.KIN 322 02 Physiology of Exercise

MWF
SCIE 019
Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
17
08:00-09:20
6007 L.KIN 344 01 Theory Strength Train & Condit

TTH
GRAB 206
Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
8
12:30-01:50pm
6008 L.KIN 344 02 Theory Strength Train & Condit

TTH
GRAB 206
Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
ARR
1
ARR
ARR
ARR
6794 L.KIN 392 01 Practm Phys Actvty & Health I

ARR
Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7573 L.KIN 398

ARR
Glover, S
3.0
01 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
3
ARR
6011 L.KIN 492

ARR
Glover, S
01 Internship in Kinesiology I
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
0
ARR
6013 L.KIN 493

ARR
Glover, S
01 Internship in Kinesiology II
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
22
08:00-08:50
5727 L.LIB 100 01 MOI: Modes of Inquiry-FI

MWF
WAHL 101
Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
151
22
23
10:00-11:00

MWF
KEAN 008
Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
21
10:00-10:50

MWF
HOFF 136
Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
23
11:00-12:20pm

MTH
GRAB 206
Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
22
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 470
Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
WAHL 109
Welsh, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
23
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 512
Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
18
10:00-10:50

MWF
ARCE 402
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
17
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
ARCE 402
Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
19
09:00-09:50

MWF
ARCE 402
Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
152

22
0
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
KEAN 334
Kerkenbush, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
19
10:00-10:50

MWF
WAHL 143
Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
20
09:30-10:50

TTH
HENN 270
Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
21
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
22
10:00-10:50
6540 L.LIB 105 01 College Writing-FW

MWF
HOFF 112
Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
20
08:00-09:20

TTH
HOFF 111
Witthoeft, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
14
09:00-09:50

MWF
HOFF 111
Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
18
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 111
Witthoeft, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
19
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
HOFF 111
Yazbec, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
ARCE 102
Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
153
20
19
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
ARCE 102
Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
19
08:00-08:50
5849 L.LIB 110 01 Public Speaking-FS

MWF
HOFF 427
Goodman, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HOFF 427
Goodman, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
19
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
16
12:30-01:50pm

MW
HOFF 427
Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
20
08:00-09:20

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
21
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 427
Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Donald, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
19
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

HOFF 427
Hanson, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
02:30-03:50pm
7308 L.LIB 130 01 Witnesses-Hope,Heart,Hum-MC

MW
KEAN 303
Joensen, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
11:00-12:20pm
7447 L.LIB 130 02 The Displaced Person-MC

WF
KEAN 011
Welch, L
3.0
20
15
06:00-09:00pm
154
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
01:30-02:20pm
6833 L.LIB 135 01 Priests,Ministers,Rabbis-MC

MWF
WAHL 101
Waldmeir, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
23
09:00-09:50
6834 L.LIB 135 02 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC

MWF
KEAN 009
Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
10:00-10:50
7365 L.LIB 135 03 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC

MWF
KEAN 009
Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
25
09:30-10:50
5730 L.LIB 220 01 Democ & Global Diversity-MD

TTH
HOFF 112
Darr, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
22
02:00-03:20pm
6046 L.LIB 220 02 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD

TTH
HOFF 511
Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
23
02:30-03:50pm

MW
HENN 070
Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
25
09:30-10:50

TTH
WAHL 101
Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
22
25
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
WAHL 101
Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
09:30-10:50
7560 L.LIB 236 01 Quest Ethical Development-AV

TTH
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
23
08:00-08:50
7366 L.LIB 276 01 Law/Tech/Informatnl Privcy-AI

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
ARR
21
ONL
7499 L.LIB 305

ONL
Adams, R
01 Portfolio-PJ
Aug 29 - Oct 14
1.0

25
ARR
15
ONL
7500 L.LIB 305

ONL
Adams, R
02 Portfolio-PJ
155
1.0
Oct 18 - Dec 15
10
6
06:00-08:00pm
7508 L.LIB 305 03 Portfolio-PJ

TH
SMYT 102
Osheim, A
Oct 24 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
1.0
25
25
11:00-11:50
5871 L.MAT 091 01 Intermediate Algebra

MTTHF
ARCE 102
Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
4.0
25
21
12:30-01:20pm
5872 L.MAT 091 02 Intermediate Algebra

MTWF
WAHL 143
Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
4.0
25
18
09:00-09:50
5881 L.MAT 113 01 College Algebra-FM

MWF
HENN 270
Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
3.0
25
26
10:00-10:50
5882 L.MAT 113 02 College Algebra-FM

MWF
HENN 270
Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
3.0
25
25
11:00-11:50
5906 L.MAT 115 01 Statistics-FM

MTTHF
HENN 280
Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
26
12:30-01:20pm

MTWF
HENN 180
Keller, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
28
12:30-01:20pm

MTWF
WAHL 101
Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
21
11:00-11:50
5909 L.MAT 117 01 Pre-Calculus-FM

MTTHF
HENN 470
Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
12
12:30-01:20pm
5912 L.MAT 117 02 Pre-Calculus-FM

MTWF
SCIE 252
Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
156
28
24
11:00-11:50
5913 L.MAT 150 01 Calc of One Variable I-FM

MTTHF
HENN 250
Crook, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NO CREDIT IF L.MAT-170 TAKEN
4.0
25
22
12:30-01:20pm
5916 L.MAT 150 02 Calc of One Variable I-FM

MTWF
HENN 270
Crook, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
14
11:00-11:50
5931 L.MAT 160 01 Calc of One Variable II

MTTHF
HENN 270
Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
13
12:30-01:20pm
5933 L.MAT 250 01 Linear Algebra

MWF
HENN 250
Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
18
08:00-08:50
5934 L.MAT 260 01 Analytic Geom/Calc III

MTWF
HENN 180
Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
25
13
07:00-07:50
7844 L.MAT 260 02 Analytic Geom/Calc III

MTWTH
OFC OFC
Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
14
3
12:30-01:20pm
5936 L.MAT 390 01 Seminar

1.0
HENN 450
Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MAT-250
14
6
02:30-03:50pm
7368 L.MAT 391 03 Guided Research

MW
HENN 250
Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
12
01:30-02:20pm
7367 L.MAT 450 01 Modern Algebra

MWF
HENN 250
Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
9
05:30-09:30pm
10
ARR
3
ARR
25
13
05:30-09:30pm
6969 L.MBA 510 01 Managerial Effectiveness

KEAN 334
Gambrall, D
Sep 13 - Oct 25
MBA Students Only
3.0
7931 L.MBA 511 01 Business Analytics Overview

ARR
Conway, D.
Oct 3 - Dec 16
3.0
7321 L.MBA 515 01 Ethical & Social Resp Bus

KEAN 303
Ciapalo, R
Sep 12 - Oct 24
MBA Students Only
3.0

20
8
05:30-09:30pm
20
13
05:30-09:30pm
25
18
11:00-11:50
10
ARR
5
ARR
157
6970 L.MBA 520 01 Data Science

KEAN 334
Lehman, D
Nov 1 - Dec 13
MBA Students Only
3.0
5732 L.MBA 555 01 Financial Management

KEAN 303
Hammermeister, J
Oct 31 - Dec 12
MBA Students Only
3.0
5907 L.MUS 101 01 Music Theory I

MTTHF
VISI 115
Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
5910 L.MUS 110
ARR
Kluck, A
01 Applied Voice
3.0
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
6
ARR
10
ARR
10
ARR
20
ARR
14
ARR
ARR
ARR
ARR
5911 L.MUS 110 02 Applied Voice

ARR
Kluck, A / Tyler, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0

ARR
Kluck, A / Tyler, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0

ARR
Kluck, A / Allen, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0

ARR
Kluck, A / Allen, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0
5919 L.MUS 121

VISI 135
Tyler, L
01 Applied Piano
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
20
ARR
5920 L.MUS 121

VISI 135
Tyler, L
02 Applied Piano
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
20
ARR
15
10
ARR
5921 L.MUS 121 03 Applied Piano

VISI 135
Chapman, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
ARR
7468 L.MUS 131

ARR
Luke, W
01 Applied Violin
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-2
1-2
158
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00

10
ARR
10
ARR
ARR
ARR
7469 L.MUS 132 01 Applied Viola

ARR
Brenner, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
1-2
7470 L.MUS 133

ARR
Luke, W
1-2
01 Applied Cello
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
0
ARR
7471 L.MUS 134

ARR
Luke, W
01 Applied String Bass
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
10
ARR
ARR
ARR
7472 L.MUS 135 01 Applied Guitar

ARR
McConnell, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
1-2
7473 L.MUS 141

ARR
Omarzu, J
1-2
01 Applied Flute
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
1
ARR
7474 L.MUS 142

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Oboe
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
2
ARR
7475 L.MUS 143

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Clarinet
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
2
ARR
7476 L.MUS 144

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Saxophone
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
5
ARR
5947 L.MUS 151 01 Applied Trumpet

VISI 134
Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7369 L.MUS 151 02 Applied Trumpet

VISI 134
Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0
ARR
7477 L.MUS 145 01 Applied Bassoon

ARR
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
1-2
159
5
ARR
5948 L.MUS 152 01 Applied French Horn

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7370 L.MUS 152 02 Applied French Horn

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
2.0
5
ARR
5950 L.MUS 153 01 Applied Trombone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7371 L.MUS 153 02 Applied Trombone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
2.0
5
ARR
5951 L.MUS 154 01 Applied Baritone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7372 L.MUS 154 02 Applied Baritone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
2.0
5
ARR
5952 L.MUS 155 01 Applied Tuba

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7373 L.MUS 155 02 Applied Tuba

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0
10
ARR
10
ARR
7478 L.MUS 160 01 Applied Percussion

ARR
Iwasaki, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
1-2
7374 L.MUS 176 01 Brass Techniques

ARR
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
60
8
07:00-08:50pm
5957 L.MUS 181 01 Wind Ensemble

TTH
VISI 236
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0.0
60
27
07:00-07:50pm
5958 L.MUS 181 02 Wind Ensemble

TTH
VISI 236
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
ARR
ARR
160
12
2
06:00-06:50pm
7422 L.MUS 182 01 Jazz Ensemble

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0.0
30
7
06:00-06:50pm
7423 L.MUS 182 02 Jazz Ensemble

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
80
11
03:30-04:50pm
5967 L.MUS 183 01 Loras Concert Choir

TTH
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0.0
80
47
03:30-04:50pm
5969 L.MUS 183 02 Loras Concert Choir

TTH
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
20
4
04:30-05:50pm
5970 L.MUS 184 01 Chamber Singers

0.0
MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
20
16
04:30-05:50pm
5971 L.MUS 184 02 Chamber Singers

1.0
MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
30
3
03:30-04:20pm
5973 L.MUS 185 01 Bella Voce

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0.0
30
8
03:30-04:20pm
5974 L.MUS 185 02 Bella Voce

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
30
ARR
0
ARR
7479 L.MUS 186

ARR
Kluck, A
01 Con Brio
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
12
3
10:00-10:50
5977 L.MUS 203 01 Music Theory III

MWF
VISI 115
Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
6
4
09:30-10:20
7420 L.MUS 295 01 Topics: Class Piano

TTH
VISI 136
Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
20
6
09:30-10:50
7421 L.MUS 295 02 Topics: Intro.Music Therapy

TTH
VISI 115
Clark, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
6
2
02:30-03:20pm
7467 L.MUS 295 03 Topics; Class Piano

MW
VISI 136
Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
161
12
5
02:00-03:20pm
7424 L.MUS 309 01 Orchestration

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2.0
20
9
08:00-09:20
7425 L.MUS 315 01 History & Lit of Music III

TTH
VISI 115
Brenner, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
9
02:30-03:50pm
7270 L.NEU 281 01 Exploring the Brain Thru TBI

MW
SCIE 109
Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
ARR
30
22
10:00-10:50
7376 L.NEU 390 01 Research Experience

Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Neuroscience Majors Only
6741 L.PHI 150 01 Logic
MWF
WAHL 109
Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business Ethics-IV

MTH
KEAN 333
Ciapalo, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7409 L.COM 255 01
Interpersonal Communicatn-IV
20
20
06:00-09:00pm
1-3
3.0
3.0
6742 L.PHI 317 01 Ethics & New Genetics-HV

3.0
ARCE 402
Idziak, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human
Genetics-HV
30
17
09:30-10:50
2
ARR
7320 L.PHI 322 01 Modern Philosophy

TTH
KEAN 009
Joensen, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7546 L.PHI 498 01 Directed Readings

Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3
20
19
06:00-08:50pm
5941 L.PHY 208 01 Astronomy-AH

MTH
SCIE 242
McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
36
35
01:30-02:20pm
7378 L.PHY 210 01 Elements Physics I

MWF
SCIE 128
Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
21
16
11:25-12:10pm
7888 L.PHY 210 02 Elements Physics I

MTWTHF
OFC OFC
Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSEO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ONLY
4.0
18
12
12:30-01:20pm
18
12
02:30-05:20pm
7380 L.PHY 223 01 Physics Scientist/Engineers I

MTWF
SCIE 242
McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
162
5.0
7381 L.PHY 290 01 Physics Lab I

SCIE 122
Stierman, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0

TH
SCIE 122
McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0

SCIE 122
Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0
21
16
MTWTHF
OFC

OFC
Stierman, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
0.0
1
ARR
7545 L.PHY 398 01 Empirical Research

ARR
McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3
18
18
12:30-03:20pm
18
17
01:30-04:20pm
1
ARR
30
26
09:00-09:50
7385 L.POL 101 01 Issues in American Politics

MWF
ARCE 102
Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
25
10:00-10:50
7386 L.POL 101 02 Issues in American Politics

MWF
ARCE 102
Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
02:30-03:20pm
7387 L.POL 131 01 Found Western Political Thgt

MWF
HOFF 311
Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
27
01:30-02:20pm
7393 L.POL 201 01 Campaigns & Elections

MWF
HOFF 112
Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
16
02:00-03:20pm
7394 L.POL 301 01 Constitutional Law

TTH
HOFF 340
Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
12:30-01:50pm
7395 L.POL 314 01 Politics in Developing World

TTH
HOFF 312
Darr, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
ARR
1
ARR
7694 L.POL 394 01 Internship

ARR
Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-10
163

25
28
10:00-10:50
7271 L.PSY 101 01 Introductory Psychology

MWF
HENN 280
Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
29
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
KEAN 011
Ashbrook, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
28
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
HENN 350
Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 070
Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
28
10:00-10:50
7275 L.PSY 121 01 Developmental Psych

MWF
WAHL 101
Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
30
09:30-10:50

TTH
HENN 250
Homb, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
28
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 250
Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
27
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
HENN 470
Hanson, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
24
24
01:30-02:20pm
7278 L.PSY 211 01 Res Methods & Statistics I

4.0
MWF
HENN 360
Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
W
HENN 360
Psychology/Neuroscience Major/Minor
02:30-04:20pm
25
21
02:30-03:50pm
7279 L.PSY 221 01 Abnormal Psychology

MW
HENN 180
Simcox, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
12:30-01:50pm
7280 L.PSY 221 02 Abnormal Psychology

TTH
HENN 250
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
164
25
20
03:30-04:50pm
7281 L.PSY 225 01 Personality-AI

TTH
HENN 070
Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
19
02:00-03:20pm
7282 L.PSY 242 01 Industrial-Organiz Psych

TTH
HENN 280
Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
9
12:00-12:50pm
7283 L.PSY 265 01 Psychology As A Profession

HENN 280
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
20
20
02:00-03:20pm
7284 L.PSY 278 01 Cross-Cultural Psychology

TTH
HENN 070
Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
16
15
12:30-01:50pm
7285 L.PSY 285 01 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH

TTH
HENN 070
Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
T
SCIE 014
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
7286 L.PSY 285 02 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH

TTH
HENN 070
Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
TH
SCIE 014
COURSE FEE: $20.00
3.0
02:00-03:50pm
16
16
12:30-01:50pm
02:00-03:50pm
25
27
12:30-01:20pm
7287 L.PSY 331 01 Physiological Psychology

3.0
MWF
HENN 070
Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
27
10:00-10:50
7288 L.PSY 332 01 Learning & Cognition

3.0
MWF
HENN 070
Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
ARR
16
ARR
7289 L.PSY 351

ARR
Omarzu, J
02 Adv Research Methods
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
1
ARR
7290 L.PSY 390

ARR
Hopper, M
01 Psych Peer Assistantship
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
10
ARR
ARR
ARR
7291 L.PSY 394 01 Internship

ARR
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0

ARR
Johnson, M
2.0
165
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
2
ARR
25
22
09:30-10:50
10
ARR
10
ONL

ARR
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
7294 L.PSY 490 01 Senior Seminar & Portfolio-PJ
TTH
HENN 280
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS/MINORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
7501 L.PSY 527
ONL
Dunn, R
01 Human Development
3.0
3.0
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
12
04:00-07:00pm
15
9
04:00-06:30pm
15
7
09:00-11:30
12
ARR
7
ONL
7296 L.PSY 612 01 Prof. Orien & Ethical Practice

HENN 250
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7297 L.PSY 615 01 Assessment

HENN 180
Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7905 L.PSY 615 02 Assessment

HENN 360
Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7541 L.PSY 625

ONL
Dunn, R
01 Psychopathology
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
10
06:00-08:30pm
10
10
04:00-06:30pm
8
ARR
8
ARR
ARR
ARR
7299 L.PSY 633 01 Physiological Psychology

TH
HENN 070
Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
M
7502 L.PSY 647 01 Helping Relationships

WAHL 124
Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Open to Masters in Psych Program
3.0
3.0
7300 L.PSY 694 01 Practicum

ARR
Dalsing, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
3.0
7301 L.PSY 696 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship I

ARR
Dalsing, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
166

NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
8
ARR
8
ARR
ARR
ARR
7302 L.PSY 698 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship II

ARR
Dalsing, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7303 L.PSY 699 01 Supvsed Clinical Internshp III

ARR
Dalsing, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
20
17
09:00-09:50
6751 L.REL 112 01 Intro Theology & Rel Studies

MWF
SMYT 102
Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
22
02:30-03:50pm
7465 L.REL 250 01 Introduction to Old Testament

TTH
KEAN 305
Waldmeir, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
02:30-03:50pm
7397 L.REL 261 01 Christ & Culture-AC

MW
WAHL 143
Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
25
02:30-03:50pm
7398 L.REL 270 01 Intro Christian Values-AV

MW
KEAN 009
Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims in Their Own Land-IA

3.0
MTH
ARCE 402
Waldmeir, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia
Lit Latin America-IA
25
12
08:00-09:20
7400 L.REL 391 01 The Catholic Heritage

TTH
SMYT 102
Idziak, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
4
02:30-03:30pm
15
1
04:00-06:30pm
15
ARR
1
ARR
3.0
7516 L.REL 491 01 Thesis Writing

SMYT 102
Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
3.0
7619 L.SCP 690 01 School Counseling

HENN 170
Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
7620 L.SCP 694 01 Practicum in School Counseling

ARR
Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
167
25
20
09:00-09:50
6097 L.SCW 130 01 Intro Social Welfare

MWF
HENN 450
Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
10:00-10:50
6098 L.SCW 130 02 Intro Social Welfare

MWF
HENN 470
Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
19
09:30-10:50
6099 L.SCW 231 01 Human Behav & Soc Environmt

TTH
HENN 480
Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
23
02:00-03:20pm
7401 L.SCW 265 01 Culturl Competncy in Pract-AC

TTH
HENN 480
Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
16
12:30-01:50pm
6101 L.SCW 347 01 Social Work Practice II

TTH
HENN 480
Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
22
10:00-10:50
6102 L.SCW 348 01 Social Work Practice III

MWF
HENN 450
Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
24
19
08:00-09:20
7402 L.SCW 350 01 Career Options & Prof Practice

TTH
HENN 450
Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY
3.0
0
ARR
1
ARR
7929 L.SCW 394

ARR
Fett, N
01 Internship
1-6
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
29
08:00-08:50
5733 L.SMG 150 01 Intro Sport Management

MWF
ROHL 143
Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Non-Senior Standing Only
3.0
25
22
09:30-10:50
5734 L.SMG 240 01 Sport and Society

TTH
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
12:30-01:50pm
5735 L.SMG 240 02 Sport and Society

TTH
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
0
ARR
0
ARR
ARR
ARR
8012 L.SMG 294 01 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt

ARR
Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MINIMUM GPA OF 2.0 REQUIRED
3-4
8013 L.SMG 294 02 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt

ARR
Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3-4
168
25
24
02:30-03:50pm
5738 L.SMG 450 01 Sport Finance & Revenue Mgmt

MW
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
08:00-09:20
5739 L.SMG 468 01 Sport Marketing & Promotions

TTH
ROHL 143
Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
ARR
1
ARR
5741 L.SMG 492 01 Lev 3 Field Experience Spt Mgt

ARR
Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
SPORT MGMT MAJORS ONLY
12.0
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
6759 L.SOC 115 01 Intro to Sociology

MWF
ARCE 102
Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Has Not Taken L.SOC-101
3.0
25
29
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
ARCE 102
Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
27
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 180
Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
09:30-10:50
7403 L.SOC 216 01 Social Problems

TTH
HOFF 311
Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
28
12:30-01:50pm
7544 L.SOC 216 02 Social Problems

TTH
HOFF 311
Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
02:00-03:20pm
6762 L.SOC 240 01 Gender & Society

TTH
HOFF 311
Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
24
08:00-09:20
6765 L.SOC 254 01 Race & Ethnicity-AC

TTH
HOFF 311
Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
7404 L.SOC 295 01 Topics: Sociology of Sport

MWF
HOFF 312
Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
8
02:30-03:50pm
6766 L.SOC 333 01 Statistical Analysis

MW
HOFF 340
Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

25
10
09:30-10:50
10
ARR
1
ARR
7405 L.SOC 336 01 Classical Sociological Theory

TTH
HOFF 212
Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
7553 L.SOC 398 01 Emperical Research
ARR
Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
169
3.0
1-4
18
10
01:30-02:20pm
6584 L.SPA 210 02 Intermediate Spanish I

MWF
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
8
09:00-09:50
6585 L.SPA 270 01 Adv Communicative Modes

MWF
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
14
01:30-02:20pm
6586 L.SPA 270 02 Adv Communicative Modes

MWF
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
13
09:30-10:50
6587 L.SPA 350 01 El Mundo Hispano

TTH
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
19
02:30-03:50pm
7407 L.SPA 395 01 Special Topics:redaccion Avanz

MW
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
18
11
02:00-03:20pm
7408 L.SPA 460 01 Topics: Escritoras

TTH
WAHL 143
Jeffries, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia Lit Latin America-IA

3.0
TF
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims
in Their Own Land-IA
20
12
10:00-10:50
10
ARR
10
ARR
ONL
ONL
7507 L.SSE 101 01 Learning Strategies

MW
WAHL 145
Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ENHANCED PROGRAM STUDENTS ONLY
2.0
7889 L.STM 501 01 Curriculum Inquiry in Stem

ONL
Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Sep 23
3.0
7696 L.STM 502 02 Scientif and Engineering Pract

ONL
Monhardt, R
Oct 3 - Nov 18
3.0

Group 2 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 2 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

The effect smartphones have on accelerating the development of romantic relationships

Allison Wong, Haley OBrien, Charlie Grant, and Kevin Connor

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

development of romantic relationships? The researchers hypothesized: Smartphones accelerate

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 1: What year in school are you?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 2: What is your gender?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 3: Do you own a smartphone?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 4: Are you in a relationship?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 5: How long have you been in a relationship?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 7: Do you have a Facebook account?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 8: How many hours a day do you use Facebook?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Question 10: Do you have a Snapchat account?

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS