Revisited: Communication Media Use in the Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship

Ulla Bunz
Florida State University

Abstract

This study extends and replicates some of Harwood’s (2000) earlier research investigating media use in interactions between grandparents and grandchildren. More specifically, this research extends Harwood’s work by adding the technologies of the cell phone, email, and instant messenger to the media he investigated (face-to-face, written documents, and telephone). Such a study allows finding out whether the availability of new technologies has any effect on the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Sixty-six dyads (N = 132) of grandchildren and grandparents participated in the study, completing a questionnaire on basic demographics, media use, and relational quality. Results show usage divides between grandchildren and grandparents, as well as within the grandparent group. The cell phone and face-to-face interaction are used most frequently in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Technologies such as email or instant messenger are not used much even across the geographic distance they were designed to overcome. Follow up tests to a significant ANOVA did not show significant results for medium type chosen based on who initiates contact. Face-to-face remains the strongest predictor of quality inter-generational relationships, followed by use of the cell phone, the landline phone, and email (in that order). Findings are discussed in light of both media richness theory and the social influence model.

Though research on issues associated with communication and gerontology has increased over the last decade, the literature in this area is still fairly limited compared to other topics (e.g., communication health-related issues). Studies that explore elderly use of communication technologies are even rarer. For the most part, ‘seniors,’ ‘the elderly,’ or ‘older generations’ tend to be referred to only in passing when looking at technology-access statistics in the digital divide literature. The overall consensus seems to be that the elderly as a group still are not using communication technologies as much as younger generations, though a number of seniors have adopted such technologies and, according to the PEW Internet and American Life project, are enjoying them (e.g., Fox, 2001; 2004). Fox (2004) reports, “Wired seniors are often as enthusiastic as younger users in the major activities that define online life such as email and the use of search engines to answer a specific question.” According to Fox (2004), in 2000, 94% of wired seniors, sent and received email.

Going beyond basic access or usage statistics, Harwood (2000) investigated seniors’ use of communication media within the context of the grandparent/grandchild relationship. The purpose of the study at hand was to build on Harwood’s study, replicating some of his research and also extending Harwood’s study by adding the technologies of the cell phone, email, and instant messenger to the media he investigated (face-to-face, written documents, and telephone). Such an investigation allows a better understanding of whether the availability of such new technologies has any effect on the grandparent/grandchild relationship.

Though only a few years have passed between Harwood’s study and the study reported on here, even a few years can be considered a long time in technological development terms. For example, in the 2000 presidential elections, all major candidates had websites, but these websites were fairly unsophisticated and their utility limited. Sophisticated websites not only were considered a given in the 2004 presidential elections, but in fact web logs (or blogs) as well as online fundraising played a dominant role during the 2004 presidential campaigning (Wiese & Gronbeck, 2005). Thus, within only a few years both technology and its social use and implications changed dramatically in the political arena. Likewise, diffusion of technology amongst older people is likely to have increased. Fox (2004) indicates that Internet users who were in their 50s in the early 2000s and are retiring over the next years or decades will create a “silver tsunami” in the group of older Internet users. Thus, focusing research on technology use by older generations is important as usage and perception changes amongst that group can be expected.

Effectiveness of Different Communication Media

A large body of literature exists by now that examines the use of different communication media and their effectiveness in information exchange, relationship development or maintenance, or work environments. One theory advanced to explain how people choose between communication media (also discussed by Harwood, 2000) is media richness theory. According to media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), different communication media can reduce the ambiguity inherent in communication events to varying degrees. The early ‘information richness’ (as the concept was referred to originally) studies and follow-up studies devised a richness continuum along which various communication media are aligned. From rich to lean, the continuum reads face-to-face, video conferencing, telephone, email (added through later studies), informal written documents, formal written documents, and numerical data. Daft and Lengel (1986) used four criteria to evaluate the information carrying capacity of each medium and determine its ranking on the continuum. The criteria were, personalization, capacity for immediate feedback, language variety/capacity to use natural language, and number of cues or channels utilized. According to media richness theory, richer media lend themselves to more complex communication tasks. Also, media richness theory stipulates that there is a ‘correct’ or ‘best’ medium for any given situation and the assumption is that communication or interaction will be most effective when that medium is chosen.

In their efforts to test media richness theory assumptions, Fulk and her colleagues (Fulk & Boyd, 1991; Fulk, Schmitz, & Steinfield, 1990; Schmitz & Fulk, 1991) realized that media richness theory is deterministic in that it essentially defines one specific medium as the ‘best’ for a particular task and does not take into account social influences. Fulk and colleagues’ social influence model was developed as an alternative to media richness theory, emphasizing the importance of social contexts such as family/co-worker influence (Fulk, Schmitz, & Ryu, 1995), personal preference, interpretive flexibility of technology (Lea, O’Shea, & Fung, 1995), or even habit (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003). Studies since then have shown that a combination of both theories/models/perspectives really allow for the deepest understanding of medium choice situations/studies (e.g., Trevino, Webster, & Stein, 2000; Webster & Trevino, 1995).

Domestication theory represents an additional useful theoretical construct here. The theory relies on the assumption that technologies are incorporated into people’s lives in a process and that this process is not just influenced by the functionality of a technology but also by social, cultural, economic, and political aspects (Silverstone & Haddon, 1996). The feedback resulting from the process of integration then influences the design of technologies.

In the grandparent/grandchild relationship all three theories can be applied easily. For example, media richness theory explains why a grandparent may choose a phone conversation over any other medium (face-to-face, email, etc.). The phone may promise direct access to the grandchild (immediacy), especially if the grandchild has a cell phone. The grandparent would also be able to express him/herself most naturally in oral communication across a distance (both natural language and cues). The social influence model may explain why a grandparent chooses a landline versus a cell phone him/herself to make a call. For example, because research has shown that age and computer anxiety are related (Dyck, Gee, & Smither, 1998; Dyck & Smither, 1994), it could be hypothesized that elder generations are more likely to fear unfamiliar technology (such as the cell phone) in general. The grandparent’s choice might also be influenced by economic factors (not being able to afford a cell phone), or social domestication factors (such as wanting to seem up-to-date to a family member by owning a cell phone). This example shows that a combination of media richness theory and the social influence model is useful in explaining medium choice and that domestication theory can add explanatory power.

Based on these and related theoretical approaches, it can be hypothesized that the nature of certain communication media may make them more attractive to people under specific circumstances. In the grandparent/grandchild relationship, this should be reflected through the use of one or two preferred communication media rather than equal use of all available media. The following two research questions address these issues.

RQ1: To what extent does grandparent/grandchild contact occur in face-to-face encounters, over a landline phone, over a cell phone, via email, via letters or cards, or by instant messenger (IM)?

RQ2: How are face-to-face, landline phone, cell phone, email, letter or card writing, and instant messenger associated with one another in the grandparent/grandchild relationship?

Because the nature of technology-mediated communication enables communication across distances that cannot be achieved through face-to-face communication, a third research question examines geographical distance.

RQ3: Is communication media use associated with geographical distance?

The Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship

The current study investigated college students and seniors, two groups that in themselves are worthy of study and comparison. College students of the early 21^st Century still remember a time before ubiquitous computer, Internet or cell phone availability, but it is a vague memory due to their young age. In secondary school and at home they were exposed to various technologies, actively encouraged to use and embrace these media and targeted by marketing experts. As children, most were able to access technology from school or had equipment at home. As a consequence, most college students today cannot imagine a fully functional life without their cell phone, and appear to know little about pre-Internet ways of locating information (e.g. Biddix , Chung, & Park, 2011; Chen & Katz, 2009; Rakesh & Shweta, 2009).

Seniors, on the other hand, were likely close to retirement or already retired by the mid 1990s when Internet technology – shortly thereafter followed by cell phone technology – started to gain the huge popularity that it enjoys today. Many seniors were thus taken out of a social environment that provides or even requires the use of technology – the work place. Many would have been in managerial or supervisory positions at work before retiring, allowing them to delegate the use of technology if they did not wish to learn about it. Once retired, seniors are much less likely to be confronted with technology in their everyday lives in a ‘must have’ fashion as they are fully capable of leading their lives without the technological advances, the way they have always done (e.g. Morrow, 2003). At the same time, it is important to note that many seniors are actively seeking out new technologies and excel at their usage (Fox, 2004). However, the majority of seniors remain more distant from new technologies than do their grandchildren and for a multitude of reasons (e.g. Rice & Katz, 2003).

However, the study at hand does not investigate isolated groups of college students and seniors. Instead, the two generations are connected through the grandparent/grandchild relationship allowing not just a generational comparison, but the study of how technologies are used in inter-generational relationships. In his literature review, Harwood (2000) focuses on the use of the telephone by seniors in general, for inter-generational communication in specific, and the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of the telephone. A number of the disadvantages are reviewed, such as auditory difficulties, inability to plan, and potentially patronizing tone of voice by the younger generation (Kline & Scialfa, 1996; Ryan, Anas, Hummert, & Laver-Ingram, 1998; Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci, & Henwood, 1986; Ryan, Hummert, & Boich, 1995). These problems would be eliminated if a written medium such as email could be used. Grandparents would be able to take their time crafting messages that do not require listening, and they may be considered up-to-date by their grandchildren because of their use of email (although this notion of sophistication may be short lived as we see increasing use of variants of IM, virtual environments, and social networking communities). Thus, there is the possibility that the increased number of communication media available has had an effect on the grandparent/grandchild relationship. The effect could be positive as explained above, but it could also be negative if, for example, the grandparent is perceived ‘backward’ or ‘old-fashioned’ due to his/her reluctance to use newer communication media. It is also possible that communication media use has become mixed in that one person of the dyad (stereotypically, the grandparent) would use traditional communication media such as the landline phone and the other person (stereotypically, the grandchild) would use a newer technology such as a cell phone or IM. Based on these considerations the following research questions are posed.

RQ4: Is the use of various communication media related to the source who initiates the grandparent/grandchild communication interaction?

RQ5: Is there a relationship between communication media use and grandparent/grandchild relational quality?

Method

Participants and Procedures

In late 2006, 181 students were recruited from Communication classes at a large research university in the south-east of the United States. Students completed a questionnaire either for research credit required in their course, or for extra credit toward their course grade. Students were asked to complete a longer questionnaire that included the twelve items used for the analyses presented here, and demographic questions. On the questionnaire, students were asked to think of one grandparent only while answering this applicable set of questions. Students who did not have a living grandparent were asked to skip this set of questions and their results are not included in this analysis. Students were also instructed – both orally and in writing – to pass on to their grandparent another copy of the questionnaire, a consent form and a pre-stamped return envelope. The specific instructions on the questionnaire read, ‘We are interested in your relationship with your grandparent and how you communicate with him/her. If you do not have a living grandparent, please check the box below and then skip this section and continue with the next bolded paragraph. If you have more than one living grandparent, please think of only one specific grandparent while answering the following questions, and make sure to pass the envelope and second questionnaire to that same grandparent.’ Students were not advised on whether they should choose the grandparent they communicated with most frequently, or liked best, or any other more detailed aspect that might affect relationships, but were only provided with the general statement cited above. By passing on a questionnaire to their grandparent, a total of 80 grandparent responses were collected.¹ Due to incomplete questionnaires a total of 66 dyads (N = 132) were identified.

Measures

The demographic questions asked for sex, as well as how old the subject was on his or her last birthday. Another demographic question asked participants to estimate how long they had been using the Internet including the World Wide Web or email. Participants were asked to estimate the number of years and/or months and write those numbers in the provided space. A final demographic question asked participants to calculate the number of months they have owned a cell phone and write those numbers in the provided space. ²

Items concerning grandparent/grandchild interaction were largely adopted from Harwood’s (2000) study. Of the twelve questions regarding media use and grandparent/grandchild relational issues, two questions concerned geographic distance. Participants were asked how far they live from their grandparent/grandchild during the semester, and during the semester break, with six answer options ranging from ‘same town’ to ‘over 500 miles.’ Six questions assessed media use. Three of these (‘How often do you talk to your grandparent/grandchild typically on a landline phone’, ‘face-to-face,’ ‘by letters or cards;’ seven answer options ranging from ‘almost daily’ to ‘almost never’) were adapted from Harwood (2000). Due to the diffusion of new technologies over the past years, three items were added with the same answer options, asking about the ‘cell phone,’ ‘email,’ and ‘instant messenger.’ Three more questions asked about relational closeness between grandparents and grandchildren, all with five answer choices (from ‘very poorly’ to ‘very well’). These three items on relational quality were adopted from Harwood (2000). The first of these questions asked how well the participant got along with their grandparent/grandchild. The second question asked how emotionally close the participant felt to their grandparent/grandchild. The third question asked how good the participant’s communication was with their grandparent/grandchild. Finally, the last question of the set of twelve questions investigated who typically initiates contact with the grandparent/grandchild. The answer options provided were ‘grandchild,’ ‘grandparent,’ ‘grandchild/grandparent equally,’ ‘parent,’ or ‘someone else.’

Results

Basic Demographics

Table 1 provides an overview of basic demographics. With regard to cell phones, some additional frequencies will be pointed out to provide a better grasp of the data. First, the person with the longest cell phone ownership (180 months or 15 years) was a grandparent, which may run counter to popular stereotypes. Second, only one grandchild did not have a cell phone while 15 grandparents reported not owning a cell phone. Third, almost fifty percent of grandchildren (48.4 per cent) reported having owned a cell phone for the last three to five years while only 24.6 per cent of grandparents reported having owned a cell phone for three to five years. These results can be compared to Rice and Katz’s study (2003, p. 610) who showed that age is a digital divide factor for mobile phone ownership with younger users being more likely to have adopted the phone recently (defined by the authors as within the last three years) and older users (defined as 40+ years) also being the more veteran users (defined there as having used a mobile phone for more than three years).

Table 1: Basic Demographics

Among grandchildren, the shortest period of experience with the Internet was reported as four years (n = 1), while 20.6 per cent (n = 13) of grandparents have not yet used the Internet. There was one grandparent reporting having used the Internet for 20 years (240 months) which indicates usage of the ‘old,’ pre-web Internet for approximately five years. Grandchildren as a group have not only been using the Internet for almost twice as long as their grandparents, but they also started using the technology at only a fraction of the age (and thus, a very different life stage) than their grandparents. This last point is clearly a result of the availability and popularity of the technology itself. ⁵ These results mirror Rice and Katz’s (2003, p. 608) results overall which show that younger users as a group are both more likely to be veteran users (longer than three years) as well as recent Internet users (within the past three years).

RQ 1: Media Use in the Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship

Research question 1 inquired about the general use of the various communication media by grandparents and their grandchildren for the purpose of interacting with each other. General frequency analyses show a number of differences and similarities, as displayed in Table 2. It is important to remember that these frequencies are the result of both recall and perception. They do, however, provide an initial glimpse of how each group perceives its use of communication media in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Overall, participants interacted with each other face-to-face several times a year (68 people chose this answer option out of a possible 132). They almost never (112/132) used IM to interact. Grandparents reported using the cell phone (22 times out of 66) or the landline phone (20 times out of 66) about once a month to interact with their grandchildren. While the grandchildren reported the use of the cell phone to interact with the grandparents about as frequently (18 out of 66 times), they reported using the landline phone once a month only 10 times, and using it several times a year 27 times. Overall, grandchildren report using the landline phone less frequently than they report using the cell phone. Email is used by only some participants in the grandparent/grandchild relationship as more than half participants (77 out of 132) reported using it almost never in the relationship. Letters or cards were used several times a year (77 out of 132) or once a year (28 out of 132), most likely in the traditional form of birthday or holiday cards. Overall the frequencies indicate that the cell phone, landline phone, and face-to-face communication are used more often in the grandparent/grandchild relationship than email, letters or cards, or instant messaging.

Table 2: Frequencies of Media Use by Grandchildren, Grandparents, and Both

Note. GC – Grandchild(n=66); GP – Grandparent(n=66); B – Both(n=132)

A within-subjects analysis of variance was conducted to examine the relative frequency of communication media use. The ANOVA was significant with F(1, 127) = 268.88, p < .001. For post hoc comparisons, the Bonferroni method was applied and the significance level was set to p < .003 (.05 divided by 15 tests). Eleven out of 15 tests showed significant differences between two types of media, as displayed in Table 3.

RQ 2: Media Use Variables

In order to assess how the six different media use variables are associated with one another in the grandparent/grandchild relationship (research question 2), the media use variables were correlated with each other. The Bonferroni method was used to guard against Type I error and the significance level was set to p < .001 (.05 / 36 = .001). With this more conservative method, two correlations were significant. The significant correlations were between face-to-face and cell phone communication (r = .36), and between email and instant messenger interaction (r = .31). Table 3 represents the correlation results. Another two correlations approached significance with significance levels of .002 (email * cell phone) and .005 (email * face-to-face).

RQ 3 Media Use and Geographical Distance

The third research question inquired about the association between media use and geographical distance. Two separate measures of geographical distance were applied, distance in miles during the semester, and distance in miles during the semester break. To guard against Type I error across the 12 correlations the Bonferroni approach was used and the significance level was set to p < .004 (.05 / 12 = .004). Significant results were found for face-to-face communication and distance during the semester (r = .58), and for face-to-face communication (r = .63) as well as letters or cards (r = -.29) and distance during the semester break. Table 4 displays the three significant and the nine non-significant correlations.

RQ 4 Media Use and Contact Initiation

The fourth research question inquired about the relationship between media use and who initiates the contact between the grandchild and the grandparent. A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted with the six media use variables (cell phone, landline, email, face-to-face, instant messenger, letters/cards) as levels of the within-subjects variable media type. The contact initiator (grandparent, grandchild, both, parent) was added as the between-subjects variable. Multivariate results showed that there is a significant media type effect with Wilks’ Lambda = .25, F (5, 119) = 70.81, p < .001. Results of the repeated-measures ANOVA also showed a significant main effect for contact initiator, F (3, 123) = 4.50, p = .005. However, there was a non-significant interaction effect between media type and contact initiator with Wilks’ Lambda = .82, F (15, 329) = 1.64, p = .063.

Grandparents and grandchildren indicated interacting with each other most frequently via the cell phone (with lower numbers indicating higher frequency, possible range 1 to 7; M = 3.77, SD = 1.78), followed by face-to-face conversations (M = 4.03, SD = .95), landline phones (M = 4.13, SD = 1.55), letters or cards (M = 4.52, SD = 1.06), email (M = 5.58, SD = 1.85), and finally instant messenger (M = 6.59, SD = 1.12). When taking into account the contact initiator, the descriptive statistics indicate that contact initiated by either the grandchild or the grandparents is most often accomplished via the cell phone, followed by the landline phone. However, when respondents indicated that both grandchildren and grandparents were equally likely to initiate contact, the preferred method was reversed with the landline phone first and the cell phone second. When parents were responsible for initiating contact between the grandparents/grandchildren, face-to-face was the most frequent method.

Independent of the initiator’s role, email was always the second least likely mode of interaction with instant messenger always being the least likely. Table 6 shows the means and standard deviations for all media types by contact initiator. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted as follow up to investigate whether the differences in media type were significant. To protect against Type I error, the Bonferroni adjustment method was used and the significance level was set to p < .003 (.05/15 = .003). As displayed in Table 7, eleven out of fifteen comparisons were statistically significant. Comparisons that were not significant were cell phone*face-to-face, landline phone*cell phone, landline phone*face-to-face, and landline phone*letters/cards.

With regard to the significant contact initiator main effect, a series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted (one per media type; see Table 8). Of the six analyses, only one (Contact initiator and landline phone) showed significance at least at the p < .05 level. Post hoc tests on the significant one-way ANOVA did not show any significant results at the p < .004 level (Bonferroni adjustment level, .05/12 = .004). In the interest of space these non-significant results are not displayed here.

RQ 5:Media Use and Relational Quality

The fifth research question inquired about the relationship between media use and the quality of the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted. Results of the correlation analyses, presented in Table 9, show that four out of six correlations (in order from highest to lowest: face-to-face, cell phone, landline phone, email) were statistically significant, ranging at levels from .19 to .41. Two correlations (letters or cards, instant messenger) were not statistically significant.

Table 9: Correlations Between Media Use and Relational Quality

Note. *p<.03, **p<.003

Regression analysis investigated the strength of contribution of each of the significant media use variables to relational quality. Results showed that the media use variables were significantly related to the measure of relational quality, F (4, 126) = 10.63, p < .001. The r-square measure indicated that approximately 25 per cent of the variance of the relational quality measure was explained by the four media use variables. Zero-order correlations show that face-to-face interaction is the strongest indicator (r² = .17, p < .001), followed by the cell phone (r² = .11, p < .001), landline phone use (r² = .06, p = .005), and email (r² = .07, p = .03).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend Harwood’s (2000) research on how the use of communication media in the grandparent/grandchild relationship affects the grandparent/grandchild relationship. In addition to the communication media assessed by Harwood (landline phone, face-to-face, and letters or cards) three newer technologies were added (cell phone, email, instant messenger) to reflect the increased use of these technologies in contemporary society. A total of five research questions were posed, three relating to usage of the six communication media by grandparents and grandchildren in general, and two that specifically addressed the effects of such usage on the inter-generational relationship.

How Grandparents and Grandchildren Use Communication Media

Research question 1 asked to what extent grandparent/grandchild contact occurs in face-to-face encounters, over a landline phone, over a cell phone, via email, via letters or cards, or by instant messenger. Basic frequency analysis showed that most participants had been using Internet technology for an average of about seven years. The average participant had been using the cell phone for almost six years. However, closer examination showed a distinct generational gap in experience (as measured by time, not skill) between the two age groups. While about a fifth of the grandparents had never even accessed the Internet, all of the grandchildren had been using the Internet for at least four years. Similarly, that data showed that while on average grandchildren have owned a cell phone for only about 13 months longer than their grandparents have. Overall more grandchildren have owned a cell phone for longer than have their grandparents. Such data indicates that both technologies have integrated into the lives of the two generations in very different ways. While considerable research exists on cell phone use by younger generations (e.g., Campbell & Russo, 2003; Ling & Yttri, 2002) researchers should investigate issues such as seniors’ perceptions of newer technologies and how that influences their usage of these communication media. Such research might provide new data to further detail the contributions of the media richness and social influence perspectives.

Research question 2 asked how face-to-face, landline phone, cell phone, email, letter or card writing, and instant messenger are associated with one another in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Frequencies show that the two generations tend to interact only a few times a month or year independent of medium choice. Instant messenger has not really entered the inter-generational communication process. A significant ANOVA and follow-up tests show that all other five communication media are used significantly more often than instant messenger. In addition, the cell phone and face-to-face both are used significantly more often than email, or letters or cards. The landline phone as well as letters or cards are used significantly more often than email. Thus, traditional communication media such as face-to-face and the landline phone still make up a good portion of grandparent/grandchild communication while newer technologies such as email or instant messenger are not utilized between these groups even though the nature of the technologies accommodates some of the difficulties older people may experience (such as, slowed reaction time, auditory difficulties, etc.).

According to media richness theory, the complexity of a communication task is related to which medium is most effectively used for communication, with more complex communication tasks requiring face-to-face communication while mundane or strictly task related messages can be conveyed by leaner media such as the written media. As grandparent/grandchild communication is always relational to some degree, results are in line with media richness theory. However, the social influence model also provides a possible explanation when this result is examined in combination with the fact that the cell phone is used in the grandparent/grandchild relationship quite frequently. It would appear that the cell phone, which clearly functions like the landline phone but provides a higher degree of convenience, sophistication and flexibility, has become the preferred communication device. In other words, the the cell phone has a higher rate of adoption for the purpose of inter-generational communication than email. While media richness theory provides a good general framework it fails to explain an increasingly complex technological environment which provides a number of choices and multifaceted communication technologies. For example, cell phones are multifunctional mobile devices that provide a more sophisticated communication tool than simple landline phones. Most cell phones are still primarily used for voice communication, though a future study might consider adding text messaging via the cell phone as an additional medium. However, the mobile platform of the future will allow an even richer interactive environment. The simple hierarchical model presented by media richness theory may not function adequately to capture this ‘converged’ environment. A social influence model may provide the best fit in this changing environment in that it requires a more detailed and flexible understanding of usage. Technologies such as the cell phone which now provide both voice and text cannot accurately be evaluated by the four media richness criteria. This undermines the idea of a ‘best fit’ technology that the theory advocates. Social influence approaches allow examination of more complex technologies and situations. For example, Tse (2008) showed how it was necessary but effective to teach older people the use of basic computer operating skills first so they were later able to access health information online. A social influence model approach to such complex situations can help determine the importance of each technology involved in reaching the overall goal, while media richness approaches would focus too much on the ‘richness’ or ‘leanness’ of each tool itself. Future research should look into this more closely.

Correlation analysis conducted on the data shows that for those participants who do use email in the grandparent/grandchild relationship, there is a relation between email use and the use of instant messenger and there may be a relationship between the use of email and the use of the cell phone and face-to-face. Thus, used in inter-generational communication or by the elderly in general, email may act as the ‘gateway’ to higher frequency of interaction through multiple channels. In other words, people who master the use of email may be more willing to adopt other communication media as well (and even to higher degrees than email itself), including instant messenger or possibly even technologies not yet developed. Future research needs to examine more specifically the role that email plays in motivating people to use technologies at all age levels. Such research could have important implications for narrowing some of the existing digital divides (Andersson, 2004).

Finally, results shed light on how grandparents and grandchildren use communication media in their interactions when overcoming geographic distance, which was the question addressed in research question 3. Correlation analysis showed that closer distance between the two generations during the semester break is related to fewer letters or cards exchanged as well as more face-to-face interaction. These results make sense intuitively – if you live closer to someone, you will probably see him or her in person more often. However, the non-significant correlations also show that technologies specifically designed to overcome geographic distance such as telephony and email do not seem to be related to distance in the grandparent/grandchild relationship, as was concluded already by Fisher (1994) who showed that the (landline) telephone tends to strengthen local ties, rather than geographically dispersed ties. Mok, Wellman, and Carrasco (2010) confirmed in their study that distance has little influence on phone usage within 100 miles, but point out that email use is strongly related to distances of 3000+ miles.

In sum, factors other than the technologies themselves seem to be key to initiating communication between the generations, as the following section discusses. While these results support the stipulation of media richness theory that face-to-face is the richest medium and should be chosen for the most ambiguous situations, the results do not support the remainder of the media richness continuum that ranks communication media in their usefulness. Instead results suggest that media richness theory on its own is too simplistic to explain the more complex communication technologies that have evolved since the theory was formulated.

Inside the Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship

Research question 4 asked how the use of various communication media is related to the source who initiates the grandparent/grandchild communication interaction. Since the frequency analysis shows that grandchildren have so much more experience (measured by time, not skill) than their grandparents with Internet technology, one might easily assume that this experience translates into comfort and thus usage of the medium when the grandchild initiates contact. Likewise, since more grandchildren have been using the cell phone longer, one could hypothesize that grandchildren would use the cell phone frequently in their interactions with their grandparents. Results showed that the cell phone is the preferred method of contact initiation for grandchildren. However, results also show that this is equally the case when the grandparent is the contact initiator. Thus, though seniors overall use the cell phone less than students, the role the phone plays in their lives may be similar, at least in the family environment. Results also showed that written communication media such as email and instant messenger were used even less frequently than the traditional letters or cards. Since the literature (e.g. Kline & Scialfa, 1996) has argued that written media may be preferred by seniors as they accommodate problems such as auditory loss, the preference of an oral medium contradicted such a hypothesis. Some of the oral interactions may be explained with traditional interactions (such as face-to-face when parents initiate contact, which may occur on holidays), preference of some sort of phone (landline or cell) could be shown for these participants no matter whether contact was initiated by the grandparent, grandchild, or both equally.

Researchers interested in communication initiation are encouraged to pose more specific questions than were asked in the study at hand to investigate this seeming contradiction between the literature and the result reported here. For example, future research might benefit from more specific questions detailing whether contact is cell-to-cell, or cell-to-landline in which case it might be noteworthy who is the cell phone owner and who is the landline phone owner. Similarly, this study asked only about ‘being in touch’ via letters or cards without distinguishing between authoring or receiving these letters or cards. Other relationships between contact initiation and medium choice might emerge through more detailed investigation.

For the research at hand, results contradict general social stereotypes (such as only the grandparent writing letters or cards, not the grandchild; predominantly grandchildren using cell phones, not grandparents). One possible explanation is that these stereotypes no longer hold true in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. As such, seniors would play a larger role in the social shaping of cell phone technology than they have been accorded so far.

Finally, research question 5 inquired whether there is a relationship between communication media use and grandparent/grandchild relational quality. Relational quality was measured by the concepts of ‘getting along,’ ‘emotional closeness,’ and ‘good communication’ (Harwood, 2000). These three concepts were not measured by multiple items or defined more specifically to allow each respondent to answer according to his or her perception which translates into the respondents’ perception of his or her relational closeness with the grandparent/grandchild. Results show increased use leads to higher perceived relational quality for the use of cell phones, landline phones, face-to-face communication, and email. When any of these communication media are used, the grandparent/grandchild relationship is likely to have higher quality (however that is defined by the participants themselves). Face-to-face remains the strongest predictor of quality inter-generational relationships, followed by cell phone usage, the landline phone, and email (in that order). So far, face-to-face communication remains the ‘best bet’ for developing and maintaining high quality relationships in inter-generational interactions. According to domestication theory, the family dyads investigated here have certainly begun the process of incorporating newer technologies into their family lives, which addresses Silverstone and Haddon’s (1996) third assumption that adoption moves from a more public to a more private domain over time.

Of course, it is equally possible that the relational quality in the grandparent/grandchild interaction determines or influences medium choice. A grandchild wishing to avoid prolonged interaction with the grandparent might choose to write a birthday card instead of calling, along the lines of media richness theory’s stipulation regarding the complexity of a communication task as well as the level of ambiguity existing in the communication interaction. Likewise, a grandparent or grandchild that gets along very well with the other person of the dyad might choose a richer medium to allow for more complex communication and interaction. Future research should investigate whether medium choice is a stronger predictor on relational quality than vice versa, and which other (social influence) factors play a part in this, such as habit or comfort with the technology.

Concluding Remarks and Additional Suggestions for Future Research

Today, the media/information environment we live in is very dynamic and complex and it is difficult if not impossible to array media on a single continuum the way media richness theory did in the 1980s. Newer technologies are not discrete; they now combine features in novel ways. This makes it much more difficult to assume ‘one best medium’ or technology for any communication purpose. For example, the cell phone is rapidly morphing into an extremely flexible, multitasking device, especially as the telecommunication infrastructure accommodates more intensive applications. Newer mobile devices now access the web, allow one to text in real-time, record audio and listen to audio, view and capture digital images that can be sent immediately to friends, family, co-workers, etc. and these devices provide accessibility from almost anywhere 24/7.

Some of this study’s results related to the cell phone may merit further, preferably longitudinal research. First, results showed an overall preference for oral communication over written communication in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Second, the strongest correlation between communication media in this research was between face-to-face and the cell phone. Third, three correlations between media and relational closeness showed a stronger correlation for the cell phone than for the landline phone. Taking these three observations together, it is likely that cell phones are replacing landline phones in the grandparent/grandchild relationship.

In the end, the study at hand provides data that indicates a growing importance of the cell phone not just among younger generations, but also for older generations as well as in the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Indeed, it is likely that the flexibility of the cell phone as a communication device may help overcome some inter-generational difficulties and lead to grandparents being thought of as part of the ‘family plan’ more consciously once again. Domestication theory in particular may be helpful in future studies as it focuses on the process and the reciprocal influence between individual adoption and technology development.

At a general level this research supports previous work by Harwood and others who draw upon media richness theory. However, the results of this study seem to suggest that social influence theory may be a better long term bet for understanding media use in this environment. Finally, future research should examine which grandparent initiates contact with the grandchild.  There is some recent evidence regarding utilizing new communication technology that shows cross gender conversations to be more frequent and of longer duration than conversations between the same gender (Leskovec & Horvitz, 2007). Also, young people utilize texting and IM between themselves much more than with people not of their own age (Leskovec & Horvitz, 2007). It would be interesting to see if this difference is somewhat minimized when a young person sends a text message to an older person of the opposite sex. 

All of this points to very interesting future research that needs to be undertaken to understand how new communication devices are being utilized in different ways by grandchildren and grandparents in their mutual efforts to maintain and strengthen their relationships.

References

Andersson, A. (2004). Digital divides revisited: towards a model for analysis. Electronic Government Proceedings, 3183, 289-292.

Biddix, J. P., Chung, C. J., & Park, H. W. (2011). Convenience or credibility? A study of college student online research behaviors. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 175-182.

Campbell, S.W., & Russo, T.C. (2003). The social construction of mobile telephony: an application of the social influence model to perceptions and uses of mobile phones within personal communication networks. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 317-334.

Chen, Y.-F. & Katz, J. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 179-191.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554-571.

Dyck, J. L., & Smither, J. A.-A. (1994). Age differences in computer anxiety: The role of computer experience, gender and education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(3), 239-248.

Dyck, J. L., Gee, N. R., & Smither, J. A.-A. (1998). The changing construct of computer anxiety for younger and older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 61-77.

Fisher, C. (1994). America calling: a social history of the telephone to 1940. Berkley, CA, University of California Press.

Fox, S. (2001). Wired Seniors. A Fervent Few, Inspired by Family Ties. Available at  http://www.pewinternet.org (23 July 2004).

Fox, S. (2004). Older Americans and the Internet. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org (23 July 2004).

Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging theories of communication in organizations. Journal of Management, 17(2), 407-446.

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Ryu, D. (1995). Cognitive elements in the social construction of Technolgoy. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 259-288.

Fulk, J., Schmitz, J., & Steinfield, C. (1990). A social influence model of technology use. In J.

Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and Communication Technology (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Harwood, J. (2000). Communication media use in the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 56-78.

Kline, D. W., & Scialfa, C. T. (1996). Visual and auditory aging. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbok of the psychology of aging (pp. 181-193). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5(3), 225-253.

Lea, M., O’Shea, T., & Fung, P. (1995). Constructing the networked organization: content and context in the development of electronic communications. Organizational Science, 6, 462-478.

Leskovec, J., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Planetary-scale views on an instant-messaging network. Microsoft Research Technical Report (MSR-TR-2006-186), 1-28.

Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 139-169). Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Mok, D., Wellman, B., & Carrasco, J. (2010). Does distance matter in the age of the Internet?Urban Studies, 47(13), 2747-2783.

Morrow, D. (2003). Technology as environmental support for older adults’ daily activities. In N. Charness & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Impact of technology on successful aging (pp. 290-305). New York: Springer.

Rakesh, B., & Shweta, B. (2009). Mobile phone usage behavior of university students in Oman. International Conference on New Trends in Information and Service Science (NISS), Vol 1 & 2, pp. 954-962.

Rice, R. E., & Katz, J. E. (2003). Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage, adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy, 27, 597-623.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Schmitz, J. A., & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, media richness, and electronic mail: a test of the social influence model of technology use. Communication Research, 18, 487-523.

Silverstone, R., & Haddon, L. (1996). Design and the domestication of information and communication technologies: Technical change and everyday life. In R. Mansell (ed.), Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies (pp. 44-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., & Stein, E. W. (2000). Making connections: complementary influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2), 163-182.

Tse, M. M. Y. (2008). E-health for older people: The use of technology in health promotion. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 475-479.

Webster, J., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Rational and social theories as complementary explanations of communication media choices: two policy-capturing studies. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1544-1572.

Wiese, D. R., & Gronbeck, B. E. (2005). Campaign 2004 developments in cyberpolitics. In R. E. Denton, Jr., The 2004 presidential campaign (pp. 217-239). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Endnotes

¹ This recruiting process as well as the questionnaire were approved by the Institutional Review Board of University.

²It wasn’t until the time of data entry that the wording of ‘mobile phone’ appeared questionable. The questionnaire did not distinguish the cell phone from the landline portable phone, and both could conceivably be defined as ‘mobile’ telephones. Thus, it is possible that some participants, especially amongst the grandparents, interpreted ‘mobile’ as ‘portable’ which could have skewed data for the grandparent group on this variable. Since the length of ownership was not used beyond a basic frequency reporting, the data was retained and this note added as a caution. In future research the use of ‘cell phone’ versus ‘mobile phone’ is recommended to avoid any potential confusion with the ‘landline portable phone.’

³ A grandparent at the age of 42 might seem young, especially since the grandchild is already in college. One grandparent reported being 42 years old, one reported being 52 years old, and all others reported being 61 years or older. During recruitment students were told specifically that they should not ask their parents to participate, but that step-grandparents were acceptable. It is likely that the two grandparents whose age is significantly lower are both step-grandparents, especially since both of these people reported being female and relationships between younger women and older men are not uncommon.

⁴ This calculation excludes the two grandparents that reported being 42 and 51 years old. The next youngest grandparent reported being 61 years old at the time of the study.

⁵ The beginning of the Internet as ARPAnet is dated at 1969. At this time, only four computers at four universities were connected. However, even if the grandparents had started using the Internet immediately in 1969, they still would have been between 24 and 51 years of age.