Mobile Phone Conversations vs. Face-to-Face Conversations

Mobile Phone Conversations vs. Face-to-Face Conversations Mobile Phone Conversations vs. Face-to-Face Conversations in Public Settings: An Annotated Bibliography Margarita Parker Cell phones burst into our life in the early 90’s and became an integral part of the modern world. They are convenient and essential. They are not only communication devices but also our friends who keep our secrets and save our happiest moments. They remind us about important events and wake us up in the morning. However, more and more people find it inappropriate and unethical to be involuntarily involved in other people’s cell phone conversations in public settings. At first, this paper was planned to be designed as a research critique paper on a study found in the textbook. The study I found interesting was conducted in 2008 by Scott Campbell, professor of Telecommunications in the University of Michigan (Campbell, 2014). His study, Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism, collectivism, and focus of the setting (Campbell, 2008), was mentioned by Keyton (2010) in terms of â€Å"how mobile phone use in public settings was influenced by cultural and individual differences† (p. 45). I located the study online at ECU Joyner Library, read it, and found the results interesting. Campbell (2008) found that â€Å"participants with a collectivistic orientation [are] more tolerant of mobile phone use† in public settings that participants with an individualistic orientations (Campbell, 2008). While reading the study, I noticed that Campbell often mentioned the study by Monk et al. (2004) who found that people perceive cell phone conversations in public settings more annoying than face-to-face conversations of the same loudness. I located this study online at ECU Joyner Library, found it very interesting, and my initial research question – â€Å"How people of different cultures perceive the use of the mobile phones in public setting?† – changed to the other one: â€Å"Do people find cell phone conversations in public settings more annoying than face-to-face conversations?† Thus, I shifted my focus from a study in the textbook to an annotated bibliography. The study of Monk et al. (2004) became as incitement for its replication by Forma and Kaplowitz (2012). Therefore, this study was located online at ECU Joyner Library, read and analyzed carefully, and an annotated bibliography of the two studies was written. Monk, A., Carroll, J., Parker, S., Blythe, M. (2004). Why are mobile phones annoying? Behaviour Information Technology, 23 (1), 33-41. doi: 10.1080/01449290310001638496 In this study, Monk and the colleagues investigate the participants’ perception of mobile phone conversations and face-to-face conversations in public places. Monk et al. (2004) suggested that people might be more annoyed when hearing a cell phone conversation than a face-to-face conversation. They hypothesized that there were a few explanations to it. Frist, they suggested that it could be explained by the content or the volume of the conversation. Second explanation could be the novelty of the mobile connection technology. â€Å"People are used to others having face-to face conversations in public spaces and have learned to ignore them. The mobile phone is relatively new and hence more noticeable† (Monk et al., 2004). Third factor was suggested to be the fact that the one only hears a half of the cell phone conversation thus could not fully understand the content of the conversation. The experiment involved sixty-four randomly chosen participant – a half of them in the bus station, another half in the train carriage. The participants were exposed to the same staged conversation – one was face-to-face and another on the cell phone. The conversations lasted about one minutes. After that the participants were asked to read six statements and rate the conversation one the card displaying the Likert scale from 1(‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’). Each of the six statements was analyzed separately to find out â€Å"how the three independent variables, context (bus station or train), medium (mobile phone or face-to-face) and loudness (normal or loud), affect the ratings† (Monk et al.). A three-way between-subjects analysis of variance, Levine’s test for heterogeneity of variance, a two-tailed t-test, and a Mann-Whitney U-test were used to analyze the data. Analysis of Statement 1, The conversation was very noticeable, showed that the participants found the mobile conversation more noticeable than the face-to-face conversation of the same volume and content. Most of the ratings of Statement 2, The conversation was intrusive, were low. Analysis of Statement 3, I found myself listening to the conversation, revealed that the participants tended to listen to the cell phone conversation more than the face-to-face conversation. The participants were not strongly agreed or strongly disagreed on Statement 4, I found the ring tone of the phone annoying, as well as Statement 5, I found the volume of the conversation annoying. The rating of Statement 6, I found the content of the conversation annoying, were low. The findings provide evidence that in general, cell phone conversations are perceived as more noticeable and annoying than face-to-face conversations at approximately the same volume and content. The authors conclude that the study supported one of their hypothesis – cell phone conversations are more annoying because one hears only one side of the conversations that means people would rather hear a dialogue of two people than a monologue on the call phone. One of the advantages of the study is the random selection of participants as well as conducting the study in the real public settings were participants could do what they usually do in this public setting. However, the level of background noise was not taken into consideration. It can vary from very loud to very quiet in the bus station as well as on the train. This could affect the results of the study. More could be done on studying the effect of the context and content of the conversation. The authors of this study refer to Wei and Leung (1999) who found that public transportation settings were to be less irritating than restaurants, schools, and libraries (Wei Leung, 1999; Monk et al, 2004). Thus, the experiment could be conducted in the different public places such as restaurants, schools, theaters, hospitals, shopping malls, etc. in order to ensure validity and reliability of the experiment. The content of the conversation could be manipulated from being very annoying (talkin g to a customer service representative) to being very pleasant (congratulation on a new baby). The study is interesting but quite outdated. As stated in one of the hypothesis, cell phones were perceived as novelty. They were the novelty in the 90s but not anymore. However, the cell phone conversations in public setting are still perceived as rude and annoying. Thus, this study needs expansion as well as replication in the current time. Forma, J., Kaplowitz, S.A. (2012). The perceived rudeness of public cell phone behavior. Behaviour Information Technology, 31 (10), 947-952. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.520335 The authors report two studies on the perception of face-to-face and mobile phone conversations. The first study was designed to find out if people speak louder when talking on the cell phone than when talking face-to-face. 90 participants were found on a university campus â€Å"30 cell phone users and 60 people having face-to-face conversations† (Forma Kaplowitz, 2012). The participants were observed in two public settings – in a food court on campus and in a lobby outside the food court. 30 cell phone and 30 face-to-face conversations were discretely recorder by one of the authors of this study who sat within 1 m of the participants and recorded the average dB level for 1 minute. The analysis of the collected data confirmed that people talk louder on the cell phone than face-to-face. The second study was a replication of the study of Monk et al. (2004). The goal of this study was to confirm or disprove the findings of Monk et al. (2004) that mobile phone conversations in public settings are perceived more annoying than face-to-face conversations. As in Monk et al. (2004) experiment, Forma and Kaplowitz (2012) used two actresses who engaged in cell phone and face-to-face staged conversations on a bus. In some of the face-to-face conversations, both actresses were audible while in others only one actress was audible. Participants were students riding the bus on the campus. After the conversation was over, the participants were asked if they noticed the girls’ conversations. Those who answered â€Å"yes† were given the questionnaire. 160 participants completed the questionnaire similar to the one Monk et al. (2004) used. The analysis of the results confirmed the findings of Monk and the colleagues that people perceive cell phone conversations in public places more rude that face-to-face conversations. Moreover, Forma and Kaplowitz (2012) found that face-to-face conversations in which only one person was audible were perceived even more annoying than cell phone conversations. Both studies of Forma and Kaplowitz (2012) are fairly recent, well designed, the topics are deeply analyzed, and the authors’ claims are strongly supported with evidence. The replication of the study of Monk et al. (2004) included more participants (160 vs 64) that could increase validity and reliability of the study. However, there are some factors that could make the validity and reliability of both studies of Forma and Kaplowitz (2012) slightly questionable as the participants were mostly young students, and the sample did not include people of different ages and occupations while in the original study by Monk et al. (2004) participants were randomly selected on the train and the bus station. Lastly, I would like to mention that the studies conducted by Monk et al. (2004) and Forma and Kaplowitz (2012) based on some of the findings in the work â€Å"Blurring public and private behaviours in public space: policy challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone† by Wei and Leung (1999). This work deserves a special attention. However, this assignment is limited to two annotations. Thus, I am planning to return to this work in the future. References Campbell, S.W. (2008). Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism, collectivism, and focus of the setting. Communication Reports, 21 (2), 70-81. doi: 10.1080/08934210802301506 Campbell, S.W. (2014). Curriculum Vitae. University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/scott.campbell/files/campbell_cv_aug_2014_.pdf Forma, J., Kaplowitz, S.A. (2012). The perceived rudeness of public cell phone behavior. Behaviour Information Technology, 31 (10), 947-952. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.520335 Keyton, J. (2010.) Communication Research: Asking Questions, Finding Answers (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Monk, A., Carroll, J., Parker, S., Blythe, M. (2004). Why are mobile phones annoying? Behaviour Information Technology, 23 (1), 33-41. doi: 10.1080/01449290310001638496 Wei, R., Leung, L. (1999). Blurring public and private behaviours in public space: policy challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone. Telematics and Informatics, 16, 11–26. doi:10.1016/S0736-5853(99)00016-7

Cell Phone Use while Driving Essay -- safety control, accidents

For many years Safety Control has determined to ban the use of cell phones while driving within the community. American society would be much safer if cell phones were banned while driving. Benefits of cell phone use during roadside emergencies, car trouble, obtain personal information, or even navigation; however, it may lead to running red lights, drifting across lanes, or worse, causing accidents. Phones can do so many things, but most importantly they allow you to connect to emergency service. Its mot needed during roadside emergencies such as ambulance, police and firefighters. Studies have shown that the use of cell phones in emergencies situations, such as calling for ambulance, has improved its mortality rates. (Journal of Emergency Medicine 1) An example of this would be seeing an accident ahead of you and pulling over to call for ambulance service. Also if one sees a confrontation that might become deadly, a cell phone would definitely help. There are so many reasons for cell phones being needed while driving such as, you can also contact the firefighter station in case of a fire. Having a cell phone would be beneficial in case of a car break down. An example of a car break downs would be running low on gas, engine overheating, transmission failure or a blow out. All of that sounds terrible, but thanks to cell phones people can now call for roadside assistance. Roadside assistance for example would be calling a tow truck o take you to the nearest auto mechanic or a transmission shop or simply needing assistance in changing a tire. In addition to their benefits to using a cell phone on the road, Matt Sundeen reports that drivers with cell phones place an estimated 98,000 emergency calls each day and that the cell phone ... ... pass a law that bans this practice. Regardless of whether the phone is hand-held or hands-free, there is a lot of strong information and evidence that the actual task of conversing on a cell phone distracts drivers on concentrating on safety. For examples, drifting into another lane, and running red lights are reasons why the government needs to pass a law. People caught texting or using a cell phone while driving should lose their licenses for one year. Works Cited Austin, Michael. Texting While Driving: How Dangerous Is It? Car and Driver. June 2009: Magazine. Richtel, Matt. Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cell phone Risks. 18 July 2009. Web. 10 January 2014. Snyder, Edgar. Texting and Cell Phone Use Statistics. 2012. Web. 22 January 2014 Wilms, Todd. Its Time For ‘Parental Control, No Texting While Driving’ Phone. 18 September 2012. Web. 14 January 2014.

Secret River Conflict Impacts Greatest on the Most Vulnerable

When confronted with conflict it is the vulnerable who suffer the greatest as the powerful are indifferent to them. Vulnerability, encountering conflict and how people respond to conflict are unavoidable experiences worldwide. But ultimately vulnerability depends on the situation that a person is in. When it comes down to powerful verses the defenceless, it is the weak who are influenced the most by conflict as the powerful do not understand to what extent their actions effect others. Although the powerful trump others on their way to the top perhaps it is the assailable people who allow themselves to be manipulated. It is more prominent today that the vulnerable are greatly impacted at the hands of the powerful because of their differences, but what defines vulnerability in any given person relies on the position or state they are in. What can define a person as vulnerable are finical struggles, emotional struggles, physical struggles and racial struggles while also being defenceless, exposed and weak in nature. Considering this definition, vulnerability alters and differs for different people, whether they are blind, poor, depressed, discriminated against everyone is ‘vulnerable' in some form. It is almost always that a person becomes powerless due to their confrontation with conflict. Some of the most influential and powerful people can become weak and belittled at the hands of others or their own actions. It is the story of the rags to riches that we so often hear about but it can also be the case of riches to rags. Everyone has been deprived of their privileges or has been weak at some point in their life due to encountering a conflict. It is unavoidable; it is what defines us a person along with our resilience to keep fighting after being weak or defenceless. Most people do not have the courage to question the issue and their response to conflict is altered due to the lack of questioning. These weak people have the opportunity to be strong and stand up for what is morally right when an issue arises but instead succumbs to mob mentality and peer pressure forcing them to do things that are not of the norm, ultimately making them vulnerable. When in a new situation and new environment, people can become a weaker version of themselves. In the past it has been colonisation in Australia was what encouraged vulnerability. Some Australians thought that they had to â€Å"stick together† and by doing so attempting to control the Indigenous Australians and force them to assimilate into a dominant white culture. With this thought process of sticking together it forced some people to make decisions they wouldn’t normally make and became vulnerable and succumbed to what the majority was saying as they didn’t want to be viewed as siding with the Indigenous Australians. The situation a person is in impacts on their ability to stay strong and not become weak, once vulnerable conflict impacts greater. The problem with the powerful today is that they don't understand how their actions affect others. Majority of the powerful people worldwide started at the bottom of the food chain. Some worked hard for fortune and power; others had it handed to them. The problem with power is that it is easily abused and used for all the wrong reasons; to stay on top can sometimes become the top priority for the privileged. Staying at the top of the pyramid of society can significantly influence and impact the vulnerable as social status can be shifted immensely. On the way to the top the advantaged push others down so they can reach what they believe to be success and supremacy. The fragile are almost always targeted as it is easy to overcome and trump them giving the powerful an effortless route to total control of power. Due to the differences between the privileged ad underprivileged the powerful don’t understand what their actions can truly do. They don’t comprehend how little these people already have, because they may have never experienced a life unlike their own. During colonisation the British governor allowed British settlers to hurt and even kill the Aboriginals all because they were different. â€Å"On occasion of any native coming armed, or in a hostile manner without arms to any farm belonging to British subjects, such natives are first to be desired in a civil manner to depart from the said farm. † The indifferences between the two conflicting cultures made the powerful discriminate against what they believed to be a subhuman and inferior race and not really understand what is meant to the Aboriginals. The Aboriginals had the land first it was apart of their culture, their way of life and when it was taken away they had no other way to respond other then trying to claim back what was rightfully theirs. The government truly did not realise how they were affecting the Indigenous communities at the time. They take away what little the vulnerable have without even realising the consequences that has for the less advantaged. With a society obsessive over money and wealth there is no questioning when it comes to money versus human beings and raw emotions; money conquers all. The real question is why don’t people care about one another? The only way to fix and help the vulnerable from being constantly dragged down is to help the hedonistic society we live in. Power, wealth and what people believe to be success have become the top priority of those who are too selfish and too inconsiderate. These money infatuated people need to start taking into consideration others and stop pushing them down for their own desires. They need to realise that everyone is equal, everyone deserves the same and that they have to live with these people for the rest of their life. Sure, they can avoid the weak they have hurt but a life of harmony would be much greater then one of avoidance. The powerful that are ravenous and greedy need to stop and consider what how their actions are effecting the weak so that the targeted victims have a chance to grow and to prosper. Although the vulnerable are constantly victimised by those craving power perhaps they allow themselves to be manipulated. Sure, we all feel sorry for the less privileged but how can we when they allow themselves to be stepped all over? Yes, some of the disadvantaged are genuinely stuck in a lower social class with no hope of thriving but there are so many that take any opportunity they can in the hopes of moving up in the world. These choices are thoughtless choices. When an authoritative and influential figure approaches the weak and asks them for help there is no doubting that they would say yes. They powerful have the vulnerable in the palm of their hands and the underprivileged let them. Why, why would you let someone walk all over you when you know that they are just using you for something greater? I personally believe it is so that the vulnerable can be viewed as incapable and desperate drawing the powerful to them in the hopes of leeching something off them. What they don’t understand is that the rich and the privileged have a lot more resources for victory and it is a pointless attempt to try and receive anything from them. They want to stay at the bottom so that others feel sorry for them, so that they don’t have to work, so they can get by on the scrapings that we give them. They idolise the advantaged and in doing so they are blinded by their own obsession allowing them to be susceptible to manipulating and scheming. It is also the case of mob mentality when someone gives into peer pressure making them extremely pathetic and will do anything they are told because they don’t have the courage to question what is right, subjecting them to manipulation. In terms of past events in history, again British colonisation forced many people to succumb to peer pressure, with the added pressure and the desire for power it forced many settlers to do things they wouldn’t normally do. â€Å"It was not the voice of any one man but the voice of the group, faceless and powerful. † The underprivileged remain underprivileged due to the fact that they permit the privileged manoeuvre them in hopes of leeching something off them or in hopes that they may to become powerful. Ultimately the vulnerable endure greater suffering as they allow themselves to be manipulated and crushed in the hopes of something new, something better. What it means to be vulnerable can differ from situation to situation and only when confronted with a issue can they really know whether they are ‘vulnerable’ or not. To make this world a better place, a place of equality the powerful need to stop treating the disadvantaged purely based on indifferences. Nobody likes racism so there is no reason to discriminate against the poor or fragile just for being who they are.

Building Classroom Discipline Essay - 2259 Words

In the past few years it seems that schools have really lost touch with the discipline of students. With the increasing frequency of school shootings and acts of violence it seems that the students are running the show instead of the teachers and administrators. There are many factors that are involved in creating a great classroom or a horrible classroom. From the way the teachers punish misbehaving students or the way they reward them when they do something right, to how involved the parents are with their childrens education. The purpose of this paper is to explain how classroom management, when used effectively by the teacher, can produce an excellent learning environment for students. According to C.M. Charles, the author of†¦show more content†¦The most important one is establishing successful classroom management, the first day of classes it is important for the teacher to make rules that he or she will enforce and let the students know that they will be responsible for there actions. One is being organized, this is an important aspect because if a teacher is well organized then they have more time to help the students and pay attention to there needs. The last thing that Glenn said that is important is show a good attitude, if a teacher is in a bad mood the student will feel intimidated and afraid to approach there professor with a question. A student will feel better about confronting teacher in a good mood with a concern they might have. Many other traits that he listed are very important when looking for new teachers. (Glenn, 2001) A newspaper article, that appeared in the Baltimore Sun in July of 1997, talks about how Howard County schools are taking action on misbehaved students. The school board passed an action to detain students on Saturday evenings if they go against school policy. The one thing they are focusing on is the smokers and the use of tobacco; the penalty if caught with tobacco is automatic Saturday school with no warnings. According to the article the number of suspensions and expulsions has increased six times in the past three years. ?Two-thirds of the teachers in Howard County say that classroom misbehavior has interfered with their ability toShow MoreRelatedCooperative Discipline1041 Words   |  5 PagesLinda Albert – Cooperative Discipline Linda Albert’s Cooperative Discipline Model was designed to allow teachers to utilize specific strategies to reach individual students and help modify their behavior. According to Albert, students choose their own behavior. As teachers, we cannot control a student’s behavior choices, but we can influence them. â€Å"Using a comprehensive approach, Cooperative Discipline deals with all three discipline types: corrective, preventive, and supportive. It addressesRead MoreEssay on Discipline vs. Management675 Words   |  3 PagesDiscipline and Management: Different Yet Related Classroom management and classroom discipline share a correlation with one another yet; they are uniquely different issues and should remain a separate focus of the teacher. (Cantor, 2006) Behavior and misbehavior also share a connection but represent different degrees of infraction. (Charles, 2008) This essay focuses on the differences and similarities of these topics and their relation to the classroom. Classroom management focusesRead MorePersonal Statement : Behavioral Management Essay910 Words   |  4 Pagesboth agree that you have to start out tough and have a discipline plan in place. However, every student is unique, so if a behavioral plan does not work, you need to accommodate it for that student’s needs. After Mr. Gonzales explained a discipline scenario, I believe he follows Dr. Spencer Kagans, Win-Win discipline. This approach is when a teacher â€Å"handles discipline problems at the moment of disruption with powerful and proven discipline strategies† (Kagan, 2002). Although Mr. Gonzalez has hisRead MoreTheorist Approaches Of Classroom Management Essay1592 Words   |  7 PagesTheorist Approaches to Classroom Management â€Å"An effective monitoring technique is using a clipboard that contains student’s names and space to record rating or notes about performance and behavior during group activities† (Evertson Emmer, p. 170). The Group Process Approach regards the classroom to be a social system in which group process are of major importance. It assumes that instruction takes place within a group context – the classroom group. The classroom group is a social system withRead MoreApplication Of The Program : Conscious Discipline1640 Words   |  7 PagesApplication of the Program Conscious Discipline is program used across the nation in schools as an alternative to traditional behavior management programs. The success of Conscious Discipline within schools has been springboard for a similar program for parents to use at home. Why the Program Was Selected As an inclusion teacher, I am often tasked with growing students who have not achieved much success in the traditional classroom structure. Often times my students do not respond well to typicalRead MoreJacob Kounin700 Words   |  3 Pages * Jacob Kounin is a classroom behaviorist theorist. He first started as a psychologist at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. * He is best known for two studies he did in 1970 that was based on classroom management. * He began his studies in 1970 by writing Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms. He wrote the book to discuss the effective and ineffective behaviors in the classroom. The process began by observing teachers in an everyday classroom setting to see how theyRead MoreBrunswick High. Emergency Procedures936 Words   |  4 Pagesare divided into 4 sections: Fire Safety Guidelines, Emergency Drills, Response to a Violent Incident (can be a student disruption), and a crisis policy. The fire safety guidelines were more about the type of equipment that could be used in the classroom, while emergency drills were broken into fire drills and tornado drills. Similarities and Differences The similarities between Goodyear Elementary and Brunswick High were the fact that: †¢ Both had a section in the handbook for emergency proceduresRead MoreThe Dangers Of Too Much Technology1296 Words   |  6 Pagestraditional teaching methods in addition to inappropriate execution of discipline through Zero-Tolerance Policies that could be resolved by the United States Department of Education because both issues have contributed to lower test scores, a reduced amount of human interactions in classrooms, an increase in drop-out, suspension, and expulsion rates all contributing to the degradation of the education system as we now know it. Classrooms have come a long way; the materials used to teach students haveRead MoreSelf Discipline Is A Classroom Management And Social / Emotional Intelligence Program1134 Words   |  5 PagesOverview of Conscious Discipline Conscious Discipline is a classroom management and social/emotional intelligence program designed to empower both teachers and students in their daily lives.The program was developed by Rebecca Bailey, Ph. D, who made it her mission to â€Å"find a better way† for teachers to handle students in their classrooms. According to Bailey, Conscious Discipline shifts â€Å"from a traditional compliance model of discipline to a relationship-based, community model,† (2011, page 11)Read MoreEssay about Parafossionalism1161 Words   |  5 PagesNAJMA KASSIM September 27, 2014 EDU 450 Mr. Hensley EDU-450 Classroom Management Models Harry Wong’s Effective Classroom Strengths: This model has very clear set of rules such as what to say and goals to keep in order for the teacher to be successful in her teaching. Weaknesses: This model I believe has more focus on the success of the teacher rather than the needs of the students. Quotes: â€Å"The single greatest effect on student achievement is not race, it is not poverty — it is