Category: *Researched

My senior year in graduate school at Shippensburg I took a course that had each student update a chapter in our text book. I chose to update the video game chapter.

Video Game Update

Zeb Carbaugh, Shippensburg University

COM 526: Emerging Mass Media Technology

June 18, 2017

Current Status

The gaming world is evolving and a lot has changed since last year. Sony’s PS4 Pro was released in November of 2016 and in response Microsoft just premiered their Xbox One X at the 2017 Electronic Entertainment Expo (better known as E3). Gaming consoles and PC gaming have been out shined by mobile gaming in terms of revenue for 2016. On March 3^rd, 2017 Nintendo released their seventh console to the world, the Nintendo Switch. There is enough going on in the gaming world to keep players entertained for quite sometime.

To catch you up to speed here are a few interesting gaming statistics and events as of early 2017: The top game revenue country is China at about $24.3 billion which is almost $1 billion over the US gaming revenue (Lofgren, 2017). The world average gamer is male (59 male to 41 female), 35 years of age (with an average 13 years of gaming experience), and playing on a PC (56% PC, 53% dedicated console, 36% smartphone, 31% wireless device, and 17% handheld system) with friends (54% of most frequent players play with others) (Lofgren, 2017). In 2016 almost 30 and a half billion dollars in revenue was generated by the United States computer and video game industry, which is an increase from $30.2 billion the previous year (Entertainment Software Association, 2017). The quickly evaporating trend of Pokemon Go became a cultural phenomenon virtually overnight with the help of mobile technology and helped springboard Pokemon Sun and Pokemon Moon on portable gaming devices to the “highest launch month consumer spend in the history of the franchise” (Entertainment Software Association, 2017). And at the start of 2017, virtual reality (VR) gaming hadn’t yet reached its projected potential in performance nor commercial success (Lofgren, 2017).

In 2016 the gaming console giant Sony released the 2.0 version of their 2013 success, the PlayStation 4 and it is called the PlayStation 4 Pro. To be clear, there was another version of the PS4 released in 2016 and it is called the PS4 slim. The PS4 slim has almost the same performance as the launched version of the PS4, but with a smaller and sleeker look. However, the PS4 Pro is much different than the PS4 in terms of performance. The PS4 Pro has over double the GPU (graphics processor) power and operates with 4.2 teraflops compared to the standard PS4’s 1.84 teraflops (Vandervell, 2017). The pro also allows gamers to enjoy 4K resolution (3,840 by 2,160 lines pixels) and HDR (high dynamic range) which allow visuals to appear brighter and with more vibrant colors (Vandervell, 2017). With the PS4 Pro’s 4K capabilities, it is strongly recommended that it is operated on a 4K compatible television. The PS4 Pro will operate on a non-4K television, but it won’t be used to its potential.

Figure 1: Standard PS4 (Vandervell, 2017)

Figure 2: PS4 Pro’s HDR adding texture to the shot (Vandervell, 2017)

Table 1: Launched PS4, PS4 Slim, and PS4 Pro (Vandervell, 2017)

In response to Sony’s PS4 Pro, Microsoft recently showcased their XBOX One X at 2017’s Electronic Entertainment Expo. Project Scorpio was the One X’s secret name before being revealed to the public. It, like the PS4 Pro, has 4K HDR capabilities to allow for superior graphics in games and video. The One X has 1.17 GHz 6 Teraflop GPU compared to the Pro’s 4.2 Teraflop GPU. Not many reviews have come out since the One X isn’t meant to be released to the public until November 2017, but it is clear that Microsoft is still playing their part in the PlayStation and XBOX rivalry.

Table 2: XBOX One, XBOX One S, and XBOX One X (Naudus, 2017)

While consoles like the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One created 6.6 billion dollars in revenue in 2016, PC gaming generated 34 billion dollars for the same year. But neither console nor PC could top the mobile gaming industry which in 2015 made up 85 percent of all mobile app revenue with 34.8 billion dollars (Takahashi, 2016). Not to mention, the mobile games created 41 billion dollars in revenue for the 2016 year (Om, 2017). Freemium games such as SuperCell’s Clash of Clans (released in 2012) and Clash Royale (released March 2016) are free to play, but make the vast majority of their income on in-app purchases and advertising. These freemium games allow the player to download the game for free from the Apple App Store or Android’s Google Play, but in order to progress through the game without waiting for months in real time, the player can use real world money to advance their experience. SuperCell saw a flat sales growth of 2.3 billion dollars in 2016 and had 10 billion dollars worth of shares bought by the Chinese company Tencent Holdings (Takahashi, 2017).

Other mobile games such as the international sensation Pokemon Go have created huge bursts of initial buzz, but then fade out of relevancy rather quickly. Because the freemium style app is popular, mobile gamers can download many apps at a time with little to no cost to themselves. This means that most mobile gamers will download a game onto their phone whether they plan to engage with the game app on a regular basis or not. On top of that, there is an abundance of gaming apps available to users. If a player doesn’t like a certain popular mobile game, there are dozens of very similar knockoff versions to choose from. Once Clash of Clans started to receive a lot of attention (enough attention to buy a 9 million dollar commercial during Super Bowl 49 starring Liam Neeson) there were dozens of poorly developed knockoffs that showed up in the App Store and Google Play. Another reason why mobile games don’t tend to last long is because unlimited mobile data plans have become common place in the developed world. So not only are the apps themselves free, but the data necessary to download and play the apps isn’t costing the user any more than if he or she didn’t download and play the game (Herman, 2017). Mobile games seem to have a quantity over quality reputation compared to console and PC games. Most are free-to-play games, there are millions of them, and they typically don’t stay relevant as long as other video games, but that doesn’t mean mobile games should be regarded with any less respect.

The Electronic Entertainment Expo failed to give the 40 billion dollar mobile gaming industry its well-deserved spotlight once again in 2017, but why? Vlad Savov from TheVerge.com writes “I recall an old Malcolm Gladwell talk where he recounted some unintuitive statistical findings by researchers. If you ask people what type of coffee they favor, he pointed out, and they all say something along the lines of a dark, rich, hearty roast. When you look at what they actually buy and prefer, however, it turns out the answer is a weak and milky coffee. Without wishing to offend mobile game makers, that’s where we are today: with mobile games being the mild and milky coffee we actually consume but don’t feel exceedingly proud to admit to liking. E3 still thinks all we’re after is the glitz and violence of AAA console titles, and the real world is instead tapping away in Clash of Clans” (Savov, 2017). So maybe it isn’t cool to like mobile games just yet, and maybe mobile games don’t get the respect they deserve at expo’s, but one corporation seems to have gotten the 40 billion dollar memo to switch to mobile gaming.

Looking to get ahead of the success in mobile gaming, Nintendo released the Nintendo Switch in March of 2017. The Switch allows gamers to “switch” from console to mobile in seconds. The Switch is a home console, hand-held gaming device, and a touch screen tablet all in one device. It is basically the Swiss Army knife of gaming. The Switch has a 6.2-inch 720p LCD tablet that they call the console (Ingenito, 2017). The console can be equipped with the left and right Joy-Cons to be turned into a handheld gaming device, or it can be placed in the Nintendo Switch Dock to be played on a larger screen, preferably a TV. When the console is being played on a TV, the Joy-Cons can be placed into the Joy-Con Grip piece to function more like a home console controller.

Figure 3: Nintendo Switch Contents (Burke, 2017)

As for problems with the Switch, reviews have come in saying that it isn’t everything they were hoping it would be. Apparently the left Joy-Con has signal issues where the player’s hand blocks the signal to the console causing in-game problems (Ingenito, 2017). Also, in trying to be a handheld and console, the Switch lacks certain qualities that its competitors have thrived on. The Switch runs on a customized Nvidia Tegra X1 chipset (Ingenito, 2017). This means that the horsepower behind the switch is miles ahead of most mobile games, but isn’t up to par with the PS4 and XBOX One consoles. Compared to Nintendo’s last console, the Wii U, the Switch has double the RAM at 4GB, but has a very similar GPU and CPU (Ingenito, 2017). Which basically means the Switch has a better ability to function in real time compared to the Wii U, but its graphics (or visuals) don’t appear to be any more spectacular than the Wii U. None the less, old-school Nintendo fans are enjoying The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild which was made for the Wii U and the Switch at the same time. All in all, the Switch is absolutely amazing by most handheld gaming standards, but it isn’t up to snuff when it is used a console.

Mobile games have made quite a splash into the gaming pool, although most people and expos don’t want to admit it. Nintendo has created a bumpy bridge between home consoles and handheld gaming devices. And the PlayStation 4 Pro has spurred enough buzz to get Microsoft make a roided version of their latest console. But what will be the next big craze in gaming? What will the gaming industry come up with next to keep players hooked?

Factors to Watch

Virtual reality gaming seems to be the future, and one console released a working VR system already, the PlayStation VR is here. What will be Microsoft’s answer to the PlayStation 4 VR? Some think the future of gaming IS in virtual reality, but NOT in your living room. There are a lot of good ideas and competition coming out of this new virtual reality technology, but it seems clear that there is no single application of VR that shines above the rest.

PlayStation released their VR headset in October of 2016, and some think it is ahead of its time. The PlayStation VR has a price tag of $399, but that is just for the basic VR package. In order to get the full use of the VR you need a full package including the PlayStation camera and the Move controllers. Buying all the necessary bells and whistles will cost around $499. Without the camera your VR is pretty much useless, but the Move controllers can be substituted for a more clumsy experience with just your standard PS4 controller (Stapleton, 2016). The light on the PS4 controller can be picked up by the camera and used to track your movements (Stapleton, 2016). Once you get past the price tag, the first thing you see is the hardware, which looks pretty cool. The cushions in the headset makes it super comfortable and the look of the headset has been compared to most science fiction movie helmets. Setting up everything to get the VR working is a bit of pain. If you are a stickler for good wire maintenance on you home entertainment center than you have a bit of a nightmare on your hands with the PlayStation VR. The picture doesn’t have as high of resolution as the Oculus Rift or HTC Vive, but it isn’t bad enough to take away from the game play (Stapleton, 2016). Another thing that may bother gamers is the limited viewing angle. Because the VR depends on the camera to track the light on controllers, the player cannot look behind themselves, so they are limited to a 180 degree view (Stapleton, 2016). A basic review of the PlayStation VR is that it is somewhere in between the superior Oculus Rift type VR sets and the more modest smartphone based VR sets. That being said, early technology adopters have been baffled by the PlayStation VR’s performance and it is the first VR compatible console available, at least until Microsoft’s XBOX One X is released.

Microsoft’s XBOX One X (to be released in Fall 2017) has a lot of buzz going around it. At 2017 Electronic Entertainment Expo Microsoft didn’t say a whole lot about VR in connection with the One X. However, Microsoft’s Alex Kipman did say “We’re also excited to share that Windows Mixed Reality experiences will light up on other devices over time, beyond desktop and Microsoft HoloLens. Our plan is to bring mixed reality content to the Xbox One family of devices, including Project Scorpio, in 2018” (Lamkin, 2017). That didn’t reveal a whole lot. Project Scorpio was the code name for the One X when it was still in development. Since the One X is supposed to be released in Fall of 2017, Kipman may have meant that VR will be added to the One X sometime after it has been released to the public. This may be a smart move. Virtual reality, which is gathering a lot of hype in the tech world, still has a lot of kinks to work out before it can be totally integrated to complex gaming. Sony released the PlayStation VR to get a head of the game, but Microsoft may be able to develop a superior model a bit further down the road.

Down the road under may be where you have to go to experience the newest trend in virtual reality experience. One of the main problems with VR gaming is the confining environment that is your living room. While regular console gaming can be performed in any place with a TV and a wall outlet, VR gaming needs a spatially feasible area. Zero Latency is looking to solve your spatial problems. The company is based out of Melbourne Australia and they are a virtual reality gaming company that has 2,000- to 4,000-square-foot warehouse arenas for the public to play their VR games in. “As far as business models go, this one is pretty simple. All that’s needed by Zero Latency (the origin of which dates back to the founders’ fascination with the idea of using a custom tracking system to play VR games in a big, empty warehouse-like space) is a room with basically nothing in it (other than the dozens of cameras tracking players’ movements, but you get the idea). The company already has rigs for players to use, which include an Alienware gaming computer and a custom backpack, and gaming content that Zero Latency has developed in-house” (Meek, 2017). Zero Latency charges 88 Australian dollars for an approximate 40 minute experience. Six players can play at a time, and they can choose from just a few of Zero Latency’s own games, one of which is a first-person-shooter zombie game titled Outbreak. Zero Latency hopes to take away the isolated reputation of gaming and VR and turn them into a social event like going to the movies or miniature golf. It is a concept that is exciting gamers, but according to Andy Meek from BGR.com Zero Latency gets a mixed and “not a purely gamer crowd” (Meek, 2017).

References

Burke, R. (2017, February 14). Your Nintendo Switch launch day guide. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://gamingtrend.com/feature/your-nintendo-switch-launch-day-guide/

Entertainment Software Association. (2017, January 19). U.S. Video Game Industry Generates $30.4 Billion in Revenue for 2016 [Press release]. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://www.theesa.com/article/u-s-video-game-industry-generates-30-4-billion-revenue-2016/

Herman, D. (2017, February 13). Mobile games lose their luster faster than ever. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://venturebeat.com/2017/02/11/mobile-games-lose-their-luster-faster-than-ever/

Ingenito, V. (2017, March 07). Nintendo Switch Review. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/03/08/nintendo-switch-review\

Lamkin, P. (2017, March 03). Microsoft Confirms: Xbox One VR Headset Incoming. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/paullamkin/2017/03/02/microsoft-confirms-xbox-one-vr-headset-incoming/#4197b5362ea6

Lofgren, K. (2017, April 5). 2017 Video Game Trends and Statistics – Who’s Playing What and Why? | Big Fish Blog. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/2017-video-game-trends-and-statistics-whos-playing-what-and-why/

Meek, A. (2017, May 29). This is what the future of gaming looks like. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://bgr.com/2017/05/29/esports-arena-vr-zero-latency-interview/

Naudus, K. (2017, June 12). The Xbox One X vs. the original Xbox One: What’s changed? Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/12/xbox-one-x-vs-original-xbox-one/

Om, D. (2017, February 20). Mobile Games Brought in More Revenue in 2016 Than PCs and Console Games. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://www.iphonelife.com/content/mobile-games-brought-more-revenue-2016-pcs-and-console-games

Savov, V. (2017, June 14). Will E3 ever be a mobile games show? Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/14/15798996/e3-2017-mobile-games

Stapleton, D. (2016, October 05). PlayStation VR Review. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/05/playstation-vr-review

Takahashi, D. (2016, February 10). Mobile games hit $34.8B in 2015, taking 85% of all app revenues. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://venturebeat.com/2016/02/10/mobile-games-hit-34-8b-in-2015-taking-85-of-all-app-revenues/

Takahashi, D. (2017, February 15). Clash Royale, Clash of Clans push Supercell to $2.3 billion in 2016 revenue. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from https://venturebeat.com/2017/02/15/clash-royale-clash-of-clans-push-supercell-to-2-3-billion-in-2016-revenue/

Vandervell, A. (2017, April 12). PS4 Pro vs PS4: What’s the difference and is it worth the upgrade. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/ps4-pro-vs-ps4

*This is the research article I wrote with my partner for grad school. It wasn’t easy, but it wasn’t as hard as I thought it would be. We collaborated on the whole paper, but she did the Literature Review while I did the statistics and results. This was presented to multiple review boards and presented at the Shippensburg University Research Fair in 2017*

University Students’ News Literacy on Social Media

Barbara Schindo & Zeb Carbaugh, Shippensburg University

COM 520: Applied Mass Communication Research

May 7, 2017

Abstract

This research study evaluated the popularity of social media sites and their contribution to the spread of fake news. Participants were asked how they got their news and how often they shared news articles on social media. They were shown various social media articles and then asked to rate each articles’ credibility. Real news articles were used in the survey. Then those same articles were altered to suggest that they came from fake news sources. The participants (N = 110) did give the real articles a higher rating of credibility and trust. There was no significant relationship between the credibility of an article and the participants’ likelihood to share the article. On average, participants also rated Facebook as their most frequently used news source.

 

University Students’ News Literacy on Social Media

The term “fake news” has been making headlines in real news and all over social media. Fake news is the deliberate publication of false information and purporting it to be real news. Social media is a new way for consumers to get news in a time when public trust in traditional media has seen a strong decline (Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, & Pingree, 2015). A Pew Research Center survey (2016) shows that 62% of U.S. adults get their news on social media, but how much of the news on social media is authentic and factual? Out of the 62% of adults who get their news on social media, the majority of them get it from only one site, and they are not actively seeking it (Pew, 2016).

Social media, aside from being a source of news, has changed and continues to change the landscape of journalism. Citizen journalism, or the collection, sharing, and analysis of news by the general public on the Internet, is emerging as a competitor for mainstream media sources. In this changing landscape, anyone with access to the Internet has the potential to write and share information. Media consumers need to be aware that not every news item they see on social media is correct or is coming from a credible source. It is important for consumers to be vigilant and media literate before they like and share articles on Facebook.

This research addresses news consumption on social media, specifically, Facebook. As the use of social media as a news source increases, it is important to study users’ habits. If university students are more apt to share news articles that are not credible, that is significant and could mean a bleak future for social media as a news source.

This purpose of this study is to evaluate if the popularity of social media sites contributes to fake and incorrect news stories going viral. This study also aims to determine how well university students understand media literacy, and if they are able to tell the difference between credible and not credible news source.

Literature Review

            A number of studies address how participants view media credibility and believability. Many found that consumers are more likely to find the news not trustworthy or biased (Golan & Baker, 2012; Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, & Pinegree, 2015; Zuniga & Hinsley, 2013). Overwhelmingly, Mormon college students viewed the media as not credible, not trustworthy, immoral, and incorrect (Golan and Baker, 2012). Fisher, Magee, and Mohammed-Baksh (2015), and Zuniga and Hinsley (2013) concluded that people working within the news industry see their work as more trustworthy and believable than the public did. One thing particularly alarming about Fisher, Magee, and Mohammed-Baksh’s (2015) conclusion is that the media consumers do not care if the information seems credible or not.

Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, and Pingree (2015) say there is a strong decline in the public’s trust in traditional media outlets, but social media is emerging as a new avenue for consumers to find information. As social media emerges as a news source, it also has created a new form of newsgathering: Citizen Journalism. The general public now has the ability to gather, write, post, share and analyze current events. Tweets, Facebook posts, and online messages have become news sources (Fisher, Magee & Mohammed-Baksh, 2015). More than half of adults surveyed said they get news from social media, which is up from 49 percent in 2012 (Pew, 2016). Chung, Nam, and Stefanone (2012) said younger people are the largest consumers of online news, and news consumption habits begin during the college age years. With the increase in use of social media as a news source, and the ability of social media to make almost anyone a content creator, there is concern that users are apt to believe and share information that is false or incorrect.

Studies show an increase of social media use as a news source over the last two decades. Jo (2005) said that the news source type and content had significant effects on how the consumer viewed credibility. Consumers were more likely to believe a newspaper article over an online press release. Golan and Baker (2012) and Jo (2005) found that consumers gave newspapers the highest ratings in credibility. Online news consumption opens the door for more sources of news; in addition to citizen journalism, users have access to mainstream media sources, independent news sources, and also index-type news sources, such as news.google.com and yahoo.news.com. Users like index-type news sources for their interactivity, but continue to rate mainstream sources as the most credible. Independent news sources like The Drudge Report and Axis of Logic were rated the least credible (Chung, Nam, & Stefanone, 2012).

Chung, Nam and Stefanone (2012) said young adults like online news, particularly index-type news sources. Users liked that places like Google allowed them to find a lot of information in one place, and that the index sources had interactivity and hypertextuality, meaning that one article would have hyper links to several other articles or sources of information. Users like online news for the convenience.

Some of how users see credibility of news articles shared on social media has to do with which outlet or friend is sharing the information. Users were more likely to find an article more trustworthy if it was shared by one of their friends on Facebook, rather that if it was shared by the news outlet itself (Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, & Pingree, 2015). Turcotte, York, Ivring, Scholl, and Pingree (2015) found that if a friend a person viewed as an “opinion leader” shared a news article on Facebook, the user was likely to trust that article and also seek out news articles form the source the article was shared from. If a friend who was not viewed as an “opinion leader” shared an article, users were more likely to see that article and news source as not trustworthy.

What’s interesting is users seem to care more about news, and find it more believable, if the news itself is about social media (Fisher, Magee, & Muhammed-Baksh, 2015). Fisher, Magee, and Muhammed-Baksh (2015) found that college students thought news stories about social media technology were more credible than news stories about economics. Other than stories about social media, students cared little about whether the information was credible or not. Survey participants had no difference in attitude about if the information came from a journalistic source or an external source.

News consumption seems to be at an interesting juxtaposition where the majority of users are getting their information from online sources or social media, but they think broadcast media and print media are more trustworthy. (Chung, Nam and Stefanone, 2012; Golan & Baker, 2013; Pew, 2016). What does this mean for the future landscape of news consumption and news sharing? In a time period where news outlets already have low credibility ratings with users, spreading fake news through social media will be even more damaging to credible outlets’ reputations.

H1: University students are as likely to share non-credible news articles as they are to share credible news articles.

H2: University students are more likely to get news from social media than from other sources.

RQ1: Do university students trust non-credible news sources on Facebook as much as credible news sources?

RQ2: Do university students rate fake Facebook articles with higher overall credibility than real Facebook articles?

Method

To retrieve data from as many students as possible, a survey was conducted by sending a Survey Monkey link to over 50 Shippensburg University professors. These professors then gave the link to the students of at least one of their courses, producing 110 participants. This is a form of snowball sampling, a non-probability type of sampling. Although this study used non-probability sampling, students were recruited from multiple departments around campus. Participants did not just consist of communication journalism majors or any other single major. Each participant indicated that they were 18 years of age or older, and that they were a current student of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania.

When they first opened the questionnaire, participants were first asked to consent to the informed consent form. The next two questions asked participants, through multiple choice questions, to provide their current academic year (freshman, sophomore, etc.) and whether they had a Facebook account or not. The next question (question number 4) was also multiple choice, and asked how frequently each participant used seven different news sources. Participants were asked to indicate how frequently they used each news source. Question 4 asked the participants to choose their frequency of use by selecting “Never, Monthly, Weekly, or Daily” for each news source. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were combined, but their Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.686.

The remaining questions referred to the three real and three altered news articles. For each article the participant was to rate on a Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree) how believable, trustworthy, and biased they thought the article was. For each article the participant was also asked to rate how likely they would be to share the article. This was also measured on a Likert scale (very unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, or very likely).

Three separate articles were used in this survey. After creating an altered version of each article, they were labeled Real1, Fake1, Real2, Fake2, Real3, and Fake3. So, Real1 and Fake1 were the same article with only minor differences in the article’s source. For example, Real1 was an article about a naked man who drove a stolen cab through Rittenhouse Square from 6ABC.com, and Fake1 was the same article from TBSDaily.com. The news source TBS Daily was a source fabricated by the researchers in this study. Real2 was an article about the Ford Motor Company recalling 36,000 vehicles for an air bag defect from ABC27.com, while Fake2 was the same article from NewNowDaily.com. Real3 was an article about the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s report on raising hearing aid prices from ABC.net.au, while Fake3 was the same article from AboveAverage.com. Articles Fake2 and Fake3 were given fabricated news source logos as well as the fabricated new source web address.

Asking the participant to rate how believable, trustworthy, and biased each article was, was used to calculate the overall perceived credibility each participant had for each article. The responses for each article’s believability, trustworthiness, and biased ratings were combined through factor analysis to create a single credibility rating for each article. The combined credibility ratings for the articles were labeled Real1Cred, Fake1Cred, Real2Cred, Fake2Cred, Real3Cred, and Fake3Cred. The factor analysis for Real1Cred yielded 0.640 for a Cronbach’s Alpha value. Fake1Cred yielded a 0.664 Cronbach’s Alpha value. Real2Cred had a 0.815 Cronbach’s Alpha value. Fake2Cred’s value was 0.837. Real3Cred’s value was 0.830, and Fake3Cred had a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.853. The Cronbach’s Alpha value threshold needed to have a reliable factor analysis is 0.7. Any value under 0.7 is not considered reliable by most standards. This means that Real1 and Fake1, the articles about a naked man driving a stolen cab through a town square, had less than reliable Cronbach’s Alpha values. This could affect statistical data and should be noted when analyzing the results that included Real1Cred and Fake1Cred.

Results

Question number 2 of the survey asked the participants to indicate their current academic year. Out of the 108 participants who indicated their academic year, 31.5% indicated that they were freshmen, 23.1% indicated they were sophomores, 24.1% indicated they were juniors, 15.7% indicated they were seniors, 5.6% indicated they were graduate students, and no respondents indicated that they were not a student of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania (see Table 1). There were 110 respondents to question number 3, which asked participants to indicate whether they had a Facebook account or not, and 104 indicated that they did have an account.

RQ1 asked if students trust real articles as much as fake articles. To answer this question, a paired sample t-test was done. The trust levels for each article were labeled TrustR1, TrustF1, TrustR2, TrustF2, TrustR3, and TrustF3 to match each corresponding real and fake articles. TrustR1 and TrustF1 were paired (t=6.460, df=109, p<0.01) (see Table 3). TrustR1 had a mean of 3.41 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 0.980. TrustF1 had a mean of 2.75 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 0.999. TrustR2 and TrustF2 were paired (t=8.202, df=109, p<0.01) (see Table 4). TrustR2 had a mean of 3.86 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 0.872. TrustF2 had a mean of 2.87 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 1.093. TrustR3 and TrustF3 were paired (t=9.767, df=108, p<0.01) (see Table 5). TrustR3 had a mean of 3.57 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 0.886. TrustF3 had a mean of 2.48 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 0.939. These results show that on average, participants gave a higher trust rating for real articles than fake articles. The answer to RQ1 is that participants rated fake articles with significantly lower trust than real articles.

RQ2 asked if students rated fake articles with the same credibility rating as real articles. To answer the question, a paired sample t-test was done. Combining the participants’ ratings of each article’s trustworthiness, believability, and level of bias created the overall credibility levels. The credibility levels for each article were labeled Real1Cred, Fake1Cred, Real2Cred, Fake2Cred, Real3Cred, and Fake3Cred to match each corresponding real and fake articles. Real1Cred and Fake1Cred were paired (t=6.382, df=109, p<0.01) (see Table 6). Real1Cred had a mean of 10.48 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.208. Fake1Cred had a mean of 9.14 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.406. Real2Cred and Fake2Cred were paired (t=6.912, df=109, p<0.01) (see Table 7). Real2Cred had a mean of 11.54 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.208. Fake2Cred had a mean of 9.64 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.920. Real3Cred and Fake3Cred were paired (t=9.195, df=107, p<0.01) (see Table 8). Real3Cred had a mean of 10.29 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.453. Fake3Cred had a mean of 7.85 on a 1 to 15 scale, and a standard deviation of 2.699. These results show that on average, participants gave a higher credibility rating for real articles than fake articles. The answer to RQ2 is that participants rated fake articles with significantly lower credibility than real articles.

H1 predicted that students would share articles regardless of their credibility rating. To test this, a correlation test was done. The values of participants’ likeliness to share each article was labeled Real1Share, Fake1Share, Real2Share, Fake2Share, Real3Share, and Fake3Share to match each corresponding real and fake articles. Real1Cred and Real1Share were compared (r=0.146, df=106, p=ns) (see Table 9). Real1Cred had a mean of 10.48 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 2.208. Real1Share had a mean of 1.39 on a scale of 1 to 5, and a standard deviation of 0.783. Fake1Cred and Fake1Share were compared (r=0.118, df=108, p=ns) (see Table 10). Fake1Cred had a mean of 9.14 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 2.406. Fake1Share had a mean of 1.36 on a scale of 1 to 5, and a standard deviation of 0.763. Real2Cred and Real2Share were compared (r=0.220, df=108, p<0.05) (see Table 11). Real2Cred had a mean of 11.54 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 2.208. Real2Share had a mean of 1.87 on a 1 to 5 scale, and a standard deviation of 1.220. Fake2Cred and Fake2Share were compared (r=0.348, df=107, p<0.01) (see Table 12). Fake2Cred had a mean of 9.64 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 2.920. Fake2Share had a mean of 1.61 on a scale of 1 to 5, and a standard deviation of 1.018. Real3Cred and Real3Share were compared (r=0.186, df=106, p=ns) (see Table 13). Real3Cred had a mean of 10.25 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 2.451. Real3Share had a mean of 1.62 on a scale of 1 to 5, and a standard deviation of 0.904. Fake3Cred and Fake3Share were compared (r=0.322, df=105, p<0.01) (see Table 14). Fake3Cred had a mean of 7.85 on a scale of 1 to 15, and a standard deviation of 0.749. Fake3Share had a mean of 1.42 on a scale of 1 to 5, and a standard deviation of 0.749. The correlation test values for each comparison are either negligible or very weak. These low correlation test values and the fact that half the tests are inconclusive due to their significance values makes H1 difficult to support or refute. The few tests that were significant and had weak correlation values do suggest a slight overall positive relationship between an articles perceived credibility and likelihood to share.

H2 predicted that most participants would get their news from social media. To test this, simple descriptive statistics were analyzed (see Table 2). It should be noted that a chi-square test was completed, but no tests came back significant. The first news source, television, had a mean of 2.62 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.040. Newspaper had a mean of 1.46 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 0.700. Radio had a mean of 2.36 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.148. News websites had a mean of 2.78 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.053. Facebook had a mean of 2.90 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.194. Twitter had a mean of 2.31 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.400. Instagram had a mean of 2.60 on a scale of 1 to 4, and a standard deviation of 1.415. Although Facebook had the highest mean value, Twitter and Instagram had mean values below some of the non-social media news sources. As a whole, participants did not rate social media higher than all other news sources.

Discussion

Facebook was the highest rated news source, overall there was a weak or no significant correlation between the articles’ credibility and likelihood to share, and participants gave higher levels of trust and credibility ratings to real articles than they did to fake articles. The Shippensburg University students who participated in this study were more literate on social media than predicted. This is good news for the future of social media as a place where users find news. If students are able to determine articles that others post and share are not credible, that will be helpful in stopping the spread of fake news on social media. It is a positive implication.

This study used a non-probability snowball sample. Non-probability sampling does not allow a study to generalize their findings to a larger population. Even if a probability sample was taken, limited resources such as time and financial means only allowed this study to recruit participants from Shippensburg University.

Other than sampling issues, this study’s questions could have caused confounding variables. For example, the topics of the articles used were about a naked man crashing a car, a Ford Motor Company recall, and a hearing aid scandal. If a participant had a personal experience involving someone crashing a car they might have given those articles a lower likelihood-to-share rating. The other two articles (Ford recall and hearing aid articles) were meant to have a more neutral topic, but these articles may come off as dull. Some participants may have given these articles a low likelihood-to-share rating, because they wouldn’t want a dull or boring article on their social media accounts.

There were time constraints on this study; the survey was active for only about a week and half. Given more time and an opportunity for a larger sample, the research may have been able to get a more accurate picture of social media use as a news source and whether more students would share fake news. The time constraints and sampling limitations also limited how the researchers conducted the study. Being able to show the participants full articles, rather than just Facebook posts, or having the ability to tell if the participants would actually click on and read full articles before posting or sharing them would be useful. There also could have been a more comprehensive result if researchers had asked participants general questions about how they view the media. This study did not ask what attitude the participants had toward the media, or whether they generally find the media trustworthy, credible, or biased. It also did not ask if the participants generated any citizen journalism themselves, or if that was something university students are interested in. A follow up study could be done on those subjects.

This study focused only on Facebook. A future study expanding to other social media outlets would be useful, as research shows that Reddit and Twitter are two of the biggest news sources for adults in the U.S. (Pew, 2016). Studies could be done on those sites individually, or they could be grouped together in a larger study. There are also some things learned during the literature review that would be good ideas for future studies expanding on this topic. Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, and Pingree (2015) found that people were more likely to find news articles shared by friends more trustworthy than when they were shared directly by the media outlet that reported them. This survey did not touch on how influential friends and family postings on social media are on university students’ credibility ratings.

The Pew study (2016) also shows that users who find news on social media are not actively seeking it; it is more of something that just pops up in their timelines as they are scrolling. Studies could be done about why social media users don’t seem to care to seek out news. Do they not think current events are important? What would get younger media consumers interested in news?

There was another limitation with the sampling. As college students, there is a big possibility that participants are more in tune with media credibility on social media. While presenting survey results, the conductors learned that at least one professor taught students about how to spot fake news articles. Another study could be done that only uses incoming freshman as a sample, and survey them before and after they learn about fake news and how to be sure of a news source’s credibility. That could be useful in researching if and how teachers address media literacy with students.

It would be useful to expand this study outside of Shippensburg University. A study involving participants outside of an academic setting could be vastly different. A general study of adults would be interesting.

For future studies, a survey format is not recommended. An experiment method may have produced more controlled results. Instead of asking all participants to rate both real and fake articles, maybe have the experimental group rate fake articles’ credibility and likelihood to share and have a control group rate real articles. As discussed, there are several opportunities to expand on or follow this study.

In conclusion, the results of this survey, though not what the researchers predicted, are positive. Media literacy will continue to be important as the future of the news industry is gravitating to online and social media sources; it is good news that younger generations understand it.

 

 

References

Chung, C. J., Nam, Y., & Stefanone, M. A. (2012). Exploring online news credibility: The relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 171-186.

Fisher, H. D., Magee, S., & Mohammed-Baksh, S. (2015). Do they care? An experiment exploring millennials’ perception of source credibility in radio broadcast news. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 22(2), 304-324.

Golan, G. J., & Baker, S. (2012). Perceptions of media trust and credibility among mormon college students. Journal of Media and Religion, 11(1), 31-43.

Jo, S. (2005). The effect of online media credibility on trust relationships. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(2), 57-78.

Pew Research Center. (2016). News use across social media platforms. Retrieved from: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520-535.

Zúñiga, H. G., & Hinsley, A. (2013). The press versus the public. Journalism Studies, 14(6), 926-942.

Table 1

 

Descriptive Statistics for Participants’ Academic Standing (Question 2)

 

Academic Standing			n	%
Freshman			34	31.5%
Sophomore			25	23.1%
Junior			26	24.1%
Senior			17	15.7%
Graduate student			6	5.6%

 

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for News Sources (H2)

	M	SD	N
Television a	2.62	1.040	110
Newspaper a	1.46	0.700	110
Radio a	2.36	1.148	108
News Websites a	2.78	1.053	110
Facebook a	2.90	1.194	109
Twitter a	2.31	1.400	110
Instagram a	2.60	1.415	109

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 (Never) to 4 (Daily).

 

Table 3

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Between TrustR1 and TrustF1 (RQ1)

	M	SD	t
TrustR1 a	3.41	0.980
TrustF1a	2.75	0.999	6.460**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

**p < .01

 

 

Table 4

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Between TrustR2 and TrustF2 (RQ1)

	M	SD	t
TrustR2 a	3.86	0.872
TrustF2 a	2.87	1.093	8.202**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

**p < .01

 

 

Table 5

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Bes tween TrustR3 and TrustF3 (RQ1)

	M	SD	t
TrustR3 a	3.57	0.886
TrustF3 a	2.48	0.939	9.767**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

**p < .01

 

Table 6

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Between Real1Cred and Fake1Cred (RQ2)

	M	SD	t
Real1Cred a	10.48	2.208
Fake1Cred a	9.14	2.406	6.382**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

**p < .01

 

Table 7

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Between Real2Cred and Fake2Cred (RQ2)

	M	SD	t
Real2Cred a	11.54	2.208
Fake2Cred a	9.64	2.920	6.912**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

**p < .01

 

Table 8

Paired-Samples t-test for Differences Between Real3Cred and Fake3Cred (RQ2)

	M	SD	t
Real3Cred a	10.29	2.453
Fake3Cred a	7.85	2.699	9.195**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

**p < .01

 

Table 9

 

Correlations Between Real1Cred and Real1Share (H1)

 

		Real1Cred	Real1Share
Real1Cred a	r=	1	0.146
	p=		0.133
Real1Share b	r=	0.146	1
	p=	0.133

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

p =ns

 

Table 10

 

Correlations Between Fake1Cred and Fake1Share (H1)

 

		Fake1Cred	Fake1Share
Fake1Cred a	r=	1	0.118
	p=		0.221
Fake1Share b	r=	0.118	1
	p=	0.221

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

p =ns

 

Table 11

 

Correlations Between Real2Cred and Real2Share (H1)

 

		Real2Cred	Real2Share
Real2Cred a	r=	1	0.220
	p=		0.021*
Real2Share b	r=	0.220	1
	p=	0.021*

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

*p <0.05

 

Table 12

 

Correlations Between Fake2Cred and Fake2Share (H1)

 

		Fake2Cred	Fake2Share
Fake2Cred a	r=	1	0.348
	p=		0.000**
Fake2Share b	r=	0.348	1
	p=	0.000**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

**p <0.01

 

Table 13

 

Correlations Between Real3Cred and Real3Share (H1)

 

		Real3Cred	Real3Share
Real3Cred a	r=	1	0.186
	p=		0.054
Real3Share b	r=	0.186	1
	p=	0.054

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

p =ns

 

Table 14

 

Correlations Between Fake3Cred and Fake3Share(H1)

 

		Fake3Cred	Fake3Share
Fake3Cred a	r=	1	0.322
	p=		0.001**
Fake3Share b	r=	0.322	1
	p=	0.001**

 

^a Measured on a scale from 1 to 15.

 

^b Measured on a scale from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Include if needed. Otherwise, delete.

 

**p<0.01

 

*One of the coolest courses I took in Grad School was Magazine Design. By the end of the semester we created an entire magazine and this was my Lead Feature story for my Magazine.*

Zeb Carbaugh

Magazine Design, Lead Feature

November 17, 2016

The Life of a Comic Book Store

Like the ancient Greeks with their stories of powerful gods, our society has created countless universes filled with great heroic tales in our comic books. And like the ancient Greek gods, the stories of valor and bravery that comic books have bestowed upon our culture for almost a century have shaped us as a people. The minds of our society’s children have been molded by these issues of mere ink and paper. Grown adults relive the magic of reading comics every day and there is a place we all anchor these character-defining tales. A comic book store is a place of wonder. Fans practically salivate at the very thought of going to the comic book store and flipping through those wondrous pages. But what really goes on in this magical place when you aren’t there? What kind of people go into this business? And what does it take to make a run of the mill shop into an amazing comic book store?

Captain Sweatpants

Most comic book stores can be found amongst the Panda Express, Auntie Anne’s, and Spencer’s Gift stores in malls. But that doesn’t mean you’ll find your typical mall patron inside the comic book store. Usually, they are filled with sweatpants wearing fanboys. Those fanboys might be there for a particular comic issue, to start up a nerdy conversation with the store owner, or even to play a board game that most people have never seen before. For everyone who has never gone into a comic book store but have peaked inside with bewilderment, keep in mind that most comic book store goers won’t bite. Head on in and start a conversation with someone. If that conversation is about some old cartoon show, a comic book you’ve heard of, or a board game your kid in college has played then you will be surprised at how talkative some of them can be. It is true, most comic book store goers love talking nerd with whoever will listen. They’ve spent a good portion of their lives understanding the complexities of different comic universes and are most likely willing to share their opinion on the matter. They also project an open and accepting atmosphere. Sure, having the 1985 series Thundercats playing on a loop and showcasing dozens of action figures around the store helps start that atmosphere, but it is the shameless comic book store goers that put the icing on the cake. It is hard not to get the totally laid back sense of the place with the Captain Sweatpants look-a-like in the corner reading a Japanese manga that has a scantily clad Asian teenager on the cover. It is important to keep in mind that not everyone in a comic store is a societal pariah. That is just the standard. Regardless, if you aren’t already a comic book store regular, head on down to that comic book store in your local mall, and when it comes to the people inside, remember that they are more afraid of you than you are of them.

The Dungeon Master

Not every person behind the counter of a comic book store looks the same. Just like potheads, comic book store workers are surprisingly from all walks of life. Some appear as if they dread life itself, but most are willing to lend a word of their expert advice. Matt Malkus is the co-owner of Comix Universe in Hanover PA and he is not your typical store owner. Matt fell into the business 10 years ago with experience in business management but little knowledge of comic books. At first, he didn’t particularly enjoy the job but it eventually grew on him. “There is a lot more inside these comics than more people realize,” Matt says. “One day I just decided to open up an issue and I realized that there was an entire universe behind it all.” Matt realized something later in life that most comic fans have known since childhood. Then Bob Brown, a Comix Universe regular, added, “I think being a fan as an adult is more special than when being a fan as a child. As a kid, you are attracted to the action but as an adult, you can understand and grasp concepts and themes they sneak in.”

 

The Fortress of Solid Dudes

Beyond the customers and the owner, there are not just four walls and a cash register. A comic book store, in order to be successful, has to have the right atmosphere. The meticulous placement of posters, enticing videos, collectibles and the comic book issues themselves is very important to creating that welcoming environment that comic book fans yearn for on a regular basis. The other side of a comic book store’s atmosphere comes from the players of Magic the Gathering and many other card and board games. These players flock to comic book stores all across the nation to enjoy a game they enjoy in a place they love. Most people that do not go to comic book stores probably do not even realize what is going on behind the scenes of the stores, but there are people plundering miniature military compounds, fending off demons, and battling other players in the hopes of card/board game victory! Next time you are in a comic book store, take a peek behind the counter for another room. Chances are it is filled with fold out tables, chairs and a couple people going nuts over whatever their game of choice might be.

The comic book store has been a safe haven for the nerds of the world since the comic book has been in existence. The people, the employees, and the atmosphere all come together to create a place that chronicles our society’s myths and legends. Such a large portion of our society’s values started with a kid making a trip to the comic book store. Maybe you should make a trip of your own.

The Relational Medium

Zeb M Carbaugh

10/6/2016

Shippensburg University

            The internet took our society by storm and evolved to become something that is intricate to all of our daily lives in just a few short decades. It brought new technologies that allowed for global connectedness that is available at all hours of the day. Some argue that this new way of communicating brings everyone together in a positive way and that the internet is helping to evolve our society. Others argue that being constantly connected draws our attention away from the world right in front of us and that the internet is devolving our society into digital zombies. Both sides have brought compelling concepts to further their side. But why is this relatively new technology causing such an uproar?

For the most part, it isn’t the emergence of a new way to communicate to people that causes fear in our society. It is the widespread acceptance of that new way of communicating. The Pew Center’s research found that 84 percent of adults in America use the internet and that has increased about 30 percent since the year 2000. This widespread use of the internet has drastically changed other types of communication. Newspapers, magazines, television, radio and other more traditional forms of mass communication have had to adapt to stay alive in our society. Older generations have found that their children and grandchildren have a much better understanding of the internet than themselves. The youth in our society has grown up with and therefore understand and accept the digital age more than older generations who feel that the internet is something to be either feared or a nuisance. The internet was something that hit our society in a very quick pace. The rise of new technology in the digital age has brought on new types of crime, invasions of privacy and other unsavory practices into our world, but those who have accepted this new relational medium have harnessed it to improve their lives.

Social media is one of the largest aspects of the internet that has worked itself into and almost digitally mirrored our lives. Not just the youth of our world have accepted social media as a part of their lives. People of all ages have been known to use social media as a tool to stay connected with other individuals and society as a whole. My grandmother has a Facebook account that she uses to stay up to date on her children, grandchildren and long lost friends. Other people, like my grandmother, have found social media to be a positive way to stay connected to people they personally know and people or organizations they have never met in person. On one side of the argument, social media is seen as something that takes away from our daily lives. “We are, perhaps, too wired — more attuned to events and friends thousands of miles away than to what’s going on right in front of our faces, more likely to share cat videos over smartphones than to play catch in our backyards. Perhaps these technological changes are compelling us to withdraw from the physical world, promoting antisocial behavior and undermining our true relationships” (Masket, 2014). Face-to-face interactions maybe seen as a dying form of communication by some, and for good reason. “Americans collectively check their smartphones upwards of 8 billion times per day. That’s an aggregate number that refers to the number of times all Americans throughout the country look at their mobile devices on a daily basis” (Eadicicco, 2015). How many of those phone checks do you think are due to social media interactions? It is established that social media is a giant part of our collective lives, and the reasons for concern have been identified. But the research has found that social media, for the most part, is no threat to our traditional social interactions. “The on-line world is not truly distinct from the off-line one. We use the Internet and social media largely to stay in touch and make plans with people we already know from face-to-face relationships. Email and social media communications aren’t better or worse than in-person ones; they’re just different. And they complement each other” (Masket, 2014). Our social media interactions don’t just complement our off-line interactions. They have the power to connect us to the rest of the world.

Think of the internet as a giant empathy machine. The struggles around the world are something that most people in first-world countries used to be able to ignore because of the physical distance between them. It has become more difficult to ignore such struggles across the world with the ability to stream live video of what it happening. World renowned philosophers such as the Dalai Lama have said that there are dangers of technology, but one good thing it has brought is a greater sense of a global community and global awareness. Researchers in Australia have found that information and communication technologies (ICT) such as social media applications can have a positive impact on the mental well-being of the youth of their society. “Based on the research conducted in phase I of the project and the pilot evaluation, it appears that ICT does indeed play an important role in the lives of marginalized young people and that it can be used as a tool for promoting civic engagement. This suggests there is great potential for using ICT in mental health promotion projects with marginalized young people in the future” (Metcalf, Blanchard, McCarthy, & Burns, 2008). Other research supports that the digitization of our identities or creating social media profiles has created a new space to support real world issues. “It appears that users are recreating their digital identity in a way that includes elements of political and social ideologies. For example, a Facebook presence, which typically incorporates many fun and social applications also includes stated affiliations with a set of causes. For example, ‘Free Burma’, ‘One Laptop Per Child’, ‘Save the Tasmanian Devils’ or an acceptance to attend ‘The Australian Election Party’. This indicates that a generation often accused of being apathetic and disengaged are entering political and social debate using new technological applications to incorporate their viewpoints as an integral part of their digital identity” (Satchell & Foth, 2008). These research findings, that said ICT and digital identity creation could be used to promote civic engagement and political engagement, support the Dalai Lama’s statement that new technologies are improving global awareness. Social media’s integration into our daily lives has improved our societal communications. It has made us creatures of digital engagement. Through our friends sharing posts about political campaigns and societal issues, we have become more aware and engaged in our world. Societally speaking the internet has improved our world, but what has it done on a more personal level?

Most can think back to an instance when they were speaking to someone only to look over to them only paying attention to their phone. The internet and the technologies that have spawned from it have been known to spread and dilute peoples’ attention. “Researchers surveyed 2,000 participants in Canada and studied the brain activity of 112 others using electroencephalograms. The results showed the average human attention span has fallen from 12 seconds in 2000, or around the time the mobile revolution began, to eight seconds. Goldfish, meanwhile, are believed to have an attention span of nine seconds” (Watson, 2015). Having our attention spans become shorter than a goldfish is not a good thing. The same research conducted by Microsoft that found our attention spans to be decreasing in length also found that our ability to multitask has been improved. This makes sense, we check our phones to stay connected while we are watching television or having a conversation with others. The side that is for technological advancement argues that this is creating highly productive individuals, and that our relationships aren’t being destroyed by social media. They argue that these individuals are merely increasing the number of relationships and not diluting the quality of the relationships. The other side of the argument is that it is impossible to increase the number of relations and not decrease the quality of those relationships. One can see how both these arguments have some valid points when it comes to social media usage, but there are other applications other than social media applications that contribute to our relationships.

Mobile dating applications such as Tinder, Bumble, and Grinder are designed to create specific types of interpersonal relationships. Just as one would access Facebook or Twitter from their mobile device, one can also access online dating applications that encourage users to meet off-line to create romantic relationships. These online dating sites and applications have made a decent sized impression on the romantic side of our society. “One in 10 Americans have used a dating site or mobile app, and 23 percent have met a spouse or long-term partner through these sites. In fact, 11 percent of American couples who have been together for 10 years or less met online” (Dutcher, 2014). In regards to interpersonal relationships, it is hard to argue that these online dating site and applications are harming the way we communicate until you look at the dark side of online dating. “The industry still has a long way to go, however, especially when it comes to trust. A 2013 Pew study found that 54 percent of online daters felt someone had seriously misrepresented themselves in their profile. They’re not wrong; 81 percent of online daters reported inaccurate information about their weight, height, or age. They’re also apt to lie about their income and sexuality, and using out-of-date flattering photos is an all too common practice” (Dutcher, 2014). Online dating has created a number of long-term relationships in our society and for those people it is a great use of the internet. For the rest of us who haven’t found Mr. or Ms. right through online dating, these sites and applications have created a sense of distrust amongst our fellow human beings. To some, creating misleading identities may not seem like such a big deal, but to most of our society, online identities have taken precedence over our real world identities. “Younger users are paradoxically, becoming less concerned about issues of digital identity theft or the misappropriation of information. Furthermore, the studies reveal that in a society saturated by reality television, personal blogs, Flickr, MySpace and Facebook a new generation of user wants to reveal, rather than conceal, elements of their real life identity, a real life which is increasingly merging with their digital life” (Satchell & Foth, 2008). In a society that holds their online presence in such a high level of importance, false or misleading identities is a serious violation of trust. Whether it is our society’s glamorization of the perfect body or some other reason, the truth is that most people create misleading online identities. This is not just the case for online dating. Social media users have also been known for creating misleading online identities of themselves. Most young people understand that people create these glamorized versions of themselves, and when they see someone’s online identity they take the information given with a grain of salt. Older generations, however, are not as in-the-loop as younger generations and tend to fall victim to these false profiles.

You may have noticed a pattern. The older generations have constant problems with technology while younger generations are far more accepting of technological advancements. Older generations find newer technologies, especially ones that include the internet, to be confusing and fearful. They haven’t grown up with these technologies, and their understanding of them tends to be more limited than the generations that grew up using them. The Pew Center’s research on the different generations’ use of the internet shows that “in 2000, 70% of young adults used the internet and that figure has steadily grown to 96% today. At the other end of the spectrum, 14% of seniors used the internet in 2000, while 58% do so today. Not until 2012 did more than half of all adults ages 65 and older report using the internet” (Internet Communications ppt 1). Most of the arguments that arise against the internet come from the older generations that don’t have the same level of understanding as the younger generations. Our class Power Points and discussion support this claim. “The digital tools that are reshaping our economy make more sense to young digital natives than to members of older generations… chances are many digital immigrants will find managing online privacy a daunting prospect” (Internet Communications ppt 1). Age isn’t the only factor to consider when analyzing the internet’s role in our lives. Race, education, income, culture, and occupation type all play on how people use the internet. Depending on what categories a person falls into, they might use the internet in an entirely different capacity than a someone else. This is something to consider when understanding how the internet has changed how we communicate on both personal and societal levels. One might even argue that the internet has contributed to the separation of our society by age, race, education and so on. Think about it.

To communicate to someone that is the same age as yourself, there is a list of rules or courtesies one must follow. In order to communicate to someone who’s age greatly differs from your own, those rules are completely different. For example, if I (22-year-old white male in college) wanted to start a conversation with my sister (25-year-old white female fresh out of college), I would start with a “What’s up” text. If I wanted to start a conversation with my grandmother (85-year-old white female with a high school diploma), I have to send a card first, because she feels that starting a conversation over the phone is too impersonal.

References

Dutcher, J. (2014, February 10). Big data seeks online Love [Infographic] – Blog. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from Berkeley School of Information, https://datascience.berkeley.edu/online-dating-data/

Eadicicco, L. (2015, December 15). Americans check their phones 8 Billion times a day. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from Time, http://time.com/4147614/smartphone-usage-us-2015/

Masket, S. (2014, June 2). Don’t fear the network: The Internet is changing the way we communicate for the better. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from Pacific Standard, https://psmag.com/don-t-fear-the-network-the-internet-is-changing-the-way-we-communicate-for-the-better-32352d7b302#.wovggo978

Metcalf, A., Blanchard, M., McCarthy, T., & Burns, J. (2008). Bridging the Digital Divide: Utilising technology to promote social connectedness and civic engagement amongst marginalised young people. Community Broadcasting Association of Australia

Satchell, C., & Foth, M. (2008). The Re-creation of Identity in Digital Environments and the Potential Benefits for Non-Profit and Community Organisations. Community Broadcasting Association of Australia

Watson, L. (2015, May 15). Humans Have Shorter Attention Span than Goldfish, Thanks to Smartphones. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/humans-have-shorter-attention-span-than-goldfish-thanks-to-smart/

Women kick ass.

I don’t just mean that as in “Yay! Women are awesome! Let’s cheer them on!” No, I mean they can totally kick your ass in today’s society. My mom was always the main breadwinner in my family growing up. The president of my University was a woman. If you look in at the children of your local high school or even junior high you will probably see the boys acting noticeably more barbaric than the girls. While boys physically fight each other, women tend to fight with their words or reputation.

Growing up in a small town in the northeastern United States I’d go to school and notice all the girls getting their pencil cases and note books out to prepare for class while my friends and I put our spandex book covers on our heads just to intentionally look like idiots and make each other laugh. The girls always seemed more organized, aware, and most of all driven. They seemed as if they were in school because they wanted to be there, or at least they understood why it was important. My guy friends and I, on the other hand, just tried to survive school and make it out alive.

“When it comes to emotions, women know how to paint with the full set of oils, while men are busy doodling with crayons” -Hank Moody from Californication

All of the students recognized for scholastic achievement at my high school graduation were women. Our class student government was comprised solely of women. I say “women” because while my guy friends and I were still mere boys, these seemed like full-fledged women running the show. I started to look at the opposite sex as the ones that got shit done.

Now those are just my experiences, or as my old college research professor called it “every day ways of knowing.” You should never use everyday ways of knowing as a representation of the whole. Just because this is what happened to me, doesn’t mean it is happening everywhere. I feel like a lot of people nowadays don’t understand that fact. We should all strive to rely on research to paint the overall understanding of our reality… so here’s some research:

The Pew Research Center released an article in March of 2018 for Women’s History Month. The statistics don’t lie.

Back in the 1960’s, women were the sole provider in only 11% of American households. “In 2014, women were the sole or primary financial provider in four-in-ten households with children younger than 18” (Pew Research).

We’ve all seen what the 50’s and 60’s were like in America (watch and episode or two of AMC’s Madmen if you haven’t). Women were widely stuck in secretary, teacher, nurse, or stay-at-home roles in society. And while the country remains divided on whether women are at an equal standing in the workforce today, (America’s stance on the progress of women’s rights is that “Half of Americans say the country hasn’t gone far enough, 39% say efforts on this front have been about right and 10% say the country has gone too far“) I think we can all agree that things are better than they once were.

To be fair: Bureau of Labor Statistics – In 2014, women who worked full time in wage and salary jobs had median usual weekly earnings of $719, which was 83 percent of men’s median weekly earnings ($871). 

This paints a nice picture. Policies have changed in the name of evening the playing field so women get a fair shake. In turn, they have made leaps and bounds in career advancement and academic success. But women aren’t just succeeding. They seem to have much more ambition. “About two-thirds of women between ages 18 and 34 cited a high-paying career among their top life priorities, compared with just 59% of young men, the Pew Research Center in Washington said.” Women are hungrier than men, hungry for success, but they don’t stop there. “While young women now put a higher value than men on their career, roughly six in 10 women ages 18 to 34 said being a good parent was one of the most important things in their life. That was up 17 percentage points from 1997.” Women want it all, and unlike men, they have the statistics to back it up.

But as James Poulos from Forbes says about the research above, “no single poll, or even many polls, can tell us everything we’d ever want to know about society. But the finding is so provocative precisely because it squares so well with what so many of us are sensing intuitively and hearing anecdotally.” He is saying women seem so driven in our everyday lives.

In his article, James goes on to cite 3 different views of society’s progression naming one view in particular as the perfect explanation for women’s surge in productivity. He talks about the transitional view of optimism in society. “On this view, optimism is the product of the  conditions that characterize a society after the collapse of constraints imposed by hierarchy, but before the onset of the subtle-yet-powerful barriers to ambition that are imposed by equality itself.” He’s saying now is a sweet spot for women. This transitional view suggests women are so kickass right now because they just came out of a state of oppression (not being able to vote, unchecked harassment, and unfair discrimination based on their gender and not their abilities in the workplace), and they have yet to meet that wall of equality. A super simple way to put it that women are still pumped up from fighting for equality and it has made them stronger as a group.

The easier part of this transitional view to understand is women are fired up over fighting for their own equality, but seeing equality as a wall is a bit more difficult to grasp. James Poulos goes on to explain “women are increasingly more career-driven than men because men are now beginning to run up against the barriers to ambition created by the onset of general social equality — whereas women still have quite a ways to go before they, too, start to hit these seemingly invisible walls.” And that makes sense to me that once equality is achieved (arguably for any oppressed group) things kind of fizzle out, because then everyone is faced with the same problems. There’s less comrade, and no common enemy to face. We’re all just equally valued and the only enemy we face is everyday problems. That’s the end game, the main goal of equality, and women haven’t hit that yet. They are still a blazing hot spear of vengeance trying to bridge that pay gap.

In conclusion, women kickass. Through my own experiences I have noticed women having their shit together more than men. It turns out it wasn’t just me. The research shows women have been increasingly productive in their careers and maybe even more impressive, still hold family values with more importance than they did in the late 90’s. Even journalists from Forbes have applied in-depth theoretical views to explain why women are kicking so much ass right now. Personally I’m all for it. And to put an end to this post, here’s a lyric from Tupac Shakur’s Keep Ya Head Up:

“And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our women?
I think it’s time to kill for our women
Time to heal our women, be real to our women
And if we don’t we’ll have a race of babies
That will hate the ladies, that make the babies
And since a man can’t make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one
So will the real men get up
I know you’re fed up ladies, but keep your head up” – Tupac Shakur