Introduction: The Communication Patterns and Trends of Generation Z
The rate at which we communicate, and in turn, the pace at which we live our lives, has been exponentially increasing since humankind first put language into writing. Each new communicative innovation, from the printing press all the way to the smartphone, has altered the way we think and interact with each other, and as these innovations become more commonplace, less time is given to adjust and deliberate upon these behavioral changes, and it becomes more difficult to keep up with the pace of technology production.
The most recent communicative revolution began around the turn of the 21st century, with the rise of the internet. This led to an explosion of new technologies, from laptop computers to smartphones to tablet devices and more. While many people have made the transition into this Digital Age of the internet, the youth of today, labeled as “Generation Z” (also known as the “Homeland Generation” and the “iGeneration”), have grown up entirely under the influence of these technologies (Howe, 2014). This different type of upbringing has undoubtedly created some profound changes in attitude, behavior, and cognition among Generation Z-ers when compared to previous generations. In this paper, I will be analyzing the communication patterns and trends of Generation Z through the scope of two different communication theories, Uses and Gratifications Theory and Media Ecology Theory, and I will apply my findings to the context of secondary education in an attempt to develop productive classroom practices for contemporary instructors.
There is no official date for the beginning of Generation Z; some classify its members as being born after 1996 (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2017), and some say it didn’t begin until 2005 (Howe, 2014). Regardless, it’s evident that Generation Z now makes up the majority of the student population in the United States today. These children and young adults share several defining characteristics that have been already been identified: they are the most ethnically and racially diverse generation in history (Howe, 2014); they spend a lot of time on their phones—6 to 12 hours per day (Patel, 2016); they are very connected to social media, with over 40% reporting that the content they consume on social media directly affects the way they think and feel (2016); and they have short attention spans, hate being bored, and enjoy visual/interactive learning (Roseberry-McKibbin, 2017).
Applied Context: Secondary Education
Before beginning my studies at Georgetown University, I worked for two years at a high school in Forest Grove, Oregon. I served as a tutor in multiple subject areas, and I was surprised at how much had changed in the high school environment since I had been a student only 5 years prior. Technology use was rampant in the classroom, where students would have their personal smartphone on their desk next to their school-issued laptop. Many students had difficulties focusing at school, because they were being asked to do schoolwork on (or near) the same devices that served to distract and entertain them during their time outside of class. As a result, many teachers, especially from older generations, had difficulty connecting with their students because of these practices.
I was also surprised at how little the students I worked with from Generation Z understood the effects that their devices had on their thinking and behavior, especially because so many of them had owned a smartphone since before they entered adolescence. This inspired me to pursue a career in secondary education centered around media ecology. A foundational understanding of the impact of technology is imperative before students can effectively navigate the networked global village that their communication devices have helped to construct. I believe that by studying the technology usage and communication habits of Generation Z, more can be done to improve the implementation of technology in the classroom that will benefit both teachers and students, and even help to bridge the evident generational gap between older, more traditional teachers and their sporadic, tech-savvy students.
Theory 1: Uses and Gratifications Theory
As mentioned above, technology is evolving at an ever-increasing rate, with new devices and applications being released every few months. Each new installment of these devices, such as the iPhone and other smartphone models, costs hundreds of dollars to purchase, so there is plenty of incentive to weigh the pros and cons of upgrading every time a new device is released. Since Generation Z is the most technological generation, and one that relies heavily on instant gratification, I believe it’s appropriate to analyze their communication habits through the lens of Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT). With so many modern technological options to choose from, there must be a decision-making method behind the media platforms that Generation Z utilizes.
The communication theory of Uses and Gratifications is based on the research of Elihu Katz, Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch (West & Turner, 2014, p. 405). It’s a socio-cultural theory that operates in the context of mass/media, and utilizes a positivistic and empirical approach to knowing. UGT operates under several assumptions, the first being that “the audience is active and its media use is goal-oriented” (p. 405). In 1972, Denis McQuail and his colleagues organized the needs and gratifications of the audience into four categories: diversion, personal relationships, personal identity, and surveillance (West & Turner, 2014, p. 406). The popularization of social media has allowed Generation Z to satisfy all four of these needs simultaneously. According to an article in Forbes, current teens are spending about three hours per day on social media (Granados, 2017). This activity provides them with a diversion from their routines and problems, allows them to cultivate personal relationships through media, allows them to reinforce their personal identity by reading, sharing, and discussing topics they care about, and gives them the opportunity to survey their environment by collecting information from their immediate social circle and other sources. A 2008 case study of the uses and gratifications of friend-networking sites provided similar results, with over 90% of respondents claiming that they use social media to keep in touch with old or new friends (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008, p. 171). Other responses included “to occupy time” and “to share information about yourself” (p. 171). However, in a recent case study on social media use, researchers concluded that “as more people have access to the technology and skills that make up [social media] use, their needs and goals for communication also become more diverse” (Zhao, Lampe & Ellison, 2016, p. 89).
The second assumption of UGT is that “the initiative in linking need gratification to a specific medium choice rests with the audience member” (West & Turner, 2014, p. 406). As these social media sites become even more popular and engaging, and their platform devices become faster and stronger, it’s no surprise that younger generations like Generation Z tend to gravitate toward them, because all of their needs and gratifications can be consolidated into one place. This also gets into the UGT subject of fraction of selection, a term coined by Wilbur Schramm in 1954 (West & Turner, 2014, p. 409). According to Schramm, an audience chooses their media based on a simple equation: the expectation of reward divided by the effort required (p. 409). However, this equation has gotten more complex as we move further into the Digital Age. The amount of effort required has been reduced to almost zero, with most media instantly accessible from our pockets or bags, and the expectation of reward gets increasingly higher alongside the evolution of technology.
In a journal article from 2015, Dr. Richard Perloff discussed how the original list of audience needs and gratifications by McQuail and others has become outdated in today’s rapidly changing digital environment. He cited Sundar and Limperos, who recently identified four “technological affordances that should theoretically give rise to particular gratifications:” modality, agency, interactivity, and navigability (Perloff, 2015, p. 549). These address contemporary needs and gratifications such as realism and novelty; capacity for community building or agency-enhancement; dynamic control and responsiveness; and browsing and playing (p. 549). He also suggested approaching UGT from a social-psychological context in the Digital Age, claiming “a contextual age approach suggests that older users who are contextually (but not chronologically) young should derive different gratifications from media devices than elder individuals who are contextually old” (Perloff, 2015, p. 550). There is certainly a lot of potential for further research in the areas of psychological and sociological effects of communication technologies within UGT.
Furthermore, to draw from another communication theory—Social Information Processing Theory—I believe more research could be done on the topic of synchronicity within UGT. Synchronous online communication occurs when both parties are online at the same time, such as internet telephony and many instant messaging platforms, while asynchronous communication doesn’t require both parties to be connected simultaneously, such as emails and blog posts. Studies have shown that younger generations prefer synchronous forms of media when communicating, and this factor is actually what distinguishes the generations, rather than general internet usage (Taipale, 2015, p. 90). If Generation Z is choosing certain media based on synchronicity, then it deserves mention and further study under the Uses and Gratifications Theory.
Theory 2: Media Ecology Theory
Marshall McLuhan is generally regarded as the father of media ecology, a field of study broadly defined as “how media and communication processes affect human perception, feeling, emotion, and value” (West & Turner, 2014, p. 455). Over the past twenty years, media and communication processes have become increasingly ubiquitous in our daily lives. Because of this, a fundamental understanding of media ecology has become increasingly important, especially for the population that comprises Generation Z, who have spent their entire lives using digital media.
Two major assumptions of Media Ecology Theory are that “media infuse nearly every act and action in society” and “media tie the world together” (West & Turner, 2014, p. 456). Researchers have found that people’s use of media in the Digital Age directly impacts the quality of their interpersonal relationships, claiming that “the number of different communication tools that a person used to communicate with someone else was related to the closeness of that relationship” (Zhao, Lampe & Ellison, 2016, p. 89). Additionally, according to Zhao et al. (2016), each person now has the ability to construct their own digital communications ecosystem, where content and audience must be balanced according to which platform(s) are being used (p. 89). These researchers also analyzed “the competing desire to establish a stable system of how each communication platform was used and the need for change when faced with new platforms and emerging practices” (Zhao, Lampe & Ellison, 2016, p. 95). It is this social tension that connects Media Ecology Theory with other communication theories such as Uses and Gratifications and Diffusion of Innovations, where modern users must weigh the pros and cons of new devices and platforms amidst the incessant stampede of technological innovation.
These decisions on which media to adapt and utilize have even deeper implications for Generation Z when we take into consideration Marshall McLuhan’s iconic credo, “the medium is the message.” McLuhan believed it is the medium itself, not the content it delivers, that has power and influence over its users and, in effect, society (West & Turner, 2014, p. 461). According to McLuhan, “the ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind” (McLuhan, 1964, p. 8). Take, for example, the modern medium of Twitter, a popular social media app, especially within Generation Z: its content keeps users informed and entertained, but it’s the way its content is received that truly has a cognitive effect. After enough exposure to Twitter, users’ thoughts and behaviors may begin to mirror the characteristics of the platform itself: brief, scrolling, sporadic, and largely trivial. This transformation normally occurs on a subconscious level, which is why I believe it’s critical that the students of Generation Z are educated on this phenomenon at a young age, before they develop unhealthy media consumption habits that can’t be easily undone.
Another component of Media Ecology Theory is the concept of hot and cool media. Hot media is defined as “high definition communication that demands little involvement from a viewer, listener or reader” and cool media is “low definition communication that demands active involvement from a viewer, listener, or reader” (West & Turner, 2014, p.463). Hot and cool media can be classified by whether they require passive or active consumption. For example, radio is a hot medium, because it requires only passive consumption and can still be enjoyed as background noise (p. 463). Telephone conversations, on the other hand, require active participation by the user, and would be classified as a cool medium (p. 463).
Interestingly, McLuhan (1964) originally identified television as a cool medium, asserting that the viewer needed to engage with the screen. However, television was a more focal technology in the 1960s, where the average family would all share a single screen in the home; now that there are often multiple televisions per household—and in most public buildings—they are commonly enjoyed as background noise/images, making television more of a hot medium in today’s digital environment. As technology becomes even more convenient and ubiquitous, there may be an overall rise in hot media as audiences become more passive. Rather than actively seeking out information and relationships, it may become easier to passively receive the bombardment of information that flashes across the ever-present screens. This hypothesis is worth monitoring, and could be topic of further academic research, as the people of Generation Z and their successors continue to grow and develop in the Digital Age.
Conclusion
The dynamism of modern technology appears to be both a gift and a curse for Generation Z, and this carries over into the school environment. Studies have been conducted on technology use and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in the modern classroom, and have yielded some interesting results. According to J.C. Sherblom (2010), “online social interaction can exacerbate an individual’s psychosocial distress and result in negative personal and social consequences, especially among individuals of high school and college age” (p. 498). However, Sherblom (2010) also writes, “as supportive CMC relationships grow, students feel more comfortable, become more honest, and engage in more personal self-disclosure” (p. 502). Therefore, despite the potential for negative experience as a result of alienation or anxiety from CMC, students also have an opportunity to thrive and flourish with positive and supportive CMC practices.
As mentioned earlier, Generation Z has displayed a penchant for synchronous communication, and (naturally) the rich medium of face-to-face interaction provides the best opportunity for synchronous feedback, in addition to conveying personal emotion, inflection, and other verbal and non-verbal cues (Sherblom, 2010, p. 499). Therefore, I think it’s in a modern educator’s best interests to engage younger students in face-to-face communication as often as possible in the classroom. Furthermore, because CMC reduces physical and vocal cues, there is a loss of social presence in the interaction, which has proven to reduce learning (Sherblom, 2010, p. 500).
Because I am interested in teaching a course in media ecology, I believe the easiest way for students to understand the impact of their technologies is to endure their absence. Ideally, I would teach the first few weeks entirely without technology, focusing on face-to-face communication and building rapport with students, encouraging them to leave their devices in their bags. Eventually, technological aspects could be incorporated into the curriculum, such as videos, online discussion posts, email/text message correspondence, and internet games/activities. I would base any and all CMC classroom methods on “a knowledge of student cognitive abilities, emotional traits, uncertainty, anxiety, apprehension, and experience with technology” (Sherblom, 2010, p. 513). However, these characteristics are difficult to identify without first giving the students a suitable platform to express them, such as face-to-face communication.
This is not to come across as a Luddite, but rather to assist in the realization of the magnitude of influence that these modern technologies have on our cognition. These devices are wonderful tools and marvels of modern science, but based on data trends, overindulgence could become a major problem for Generation Z and those to follow, especially during the formative years of adolescence. As with many issues in the world today, the first step toward correction is awareness and understanding, which can be more widely accessible and achieved at a younger age through a media ecology course at the high school level.
References
Granados, N. (2017, June 20). Gen Z media consumption: It’s a lifestyle, not just entertainment. Forbes: Media & Entertainment. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsongranados/2017/06/20/gen-z-media-consumption-its-a-lifestyle-not-just-entertainment/#2c7abe318c94
Howe, N. (2014, October 27). Introducing the Homeland Generation (Part 1 of 2). Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/10/27/introducing-the-homeland-generation-part-1-of-2/#58800b882bd6
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man (1st MIT Press ed). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Patel, D. (2016, November 25). 6 ways Gen Z will change the tech world. Entrepreneur. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/285273
Perloff, R. M. (2015). Mass communication research at the crossroads: Definitional issues and theoretical directions for mass and political communication scholarship in an age of online media. Mass Communication & Society, 18(5), 548–551.
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the Uses and Gratifications Theory to Exploring Friend-Networking Sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0056
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2017). Generation Z Rising. ASHA Leader, 22(12), 36–38.
Sherblom, J. C. (2010). The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom: a challenge of medium, presence, interaction, identity, and relationship. Communication Education, 59(4), 497–523.
Taipale, S. (2015). Synchronicity matters: defining the characteristics of digital generations. Information, Communication & Society, 19(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093528
Thayer, S., & Ray, S. (2006). Online communication preferences across age, gender, and duration of internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(4), 9.
West, R. L., & Turner, L. H. (2014). Introducing communication theory: analysis and application (Fifth edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Zhao, X., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2016). The social media ecology: User perceptions, strategies and challenges (pp. 89–100). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858333
Comments