Group 2 Final 1

Running head: SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 1
The effect smartphones have on accelerating the development of romantic relationships
Allison Wong, Haley OBrien, Charlie Grant, and Kevin Connor

SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
2
Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................................................3
Introduction.5
Literature Review....8
Discussion of Methods..29
Analysis of Results....33
Summary...83
Limitations of the Study....85
Recommendations for further study..88
Conclusion91
References.96
Appendices..102
3
Abstract
4
In this study, the researchers were interested in the topic of smartphones and the effect
they have on accelerating the development of romantic relationships. Smartphones are interlaced
into college students everyday lives, and one would assume that this connectivity impacts their
romantic relationships. The researchers were interested in how smartphone usage accelerates the
development of romantic relationships. So, the researchers developed a research question
asking, Which features of the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic
relationships? To search for evidence to answer this question, the researchers developed a
questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 141 students at a small, liberal arts college in
the Midwest.
5
Introduction
6
In this study a group of researchers sought to find out how the applications on a
smartphone effect the development of romantic relationships. According the English Oxford
living dictionaries, a smartphone is, a mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a
computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an operating system
capable of running downloaded apps (para. 1). Smartphone popularity began in 2007 after
Apple released the first iPhone, (Trowbridge, 2014). Google unveiled their Android just a year
later, (Trowbridge, 2014). With this new form of technology that allows people to communicate
more differently than ever before, communication within romantic relationships must be studied
further. One can text, voice call, and video call on a smartphone. One can also download
applications to connect and communicate further. In this particular study, the applications that
the researchers focused on studying were Facebook and Snapchat, along with text messaging,
phone calling, and video calling. The purpose of this study was to find out what applications of
the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships among college students at a
small, liberal arts college in the Midwest.

7
This topic merits research because the way people have communicated in romantic
relationships has changed over time. The way people begin relationships has also changed over
time. The invention of the smartphone and the applications one can use on it further complicated
how one can understand communication within a relationship and the beginning stages of that
relationship. This group of social scientists conducted research by distributing a questionnaire to
141 students. These researchers asked questions that aimed to find out how the applications on a
smartphone were used in the developmental stages of ones own romantic relationship. In order
to obtain a better understanding of modern communication within romantic relationships, the
researchers developed a research question: Which features of the smartphone accelerate the
development of romantic relationships? The researchers hypothesized: Smartphones accelerate
the development of romantic relationships.

8
Literature Review
9
Communication within romantic relationships is a topic that has been studied over and
over again by social scientists. The topic has only been made more complicated by the creation
of the cell phone. The first cell phone call was placed in 1973 by Cooper, then an employee of
Motorola, (Trowbridge, 2014). Ten years later, the first commercial cell phone was sold in
stores: the Motorola DynaTAC, which weighed 30 ounces, (Trowbridge, 2014). Throughout the
1990s, the cell phone continued to change and grow in popularity. In 1992, the first text message
was sent and received, and the first cell phone with a built-in camera was released in the year
2000 in Japan, (Trowbridge, 2014). While the device itself was changing and becoming more
sophisticated, so was the infrastructure. Networks grew from 1G, to 2G, to 3G, (Trowbridge,
2014). Then, in 2007, Apple released the first iPhone, and Google soon followed, unveiling their
Android just a year later, (Trowbridge, 2014). With the release of these devices, the age of
smartphones began. According the English Oxford living dictionaries, a smartphone is, a
mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a computer, typically having a touchscreen
interface, Internet access, and an operating system capable of running downloaded apps (para.
1).
Smartphones are now interlaced with young adults everyday lives that face-to-face
interaction seems barely relevant to the under 35 cohort of today, (Pettegrew & Day, 2015). The
capabilities of smartphones are wide ranging. The customizability, usability, and integration of
smartphones has had a huge effect on human communication. More than any other technology,
smartphones are at the forefront of technological convergence. Combining features of traditional
mobile phones, personal computers, and the web, smartphones hybridize not only technologies
and platforms but also user's own practices, habits, and modes of accessing media with
implications for personal communication, (Madianou, 2014).

10
Since the release of the smartphone, social scientists have explored how this device
changes the dynamics and development of romantic relationships. One can understand how
relationships are developed through Knapps (1978) relational development theory. It states that
relationships begin by coming together, which happens in five stages: initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding, (Knapp). Couples then engage in relational maintenance
before coming apart, which also happens in five stages: differentiating, circumscribing,
stagnating, avoiding, and, lastly, terminating, (Knapp). Examining a wide-range of studies, one
can see how smartphones have changed the way that relationships are developed, maintained,
and fall apart. To explore the different ways in which smartphones have effected relationships,
its easiest to talk about separate features of a smartphone. These include voice calling and text
messaging, and applications such as Facebook, Tinder, and Snapchat.
Voice Calls and Text Messaging
Smartphones have so many features and applications thats its easy to forget about basic
voice calling and text messaging. However, these features on smartphones continue to impact
romantic relationships. For example, Jin and Pea (2008) found that a higher amount of mobile
communication between partners is closely related to positive outcomes in their relationship, (p.
2). In this study, students in introductory communication courses at a large, Southwestern
University received extra credit for their participation in an online survey, (Jin & Pea, 2008).
Although anyone could participate in the study, researchers only used data from those who were
currently involved in a romantic relationship, (Jin & Pea, 2008). Participants were asked to
estimate the amount of time they spent calling their partners in a day, the frequency of phone
calls, intimacy in the relationship, and relational uncertainty, (Jin & Pea, 2008). Results proved
11
that mobile phone use can improve positive aspects of romantic relationships, (Jin & Pea,
2008). Call time was significantly, negatively related to relational uncertainty, meaning that the
more participants placed voice calls with their partner, the less they felt uncertain about their
relationship, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p.12). Frequent and longer phone calls resulted in greater
relational intimacy, (Jin & Pea, 2008). The researchers infer that more frequent mobile
communication helps couples coordinate their daily activities, which may lead to increased
feelings of closeness and intimacy, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p. 14). Lastly, this study found that
personalities factor into how much one uses cell phones to communicate with a romantic partner.
For example, participants using a lower number of voice calls within their dating relationships
reported higher tendency of avoidance, (Jin & Pea, 2008, p. 14). The researchers explained this
phenomena as that these people may feel uneasy being reachable at any time by their partner,
and, therefore, do not take advantage of cell phones, (Jin & Pea, 2008).
Other studies have found that relationships can be negatively impacted by the use of cell
phones. A study by Duran, Kelly, and Rotaru (2011) investigated the affect cell phones have on
perceptions of autonomy and connection within romantic relationships of college students, (p.
19). Two hundred and ten undergraduate students from a small, private, eastern comprehensive
university participated in the study, answering questions about their relationship type, describing
communication with their significant other, and how many times a day they initiated contact with
their partner by calling or texting, (Duran, et al., 2011). Upon examination of data, the
researchers concluded that participants who were dissatisfied with cell phone usage in their
relationship were more likely to be dissatisfied with time spent with their partner, (Duran, et al.,
2011, p. 29). Participants also reported feeling that their freedom was restricted by their
significant other because of how much that person expected cell phone usage, (Duran, et al.,
12
2011). In these instances, conflict arises when one partner feels that their freedom is being
restricted by the other. These results also suggest that those who are less satisfied with cell
phone use in their relationship and those who have more expectations that the other be available
for contact were more likely to report being controlling of their partner, (Duran, et al., 2011, p.
29).
This study by Duran, et al (2011) also reveals how cell phones can cause conflict to arise
in relationships. The most frequent topics of cell phone conflict were not answering calls or
texts, not calling or texting enough, calling or texting too much, not returning calls or texts, and
receiving calls or texts from members of the opposite sex, (Duran, et al., 2011). The majority of
conflicts centered around too much or not enough calling or texting, as well as, timing of calls
and texts, which is indicative of autonomy issues, (Duran, et al., 2011).
All of this research reveals that cell phones are very important as a means of
communicating within a romantic relationship, (Miller-Ott, Kelly, & Duran, 2012). Furthermore,
satisfaction with cell phone usage within relationships is positively and strongly associated with
relational satisfaction, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). Two hundred and twenty seven undergraduate
students from a small, private Eastern comprehensive university confirm these claims. In a
study, these participants reported being happier with the use of cell phones in their relationships
if they reported having rules about not discussing interpersonal issues or fighting over the phone,
(Miller-Ott, et al., 2012, p. 29). This suggests that couples might prefer face-to-face interaction
when serious matters need to be discussed.
In this study, the researchers found that participants were more satisfied if they did not
have calling or texting rules established for one another, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). These rules
13
could include how often one is able to call the other, how many texts can be sent in a row
without a response, and expectations to pick up the phone. These findings suggest that partners
are more satisfied if they can be in constant communication with one another, with no rules
restricting communication, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012). Furthermore, the researchers reason that
couples may not have cell phone rules set for each other because they already have their phones
on their person all the time anyways, (Miller-ott, et al., 2012). People generally expect that
everyone has their phones on their person at all times, so couples may reason that there is no
cause to have rules if they should always have their phone with them. In addition to this,
participants reported they were more satisfied if they did not have rules prohibiting them from
checking one anothers call and text logs, (Miller-Ott, et al., 2012, p. 30). This study as a whole
shows that couples have become more comfortable with being in constant contact with one
another and that having rules for calling and texting are not necessary.
For the purpose of this study, instant text messaging includes short message service
(SMS), Apple iMessaging, and other Internet connected platforms which have a text service.
Instant text messaging and other forms of digital text communication may lead to positive
relational outcomes, (McEwan & Horn, 2016). Studies show that instant text messaging can
maintain a constant sense of presence between romantic partners (Pettigrew, 2009) by
exchanging romantic messages (Ling, 2008) and coordinating daily schedules and future
interactions (Ling, 2008; & Ling & Donner, 2009). According to McEwan and Horn (2016), not
all relational communication necessarily has positive effects on romantic relationships.
Messages regarding relational development and maintenance are more likely to garner positive
outcomes in the relationship as a whole, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).

14
The continual presence of mobile devices, specifically smartphones, allows for all-day
communication within romantic relationships, (Duran, et al., 2011). A study by McEwan and
Horn (2016) concluded that instant text messaging, especially ones positively discussing
relational development and maintenance, plays a vital role in the quality, longevity, and
satisfaction of romantic relationships. McEwan and Horn surveyed 340 members of an
undergraduate research class at a comprehensive Midwestern University. They were asked to
participate in a study about instant text messaging in romantic relationships, (McEwan & Horn,
2016).
The results of the study done by McEwan and Horn (2016) suggest dating partners do use
instant text messaging to maintain and further develop their romantic relationships. When
instant text messages are exchanged regarding the maintenance of a romantic relationship, it
seems to leave a positive effect on the relationship as well as increase an individuals proclivity
to use text messaging, (McEwan & Horn, 2016). However, the results also suggest that when
instant text messaging is used in a manner not pertaining to relational maintenance, it results in
an individuals negative disposition towards instant text messaging within a romantic
relationship, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).
Another study finds that the frequency of instant text messages sent has a significant
influence on the development of romantic relationships. A study conducted by Walther surveyed
university undergraduates and their use and perceptions on instant text messaging within
romantic relationships. In fact, this study suggests that the use of instant text messaging within
romantic relationships can replace the perceived intimacy of face-to-face interactions, (Walther,
1996).
15
When users have enough time to exchange cues and provide and receive social
information, computer-mediated-communication can be as intimate as face-to-face interaction -
assuming the content of the messages promote intimacy, (Walther, 1996). Although cellular text
messaging restricts the number of cues available in a single message, the culmination of many,
perhaps hundreds, of messages can clearly convey relational information, (Brody, et al., 2009).
Text messaging creates a sense of intimacy not found elsewhere in other forms of digital
communication. One study has shown that people regard those they text often (on a daily basis)
to be in closer relationships with them as opposed to other forms of digital communication, such
as email, (Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2011). This study done by
Morey, et al (2011) found that the frequency of text messaging often suggests there is a strong
attachment among those in a romantic relationship. According to Morey, et al. (2011), there is
support for the prediction that individuals who perceive their relationship more positively also
report more frequent communication.
While the use of instant text messaging may suggest more positive outcomes of romantic
relationships, especially in the beginning stages, it can also inhibit verbal communication among
romantic couples further and more effectively than face-to-face interaction, (Knobloch and
Solomon, 2002). According to Knobloch and Solomon (2002), relational uncertainty, which is,
the degree of confidence people have in their perceptions of involvement within interpersonal
relationships, (p. 45) is a fundamental component of close relationships that shapes
communicative behaviors between partners, (p. 45). Verbal communication and the capacity it
has in a relationship plays a large role in the relational uncertainty felt by individuals engaged in
romantic relationships.
16
Instant text messaging and the preference most new romantic couples have with it has
been found to reduce relational uncertainty among romantic couples. According to Jin and Pea
(2010), there is evidence that message exchanges over time allow people to reduce uncertainty
about partners in computer-mediated settings as successfully as they do in face-to-face contexts.
Considering this, mobile phone use between partners should be related to their relational
uncertainty. Since increased verbal communication between partners tends to reduce relational
uncertainty, more mobile communication should be associated with less relational uncertainty,
(p. 41).
Much like how relational uncertainty plays a role in instant text messaging
communication among romantic couples, so does an individuals own attachment style and
personality, (Jin & Pea, 2010). One study shows that individuals with different attachment
styles communicate differently in close relationships, (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). For
instance, avoidant or anxious individuals are less likely to engage in self-disclosure (Grabill &
Kerns, 2000) and supportive communication (Mikulicner, Florian & Weller, 1993), as compared
with less avoidant and less anxious individuals.
One study has shown that individuals who have a higher avoidance level tend to rely less
on mobile phone usage, specifically voice calls, within romantic relationships, (Jin & Pea,
2010). Interestingly, while the usage of mobile phones for the purpose of voice calls is lower in
those with high avoidance tendencies, the use of mobile phones for the purpose of text
messaging was higher. Jin and Pea further suggested that participants who have higher
avoidance tendencies believed that using instant text messaging was a less awkward form of
communication, (Jin & Pea, 2010).

17
While text messaging and voice calls may still have a hand in the development of
romantic relationships, other smartphone capabilities and features have an impact as well.
Smartphones, with the capability to connect to the Internet, have influenced the speed of
communication between individuals greatly within the last decade. Applications such as
Facebook, Tinder, and Snapchat are having an increasingly important effect in beginning stages
of romantic relationships.
Facebook
People use applications on a smartphone to communicate and/or connect. These
applications, or apps, include text messaging, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, or
even a dating app called Tinder. While there are many different apps one can use to
communicate, 97% of young adults ages ranging from 18-29 use text messaging as their main
form of communication, (Duggan & Rainie, 2012). Following text messaging, various forms of
social media are utilized, the most popular is Facebook, (Duggan, 2015).
Fully 72% of online American adults use Facebook, a proportion unchanged from
September 2014. Usage continues to be especially popular among online women, 77% of whom
are users. In addition, 82% of online adults ages 18 to 29 use Facebook, along with 79% of those
ages 30 to 49, 64% of those ages 50 to 64 and 48% of those 65 and older, (Duggan, 2015, p. 3).
Facebook is a for profit corporation launched by Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz,
Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, and Chris Hughes on February 4, 2004, (Facebook, 2016).
Facebooks mission statement reads as follows:
Founded in 2004, Facebooks mission is to give people the power to share and make the
world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and
18
family, to discover whats going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to
them, (Facebook-About, 2016).
Facebooks main features consist of an About Me section, a Status Update box, and a
Friends, News Feed, and Wall button, (Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2012, p. 4). Facebook
provides an instant messaging service, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 4), making it even easier to have
conversations with family, friends, and complete strangers online.
Once a person has access to a targets Facebook page, he or she has access to a breadth of
information about that individual: Education, religious and political affiliations, interests,
activities, group memberships, friends, and usually a considerable amount of photographs, (Fox,
et al, 2012, p. 5).
Thanks to this, Facebook and other social media have the potential to influence the
course of romantic relationship formation, maintenance, and deterioration, (Fox, et al, 2012, p.
4). With the breadth and occasional depth of information available on SNSs, it is possible to
learn a lot about another person without actually interacting with him or her, thus violating the
norms of appropriate rate of disclosure early in a relationship, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 6).
Young adults today have thus created a new form of romantic relationship certainty:
making their relationship Facebook Official, or FBO, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 2). Once you
specifically identify the person with whom you are in a relationship with, this information is
viewable to the public and spreads much faster than say, word of mouth, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 6).
This study drafted by Fox, et al (2012), examined the implications of social networking websites
(SNSs) on romantic relationships, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 1). Specifically, Knapps (1978) stage
model of relationship is examined through a new lens wherein the role of SNSs, specifically
Facebook, is explored in the escalation stages of romantic relationships, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 1).
19
As mentioned earlier, Knapps model suggests that relationships develop through five different
stages: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding, (Knapp, 1978).
Fox, et al study sought to investigate the role of Facebook in the initiation and formation
of romantic relationships while keeping in mind this model, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 2). According
to Fox, et al (2012), Knapps model has worked over an extended period of time, but little extant
research has examined the role of communication technologies in romantic relationships through
his framework, and that is why Fox et al conducted and recorded this study, (Fox, et al, 2012).
This study specifically addressed how the medium of Facebook may be changing how people
enact, elaborate, and interpret their romantic relationships, as well as how those relationships
transpire, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 5). Because not much literature exists in relation to the
intersection of SNSs and romantic relationships, Fox, et al used focus group methodology, (Fox,
et al, 2012).
The focus groups were conducted across a three-week period of time in the spring of
2011, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 7). In order to maintain continuity across the groups, the sessions
were conducted in the same building and in similar rooms, (Fox et al, 2012). There were seven
focus groups conducted by three moderators and all were video recorded to identify verbal and
nonverbal cues, (Fox, et al, 2012). The participants consisted of 10 men and 26 women ages
ranging from 18 to 23 from a small Midwestern university, (Fox, et al, 2012).
Each focus group was coded for verbal content related to relationship initiation,
relationship development, Facebook official, information seeking, relational problems,
creeping/monitoring, and social context. We focused on content related Knapps (1978) stages of
relational development (i.e., initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding),
(Fox, et al, 2012, p. 9).

20
The results of this study can be divided into five different themes: Facebook has changed
the way people enter into relationships, Facebook plays an integral role in information seeking
about a potential relational partner, listing a relational status on Facebook is perceived as both a
social and interpersonal statement, clarifying the social meaning behind Facebook official, and,
lastly, that Facebook is both a blessing and a curse to relationships, (Fox, et al, 2012).
In summary, these first two themes indicate that Facebook impacts the initiating and
experimenting stages of developing relationships. Unlike peeling away the layers of an onion as
Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed in social penetration theory, however, Facebook allows one
to slice right into a targets personality and social history, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 15).
It was found that for some couples, Facebook is a tool for relationship maintenance while
for others, it is just a burden, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 20). The data here indicates that Facebook is
playing a crucial role in its user's romantic relationships. It has altered the way by which
college-aged students initiate relationships and information-seek about potential and current
partners, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 21). This study provided new insights to the sub-stages of
relational development within Knapps relational model, (Fox, et al, 2012, p. 22).
The results of this study conducted by Fox, et al show that many relationships today are
initiated and maintained through social media websites such as Facebook. A more recent study
conducted by Dainton and Stokes (2015) sought to understand how people use Facebook to
maintain relationships. Dainton and Stokes (2015) hypothesized that individuals who indicate
strong agreement with using Facebook for relationship maintenance will enact more Facebook
assurances, positivity, openness, and online monitoring than will individuals who indicate
disagreement or moderate agreement with using Facebook for maintenance purposes, (p. 369).
21
Dainton and Stokes (2015) hypothesized that there will be significant, positive
relationships between cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy and the use of Facebook
for maintenance purposes, (p. 371). Dainton and Stokes (2015) wanted to determine the
relationships among Facebook maintenance behaviors (including online monitoring) and the
cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy, (2015, p. 370). Dainton and Stokes (2015)
distributed an online questionnaire to 189 (46 men and 142 women) college students to gather
information about Facebook use, jealousy, and Facebook relationship maintenance, (Dainton &
Stokes, 2015). The first hypothesis that Dainton and Stokes (2015) constructed was not
supported:
Because the unequal sample sizes of the three groups violate the assumptions of
ANOVA, the appropriate statistic is to use the Kruskal-Wallace test, a nonparametric
statistic that does not require a normal distributionresults indicate significant
differences between the groups in the use FB assurances, FB positivity, and FB
monitoring. The results support the hypothesis for FB assurances and FB positivity.
However, examination of the means suggests a curvilinear relationship for the use of
online monitoring, with high maintenance motivation individuals performing the least
amount of monitoring among the groups. As such, the hypothesis was not supported for
monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 375).
However, with regard to the research question, results were recorded as, Results
indicated significant relationships between the Facebook maintenance measures and reported
jealousy producing two linear combinations, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 375). Results also
indicated:
22
that individuals who are strongly motivated to use Facebook for relationship
maintenance are more likely to engage in Facebook assurances and monitoring but that
there is a curvilinear relationship between the maintenance motive and the use of online
monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 355).
As previously stated, the second hypothesis predicted that there will be significant,
positive relationships between cognitive, emotional, trait, and Facebook jealousy and the use of
Facebook for maintenance purposes, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 371). The results indicated
that the extent to which an individual used Facebook for maintenance purposes was positively
correlated with trait jealousy, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 376). So, maintaining a relationship
over Facebook by checking in on what the other partner is doing (what pictures they like or
comment on, or who they message), will increase jealousy within a romantic relationship.
However, results failed to show a significant difference in the mean scores of the groups.
Accordingly, the hypothesis was not supported, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 377).
Dainton and Stokes (2015) used the Uses and Gratification method in their study (2015).
This method was originally developed to explain one-way media such as television and film,
however, more recently, the approach has been used to understand newer media forms, including
social media, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 366). They found that this method overall was not
effective in explaining an experience of jealousy associated to Facebook, but that it did help
them explain variations in the usage of Facebook maintenance behaviors among a group of
college students, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015). Results largely supported the prediction that
individuals high in the maintenance motivation for Facebook reported significantly more use of
online assurances and positivity, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 377). Dainton and Stokes (2015)
23
were finally able to come to the conclusion that their results provided a clearer picture of the
relationships between specific online behaviors and jealousy, (2015, p. 378).
Tinder
As stated above, the evolution of the smartphone has allowed for users to connect
socially in many different ways.
The expansion of the Internet has reconstructed how we initiate and maintain personal
relationships. Through computer-mediated communication (CMC), users can exchange a
series of electronic messages and participate in different social activities exclusively
through cyberspace, (James, 2015, p.1).
Since smartphones are widely used and grant instant Internet access, people are generally
more accepting of using dating websites and/or applications, (James, 2015, p. 43). Generally,
online dating sites have become more socially accepted, (David & Cambre, 2016). In 2013,
twenty three percent of adults said they have met a spouse or long-term relationship partner
through online dating sites or mobile applications, (Smith & Duggan, 2013). Fifty nine percent
agreed online dating is a good way to meet people, and twenty one percent said online daters are
desperate, (Smith, 2013). Research exploring how romantic relationships develop on the Internet
has found that some people are more comfortable talking online before meeting face-to-face,
(Whitty & Carr, 2006).
Rad, co-founder and CEO of Tinder, whose app manages to gamify the search for
partners using location, images, and messages, had intended it to be, a simplified dating app
with a focus on images, (Grigoriadis, 2014).
While its developers call it a social networking app for meeting people and not for
finding sexual partners, participants do include finding dates and sexual partners among Tinders
24
main functions. Its protocols require pre-setting a limited geographical perimeter, age frame,
choosing images, and device geolocalization for possible matches to appear. These pre-set
parameters make up the search criteria. Tinder recognizes the users coordinates and locates
other users within the perimeter and then scans those profiles to meet the search criteria, (David
& Cambre, 2016).
Those who sign up are given a limited number of images - 6 from Facebook - and 500
words to present themselves, (David & Cambre, 2016). Tinders Facebook linking allows it to
display the so called verified profiles to reassure its users that if they have connections in
common, some measure of safety is ensured. For instance, one can visit any of the Facebook
profiles of common friends and in a couple of clicks find, verify, and explore a potential matchs
personal data and possibly make contact, (David & Cambre, 2016).
In order to have a match, both users must swipe right. After matching, a pop-up
animation shows both users photographs and enables direct messaging. A swipe to the left
discards a users profile and reveals the next card-like image. This gesture makes profile
skimming so easy and quick that it has prompted pundits and bloggers to describe the app as a
way of shopping for partners, (Baxter, 2013).
Tinder has irretrievably altered the digital dating-scape, processing more than, a billion
swipes left and right daily, (Bilton, 2014). On average, people log into the app 11 times a day,
(Bilton, 2014). Women spend as much as 8.5 minutes swiping left and right during a single
session; men spend 7.2 minutes. All of this can add up to 90 minutes each day, (Bilton, 2014).
People dont think of [Tinder] as online dating, they think of it as a game, or, as a
beauty contest plus messaging, while others see it as a, judging app, (Bosker, 2015). Ninety
six percent of Tinder users have never tried another dating application, (Colao, 2013.) Tinders
25
unique mobile design has generated a wide range of user applications as many download the
software to locate short-term relationships and/or casual sex, (James, 2015, p.1-2). Many have
dubbed the self-selection mobile application the modernized version of Hot-or-Not, an online
rating website that allows people to evaluate the attractiveness of user-submitted photos, (James,
2015, p.14).
Precursors to swiping began in 2003 with Facemash, Facebooks antecedent, which
presented a binary hot or not game for Harvard students. Over time, many other similar online
dating sites emerged (i.e., Meetic.com, Match. com). While officially presented as dating sites,
all interviewees perceived such sites as operating like disguised hook-up sites, (David &
Cambre, 2016).
In a James (2015) study, it was found that Tinder users dont chat extensively on the app.
This could explain why conversations on Tinder often end quickly with users either deciding to
meet in person shortly after matching or discontinuing rapport all together.
Snapchat
New means of communication such as Snapchat are reshaping the way younger
generations communicate in their everyday lives, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 6). Snapchat is a
photo-sharing app that allows users to send photos or videos, so-called snaps, to one or several
friends, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48). Created in 2011 by two Stanford students, Spiegel and Murphy
conceived the idea of Snapchat for a final project in a product design class, (Colao, 2014).
Snapchat was created at a time when people worldwide were experiencing high levels of anxiety
regarding their online data, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 17). The app distinguishes itself from other
social media platforms by the ephemerality of its messages. "Snaps"photos or short videos
disappear after just a few seconds, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48). In 2013, Snapchat introduced a
26
personal-feed feature called Stories that allows users to compile a stream of photos and videos
that can be viewed for 24 hours, a kind of short-lived personal diary, (Lansky, 2016, p. 48).
The unique feature is that these snaps dissolve after a few seconds. Thus, in contrast to
Facebook and other social media where posts are persistent and often visible to a large
audience, the app offers opportunities for less persistent and more private
communication. Because Snapchat reduces the need for self-censorship, it has been
linked to more intimate, personal forms of sharing, including sexting, (Utz, Muscanell, &
Khalid, 2015, p. 141).
Young adults indicated that Snapchat allowed them to connect more congruently
(showing emotion with picture and text) and quickly than simply sending a text, (Vaterlaus,
Barnett, Roche, & Young, 2016, p. 600). According to studies regarding social media usage done
by the Pew Research Center (2015), it was found that 14% of online adults and 17% of
smartphone owners use apps that automatically delete the messages they send, such as
Snapchat. It was found that 41% of smartphone owners ages 18 to 29 use these services
(Snapchat), compared with just 11% of smartphone owners ages 30 to 49 and 4% of those 50 and
older. A study by Utz, et al (2015) revealed that roughly 1320% of participants engaged in
(joke) sexting or sending snaps of legally questionable activities using Snapchat.
Social media has been presented as a way to initiate and progress social and romantic
relationships, (Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2014). The features of Snapchat were perceived to be
ideal for creating connection in the context of existing peer and romantic relationships,
(Vaterlaus, et al, 2016, p. 600). Young adults perceived that Snapchat could enhance connections
within their relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. Some young adults even
suggested Snapchat could strengthen their interpersonal relationships, (Vaterlaus, et al, 2016, p.
27
599). Snapchat was typically not used by participants as a tool to initiate a relationship, rather
Snapchat was used as a more advanced step to build intimacy within an existing young adult
relationship, (Vaterlaus, et al, 2016, p. 600). Recent research further demonstrates that private
communication elicits stronger negative emotions, and that more exclusive messages are seen as
threatening to the relationship, (Utz, et al, 2015, p. 142). Because Snapchat has the reputation
for being a private communication channel that allows one to send intimate communication more
safely, learning of a partners communication with unknown others on Snapchat may
particularly elicit jealousy, (Utz, et al, 2015, p. 142). Snapchat may facilitate private
communication and be a step in the relational process that enhances young adult relationships
and, on the other hand, may have negative consequences for interpersonal relationships,
(Vaterlaus, et al, 2016, p. 596). Higher rates of young adult jealousy were present for Snapchat
use when a young adults' romantic partner added a previous romantic partner to their network or
their partner was communicating with someone of the opposite sex that was unknown to the
young adult, (Utz, et al, 2015). Young adults perceived that Snapchat behaviors could lead to
challenges within their family, social, and romantic relationships. The types of challenges varied
in severity from minor annoyance to relational infidelity, (Vaterlaus, et al, 2016, p. 597).
According to Velten and Arif (2016), participants were asked about their use of Snapchat
within their relationships.
Participants noted that they use Snapchat as a tool to move interpersonal relationships
from the experimenting stage to the intensifying stage. This is done through flirtatious,
fun, simple selfies sent from partner to partner. Instead of sending an awkward text
stating, for example, I am thinking of you, partners can send a simple image of
themselves with no words, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 25).

28
Some of the participants observed that the sharing of images via this social media
reassures the level of trust between participants of this communication tool, (Velten & Arif,
2016, p. 26). One participant said, I think it can help further a relationship by specifically
connecting with the other person through sharing photos that are funny or something only they
would find interesting, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 26). As one of the participants observed,
Snapchat helps her maintain long distance relationships through trust that, she believed, is
communicated via sharing of images online, (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 26).
Snapchat images provide an outlet for users to make clear efforts toward relationship
maintenance. On days when a relationship is struggling or simply in an effort to maintain that
cheery feeling of a relationship that is going extremely well, images sent via Snapchat seem to
carry a form of reassurance, as one participant stated, I use Snapchat to strengthen my existing
one [relationships], (Velten & Arif, 2016, p. 27-28).
However, Snapchat can also play a role in a relationships demise.
As relationships sometimes unravel, one or both partners tend to avoid the other. In
general, this avoidance can be viewed in various ways (i.e. not answering a phone due to
caller-id). When a Snapchat image is sent from partner to partner during this stage of a
relationships demise, the receiver can avoid the sender by simply not replying. This lack
of reply, in itself, sends a clear message of avoidance, whether intended or not, (Velten &
Arif, 2016, p. 28).

29
Discussion of methods
30
For this study, the researchers began their researching process by devising a concise and
poignant research topic. The researchers developed ideas and topics that would be of interest
and relevance to potential respondents, and then decided on the topic of smartphones and the
impact the devices have on romantic relationship. Once this broad topic was decided upon, the
researchers began to review previous studies done by social scientists on the topic of
smartphones and relationships. Each researcher delved into a specific area of the topic, such as
phone calling, text messaging, Facebook, Snapchat, Tinder, and video chatting. This research led
the researchers to create a list of references. After thorough research was completed, the
researchers then constructed their research question and hypothesis. The research question
states, what features of the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships?
After the researchers reviewed the relevant literature on their topic and created a research
question, a questionnaire was written and then distributed to respondents.
To compose the questionnaire, the researchers first thought of basic questions to ask
respondents, such as age, gender, year in school, relationship status, and smartphone ownership.
Once these questions were composed and set in an appropriate order, the researchers created
questions which pertained more specifically to the study. Questions such as do you think that
Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship? and, which app or feature do you
believe played the most critical role in developing your romantic relationship? were some of the
questions the researchers devised to help find evidence to support or not support their research
question and hypothesis. The complete questionnaire had a total of 20 questions (Appendix B).
31
Each questionnaire was fitted with a consent form on the first page, ensuring the confidentiality
of the questionnaire to each respondent (Appendix D).
To gather the respondents for the survey the researchers selected random classes from the
complete fall schedule of a small, Midwestern, liberal arts college (Appendix F). Researchers
then began to discern certain cohorts (grade levels including freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and
seniors) using color coordination and numerical ordering. Once the classes were selected and
divided to their appropriate cohort, the researchers began selecting classes from each cohort. To
select randomly, the researchers chose from a set of four numbers provided from the numbers
chart provided (Appendix A). Once the numbers were decided upon, one to two classes were
chosen from each cohort, each adding up to at least 25 students or more.
After classes were decided upon, the researchers then contacted the professors of each
course, asking for permission to distribute the questionnaire to their respective classes (Appendix
E). Once each researcher received a positive response from professors, the questionnaires were
distributed to individual students in each class.
In the Statistical Packages Social Sciences (SPSS) program, researchers then designated
certain nominal codes to signify and separate questions from the questionnaire. For example, the
question, Are you in a relationship? was given the code, Relationship. Researchers then
assigned numerical values to the options given in the answer key below each question. For
example, in a question with the optional responses Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree, Strongly Agree would be labeled with 1, Agree with 2, and so on.
After each question and subsequent answers were designated a name and number, the
researchers then identified the level of measurement appropriate for each question and answer
32
(nominal, ordinal or scale). In SPSS, each question was divided into their respective categories
to ensure proper analysis.
To analyze the data, the researchers ran a Frequency test on each question included in the
questionnaire. The Frequency test alone cannot answer the research question or find evidence to
support or not support the hypothesis, however, so the researchers ran Independent Samples T-
tests for certain variables. For example, the researchers tested the variable Relationship, which
stands for the question, are you in a relationship? with the variable FBDevelopment, which
stands for the question, do you believe Facebook accelerated the development of your
relationship? Testing the variable Relationship with different variables regarding different
applications or features on smartphones allowed the researchers to analyze the data from only the
respondents who indicated that they are in a relationship. Once researches completed a test, they
created a bar graph to display the results. The researchers then analyzed all of the tests to answer
their research question and to analyze if they had support for their hypothesis or not.
33
Analysis of Results
34
Question 1: What year in school are you?
Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Freshman 33 23.4 23.4 23.4
Sophomore 41 29.1 29.1 52.5
Junior 28 19.9 19.9 72.3
Senior 39 27.7 27.7 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
The first question of the questionnaire asked students to identify with one year in school:
freshmen, sophomore, junior, or senior. Of the 141 respondents, 23.4% (33) identified as
freshmen, 29.1% (41) identified as sophomores, 19.9% (28) identified as juniors, and 27.7% (39)
identified as seniors. The researchers worked to get at least 25 students to represent each cohort,
and succeeded in that goal.

35
Question 2: What is your gender?
Gender
Cumulative
Valid Male 76 53.9 53.9 53.9
Female 65 46.1 46.1 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
The researchers asked students to identify as either male or female in the second question. Out
of 141 respondents, 53.9% (76) were male and 46.1% (65) were female. The researchers did not
set a specific goal to meet in regards to gender. However, it is close to an even divide, which
gives the researchers a good representation of both genders.

36
Question 3: Do you own a smartphone?
Smartphone
Cumulative
Valid Yes 139 98.6 98.6 98.6
No 2 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
In question three, the researchers asked respondents to indicate if they own a smartphone. Out of
141 students, 98.6% (139) said they own a smartphone. Only 1.4% (2) respondents said they do
not own a smartphone. This question was asked to advise the researchers on how many of the
respondents actually own a smartphone, because if a considerable amount would have said that
they do not own a smartphone, then their answers to subsequent questions may have had to been
evaluated differently. Secondly, because the study is all about communication within romantic
37
relationships using smartphones, it was important to establish that the majority of students own a
smartphone.
38
Question 4: Are you in a relationship?
Relationship
Cumulative
Valid Yes 49 34.8 34.8 34.8
No 92 65.2 65.2 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to identify their relationship status. Out of 141 respondents,
34.8% (49) said they are in a relationship, while 65.2% (92) said they are not in a relationship.
The researchers expected there to be respondents who were not in a relationship, however, they
did not expect as many as 65% to not be in a romantic relationship. This is considered as a
limitation to the study, which the researchers will discuss in a later chapter.
39
Question 5: How long have you been in a relationship?
RelationLength
Cumulative
Valid N/A 86 61.0 62.3 62.3
1-3 Months 9 6.4 6.5 68.8
4-6 Months 10 7.1 7.2 76.1
7-9 Months 5 3.5 3.6 79.7
10-12 Months 7 5.0 5.1 84.8
13 Months or more 21 14.9 15.2 100.0
Total 138 97.9 100.0

Missing System 3 2.1
Total 141 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to identify how long they have been in a relationship, if they
are in one at all. Out of the 141 respondents, 61% (86) chose the response, N/A. The
40
researchers assume that the 86 respondents who chose N/A did so to signify that they are not
in a relationship. This assumption is backed up by the 92 respondents who said they are not in a
relationship. Of those who identified the length of their relationship, 6.4% (9) of respondents
chose 1-3 months, 17.1% (10) of respondents chose 4-6 months, 3.5% (5) of respondents chose
7-9 months, 5% (7) of respondents chose 10-12 months, and 14.9% (21) of respondents chose 13
or more months.
41
Question 6: How many hours a day do you use your smartphone to communicate with
your significant other?
SPHours
Cumulative
Valid 0 72 51.1 52.9 52.9
1-3 38 27.0 27.9 80.9
4-7 15 10.6 11.0 91.9
8-9 5 3.5 3.7 95.6
more than 10 6 4.3 4.4 100.0
Total 136 96.5 100.0

Total 141 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to estimate how many hours a day they use their smartphones
to communicate with their significant others. Out of the 141 respondents, 51.1% (72) chose 0
hours, 27% (38) chose 1-3 hours, 10.6% (15) chose 4-6 hours, 3.5% (5) chose 8-9 hours, and
42
4.3% (6) chose more than 10 hours. This question was asked to help the researchers gauge how
critical smartphones are to communicating within a romantic relationship. However, this
question did not include an N/A option, which could have been circled for those who indicated
that they are not in a relationship earlier in the questionnaire. Since the reseachers did not put
N/A as an option for this question, they are uncertain if the responses are indicative of those
who are in romantic relationships, because respondents who are not in a relationships could have
answered the question with a different meaning in mind. For example, a respondent not in a
relationship could have circled the option which reflected how often they use their phone for
communication in general, which could add up to many more hours than communication with
just one person.

43
Question 7: Do you have a Facebook account?
FB
Cumulative
Valid Yes 138 97.9 97.9 97.9
No 3 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
The researchers wanted to know what respondents thought about specific applications that are
used on smartphones, for example, Facebook and Snapchat. Therefore, the researchers asked
respondents to indicate if they have a Facebook account. Out of 141 respondents, 97.9% (138)
of respondents said yes, while only 2.1% (3) of respondents said no. This question was asked to
gauge how many of the respondents have a Facebook account.

44
Question 8: How many hours a day do you use Facebook?
FBHours
Cumulative
Valid 0 25 17.7 17.9 17.9
1-2 100 70.9 71.4 89.3
3-4 12 8.5 8.6 97.9
more than 5 3 2.1 2.1 100.0
Total 140 99.3 100.0

Missing System 1 .7
Total 141 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to estimate how many hours a day they use Facebook. Out of
141 respondents, 17.7% (25) chose 0, 70.9% (100) chose 1-2, 8.5% (12) chose 3-4, and 2.1% (3)
chose more than 5. One respondent did not choose an option. For this question, the researchers
45
did not relate Facebook use to communication within a romantic relationship. Instead, they
asked how many hours a day Facebook is used, so respondents who were both in and not in a
relationship could answer this question generally.

46
Question 9: Do you think that Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship?
FBDevelopment
Cumulative
Valid Strongly Agree 1 .7 .7 .7
Agree 12 8.5 8.6 9.3
N/A 87 61.7 62.1 71.4
Disagree 19 13.5 13.6 85.0
Strongly Disagree 21 14.9 15.0 100.0
Total 140 99.3 100.0

Missing System 1 .7
Total 141 100.0
Since the researchers were interested in knowing what respondents thought about the role
applications have in developing their romantic relationships, they asked specifically if

47
respondents believe Facebook accelerated the development of their relationship. Out of 141
respondents, .7% (1) chose Strongly Agree, 8.5% (12) chose Agree, 6.7% (87) chose N/A, 13.5%
(19) chose Disagree, and 14.9% (21) chose Strongly Disagree. One respondent did not choose a
response. The most popular response was N/A, which the researchers assume respondents who
indicated that they are not in a relationship chose this response. However, there is no way to be
certain of that assumption.

48
Question 10: Do you have a Snapchat account?
SC
Cumulative
Valid Yes 134 95.0 95.0 95.0
No 7 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 141 100.0 100.0
Wanting to know what respondents thought about specific applications and the impact each has
on romantic relationship development, the researchers asked respondents about Snapchat. This
question asked respondents to reveal if they have a Snapchat account. Out of 141 respondents,
95% (134) of respondents said yes, while 5% (7) of respondents said no.
49
Question 11: How many hours a day do you use Snapchat to communicate with your
significant other?
SCHours
Cumulative
Valid 0 65 46.1 47.1 47.1
1-2 52 36.9 37.7 84.8
3-4 18 12.8 13.0 97.8
More than 5 3 2.1 2.2 100.0
Total 138 97.9 100.0

Total 141 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to identify the amount of hours a day that they use Snapchat
to communicate with their significant others. Out of 141 respondents, 46.1% (65) chose 0 hours,
50
36.9% (52) chose 1-2 hours, 12.8% (18) chose 3-4 hours, and 2.1% (3) said more than 5 hours.
Three respondents did not choose an option.

51
Question 12: Do you believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your
relationship?
SCDevelopment
Cumulative
Valid Strongly Agree 12 8.5 8.6 8.6
Agree 31 22.0 22.3 30.9
N/A 76 53.9 54.7 85.6
Disagree 13 9.2 9.4 95.0
Total 139 98.6 100.0

Total 141 100.0
The researchers asked respondents to reflect on the influence Snapchat had in accelerating the
development of their romantic relationships. Out of 141 respondents, 8.5% (12) said they
52
Strongly Agree that Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship, 22% (31) said
they Agree, 53.9% (76) said N/A, 9.2% (13) said Disagree, and 5% (7) said Strongly Disagree.
Two respondents did not choose an option. The researchers assume that respondents who chose
N/A did so because they were either not in a romantic relationship, or because they truly felt that
Snapchat did not accelerate the development of their relationship. By only looking at this data,
however, we cannot be certain.

53
Question 13: How many minutes a week do you spend talking on the phone with your
significant other?
PhoneMins
Cumulative
Also interested in the use
Valid 0 78 55.3 56.5 56.5
1-20 32 22.7 23.2 79.7 of phone calls in romantic

21-40 13 9.2 9.4 89.1
relationships, the
41-60 8 5.7 5.8 94.9
61 or more 7 5.0 5.1 100.0 researchers asked

Total 138 97.9 100.0
Missing System 3 2.1 respondents to estimate
Total 141 100.0
how many minutes a week
they spend talking on the phone with their significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 55.3% (78)
said 0 minutes, 22.7% (32) said 1-20 minutes, 9.2% (12) said 21-40 minutes, 5.7% (8) said 41-60
minutes, and 5% (7) said 61 minutes or more. Three respondents did not choose an option. The
researchers did not give single respondents an N/A option to indicate that they are not in a
relationship, so they are not sure what those respondents chose by looking at this test alone.
They assume that most chose 0, however, there also might be some respondents in a romantic
relationship who chose 0 because they do not talk on the phone with their significant other.
54
Question 14: Do you believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your
relationship?
PhoneDevelopment
Cumulative
Agree 35 24.8 25.2 33.1
N/A 84 59.6 60.4 93.5
Disagree 6 4.3 4.3 97.8
Total 139 98.6 100.0

Total 141 100.0
55
The researchers asked respondents to identify if they believe talking on the phone accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 7.8% (11) said Strongly
Agree, 24.8% (35) said Agree, 59.6% (84) said N/A, 4.3% (6) said Disagree, and 2.1% (3) said
Strongly Disagree. Two respondents did not choose an option. More than half of respondents
(84) chose N/A, which the researchers assume indicates that they are not in a relationship, and
therefore do not have an opinion. However, by only looking at this test, the researchers are not
able to determine that assumption.

56
Question 15: How many text messages do you send to your significant other?
Text
Cumulative
Valid 0 69 48.9 50.0 50.0
1-20 20 14.2 14.5 64.5
21-40 9 6.4 6.5 71.0
41-60 19 13.5 13.8 84.8
61-80 7 5.0 5.1 89.9
81-100 6 4.3 4.3 94.2
101 or more 8 5.7 5.8 100.0
Total 138 97.9 100.0

Total 141 100.0
57
The researchers asked respondents to estimate the amount of text messages they send to their
significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 48.9% (69) said 0, 14.2% (20) said 1-20, 6.4% (9) said
21-40, 13.5% (19) said 41-60, 5% (7) said 61-80, 4.3% (6) said 81-100, and 5.7% (8) said 101 or
more. Three respondents did not choose an option. The researchers expected the answers to
indicate that the majority of respondents sent many text messages to their significant others, but
the most popular response was 0. However, only solely looking at the frequency for each
response, the researchers are not sure how many of those respondents who chose 0 did so
because they are not in a romantic relationship.

58
Question 16: Do you believe the amount of texting between you and your significant other
accelerated the development of your relationship?
TextDevelopment
Cumulative
Agree 37 26.2 26.4 37.9
N/A 80 56.7 57.1 95.0
Disagree 6 4.3 4.3 99.3
Strongly Disagree 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 140 99.3 100.0

Missing System 1 .7
Total 141 100.0
59
Wanting to know what respondents thought about texting and their relationship, the researchers
asked if they believed texting accelerated the development of their relationship. Out of 141
respondents, 11.3% (16) said Strongly Agree, 26.2% (37) said Agree, 56.7% (80) said N/A, 4.3%
(6) said Disagree, and .7% (1) said Strongly Disagree. One respondent did not choose a
response. Looking at these frequencies alone, the researchers are not able to tell what single
respondents chose, as the researchers did not give them a clear choice. However, the researchers
assume single respondents would have chosen the N/A response, or would have not chosen an
option at all.
60
Question 17: How many minutes a week do you spend video chatting (FaceTime, Skype,
etc.) with your significant other?
VideoMins
Cumulative
Valid 0 106 75.2 76.8 76.8
1-20 15 10.6 10.9 87.7
21-40 6 4.3 4.3 92.0
41-60 5 3.5 3.6 95.7
61-80 1 .7 .7 96.4
81-100 2 1.4 1.4 97.8
101 or more 3 2.1 2.2 100.0
Total 138 97.9 100.0

Total 141 100.0
61
Another major component of smartphones is applications that allow users to communicate via
video. The researchers wanted to know how many minutes a day respondents used video chat
methods to talk with their significant other. Out of 141 respondents, 75.2% (106) said 0, 10.6%
(15) said 1-20, 4.3% (6) said 41-60, 3.5% (5) said 61-80, 1.4% (2) said 81-100, 2.1% (3) said
101 or more. Three respondents did not choose an option. By only looking at the frequency of
each option, the researchers do not know what single respondents chose. Therefore, by only
looking at the frequency, the researchers may infer that single respondents chose 0 to indicate
that they are not in a relationship, or they did not choose a response at all.
62
Question 18: Do you think video chatting has accelerated the development of your
romantic relationship?
VideoDevelopment
Cumulative
Agree 19 13.5 13.6 18.6
N/A 97 68.8 69.3 87.9
Disagree 9 6.4 6.4 94.3
Total 140 99.3 100.0

Missing System 1 .7
Total 141 100.0
63
The researchers wanted to know if respondents believed video chatting accelerated the
development of their relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 5% (7) said Strongly Agree, 13.5%
(19) said Agree, 68.8% (97) said N/A, 6.4% (9) said Disagree, and 5.7% (8) said Strongly
Disagree. One respondent did not choose an option. The most popular option for this question
was N/A. However, by only looking at the frequency, the researchers are not able to tell if
respondents chose this response because they do not have an opinion on video chat, or if they
chose it because they are not in a romantic relationship.

64
Question 19: Do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic
relationship?
Apps
Cumulative
Agree 42 29.8 29.8 34.0
N/A 32 22.7 22.7 56.7
Disagree 47 33.3 33.3 90.1
Total 141 100.0 100.0

65
Having already asked about specific apps, the researchers asked respondents if they believe apps
on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, 4.3%
(6) said Strongly Agree, 29.8% (42) said Agree, 22.7% (32) said N/A, 33.3% (47) said Disagree,
and 9.9% (14) said Strongly Disagree. This question was asked openly, so that respondents not
in or in a romantic relationship could answer it. This way, the researchers are able to draw
conclusions about what respondents as a whole think about apps accelerating the development of
romantic relationships. Between both single and committed respondents, the most popular
response is Disagree, with 47 respondents choosing that response. The second most popular
response is Agree, with 42 respondents choosing that option. Fourteen respondents chose
Strongly Disagree, while only 6 respondents chose Agree. By looking at these frequencies alone,
one can see that the respondents are leaning more towards disagreeing with this question.
66
However, the researchers cannot make any assumptions about the data by only looking at the
frequencies.
Question 20: Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in
developing your romantic relationship? (Only circle one)

67
Role
Cumulative
Valid Facebook 1 .7 .7 .7
Snapchat 20 14.2 14.7 15.4
Video Chat 10 7.1 7.4 22.8
Text Messaging 31 22.0 22.8 45.6
Phone Calls 14 9.9 10.3 55.9
None 60 42.6 44.1 100.0
Total 136 96.5 100.0

Total 141 100.0
Lastly, the researchers asked respondents to identify which app or feature most accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship. Out of 141 respondents, .7% (1) chose Facebook,
14.2% (20) chose Snapchat, 7.1% (10) chose Video Chat, 22% (31) chose Text Messaging, 9.9%
(14) chose Phone Calls, and 42.6% (60) chose None. Five respondents did not choose an option.
By only looking at the frequency, the researchers are not sure what single respondents chose, but
68
they assume single respondents would have chosen None. Otherwise, single respondents
could have chosen which app or feature they believe would accelerate the development of a
romantic relationship if they were in one.
Relationship status x Facebook

69
Group Statistics
Relationship N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
FBDevelopment Yes 49 3.8163 1.18451 .16922

dimension1
No 90 3.0778 .45537 .04800
Wanting to know specifically what respondents in a relationship thought about certain questions,
the researchers ran Independent Samples T-Tests. The researchers were only interested in
knowing what respondents in relationships thought about certain question. Always testing the
variable, Relationship with variables regarding other applications or features on smartphones,
the researchers were able to gather data specifically on the respondents in relationships. This
Independent Sample T-Test tested the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship?, with the variable FBDevelopment, which stands for the question, Do you
70
believe Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship? Testing these two questions
together, the researchers are able to specifically see what respondents who are in a relationship
think about the impact Facebook had on accelerating the development of their relationships. Out
of 49 respondents in a relationship, one respondent chose Strongly Agree, nine chose Agree, six
chose N/A, 15 chose Disagree, and 18 chose Strongly Disagree. The mean answer from the
respondents who said they are in a relationship is 3.8. In the researchers coding, three stands for
N/A. Therefore, the mean response for respondents in a relationship is N/A. The test
yielded a significance value of .000. This significance value indicates that there is strong
evidence to support that respondents in a relationship do not have an opinion on the impact that
Facebook has in accelerating the development of their romantic relationship.
Relationship status x Snapchat

71
Group Statistics
SCDevelopment Yes 49 2.7500 1.34481 .19411

dimension1
No 90 2.8222 .57236 .06033
The researchers wanted to know if respondents in a relationship believed Snapchat had an impact
on the development of their romantic relationships. To do determine this, they ran an
Independent Samples T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for the question,
Are you in a relationship?, and the variable SCDevelopment, which stands for, Do you
believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your relationship? Out of the 49
respondents in a relationship, nine chose Strongly Agree, 17 chose Agree, four chose N/A, 11
chose Disagree, and six chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response for respondents in a
72
relationship is 2.8. Based on the researchers coding, 2 stands for Agree. With a significance
level of .362, the researchers have little or no evidence to prove that respondents believe
Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship.
Relationship status x Phone calls

73
Group Statistics
PhoneDevelopment Yes 49 2.3469 .99060 .14151

dimension1
No 90 2.8556 .55204 .05819
The researchers wanted to know specifically if respondents believed phone calls accelerated the
development of their relationship. They tested the variable Relationship, which stands for,
Are you in a relationship?, with the variable PhoneDevelopment, which stands for, Do you
believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your relationship? Out of the 49
respondents in a relationship, seven chose Strongly Agree, 27 chose Agree, eight chose N/A, five
chose Disagree, and two chose Strongly Disagree. The Independent Samples T-Test shows that
the mean response for respondents in a relationship is 2.3. Based on the researchers coding, 2
stands for Agree. With a significance level of .001, the researchers have evidence to support
74
that respondents in a relationship agree that phone calls accelerated the development of their
relationship.
Relationship status x Text messages

75
Group Statistics
TextDevelopment Yes 49 2.0000 .91287 .13041

dimension1
No 91 2.8681 .47630 .04993
The researchers wanted to know what respondents in a relationship thought about text messages
and if they played a part in the development of their romantic relationship. They ran an
Independent Samples T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? and the variable TextDevelopment, which stands for, Do you believe the
amount of texting between you and your significant other accelerated the development of your
relationship? Out of the 49 respondents in a relationship, 15 chose Strongly Agree, 24 chose
Agree, five chose N/A, and five chose Disagree. No respondent in a relationship chose Strongly
Disagree. For respondents in a relationship, the mean response is 2.0. Based on the researchers
76
coding, 2 stands for Agree. With a significance level of .000, the researchers have strong
evidence to suggest that respondents in a relationship believe text messaging accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship.
Relationship status x Video chat

77
Group Statistics
VideoDevelopment Yes 49 2.7755 1.19487 .17070

dimension1
No 91 3.0330 .43335 .04543
The researchers wanted to know if respondents in a romantic relationship believed that video
chatting accelerated the development of their romantic relationship. The researchers ran an
Independent Sample T-Test with the variable Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? and the variable VideoDevelopment, which stands for, Do you think video
chatting has accelerated the development of your romantic relationship? Out of the respondents
who said they are in a romantic relationship, seven chose Strongly Agree, 14 chose Agree, 17
78
chose N/A, five chose disagree, and six chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response is 2.8.
Based on the researchers coding, 2 stands for Agree, meaning they agree that Snapchat
accelerated the development of their romantic relationship. With a significance level of .075, the
researchers are not able to conclude that they have evidence to prove that respondents in a
romantic relationship believe Snapchat accelerated the development of their relationship.
Relationship status x Apps

79
Group Statistics
Apps Yes 49 3.1224 1.16606 .16658

dimension1
No 92 3.1630 1.05119 .10959
The researchers asked respondents to indicate their belief on the importance of smartphone
applications in accelerating the development of their romantic relationships. Wanting to look
specifically at respondents who are in a romantic relationship, the researchers ran an Independent
Samples T-Test. They tested the variable, Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a
relationship? with the variable, Apps, which stands for, Do you believe apps on smartphones
are crucial to developing a romantic relationship? Looking at the 49 respondents in a

80
relationship, three chose Strongly Agree, 17 chose Agree, four chose N/A, 21 chose Disagree,
and four chose Strongly Disagree. The mean response is 3.1. In the researchers coding system,
3 stands for N/A. With a significance level of .419, the researchers do not have evidence to
prove that respondents have an opinion on smartphone applications being crucial to the
development of romantic relationships.
Relationship status x Role

81
Group Statistics
Role Yes 49 3.6939 1.21113 .17302

dimension1
No 87 5.1034 1.41450 .15165
The researchers wanted to know what apps or features on smartphones respondents thought were
most important to developing their romantic relationships. Looking at only respondents who
said they are in a relationship, the researchers ran an Independent Samples T-Test. They tested
the variable, Relationship, which stands for, Are you in a relationship? with the variable,
Role, which stands for, Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in
developing your romantic relationship? Out of the 49 respondents who are in a relationship,
82
one chose Facebook, nine chose Snapchat, eight chose video chat, 21 chose text messaging, six
chose phone calls, and four chose None. The mean response is 3.7. Based on the researchers
coding system, 3 stands for Video Chat. With a significance value of .000, the reserachers
have strong evidence to support that respondents in a romantic relationship believe video
chatting played a critical role in developing their romantic relationship.

83
Summary
84
The purpose of the study that the researchers conducted was to find out what applications
of the smartphone have an effect on the development of romantic relationships among college
students at a small, liberal arts college in the Midwest. After studying and researching previous
studies done on smartphones and romantic relationships, the researchers used a stratified random
sampling method to choose classes from each cohort. After the classes were chosen, a
questionnaire consisting of 20 questions was distributed to the students. Out of the 141
participants that completed the questionnaire, 49 of these participants reported that they were
currently in a relationship.
The research question that the researchers sought to answer was: which features of the
smartphone accelerate the development of romantic relationships? The researchers found
significance values under .05 for the tests ran on phone calls and text messages. The respondents
at this small, Midwestern, liberal arts college believe that phone calls and text messaging
accelerated the development of their romantic relationships. Thus, the answer to the research
question is: phone calls and text messages accelerate the development of romantic relationships.
The researchers hypothesized: smartphones accelerate the development of romantic
relationships. The researchers asked respondents to indicate if they believed apps were critical in
developing a romantic relationship. This test yielded a significance value of .419. Therefore, the
researchers did not have evidence to suggest that respondents believe that apps are critical to
developing a romantic relationship. After analyzing the data, there was not enough evidence to
support the hypothesis.
After analyzing the data, the researchers put together a list of limitations to their study
and recommendations for further study.

85
Limitations of the study

86
The researchers who conducted the study identified several limitations that could
influence the studys data and results. The first limitation is in regards to the overall sample size
for the study. The researchers had 141 participants fill out the questionnaire, however, only 49
respondents indicated they were in a romantic relationship. Since the purpose of the study was
to determine if certain smartphone applications accelerate the development of romantic
relationships, it would have been helpful to have more respondents who were in a relationship to
participate. This would have allowed the studys conclusions to be made with more statistical
confidence.
The majority of the questions in the questionnaire were directed primarily at those in a
romantic relationship. As only 49 participants involved in the study indicated that they were in a
relationship, many questions were irrelevant to the respondents who were not in a romantic
relationship. Clear instructions were not included in the questionnaire for single respondents, so
they could have answered the questions that were only aimed at respondents in a relationship.
This made it difficult to distinguish between respondents in a relationship and not in a
relationship.
Another limitation to the researchers study were the options available on some of the
questions. For example, one of the questions asked, do you believe that Snapchatting
accelerated the development of your relationship? The options for this question was, Strongly
Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. The option of answering N/A on the
questionnaire may have skewed the results of the data because N/A can have a different
meaning to each individual involved in the study. The researchers provided N/A as an option
for participants to indicate they did not have a strong opinion on that particular question. The
87
researchers never explicitly defined N/A, however, so respondents did not know that the
researchers assumed this definition for the option.
Lastly, participants in the study may have unintentionally underestimated the impact
smartphones have on their lives and relationships, therefore rating the effects of smartphones
lower than their real-world impact. Since all of the respondents involved in the study were
college students, it is likely that the participants have been exposed to smartphones for a majority
of their lives. Due to the millennial generations familiarity with smartphones, those involved in
the study may not realize how much they rely on their smartphones throughout everyday life,
including in their communication with their significant others.

88
Recommendations for further study

89
Stemming from the limitations of the study found by the researchers, there are several
recommendations for future studies. Since the overall sample size of 141 respondents only
yielded 49 subjects involved in a relationship and the study set out to find the effect of
smartphone use on romantic relationships, it would have been beneficial to obtain a larger
sample size to get a larger number of participants in a relationship. A sample size of 200 to 300
participants would provide researchers with more respondents that fell within the intended
demographic of the study and would have allowed the researchers to have drawn more
statistically confident conclusions from the study. Future researchers might find it beneficial to
only target individuals who are in a romantic relationships.
Due to the fact that the questionnaire primarily consisted of questions pertaining to
people in a relationship, instructions telling those not involved with a significant other to
disregard questions about relationships should have been provided. A simple instruction stating,
if you are not in a romantic relationship, disregard questions 5-10, could have provided more
guidance for respondents. This would also automatically eliminate any respondents who are not
in a romantic relationship if they are included in the study.
For the questions asking the participants their feelings on how certain smartphone
applications accelerated their relationships, Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree were the options provided in this linear order. Future researchers may consider
eliminating the response N/A and instead telling respondents to skip the certain question if
they are not in a romantic relationship. If researchers do not want to include this instruction,
then the option N/A could be provided along with the option Unsure.
The researchers also suggest that future researchers consider only asking questions that
they will use at the end of their study. In this study, many questions were asked that didnt have
90
any tests ran on the data at all. For example, the questions, how many hours a day do you use
Facebook? and, how long have you been in a relationship? While the researchers ran a
frequency test on this last question, no other tests were ran that made it useful to answering the
research question or hypothesis. Future researchers might find it beneficial to only include
questions in the questionnaire that they will use in data analysis.
Lastly, the researchers suggest that future researchers ask respondents about more
applications on smartphones. In this study, the researchers only asked about Facebook and
Snapchat. Future researchers could look into the effects that even more applications have on
romantic relationships, such as Tinder, Instagram, Twitter, and e-mail.

91
Conclusion
92
The findings of the study the researchers conducted suggests that they found a clear
answer to their research question, Which features of the smartphone accelerate the development
of romantic relationships? The researchers found that the evidence they gathered from a small,
Midwestern, liberal arts college suggest that the use of phone calls and text messages play a
significant part accelerating the development of romantic relationships. Both text messaging and
phone calls received a significance value of lesser than .05, indicating that the respondents
believe that phone calls and text messaging accelerated the development of their romantic
relationships.
The hypothesis the researchers established, on the other hand, is not supported. The
researchers ran an Independent Samples T-test with the variable Relationship, which stands for
the question, Are you in a relationship? and the variable Apps, which stands for the question,
Do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship? This
test yielded a significance value of .419, which means that the researchers must accept the null
hypothesis, rejecting their hypothesis. Although the hypothesis is not supported, it is still
interesting to note the answer for the research question. Although respondents who indicated
that they were in relationship do not think applications on smartphones accelerated the
development of their romantic relationship, the tests show that respondents believe that phone
calling and text messaging accelerated the development of their romantic relationships.
The researchers researched this topic to find out what applications of smartphones
accelerate development of romantic relationships among college students at a small, Midwestern,
Liberal Arts College. Conducting this research is important because the way in which romantic
relationships develop is always changing. Today, most individuals, especially college-aged
adults, have a smartphone. The significance of this study was to reveal how much the invention
93
of the smartphones and the use of their applications accelerate the development of romantic
relationships.
The researchers based their research on Knapps relational development theory (1978),
which states that there is five key stages of a relational development: initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding. The researchers also based their research on the findings
of a number of social scientists who studied smartphones and their functionalities relating to
romantic relationships. According to Pettegrew and Day (2015), smartphones play such a
significant role in romantic relationships today, so much so that face-to-face interactions seems
almost entirely irrelevant in the early stages of a relationship. Jin and Pena (2008) discovered
that the higher amount of mobile phone usage suggests positive outcomes within relationships.
McEwan and Horn (2016), as well as Pettegrew and Day (2015), suggest that the frequency and
positive discussion within text messaging often leads to positive outcomes overall within
romantic relationships. The researchers used knowledge from previous researchers to develop
their research question, hypothesis, and compose their questionnaire.
Through distributing the questionnaire and analyzing the data, the researchers have
developed a list of limitations to their study. The first limitation is the sample size. Of the 141
participants studied, only 49 indicated that they were in a romantic relationship. The purpose of
the study was to examine those involved in romantic relationships, therefore the researchers were
only able to examine a little over a third of their respondents. The researchers did not examine
respondents who were not in a romantic relationship, because they did not believe it was
pertinent to their study.
The next limitation the researchers encountered were the questions in the questionnaire.
Since such a significant amount of respondents were not currently in a romantic relationship,
94
they may have answered the questions regardless of their current relationship status. For
example, they may have still answered the question, How many minutes a week do you spend
video chatting (FaceTime, Skype, etc.) with your significant other? This could have diluted the
final results and not given a reflective result of the sample we were intending to study (those
involved in romantic relationships). This is also why we were only able to run tests that would
let us look only at the respondents in a romantic relationship, like the Independent Samples T-
test, for example.
Another limitation to the study is the options that were given in some of the questions.
For example, for the question, Do you believe Facebook accelerated the development of your
romantic relationship, the options respondents had was Strongly Agree, Agree, N/A, Disagree,
and Strongly Disagree. The researchers believed that N/A could be an option that signified that
respondents were unsure or didnt have an opinion on the question. The researchers also
assumed that respondents not in a relationship would choose this option for questions that did not
apply to them. Having two different ideas of the meaning for the same response is confusing
when analyzing the results, though, and more options should have been presented to limit
confusion.
Based off these limitations, the researchers composed a list of recommendations. First,
the researchers recommend finding a larger sample size, one that includes more respondents who
are actually in a romantic relationship. Researchers with more resources or time might find a
way to only have people involved in romantic relationships answer the questionnaire in the first
place, instead of blindly having respondents fill out the question, not knowing their relationship
status before.
95
The next recommendation the researchers suggested is to construct a more specific
questionnaire. Researchers could do this by only asking questions that will be used at the end of
the study when analyzing the data, and by giving specific instructions for those who are not in a
romantic relationship. That way, if respondents who are not in a romantic relationship may be
filling the questionnaire out, they will know what to do with the questions that do not apply to
them.
Finally, the researchers recommend that future researchers provide more specific options
to answering the questions. For example, a question asking, Do you believe Snapchatting
accelerated the development of your relationship? would have the options Strongly Agree,
Agree, Unsure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and N/A. This way, respondents who are not in a
relationship have a clear option to circle, and respondents who are in a relationship but do not
have an opinion on the question can circle Unsure.
The researchers findings and research have both answered questions as well as created
them. They have found that respondents at a small, Midwestern, liberal arts college believe that
only phone calls and text messages accelerate the development of their romantic relationships.
The researchers do not have evidence to suggest that other popular functions and applications,
such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Video Chat, accelerate the development of romantic
relationships.
96
References
97
Adler, E. M., & Clark, R. (2003). How its done: An invitation to social research (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Publishers.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226244.
Baxter, H. (2013). Many matches but no spark. Retrieved from
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2013/11/many-matches-no-spark.
Bilton, N. (2014). Tinder, the fast-growing dating app, taps an age old truth. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/fashion/tinder-the-fast-
growing-dating-app-taps-an-age-old-truth.html?_r=1.
Brody, N., Mooney, C., Westerman, S., & McDonald, P. (2009). Lts gt 2gthr l8r: Text messaging
as a relational maintenance tool. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 28, 109-127
Colao, J. J. (2014). The inside story of Snapchat: The worlds hottest app or a $3 billion
disappearing act? Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2014/01/06/the-
inside-story-of-snapchat-the-worlds-hottest-app-or-a-3-billion-disappearing-
act/#36de223555ec.
Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students romantic relationships on Facebook:
Linking the gratification for maintenance to Facebook maintenance activity and the
experience of jealousy. Communication Quarterly, 63(4), 365-383.
doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1058283
98
David, G., & Cambre, C. (2016). Screened intimacies: Tinder and the swipe logic. Social
Media+ Society, 2(2). doi: 2056305116641976.
Duggan, M. (2015). Mobile messaging and social media 2015. The Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobilemessaging-and-social-
media-2015-main-findings/.
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L. (2012). Cell phone activities 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/25/additional-demographic-analysis-2/.
Duggan, M. (2015). The demographics of social media users. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the
dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59, 19-36.
Facebook-About | Facebook. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/facebook/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item.
Facebook. (2016). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, p. 1.
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic
relationship development An exploration of Knapps relational stage model. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771-794.
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal
Relationships, 7, 363378.
Grigoriadis V. (2014). Inside the hookup factory. Rolling Stone Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/inside-tinders-hookup-factory-20141027.
James, J. L. (2015). Mobile dating in the digital age: Computer-mediated communication and
relationship building on tinder. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas State University).

99
Jin, B., & Pea, J. (2008). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: The relationship
between mobile phone use and relational uncertainty, intimacy, and attachment.
Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
Jin, B. & Pea, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use,
relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication
Reports, 23, 39-51
Knapp, M.L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Knapps Relational Model. Retrieved from http://communicationtheory.org/knapps-relationship-
model/.
Lansky, S. (2016). The Self-Help Sage of Snapchat. Time, 187(18), 46.
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ling, R. & Donner, J. (2009). Mobile communication. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
McEwan B. & Horn, D. (2016). ILY & can you pick me up some milk: Effects of relational
maintenance via text messaging on relational satisfaction and closeness in dating
partners. Southern Communication Journal, 81, 161-181
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and
posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817826.
Miller-Ott, A., E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R., L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on
satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17-34.

100
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young
adults use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and
associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1771-1778
Pettegrew, L.S. & Day, C. (2015). Smart phones and mediated relationships: the changing face
of relational communication. The Review of Communication, 15, 122-139.
Smartphone [Def 1]. (n.d.). English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved November 16, 2016,
from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smartphone.
Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013, October 20). Online Dating & Relationships. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships/.
The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp's
relational stage model. (2012). Conference Papers -- International Communication
Association, 1-32.
Trowbridge, A. (2014). Evolution of the phone: From the first call to the next frontier. Retrieved
from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/evolution-of-the-phone-from-the-first-call-to-the-
next-frontier/.
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). Snapchat is more personal: An
exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601.
Velten, J., & Arif, R. (2016). The influence of Snapchat on interpersonal relationship
development and human communication. The Journal Of Social Media In Society, 5(2),
5-43.
101
Yang, C. C., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of
electronic intimacy in college students' interpersonal relationships. New Media &
Society, 16(1), 5-23. doi: 10.1177/1461444812472486
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: 1A
comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 18(3), 141-146.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication
Research, 23, 3-43.
Witty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online
relationships. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

102
Appendices
103
Appendix A
104
105
Appendix B
106
Directions: Please circle the most appropriate response.
For the purpose of this questionnaire, according to Merriam-Webster (2016), a smartphone
is defined as, a mobile telephone that can be used to send and receive e-mail, connect to
the Internet, take photographs, etc.
1. What year in school are you?
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
2. What is your gender?
Male Female
3. Do you own a smartphone?
Yes No
4. Are you in a relationship?
Yes No
5. How long have you been in a relationship?
N/A 1-3 months 4-6 months
7-9 months 10-12 months 13 months or more
6. How many hours a day do you use your smartphone to communicate with your significant
other?
0 1-3 4-7 8-9 more than 10
7. Do you have a Facebook account?
Yes No
8. How many hours a day do you use Facebook?
0 1-2 3-4 more than 5

107
9. Do you think that Facebook accelerated the development of your relationship?
Strongly Agree Agree N/A Disagree Strongly Disagree
10. Do you have a Snapchat account?
Yes No
11. How many hours a day do you use Snapchat to communicate with your significant other?
0 1-2 3-4 more than 5
12. Do you believe that Snapchatting accelerated the development of your relationship?
13. How many minutes a week do you spend talking on the phone with your significant other?
0 1-20 21-40 41-60 61 or more
14. Do you believe talking on the phone accelerated the development of your relationship?
15. How many text messages do you send to your significant other in a day?
0 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101 or more
16. Do you believe the amount of texting between you and your significant other accelerated the
development of your relationship?
17. How many minutes a week do you spend video chatting (FaceTime, Skype, etc.) with your
significant other?
0 1-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 101 or more
18. Do you think video chatting has accelerated the development of your romantic relationship?

108
19. Do you believe apps on smartphones are crucial to developing a romantic relationship?
20. Which app or feature do you believe played the most critical role in developing your
romantic relationship? (Only circle one)
Facebook Snapchat Video Chat Text Messaging
Phone Calls None
Thank you.
109
Appendix C
110
Loras College Institutional Review Board
REQUEST FOR IRB REVIEW
Student Research Project
Please complete the following research application. Provide all information requested as part of
this application. Do not simply refer to other documents or grant applications. Once completed,
send this form, with the attached Research description, and all supporting documents (email
preferred) to the Institutional Review Board chair: Kathrin Parks, Sociology Program (588-
7819); irb@loras.edu
Ethics Certification: In submitting this review request, you agree to conduct this research as
described in the attached documents. You agree to request and wait to receive approval from the
IRB for any changes to the research proposal. You will comply with the policies for conducting
ethical research as outlined in the Belmont Report (at
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html .) and other applicable professional ethical
standards.
Please watch the video The Belmont Report: Basic Ethical Principles and Their Application from
the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
from the beginning of the program to minute 13, available at www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Up09dioFdEU . Your electronic signature in the space below affirms that you have watched
the video and understand the ethical principles presented:

111
1. Student Investigator(s) and contact information:
a. Allison Wong, Allison.wong@loras.edu
b. Haley OBrien, Haley.obrien@loras.edu
c. Charlie Grant, Charles.Grant@loras.edu
d. Kevin Connor, Kevin.connor@loras.edu
2. Title of Project:
a. The role smartphones play in the development of romantic relationships
3. Course Requring Project:
a. Communication Research
4. Faculty sponsor name and contact information:
Faculty sponsors should be satisfied the procedures outlined in this review application are in line
with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report as well as any appropriate professional ethical
standards. Faculty sponsors should email the IRB chair (irb@loras.edu) to indicate that they
have reviewed this application prior to it being submitted. Students, you should copy your
faculty sponsor on all IRB-related correspondence.
a. Mary Carol Harris, marycarol.harris@loras.edu
5. Proposed duration of all project activities: From August 29, 2016 to December 2, 2016
6. Approximate number of subjects:

112
a. 140
8. Type of subject: (Mark all appropriate)
__ Adults, Non-student
_X_ Loras College students
__ Other college students
__ Minors (under age 18)
__ Persons with cognitive or psychological impairment
__ Persons with limited civil freedom
__ Persons with HIV+/AIDS
__ Pregnant women
9. Special considerations: (Mark all appropriate)
_X_ No special materials
__ Videotaping
__ Audio taping
__ Use of deception (explain in attachment)
__ Use of alcohol or drugs
__ Other (explain):
113
10. Funding source (other than Loras College):
a. Personl funding
.Please complete the Research Description outlined on the next page.
RESEARCH DESCRIPTION
Please address each of the following points below. If a question or section is not applicable to
your research, please state this.
1. Purpose & Significance of Project.
Briefly describe the purpose of your research.
The purpose of our research is to determine if students believe the use of smartphones accelerate
the development of romantic relationships.
Describe your hypotheses/goals. If you give background on previous research that
supports your goals, please include reference citations at end of this section.
Our hypothesis is, Smartphones accelerates the development of romantic relationships. Our
goal in this research is to better understand how various apps and features on smartphones, such
as Facebook, Snapchat, voice call, texting, and video call, impact the development of romantic
relationships.
Include an explanation of the expected outcome.
We expect the outcome to show that students will believe that smartphones accelerate the
development of romantic relationships.
Indicate why the information obtained might be useful or beneficial.

114
The information obtained will be beneficial because it will help researchers and others who are
interested to better understand what students in the Fall of 2016 at a small, Catholic, Midwestern
school believe about smartphones and romantic relationships.
2. Participants
Recruitment:
How will you recruit the participants?
We will recruit the participants by randomly selecting classes from each grade: first-year,
sophomore, junior and senior. Once a class is selected, we will ask the professor of that class to
grant us permission to give our questionnaire to his or her students.
Where will they be recruited from?
They will be recruited from Loras College.
How will they be selected?
The participants will be selected by using a stratified random sampling method. Every class in
the Fall of 2016 at Loras College is eligible, and classes with freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and
seniors will be randomly selected.
Justification is required if participants will be restricted to one gender, racial, or ethnic
group.
This is not applicable.
Consent:
How will you obtain consent?

115
We will ontain consent by having each participant sign a waiver on the front of the questionnaire
that will be distributed.
If, due to the nature of your research, a formal consent document cannot be used,
justification for this must be given.
Collaboration:
If you will be collaborating with other institutions in order to recruit participants and
conduct the research, please attach approvals that have been or will be obtained (e.g., school
districts, hospitals, other colleges). Preferably these will be letters on the cooperating
institutions letterhead, stating willingness to participate.
3. Methods and Procedure: Describe your research procedure.
What will you ask the participants to do?
We will ask the participants to fill out a questionnaire.
Where will they do this? Alone or in groups?
They will do this alone.
How long will the procedure take? How many sessions?
The procedure will take only one session and about 15 minutes.
116
Give details about any questionnaires or stimuli participants will be exposed to; be
specific in amounts or dosages of any substances participants will be asked to ingest.
(Participants may not consume alcoholic beverages in student research projects.)
Participants will only be exposed to one questionnaire which asks about 20 questions.
Instruments/Materials: Attach copies of all forms, surveys and instruments to be used.
4. Risk & Benefit Analysis
What are the psychological, physical, or social (loss of reputation, deception, privacy,
etc) risks subjects might encounter by participating? (Please do not say none. All activities
involve some risk, although it may be minimal.)
Participants may feel down about themselves if they are not in a romantic relationship, because
the whole questionnaire is about romantic relationships.
What precautions will you take to protect participants or reduce risk?
We will ensure their anonynomity so they know that no one will see their results.
What benefit, if any, will the participants gain from participating in this research? (Please
do not include compensation or course credit as benefit. If none, simply state that.)
They will gain nothing.
What compensation, if any, will participants receive (payment, gifts, course credit, etc.)?
(If none, simply state that.)
They will receive no payment.
What follow-up or debriefing procedures will you have after the research is concluded?
We will have no follow-up.

117
If any deception or withholding of information is required for this research, please
explain why it is necessary and how this will be handled in the debriefing. Attach debriefing
script.
There will be no debriefing.
5. Data Handling
How will the data be kept anonymous or confidential?
The data will be kept anonymous by immediately removing the signed cover letter from the
questionnaire. All cover letters and questionnaires will be kept in separate boxes once complete.
All cover letters will be destroyed.
Where will data be stored and for how long? Who will have access to the data?
Data will be stored in Dr. Mary Carol Harriss office at Loras College. Only Dr. Harris and group
members will have access to the data until the research is done in December.
Include specific details on the use and storage of any audio or video tapes.
We do not have any audio or video tapes.
Do you plan to share the results of this research in a class? If so, how?
Yes, we plan to share the results of this research in class. We will be giving a PowerPoint
presentation to the class on our findings.
Do you plan to share the results of this research outside of your class? If so, how?
We have no plans to share the results of this research outside of your class.
6. If Participants Will Be Minors (Under age 18)
Justify the inclusion of minors.

118
Specify how parental consent will be obtained
Specify how you will obtain assent of minor subjects.
Describe any activities planned for non-participants, if other children in a classroom will
be participating.
Describe how you will use nonverbal signs to indicate when young children wish to stop
participating.
6. Investigator Background (Student researchers only)
What coursework have you had to prepare you for research?
We have had lessons on ethics in research, why social scientists conduct research, how to craft
hypotheses, research questions, and a questionnaire.
What is your previous research-related experience, if any?
None.
How will your faculty sponsor supervise or be involved?
Our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris, will be with us through the whole process. She helped
form the research topic, hypothesis, and research question. She will also help us to interpret our
data from the questionnaires.
7. Consent Forms. Please attach one of the following options related to obtaining consent:
Written Consent Attach copy of all consent & assent forms. See Informed Consent
Checklist on the IRB website
(https://lorasedu.sharepoint.com/Academics/AcademicCommittees/IRB/default.aspx).
119
Oral consent Provide justification for not obtaining written consent and the text of the
script you will use to obtain oral consent.
Waiver of consent Provide written justification for waiving consent process. This is
rare and usually granted only if consent process itself adds substantial risk to the research.
120
Appendix D
121
Dear Student,
As students enrolled in the Communication Research course, we are very interested in assessing
Loras College students perception of technology and relationships. The course in which you are
currently enrolled has been randomly selected from the comprehensive list of Fall 2016 courses
to participate in our study.
Your participation in this study is voluntary; however, your feedback is important. Please print
and sign your name in the spaces provided below. Please do not put your name on the
questionnaire.
We, the researchers, guarantee your anonymity and the results will be confidential regarding all
responses and information shared in this study. Your responses will only be used for the research
being conducted in the Fall 2016 Communication Research course.
Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the front of this classroom. If
you have further questions, please contact our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris at
marycarol.harris@loras.edu.
Thank you for your participation in our study.
Sincerely,
Allison Wong Haley OBrien
______________________ ________________________
Charlie Grant Kevin Connor
________________________ ________________________
Date______________
122
Print your name______________________
Sign your name____________________________

123
Appendix E
124
Dear Professor _______________,
My name is ___________. My COM 485 Communication Research group is conducting a
study on technology and relationships
. Your course, (name of course), which meets on (days of the week) at (time of day), has been
randomly selected to be included in our study.
I would like to come to your class on ________________ and ask your students to complete our
questionnaire. It will take your students approximately 5 -7 minutes to complete the
questionnaire.
I appreciate your consideration of my request.
Please let me know if I may come to your class on __________ or tell me another date which
will work better for you.
Sincerely,
Your name.
125
Appendix F
126
LORAS COLLEGE SCHEDULE - FALL 2016 LAST UPDATED: 11/30/16 21:00
MAX USED WTLST SYN DEPT CAT SEC TITLE CRED

TIME DAY BLDG ROOM INSTRUCTOR(S)
30 29 7259 L.ACC 227 01 Managerial Accounting 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 333 Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

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

08:00-09:20 TTH KEAN 334 Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 333 Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 7265 L.ACC 331 01 Intermed Financial Acct I 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 334 Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
28 26 7266 L.ACC 343 01 Cost Accounting 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH KEAN 333 Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 7928 L.ACC 394 03 Accounting Internship 1-12

ARR ARR ARR Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Signature Required
25 20 7267 L.ACC 455 01 Federal Income Tax I 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH KEAN 305 Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 16 7268 L.ACC 468 01 Adv Financial Accounting 3.0

07:00-07:50 MWF KEAN 305 Schleicher, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

ARR ARR ARR Sturm, K
127
Aug 29 - Dec 15

ARR ARR ARR Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 7 7543 L.ARC 101 01 Transition to College 2.0

09:30-10:20 TTH WAHL 124 Gallagher, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24 22 5989 L.ATR 140 01 First Aid & Emergency Care 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF ROHL 143 McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY FIRST YEAR AND SOPHOMORES
15 12 5991 L.ATR 280 01 Athletic Training Clinical I 1.0

11:00-11:50 M ROHL 127 McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $40.00
20 13 5992 L.ATR 290 01 Eval of Athletic Injuries I 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF GRAB 104 Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 10 5994 L.ATR 380 01 Athletic Training Clinical III 1.0

01:30-02:20pm W GRAB 104 McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $40.00
25 24 7414 L.ATR 481 01 Pathophysiology 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 070 Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 9 7434 L.ATR 489 01 Athletic Train Clinical V 1.0

01:30-02:20pm M ROHL 127 McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $40.00
25 26 7324 L.BAN 210 01 Essentials of Analytics 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 334 Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 7318 L.BAN 210 02 Essentials of Analytics 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH KEAN 334 Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 9 7464 L.BAN 295 01 Topics: Data Analytics Lab 2.0

06:00-09:00pm M KEAN 334 Lehman, D
128
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 8 7317 L.BAN 330 01 Introduction to Data Science 3.0

02:30-03:20pm MWF HENN 270 Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 10 7319 L.BAN 450 01 Marketing Analytics 3.0

06:00-09:00pm T KEAN 305 Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY
20 16 6775 L.BIO 115 01 Principles of Biology I 4.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 242 Schnee, F
Aug 29 - Dec 15
08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 242 Schnee, F / Staff
Aug 29 - Dec 15
11:00-01:50pm TH SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 242 Schnee, F / Staff
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:00-04:50pm TH SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 14 6778 L.BIO 116 01 Principles of Biology II 4.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 128 Shealer, D / Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
08:00-10:50 T SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 9 6779 L.BIO 116 02 Principles of Biology II 4.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 128 Shealer, D / Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:00-04:50pm T SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16 14 6015 L.BIO 225 02 Human Anatomy & Physiology I 4.0

11:00-12:20pm TTH HENN 070 Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
08:00-09:50 T SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16 17 6016 L.BIO 225 03 Human Anatomy & Physiology I 4.0

11:00-12:20pm TTH HENN 070 Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-02:20pm T SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 20 6780 L.BIO 240 01 Plant Biology 4.0

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

10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 134 Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
09:00-10:50 T SCIE 134
NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 20 6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human Genetics-HV 3.0

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

10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 128 Shealer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm M SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm W SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm TH SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
25 14 6784 L.BIO 389 01 Junior Seminar 1.0

03:30-04:20pm M SCIE 208 Schnee, F
Aug 29 - Dec 15
BIO & BIO RESEARCH MAJORS ONLY
16 13 6785 L.BIO 420 01 Vertebrate Physiology 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 128 Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm T SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16 16 6786 L.BIO 420 02 Vertebrate Physiology 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 128 Davis, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm W SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
130
25 15 6787 L.BIO 488 01 Senior Seminar Portfolio-PJ 2.0

02:30-04:20pm F SCIE 208 Sinha, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
28 26 5685 L.BUS 230 01 Prin of Management 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW KEAN 334 Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 011 Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

02:00-03:20pm TTH KEAN 011 Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 31 5687 L.BUS 240 01 Principles of Marketing 3.0

06:00-09:00pm T KEAN 333 Donovan, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 25 5688 L.BUS 240 02 Principles of Marketing 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 303 Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 34 5690 L.BUS 250 01 Business Statistics 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF KEAN 333 Sturm, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Bus-255
25 27 5691 L.BUS 317 01 Business Law I 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 33 5693 L.BUS 335 01 Human Resource Management 3.0

06:00-09:00pm M KEAN 333 Norton, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 25 5694 L.BUS 343 01 Marketing Management 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 009 Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 30 7327 L.BUS 349 01 Consumer Behavior 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF KEAN 334 Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
131
28 26 5697 L.BUS 350 01 Managerial Finance 3.0
08:00-08:50 MWF KEAN 334 Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 011 Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15

10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 305 Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 17 7328 L.BUS 353 01 Financial Institutions 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF KEAN 303 Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 7329 L.BUS 354 01 Personal Financial Planning 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 303 Breitbach, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 11 5700 L.BUS 358 01 LIFE Portfolio Application I 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 305 Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 5702 L.BUS 433 01 Global Leadership 3.0

06:00-09:00pm W KEAN 334 Graham, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 22 5703 L.BUS 447 01 Marketing Research 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 303 Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 19 5704 L.BUS 451 01 Intermed Financial Management 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 333 Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
25 0 5705 L.BUS 458 01 LIFE Portfolio Application II 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 305 Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED
40 29 6106 L.CHE 111 01 General Chemistry I 4.0

10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 208 Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
05:00-07:00pm M SCIE 128
132
12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 208 Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
05:00-07:00pm M SCIE 128

01:30-02:20pm MWF SCIE 208 Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
05:00-07:00pm M SCIE 128
24 20 6173 L.CHE 111L 01 Gen Chemistry I Lab 0.0

08:00-10:50 T SCIE 245 Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-111
COURSE FEE: $20.00

12:30-03:20pm T SCIE 245 Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 245 Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

01:30-04:20pm W SCIE 245 Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 245 Moser, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
15 11 6181 L.CHE 225 01 Quantitative Analysis 4.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF SCIE 109 Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-04:20pm T SCIE 203
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18 16 6856 L.CHE 234 01 Organic Chemistry II 4.0

08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 109 Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
08:00-10:50 T SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18 12 6857 L.CHE 234 02 Organic Chemistry II 4.0

08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 109 Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-03:20pm T SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
133
24 24 6184 L.CHE 262 01 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH 4.0
08:00-08:50 MWF SCIE 252 Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
08:00-09:50 TH SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24 22 7428 L.CHE 262 02 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH 4.0

10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 252 Maslowsky, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-02:20pm TH SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
30 25 6188 L.CHE 335 01 Introductory Biochemistry 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 208 Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-335L
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 18 6938 L.CHE 335L 01 Biochemistry Lab 1.0

08:00-10:50 TH SCIE 125 Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 8 6196 L.CHE 389 01 Junior Seminar 1.0

02:30-03:20pm M SCIE 242 Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 12 6797 L.CHE 489 01 Senior Seminar: Portfolio-PJ 1.0

03:30-04:20pm M SCIE 128 Oostendorp, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors
15 1 6204 L.CHE 491 01 Research 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Permission Required
15 5 6211 L.CHE 491 02 Research 2.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 0 6634 L.CHE 491 03 Research 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 5706 L.CIT 110 01 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH KEAN 303 Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
25 20 5707 L.CIT 110 02 Computing & Info Tech Basics 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH KEAN 303 Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
134
20 20 5709 L.CIT 115 01 Programming & Design Basics 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MTWTHF HENN 360 Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 5710 L.CIT 217 01 Network Management 3.0

06:00-09:00pm T KEAN 303 Burken, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16 14 5712 L.CIT 219 01 Computer Organiz/Architecture 4.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 231 Neebel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 231
20 16 5713 L.CIT 225 01 Data Structures & Algorithms 4.0

08:00-08:50 MTWTHF HENN 250 Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
27 19 7330 L.CIT 321 01 Data Analysis 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 305 Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 11 5714 L.CIT 322 01 Web 1 Basic HTML Authoring 1.0

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

Oct 3 - Nov 4
322*L.CIT-324
25 10 5716 L.CIT 324 01 Web 3 Site Dev & Admin 1.0

Nov 7 - Dec 16
322*L.CIT-323
25 9 7332 L.CIT 325 01 Algorithm Design & Analysis 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF SCIE 125 Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 11 5718 L.CIT 485 01 Systems Engineering 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 350 Thompson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
25 21 6816 L.COM 131 01 Intro Mass Communication 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 112 Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 111 Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
135
11:00-12:20pm TTH HOFF 411 Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 22 5877 L.COM 158 01 Intro TV Production 3.0

12:30-02:20pm TTH HOFF 211 Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
16 16 7413 L.COM 164 01 Digital Imaging 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 435 Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
25 24 5879 L.COM 190 01 Communication Theory 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 411 Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 22 5883 L.COM 201 01 Prin of Public Relations 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 412 Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 20 5884 L.COM 202 01 Public Relations Writing 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 411 Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 30 5885 L.COM 225 01 Media Writing 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 311 Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.COM-131
25 30 7409 L.COM 255 01 Interpersonal Communicatn-IV 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TF HOFF 311 Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business
Ethics-IV
22 20 7435 L.COM 257 01 Electronic Field Production 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 211 Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
20 6 5887 L.COM 259 01 Mock Trials 1.0

03:30-04:20pm WF HOFF 411 Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Oct 14
22 1 7514 L.COM 259 02 Mock Trials 1.0

Oct 24 - Dec 15
16 16 5889 L.COM 264 01 Desktop Publishing 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 435 Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR Majors Only
COURSE FEE: $50.00
136
25 20 5890 L.COM 280 01 News Analysis 3.0
02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 412 Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 7410 L.COM 286 01 Identity/Comm in Rock&Roll-AI 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 136 Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
14 3 5892 L.COM 293 01 Media Studies Practicum Staff 1.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 211 Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
04:00-06:30pm W HOFF 211
COURSE FEE: $25.00
20 20 5895 L.COM 351 01 Adv Public Relations Writing 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 411 Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 5896 L.COM 359 01 Mock Trials 1.0

Aug 29 - Oct 14
22 0 7515 L.COM 359 02 Mock Trials 1.0

Oct 24 - Dec 15
20 15 5898 L.COM 380 01 Persuasion 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 412 Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 5900 L.COM 390 01 Media Criticism 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 411 Kohl, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 8020 L.COM 394 01 Internship 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Sullivan, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF CHAIRPERSON REQ
30 38 5902 L.COM 485 01 Communication Research 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 512 Harris, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR & MEDIA STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
15 0 5903 L.COM 492 01 Journalism Practicum 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTOR REQ
16 14 5904 L.COM 493 01 Media Studies Practicum II 1.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 211 Schaefer, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
137
COURSE FEE: $25.00
25 19 5972 L.CRJ 120 01 Intro to Criminal Justice 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 350 Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 20 5978 L.CRJ 120 02 Intro to Criminal Justice 3.0

06:00-07:20pm TTH HENN 250 Gau, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
35 35 5980 L.CRJ 224 01 Criminal Law 3.0

06:00-09:00pm W HENN 070 Corken, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 20 5987 L.CRJ 252 01 Criminology 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF WAHL 101 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 17 7334 L.CRJ 253 01 Corrections 3.0

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

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 480 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 7506 L.CRJ 280 02 CJ Ethical Considerations-AV 3.0

02:30-03:20pm MWF HENN 350 Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 27 7335 L.CRJ 312 01 Crime Prevention 3.0

06:00-09:00pm M WAHL 101 Corken, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 26 6012 L.CRJ 320 01 Juvenile Delinq & Justice 3.0

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

05:00-08:00pm T HENN 350 Tentis, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 6028 L.CRJ 490 03 Field Experience 3.0

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ONLY
FLD INSTRUCTION COORD PERMISSION

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
138
08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-08:50 T HENN 445 Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 15 6522 L.CTL 100 01 MOI: The Four Marks-FI 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH SMYT 102 Osheim, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
21 21 6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for One-IV 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF KEAN 011 Lorenz, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6651 L.CTL 277 01
Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV
21 21 6651 L.CTL 277 01 Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TTH KEAN 011 Wathier, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for
One-IV
18 15 6652 L.CTL 490 01 Leadership Sem for Soc Justice 2.0

06:00-08:00pm TH SMYT 102 C. Kuhl
Aug 29 - Oct 14
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
139
30 27 5719 L.ECO 221 01 Prin of Microeconomics 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 512 Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 28 5720 L.ECO 221 02 Prin of Microeconomics 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 512 Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 28 5722 L.ECO 222 01 Prin of Macroeconomics 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 340 Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 29 5723 L.ECO 222 02 Prin of Macroeconomics 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF KEAN 333 Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 10 5725 L.ECO 321 01 Intermed Microecon Theory 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 312 Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 16 7337 L.ECO 346 01 Public Finance 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 311 Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 7925 L.ECO 498 01 Directed Readings 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Smith, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 6213 L.EDU 200 01 Foundations of Education 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 143 Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-205
25 25 6215 L.EDU 205 01 Foundations/Special Education 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF WAHL 143 Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 6216 L.EDU 221 01 Learn Envirn & Collaborations 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF WAHL 110 Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 23 7549 L.EDU 221 02 Learn Envirn & Collaborations 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF WAHL 110 Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 25 6217 L.EDU 230 01 Children & Young Adult Lit-AA 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 110 Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS
140
26 25 6218 L.EDU 232 01 C/I in PE/Health/Wellness 1.0
02:30-03:20pm W WAHL 109 Schreiber, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Declared Elementary Ed Majors Only
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-
233*L.EDU-234
26 25 6219 L.EDU 233 01 C/I in Performing Arts 1.0

03:30-04:20pm W WAHL 109 Davis-Orwoll, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
232*L.EDU-234
26 25 6220 L.EDU 234 01 C/I in Visual Arts 1.0

04:30-05:20pm W WAHL 109 Lovell, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
232*L.EDU-233
25 30 6223 L.EDU 265 01 Multicultural Education-AC 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TTH WAHL 143 Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 6 6224 L.EDU 321 01 Infant/Toddlers Curriculum 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 109 Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
19 5 6226 L.EDU 323 01 Preprimary Curriculum 3.0

03:45-06:45pm W WAHL 110 Steines David,T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 1 7552 L.EDU 323 02 Preprimary Curriculum 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Staff
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 5 6225 L.EDU 327 01 Dev Curr & Methods Birth-Age 5 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 109 Croatt, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 16 6227 L.EDU 331 01 Curr/Instr in Lang Arts 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 145 Salyer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 16 6228 L.EDU 332 01 Beginning Reading 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 145 Salyer, D
141
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 15 6229 L.EDU 333 01 Curr/Instr in Math 3.0

03:15-07:15pm M WAHL 109 Nugent, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Meets at Fulton Elementary School
12 12 6231 L.EDU 334 01 Intermediate Clinical K-6 1.0

08:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 124 Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12 2 7532 L.EDU 334 02 Intermediate Clinical K-6 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 3 7580 L.EDU 335 01 Curr/Instr in Soc Studies 3.0

01:00-03:00pm T WAHL 145 Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 14 7444 L.EDU 336 01 Science Curr/Instruct 3.0

12:30-03:20pm TH WAHL 145 Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Dec 14
15 9 6230 L.EDU 337 01 Reading Across the Curriculum 3.0

12:30-01:50pm WF WAHL 145 Salyer, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 7535 L.EDU 339 01 Differentiated Instr 5-12 2.0

ARR Welsh, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 9 6233 L.EDU 340 01 Differentiated Instruction K-6 3.0

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

03:30-06:30pm TH WAHL 145 Winkel, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 16 6234 L.EDU 346 01 Learning/Behavior Strategies I 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF WAHL 110 Shaw, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 8 7339 L.EDU 352 01 Special Sec Methods: English 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH WAHL 124 Welsh, H
142
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 6 7340 L.EDU 353 01 Special Sec Methods: Math 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 180 Keller, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 4 7533 L.EDU 354 01 Special Sec Methods: Science 3.0

04:00-07:00pm W WAHL 124 Monhardt, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 20 6240 L.EDU 357 01 Reading in Sec Schools 3.0

08:00-09:20 WF WAHL 109 Welch, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 7 6241 L.EDU 361 01 Practicum/Instr Read Problem 3.0

03:30-04:50pm TTH WAHL 110 Lansing, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 0 6242 L.EDU 411 01 Student Tch Elem Music 5.0

ARR WAHL 109 Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 0 6243 L.EDU 412 01 Student Tch Sec Music 5.0

ARR WAHL 110 Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 2 6247 L.EDU 424 01 Stud Tch Early Child Sp Ed 0-5 5.0

ARR ARR ARR Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 0 6248 L.EDU 425 01 Student Tch Early Child 0-5 5.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 2 6249 L.EDU 426 01 Student Tch Primary K-3 ECE 5.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-
424*L.EDU-425
COURSE FEE: $100.00
143
30 1 6250 L.EDU 432 01 Student Tch Elem School 10.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
20 1 6251 L.EDU 441 01 Student Tch Inst Strat I K-8 5.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 0 6252 L.EDU 442 01 Student Tch El Ed Inst Strat I 5.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30 2 6255 L.EDU 452 01 Student Tch Secondary School 10.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
40 6 6256 L.EDU 490 01 Capstone Seminar/Portfolio-PJ 2.0

04:00-05:30pm M WAHL 101 Welsh, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 7906 L.EDU 690 03 Institutes in Education 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Keller, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $600.00
18 14 5860 L.EGR 105 01 Intro to Engineering I 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH SCIE 118 Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
09:00-09:50 M SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18 14 5862 L.EGR 105 02 Intro to Engineering I 3.0

08:00-09:20 WF SCIE 118 Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
09:00-09:50 M SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16 11 5867 L.EGR 232 01 Engineering Dynamics 3.0

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

02:30-03:20pm MWF SCIE 231 Neebel, D
144
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 15 7342 L.EGR 350 01 Engineering Laboratory I 1.0

12:30-03:20pm T SCIE 231 Neebel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
1 1 7924 L.EGR 398 01 Empirical Research: Hydrofoil 1-4

ARR ARR ARR Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 6 6553 L.EGR 490 01 Capstone Engineer Design I-PJ 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 118 Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20 21 6557 L.ENG 111 01 Critical Writing-FW 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 411 Stone, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15

11:00-12:20pm TF HOFF 511 Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 511 Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15

11:00-12:20pm TF HOFF 111 Clark, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 14 7343 L.ENG 224 01 African American Literature 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 111 Stone, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 22 6563 L.ENG 232 01 The Novel-AA 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 312 Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 7886 L.ENG 232 02 The Novel-IA 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TF HOFF 512 Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6670 L.HIS 230 01
Community/Identity Am West-IA
15 10 6564 L.ENG 238 01 Poetry Writing 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 347 Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
145
15 18 7426 L.ENG 239 01 Creative Nonfiction Writing-AA 3.0
02:00-03:20pm TTH WAHL 124 Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of Nature/Ireland-CI 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TF HOFF 112 Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7355 L.HIS 245 01 The Celts-
CI
25 15 6565 L.ENG 285 01 Modn Irish Lit & Culture 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 511 Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 8 7344 L.ENG 328 01 Am Lit Mod/Contemp Poetry 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 111 Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 14 7345 L.ENG 351 01 Milton & 17th C Literature 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 112 Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 16 7346 L.ENG 355 01 English Novel 1800-1840 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 111 VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 13 7347 L.ENG 370 01 Fantastic Fiction 3.0

06:30-09:30pm W WAHL 143 Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 10 6571 L.ENG 384 01 Adv Fiction Writing 3.0

06:30-09:30pm M HOFF 347 Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 15 7433 L.ENG 395 01 Topics: Writing Social Action 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 511 Clark, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 12 7503 L.ENG 395 02 Topics: Mod/Cont Brit/Am Drama 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 312 Kanyusik, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 23 6576 L.ENG 468 01 Literary Criticism 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH ARCE 402 Auge, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 12 6578 L.ENG 490 01 Senior Literature Capstone-PJ 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 111 VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
English Literature Major
146
25 12 6580 L.ENG 490D 01 Senior Lit Capstone Defense 0.0

ARR ARR ARR VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-490
15 10 6581 L.ENG 491 01 Senior Thesis Seminar 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF WAHL 124 Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
Creative Writing Majors Only
15 2 6582 L.ENG 491D 01 Senior Thesis Defense-PJ 0.0

ARR ARR ARR Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-491
4 3 7570 L.ENG 498 01 Directed Readings 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 18 7524 L.EXP 100 01 Foundation for College Success 1.0

02:30-03:20pm MW WAHL 101 Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 16 7525 L.EXP 100 02 Foundation for College Success 1.0

02:00-02:50pm TTH WAHL 101 Walsh, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 19 7904 L.EXP 294 01 Internship 1-11

ARR ARR ARR Carroll, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 7923 L.EXP 294 02 Internship 1-11

Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 6 7729 L.EXP 294 03 Internship 1-11

Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 9 7351 L.GRS 101 01 First Yr Ancient Greek I 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 212 Smith, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 7352 L.HIS 117 01 Roman Civilization 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 212 Smith, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 20 6667 L.HIS 121 01 U S History to 1877 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 512 Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 22 7353 L.HIS 141 01 Modern Europe Since 1750 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 511 Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
147
20 26 6670 L.HIS 230 01 Community/Identity Am West-IA 3.0

11:00-12:20pm MTH HOFF 512 Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7886 L.ENG 232 02 The Novel-
IA
25 24 7354 L.HIS 231 01 History of U.S. Sexuality-AV 3.0

02:00-02:50pm MWF HOFF 512 Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 7355 L.HIS 245 01 The Celts-CI 3.0

11:00-12:20pm MTH HOFF 112 Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of
Nature/Ireland-CI
25 21 6671 L.HIS 272 01 Japan in the Modern World-AI 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 312 Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 7356 L.HIS 333 01 Imperial Geographies-AA 3.0

02:00-03:20pm MW HOFF 212 Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 7695 L.HIS 394 01 Internship 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 14 7357 L.HIS 395 01 U.S./China:partners Or Enemies 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 511 Zhu, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 15 7358 L.HIS 395 02 Topics: Israel/Palestine 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 312 Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 9 6712 L.HIS 490 01 Research Seminar 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 512 Anderson-Bricker, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
HISTORY MAJORS ONLY
0 1 8010 L.HIS 498 01 Ethics and Civil Rights - VA 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Lorenz, A / Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1 1 8011 L.HIS 498 02 IS: Contemp Urban Portugal 1-3

ARR ARR ARR Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 17 7415 L.HON 100 01 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 350 Grinde, L / VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
148
ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM
COURSE FEE: $60.00
22 11 7416 L.HON 100 02 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI 3.0

11:00-12:20pm MTH ROHL 143 Garrett, M / VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $60.00
50 25 6550 L.HON 250 01 Honors Research Seminar 1.0

11:00-11:50 M HOFF 411 VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

02:30-03:20pm M HOFF 511 VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

149
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
20 13 7359 L.INS 489 01 Senior Seminar 3.0

04:30-05:50pm MW HOFF 212 Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6 4 5997 L.KIN 050 01 Personal Fitness 1.0

09:00-09:50 MWF ARR ARR Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3 4 7518 L.KIN 050 02 Personal Fitness 1.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF ARR ARR Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 7 7539 L.KIN 070 01 Trap and Skeet Shooting 1.0

02:30-05:30pm M OFC OFC Degenhardt, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Students enrolling in this course will be
required to purchase a
range membership ($80). Transportation to
Izaak Walton Club
shooting range is provided. Rifles are
provided - personal
weapons may not be used and may not be
brought to campus.
25 22 5999 L.KIN 074 01 Team Sports I 1.0

11:00-11:50 TTH GRAB CT1 Tebon, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 25 6000 L.KIN 101 01 Introduction to Kinesiology 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF GRAB 206 Glover, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 6001 L.KIN 101 02 Introduction to Kinesiology 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF ROHL 143 McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 6002 L.KIN 121 01 Personal/Community Health 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF GRAB 206 Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 25 6003 L.KIN 145 01 Nutrition 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF GRAB 206 Glover, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
150
25 27 7360 L.KIN 145 02 Nutrition 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF ROHL 143 Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 6004 L.KIN 235 01 Sports Officiating 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH GRAB 206 Tebon, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY EDUCATION OR KIN MAJORS
15 16 6005 L.KIN 322 01 Physiology of Exercise 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SCIE 019 Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 14 6006 L.KIN 322 02 Physiology of Exercise 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF SCIE 019 Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16 17 6007 L.KIN 344 01 Theory Strength Train & Condit 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH GRAB 206 Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16 8 6008 L.KIN 344 02 Theory Strength Train & Condit 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH GRAB 206 Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 4 6794 L.KIN 392 01 Practm Phys Actvty & Health I 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Mertens, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1 1 7573 L.KIN 398 01 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Glover, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 3 6011 L.KIN 492 01 Internship in Kinesiology I 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 0 6013 L.KIN 493 01 Internship in Kinesiology II 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 22 5727 L.LIB 100 01 MOI: Modes of Inquiry-FI 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF WAHL 101 Scheuerell, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
151
10:00-11:00 MWF KEAN 008 Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 136 Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15

11:00-12:20pm MTH GRAB 206 Newman, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15

01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 350 Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 470 Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:50pm TTH WAHL 109 Welsh, H
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 512 Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15

10:00-10:50 MWF ARCE 402 Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:20pm MWF ARCE 402 Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF ARCE 402 Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
152

01:30-02:20pm MWF KEAN 334 Kerkenbush, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15

10:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 143 Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 270 Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 340 Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 22 6540 L.LIB 105 01 College Writing-FW 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HOFF 112 Pollock, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 111 Witthoeft, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF HOFF 111 Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 111 Witthoeft, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 111 Yazbec, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:50pm TTH ARCE 102 Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
153
02:00-03:20pm TTH ARCE 102 Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 19 5849 L.LIB 110 01 Public Speaking-FS 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF HOFF 427 Goodman, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

11:00-12:20pm TTH HOFF 427 Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:50pm MW HOFF 427 Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 427 Merkel, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 427 Pisarik, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 427 Donald, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

06:00-09:00pm T HOFF 427 Hanson, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 7308 L.LIB 130 01 Witnesses-Hope,Heart,Hum-MC 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW KEAN 303 Joensen, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 7447 L.LIB 130 02 The Displaced Person-MC 3.0

11:00-12:20pm WF KEAN 011 Welch, L
154
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 6833 L.LIB 135 01 Priests,Ministers,Rabbis-MC 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF WAHL 101 Waldmeir, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 6834 L.LIB 135 02 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF KEAN 009 Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 25 7365 L.LIB 135 03 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF KEAN 009 Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 25 5730 L.LIB 220 01 Democ & Global Diversity-MD 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 112 Darr, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22 22 6046 L.LIB 220 02 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 511 Eby, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 070 Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 101 Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15

11:00-12:20pm TTH WAHL 101 Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 7560 L.LIB 236 01 Quest Ethical Development-AV 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 340 Maskay, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 7366 L.LIB 276 01 Law/Tech/Informatnl Privcy-AI 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 7499 L.LIB 305 01 Portfolio-PJ 1.0

ARR ONL ONL Adams, R
Aug 29 - Oct 14
155
ARR ONL ONL Adams, R
Oct 18 - Dec 15

06:00-08:00pm TH SMYT 102 Osheim, A
Oct 24 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
25 25 5871 L.MAT 091 01 Intermediate Algebra 4.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF ARCE 102 Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
25 21 5872 L.MAT 091 02 Intermediate Algebra 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MTWF WAHL 143 Mulligan, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
25 18 5881 L.MAT 113 01 College Algebra-FM 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 270 Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
25 26 5882 L.MAT 113 02 College Algebra-FM 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 270 Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
25 25 5906 L.MAT 115 01 Statistics-FM 4.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF HENN 280 Rissler, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

12:30-01:20pm MTWF WAHL 101 Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 5909 L.MAT 117 01 Pre-Calculus-FM 4.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF HENN 470 Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 12 5912 L.MAT 117 02 Pre-Calculus-FM 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MTWF SCIE 252 Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
156
28 24 5913 L.MAT 150 01 Calc of One Variable I-FM 4.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF HENN 250 Crook, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NO CREDIT IF L.MAT-170 TAKEN
25 22 5916 L.MAT 150 02 Calc of One Variable I-FM 4.0

12:30-01:20pm MTWF HENN 270 Crook, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 14 5931 L.MAT 160 01 Calc of One Variable II 4.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF HENN 270 Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 13 5933 L.MAT 250 01 Linear Algebra 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 250 Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 18 5934 L.MAT 260 01 Analytic Geom/Calc III 4.0

08:00-08:50 MTWF HENN 180 Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 13 7844 L.MAT 260 02 Analytic Geom/Calc III 4.0

07:00-07:50 MTWTH OFC OFC Heidenreich, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
14 3 5936 L.MAT 390 01 Seminar 1.0

12:30-01:20pm F HENN 450 Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MAT-250
14 6 7368 L.MAT 391 03 Guided Research 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 250 Meyer, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 12 7367 L.MAT 450 01 Modern Algebra 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 250 Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 9 6969 L.MBA 510 01 Managerial Effectiveness 3.0

05:30-09:30pm T KEAN 334 Gambrall, D
Sep 13 - Oct 25
MBA Students Only
10 3 7931 L.MBA 511 01 Business Analytics Overview 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Conway, D.
Oct 3 - Dec 16
25 13 7321 L.MBA 515 01 Ethical & Social Resp Bus 3.0

05:30-09:30pm M KEAN 303 Ciapalo, R
Sep 12 - Oct 24
MBA Students Only
157
20 8 6970 L.MBA 520 01 Data Science 3.0
05:30-09:30pm T KEAN 334 Lehman, D
Nov 1 - Dec 13
MBA Students Only
20 13 5732 L.MBA 555 01 Financial Management 3.0

05:30-09:30pm M KEAN 303 Hammermeister, J
Oct 31 - Dec 12
MBA Students Only
25 18 5907 L.MUS 101 01 Music Theory I 3.0

11:00-11:50 MTTHF VISI 115 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 5 5910 L.MUS 110 01 Applied Voice 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00

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

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

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

ARR ARR ARR Kluck, A / Allen, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
20 14 5919 L.MUS 121 01 Applied Piano 1.0

ARR VISI 135 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
20 0 5920 L.MUS 121 02 Applied Piano 2.0

ARR VISI 135 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
20 15 5921 L.MUS 121 03 Applied Piano 1-2

ARR VISI 135 Chapman, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 1 7468 L.MUS 131 01 Applied Violin 1-2

ARR ARR ARR Luke, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
158
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 1 7469 L.MUS 132 01 Applied Viola 1-2

ARR ARR ARR Brenner, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 1 7470 L.MUS 133 01 Applied Cello 1-2

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

ARR ARR ARR Luke, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 9 7472 L.MUS 135 01 Applied Guitar 1-2

ARR ARR ARR McConnell, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 2 7473 L.MUS 141 01 Applied Flute 1-2

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

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

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 2 7476 L.MUS 144 01 Applied Saxophone 1-2

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 0 7477 L.MUS 145 01 Applied Bassoon 1-2

ARR ARR ARR Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5 1 5947 L.MUS 151 01 Applied Trumpet 1.0

ARR VISI 134 Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10 0 7369 L.MUS 151 02 Applied Trumpet 2.0

ARR VISI 134 Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
159
5 1 5948 L.MUS 152 01 Applied French Horn 1.0
ARR VISI 134 Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10 0 7370 L.MUS 152 02 Applied French Horn 2.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5 0 5950 L.MUS 153 01 Applied Trombone 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10 0 7371 L.MUS 153 02 Applied Trombone 2.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5 0 5951 L.MUS 154 01 Applied Baritone 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10 0 7372 L.MUS 154 02 Applied Baritone 2.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5 0 5952 L.MUS 155 01 Applied Tuba 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10 1 7373 L.MUS 155 02 Applied Tuba 2.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
10 1 7478 L.MUS 160 01 Applied Percussion 1-2

ARR ARR ARR Iwasaki, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10 1 7374 L.MUS 176 01 Brass Techniques 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
60 8 5957 L.MUS 181 01 Wind Ensemble 0.0

07:00-08:50pm TTH VISI 236 Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
60 27 5958 L.MUS 181 02 Wind Ensemble 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
160
12 2 7422 L.MUS 182 01 Jazz Ensemble 0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 7 7423 L.MUS 182 02 Jazz Ensemble 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
80 11 5967 L.MUS 183 01 Loras Concert Choir 0.0

03:30-04:50pm TTH VISI 236 Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
80 47 5969 L.MUS 183 02 Loras Concert Choir 1.0

03:30-04:50pm TTH VISI 236 Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 4 5970 L.MUS 184 01 Chamber Singers 0.0

04:30-05:50pm MW VISI 236 Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
20 16 5971 L.MUS 184 02 Chamber Singers 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
30 3 5973 L.MUS 185 01 Bella Voce 0.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 8 5974 L.MUS 185 02 Bella Voce 1.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 0 7479 L.MUS 186 01 Con Brio 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
12 3 5977 L.MUS 203 01 Music Theory III 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF VISI 115 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6 4 7420 L.MUS 295 01 Topics: Class Piano 1.0

09:30-10:20 TTH VISI 136 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 6 7421 L.MUS 295 02 Topics: Intro.Music Therapy 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH VISI 115 Clark, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6 2 7467 L.MUS 295 03 Topics; Class Piano 1.0

02:30-03:20pm MW VISI 136 Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
161
12 5 7424 L.MUS 309 01 Orchestration 2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 9 7425 L.MUS 315 01 History & Lit of Music III 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH VISI 115 Brenner, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 9 7270 L.NEU 281 01 Exploring the Brain Thru TBI 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW SCIE 109 Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 3 7376 L.NEU 390 01 Research Experience 1-3

ARR Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Neuroscience Majors Only
30 22 6741 L.PHI 150 01 Logic 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 109 Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 30 6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business Ethics-IV 3.0

11:00-12:20pm MTH KEAN 333 Ciapalo, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7409 L.COM 255 01
Interpersonal Communicatn-IV
20 20 6742 L.PHI 317 01 Ethics & New Genetics-HV 3.0

06:00-09:00pm T ARCE 402 Idziak, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human
Genetics-HV
30 17 7320 L.PHI 322 01 Modern Philosophy 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH KEAN 009 Joensen, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2 2 7546 L.PHI 498 01 Directed Readings 1-3

ARR Lammer-Heindel, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 19 5941 L.PHY 208 01 Astronomy-AH 4.0

06:00-08:50pm MTH SCIE 242 McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
36 35 7378 L.PHY 210 01 Elements Physics I 4.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF SCIE 128 Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
21 16 7888 L.PHY 210 02 Elements Physics I 4.0

11:25-12:10pm MTWTHF OFC OFC Thompson, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSEO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ONLY
162
18 12 7380 L.PHY 223 01 Physics Scientist/Engineers I 5.0

12:30-01:20pm MTWF SCIE 242 McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 12 7381 L.PHY 290 01 Physics Lab I 0.0

02:30-05:20pm W SCIE 122 Stierman, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

12:30-03:20pm TH SCIE 122 McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

01:30-04:20pm T SCIE 122 Carstens, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00

MTWTHF OFC OFC Stierman, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
1 1 7545 L.PHY 398 01 Empirical Research 1-3

ARR ARR ARR McLaughlin, Ken
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 26 7385 L.POL 101 01 Issues in American Politics 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF ARCE 102 Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 25 7386 L.POL 101 02 Issues in American Politics 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF ARCE 102 Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 7387 L.POL 131 01 Found Western Political Thgt 3.0

02:30-03:20pm MWF HOFF 311 Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 27 7393 L.POL 201 01 Campaigns & Elections 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF HOFF 112 Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 16 7394 L.POL 301 01 Constitutional Law 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 340 Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 7395 L.POL 314 01 Politics in Developing World 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 312 Darr, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 7694 L.POL 394 01 Internship 1-10

ARR ARR ARR Budzisz, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
163
25 28 7271 L.PSY 101 01 Introductory Psychology 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 280 Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

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

12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 350 Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 070 Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 28 7275 L.PSY 121 01 Developmental Psych 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF WAHL 101 Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 250 Homb, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 250 Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 470 Hanson, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24 24 7278 L.PSY 211 01 Res Methods & Statistics I 4.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF HENN 360 Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:30-04:20pm W HENN 360
Psychology/Neuroscience Major/Minor
25 21 7279 L.PSY 221 01 Abnormal Psychology 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW HENN 180 Simcox, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 7280 L.PSY 221 02 Abnormal Psychology 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 250 Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
164
25 20 7281 L.PSY 225 01 Personality-AI 3.0
03:30-04:50pm TTH HENN 070 Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 19 7282 L.PSY 242 01 Industrial-Organiz Psych 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 280 Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 9 7283 L.PSY 265 01 Psychology As A Profession 1.0

12:00-12:50pm M HENN 280 Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 20 7284 L.PSY 278 01 Cross-Cultural Psychology 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 070 Grinde, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16 15 7285 L.PSY 285 01 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 070 Kurczek, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
02:00-03:50pm T SCIE 014
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16 16 7286 L.PSY 285 02 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH 3.0

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

12:30-01:20pm MWF HENN 070 Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 27 7288 L.PSY 332 01 Learning & Cognition 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 070 Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 16 7289 L.PSY 351 02 Adv Research Methods 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Omarzu, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 7290 L.PSY 390 01 Psych Peer Assistantship 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 0 7291 L.PSY 394 01 Internship 1.0

ARR ARR ARR Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 0 7292 L.PSY 394 02 Internship 2.0

165
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 2 7293 L.PSY 394 03 Internship 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 22 7294 L.PSY 490 01 Senior Seminar & Portfolio-PJ 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 280 Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS/MINORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
10 10 7501 L.PSY 527 01 Human Development 3.0

ARR ONL ONL Dunn, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 12 7296 L.PSY 612 01 Prof. Orien & Ethical Practice 3.0

04:00-07:00pm W HENN 250 Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 9 7297 L.PSY 615 01 Assessment 3.0

04:00-06:30pm T HENN 180 Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 7 7905 L.PSY 615 02 Assessment 3.0

09:00-11:30 T HENN 360 Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12 7 7541 L.PSY 625 01 Psychopathology 3.0

ARR ONL ONL Dunn, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 10 7299 L.PSY 633 01 Physiological Psychology 3.0

06:00-08:30pm TH HENN 070 Hopper, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 10 7502 L.PSY 647 01 Helping Relationships 3.0

04:00-06:30pm M WAHL 124 Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Open to Masters in Psych Program
8 2 7300 L.PSY 694 01 Practicum 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Dalsing, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
8 1 7301 L.PSY 696 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship I 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
166
NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
8 0 7302 L.PSY 698 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship II 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
8 0 7303 L.PSY 699 01 Supvsed Clinical Internshp III 3.0

Aug 29 - Dec 15
20 17 6751 L.REL 112 01 Intro Theology & Rel Studies 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF SMYT 102 Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 22 7465 L.REL 250 01 Introduction to Old Testament 3.0

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

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

02:30-03:50pm MW KEAN 009 Kohlhaas, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims in Their Own Land-IA 3.0

11:00-12:20pm MTH ARCE 402 Waldmeir, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia
Lit Latin America-IA
25 12 7400 L.REL 391 01 The Catholic Heritage 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH SMYT 102 Idziak, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 4 7516 L.REL 491 01 Thesis Writing 3.0

02:30-03:30pm F SMYT 102 Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
15 1 7619 L.SCP 690 01 School Counseling 3.0

04:00-06:30pm W HENN 170 Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15 1 7620 L.SCP 694 01 Practicum in School Counseling 3.0

ARR ARR ARR Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
167
25 20 6097 L.SCW 130 01 Intro Social Welfare 3.0
09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 450 Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 21 6098 L.SCW 130 02 Intro Social Welfare 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 470 Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 19 6099 L.SCW 231 01 Human Behav & Soc Environmt 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HENN 480 Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 23 7401 L.SCW 265 01 Culturl Competncy in Pract-AC 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HENN 480 Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 16 6101 L.SCW 347 01 Social Work Practice II 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HENN 480 Bechen, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 22 6102 L.SCW 348 01 Social Work Practice III 3.0

10:00-10:50 MWF HENN 450 Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24 19 7402 L.SCW 350 01 Career Options & Prof Practice 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HENN 450 Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY
0 1 7929 L.SCW 394 01 Internship 1-6

ARR ARR ARR Fett, N
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 29 5733 L.SMG 150 01 Intro Sport Management 3.0

08:00-08:50 MWF ROHL 143 Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Non-Senior Standing Only
25 22 5734 L.SMG 240 01 Sport and Society 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH ROHL 143 Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 20 5735 L.SMG 240 02 Sport and Society 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH ROHL 143 Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0 1 8012 L.SMG 294 01 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt 3-4

ARR ARR ARR Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MINIMUM GPA OF 2.0 REQUIRED
0 1 8013 L.SMG 294 02 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt 3-4

ARR ARR ARR Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
168
25 24 5738 L.SMG 450 01 Sport Finance & Revenue Mgmt 3.0
02:30-03:50pm MW ROHL 143 Marx Scheuerell, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 5739 L.SMG 468 01 Sport Marketing & Promotions 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH ROHL 143 Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 5741 L.SMG 492 01 Lev 3 Field Experience Spt Mgt 12.0

ARR ARR ARR Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
SPORT MGMT MAJORS ONLY
25 26 6759 L.SOC 115 01 Intro to Sociology 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF ARCE 102 Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Has Not Taken L.SOC-101

01:30-02:20pm MWF ARCE 102 Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15

09:00-09:50 MWF HENN 180 Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 28 7403 L.SOC 216 01 Social Problems 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 311 Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30 28 7544 L.SOC 216 02 Social Problems 3.0

12:30-01:50pm TTH HOFF 311 Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 6762 L.SOC 240 01 Gender & Society 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH HOFF 311 Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 24 6765 L.SOC 254 01 Race & Ethnicity-AC 3.0

08:00-09:20 TTH HOFF 311 Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 26 7404 L.SOC 295 01 Topics: Sociology of Sport 3.0

12:30-01:20pm MWF HOFF 312 Anderson, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 8 6766 L.SOC 333 01 Statistical Analysis 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW HOFF 340 Parks, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
169
25 10 7405 L.SOC 336 01 Classical Sociological Theory 3.0
09:30-10:50 TTH HOFF 212 Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10 1 7553 L.SOC 398 01 Emperical Research 1-4

ARR ARR ARR Garoutte, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 10 6584 L.SPA 210 02 Intermediate Spanish I 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF ARCE 402 McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 8 6585 L.SPA 270 01 Adv Communicative Modes 3.0

09:00-09:50 MWF WAHL 143 Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 14 6586 L.SPA 270 02 Adv Communicative Modes 3.0

01:30-02:20pm MWF WAHL 143 Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 13 6587 L.SPA 350 01 El Mundo Hispano 3.0

09:30-10:50 TTH WAHL 143 Livingston, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 19 7407 L.SPA 395 01 Special Topics:redaccion Avanz 3.0

02:30-03:50pm MW ARCE 402 McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18 11 7408 L.SPA 460 01 Topics: Escritoras 3.0

02:00-03:20pm TTH WAHL 143 Jeffries, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25 29 7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia Lit Latin America-IA 3.0

11:00-12:20pm TF ARCE 402 McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims
in Their Own Land-IA
20 12 7507 L.SSE 101 01 Learning Strategies 2.0

10:00-10:50 MW WAHL 145 Wolff, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ENHANCED PROGRAM STUDENTS ONLY
10 2 7889 L.STM 501 01 Curriculum Inquiry in Stem 3.0

ARR ONL ONL Monhardt, R
Aug 29 - Sep 23
10 4 7696 L.STM 502 02 Scientif and Engineering Pract 3.0

ARR ONL ONL Monhardt, R
Oct 3 - Nov 18

Group 2 Final 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 2 Final 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: SMARTPHONES AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS 1

The effect smartphones have on accelerating the development of romantic relationships

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

Limitations of the Study....85

Recommendations for further study..88

development of romantic relationships. So, the researchers developed a research question

asking, Which features of the smartphone accelerate the development of romantic

small, liberal arts college in the Midwest.

relationship. This group of social scientists conducted research by distributing a questionnaire to

to obtain a better understanding of modern communication within romantic relationships, the

development of romantic relationships? The researchers hypothesized: Smartphones accelerate

the development of romantic relationships.

smartphones are at the forefront of technological convergence. Combining features of traditional

implications for personal communication, (Madianou, 2014).

messaging, and applications such as Facebook, Tinder, and Snapchat.

Voice Calls and Text Messaging

2). In this study, students in introductory communication courses at a large, Southwestern

and texts, which is indicative of autonomy issues, (Duran, et al., 2011).

when serious matters need to be discussed.

maintain a constant sense of presence between romantic partners (Pettigrew, 2009) by

all relational communication necessarily has positive effects on romantic relationships.

outcomes in the relationship as a whole, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).

satisfaction of romantic relationships. McEwan and Horn surveyed 340 members of an

undergraduate research class at a comprehensive Midwestern University. They were asked to

an individuals negative disposition towards instant text messaging within a romantic

relationship, (McEwan & Horn, 2016).

influence on the development of romantic relationships. A study conducted by Walther surveyed

information, computer-mediated-communication can be as intimate as face-to-face interaction -

report more frequent communication.

relationships, (p. 45) is a fundamental component of close relationships that shapes

about partners in computer-mediated settings as successfully as they do in face-to-face contexts.

with less avoidant and less anxious individuals.

communication, (Jin & Pea, 2010).

People use applications on a smartphone to communicate and/or connect. These

Facebook is a for profit corporation launched by Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz,

Facebooks mission statement reads as follows:

them, (Facebook-About, 2016).

conversations with family, friends, and complete strangers online.

et al, 2012, p. 5).

stages: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding, (Knapp, 1978).

ranging from 18 to 23 from a small Midwestern university, (Fox, et al, 2012).

relationship development, Facebook official, information seeking, relational problems,

relational development (i.e., initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding),

(Fox, et al, 2012, p. 9).

ANOVA, the appropriate statistic is to use the Kruskal-Wallace test, a nonparametric

statistic that does not require a normal distributionresults indicate significant

differences between the groups in the use FB assurances, FB positivity, and FB

monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 375).

monitoring, (Dainton & Stokes, 2015, p. 355).

relationships between specific online behaviors and jealousy, (2015, p. 378).

socially in many different ways.

relationships. Through computer-mediated communication (CMC), users can exchange a

series of electronic messages and participate in different social activities exclusively

through cyberspace, (James, 2015, p.1).

(Whitty & Carr, 2006).

with a focus on images, (Grigoriadis, 2014).

& Cambre, 2016).

way of shopping for partners, (Baxter, 2013).

Precursors to swiping began in 2003 with Facemash, Facebooks antecedent, which

meet in person shortly after matching or discontinuing rapport all together.

Khalid, 2015, p. 141).

(joke) sexting or sending snaps of legally questionable activities using Snapchat.

safely, learning of a partners communication with unknown others on Snapchat may