Content uploaded by Robert Shuter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Shuter on Sep 03, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
Vol. 39, No. 2, July 2010, pp. 123–147
Emerging Interpersonal Norms
of Text Messaging in India and
the United States
Robert Shuter & Sumana Chattopadhyay
This study examines whether there are emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging—
an etiquette (‘‘textiquette’’) of texting—that guide its use in India and the United States.
One hundred and thirty-seven participants recorded multiple text messages sent and
received in specially designed text logs. Each log secured data on the following
dimensions: (1) the context in which a text was sent and received/read; (2) who each
participant was with—and the reaction of this person(s)—when the participant sent or
received/read a text message; and (3) what constitutes impolite text messaging behavior.
Results reveal emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging in both countries that vary
significantly across cultures on all three dimensions. Implications and limitations are
discussed.
Keywords: Text Messaging / SMS; SMS And Text Messaging In India; Text Messaging In
U.S.; Interpersonal Norms Of Texting
With the emergence of mobile technology, research has increased significantly on
cell phone use with particular emphasis on the penetration of cell phones worldwide,
cell phone plans and frequency of usage, and the development of the infrastructure
of mobile technology and cell phone proliferation (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). Curiously,
few investigations have examined the social function of mobile technology, and most
of these studies explore the cell phone as a medium of talk rather than text messaging
(Grinter & Eldridge, 2001). Clearly, the text function of cell phones, referred to as
‘‘texting’’ in the United States and SMS in Europe and Asia, has become very popular
Robert Shuter is a Professor of Communication Studies at Marquette University and Chair of the International
and Intercultural Communication Division for the National Communication Association. Sumana
Chattopadhyay is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Broadcast and Electronic Communication,
Marquette University. Correspondence to Robert Shuter, 1131 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53201,
USA. Email: robert.shuter@marquette.edu
ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) ß2010 World Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2010.526319
worldwide particularly among youth culture with over one trillion messages sent
in 2005 (Baron & Ling, 2007). Despite the popularity of text messaging, little is
known about how it is used socially in the United States, Africa, and most of Asia,
with no reported research on the interpersonal norms of text messaging in public
places. While there has been research on on-line ‘‘netiquette’’ with respect to internet
use (Shapiro & Anderson, 1985; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992), no systematic research has
been reported on the interpersonal norms that guide text messaging, commonly
referred to as ‘‘etiquette,’’ despite popular accounts of generational misunderstand-
ings as to where, when and how text messaging ought to be used in public and private
settings (Manjoo, 2010). This exploratory study examines whether there are
emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging in India and the United States—a
‘‘textiquette’’ as we call it—that guide its use in public and private settings when text
messengers are conversing face-to-face with others. India and the United States—the
world’s largest democracies—were investigated in this study given the explosion
of text messaging in both countries, their importance on the world stage, and the
paucity of research in this area (Pew Internet, 2010).
Literature Review
From a global perspective, cell phones, and particularly text messaging (SMS), have
been utilized in Europe and Asia much longer than they have in the United States.
The United States has relied more heavily on land lines than most of the world and,
as a result, cell phone penetration was slow in the United States and began to increase
significantly in the early 1990s (Ling, 2004). Only recently has text messaging become
an affordable addition to cell phone plans in the United States. In contrast, landlines
have always played a minor role in Africa and Asia where the infrastructure needed
for land phones has been slow to develop. As a result, cell phones have increased
exponentially in Asia, basically skipping the land line revolution, while Europe
developed cell phone plans early on that were significantly less expensive than
land lines, which dramatically increased cell phone acquisition and use. In 2005, for
example, 95% of European youth between the ages of 12 and 18 had cell phones
while only 45% of American youth of the same age owned cells. Moreover, outside
the United States, SMS is more economical to use than calling which is why
European youth use cell phones primarily for texting while American youth utilize
them largely for calling (Ling & Baron, 2007; Livingstone & Bober, 2004; Pew
Internet, 2005).
Turning to India, more cell phones are sold in India than any country in the world,
with over 15.6 million purchased in March 2009, and more than 400 million cell
phone users in India, about one third of the population (Giridharadas, 2009). Since
cell phones in India often take the place of computers, with over 65 times more
cell phone connections than broad band internet links, Indians use the text
dimension of cell phones for a variety of purposes including wiring money, paying
for groceries, locating jobs, receiving political information, and communicating
with family and friends (Giridharadas, 2009). Indians often use text messaging to
124 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
communicate their opinions during live television broadcasts, and their comments
are displayed on the screen as commentators talk. In the world’s largest democracy,
text messaging via mobile phones serves as a unique medium for developing
interactivity between people, press, and the government (Giridharadas, 2009).
In contrast, text messaging in the United States is used predominantly to
communicate with acquaintances, friends, and family Only recently have broad-
casters and politicians in the United States relied on text to solicit opinions from cell
phone users as demonstrated in the hugely popular TV show American Idol and
the 2008 presidential election when Twitter was employed by Obama and others
to interact with the American public (Salazar, 2008).
Research on text messaging worldwide has focused largely on the linguistic
characteristics of text messages (Carrington, 2005; Ling & Barron, 2007;), factors
influencing consumer adoption of SMS (Kim, Park, & Oh, 2008), advertising and
text messages (Balabanis, Mitchell, & Heinonen-Mavrovouniotis, 2007; Nantel &
Sekhavat, 2008; Zhang & Mao, 2008), text messaging overuse in the developing
world (Perry & Lee, 2007), contextual influences on the use of text messaging versus
calling (Colbert & Livingstone, 2006), text messaging in health care (Bauer, Percevic,
Okon, Meermann, & Kordy, 2003), and cultural, gender, and economic factors
affecting texting versus calling (Boneva & Kraut, 2002; Goggin, 2006; Harper, Palen,
& Taylor, 2005; Herring, 2003; Ito, Okabe, & Matsuda, 2005; Ling, 2005; Rivie
`re &
Licoppe, 2005). Most of the text messaging research has been conducted in Europe
(Goggins, 2006; Hamill & Lasen, 2005; Harper et al., 2005) with few investigations
in the United States and Asia, except for Japan (Ito et al., 2005), and sparse systematic
research reported on Indian text messaging patterns. Donner (2009) found that
texting is commonly used in small Indian businesses because it is inexpensive and is
the only electronic connection these enterprises generally have. Indians also use
text messaging to flirt with the opposite sex which is normally restricted in India,
particularly in the countryside, where more than two thirds of Indians reside. Since
meeting people of the opposite sex in India is often arranged by parents, texting
is now successfully used by Indian males to introduce themselves to women without
the awareness of parents (Giridharadas, 2008).
In the United States, Ling and Baron examined the linguistic characteristics of text
messaging and IM among American college students and found that text messages
had significantly more characters, employed more sentences, and had more distinct
abbreviations than IM transmissions (Ling & Baron, 2007). In another U.S. study
by Baron and Ling (2007), they found that college students were two times as likely
to use their cell phones for calling rather than texting. Moreover, U.S. Americans
were most likely to text people who were situated either less than five miles away or
more than 30 miles, followed by texting those in the same building, but rarely
sending texts to people they could see (Baron & Ling, 2007). What’s missing
from text messaging studies in the United States and India—albeit text research
world wide—is an examination of the interpersonal norms of texting that influence
its use.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 125
Research Questions: Development/Design
Since text messaging is asynchronous activity—senders and receivers need not be
actively engaged with one another when communicating—it can be done while
conversing face-to-face with others. This poses unique challenges in interpersonal
encounters particularly since all interaction—from greetings to closures, both verbal
and nonverbal communication—are guided by interpersonal norms that are
foundational to what is known in the popular culture as etiquette. To avoid
interpersonal collisions, according to Goffman (1971), communicators attempt to
achieve ‘‘coordination of action’’ which he defines as ‘‘... each of two parties has
a conception of how matters ought to be handled between them, the two conceptions
agree, each party believes this agreement exists, and appreciate that this knowledge
about the agreement is possessed by the other’’ (p. 17). Coordination of action occurs
in more conventional forms of communication because the interactants know
and share common interpersonal norms that have developed over time in their
respective cultures. However, when it comes to text messaging, coordination of
action may be more difficult since interpersonal usage norms, ranging from when
and where to use text messaging to who to use it with, have been slow to develop
in large part due to its relative newness as a communication medium.
This study explores interpersonal norms in the United States and India for sending
and receiving text messages when communicating face-to-face, and the possible
effects of these norms on coordination of action within and across cultures and
genders. An exploratory study, it poses research questions to generate data on
interpersonal norms that may be guiding text messaging in the following areas:
(1) where (what context) participants text; (2) who participants are with when
texting; (3) the behavioral reactions from whom subjects were with when texting;
(4) whether participants excuse themselves or take leave before text messaging others;
and (5) what participants considered impolite text messaging behavior. Each of these
areas is deemed essential to understanding and potentially identifying emerging
normative architecture of text messaging. Due to the paucity of extant data on the
research area being probed, hypotheses are not offered.
RQ 1a. Do Indians and U.S. Americans differ significantly in the contexts from
which they send and receive text messages?
RQ 1b. Do men and women, within and across cultures, differ significantly in the
contexts from which they send and receive TM?
RQ 2a. Do Indians and U.S. Americans differ significantly in who they are
communicating with face-to-face when sending and receiving text
messages, and the responses they get from these people?
RQ 2b. Do men and women, within and across cultures, differ significantly in who
they are communicating with face-to-face when sending and receiving text
messages, and the responses they get from these people?
RQ 3a. Do Indians and U.S. Americans differ significantly in the behavioral
reactions they get from those they are communicating with when sending
and receiving a text message?
126 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
RQ 3b. Do men and women, within and across cultures, differ significantly in the
behavioral reactions they receive get form those they are communicating
with when sending and receiving a text message?
RQ 4a. Do Indians and U.S. Americans differ significantly in whether they leave
or say something to those they are communicating with before sending or
reading a received TM?
RQ 4b. Do men and women, within and across cultures, differ significantly
in whether they leave or say something to those they are communicating
with before sending or reading a received TM?
RQ 5a. Do Indians and U.S. Americans differ significantly in what they consider
impolite text messaging behavior when communicating in face-to-face
conversations?
RQ 5b. Do men and women, within and across cultures, differ significantly
in what they consider impolite text messaging behavior when commu-
nicating in face-to-face conversations.
Method
The data were gathered in the United States and India with text messaging logs
designed especially for the study and created so that they could fit easily into
participants’ pockets and carried with them. In order to standardize data collection,
the logs required participants to record the first seven text messages sent and seven
received and read over one or two days depending on the frequency of their TM
behavior. Limiting participants to recording the first seven text messages sent and
seven received also ensured that the data set were not skewed by the text messaging
behavior of any one participant in the sample and, hence, prevented outlier issues.
Participants were instructed to log in their comments in real time or soon after
each text message was sent or received and read. The logs requested the following
information from participants for each text message sent and received: (1) the
context in which the text message was sent or received which consisted of the
following choices: (a) a specific public social setting like a restaurant, shop, or
cinema, (b) outside (i.e. street corner) but not in a specific public setting, (c) work
setting, (d) public transport, (e) semi-private social setting like one’s home or a
friend’s home; (2) who each participant was with when sending or receiving/reading
a text message which consisted of the following choices: (a) significant other like a
family member or boyfriend/girlfriend, (b) insignificant other like a classmate or
roommate, and (c) when alone; (3) the responses of the people that participants were
with when sending or receiving/reading a text message which consisted of the
following choices: (a) positive, (b) neutral, (c) negative; (4) what constitutes impolite
text messaging behavior which consisted of the following choices: (a) when engaged
in a face-to-face conversation, (b) TM while in class, movie theater, or at dinner, (c)
texts with obscene language, (d) loud text alerts.
The log was refined in two pilot tests. In the first test, six subjects—three from the
United States and three from Asia—were asked to record the first five TM messages
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 127
sent and received in one day. After completing their logs, a researcher interviewed
the subjects to locate problem areas in log design, content of the messages, and the
process for recording text messages. Based on their feedback the log was refined
in the following areas: (1) number of text messages recorded was increased to seven
sent and seven received without compromising both ease of use and portability
of log; (2) the log itself was further reduced in size to improve portability; and
(3) an open-ended question was added on impolite text messaging behavior. The log
was administered to a second group of participants composed of 10 subjects, five
U.S. Americans and five Asians. Once again, the subjects were queried by a researcher
and one minor refinement was made to the log with respect to spacing between
log questions to improve responses to questions.
There were 137 total participants in the study consisting of 77 U.S. Americans –
25 males and 52 females—and 60 Indians composed of 39 males and 21 females.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25. In order to participate in the study,
a subject had to own a cell phone and send and receive text messages. The U.S.
participants in the study attended the same university in the Midwest and were
drawn on a volunteer basis from three different communication classes: Introduction
to Communication, Interpersonal Communication, and Communication and Social
Issues of the Internet. The Indian subjects were secured from New Delhi, each
attended a university in this Indian city, were located through various researcher
contacts in India, and all volunteered to participate in the study. IRB approval was
secured for the study and consent forms were signed by all participants.
In order to compare the proportion (percentage) of text messages sent
and received/read across multiple categories, chi-square comparisons are made.
The chi-square test is a widely used nonparametric test of statistical significance
which is performed only if at least 80% of the cells in a frequency table have an
expected frequency of 5 or greater, and no cell has an expected frequency less
than 1.0.
1
Results
As reported in Table 1, analysis of RQ1a reveals significant differences between
Indians and U.S. Americans with respect to the contexts from which they send text
messages (chi-square ¼116.66, df ¼4, p5.0001). U.S. Americans (42%) send text
messages most often from public social settings like restaurants, shops, bars and
theaters while Indians (43%) send texts principally from semiprivate settings like
their apartment or a friend’s apartment. Both Indians and U.S. Americans seldom
send text messages from work (13%: Indians, 15%: U.S. Americans) or while riding
public transport (3%: Indians; 6%: U.S. Americans).
Also, Table 2 indicates, for text messages received/read, Indians and U.S.
Americans differ significantly (chi-square ¼146.43, df ¼4, p5.0001) in the settings
in which they read these messages. Indians read 41% of the texts received in
semiprivate settings like their apartment or a friend’s apartment, and U.S. Americans
128 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Table 1 Context: Location of Respondent when He/She Sent Text.
Comparison across
gender and culture
India U.S.
Culture comparison
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
Outside (street corner) 61 (34%) 12 (22%) 14 (20%) 66 (23%) 73 (31%) 80 (39%) 75 (30%) 78 (22%)
Work setting 23 (13%) 8 (15%) 6 (9%) 49 (17%) 31 (13%) 55 (15%) 29 (12%) 57 (16%)
Public social setting
(restaurant, shop, cinema)
11 (6%) 4 (7%) 25 (36%) 128 (44%) 15 (6%) 153 (42%) 36 (15%) 132 (38%)
Semi-private setting
(own apartment, friend’s
apartment)
77 (43%) 24 (44%) 18 (26%) 35 (12%) 101 (43%) 53 (15%) 95 (38%) 59 (17%)
Public transport 6 (3%) 7 (13%) 7 (10%) 15 (5%) 13 (3%) 22 (6%) 13 (5%) 22 (6%)
Total 178 55 70 293 235 363 248 348
2
[df ¼12] ¼134.11, p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼4] ¼116.66, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼4] ¼59.66, p5.0001 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 129
Table 2 Context: Location of Respondent when He/She Received/Read Text.
Comparison across
gender and culture
India U.S.
Culture comparison
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
Outside (street corner) 65 (36%) 10 (20%) 1 (3%) 45 (19%) 75 (33%) 46 (16%) 66 (30%) 55 (19%)
Work setting 28 (16%) 12 (24%) 6 (16%) 18 (7%) 40 (17%) 24 (9%) 34 (16%) 30 (10%)
Public social setting
(restaurant, shop, cinema)
6 (3%) 5 (10%) 20 (54%) 126 (52%) 11 (5%) 146 (52%) 26 (12%) 131 (45%)
Semi-private setting
(own apartment, friend’s
apartment)
74 (41%) 20 (40%) 7 (19%) 36 (15%) 94 (41%) 43 (15%) 81 (37%) 56 (19%)
Public transport 7 (4%) 3 (6%) 3 (8 %) 18 (7%) 10 (4%) 21 (8 %) 10 (5%) 21 (7%)
Total 180 50 37 243 230 280 217 293
2
[df ¼12] ¼159.45, p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼4] ¼146.43, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼4] 70.17, p5.0001 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
130 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
read 52% of their texts in public social settings—restaurants, shops, bars, and
theaters. Like text messages sent, both Indians and U.S. Americans read text messages
infrequently while at work (Indians: 17%; U.S. Americans: 9%) or while riding public
forms of transportation (Indians: 4%, U.S. Americans: 8%).
In terms of RQ1b, results indicate that both males and females, within and
across cultures, differ significantly (chi-square ¼134.11, df ¼12, p5.0001) in the
context from which they send text messages (Table 1). Indian men (43%) and Indian
women (44%) send text messages predominantly from semi private settings and
infrequently from public social settings (Indian males: 7%; Indian females 6%). In
contrast, U.S. American men (36%) and U.S. American women (44%) send texts
most often from public social settings and less frequently from semi private settings
(U.S. males: 26%; U.S. females 12%). Not surprisingly, chi-square analysis of pair
differences for messages sent reveal that, when it comes to context, Indian men differ
significantly from U.S. American men (chi-square ¼42.64, df ¼4, p5.0001) and
U.S. American women (chi-square ¼105.91, df ¼4, p5.001) while Indian women
differ significantly from U.S. American women (chi-square ¼48, df ¼4, p5.0001)
and U.S. American males (chi-square ¼14.92, df ¼4, p5.005). Despite these
differences, it was found that men and women from both countries send the least
number of texts while at work (Indian men: 13%, U.S. American men: 9%, Indian
women: 15%, U.S. American women: 17%) or when riding public transport
(Indian men: 3%, U.S. American men: 10%, Indian women: 13%, U.S. American
women: 5%). Interestingly, with respect to context, there are no significant
differences between men and women within Indian and U.S. American cultures
when sending text messages.
Trends in text messages received and read are similar to those uncovered
for messages sent (Table 2). That is, males from both countries differ significantly
(chi-square 82.4, df ¼4, p5.0001) with 41% of Indian men and only 19% of U.S.
American men reading texts while in semi private settings, while 54% of the
U.S. American men and only 3% of Indian men reading texts in public social
settings. Similarly, Indian men and U.S. American women differ significantly
(chi-square ¼126.29, df ¼4, p5.0001), with only 10% of Indian men reading texts in
public social settings as compared to 52% of U.S. American women. Indian men
(41%) preferred reading texts in semi private settings as compared to 15% of
U.S. American women. Indian women, who differ significantly from U.S. American
women (chi-square ¼41.32, df ¼4, p5.0001) and U.S. American men
(chi-square ¼23.2, df ¼4, p5.0001), exhibited a pattern similar to that of their
Indian male counterparts with 40% of their texts being received and read in a semi-
private settings and only 10% of their texts read in public social setting, which was
in contrast to U.S. American women and U.S. American men who read most of the
their messages in public social settings.
As reported in Tables 1 and 2, it should also be noted that for both texts sent
and received/read Indian men (sent data: 34%; received data: 36%) are most apt to
use an outside setting (i.e. street corner) followed by Indian women (sent data: 22%;
received data: 20%), U.S. American women (sent data: 23%; received data: 19%,) and
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 131
last U.S. American males (sent data: 20%; received data: 3%). Finally, all four groups
send and receive/read the fewest number of messages while riding public transport.
At work Indian men and U.S. American men had similar percentages when sending
and receiving/reading text messages, while U.S. American women, unlike Indian
females, sent and receive/read the fewest messages from work of all four groups.
In fact, Indian women sent and receive/read the most text messages from work of all
four groups.
With reference to RQ2a, it was found that Indians and U.S. Americans differ
significantly in whom they are communicating with face-to-face when sending
(chi-square ¼108.83, df ¼3, p5.0001) and receiving text messages (chi-square ¼
91.72, df ¼2, p5.0001) (Tables 3 and 4). Indians (43%) send texts while with
their family/significant other (i.e. boyfriend/girlfriend, family member), while the U.S.
Americans (48%) most often send text messages when with friends. However, the
second-most frequent category with whom both Indians (31%) and U.S. Americans
(40%) communicate while texting is insignificant other (i.e. stranger, acquaintance).
For text messages received, Indians (50%) are with their family/significant other
when reading text messages; however, U.S. Americans are most often with their
insignificant others (50%) followed by their friends (41%).
Focusing on RQ2b it was found that men and women, within and across cultures,
differ significantly in who they are with when sending (chi-square ¼215.55, df ¼9,
p5.0001), and receiving/reading text messages (chi-square ¼110.06, df ¼6,
p5.0001). With respect to sending texts (Table 3), Indian men are most often
with their family/significant other (50%) followed by insignificant other (38%) but
rarely send texts when alone (5%), which was significantly different than Indian
women and U.S. American men (p5.001 for chi-square comparisons) as well as U.S.
American women (p5.001 for chi-square comparison). Interestingly, Indian women
(38%) are most frequently alone when they send a text or with their friends (36%).
U.S. American men (54%) and U.S. American women (47%) are most often with
their friends while sending texts and are never alone when transmitting a text
message.
Further, as reported in Table 4, in terms of receiving texts, a similar pattern is
found among men and women within and across cultures as identified in texts sent.
That is, Indian men are significantly different than the other three groups in part
because 55% of them are with family/significant other when they read text messages as
compared to 30% of Indian women (chi-square ¼147.67, df ¼4, p5.0001), 12% of
U.S. American men (chi-square ¼58.33, df ¼4, p5.0001), and only 9% of
U.S. American women (chi-square ¼102.82, df ¼4, p5.0001). In contrast, U.S.
American men (58%) and women (48%) are most often with an insignificant other
when reading a text message which differs from Indian men (37%) and Indian
women (32%) who tend to read fewer messages in the company of insignificant
others. Finally, Indian males (9%) read the fewest text messages when with friends
in stark contrast to Indian women (38%), U.S. American men (30%), and U.S.
American women (43%).
132 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Table 3 Who was the Respondent with at the Time of Sending Text?
Comparison across gender and culture
India U.S.
Culture comparison
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
Significant other
(boyfriend/girlfriend/family)
94 (50%) 10 (19%) 6 (15%) 18 (11%) 104 (43%) 24 (12%) 100 (43%) 28 (13%)
Insignificant other
(roommate, classmate)
72 (38%) 4 (8%) 13 (32%) 68 (42%) 76 (31%) 81 (40%) 85 (37%) 72 (33%)
Friend 14 (7%) 19 (36%) 22 (54%) 76 (47%) 33 (14%) 98 (48%) 36 (16%) 95 (44%)
Alone 9 (5%) 20 (38%) – (0%) – (0%) 29 (12%) 0 (0%) 9 (4%) 20 (9%)
Total 189 53 41 162 242 203 230 215
2
[df ¼9] ¼215.55, p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼3] ¼108.83, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼3] ¼71.9, p5.0001 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 133
Table 4 Who was the Respondent with at the Time of Receiving/Reading Text?
Comparison across
gender and culture
India U.S.
Culture comparison
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
Significant other (boyfriend/girlfriend/family) 96 (55%) 11 (30%) 4 (12%) 17 (9%) 107 (50%) 21 (10%) 100 (55%) 28 (30%)
Insignificant other (roommate, classmate) 64 (37%) 12 (32%) 19 (58%) 87 (48%) 76 (36%) 106 (50%) 83 (37%) 99 (32%)
Friend 15 (9%) 14 (38%) 10 (30%) 77 (43%) 29 (14%) 87 (41%) 25 (9%) 91 (38%)
Total 175 37 33 181 212 214 208 218
2
[df ¼6] ¼110.06, p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼2] ¼91.72, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼2] ¼79.27, p5.0001 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
2
134 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Table 5 How Did the Companion Behave when the Respondent was Sending Text and Receiving/Reading Text.
Comparison across gender
and culture for text sent
India U.S.
Culture comparison for text sent
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison for text sent
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
For text sent
Positive reaction 22 (22%) 7 (19%) 8 (19%) 27 (16%) 29 (22%) 35 (17%) 30 (21%) 34 (17%)
Neutral reaction 60 (61%) 18 (50%) 27 (64%) 136 (80%) 78 (58%) 163 (77%) 87 (62%) 154 (75%)
Negative reaction 16 (16%) 11 (31%) 7 (17%) 6 (4%) 27 (20%) 13 (6%) 23 (16%) 17 (8%)
Total 98 36 42 169 134 211 140 205
For text received/read
Positive reaction 16 (16%) 4 (11%) 4 (13%) 40 (23%) 20 (15%) 44 (22%) 20 (15%) 44 (21%)
Neutral reaction 68 (68%) 19 (54%) 25 (81%) 124 (72%) 87 (64%) 149 (73%) 93 (71%) 143 (69%)
Negative reaction 16 (16%) 12 (34%) 2 (6%) 8 (5%) 28 (21%) 10 (5%) 18 (14%) 20 (10%)
Total 100 35 31 172 135 203 131 207
Text sent:
2
[df ¼6] ¼30.84 p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼2]¼19.21, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼2]¼7.81, p5.05 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
Text received/read:
2
[df ¼6] ¼31.52, p5.0001) (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼2}¼20.98, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼2]¼2.75, n.s. (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 135
Table 5 shows that for RQ3a, while Indians and U.S. American have similar trends
in the behavioral reactions they receive from people they are communicating with
when sending or reading text messages, the percentages are significantly different
across cultures (texts sent: chi-square ¼19.21, df ¼2, p5.0001; texts received/read:
chi-square¼20.98, df ¼2, p5.0001). That is, a neutral reaction is most frequent
when sending a text (Indians: 58%; U.S.: 77%), followed by a positive reaction
(Indians: 22%; U.S.: 17%), and last a negative reaction (Indians: 20%, U.S: 6%).
In terms of reading a text message, behavioral reactions from others mirrored some
of the same trends as texts sent, however, the percentages for each cultural group
are different: (1) neutral reaction (Indians, 64%; U.S: Americans, 73%); (2) positive
reaction (Indians, 15%; U.S: Americans 22%); and (3) negative reaction (Indians,
21%; U.S: Americans, 5%).
RQ3b also revealed that males and females, within and across cultures, differ
significantly in the behavioral reactions they receive from those they are conversing
with when sending (chi-square ¼30.84, df ¼6, p5.0001) or reading a text
message (chi-square ¼31.52, df ¼6, p5.0001) (Table 5). With respect to sending a
text, men and women, within and across cultures, have similar trends; that is, neutral
reactions are the most frequent for Indian men (61%), Indian women (50%), U.S.
American men (64%), and U.S. American women (80%). Positive reactions are the
second most frequent for U.S. American men (19%), U.S. American women (16%),
and Indian men (22%). In contrast, for Indian women the second most frequent
reaction from others is negative at 31% which is substantially higher than all groups
receive for that type of reaction. In fact, only 4% of U.S. American women report
getting a negative response from those with whom they are communicating which
is the lowest percentage of any other group in this category and may be linked to
significant differences identified between U.S. American women and Indian women
(two-tailed Fisher’s p5.0001), U.S. American women and Indian men (two-tailed
Fisher’s p5.001) and U.S. American women and U.S. American men (two-tailed
Fisher’s p5.001).
For text messages received and read by the participants, the pattern of reactions is
much the same as messages sent: Indian and U.S. American men and women tend
to get a neutral reaction from those with whom they are conversing (Indian male:
68%, Indian female: 54 %; U.S. American male: 81 %, U.S. American female: 72%)
Positive reaction is the second most frequent for U.S. American men (13%) and
U.S. American women (23%) while Indian men have the same percentage (16%) for
both positive and negative responses. However, for Indian women negative reaction
is the second most common response they received (34%), which is more than triple
the frequency of their positive reactions (11%), and the largest percentage of negative
reactions of any group in the study. Interestingly, U.S. American women, unlike
their Indian female counterparts, receive the fewest negative reactions of any group
(U.S. women: 5%; Indian women: 34%), which may be linked to their significant
differences from Indian women (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.0001) and Indian men (two-
tailed Fisher’s p5.01).
136 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
When culture is collapsed (Table 5), there are significant difference between men
and women for sending (chi-square ¼7.81, df ¼2, p5.05) but not for reading
received text messages. However, the overall behavioral trends are the same for both
genders in sending and reading texts: neutral reactions are reported most frequently
(text sent—male 62%, female 75%; text read—male 71%, female, 69%), followed by
positive reactions (text sent—male 21%, female 17%; text read—male, 15%, female,
21%), and last negative responses (text sent—male, 16%, female, 8%; text read—
male 14%, female, 10%).
As indicated in Tables 6 and 7, analyses for RQ4a reveals that Indians and U.S.
Americans differ significantly in taking leave and/ or saying something to those they
are communicating with before sending or reading a received text message. In terms
of leave taking, although chi-square barely missed significance (p5.0506), Fisher’s is
significant (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.05) with Indians (9%) taking leave significantly
more than U.S. Americans (3%) before reading a received text message. In contrast,
U.S. Americans (27%) are significantly (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.01) more apt than
Indians (15%) to say something to a companion before reading a received text
message. There are no significant differences between Indians and U.S. Americans in
leave taking or saying something to a companion before sending a text message. Both
Indians and U.S. Americans infrequently left a companion or said something to the
person before sending or reading a text message; however, the cultural groups are
more apt to say something to a companion than take leave.
Turning to RQ4b (Tables 6 and 7), males and females, within and across cultures,
differ significantly in taking leave and/or saying something to those they are
communicating with before reading a received text message. While chi-square
analysis reveal significant (p5.05) differences between males and females within and
across Indian and U.S. cultures, Fisher’s helped find the following paired significant
differences: Indian males (8%) tend to take leave significantly (two-tailed Fisher’s
p5.05) more than U.S. females (2%) before reading a received text message. Further,
Indian females (12%) take leave significantly (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.05) more than
U.S. females (2%) before reading a received a text message. In contrast, no significant
differences in leaving taking are identified between males and females, within and
across U.S. and Indian cultures, when sending a text message. Additionally, when
collapsing gender and culture, there are no significant differences in leave taking
between males and females when sending or receiving a text message. It should
be noted that Indian and U.S. Americans, regardless of gender, mostly tend not to
take leave from a companion before sending a text message or reading a received
message.
Although chi-square reveals that males and females, within and across cultures do
not differ significantly in saying something to a companion before sending or reading
a received text message (Tables 6 and 7), binary group comparisons through Fisher’s
exact test identifies the following paired significant differences: U.S. females (28%)
tend to say something to a companion more than Indian males (16%) before reading
a received text message (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.05). After collapsing culture and
gender, no significant differences are found between males and females in whether
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 137
Table 6 Did Respondent Leave Companion when He/She Sent and Received/Read Text.
Comparison across gender and
culture for text sent
India U.S.
Culture comparison for text sent
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison for text sent
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
For text sent
Yes 10 (9%) 1 (3%) 5 (12%) 8 (5%) 11 (8%) 13 (6%) 15 (10%) 9(4%)
No 100 (91%) 35 (97%) 37 (88%) 164 (95%) 135 (92%) 201 (94%) 137 (90%) 199 (96%)
Total 110 36 42 172 146 214 152 208
For text received/read
Yes 9 (8%) 4 (12%) 3 (9%) 4 (2%) 13 (9%) 7 (3%) 12 (8%) 8(4%)
No 104 (92%) 29 (88%) 29 (91%) 169 (98%) 133 (91%) 198 (97%) 133 (92%) 198 (96%)
Total 113 33 32 173 146 205 145 206
For text sent:
2
[df ¼3] ¼4.89, n.s. (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼1] ¼.11, n.s. (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼1] ¼3.49, p¼.061741, n.s.; p¼.05258369038988106, approaching significance but n.s. (two-tailed Fisher’s exact probability test) (gender comparison—collapsing
culture).
For text received/read:
2
[df ¼3] ¼8.11, p5.05 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼1] ¼3.82, p5.0506, barely misses significance; p5.05 (Fisher’s two-tailed exact probability test) (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼1] ¼2.29, n.s. (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
138 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Table 7 Did Respondent Say Anything to Companion when He/She Sent Text and Received/Read Text.
Comparison across gender and
culture for text sent
India U.S.
Culture comparison for text sent
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison for text sent
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
For text sent
Yes 29 (26%) 12 (32%) 17 (41%) 58 (34%) 41 (28%) 75 (35%) 46 (30%) 70 (33%)
No 81 (74%) 25 (68%) 24 (59%) 114 (66%) 106 (72%) 138 (65%) 105 (70%) 139 (67%)
Total 110 37 41 172 147 213 151 209
For text received/read
Yes 17 (16%) 4 (13%) 7 (22%) 49 (28%) 21 (15%) 56 (27%) 24 (17%) 53 (26%)
No 92 (84%) 26 (87%) 25 (78%) 125 (72%) 118 (85%) 150 (73%) 117 (83%) 151 (74%)
Total 109 30 32 174 139 206 141 204
For text sent:
2
[df ¼6] ¼3.51, n.s. (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼1] ¼1.81, n.s. (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼1] ¼.24, n.s. (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
For text received/read:
2
[df ¼3] ¼7.67, n.s. (barely misses significance at p¼.0533) (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼1] ¼6.3, p5.05 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼2] ¼3.36, n.s.; p¼0.06512686304712319 (for Fisher’s two-tailed exact probability test; one-tailed Fisher’s is significant at p5.05) (gender comparison—collapsing
culture).
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 139
they say anything or leave their companion while sending a text message. However,
there are significant differences in cultural comparisons when respondents say
something (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.01) as they read texts received, and when
respondents leave their companions (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.05) to read texts
received.
In terms of RQ5a, Indian and U.S. Americans differ significantly (chi-square ¼
10.56, df ¼2, p5.01) in what they consider impolite text messaging behavior
(Table 8). Chi square analysis reveal that, overall, U.S. Americans identify
significantly more examples of impolite text messaging behavior than Indians.
Moreover, U.S. Americans are significantly more inclined to identify the following
behaviors as examples of impolite text messaging behavior: (1) text messaging while
conversing with someone (U.S. 31%, India 4%); and (2) text messaging in a
classroom, at dinner, movie theater, and loud text messaging alerts (U.S. 65%, India
44%). In contrast, Indians (51%) identify swearing in text messages as impolite
significantly more than U.S. Americans (4%).
With respect to RQ5b, it was found that males and females, within and across
cultures, differ significantly in what they consider impolite text messaging
behavior when communicating in face-to-face conversations (Table 8). Chi square
reveal that males and females, regardless of culture, differ significantly (chi-
square ¼11.77, df ¼2, p5.005), with females (72%), overall, citing more examples
than males (46%) of impolite text behavior particularly when in a classroom, at
dinner, movie theater, and loud text messaging alerts. Texting while conversing with
someone is cited as impolite almost equally by males (27%) and females (22%).
In contrast, males (27%) identify swearing in a text message as impolite more than
did females (5%).
In terms of two way comparisons, U.S. males and U.S. females differ significantly
(two-tailed Fisher’s p5.01) in what they consider impolite behavior, with U.S.
females identifying more examples of impolite behavior particularly in a classroom,
at dinner, in a movie theater, and loud text messaging alerts (U.S. males: 43%,
U.S. females: 76%). However, U.S. males cite swearing (7%) and texting while
conversing (50%) as impolite more often than do U.S. females (swearing: 2%; texting
while conversing: 22 %). Interestingly, while differences between Indian males and
Indian females barely miss statistical significance (two-tailed Fisher’s p¼.0536),
Indian males cite more examples of impolite text messaging behavior than do Indian
females particularly texting in a classroom, at dinner, in a movie theater, and loud
text messaging alerts (Indian males: 50%, Indian females: 0%). For swearing though,
in terms of percentages Indian women consider swearing as impolite more often than
Indian men (Indian males: 50%, Indian females: 67%).
Two way comparisons across cultures reveal that U.S. males and Indian males
differ significantly (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.0005) in what they consider impolite
behavior: Indian males (50%) cited swearing in a text message more than do
U.S. males (7%). However, U.S. males (50%) identify text messaging during a
conversation as impolite more than do Indian males (0%). Both were almost equally
disturbed by text messaging in the classroom, at dinner, in a movie theater, and loud
140 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Table 8 Instances of Impolite Behavior in Texting.
Comparison across gender and
culture for text sent
India U.S.
Culture comparison for text sent
(collapsing gender)
Gender comparison for text sent
(collapsing culture)
Male Female Male Female India U.S. Male Female
Swearing 12 (50%) 2 (67%) 2 (7%) 1 (2%) 14 (51%) 3 (41%) 14 (27%) 3 (5%)
Middle of conversation 0 (0%) 1 (33%) 14 (50%) 12 (22%) 1 (4%) 26 (31%) 14 (27%) 13 (22%)
Other (class-room, cinema, text alerts) 12 (50%) 0 (0%) 12 (43%) 42 (76%) 12 (44%) 54 (65%) 24 (46%) 42 (72%)
Total 24 3 28 55 27 83 52 58
2
[df ¼6] ¼51.06, p5.0001 (comparison across gender and culture).
2
[df ¼2] ¼38.45, p5.0001 (culture comparison—collapsing gender).
2
[df ¼2] ¼11.77, p5.005 (gender comparison—collapsing culture).
As reported earlier in the Methods section, the percentages reported in all tables represent the proportion (percentage) of the total number of text messages sent for all
participants, and the proportion (percentage) of the total number of text messages received and read for all participants.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 141
text messaging alerts. Although Indian females and U.S. females differ significantly
(two-tailed Fisher’s p5.01) in their perceptions of impolite text messaging
behavior, these differences result from U.S. women providing far more examples
of impolite behavior than Indian women. U.S. women, unlike Indian women,
identify as impolite text messaging while conversing with someone as well as texting
in a classroom, at dinner, in a movie theater, and loud text messaging alerts. In fact,
U.S. females identify almost twice the number of impolite text messaging behaviors
as U.S. males who are second highest, followed by Indian males, and last Indian
females, the least likely to report impolite behavior. As a result, Indian females
also differ significantly (two-tailed Fisher’s p5.05) from U.S. males, who consider
texting while conversing impolite in addition to texting in a classroom, at dinner,
in a movie theater, and loud text messaging alerts—almost all of which are not
identified by Indian females. Finally, U.S. females are more inclined than Indian
males to identify as impolite texting during a conversation (U.S. females: 22%; Indian
males: 0%) or in a classroom, at dinner, in a movie theater, and loud text messaging
alerts (U.S. females: 76%; Indian males: 50%); however, Indian males (50%) find
swearing to be more impolite than do U.S. females (2%).
Discussion
The results strongly suggest that two culturally different textiquettes—the
architecture of interpersonal norms guiding text messaging—appear to be developing
in India and the United States. For example, in terms of the context in which texts are
sent and received/read, U.S. Americans and Indians seem to have different cultural
perspectives: U.S. Americans—both males and females—are significantly more apt
than Indian men and women to send and read received messages in public social
settings like restaurants, shops, and movie theaters. In contrast, Indian men and
women prefer to send and receive/read texts in semi private settings like their
apartment or a friend’s apartment. These contextual differences may be linked to
how Indians and U.S. Americans use public space, with Indians, for example,
preferring more private setting for texting because public contexts are too densely
crowded to confidentially transmit or read messages. Bhatia (2001), architect and
writer from Delhi, argues that India, unlike Western societies, does not view public
space as belonging to anyone since urban Indians can live and sleep anywhere
‘‘...reclaiming as their own all that is in the public realm.’’ In contrast, U.S.
Americans—even in the largest U.S. cities—readily maintain privacy in public
settings and are beckoned by restaurants, coffee shops, and book stores, for instance,
to communicate electronically from public settings.
Textiquette differences between Indians and U.S. Americans is also reflected in
who they are with when sending and reading a received text message. That is, Indians
tend to send and receive/read texts when they are with family members or boyfriend/
girlfriend, which is consistent with their contextual preferences, namely, texting
in their home or a friend’s home. In contrast, since U.S. Americans prefer
142 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
texting and reading texts in public social settings, it is not surprisingly that they
tend to send and read received texts when they are with insignificant others
(i.e. strangers/acquaintances) or friends, but much less so with family members
or boyfriend/girlfriend. In fact, U.S. males and females tend to read texts received
most often in the company of insignificant others while Indian men and women are
infrequently with insignificant others when reading texts.
Additionally, U.S. Americans and Indians tend to have different and conflicting
views of what constitutes impolite texting behavior. U.S. Americans report
significantly more types of impolite texting behavior than do Indians and, in
particular, find impolite—more than Indians—texting in a classroom, movie theater,
at dinner, loud text alerts, and while conversing with others. Indians, however, report
swearing in texts as impolite more than do Americans who infrequently indicate that
this is impolite behavior. In fact, U.S. American females report the most examples
of impolite texting behavior, followed by U.S. Americans males, then Indian males,
and last Indian females. Interestingly, U.S. American females report more than
double the frequency of impolite text behaviors than U.S. males, and they identify
significantly more impolite behaviors than Indian females, who report swearing
as impolite but rarely mention texting when conversing with others or texting in a
classroom, movie theatre, at dinner, or loud texting alerts.
In practical terms, cultural variations in United States and Indian textiquettes may
produce more difficulty coordinating texting behavior when U.S. Americans and
Indians text in one another’s presence. Not only do U.S. Americans and Indians have
culturally unique views of impolite texting behavior, they also differ significantly in
the contexts in which they send and read text messages, and who they are with when
transmitting or reading a text message. For example, Indians may text in settings that
U.S. Americans find inappropriate, like movie theaters, and may not be conscious of
the volume of texting alerts, which could also be considered impolite. Also, U.S.
females, who appear to be the most sensitive to texting behavior, may be particularly
annoyed by text messaging of Indian men and women.
The preceding cultural differences in textiquettes suggest that the social use and
functions of this type of new media may be guided by socio-cultural forces deeply
imbedded in a society. A more provocative illustration of this is the text messaging
behavior of Indian women, who tend to send and read received text messages most
often when they are alone or with friends which is significantly different than Indian
males who are most often with family/significant others, infrequently with friends,
and rarely alone. In fact, U.S. American women and men send and receive/read texts
least often when they are alone. Indian women may prefer to be alone or with friends
in part because they report receiving the most negative reactions from those they are
with when sending or receiving/reading a text message than do Indian males, U.S.
American men, and U.S. American women, who report receiving the fewest negative
reactions in the send and receive modes. With changing gender roles in India, Indian
women are subject to varying types of male taunting and harassment in public
settings, referred to as eve teasing in India, that some have argued are a result of the
complex cultural tensions between traditional expectations of Indian women as
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 143
inextricably bound to family and more contemporary female aspirations to be
independent and career focused (Sanyal, Chatterjee, & Chatterjee, 2007; Maslak &
Singhal, 2008; Yardley, 2009). The changing socio-cultural dynamics in India
regarding gender may be affecting text messaging behavior among Indian women and
the development of interpersonal norms guiding texting within the society.
From an intracultural perspective, it appears from the results that text messaging
in India and the United States is developing culture-specific norms that guide its use
when conversing with others, and these norms appear to be growing in cultural
acceptance in their respective societies. Although many of these norms differ cross-
culturally as discussed, there are some similarities in the textiquettes of both societies
worth noting.
For example, cultural acceptance of texting in India and the United States appears
to be reflected in the reluctance of Indians and U.S. Americans of both genders to
take leave or say something to those they are with before sending or reading a text
message. Leave taking is particularly rare in India and United States, and while saying
something to one’s conversational partner is more common in both cultures; it, too,
is infrequent. Clearly, both Indians and U.S. Americans are comfortable sending or
reading texts in the presence of others without providing polite excuses. Moreover,
all groups, save Indian women, report that neutral and positive reactions are most
frequently received from others when sending or reading a text message, which also
suggests cultural acceptance of text messaging in each society.
The study strongly suggests that text messaging and culture appear to be
inextricably linked particularly with respect to the development and maintenance
of interpersonal norms that guide its use in public and private settings. In fact,
when gender is examined independent of culture, men and women reveal very few
significant differences in text messaging behavior apart from women reporting that
texting in a classroom, movie theater, or at dinner is more impolite than do males,
and men indicating that swearing is more impolite than do women. Hence,
understanding the social functions and uses of text messaging appear to require an
exploration and awareness of the culture in which it is utilized—an approach that,
while missing from the literature, could yield important insights into the socio-
cultural dimensions of text messaging within and across cultures.
Limitations
The study has several limitations. First, a convenience sample is used of university
undergraduate students in India and the United States. This age group is a heavy
user of text messaging—with over 90% sending and receiving texts—and they’re
savvy at utilizing advanced texting applications (Im, Bayus, & Mason, 2003).
It is reasonable, then, to assume that an investigation of this population will
provide insight into emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging. However, it is
important for a future study to examine older and less educated subjects to
144 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
determine whether interpersonal norms for text messaging vary by generation and
education.
Second, although the samples drawn from India and the United States are
relatively small, each participant recorded on average 14 text messages sent and
received, which provides rich and detailed data about the population. The small
sample size is a result of the challenge inherent in motivating participants to
complete text messaging logs. Each log requires a significant time commitment
in terms of recording in detail a minimum of 14 text messages sent and received.
To increase sample size, it may be necessary to provide an incentive—either
monetary or otherwise—to future participants to complete TM logs. Furthermore,
an incentive may motivate participants to log more than 14 total messages which
would enhance data collection and possibly provide more insight into text messaging
behavior.
Finally, this study is exploratory in nature and, as a result, focuses on ten research
questions which aim at identifying emerging interpersonal norms of text messaging.
The broad focus of this study provides the foundation for a more detailed and
targeted investigation that offers hypotheses on a limited array of normative factors
that may affect text messaging in public and private settings.
Notes
[1] In order to identify specific paired differences between and across cultures, a combination
of chi-squares and the Fisher’s exact probability test was used. The Fisher’s exact probability
test was particularly relied upon in paired comparisons involving small sample sizes because
the Fisher’s exact test is considered a robust technique for analyzing frequency data when
two independent samples are small in size.
[2] Unlike the text sent data reported in Table 3, none of the study participants reported being
‘‘Alone’’ while reading the text messages they received. So this was not included as a category
in Table 4.
References
Balabanis, G., Mitchell, V., & Heinonen-Mavrovouniotis, S. (2007). SMS-based surveys: Strategies
to improve participation. International Journal of Advertising,26(3), 369–385.
Baron, N. S., & Ling, R. (2007). Emerging patterns of American mobile phone use: Electronically-
mediated communication in transition. In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth (Eds.), Mobile Media 2007:
Proceedings of an international conference on social and cultural aspects of mobile phones,
convergent media and wireless technologies (pp. 218–230). Sydney: University of Sydney.
Bauer, S., Percevic, R., Okon, E., Meermann, R., & Kordy, H. (2003). Use of text messaging in the
aftercare of patients with bulimia nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review,11(3), 279–290.
Bhatia, G. (2001). Building an ugly India. Culturescape (Magazine), May, 6–29.
Boneva, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). Email, gender, and personal relationships. In B. Wellman &
C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 372–403). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Carrington, V. (2005). Txting: The end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education,
35(2), 161–175.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 145
Colbert, M., & Livingstone, D. (2006). Important context changes for talking and text messaging
during homeward commutes. Behaviour & Information Technology,25(5), 433–441.
Donner, J. (2009). Mobile media on low-cost handsets: The resiliency of text messaging among
small enterprises in India (and beyond). In G. Goggin & L. Hjorth (Eds.), Mobile technologies:
From telecommunications to media (pp. 93–104). New York, NY: Routledge.
Giridharadas, A. (2008, March 31). Flirting by text message, Indians test social limits. New York
Times, p. A1.
Giridharadas, A. (2009, May 8). In cellphone, India reveals an essence. New York Times.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goggin, G. (2006). Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grinter, R. E., & Eldridge, M. A. (2001). Y do tngrs luv txt msg? In W. Prinz, M. Jarke, Y. Rogers,
K. Schmidt, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th European conference on computer-supported
cooperative work (pp. 219–238). Dodrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hamill, L., & Lasen, A. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile world: Past, present, and future. London: Springer.
Harper, R., Palen, L., & Taylor, A. (Eds.). (2005). The inside text: Social, cultural and design
perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Herring, S. (2003). Gender and power in on-line communication. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff
(Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp. 202–228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Im, S., Bayus, B. I., & Mason, C. H. (2003). A empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness,
personal characteristics, and new product adoption behavior. Academy of Marketing Science,
31(1), 61–73.
Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Matsuda, M. (Eds.). (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones
in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public
performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, G. S., Park, S., & Oh, J. (2008). An examination of factors influencing consumer adoption
of short message service (SMS). Psychology & Marketing,25(8), 769–786.
Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA:
Morgan Kaufmann.
Ling, R. (2005). The socio-linguistics of SMS: An analysis of SMS use by a random sample
of Norwegians. In R. Ling & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-negotiation of the
social sphere (pp. 335–349). London: Springer.
Ling, R., & Baron, N. S. (2007). Text messaging and IM linguistic comparison of American college
data. Journal of Language & Social Psychology,26(3), 291–298.
Livingstone, S., & Bober, M. (2004). UK children go online: Surveying the experiences of young people
and their parents. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000395
Manjoo, F. (2010, March 9). Can you text me now? Slate. Retrieved July 27, 2010, from http://
www.slate.com/id/2247375
Maslak, M., & Singhal, G. (2008). The identity of educated women in India: Confluence or
divergence? Gender and Education,20(5), 481–493.
Nantel, J., & Sekhavat, Y. (2008). The impact of SMS advertising on members of a virtual
community. Journal of Advertising Research,48(3), 363–374.
Perry, S. D., & Lee, K. C. (2007). Mobile phone text messaging overuse among developing world
university students. Communication: South African Journal for Communication Theory &
Research,33(2), 63–79.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2005, July 27). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the
transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://
www.pewinternet.org//media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf.pdf
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010, July 7). Mobile access 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2010,
from http://www.pewinternet.org//media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Mobile_Access_2010.pdf
146 R. Shuter & S. Chattopadhyay
Rivie
`re, C., & Licoppe, C. (2005). From Voice to text: Continuity and change in the use of mobile
phones in France and Japan. In R. Harper, L. Palen, & A. Taylor (Eds.), The inside text
(pp. 103–126). Dordrecht: Springer.
Salazar, G. E. (2008, November 3). The 2008 presidential race: A baseline for the future of wireless
campaigns. RCR Wireless News. Retrieved July 27, 2010, from http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/
lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLin kInd¼true&risb¼21_T9822243918&format¼
GNBFI&sort¼RELEVANCE&startDocNo¼1&resultsUrlKey¼29_T9822243921&cisb¼22_T982
2243920&treeMax¼tr ue&treeWidth¼0&csi¼149186&docNo¼1
Sanyal, N., Chatterjee, U., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). Psychosocial personality correlates of mothers
at home and at work place. In R. Pandya (Ed.), Women in India: Issues,perspectives and
solutions (pp. 86–100). New Delhi: New Century Publications.
Shapiro, N. Z., & Anderson, R. H. (1985). Toward an ethics and etiquette for electronic mail. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yardley, J. (2009, September 16). On India’s railways, women find new peace in the commute.
New York Times.
Zhang, J., & Mao, E. (2008). Understanding the acceptance of mobile SMS advertising among
young Chinese consumers. Psychology & Marketing,25(8), 787–805.
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 147
Copyright of Journal of Intercultural Communication Research is the property of World Communication
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
