Adopt, adapt, abandon: Understanding why some young adults start, and then stop, using instant messaging

Instant messaging (IM) has become a popular and important mode of staying in touch for teens and young adults. It allows for easy, frequent and lightweight interaction that contributes to building and sustaining friendships, as well as coordinating social activities. Despite the initial appeal of IM, however, some have found it too distracting and have changed their usage or abandoned it. I interviewed 21 former users of IM about their adoption, usage and eventual abandonment of the technology. Results show that participants were initially attracted to features of IM that enabled them to maximize their use of leisure time via easy and frequent interaction with their friends, but that, in a different usage context, these same features became distracting and annoying. Participants adapted their behavior to avoid these drawbacks, but IM did not support these adaptations effectively. In particular, IM did not allow for control over interruptions, which became more important as their contact lists grew and social time became scarce; and they ultimately abandoned the technology. These results point to a need for understanding use beyond adoption, and a theoretical and practical focus on understanding the adaptation and changing utility that accompany long-term usage of technologies.

[1]  Anabel Quan-Haase,et al.  Instant Messaging on Campus: Use and Integration in University Students' Everyday Communication , 2008, Inf. Soc..

[2]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model , 2001, MIS Q..

[3]  Daniel J. Canary,et al.  Communication and Relational Maintenance , 1994 .

[4]  S. Duck,et al.  Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system. , 1994 .

[5]  Tao Zhou,et al.  Exploring Chinese users' acceptance of instant messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance model, and the flow theory , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Keith Roe,et al.  White Cyberlies: The Use of Deceptive Instant Messaging Statuses as a Social Norm , 2008 .

[7]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Using relationship to control disclosure in Awareness servers , 2005, Graphics Interface.

[8]  Leif R. Hedman,et al.  Using information technology: engagement modes, flow experience, and personality orientations , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  D. Spence,et al.  Heterogeneous treatment effects of integrated soil fertility management on crop productivity: Evidence from Nigeria , 2011 .

[10]  Gustavo S. Mesch.  Social context and communication channels choice among adolescents , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[12]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[13]  Trevor Pinch,et al.  How users matter : The co-construction of users and technologies , 2003 .

[14]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Advancing ambiguity , 2006, CHI.

[15]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[16]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[17]  Ghislaine M. Lawrence.  The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology , 1989, Medical History.

[18]  Caroline Haythornthwaite,et al.  Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the Impact of New Media , 2002, Inf. Soc..

[19]  J. Alison Bryant,et al.  IMing, Text Messaging, and Adolescent Social Networks , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[20]  J. Walther,et al.  Computer-mediated communication effects on relationship formation and maintenance. , 2003 .

[21]  Ana Ortiz de Guinea,et al.  Why break the habit of a lifetime? rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use , 2009 .

[22]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  A diary study of task switching and interruptions , 2004, CHI.

[23]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[24]  Jeremy P. Birnholtz,et al.  Butler lies: awareness, deception and design , 2009, CHI.

[25]  Chang Soo Nam,et al.  An analysis of the variables predicting instant messenger use , 2007, New Media Soc..

[26]  Irina Shklovski,et al.  Teenage Communication in the Instant Messaging Era , 2006, Computers, Phones, and the Internet.

[27]  Robin I. M. Dunbar.  Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[28]  P. Valkenburg,et al.  The Effects of Instant Messaging on the Quality of Adolescents’ Existing Friendships: A Longitudinal Study , 2009 .

[29]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[30]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  Making space for stories: ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems , 2005, CHI.

[31]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Communication Technology and Friendship During the Transition From High School to College , 2006, Computers, Phones, and the Internet.

[32]  Dale A. Stirling,et al.  Information rules , 2003, SGMD.

[33]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Computers, Phones, and the Internet - Domesticating Information Technology , 2006, Computers, Phones, and the Internet.

[34]  Amanda Lenhart,et al.  How Americans Use Instant Messaging , 2004 .

[35]  J. Krige.  How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology , 2006 .

[36]  Mark J. Handel.  Communication technologies and the freshman transition: Staying close with friends. , 2007 .

[37]  Sally Wyatt,et al.  They came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: Conceptualising use and non-use of the Internet , 2002 .

[38]  Leysia Palen,et al.  Instant messaging in teen life , 2002, CSCW '02.

[39]  S. Wyatt.  Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the Internet , 2003 .

[40]  Suzanna M. Rose,et al.  How Friendships End: Patterns among Young Adults , 1984 .