COMM 3023 Article Critique Paper Title Page & Abstract 1. Attach a title page as the FIRST PAGE OF THE PAPER. List the names of your team members and your university affiliation. 2. Attach an abstract as the SECOND PAGE OF THE PAPER. The abstract provides a ‘nutshell’ summary of the ENTIRE PAPER. It should be between 100-150 words long. Literature Review 1. Provide a review of the “original study” by telling us: · What was the purpose of the study? · What variables were examined as part of the study? (identify & define the independent and dependent variables) · What method was used in the study? (summarize the procedures & measures used) · What were the findings? 2. Clearly state the hypotheses and research questions examined by the researchers. For hypotheses, describe them in terms of the type of hypotheses proposed. Critique 1. Evaluate the literature review in terms of whether the variables were clearly defined, arguments were clearly made, and hypotheses/RQs were clearly stated based on previous research. 2. Evaluate the methods used to tests hypotheses or answer RQs. Specifically: · Identify strengths and weaknesses of the sampling strategy used by the researcher. · Assess quality of the measures used in terms of both their validity and reliability. Use information in the article to back up your claims. · Evaluate the procedures and design of the study to test the hypotheses. Clearly identify and discuss threats to both internal validity & external validity. 3. Evaluate the discussion section in terms of how well or poorly the researchers summarized the findings of the study. Additionally: · Did they discuss any limitations to their study? · Did they talk about implications of the results (e.g., for theory or practice)? · Did they suggest directions for future research or pose additional research questions to be explored? Conclusion 1. Based on your overall critique of the article, provide a list of specific recommendations for improving the study (e.g., a different sample would be more appropriate, the variables could have been more clearly defined, a better quality measure should have been used, etc.). 2. Pretend your team was to rate the article on a grading scale. What grade would you give the article? Why? Be sure to provide justification for the grade given. The expected total length for the paper is 8-10 pages. The paper is due on Canvas in the Dropbox no later than 5 p.m. CST on Friday, March 15. The “Mere Presence” Hypothesis: Investigating the Nonverbal Effects of Cell-Phone Presence on Conversation Satisfaction Ryan J. Allred & John P. Crowley Prior research has supported the mere presence hypothesis, which suggests that cell phones act as an environmental nuisance that negatively impact the quality of face-to-face inter- actions. This study conducted an experiment to determine whether cell-phone presence negatively influences conversation satisfaction. Specifically, network member dyads (N.

1. COMM 3023 Article Critique Paper
Title Page & Abstract
1. Attach a title page as the FIRST PAGE OF THE PAPER. List
the names of your team members and your university affiliation.
2. Attach an abstract as the SECOND PAGE OF THE PAPER.
The abstract provides a ‘nutshell’ summary of the ENTIRE
PAPER. It should be between 100-150 words long.
Literature Review
1. Provide a review of the “original study” by telling us:
· What was the purpose of the study?
· What variables were examined as part of the study? (identify
& define the independent and dependent variables)
· What method was used in the study? (summarize the
procedures & measures used)
· What were the findings?
2. Clearly state the hypotheses and research questions examined
by the researchers. For hypotheses, describe them in terms of
the type of hypotheses proposed.
Critique
1. Evaluate the literature review in terms of whether the
variables were clearly defined, arguments were clearly made,
and hypotheses/RQs were clearly stated based on previous
research.
2. Evaluate the methods used to tests hypotheses or answer
RQs. Specifically:
· Identify strengths and weaknesses of the sampling strategy
used by the researcher.
· Assess quality of the measures used in terms of both their

2. validity and reliability. Use information in the article to back up
your claims.
· Evaluate the procedures and design of the study to test the
hypotheses. Clearly identify and discuss threats to both internal
validity & external validity.
3. Evaluate the discussion section in terms of how well or
poorly the researchers summarized the findings of the study.
Additionally:
· Did they discuss any limitations to their study?
· Did they talk about implications of the results (e.g., for theory
or practice)?
· Did they suggest directions for future research or pose
additional research questions to be explored?
Conclusion
1. Based on your overall critique of the article, provide a list of
specific recommendations for improving the study (e.g., a
different sample would be more appropriate, the variables could
have been more clearly defined, a better quality measure should
have been used, etc.).
2. Pretend your team was to rate the article on a grading scale.
What grade would you give the article? Why? Be sure to
provide justification for the grade given.
The expected total length for the paper is 8-10 pages. The paper
is due on Canvas in the Dropbox no later than 5 p.m. CST on
Friday, March 15.
The “Mere Presence” Hypothesis:
Investigating the Nonverbal Effects of
Cell-Phone Presence on Conversation
Satisfaction
Ryan J. Allred & John P. Crowley

3. Prior research has supported the mere presence hypothesis,
which suggests that cell phones
act as an environmental nuisance that negatively impact the
quality of face-to-face inter-
actions. This study conducted an experiment to determine
whether cell-phone presence
negatively influences conversation satisfaction. Specifically,
network member dyads
(N = 46) engaged in unstructured conversations where one
partner’s cell phone was either
absent or present. The results revealed that, whereas the mere
presence of a cell phone did
not influence conversation satisfaction, individuals’ recollection
of whether or not a cell
phone was present did significantly negatively impact their pre-
to posttest reports of
conversation satisfaction. Implications of these findings for
research on the mere presence
hypothesis as well as directions for future research are
discussed.
Keywords: Cell Phones; Conversation Satisfaction; Mobile
Technology; Nonverbal
Communication; Personal Relationships
Research has recently begun to investigate the influence of
mobile technology on
variables related to the quality of face-to-face (FTF)
interactions. Two studies, in
particular, have sought to investigate whether the presence of a
cell phone during FTF
interactions acts as an environmental nuisance that creates
negative conversation
outcomes. The results of these studies support a “mere
presence” hypothesis in both

4. experimental (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012) and naturalistic
settings (Misra, Cheng,
Ryan J. Allred (MA, Colorado State University) is a graduate
student in the Department of Communication at the
University of Connecticut. John P. Crowley (PhD, University of
Washington) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication at the University of Washington.
Correspondence to: Ryan J. Allred, Department
of Communication, 337 Mansfield Road Unit 1259, Storrs, CT
06269, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Communication Studies
Vol. 68, No. 1, January–March 2017, pp. 22–36
ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) © 2016
Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1241292
Genevie, & Yuan, 2014), which postulates that the presence of a
cell phone negatively
impacts individual (e.g., empathy) and relational-level (e.g.,
closeness) conversation
outcomes. Given the important implications of the
environmental influence of cell
phones on personal relationships, further research is needed to
test limitations of the
mere presence hypothesis.
This study seeks to extend previous research on the mere
presence hypothesis in
three predominant ways. First, whereas prior research has
utilized experimental
methods to investigate the impact of cell phones on stranger
interactions (Przy-

5. bylski & Weinstein, 2012), in order to determine whether
relational type is a
boundary condition of the mere presence hypothesis, the current
study examines
its effect on relationship partners (i.e., acquaintance, friend,
romantic partner).
Second, previous research has experimentally manipulated the
conversation topic
(i.e., meaningful vs. casual conversations; Misra et al., 2014;
Przybylski & Wein-
stein, 2012), but this approach fails to approximate realistic
interpersonal interac-
tions. Thus, the current study examines the mere presence
hypothesis within
unstructured conversations. Third, the study seeks to understand
the effects of
cell-phone presence on a communication variable, conversation
satisfaction, influ-
enced not only by environmental factors (Wagner,
Bezuidenhout, & Roos, 2014)
but also the level of understanding accomplished between
conversation partners
(Neuliep, 2012). That is, if cell-phone presence is an
environmental nuisance that
negatively impacts conversation quality through reduced
understanding, it follows
that it will reduce conversation satisfaction. Prior to explicating
the experimental
methods utilized to investigate the mere presence hypothesis in
the ways described
above, the rationale begins by reviewing relevant literature on
the ubiquity of cell
phones, their enhancing and disruptive influences on personal
relationships, and,
finally, delineating the hypothesized effects of their presence on
conversation

6. satisfaction.
Cell-Phone Ubiquity and Etiquette
A 2015 Pew survey indicated that 92% of American adults
owned a cell phone
and 65% owned smart phones. Not only are cell phones
ubiquitous (Nakamura,
2015) but recent data also suggest that individuals have a mild
emotional
attachment to their phones. Pew Research data from 2014
demonstrated that
29% of cell-phone owners claimed that their cell phone is
“something that they
can’t imagine living without” (para. 18), that 67% of cell phone
users routinely
checked their phones despite the absence of alerts such as
ringing or vibrating,
and 44% slept with their phones near them so as to not miss
alerts “while they
are sleeping.” Indeed, the possibility that one’s cell phone may
be inactive, for
instance, is associated with increased reports of anxiety
(Forgays, Hyman, &
Shreiber, 2014). Cell phones also provide a means of social
connection (Wei &
Ven-Hwei, 2006), helping to reduce loneliness (Flanagin, 2005).
Conversely, not
responding to a text or phone call immediately may
communicate disinterest or
The Mere Presence Hypothesis 23
threaten opportunities for social bonding (Nelson & Atchley,

7. 2009). This may be
particularly true among younger adults who rely more on cell-
phone use for
social connection (Forgays et al., 2014; Pew Research, 2015).
Cell phones can
have a positive influence on relationships by increasing the
frequency of com-
munication (Jin & Pena, 2010), as the affordances of text
messaging and phone
calls allow for communication when physical presence is not
possible (Huh,
2006). Owning multiple mobile technologies may even
contribute to health and
well-being because they provide access to larger and more
expansive social
networks (Chan, 2015). Taken together, the numerous social
affordances and
emotional attachments to cell phones increase the likelihood
that individuals
place their phones in view during interpersonal conversations.
Research suggests that cell-phone presence may also present a
challenge to roman-
tic relationships, particularly because of the divided attention it
can foster in con-
versations (see Gergen, 2002). College students actively
negotiate a struggle when
spending time with their partners between wanting to be
available to others who are
not present by keeping their cell phones visible and also
attending to their copresent
romantic partners (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2016). The degree to
which cell-phone pre-
sence during a conversation affects conversation outcomes may
depend on whether it
is perceived as a breach of etiquette that violates expectations

8. for the context such as
when conversations partners expect undivided attention (see
Miller-Ott & Kelly,
2015).
Recent research indicates that, although acceptable in some
social settings (e.g.,
walking down a street, public transportation), many view cell-
phone use as inappropri-
ate in more intimate interpersonal contexts such as restaurants
and family dinners
(Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015; Pew Research, 2015). Although
young adults are more reliant
on cell phones to maintain personal relationships (Ling, 2012),
a recent study demon-
strated that college students also deem cell-phone use to be
inappropriate in such
interpersonal contexts as talking and hanging out with friends
(M = 2.97 and 2.93,
respectively, on a scale from 1 = very inappropriate to 5 = very
appropriate) despite also
reporting (79.3% and 83.9%, respectively) to have texted in
these situations (Harrison,
Bealing, & Salley, 2015). It is therefore unsurprising that
research has shown the misuse
of cell phones to negatively impact the quality of interactions.
Specifically, cell phones
are shown to cause negative impressions when individuals
answer a phone call during a
conversation (Ebesu Hubbard, Han, Kim, & Nakamura, 2007),
to inhibit understanding
when used to text during class (Gingerich & Lineweaver, 2014),
and to create negative
gestalts among coworkers when used during both formal and
informal meetings
(Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014; Washington,

9. Okoro, & Cardon, 2014).
Thus, cell phones present a dilemma for users, as they are
clearly useful in helping
individuals maintain and developing personal relationships, but
their usage may also
violate expectations for appropriate behavior in interpersonal
settings that lead to
negative evaluations (Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015, 2016).
One explanation for why cell-phone usage negatively impacts
relational outcomes
may be the reduction of immediacy cues. Immediacy refers to
nonverbal behaviors that
24 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley
“signal availability, increase sensory stimulation, and decrease
both the physical and
psychological distance between interactions” (Andersen,
Guerrero, Buller, & Jorgensen,
1998, p. 502). Among the cast of more commonly cited
immediacy cues are close
proxemics, touch, gaze, and forward body lean (Andersen et al.,
1998). Individuals
communicating higher levels of immediacy are viewed as being
more competent and
generally evaluated as more favorable than those with lower
immediacy (Manusov,
1991). Interestingly, however, the degree to which receivers
view immediacy behavior as
intentional or not is moderated by the degree to which the
behaviors are perceived as
immediate. That is, nonimmediate behaviors are perceived as
being more intentional

10. that those that are immediate (Manusov, 1991). Thus, because
cell-phone usage disrupts
behaviors central to immediacy formation, such as eye gaze and
forward body lean, it
may not only be received as a nonimmediate cue but also as an
intentional breach of
conversation etiquette. Given that research has shown how cell-
phone activity is
common during social interactions (see Pew Research, 2015), it
is important to inves-
tigate the range of cell-phone behaviors that may be viewed as
nonimmediate. This
study investigates the effects of the mere presence of cell
phones during interpersonal
interactions on conversation satisfaction. More specifically, it
conceptualizes the pre-
sence of cell phones as a nonimmediate environmental cue that
signals decreased
availability to receivers and therefore acts as a violation of
conversation etiquette.
Mere Presence Hypothesis
As noted, research has begun to investigate the impact of cell
phones on interpersonal
interactions. Przybylski and Weinstein (2012), for instance,
experimentally manipulated
cell-phone presence or absence by placing a phone on a table
near strangers whowere asked
to discuss either a meaningful or casual conversation topic. The
findings of their study
revealed a negative effect of cell-phone presence on
relationship quality, closeness, trust, and
empathy, and that this effect was stronger when conversations
were meaningful as opposed
to casual. In their attempt to extend this research to a

11. naturalistic setting, Misra et al. (2014)
coded for cell-phone presence during conversations between
natural social network mem-
bers in a coffee shop. Their findings indicated that the presence
of cell phones during
conversations was negatively associated with reports of
empathic concern. Despite the
support for the mere presence hypothesis in the Przybylski and
Weinstein (2012) study,
it is important to examine unstructured conversations between
social network members in
which the presence or absence of their cell phones are
manipulated to determine the
real-world applicability of these findings. Furthermore, due to
the quasi-experimental
nature of the Misra et al. study design, the extent to which cell-
phone presence had a causal
effect on conversation quality is still unknown. Thus, this study
extends previous research
on the mere presence hypothesis through experimental
observation of unstructured con-
versations between social network members to determine the
effect of cell-phone presence
on conversation satisfaction.
Conversation satisfaction has been conceptualized as “a holistic
affective response
to the success of behaviors that are selected based upon
expectations” (Hecht &
The Mere Presence Hypothesis 25
Marston, 1987, p. 62). That is, conversation satisfaction is an
affective response to goal

12. achievement (Hecht, 1978; Rubin & Rubin, 1989). As an
individual accomplishes
conversational goals (e.g., understanding, persuasion,
information sharing), their
satisfaction within the conversation increases. Given its
associations with relationship
stability (Forsythe & Ledbetter, 2015) and satisfaction in other
contexts such as in the
workplace (Steele & Plenty, 2015; Wagner et al., 2014), studies
have sought to under-
stand antecedents of conversation satisfaction. For example,
research suggests that
higher levels of understanding (Hecht & Marston, 1987;
Neuliep, 2012) and imme-
diacy (Fusani, 1994) lead to higher satisfaction levels after FTF
conversations. Addi-
tional research suggests that satisfaction levels are also
significantly influenced by
one’s environment as physical surroundings evoke cognitive,
emotional, and physio-
logical responses that influence individual perceptions of the
encounter (Bitner, 1992).
It may be that the physical presence of a cell phone acts as an
environmental
distraction that hinders understanding and perceptions of
immediacy, thereby
obstructing the process by which conversation partners feel
satisfied. Thus, consistent
with the mere presence hypothesis, it is predicted that, in
conversations where cell
phones are present, partners will report lower conversation
satisfaction levels pretest
to posttest, than in conversations where cell phones are absent.
Method

13. Procedure
Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, initial
participants were
recruited from undergraduate-level courses at a large
Midwestern university and were
offered extra credit for participation in this study. Participants
signed up for laboratory
appointments and were asked to bring a conversation partner of
their choosing on the day
of their appointment. Upon arrival to the laboratory,
participants and their conversation
partners were randomly assigned to either a cell-phone-presence
or cell-phone-absence
group and were then provided with a pretest survey. Participants
completed a measure
that assessed their general levels of conversation satisfaction
with their conversation
partners, whereas conversation partners only reported
demographic data.
Once the pretest measure was completed, participants and
conversation partners
were escorted to benches randomly placed within common areas
(hallways and
lounges) of a large university building. Each bench was about 4
feet in length and
approximately 20 feet away from any of the other benches
utilized in this study with
each participant and their conversation partner sharing a single
bench. The investi-
gator instructed each dyad to have a 10-minute conversation
involving a topic of their
choosing. Dyads were informed that a researcher would return
to escort them back to
the lab after 10 minutes had elapsed.

14. Participants and conversation partners assigned to the cell-
phone-absence group were
given no further directions. Conversation partners assigned to
the cell-phone-presence
group, however, were provided with sheets of paper that
included the following instructions:
“Please also take out your cell phone and place it in plain
view.”Conversation partners were
26 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley
instructed not to share this information with the participants.
Neither participants nor
conversation partners were informed of the true nature of the
study until after the study had
been completed. Although no formal record of cell-phone
placement was recorded, con-
versation partners were observed placing their phones on the
bench in between themselves
and the participant, placing their phones on their own lap or
holding their phones in their
hands.
Following the conversations, the investigator escorted
participants to the laboratory
to complete a posttest measure that assessed participants’
conversation satisfaction
level concerning the discussion they were asked to have with
their conversation
partners, their recollection of cell-phone presence, perceptions
regarding attitudes
towards cell-phone presence in conversations, and demographic
information. Partici-

15. pants and their conversation partners were then given debriefing
forms (required for
the deceiving nature of the study) and dismissed.
Sample
Participants (N = 48) were 26.1% males and 73.9% females and
identified as Cauca-
sian (76.1%), Hispanic (10.9%), Black/African American
(4.3%), or an ethnicity other
than those represented on the questionnaire (8.7%). The age of
participants ranged
from 18 to 32 (M = 20.13, SD = 2.16). Conversation partners (N
= 48), alternatively,
were comprised of males (34.7%) and females (63.3%), and
identified as Caucasian
(77.6%), Hispanic (10.2%), Black/African American (6.1%), or
an ethnicity other than
those represented on the questionnaire (4%). The age range of
conversation partners
was from 17 to 31 years. Upon completion of the study, 2
(2.1%) participants asked to
have their data removed.
Participants reported their conversation partners as being
friends (n = 30, 62.5%),
acquaintances (n = 10, 20.8%), significant others (n = 6,
12.5%), or other (n = 2,
4.2%). Length of relationships ranged from 1 month to 15 years
(M = 1.73 years,
SD = 0.10). Most participants had college credits but had not
yet received a college
degree (93.8%, n = 45) whereas 2.1% (n = 1) had a high-school
diploma and 4.2%
(n = 2) were working on graduate degrees. The sex composition
of the dyads consisted

16. of male/male (n = 9), male/female (n = 13), and female/female
(n = 26) with 71.7% of
dyads containing same-sex partners and 28.3% partners of
differing sexes.
Measures
Conversation satisfaction
Hecht’s (1978) Interpersonal Communication Satisfaction
Inventory questionnaire
was adapted to determine conversation-satisfaction levels. The
measures asked parti-
cipants to rate their level of agreement with 19 statements on a
Likert-type scale that
ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. At
pretest, participants were
asked to report their conversation-satisfaction levels using
items about their overall
communication satisfaction with their partners (e.g., “We tend
to accomplish a lot in
The Mere Presence Hypothesis 27
our conversations,” “My conversation partner genuinely wants
to get to know me,”
and “My conversation partner lets me know when I am
communicating effectively”),
whereas, at posttest, participants were asked to report their
conversation-satisfaction
levels using items specific to their recent conversations (e.g.,
“We accomplished a lot
in our recent conversation,” “My conversation partner genuinely
wanted to get to
know me,” and “My conversation partner let me know when I

17. was communicating
effectively”). Items were averaged together to create a
composite satisfaction score at
pretest and posttest. Higher scores reflect higher conversation
satisfaction. Scale
reliability was acceptable at pretest (α = .87) and posttest (α =
.89).
Covariates
Three potential covariates were considered in the analyses to
account for unexplained
variance in cell-phone presence and conversation satisfaction.
First, pretest conversa-
tion satisfaction was utilized as a covariate to determine if,
once pretest conversation
satisfaction was controlled for, significant differences emerged
between groups with
respect to their posttest satisfaction levels. Second, the mere
presence hypothesis
suggests that phones are an environmental distraction in
conversations. To determine
whether the presence of a phone, as opposed to individuals’
feelings about the
presence of a phone, is accounting for the results supporting the
mere presence
hypothesis, participants were asked to consider their
conversation partners’ use of
cell phones during this or previous conversations. Specifically,
participants were asked
to report their level of agreement with the following statement
on a scale from
1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, “I felt annoyed that
my conversation
partner had a mobile device out during our conversation.”
Additionally, based on
research that suggests differences in communication patterns

18. between same- and
mixed-sex dyads (Guerrero, 1997), the sex composition (mixed:
n = 14; same sex:
n = 32) of the dyad was considered as a covariate in the
hypothesis testing. Bivariate
correlations (one-tailed) demonstrated significant associations
between posttest conver-
sation satisfaction with participants’ level of annoyance with
cell-phone use, r(45) = .48,
p = .001, and pretest conversation satisfaction, r(45) = .38, p =
.005. An independent-
samples t test was utilized to assess whether the sex
composition of the dyad differed
with respect to their posttest conversation scores. The
assumption for homogeneity of
variances was examined using Levene’s test for equality of
variances. The assumption
for homogeneity was violated, t(45) = 4.8, p = .03, and the
results were nonsignificant
when equal variances were not assumed, t(45) = 1.63, p = .12.
Therefore, only
participants’ level of annoyance (M = 5.73, SD = 0.74) and
pretest conversation
satisfaction (M = 5.05, SD = 1.74) were included as covariates
in the hypothesis testing.
Results
Statistical analyses began by assessing normality distributions
of the conversation
satisfaction scale at pretest and posttest. Using Kline’s (1998)
guidelines for skewness
and kurtosis (< 3 and < 10, respectively), the distribution of
both measures fell within
28 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

19. acceptable ranges. Still, histogram plots indicated potential
outliers in pretest and
posttest conversation satisfaction. Therefore, outliers were
assessed using Grubb’s
(1969) test of significance. Two cases were considered outliers
(p < .05) and were
removed from subsequent analyses (resulting N = 44; GraphPad
QuickCalcs, 2016).
Manipulation Check
Prior to conducting analyses, comparisons between participants’
reports of the
absence or presence of a cell phone during their conversations
and the actual
experimentally manipulated absence or presence of a cell phone
were conducted
to determine if the experimental manipulation had the intended
effect of being
salient for participants. Importantly, neither the Przybylski and
Weinstein (2012)
nor Misra et al. (2014) studies examined whether their
participants noticed the
cell phone during their conversations as a manipulation check
and it is therefore
unclear whether perceptual salience is a necessary ingredient
for the mere pre-
sence of a cell phone to negatively affect a conversation.
Interestingly, only 78.3%
(n = 36) of participants correctly reported the absence or
presence of a cell
phone whereas 10.9% (n = 5) inaccurately reported the presence
of a device and

20. 10.9% (n = 5) inaccurately reported the absence of a device.
Because the mere
presence hypothesis indicates that the physical presence of a
cell phone should
be disruptive to conversations, and research has not specified
whether perceptual
salience is necessary for its effect to occur, both the
experimentally manipulated
variable of absence or presence as well as a new variable
reflecting participants’
recollection of cell-phone absence or presence were included in
separate analyses
of covariance (ANCOVAs) as independent variables. This
procedure allows for
greater insights regarding whether perceptual salience is a
necessary cause for
cell-phone presence to have a disruptive effect.
Main Analyses
Two ANCOVA models were utilized to test conditions (both the
experimentally
manipulated cell-phone-absence or presence variable as well as
the participants’
recollection of cell-phone-absence or presence variable), as
independent variables in
each model, respectively. In both models, pretest conversation
satisfaction was utilized
as a covariate and posttest conversation satisfaction was utilized
as the dependent
variable (M = 6.06, SD = 0.71). Participants’ reported
annoyance with cell-phone
usage during conversations with their conversation partner was
included as an addi-
tional covariate.

21. The first ANCOVA model assessed the effect of the
experimentally manipulated
cell-phone condition on posttest conversation satisfaction. No
significant difference
was noted between the groups with respect to their satisfaction
levels (p = .32).
However, pretest conversation satisfaction (p = .02) and
participants’ level of
The Mere Presence Hypothesis 29
annoyance with the phone (p < .01) were each related to posttest
conversation
satisfaction (see Table 1).
The second ANCOVA utilized participants’ recollections of
whether or not a phone
was present during their conversations as an independent
variable. The results
indicated (see Table 2) that the difference in recalled presence
significantly influenced
posttest conversation satisfaction (p = .03) while accounting for
preconversation
satisfaction levels (p < .01) and participants’ level of annoyance
with the phone
Table 2 Descriptives and Results (ANCOVA Recalled Cell-
Phone Absence or Presence)
Experimental
Conditions
Recalled

22. Cell-Phone
Presence
Preconversation
Satisfaction
Level of
Annoyance
N M SD df F p η2 F p η2 F p η2
(1, 41) 4.90 .03* .12 9.24 .01** .19 10.01 .01** .20
Recalled
Cell-Phone
Presence
21 5.92 0.80
Recalled
Cell-Phone
Absence
22 6.15 0.62
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 1 Descriptives and Results (ANCOVA Experimentally

23. Manipulated Cell-Phone
Absence or Presence)
Experimental
Conditions
Actual Cell-Phone
Presence
Preconversation
Satisfaction
Level of
Annoyance
N M SD df F p η2 F p η2 F p η2
(1, 41) 1.04 .31 .03 6.03 .019 .13 8.18 .01 .18
Actual Cell-Phone
Presence
20 5.90 0.82
Actual Cell-Phone
Absence
23 6.16 0.60
30 R. J. Allred and J. P. Crowley

24. (p < .01). Post hoc comparisons indicated that participants’ who
recalled a cell phone
reported greater reductions in conversation satisfaction from
pretest (M = 5.91,
SD = 0.80) to posttest (M = 5.84, SD = 0.12) than those who
recalled no cell phone
from pretest (M = 6.15, SD = 0.62) to posttest (M = 6.23, SD =
0.12, p = .03). Thus, the
predicted negative effect of cell phones received mixed support.
Discussion
Prior research has advanced a mere presence hypothesis, which
suggests that cell
phones act as an environmental nuisance that can incite negative
outcomes for
conversation partners. This study sought to test the mere
presence hypothesis further
through experimental observation of unstructured conversations
between relationship
partners in which the presence or absence of participants’
phones was manipulated.
Two important findings emerged in the analyses that potentially
clarify findings on
the mere presence hypothesis. First, no significant differences
on conversation satis-
faction occurred between the experimentally manipulated cell-
phone-absence and
cell-phone-presence conditions and therefore these data fail to
replicate previous
research on the mere presence hypothesis. Second, significant
differences did occur
when groups were demarcated based on participants’

25. recollection of the absence or
presence of cell phones during their conversations. Specifically,
those participants who
reported recalling a cell phone present during their
conversations reported greater
reductions in conversation satisfaction from pretest to posttest
than those who
reported not recalling a cell phone during their conversations.
There are at least two
important implications to these findings.
First, the mere presence hypothesis needs further explication.
The findings indicate
a change in satisfaction levels for individuals’ who reported the
presence of a cell
phone during their conversations. Prior research on the mere
presence hypothesis
(Misra et al., 2014; Przybylski & Weinstein, 2012) does not
clearly specify whether the
negative outcomes associated with cell-phone presence rely on
observers’ recollec-
tions. In these studies, the phones are placed in the visual field
of observers; however,
it is unclear whether observers noticed the cell phones. Thus,
the findings of the
present study indicate that the presence of a cell phone may
need to be perceptually
salient to conversation participants in order for it to have a
disruptive effect.
This finding is intriguing when considered in the context of
previous work on expectancy
violations. Specifically, research on expectancy violation theory
(EVT; Burgoon & Hale,
1988) has demonstrated that an observer need not be
consciously aware of a violation for it

26. to have an effect on cognitions or interactions (Afifi &
Burgoon, 1998). This study suggests,
alternatively, that conscious awareness is potentially necessary
for the mere presence
hypothesis to occur; that is, when individuals recall a phone as
a cue within the environ-
ment, regardless of whether it actually is in the environment,
satisfaction decreases com-
pared to individuals who do not recall this cue in their
conversation environment.
The findings of this study may support previous research …
Article Critique Paper
COMM 3023
Overview
Purpose is to critique a quantitative research study using an
experimental design.
Study should be from taken from 1 of the articles found on
Canvas.
Paper should be 8-10 pages
Literature Review
Summary of Study
What was the main purpose of the study?
What were the independent and dependent variables examined
in the study?

27. What were the methods used?
What were the findings?
What were the hypotheses? Identify type of hypotheses tested in
the study.
Critique of Literature Review
Discuss if the study variables were clearly defined.
Did they provide a rationale or arguments to support their
hypotheses?
Did they provide evidence to support their hypotheses(e.g., past
research findings)?
Critique of Methods
Critique of Sampling Strategy
Was the sampling frame appropriate?
How representative was the sample?
Are there sampling biases that are of concern?

28. Critique of Methods
Critique of Study Measures
Evaluate based on face validity
Are there additional info provided to suggest good validity for
the measures used? If so, what?
How are the reliabilities for the measures? Are they acceptable
based on our criteria?
Critique of Methods
Critique of Study Design
Consider the different threats to internal validity (pick at least 2
to assess)
Consider threats to external validity
How well/poorly did the study deal with these threats?
Provide evidence to justify your responses.
Critique of Discussion
Did the study describe limitations?
Did the study talk about implications of their results?
Did the study suggest areas for future research?
Conclusion
Recommendations for improvement
How could the study have been improved? (e.g., better job
defining the variables, supporting the hypotheses, improved

29. methods & measures, etc.)
Result of Critique
Based on your assessment, judge the quality of this study from a
methods perspective using a grading scale A-F.
Justify your grade.
.325.2936
APA—MANUSCRIPT FORMAT
Use a 1 inch margin on the left, right, top, and bottom. Indent
each paragraph with 5-7 spaces (1 tab). Do not justify
the right margin. Do not break (hyphenate) words at the end of
the line. Type a horizontal ruler in each table.
Number all pages consecutively and identify each page, starting
with the title page, with a shortened version of the
title as well as a page number in the upper right-hand corner 1/2
inch from the top of the page.
Put the abstract, if there is one, on a page by itself immediately
after the title page, with the heading “Abstract”
centered at the top of the page. Run into your text all quotations
of fewer than 40 words and enclose them with
quotation marks. For quotes of more than 40 words, set them
off from the text by indenting all lines 5 spaces from
the left margin, double space above and below, and double
space the quote itself; omit the quotation marks.

30. Do not label the introduction with a heading. For other main
sections of the paper, such as “Method” and “Results,”
center the heading, use capital and small letters, do not
underline them, and double space above and below them. If
you use another level of heading below the main level, begin at
the left margin, use capital and small letters, and
italicize the heading.
REFERENCE CITATIONS IN TEXT
Parenthetical citations for direct quotes should include the
author’s last name, the year of publication, and the page
number(s), Example: (Jones, 1995, p. 00). Titles of articles are
placed within quotation marks; books and journal
titles are italicized. Below are examples of parenthetical
citations for paraphrasing.
One author
Critics of the tests felt the subjects should be informed of the
side effects (Jones, 1968).
Jones (1968) felt that the subjects should have been informed of
the possible side effects.
A work of two authors
Pepinsky and Cox (1977) show that a teacher’s language reveals
hidden biases.
One study (Pepinsky & Cox, 1977) showed that a teacher’s
language reveals hidden biases.
A work with three or more authors

31. Smith, Jones, Carson, and Fleming (1988) attempted to
complete the project. [First reference to the work]
In the work of Smith et al. (1988), an attempt was made to
complete the project. [Second reference to the work]
A corporate author
An earlier forecast was even more alarmist (Editors of The New
Republic. 1975).
Author unknown
One article (“Fasten Your Seatbelt,” 1988) listed the reasons
people do not buckle their seatbelts.
One of two or more works by the same author(s)
Disease was claimed to be the main reason for losing the battle
(Smith, 1980a).
When citing one of two or more works by the same author, the
date tells the reader which source you mean. The
above example shows how to document when there are two
works by the same author in the same year.
Two or more works by different authors
Two studies (Jones, 1978; Lloyd & Jenkins, 1980) found that
periodic inspections reduced the chances of possible
malfunctions.

32. REFERENCE LIST
The list of sources is titled References (Reference if you have a
single source) and appears on a new page after
the body of the essay and before the appendices and is centered
at 1” in upper and lower case.
Reference lists are arranged alphabetically by author’s last
name (or, if there is no author, by the first main
word of the title) followed by the year of publication, the title
of the reference, the location of publication, and the
name of the publisher.
The reference list is to be double spaced within and between all
entries including the title and uses a hanging
indent of 5-7 spaces or .5 inch (note: The citation examples on
this page are not double-spaced due to space
constraints). These are basic guidelines; use the following
examples for specific citation formats.
Book with a single author
Stuart, D. (1982). History of the boxer rebellion. Boston:
Academic Press.
Book with two or more authors
Webster, D., & Jones, J. (1979). History of southern agriculture.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Book with an editor (Ed.) or editors (Eds.)
Jacoby, F., & Dowdy, R. (Eds.). (1985). Stressful life events:

33. Their nature and effects. New York: John Wiley.
Book with a corporate author
Editors of The Progressive. (1970). The crisis of survival.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
An anonymous book
Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. (1963).
Springfield, IL: G. & C. Merriam.
Two or more works by the same author(s) in the same year
Gardner, H. (1973a). The arts and human development. New
York: John Wiley.
Gardner, H. (1973b). The quest for mind. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Works by the same author are arranged by publication date.
Works by the same author published in the same year
are arranged alphabetically with a letter added to the date.
A work in more than one volume
Lincoln, A. (1953). The collected works of Abraham Lincoln.
(R. P. Bailer, Ed.). (Vol. 5). New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
An article or chapter in an edited book
Paykel, E. S. (1974). Life stress and psychiatric disorder:
Applications of the clinical approach. In B. S.
Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events:
Their nature and effects (pp. 239-254). New
York: John Wiley.
Article in a Journal with continuous pagination throughout the
annual volume
Emery, R. E. (1982). Marital turmoil: Interpersonal conflict and

34. the children of discord and divorce. Psychological
Bulletin, 92, 310-330.
Article in a journal that pages Issues separately
Boyd, S. (1981). Nuclear terror. Adaptation to Change, 7(4), 20-
23.
Article in a magazine
Van Gelder, L. (1986, December). Countdown to motherhood:
When should you have a baby? Ms., 37-39, 74.
Article in a newspaper
Herbers, J. (1988, March 6). A different Dixie: Few but sturdy
threads tie new South to old. The New York Times,
sec. 4, p. 1.
Unsigned article
The right to die. (1976. October 11). Time, 101.
A Review
Dinnage, R. (1987, November 29). Against the master and his
men. [Review of the book: A mind of her own: The
life of Karen Horney]. The New York Times Book Review, 10-
11.
A videotape or other nonprint source
Heeley, D. (Producer), & Kramer, J. (Director). (1988). Bacall:
Reflections on Bogart [Videotape]. New York:
WNET Films.
Reference: American Psychological Association. (2001).
Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association. (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.

35. Conoco P
CITING ONLINE SOURCES—APA
IN TEXT
The basic format for citing online works in a paper is similar to
printed sources. See the Writing Center handout
APA MANUSCRIPT FORMAT for citing printed sources. Use
the author or organization, if available, followed by
a comma and the year of publication. If the author/organization
is not available, then use the name of the
website/web page or the title/description of the work or article.
Examples: Roberts (2002) states that modern theorists agree. .
. .
According to the American Psychological Association
(2001), advances in. . . .
If there is no apparent publication date or update year of the
website, use n.d. (for “not dated”) in the parentheses.
Example: According to Williams (n.d.), the best solution . . . .
Cite the specific part of an on-line book or journal using the
page of chapter, when available,
Example: (Cox & Smith, 2003, p/ 330) or (Williams, 2000,
chap.3)

36. For electronic sources that do not have a page, chapter,
paragraph heading, figure, table, or equation number, use the
Paragraph number (if the paragraphs are not numbered, count
them), preceded by the paragraph symbol.
Example: (Jones, 2001, ¶ 5)
E-mail messages, conversations via bulletin boards, and
electronic discussion groups are cited as personal
communications in the text only and do not appear in the
reference list.
REFERENCE LIST
The format for online sources in the reference list follows
closely that for print sources. Print and online/electronic
sources are listed together in alphabetical order in the reference
list. The reference list is double spaced throughout
and uses a hanging indent of 5-7 spaces or .5 inch.
Retrieve as much of the following information as possible; if
one item on the list is not available, skip to the next
item.
1. Author’s last name, first name (or organization name or title)
2. Publication date (year, month day)
3. Title (if not used above)
4. Retrieval date (when you accessed it)
5. Complete network address (URL)
Examples:
Brown, K. L. (2000, December 7). Assignment #1: Explain the
effects of electronic media on research methods.
Retrieved January 4, 2001, from

37. http://www.haw.edu/psych/courses/spOl/klb
National Organization. (n.d.). Research for Beginners.
Retrieved April 15, 2005, from http://www.awebsite.com
Advanced Research. (2003). Retrieved July 4, 2005, from
http://www.anotherwebsite.com
Reference: American Psychological Association. (2001).
Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association. (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.
.2936
APA TITLE PAGE

38. APA Title Page Instructions
Margins: Top 1/2” (.5), Bottom, left and right margins 1”.
Use the first, two-three keywords from the title in the header
and five spaces between the keywords and the page number,
and, yes, the title page is numbered.
The words Running head are typed as shown here. After a
colon, use a shortened form (not to exceed 50 characters,
including punctuation and spaces) of the title in all caps. Never
hyphenate (split) words between lines.

39. The title of the paper is centered on the page and begins
approximately 5” from the top of the page or 24 lines below the
running head. Use only one size/style font (no bold, italic, or
underline) on the title page and throughout the paper.
The title of the paper should be no more than 10- 12 words. A
good title is concise and informs the reader of the main content
of the paper. Avoid language such as “a study of.”
Reference: American Psychological Association. (2001).
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association.
(5th ed.). Washington, D.C.
Individual Differences 1
Running head: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Individual Differences in

40. Bimodal Processing and Text Recall
John Q. Student
University of Oklahoma