The Use of Mobile Devices While in Restaurants is Distracting Society from Inter-Personal Communication

• We are seeing more and more parents paying attention to their phones rather than their children when in restaurants.

• The use of mobile devices while in restaurants is showing to be a problem of response timing.

• The simple presence of a mobile device in sight is a cause of distraction.

The use of mobile devices to access social media is becoming a more common occurrence in restaurants, especially amongst the younger generations. With the advancement of the hand held technology we are becoming more reliant on it for our entertainment and communication. However, with that is coming the lose of interpersonal communication within social settings such as restaurants. 

Parents and Children are Giving More Attention to Their Mobile Devices Than to Each Other While Out to Eat

Walk into a family oriented restaurant come dinnertime and you will see an array of lights coming from the mobile devices of adults and children. Adults need to remain in touch with their work and email, while kids simply want to play games and watch videos. To stay up to date with these things the families are giving up their inter-personal communication interactions. Mobile devices are distracting our family time. 

Dr. Jenny Radenksy, an expert in developmental behavior pediatrics at the Boston Medical Center, performed a study to find out if devices are indeed distracting from parent to child interaction. Radensky and her teamed used nonparticipant methods to observe 55 parents with at least one child in fast food restaurants. Of those 55, 40 were observed on their phones. 16 of the 40 adults were using their mobile devices throughout the entire meal, showing little to no attention to their child. One of the parents did not even look at their child for the entirety of the meal. Radensky also reported that some parents would give their mobile devices to the children to keep them entertained. 

Children learn and develop skills through interpersonal communication encounters with their parents. With the constant use of mobile devices while eating out, which is typically considered a time to socialize with those whom you are with, children are not getting the verbal communication that they need.

Megan Fitzmaurice, a communications graduated student and teacher at the University of Maryland gave her expertise when asked how she felt the use of mobile devices by parents is taking away from the interpersonal communication opportunities that a restaurant offers parents and their children. 

Mobile Device Use in Restaurants is Causing Delayed Responses in Conversations

We live in a society where gatherings, meetings, dates, etc. happen at a restaurant dining table. We sit down, have a conversation and enjoy our meal. However, since the mobile device has evolved to give us social access at the press of a button our conversations at the table have been delayed and bogged down by the thoughts of what is waiting for us on our phones. Fitzmaurice, was asked to give her input on how she feels the increased use of mobile devices in restaurants is affecting inter-personal communication in these settings. Fitzmaurice’s response is as follows…

 


Fitzmaurice brought up the fact of response timing being crucial to effective conversations. An individual whom uses their mobile device while in conversation with an another individual, or individuals, will not be much of a presence in that conversation because it is impossible to multitask. You can switch your focus, but while using your phone you will not be in a listening or speaking stance in that conversation. The inability of the human mind to multitask will lead to delayed response timing in these circumstances. Without proper timing it will be easy to become detached from the conversation and not properly engage with an answer. Thus, losing the interpersonal communication experience that is expected from the individual or individuals whom gathered with you at the restaurant.

 

 

Having a Mobile Device in Sight While Dining in a Restaurant will Distract from an Engaging Conversation

Next time you dine out look around upon your entrance or walk to your table, chances are you will see a mobile device sitting on a table within ones view.  The sheerness of having a mobile device within sight, it doesn’t have to be in use or even at your table, is enough to distract. Studies have shown that “if a mobile is visible during a conversation it causes people to feel less positive towards the person with whom they are chatting”.

Andrew Przybylski, a Behavioral Scientist at the University of Oxford, worked with a team at Essex University to study if this is in fact true. Przybylski and his team conducted two studies. The first study took 37 pairs of strangers and had them talk for 10 minutes about an interesting event in their life. They sat the strangers in a booth; half of the paired strangers had a mobile device in plain sight on a desk nearby, the other half had a notebook placed on the desk instead of a mobile device. At the end of the 10-minute conversation each participant involved was asked to answer questions about the stranger they conversed with. The research found that the people whom chatted with the mobile device in sight were much less positive in answering there questions about the partner.

The second study took 34 different pairs of strangers and they repeated the process of sitting them in a booth, half the pairs were exposed to a mobile device on the desk and the other half were exposed to the notebook. However this time some were asked to speak about a rather boring topic while others were asked to speak about a meaningful event in the last year. The researchers found that the pairs that had a meaningful topic while exposed to the notebook on the nearby desk had “increased feelings of closeness and trust in their partner” however the meaningful conversations that took place with the presence of a mobile device did not produce the same findings.

The researches wrote that “These results demonstrate that the presence of mobile phones can interfere with human relationships, an effect that is most clear when individuals are discussing personally meaningful topics”

Aaron Swartz! Proof that our Government Penalizes Intellectual Property Infringement Too Heavily

Question 2: Do you feel the government shares all or some of the responsibility for Aaron Swartz’s suicide because of their pursuit of a severe penalty? Do you think penalties for intellectual property infringement are too severe, or do they accurately reflect the damage that can be done by stealing intellectual property? 

 

• Aaron Swartz, Internet Mogul and Advocate, committed suicide after learning he was facing a 1 million dollar fine and 35 years in prison for Intellectual Property Infringement.

• The Government is at partial fault for Swartz’s Death. 

• Penalties for Intellectual Property Infringement are too severe when put into comparison with the possible harm done by infringing these properties.

·

In the past 30 years our nation has seen an array of technological advances and one of those is the ability to access most any information online. The existence and accessibility of information on the web has led the way to great arguments. Many open web advocates fight for any information on the web to be accessible to anyone online. However many sites and sources are restricted by a paywall which only allows for certain members, who have paid, to gain access to its resources.

Open Access Advocate Aaron Swartz Committed Suicide After Being Caught Illegally Downloading Files

Aaron Swartz was an Internet activist and technological pioneer. Swartz dropped out of high school at the age of fourteen and helped to make the RSS Syndication framework, which allowed for easier following of media online. Swartz later co-created the site Reddit; a social networking and entertainment site that is user generated. Swartz was an advocate of an open-access Internet. In his book The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, Swartz spoke about the publishers putting scientists work behind paywalls to feed the companies greediness. 

In January of 2011 Swartz was arrested trying to advocate for his beliefs of open access to all web users. MIT police made the arrest after they found Swartz downloading the academic journals that were published at MIT and the database JSTOR, which is protected by a paywall. Swartz’s intention with the information was unknown, however he was still faced with felony charges with a possible sentence of thirty-five years in prison and a one million dollar fine.

“On January 11, 2013, a little over two years after his arrest and as prosecutors subpoenaed friends of his for the upcoming trial, Swartz hung himself in his Brooklyn apartment, leaving no suicide note”

The Government Played a Seemingly Large Role in Swartz’ Self Inflicted Death

The Government is partially to blame for the death of Aaron Swartz. Swartz was a known open access advocate who was fighting for what he believed. The government, knowing that Swartz was mentally unstable and depressed, decided to face him with outlandish charges that carried too heavy of a punishment in many peoples mind. Though Swartz had broken the law by hacking through a paywall and illegally downloading documents, he did no more than just that. Swartz did not show any intention of distribution of the documents. His intentions were severely unclear and to charge him with felony charges that carry a thirty-five year prison sentence sparked a lot of controversy considering this is the believed reason of his suicide. It is believed that U.S. Attorney, Carmen Ortiz, who prosecuted Swartz, took a very hard-line and close-minded approach to the prosecution. Both JSTOR, the service in which Swartz hacked and downloaded from, and MIT did not take action against Swartz. Swartz’s crime was seemingly victimless and did not cause any financial damper on either JSTOR or MIT. With that being considered a lesser offense seemed in order and appropriate but Ortiz thought otherwise and had the ultimate decision.  The stress of the charges and financial hammering that the federal case brought was too much for one suffering from depression to handle.

Penalties for Intellectual Property Infringement Can be Too Severe for Certain Cases

As shown in the Swartz case, penalties can be seemingly harsh for Intellectual Property Infringement. As most any case the prosecutor decides what to charge the accused with; fines can range from $750 to $30,000 and sentencing can be up to 5 years in prison per work stolen and or used illegally.  Where these penalties turn too severe varies case to case. Many feel that if the accused have not harmed the companies that they have stolen from then there is no need for such harsh punishment. Swartz caused no damage to the public or the companies by downloading their files and he was charged with a fine that would’ve bankrupted him and a sentence that would’ve had him grow old in prison. Should such penalties only apply to the accused that harmed the companies they stole from? It is only just to not overly charge and punish the accused.

The Use of Social Media While in Restaurants is Distracting Society from Inter-Personal Communication

Texting, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, all of these social medias are taking over our time at the dining table.

The use of mobile devices to access social media is becoming a more common occurrence in restaurants, especially amongst the younger generations.

For this project I plan on interviewing a few volunteers walking in or out of local dining spots.

http://www.aect.org/pdf/proceedings11/2011/11_24.pdf

Peoples use of Phones in Restaurants is Putting an end to Interpersonal Communication in our Society

The issue of cell phone use while in restaurants is becoming increasingly more spoken about. There are many mixed views that people have regarding the act. Without question there is one harm that is undeniable. Restaurants are very social settings, where you sit and speak with the ones whom are with, using your cell phone while at the table is putting an end to this.

These three photos give a visual to this ever so common occurrence. They all show a clear lack of interest and communication between the individuals. The photos show these people deeply concentrated on a self controlled few inch screen that our society now finds ourselves inseparable from. Of these three the second photo with the four women entranced by their phones gives us the best understanding of how the use of phones in these settings is harming our interpersonal communication. The photo is very explanatory. It shows drinks on the table allowing the viewer to assume that the women have already ordered and are not looking at a menu on there phones. The photo shows each one of the women with their head down looking at their phones rather than head up and looking at each other. Three of the four women have their backs slouched and two of them seem very comfortable and deep into their doings on their phone since they have their arms supporting their heads.  The photo does an excellent job portraying the fact that these women are in no way socializing with one another even though they are in a restaurant, which is considered to be the mecca of social settings. The other photos give the viewer good explanation but they are not as convincing or explanatory of the severity of the problem. The second photo does a much better job showing the viewer how deep into their phones each individual is and how far from communicating amongst each other that they are.

About Me

I, Dillon, am a 19 year old sophomore standing male here at the University of Maryland.  I certainly have a broad variety of interests. I love weight lifting, listening to music, and my iphone and Netflix are slightly bad addictions for me. However,  I am most passionate about pursuing a career in residential Real Estate. It is absolutely my life goal to become a successful Real Estate agent in the DC, Maryland and Virginia Area. The University doesn't offer a major for Real Estate, so I am intending to earn my major in Communications with a minor in Technology Entrepreneurship.