COUCOU by Maria Tabet

COU COU

COUCOU

Integrative Studio 2: Design Research to the Faculty of the Graduate School The New School/ Parsons

By MARIA TABET Vivian Kuan, Professor May 2017

2

3

ABSTRACT Staying in touch is a fundamental aspect in maintaining a long-distance relationship, whether it is in a romantic, familial or friendship context. An effective communication can enable those living apart to have a feeling of connectedness and help them maintain their relationship despite the physical distance. This paper describes the results of an exploration study on people living far from their loved ones, with a focus on how to stay in touch with their close circle and overcome the distance.

The targeted user group in this study is geographically separated families, friends and partners. A user study was conducted by means of a survey, focus group and interviews.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT UNDERSTAND Introduction

Technology Use In The United States

Tools For Relationship Maintenance

Attachment Theory

Relationship Maintenance Behaviors

Satisfaction With Communication Technologies

Factors Related To Relationship Satisfaction In LDR

Research Questions OBSERVE Methods

Analyses & Results

ii 8-19 10-11 12-13 14 15 15 16 17 18-19 20-27 22 23-27

DEFINE

Quality Of Communication

Close, But Just Not The Same

Technology As The Message

Technology Saved The Relationship Analyses

Personas & Journey Mapping

28-37 30 30 31 31 32 34-37

IDEATE

Market Evaluation Breakdown Example

Existing Market

PROTOTYPE

Paper Prototype #1

Paper Prototype #2

Developer Meetings

Business Model Canvas

Competitive Analysis

The Application

38-47 40-41 42-44 45 46-47

TEST

62-75 64 65 66-69 70-73 74-75

User Experience Testing How Committed Are You To COUCOU? The Notification You Wait For Financial Statements Five Year Plan

48-61 50-53 54 55 56 57 58-61

REFERENCES

76-77

APPENDIX

Long Distance Relationship Survey

Open-Ended Questions

Demographic Information

78-81 78-79 80 81

UNDERSTAND

8

9

INTRODUCTION Humans are bound by relationships, however what is in our power to resolve the geographical and spacial distance?

It is about being able to overcome the obstacle of what is called long distance relationship.

When talking about long distance relationships, the most instinctive understanding is that of a romantic long distance relationship. However, there are other forms of LDR. Generally, this can be categorized into the following: Friendship: Moving to a new city may be a logical step when the ink on your diploma dries. You may be following a job lead, taking the next step with your significant other or simply seeking adventure. But it is unlikely that you will move for a friend.

“Friendship is viewed as discretionary,” said Irene S. Levine, Ph.D., a professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and a friendship expert.

“It takes a lesser priority in people’s minds than work or family.”

Even so, professional life and personal life are often intertwined.

“Friendships make you a better worker, lover and partner,” Dr. Levine said. Life often takes us in different directions from our closest friends, which often results in us living a long way apart. Managing to maintain a long distance friendship can be equally problematic.

Romantic: As mentioned earlier, this is the most common form of LDR. Some couples have started their relationships online, others simply live in different countries or cities due to work or education.

Familial: Family long-distance relationship can involve close and extended family members such as grandparents who live abroad, cousins who moved to a different state, young adults moving to a different city for university, or spouses working overseas.

In fact, among the three types of long distance relationships, familial LDR includes more members. How is this affecting the ones involved?

Grandparents: Long distance relationships with family, especially with older people is extremely relevant. Many elderly people suffer from feelings of abandonment and sometimes may necessitate more attention. Furthermore, they may feel that their children no longer consider them important, which makes them feel useless.

The child who goes away: Some children want a degree from a university away from home in search of fulfilling hopes and dreams.

Feeling homesick is inevitable at first especially if these children are very close to other family members.

The parent who’s away from home: Just like college students, parents who need to be away from home can suffer from homesickness. There is also the possible danger of a close relationship with spouse and children degrading with time.

The parent who stays at home: Both members of a couple are not always in the same place at the time for various reason. The one parent left at home with children may feel the pressure of raising them alone. It can be difficult to manage when you do not have someone to help you brainstorm at times when they are needed the most.

Distant family members: Staying in contact with your own brothers or sisters keeps families together. This also allows children to have relationships with their cousins, aunts or uncles. Being far away can make you a stranger within your own family.

10

11

Globalization has changed our world in a number of different ways.

One of the effects is the increasing migration of people from one country to another. This phenomenon results in families, partners and friends living far from one another.

When physical separation occurs, there is a higher risk of relationship deterioration, which in turn may lead to relationship dissolution. Once one’s relationship deteriorates, the possibility of losing friends or partners is higher than losing family members.

Long-distance relationships (LDRs) are becoming more common with recent advances in communication technology. In the past, friends, family members, and partners living miles apart could only keep in touch via hand written letters and occasional phone calls. However, nowadays communication technology has become far more advanced than it used to be in the past.

TECHNOLOGY USE IN THE UNITED STATES According to the latest polls from the Pew Research Center, 83% of adults in the United States own a cell phone, and place an average of 12 calls per day (Smith, 2011a). This average jumps to 17 calls per day among individuals 18-29 years old.

The survey results also indicated that while 53% of users claim to prefer phone calls, 31% prefer text messaging, and 14% say “it depends”. Perhaps not surprisingly, those who text frequently prefer receiving texts instead of phone calls. Among cell phone users, 73% send and receive an average of ten text messages per day. The rate of texting peaks among young adults age 18-29, who reportedly send/ receive a median of 40 texts per day (Smith, 2011a).

Though many young adults appear to avoid commitment, others demonstrate the determination to maintain their relationships despite the fluctuations of life, particularly when moving away for reasons mentioned above. Long-distance relationships have gained increasing prevalence among couples in the United States. Bergen, Kirby, and McBride (2007) estimate that nearly three million married Americans live away from their spouse. This phenomenon is also apparent in the lives of young adults as they separate from family, friends, and dating partners during the transition from high school to college (Arnett, 2000; Johnson, Haigh, Craig, & Becker, 2009).

Smart phones, laptops, and tablets bring other methods of communicating within one’s immediate reach. Email remains one of the top online activities; among online adults, 92% use email with 61% using it daily (Purcell, 2011). About two-thirds of online adults use social network sites, such as Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn, to stay in touch with friends and family members (Smith, 2011c). Of the 845 million monthly users of Facebook, over 425 million accessed their accounts through a mobile device (“Newsroom Fact Sheet,” n.d.).

Video chats, Twitter, and blogs also allow online individuals to see, hear, or read the latest updates from other users, including their close cirlce of people that matter the most to them.

Long-distance dating relationships (LDDRs) are common in the college population; therefore much of the literature on LDRs focuses on dating couples. Scholars estimate that anywhere from 25% to 50% of college students are involved in an LDDR at any given time, and 75% of college students have at some time maintained at least one LDDR (Stafford, 2005).

This is especially true for young adults raised in the “digital age”.

Today, college students tend to have frequent access to modern communicative technology, and reportedly use them at higher rates compared to older adults. Perhaps their comfort and ease of using technology also enhances the relationships they are required to maintain at a distance.

LDDRs are especially high among first year college students, and it is estimated that as many as one third of all first year college students are in LDRs (Aylor, 2014).

Clearly, phone calls, texts, emails, instant messages video chats, and many other methods help build and maintain relationships between individuals both far and near.

The common use of cell phones has greatly affected the occurrence and maintenance of LDRs. In addition to cellular phones, online social networking websites such as Myspace™, Facebook™, Twitter™, Snapchat™, Whatsapp™, and Instagram™ create the opportunity for instant and constant connection between individuals in LDRs. Not only can partners stay in touch every single day, but they can share schedules, pictures, stories, moods, emotions, and music.

12

13

TOOLS FOR RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE

ATTACHMENT THEORY

Several studies have explored the technologies people in LDR use to communicate with loved ones while away. A 2011 study conducted by Gentzler, Oberhauser, Westerman, and Nadorff found that out of 211 “immigrants�, all were reported to be using phone calls to communicate with a parent while almost two-thirds used email and text, and only about a quarter used social networks to stay in touch.

These rates may be higher when they communicate with their peers and romantic partners. Among a sample of students living at least 200 miles away from their partner, over half talked on the phone and/or emailed their partner several times per week. Also, 22% spoke on the phone at least once a day, and 8.8% talked several times a day (Knox, Zusman, Daniels, & Brantley, 2002).

Attachment refers to the strong emotional bonds in every important relationship (Bowlby, 1988).To regulate security, individuals maintain a comfortable range of proximity to their loved one (Bowlby, 1969), who can provide a safe haven (e.g., comforting) during stress/distress and a secure base (e.g., guidance, advice) in times of need.

Due to an increased risk of separation, moving is a threat that activates attachment concerns.

The nature of the communication may vary depending on the content of the messages, as well as the relationship between senders.

According to Reid and Reid (2010) college students tend to use texting more for relationship-focused communication. They report that one-third of texts young adults send and receive were for practical purposes, while the remaining two-thirds involved communication related to friendships and romantic relationships.

In a separate study of college students, emails with family members and friends were generally tailored to relationship maintenance including conversations about common activities and social networks, while emails with romantic partners were more likely to include assurances, openness, and positivity (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2008).

The inception of Facebook in 2004 created a new pathway to share personal information, experiences, and ideas with others. Facebook, and other popular social network sites, allow individuals to send private or public messages, instant messages, share pictures, and follow the activities and interests of others.

RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE BEHAVIORS Relational maintenance behaviors serve to sustain or improve a relationship (Dindia & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). Two maintenance frameworks are relevant to attachment, LDRs, and perceived stress.

First, a typology developed by Stafford and Canary (1991; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000) describes seven categories of maintenance behaviors (MBs): assurances about love and relationship continuation; openness in discussing feelings and relationships; cooperative conflict management; sharing tasks; positivity or engaging in pleasant interactions; giving advice; and social networking to sustain relationships.

Second, relationships have periods of co-presence and periods of non-co-presence. As a consequence, Dindia and EmmersSommer (2006) identified three categories of relationship continuity constructional units (RCCUs; Sigman, 1991) that partners use to create meaning for, and bridge periods of, separation (Gilbertson, Dindia, & Allen, 1998). Prospective behaviors (e.g., tell the partner good-bye) address anticipated separation. Introspective behaviors (e.g., phone when apart) maintain connection during separation; and retrospective behaviors (e.g., talk to each other when again face-toface) reaffirm connection after separation.

14

15

SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES People far from home use various technological communication means on a daily basis to contact family and friends. However, a few studies have specifically explored the user’s satisfaction with these tools. Kalpidou, Costin, and Morris (2011) found that many people reportedly spend an average of 30 minutes to two hours on Facebook daily, though this method has been proven unfulfilling for those who became emotionally attached to and preoccupied with their connections with “friends”. Baym, Zhang, and Lin (2004) found that while these people integrated technology into their social lives, face-to-face communication remained the preferred mode of interaction. LDR relationships may employ phone, email, and chat at similar rates (Stafford & Merolla, 2007), though physical time together remains the preferred method of communication.

Therefore, further exploration is needed to understand how effective each technology is in maintaining and satisfying long-distance relationships.

FACTORS RELATED TO RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION IN LDRS The contradiction of being together while living apart presents unique challenges. Long-distance relationships could face discouragement and loneliness after comparing their relationship to geographically-close relationships (Stafford, 2010). However, effective communication skills could alleviate feelings of isolation and stress.

Communication: In regards to romantic relationships, some people have learned to manage the stress of separation through openness and positivity, which were found to be positively correlated to relationship satisfaction. Couples who are more satisfied with their long-distance relationship tend to actively cope with extensive time apart by altering their conversations to be more intimate, and talking about the relationship more often than geographically close couples do in order to increase trust and loyalty (Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Stafford, 2010). Though their conversations may contain more intimate themes, LDR couples tend to avoid topics that could lead to conflict or discomfort as to not ruin their limited time spent communicating, or they may choose to save uncomfortable conversations for their time together when they can discuss serious matters face-to-face.

Attachment: LDRs often mirror the separation-reunion cycle featured in studies of attachment (Pistole, 2010). For example, people may separate for a specific amount of time, later spend a long weekend or holiday break together, then eventually return to their separate lives, and repeating the cycle again. Attachment bonds in adulthood are also revealed in caregiving behaviors. Generally, caregiving requires both sides of the “relationship” to be physically present to exchange physical and emotional support in times of distress.

Commitment and uncertainty: Personal investment in the relationship can improve relationship satisfaction through increasing the level of commitment. High investments in the relationship has been shown to lead to stronger LDRs. Challenging reunions: During visits, people attempted to schedule as many activities as possible during their limited time together, creating a sense of urgency. The growing body of LDR research provides valuable insight into the unique experiences of young adults maintaining ties while living geographically separated. In fact, the pressure to make each moment together worth it creates an opportunity to explore activities and exchanges that they would not necessarily do on their own. This creates a wind of change and evolution in the relationship, no matter its kind, rather than stagnation.

16

17

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Previous studies have focused on a limited number of communication technologies, rarely examining their combined use for communicating with a person far away.

This study seeks to explore the overall use and frequency of various methods, including phone calls, text messages, emails, instant messages, video chats, social network websites, Twitter, blogs, and others.

RQ1. What methods of technology do people use to communicate with their long-distance friend, family member or partner?

RQ2. How frequently do people use each method to communicate with the said person?

Long-distance relationships are prevalent among college students, and this population appears to rely heavily on communicative technologies to maintain these relationships. However, few researchers have investigated the correlation between one’s satisfaction with communication technology and one’s satisfaction with a current long-distance relationship. Additionally, this study seeks to better understand the benefits and drawbacks of technology in maintaining a relationship among all forms of LDR. RQ3. How satisfied are people with the use of these methods in maintaining a long-distance relationship?

RQ4. Is there a positive correlation between use, frequency, and satisfaction, and communication technologies and relationship satisfaction?

RQ5. How does communication technology improve relationship satisfaction?

RQ6. How does communication technology hinder relationship satisfaction?

18

19

OBSERVE

20

21

METHODS

ANALYSES & RESULTS

Measure I used a mixed-method approach to better understand the use, benefits, and challenges of relying on technology to build a relationship. I developed a 30-item survey including items from previously tested measures as well as items unique to this study. The sample was composed of 30 people. Questions focused on the use of technology to maintain communication, feelings about the current relationship, and demographic information.

First, I performed preliminary frequency analyses to summarize the demographics of the 30 sample (reported above) and, to answer the first research question, I explored the methods of technology people reported using to communicate with their family, Friends and partner.

Technologies Used To Communicate With A Long-Distance Partner Frequency analyses indicated the highest percentange of the sample use text messaging (93%), phone calls (92%), and video chat (74%) to stay in touch with their close cirle abroad. An independent samples t-test showed no significant difference at the .05 level between males and females for each method of technology except blogs [males M = .06, SD = .245, females M = .01, SD = .9; t(100.66) = 1.55, p = .034). However, overall only six males and three females reported using blogs to communicate with the ou

Description Of The Dating Relationship And Technology Use For the initial items, I asked about the nature of the relationship, including length, distance from one’s another, and the frequency of face-to-face visits. Participants then marked each method of technology they typically use to communicate with their partner, including text messaging, phone calls, email, social network sites, instant messages, video chat, blog, twitter, and “other”. These methods were analyzed separately (1 = use, 0 = do not use) and summed as a score of overall technology use, with a possible range of 0 to 9. Participants then reported their frequency of use (1 = daily, 2 = 3-4 times per week, 3 = 3-4 times per month, 4 = once per month, 5 = 5-10 times per year, 6 = 1-4 times per year, or 7 = never) and satisfaction with their use of each technology (1 = not at all satisfied, 2 = slightly satisfied, 3 = somewhat satisfied, 4 = very satisfied, or 5 = not applicable).

Reported Use Of Communication Technologies In A Current LDR

REPORTED USE Technology Text messaging Phone Call

Video Chat

Social Networking Instant Messaging Email Twitter Blog Other

Relationship Satisfaction Participants then answered six likert-scale items (1= Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) relating to their feelings and attitudes about the current relationships. For example, “Overall, I am satisfied with my relationship,” “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner, friends, family” and “I want my relationship to last a very long time.” I included six items from the Investment Model Scale developed by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998). This scale has been widely used to determine relationship satisfaction and commitment . A combined score of these six items served as a measure of overall relationship satisfaction (α = .86).

Open-Ended Questions Participants also answered the following three open-ended questions: “How has technology improved your long-distance dating relationship?”, “How has technology hindered your long-distance dating relationship?”, and “Are there methods you use to build and maintain your relationship other than those mentioned in this survey?”

All (N=30)

Females (N=16)

Males (N=14)

93% 92% 74% 64%

94% 92% 73% 63%

90% 92% 78% 65%

38% 34% 14% 2% 3%

37% 33% 15% 1% 3%

43% 38% 13% 6% 3%

Demographic Information Finally, participants completed a demographic questionnaire, reporting their age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship status, income, and the current relation/ status of the person they are doing a long distance with.

22

23

Frequency Of Use Results of frequency analyses showed how often people use each method of technology. Of those who reported using each method, most of them (88%) claimed to text their close circle abroad (people they talk to everyday and that matter the most to them), and a majority (60%) spoke daily over the phone.

Satisfaction With Technology Depending on the method under consideration, user satisfaction varied. Students reported highest satisfaction with phone calls and video chat, and least satisfaction with blogs and Twitter, in maintaining their long-distance relationship

Satisfaction With Technology To Communicate With Close Cirle Abroad

Frequency Of Technology Use To Communicate With Close Cirle Abroad

FREQUENCY of USE Technology Text messaging Phone Call

Video Chat

Social Networking Instant Messaging Email Twitter Blog

3-4 times per week

Daily 88% 60% 15% 18% 18% 4% 4% -

6% 22% 20% 30% 20% 12% 6% 1%

3-4 times per month

1% 12% 28% 24% 15% 21% 6% 2%

once per month or less

5% 6% 37% 28% 47% 63% 84% 97%

Technology

Text messaging Phone Call

Video Chat

Social Networking Instant Messaging Email Twitter Blog

Very Satisfied

58% 67% 67% 32% 42% 41% 35% 34%

SATISFACTION WITH TECHNOLOGY Somewhat Satisfied

32% 25% 19% 40% 39% 35% 27% 22%

Slightly Satisfied

9% 7% 10% 23% 16% 18% 25% 17%

Not at all Satisfied

1% 1% 4% 5% 3% 6% 13% 27%

Overall, participants either agreed or strongly agreed to statements expressing commitment to and satisfaction with their current LDR. Out of a possible score of 30, participants averaged 26.60 (SD = 3.98) in scores of overall relationship satisfaction. An independent samples t showed no significant difference between males and females.

As mentioned earlier, several people relied on in-person visits to supplement their long-distance relationship. However, for many this was not an option. The fourth research question queried about the correlation between technology (use, frequency, and satisfaction) and relationship satisfaction. In order to answer this, a sum of technologies used by participants was calculated to determine whether using multiple methods led to higher relationship satisfaction.

Results from a bivariate correlation found no significant relationship between the number of methods used and relationship satisfaction. Similarly, a linear regression showed no significant relationship between frequency of technology use and relationship satisfaction. A linear regression unveiled a significant correlation only between satisfaction with phone calls and relationship satisfaction; t (342) = 3.7, p < .001.

24

25

Open-Ended Responses To answer the remaining research questions, I analyzed open-ended responses using thematic coding techniques (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Most people’s responses were one word to a few sentences in length; however, I was able to identify strong common themes. I repeatedly read responses in their entirety prior to creating the initial codes and themes. Once constructed, I refined and collapsed the themes. I identified themes not only by how commonly participants discussed the topic but also according to their relevance relating to the research questions and reviewed literature.

Participant responses followed an interesting dialectic path. Themes in the drawbacks of using technology were similar yet contradictory to many of the reported benefits. By comparing the pros and cons juxtaposed, the daily experiences of the sample can be better understood. A constant conversation; the immediate gratification of maintaining constant contact with the close circle abroad proved most valuable for people in maintaining their LDR.

Technology in the context of relationships

THEME

Almost one-third of participants remarked that daily connections allowed them to stay “up-to-date” with their loved one activities, thoughts, and feelings. One person that I interviewed, who had been dating her long-distance partner for eight months, explained, “I am able to text my boyfriend throughout the day so that we maintain a ‘constant’ conversation rather than just communicating once throughout the day via telephone. This makes it seem like we aren’t that far away from each other and that we actually can keep a dialog going” (Female, age 26).

Similarly, a person living 360 miles from her family stated, “Technology obviously allows us to maintain contact constantly. While we may not have long-winded conversations over the phone or online, texting is what has truly saved the relationship. . . . Just getting a text that says ‘thinking of you’ makes up for the distance between us. In addition, we created a whatsapp group with my family so we can communicate and message each other more easily” (Female, age 22).

EXAMPLE RESPONSE

On the contrary, several participants reported feeling constantly preoccupied with technology, and were overwhelmed by the expectation to respond immediately to texts or other messages. A male that I interviewed explained, “Sometimes it puts a damper on your independence” (Male, age 29). Individuals who are apprehensive about the relationship may perceive hyper communication as an intrusion of personal boundaries. As one said, “Technology has sometimes been a hindrance in that it almost makes for too much contact. I would say I know more about what goes on with my girlfriend than I probably would if we are living close to each other” (Male, age 23). Similarly, “It keeps us from living our own lives” (Female, age 24).

communication

26

27

DEFINE

28

29

QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION

TECHNOLOGY AS THE MESSAGE

In LDRs, many typical relationship-building activities are impossible, making personal bonding through communication crucial. Over one-fourth of participants simply stated that technology made this process easier, better, and in some cases, possible. One participant, whose best friend was back home, explained, “It makes communication easier and more integrated into everyday life. It’s not a chore to say ‘hi’ on [Google] chat or send a text every now and then” (Female, age 26). Another said, “We have learned how to communicate effectively by thoroughly talking things through since we cannot read each other’s body language or facial expressions as we would in person” (Male, age 29).

However, certain methods led to miscommunication and felt less personal than video chats and phone calls. For example, “It’s hard to decipher tone from emails, texts, and chats. . . . This has led to increased problems caused mainly by misunderstandings and miscommunication. Also, the availability of technology allows us to be in contact so frequently that sometimes the value of our interactions decreases” (Female, age 29).

Participants who reported improved communication may have learned to tailor the content of their messages to match the method being used.

For example, text messages could function best to relay short, informational messages while phone calls and video chats could be the optimal tool for more complex messages and challenging conversations. As stated by a Journalism friend that I interviewed, “I prefer to talk on the phone than text/email/tweet, because I like to be able to fully explain something rather than giving the 140-character version” (Female, age 30).

While a simple text or email can symbolize a partner’s affection, silence may communicate indifference.

Communication breakdown due to poor technological connections created frustration between partners, and at times led to feelings of rejection. One student explained, “My phone blocked texting on accident for a whole day. I thought he wasn’t trying to contact me, but it was a technology glitch” (Female, age 21).

Another said, “It’s frustrating when the Internet goes out or we have phone problems. Sometimes if I don’t get a text back I wonder what the problem is, when sometimes he just didn’t receive it. That happened a lot with his old phone to the point of misunderstandings and arguments” (Female, age 27). Such cases magnified insecurities about a partner’s commitment and honesty.

Social networking sites also threatened trust and prompted feelings of jealousy. One student explained, “Despite its convenience, social media can create drama in a relationship. Although I have complete trust in my boyfriend, anytime a girl writes on his Facebook wall, my jealousy kicks in. . . . While I enjoy having the ability to see his communication with others through social media, sometimes I would just rather not know” (Female, age 21).

CLOSE, BUT JUST NOT THE SAME

TECHNOLOGY SAVED THE RELATIONSHIP

Texts and emails seemed to lack a crucial facet of communication – nonverbal signals. Voice intonation and [their] facial expressions appeared to add valuable depth and meaning to messages sent and received by the people that we missed the most. One-fifth of the sample discussed the benefits of “seeing” their close cirle back home via video chat. For example, “Skype has been the best! It helps so much to see the person doing whatever it is they’re doing and facial expressions. It helps you stay in tune with their body language, and there is less room for miscommunication” (Female, age 32). Video chats also created an “illusion of spending time together” (Male, age 35).

After video chats and phone calls, returning to the reality of living apart often led to loneliness. Many students discussed how technology helped them feel closer to home, but as a result, some missed their home more. As one female explained, “Although you may be able to see or hear them, that does not replace their presence or their touch that reassures you” (Female, age 28). Similarly, a person noticed, “I think sometimes technology tricks my emotions into thinking that things are, for the most part, still the same as they were before we were long-distance. It makes me miss home even more” (Male, age 23).

While the disadvantages of technology incurred added stress to an already challenging situation, these drawbacks were not present in all relationships. For example, over one-fifth of respondents claimed it was not a hindrance at all. Furthermore, several people credited technology as the force that made their relationship possible. “My relationship wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for technology.” (Female, age 36).

Similarly, a person living 250 miles from his home explained, “Technology bridges the gap between my family and I very well. . . . Without technology, it would be impossible for me to maintain my long distance relationship” (Male, age 34). And finally, a student living about 990 miles from her partner said, “Without technology, there would be no relationship because relationships require communication. Hand-written letters are nice, but they just don’t do the job” (Female, age 18).

30

31

ANALYSIS This exploratory, mixed-methods study captures the unique experiences of LDR and their use of technology to maintain their current relationship. The results support previous studies of technology use among adults, showing similar and even higher rates of texting, phone calls, video chats, and social networking compared to recent reports (see Rainie & Zickuhr, 2010; Smith, 2011a; Smith, 2011b). The ease of sending texts and placing phone calls could explain their frequent use, while the reported benefits of video chat, such as seeing one’s person that matters the most and communicating non-verbally, boost its popularity. The least satisfying methods of digital communication include Twitter and blogs, perhaps because of their unidirectional nature, while social network sites can be satisfying, yet frustrating.

The combined results from quantitative analyses and qualitative findings offer a unique insight into how technology impacts relationship satisfaction. Indeed, all of the participants were satisfied with the tools of communication that are already present, which are free and constantly accesible: “[Technology] enabled a free to low-cost way to stay up-to-date with almost all aspects of my partner’s life” Communication technologies have become within direct reach. However, despite said availability, the gap between individuals and their close circle continues to exist. The technology is merely a tool. However, it does not change people’s approach to stay in contact with their friends, family and partners. As a result, this research has focused extensively on understanding people’s behavior and attitudes to staying in touch.

The unique situations of avoidance and emotions are potential areas of one constraint to stay connected with your close cirle. Results of this study show avoidance and emotions are constraints that are also utilized as management. The interconnectedness of these constraints was not anticipated and therefore not fully developed in this study, but perhaps a future investigation focusing on the totality of constraints can help LDR understand the complicated process of a constraint cycle.

Scheduling constraints were reported by all participants and closely relate to internal constraints such as lack of contact when away, or a low quality of talk often found in short conversations or brief connections.

Indeed, people who are currently living in different time zones find it difficult to take the time to speak to their close cirle.

32

33

PERSONAS & JOURNEY MAPPING DOING

DOING

- Working Investment Banking - Long Hours at the office

THINKING - This weekend I will catch up with my grandfather and update him on my new job position

- Master in Strategic Design and Management at Parsons

THINKING - I have the support of my family - Our relationship is very strong even if we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t communicate on a daily basis

HOPING FO - To be able to call his mom - To update his brother on his weeked

RICHARD YOUNES - Lebanese/ Canadian - 27 years old

HOPING FO - To find a job after her master - To have a better vision of her career path

PANKHURI KANWAR FEELING - Guilty because its has been a week since he last spoke with his grandfather

- Indian - 24 years old

In LDR with: - Family: his Mother & Grandfather

In LDR with: - Sibling: Brother (lives in Mumbai, India)

- Sibling: Brother (lives in Grenoble, France)

- Partner (lives in Mumbai, India)

(Both of them live in Beirut, Lebanon)

- Friends: his best friend Julie (lives in Montreal, Canada)

OPPORTUNITIES

FEELING - Guilty because she is not sure if she wants to move back to India - Loosing the connection with home

OPPORTUNITIES

- Be able to stay in touch with the people that matters even with a busy scheduel

- Be able to be satisfied with my

relationships even with the distance that seperate us

34

35

DOING

DOING

- Working In a start-up company - Fun job / create pop-up stores around NYC

THINKING - I wish I could share all my happy moments with my parents; I am here because of them. They support all my decisions

- Master in Strategic Design and Management at Parsons

MIGUEL GRISANTI - Venezuelan - 22 years old

THINKING - I have to constantly check on my parents - I have to go back home more often

HOPING FO - To be able to go back one day in Venezuela and live there - That his family is safe in Venezuela

HOPING FO - To settle in her life/ find a job - Travell all around the world

SHUHARN YEH FEELING - Thankful to his parents because they support him on all aspects

- Taiwanese - 30 years old

In LDR with: - Family: his Mother & Father

In LDR with: - Family: her mother and father (live in Taiwan)

( Both of them live in Caracas, Venezuela)

FEELING - Guilty because she is so far from her parents who are getting old - Responsible of taking care of them

- Friends: Talk to them to catch up on gossips OPPORTUNITIES

OPPORTUNITIES

- To stay constantly in touch with his parents

- Be able to take care of her parents and feel less guilty that she is not physically close to them

36

37

IDEATE

38

39

MARKET EVALUATION

321.4 million is the population in the US

After extensive research, I decided to narrow the scope of focus on International Students in the United States. In fact, as many as 75% of International students are or will eventually be in a long-distance relationship (Stafford, 2010).

Also, despite the tech market reaching a saturation level, there remains an existing gap in the market in regards to maintaining relationships from afar. Indeed, as the number of international students increases, so do long-distance relationships. As a result, International students and their close circle are struggling to maintain the same levels of complicity, relatability and closeness. This gap in the market leaves room for a platform that bridges the distance, by enabling constant updates of day-to-day life. The fear of missing out that 60% of foreigns students feel can be adjusted, as this platform would ensure immersion into the other personâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life.

40 million is the number of students enrolling in the US

Because of external factors, people, but most importantly international students, fail to maintain the same level of communication and type of relationship with their close circle, as they did when living in the same place. The conversations become more and more superficial, led only with factual reporting. The genuine feelings of empathy, sympathy, humor and more slowly disappear, as there is to this day no tool to prevent it from doing so.

12 million is the number of international students in the US

40

41

BREAKDOWN COUCOU is the result of this research. COUCOU is a tailored box that studies the relationship and the evolution of people within close circles. I decided to focus on the close circle because while interviewing people I realized that they only interact with their intimate entourage. This cirlce can include first degree or extended family members, high-school best friends or partners. Close-circle does not necessarily entail a close relationship to every member who one is ‘meant’ to be close with. This means that if a person is extremely close to their mother but only maintains a formal relationship with their father, only their mother will be included into this close circle.

After performing in depth research into this matter, I realized that time is the main issue preventing people from staying in touch. All of the people I interviewed agreed that although technology cuts distance barriers, they only choose to connect with the people that matter the most every so often. I realized that I needed to find a solution for this growing problem and change the behavior of people. Thus, COUCOU is a virtual box that uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to collect data from one’s daily activities and then packages it and delivers tailored messages to relevant people.

As mentioned above, the main problem is time. This means that people do not take the time to speak to the people that mean something to them. It is not a question of want: if they could, they would. COUCOU acts as a silent contributor to maintaining relationships. It does not require any specific input from any of the members, which might be the best solution to the problem in hand.

COUCOU will analyze people’s relationships using AI. As a result, depending on the extent of communication between both ends, COUCOU will take more or less time to interpret and understand the dynamics of a relationship. Ultimately, the point is to tailor and curate information depending on the person on the receiving end. For example, if an individual has a strong relationship with their mother, which revolves mostly around cooking, architecture and wellbeing, COUCOU will base its data analysis on these themes in order to send the mother enough but not too much information about these specific topics. This will work the same way for the various people within the close cirlce and vice versa. Perhaps a good timeframe would be to receive COUCOU once a week. This way, the relationship would be maintained with weekly updates, but would not take over the person’s life or mailbox.

42

COU COU 43

EXAMPLE

44

45

EXISTING MARKET In order to fully explain and develop my project, I believed understanding the AI market was truly a necessity. As COUCOU would rely heavily on the use and implementation of Artificial Intelligence, I wanted to be fully certain that the technology itself had reached a high stage of dependence and reliability. As a result, throughout my research, a number of companies appeared to use AI with great fluidity. Among these, I believe Facebook, Intel, TED and Apple are the corporations that use AI in a way that is most similar to that of COUCOU.

Facebook uses a DL application called DeepFace to teach it to recognize people in photos. It says that its most advanced image recognition tool is more successful than humans DeepFace scoring a 97% success rate compared to humans with 96%

Your Path to Deeper Insight Machine learning is becoming faster and more accessible. Our customers are using massive data sets to build smarter cities, power intelligent cars, and deliver personalized medicineĂ&#x2030;and that is just the beginning.

46

Fei-Fei Li: How we're teaching computers to understand pictures When a very young child looks at a picture, she can identify simple elements: "cat," "book," "chair."

Now, computers are getting smart enough to do that too.

Apple is adding to its existing patents for automatically unlocking an iPhone using facial recognition, according to a patent application the firm is still refining alternative methods of biometric security it could use in future mobile devices.

47

PROTOTYPE

48

49

PAPER PROTOTYPE #1 In my first paper prototype, I asked people to pick one person from their close circle and to report their interactions with them throughout an entire week, without failing to mention what they wish they could have talked about, why they did not, if they were able to communicate with them as much as they wanted to and more.

By conducting this first phase of the testing process, I wanted to demonstrates and underline why a platform like COUCOU is needed and has a place on the market at this specific point in time.

My insights were the following: They wished they could speak to the member of their close circle more often and at more length

John Acosta / American

Joey Byrne / American

Richard Younes / Canadian

- LDR with his sister Felice

Raphael Schach / German

- LDR with his father

- LDR with his grandfather

Andres Diaz / Columbian

Ary Cohen / Spanish

- LDR with his brother Michel

- LDR with his Mother

- LDR with his sister

Rita Tabet / Italian

Talia Doueidy / Lebanese

Roxane Vincent / French

Sophie Steinmeyer / German

Alysha Duh / Pakistani

Semina Bildik / Turkish

- LDR with her Grandmother

- LDR with her boyfriend Carl

- LDR with her Best friend NJ

- LDR with her sister

- LDR with her childhood friend

- LDR with her cousin

They wished they could share with them some small aspects of their lives but found it too time-consuming to report every event, interaction, realization and thought they had.

They had a difficult time finding a time that suited both parties, especially if the LDR crossed time zones They often found that being in the social setting of a cosmopolitan city such as, but not limited to New York, made it more difficult to have a meaningful interaction If there had not been any interaction in a certain amount of time, they felt even more reluctant to reach out, as they believed it would lead to a more emotional conversation.

As a result, I have chosen to divide the nuisances of LDR into 4 main categories: 1. Effect of surroundings/environment on LDR interactions 2. Time constraint and lack of time management 3. Involvement of emotions in LDR conversations 4. Avoidance of LDR interactions

50

51

Low quality of talk Brief connections Short conversations

Frustration

Forgetfulness

EMOTIONS

Disruptive

Long conversations

TIME AVOIDANCE Procrastination Adapt

Focus

Scheduling constraints

Tranquil

52

SURROUNDINGS

53

PAPER PROTOTYPE #2

DEVELOPER MEETINGS

My second paper prototype aimed to focus on peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s willingness and reluctance to have AI access different mobile applications. The way I decided to tackle this issue was to print a paper phone and cut out a number of daily used applications. I gave each participant the phone and all the applications on the side and asked them to position which application they were comfortable retrieving AI data on the paper phone. From this second phase of testing, I was able to understand the following:

In order to truly expand my understanding of the Tech world and to ensure the feasibility of COUCOU, I decided to meet with two different mobile developers: Ian Smith from Parsons the New School for Design and Adam Gavish from Cornell University. They were able to give me the following strengths and weaknesses that my project holds: Strengths This comprehensive study used advanced machine learning techniques to predict behavior.

Model performance is evaluated through multi-nation data simulation experiments.

The prediction accuracy of ensemble technique is superior to that of single learning models.

This study developed advanced learning approaches for solving LDR problems

High-comfort consumers 44% These are willing to share data if there is a perceived beneficial effect to the consumer behind the sharing.

Context-comfortable consumers 28% For these people, data is willingly shared when it leads to more empowerment and better control.

20% This shrinking group is willing to share Reluctant consumers location, brand history, and tool productivity data, but is still reticent to share social, biometric, and environmental data.

Weaknesses Not suitable for prediction of continuous attribute Perform poory with many classed and small data Computationally expensive to train Pruning algorithms can be expensive

No-comfort consumers 8% These tend to be older consumers, with an average age of 52.

The concern of the 4 categories is the ability to maintain security and a level of privacy. Indeed, consumer data is still the biggest inhibitor to consumer comfort with digital systems.

Opportunities Focus on one aspect of the app (the picture folder) Use my design skills to prototype in an interactive way

54

55

BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

Outside of its format, COUCOU aims to bring people together and forge relationships in order for them to connect on an emotional basis without being physically present. As a result, the competitive landscape also includes companies that are not necessarly technological but that touch upon the same emotional connection. Beyond the depth of a relationship between two people, COUCOU wishes to underline the importance of smaller things, which also play a crucial role in maintaining relationships. As a result, companies that focus on these small emotional and physical attachments are clearly worth exploring and taking into consideration. Such companies which highlight experiences and reinforce a bond between two people include the world of hospitality, as it brings together individuals for a shared experience that will remain in their memories. Flowershops are also a part of this competitive landscape as they enable some show of love and care. Keychains can symbolize the thought of a friend, family member or dearly beloved. Letter cards similarly to photo albums immortalize a thought, moment or/and feeling for someone else.

56

57

THE APPLICATION

58

59

Highlight of the week

60

61

TEST

62

63

USER EXPERIENCE TESTING

HOW COMMITTED ARE YOU TO USING COUCOU IF IT REALLY EXISTED ?

As can be seen in the graph below, the demographic that would be most inclined to using COUCOU is international students.

Respondants: 53

64

65

THE NOTIFICATION YOU WAIT FOR

66

67

COU

COU www.coucou.com

68

COU COU

69

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

NUMBER OF USERS

+123% USERS:

24,460

Started with 100 users in the first month Grew number of users by 5% every month for the first six month and then by 10% in month 6 and then added 2% every month to reach 20% in the end of year 1 Maintained 20% growth in year 2 Decreased growth by 1.5% monthly in year 3 Rational: its easier to add users at the beginning stages of the app lifecycle. However, maintaining high growth rates isn’t achievable on the long-run

REVENUE:

21,167

16,168

+416%

App subscription: $6.99/month/user

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE/ CAPEX:

10,954 6,636

+137%

Estimated cost of developing the app is around $50k based on my conversation with a couple of application development companies RECURRING EXPENSES:

315

365

477

748

Q1 Y1

Q2 Y1

Q3 Y1

Q4 Y1

1,286 Q1 Y2

2,222 Q2 Y2

3,840

Q3 Y2

Q4 Y2

Q1 Y3

Q2 Y3

Q3 Y3

Q4 Y3

Outsourced application support: estimated the need of one support employee in the first year, two in the second year and three in the third year as the number of users is growing Sales and marketing: estimated around $200/month which will be spent on social media advertising.

Grew S&M cost by 25% in month 6 and in year 2 through 3 increased the cost by 10% every month Research & development: estimated at $2000 in year 1, $3000 in year 2 and $4000 in year 3. R&D includes artificial intelligence and market research Admin expense: includes office supplies and miscellaneous expenses

70

71

REVENUE BASED ON $6.99/ MONTH/ USER

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE + OPERATING EXPENSES

72

73

FIVE YEAR PLAN

5

5 2018

Increase the number of subscribers

74

5 2019

Expand the type of subscribers

5

5

2020

2021

Expand COUCOU to other big countries with cosmopolitans student centers

Create a tangible box that subscribed uders will receive biannually

2022

Partnership with big social media platforms

75

REFERENCES Aylor, B. A. (2003). Maintaining long-distance relationships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through

communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 127-139). Mahawh, NJ: Erlbaum.

Purcell, K. (2011). Search and email still top the list of most popular online activities (pp. 1-15). Washington, D.C.:

Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M.-C. (2004). Social interactions across media. New Media & Society, 6, 299-318. doi:10.1177/1461444804041438

Quan-Haase, A. (2008). Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in university students’ everyday communication. Information Society,

24, 105-115. doi:10.1080/01972240701883955

Bergen, K. M., Kirby, E., & McBride, M. C. (2007). “How do you get two houses cleaned?”: Accomplishing family caregiving in commuter

marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 287-307. doi:10.1080/15267430701392131

Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Video calling and video chat (pp. 1-12). Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal

Relationships, 17, 1-12. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x Dellmann-Jenkins, M., Bernard-Paolucci, T. S., & Rushing, B. (1994). Does distance make the heart grow fonder? A comparison of college

students in long distance and geographically close dating relationships. College Student Journal, 28, 212–219.

Dansie, L., Long-distance dating relationships, http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CG3CLRY (February 10, 2012).

Guldner, G. T. (1996). Long-distance romantic relationships: Prevalence and separation-related symptoms in college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 37, 289-296.

Holt, P. A., & Stone, G. L. (1988). Needs, coping strategies, and coping outcomes associated with long-distance relationships. Journal of

College Student Development, 29, 136-141.

Jamison, T. B., & Ganong, L. (2011). “‘We’re not living together:”’ Stayover relationships among college-educated emerging adults. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 536 -557. doi:10.1177/0265407510384897 Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., Daniels, V., & Brantley, A. (2002). Absence makes the heart grow fonder?: Long distance dating relationships among

college students. College Student Journal, 36, 364-366.

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickurh, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults (pp. 1-37).

Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Smith, A. (2011c). Why Americans use social media (pp. 1-10). Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Smock, P. J., & Manning, W. D. (2004). Living together unmarried in the United States: Demographic perspectives and implications for family

policy. Law & Policy, 26, 87-117. doi:10.1111/j.0265-8240.2004.00164.x Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining Long-distance and Cross-residential Relationships. Mahawh, NJ: Psychology Press.

Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Communication Research, 37, 275-297. doi:10.1177/0093650209356390

Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 24, 37 -54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578

Stafford, L., Merolla, A. J., & Castle, J. D. (2006). When long-distance dating partners become geographically close. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 23, 901 -919. doi:10.1177/0265407506070472

Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships. Family Relations, 39, 274-279. doi:10.2307/584871

Stanley, S. M., Whitton, S. W., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Maybe I do. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 496 -519. doi:10.1177/0192513X03257797 Zickuhr, K. (2010). Generations 2010 (pp. 1-29). Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Maguire, K. C., & Kinney, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping, and relational satisfaction in female college

students’ long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 27-46. doi:10.1080/00909880903483573 76

77

APPENDIX

How often do you use each method to communicate? Answer for each method and precise for which category: Daily

3-4 times per week

3-4 times per month

Once per month

5-10 times per year

1-4 times per year Never

Long Distance Relationship Survey How long have you been in your long-distance relationships? ________ months What is the distance between you and your home? _________miles Is your close circle back home?

How often do you see your partner/ family/ friends in person?

At least once a week

1-2 times per month

5-10 times per year

1-4 times per year

Less than once per year

Other (fill in blank)

How satisfied are you with the use of technology in your LDR relationships? Answer for each method:

Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied

Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied

How do you describe your realtionship with your partners/ siblings/ partners/ friends?

- My relationships makes me happy Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

> Thinking about your current LDR: - Overall, I am satisfied with my relationships Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

How do you typically communicate with your partner/ family/ friends? Check all that apply and precise for which category:

text messaging

phone calls email

social network sites (i.e. facebook)

instant messages/chat

video chat (i.e. skype) blog twitter

other (fill in blank)

- I am committed to maintaining my relationships with my close circle Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree - I want my relationships with the people that matter to me to last a very long time Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

78

79

Open-Ended Questions How has technology improved your long-distance relationship?

with your family?

with your friends?

with your partner?

Demographic Information Age: _______ Gender: Male Female

How has technology hindered your long-distance dating relationship?

with your family?

with your friends?

with your partner?

Race/Ethnic group:

Caucasian (white)

African American Latino/Hispanic

Asian or Pacific Islander

American Indian

Alaskan Native

Are there methods you use to build and maintain your relationship other than those mentioned in this survey?

What do you like most about being in a LDR/ far from home?

Profession: _______

What is the most challenging aspect of being in a LDR?

Why did you move to NY? How long have you been living in NYC?

Compared to what you expected, how easy or difficult is your relationship to maintain?

Much more difficult than I expected

More difficult than I expected

About what I expected

Easier than I expected

Much easier than I expected

Do you plan on Staying in the US? How often do you go back home? Do you plan on moving back one day?

Relationship status:

Single/ Engaged/ Married/ Divorced/ Widowed/ Cohabiting What is the current status of your partner?

What advice, if any, would you give to other people who are in a LDR?

Income (per year):

Under $10,000/ $10,000-$15,000/ $15,000-$25,000/ $25,000+ Who do you consider in your close circle?

80

81