Varying definitions of online communication

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and

Their Effects on Relationship Research

Elizabeth L. Angeli

State University

Author Note

Elizabeth L. Angeli, Department of Psychology, State University.

Elizabeth Angeli is now at Department of English, Purdue University.

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Sample Grant

Program.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth

Angeli, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 55555.

Contact: author@boiler.edu

The running head cannot exceed 50 characters, including spaces and punctuation. The running head’s title should be in capital letters. The running head should be flush left, and page numbers should be flush right. On the title page, the running head should include the words “Running head.” For pages following the title page, repeat the running head in all caps without “Running head.”

The title should be centered on the page, typed in 12- point Times New Roman Font. It should not be bolded, underlined, or italicized.

The author’s name and institution should be double- spaced and centered.

The running head is a shortened version of the paper’s full title, and it is used to help readers identify the titles for published articles (even if your paper is not intended for publication, your paper should still have a running head).

The title should summarize the paper’s main idea and identify the variables under discussion and the relationship between them.

Green text boxes contain explanations of APA style guidelines.

Blue boxes contain directions for writing and citing in APA style.

Running head: VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 1

The author note should appear on printed articles and identifies each author’s department and institution affiliation and any changes in affiliation, contains acknowledgements and any financial support received, and provides contact information. For more information, see the APA manual, 2.03, page 24-25. Note: An author note is optional for students writing class papers, theses, and dissertations.. An author note should appear as follows: First paragraph: Complete departmental and institutional affiliation Second paragraph: Changes in affiliation (if any) Third paragraph: Acknowledgments, funding sources, special circumstances Fourth paragraph: Contact information (mailing address and e-mail)

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

2

Abstract

This paper explores four published articles that report on results from research conducted

on online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships and their relationship to

computer-mediated communication (CMC). The articles, however, vary in their

definitions and uses of CMC. Butler and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-face (FtF)

interactions are more effective than CMC, defined and used as “email,” in creating

feelings of closeness or intimacy. Other articles define CMC differently and, therefore,

offer different results. This paper examines Cummings, Butler, and Kraut’s (2002)

research in relation to three other research articles to suggest that all forms of CMC

should be studied in order to fully understand how CMC influences online and offline

relationships.

Keywords: computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication

The abstract should be between 150-250 words. Abbre- viations and acronyms used in the paper should be defined in the abstract.

The abstract is a brief summary of the paper, allowing readers to quickly review the main points and purpose of the paper.

The word “Abstract” should be centered and typed in 12 point Times New Roman. Do not indent the first line of the abstract paragraph. All other paragraphs in the paper should be indented.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

3

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and

Their Effects on Relationship Research

Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of Internet relationships,

focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different communication modalities, and

the frequency of use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). However,

contradictory results are suggested within this research because only certain aspects of

CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002)

suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC (read: email) in

creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies suggest the opposite. To

understand how both online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships are affected

by CMC, all forms of CMC should be studied. This paper examines Cummings et al.’s

research against other CMC research to propose that additional research be conducted to

better understand how online communication affects relationships.

Literature Review

In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three empirical studies on

online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially email, was less effective

than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social relationships. Two of the three

reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-Internet and Internet relationships

mediated by FtF, phone, or email modalities found that the frequency of each modality’s

use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular relationship (Cummings et

al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best by FtF and phone

In-text citations that are direct quotes should include the author’s/ authors’ name/s, the publication year, and page number/s. If you are para- phrasing a source, APA encourages you to include page numbers: (Smith, 2009, p. 76).

If an article has three to five authors, write out all of the authors’ names the first time they appear. Then use the first author’s last name followed by “et al.”

APA requires you to include the publication year because APA users are concerned with the date of the article (the more current the better).

The title of the paper is centered and not bolded.

The introduc- tion presents the problem that the paper addresses. See the OWL resources on introduc- tions: http://owl.en glish.purdue.e du/owl/resou rce/724/01/

The title should be centered on the page, typed in 12- point Times New Roman Font. It should not be bolded, underlined, or italicized.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

4

communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means of maintaining personal

relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts (Cummings et al., 2002).

Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted in 1999 by the

HomeNet project (see Appendix A for more information on the HomeNet project). In

this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and Scherlis (1999) compared

the value of using CMC and non-CMC to maintain relationships with partners. They

found that participants corresponded less frequently with their Internet partner (5.2 times

per month) than with their non-Internet partner (7.2 times per month) (as cited in

Cummings et al., 2002). This difference does not seem significant, as it is only two times

less per month. However, in additional self-report surveys, participants responded

feeling more distant, or less intimate, towards their Internet partner than their non-

Internet partner. This finding may be attributed to participants’ beliefs that email is an

inferior mode of personal relationship communication.

Intimacy is necessary in the creation and maintenance of relationships, as it is

defined as the sharing of a person’s innermost being with another person, i.e., self-

disclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004). Relationships are facilitated by the

reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-CMC or CMC. Cummings

et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that research the connection

between intimacy and relationships through CMC.

Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant

Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM

instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional

Use an appendix to provide brief content that supplement s your paper but is not directly related to your text.

If you are including an appendix, refer to it in the body of your paper.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

5

environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004). Their results suggest that a

positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and intimacy, demonstrating

that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time progresses through this CMC

modality.

Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet

relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships and the perceived

intimacy of both. In this study, self-disclosure, or intimacy, was measured in terms of

shared secrets through the discussion of personal problems. Participants reported a

significantly higher level of self-disclosure in their Internet relationship as compared to

their primary relationship. In contrast, the participants’ primary relationships were

reported as highly self-disclosed in the past, but the current level of disclosure was

perceived to be lower (Underwood & Findlay, 2004). This result suggests participants

turned to the Internet in order to fulfill the need for intimacy in their lives.

In further support of this finding, Tidwell and Walther (2002) hypothesized CMC

participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF participants in order to overcome the

limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues. It was found that CMC partners

engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures than FtF partners in order to

overcome the barriers of CMC. In their 2002 study, Tidwell and Walther measured the

perception of a relationship’s intimacy by the partner of each participant in both the CMC

and FtF conditions. The researchers found that the participants’ partners stated their

CMC partner was more effective in employing more intimate exchanges than their FtF

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

6

partner, and both participants and their partners rated their CMC relationship as more

intimate than their FtF relationship.

Discussion

In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their research conflicted

with other data examining the effectiveness of online social relationships. This statement

is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research. There may be a few

possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies.

Limitations of These Studies

The discrepancies identified may result from a number of limitations found in the

materials reviewed by Cummings et al. These limitations can result from technological

constraints, demographic factors, or issues of modality. Each of these limitations will be

examined in further detail below.

Technological limitations. First, one reviewed study by Cummings et al. (2002)

examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality. Therefore, the study is

limited to only one mode of communication among other alternatives, e.g., IM as studied

by Hu et al. (2004). Because of its many personalized features, IM provides more

personal CMC. For example, it is in real time without delay, voice-chat and video

features are available for many IM programs, and text boxes can be personalized with the

user’s picture, favorite colors and text, and a wide variety of emoticons, e.g., :). These

options allow for both an increase in self-expression and the ability to overcompensate

for the barriers of CMC through customizable features, as stated in Tidwell and Walther

Because all research has its limitations, it is important to discuss the limitations of articles under examination .

A Level 2 heading should be flush with the left margin, bolded, and title case.

A Level 1 heading should be centered, bolded, and uppercase and lower case (also referred to as title case).

A Level 3 heading should indented 0.5” from the left margin, bolded, and lower case (except for the first word). Text should follow immediately after. If you use more than three levels of headings, consult section 3.02 of the APA manual (6th ed.) or the OWL resource on APA headings: http://owl.en glish.purdue. edu/owl/reso urce/560/16 /

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION

7

(2002). Self-disclosure and intimacy may result from IM’s individualized features,

which are not as personalized in email correspondence.

Demographic limitations. In addition to the limitations of email, Cummings et

al. (2002) reviewed studies that focused on international bank employees and college

students (see Appendix B for demographic information). It is possible the participants’

CMC through email was used primarily for business, professional, and school matters

and not for relationship creation or maintenance. In this case, personal self-disclosure

and intimacy levels are expected to be lower for non-relationship interactions, as this

communication is primarily between boss and employee or student and professor.

Intimacy is not required, or even desired, for these professional relationships.

Modality limitations. Instead of professional correspondence, however,

Cummings et al.’s (2002) review of the HomeNet project focused on already established

relationships and CMC’s effect on relationship maintenance. The HomeNet researchers’

sole dependence on email communication as CMC may have contributed to the lower

levels of intimacy and closeness among Internet relationships as compared to non-

Internet relationships (as cited in Cummings et al., 2002). The barriers of non-personal

communication in email could be a factor in this project, and this could lead to less

intimacy among these Internet partners. If alternate modalities of CMC were studied in

both already established and professional relationships, perhaps these results would have

resembled those of the previously mentioned research.