Varying Definitions Of Online Communication And Their Effect ✓ Solved

Varying Definitions Of Online Communication Andtheir Effects On Relati

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. Cummings, Butler and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC, defined 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.

The abstract should be between words. Abbreviations 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. Note that the "Running Head" label does not appear after the title. End your abstract with a set of keywords that will be repeated throughout your paper.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Title: Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research

Introduction

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 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. 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; Cummings et al., 2002).

Methodology and Findings

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 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.

Additional Research

Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. 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 was evaluated based on whether participants shared secrets, discussed personal problems, or had discussed sexual preferences (p. 131). Participants reported significantly higher self-disclosure in their Internet relationship than in their primary relationship.

Discussion and Limitations

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 to fulfill the need for intimacy in their lives. Tidwell and Walther (2002) hypothesized that CMC participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF participants in order to overcome the limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues.

They measured perceptions of relationship intimacy by asking each partner to rate their relationship, finding that CMC partners engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures than FtF partners. Both participants and their partners rated their CMC relationship as more intimate than their FtF relationship. Cummings et al. (2002) argued that the evidence from their research conflicted with other data examining the effectiveness of online social relationships.

Limitations of Studies

Limitations of these studies include technological constraints, demographic factors, and modality restrictions. For example, one study only examined email correspondence, which limits understanding of other modalities like IM, voice chat, or video chat, which provide richer, more personalized communication features (Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Demographically, many studies focused on specific populations, such as college students or international bank employees, possibly influencing the generalizability of findings. Additionally, professional or non-relationship communication often uses email, and thus, levels of intimacy may be artificially lower in such contexts.

Conclusions and Future Research

To obtain a comprehensive understanding of CMC’s effects, future studies should include all important modalities such as email, IM, voice chat, video chat, online journals, and chat rooms. Examining the effects of each mode may highlight key differences in how they influence relationship formation, maintenance, and termination. As digital communication tools evolve, their impact on personal relationships requires ongoing, multi-modal exploration.

References

• Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103–108.
• Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 38–48.
• Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.
• Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 127–140.