Varying Definitions Of Online Communication And Their 103814

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. 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.

Paper For Above instruction

Relationships are fundamental to human social life, and understanding how online communication influences relationship development and maintenance has become increasingly essential in the digital age. The rapid proliferation of internet-based communication modalities has introduced complex definitions of CMC, ranging from text-based emails to real-time video chats. These differing conceptualizations significantly impact empirical research and interpretations regarding online relationship quality, intimacy, and closeness.

In the seminal work of Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002), their research underscores the notion that face-to-face interactions are more effective than email-based CMC in fostering feelings of closeness and intimacy. Their studies, as synthesized in a comprehensive review, suggest that non-mediated (offline) interactions still hold a superior position in certain relational qualities. However, this view contrasts with other research that emphasizes the potential of various CMC modalities, such as instant messaging or online forums, to facilitate intimacy through different mechanisms.

One critical reason for these discrepancies stems from the varying definitions of CMC utilized across studies. Cummings et al. (2002) primarily equated CMC with email communication, which is often characterized by its asynchronous and text-dominated nature. Such a narrow conceptualization neglects other dynamic modalities like instant messaging, voice or video calls, online journals, social media, and chat rooms, each of which possesses unique features influencing relationship quality differently.

For example, Hu et al. (2004) investigated the role of instant messaging as a channel supporting close friendships. Their findings reveal a positive correlation between the frequency of IM use and perceived intimacy, indicating that real-time textual exchanges facilitate a sense of emotional closeness. Unlike email, IM supports immediacy, personalization with emoticons, and richer interaction cues, which can enhance self-disclosure and mutual understanding.

Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) found that individuals often turn to online environments to fulfill their needs for intimacy, demonstrating that online self-disclosure can surpass in-depth sharing levels compared to primary offline relationships. This suggests that certain online modalities may reduce social barriers, thereby promoting more profound interpersonal disclosures. Meanwhile, Tidwell and Walther (2002) emphasized that individuals tend to engage in more intimate questioning and self-disclosure in CMC than in FtF interactions, aiming to overcome limitations such as the absence of nonverbal cues.

This diversity in findings highlights the importance of adopting a comprehensive framework that includes multiple types of CMC modalities in research. Restricting the definition of CMC solely to email or text-based communication limits the understanding of its full impact. Different modalities can serve different relational functions—for instance, video chats enable visual cues that enhance perceived similarity and trust, while social networking sites facilitate ongoing relationship maintenance through multimedia sharing and mutual interactions.

The methodological limitations of previous studies further contribute to inconsistent findings. Many studies focus on specific populations or professional contexts, such as college students or corporate employees, which may not generalize to broader populations or different relationship types. Demographic variables—including age, cultural background, and relationship context—moderate how online communication influences relational outcomes and should be systematically incorporated into future research.

Technological constraints also play a significant role. Early studies often relied on email due to its widespread usage at the time, neglecting other modalities that offer richer communication features. As communication technology has evolved, so too should research paradigms, integrating multimodal interactions such as video conferencing, social media, and interactive platforms, to capture the true diversity and potential of online communication.

Furthermore, the context of online communication—whether for professional, casual, or romantic purposes—affects relational outcomes. It is crucial to distinguish between these contexts because they trigger different expectations, norms, and communication patterns, which influence perceptions of intimacy and closeness. For example, professional email communication often emphasizes clarity and formality, whereas social media interactions are more relaxed and expressive, fostering different relational dynamics.

In conclusion, the varying definitions of online communication significantly influence research findings regarding their effects on relationships. To accurately assess the potential of CMC in fostering intimacy, relationships, and social cohesion, scholars must adopt a broad, inclusive view of communication modalities. Future research should prioritize multimodal investigations, considering cultural, contextual, and technological factors that shape online interactions. Only through comprehensive and nuanced understanding can the true impact of online communication on human relationships be determined.

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(1), 38-48.
  • Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, W. (1999). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 54(9), 854-864.
  • Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behavior Change, 21(2), 76-87.
  • 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(2), 317-348.
  • Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2002). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 573-590.
  • Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of anonymity and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177-192.
  • McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications for human development. In K. Y. A. McKenna & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Internet and social life (pp. 1-24). Sage.
  • Wang, J., & Wellman, B. (2010). Social connectivity in America: Changes in adult friendship network sizes from 1985 to 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1148-1168.
  • Broadbent, M., & Weir, J. (2009). The influence of communication media on relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 867-882.

Related Assignments