Varying Definitions Of Online Communication And Their 593113

Varying Definitions Of Online Communication Andtheir Effects On Relati

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research Elizabeth L. Angeli Purdue University The paper explores how different definitions of computer-mediated communication (CMC) influence research findings on the effects of online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships. It examines four studies that investigate the impact of CMC modalities—such as email, instant messaging (IM), voice and video chat—on relationship intimacy and closeness. The paper argues that inconsistent definitions of CMC lead to contradictory results and advocates for comprehensive research encompassing all forms of digital communication to better understand their nuanced effects on relationship development and maintenance.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemporary relationship research, understanding the role of online communication has become increasingly vital given the proliferation of digital platforms. Despite numerous studies, the varying definitions of computer-mediated communication (CMC) have significantly influenced findings related to how online interactions impact intimacy, closeness, and overall relationship quality. This paper critically examines four scholarly articles that address the relationship between online communication modalities and relational outcomes. It highlights the discrepancies arising from inconsistent conceptualizations of CMC and emphasizes the necessity of studying all forms of digital communication to derive comprehensive insights into their effects on both online and offline relationships.

The foundational study by Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) posits that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than email in fostering feelings of closeness and intimacy. Their review of three empirical studies revealed that although email, a primary form of CMC at the time, was less effective than FtF contact in establishing relational bonds, the frequency of communication via various modalities differentially predicted relationship strength. Specifically, FtF and phone communication demonstrated the strongest correlation with relationship closeness, whereas email was seen as inferior (Cummings et al., 2002). These findings reflect the limited scope of some early research, which often focused solely on email, thereby not capturing the full spectrum of CMC modalities.

In contrast, subsequent studies suggest more nuanced effects of online communication, especially with the advent of IM and video-based platforms. Hu, Wood, Smith, and Westbrook (2004) explored the impact of IM on perceived intimacy among friends. Their research found a positive correlation between the frequency of IM use and perceived closeness, emphasizing that real-time, personalized CMC supports intimate exchanges in ways email cannot (Hu et al., 2004). Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) discovered that individuals reported higher levels of self-disclosure—an indicator of intimacy—in their online relationships compared to primary offline relationships. Participants shared more personal secrets and discussed private issues more openly within their online interactions, suggesting that digital platforms may serve as venues for fulfilling the human need for intimacy that might be less accessible in offline contexts.

Tidwell and Walther (2002) provided further evidence that CMC can facilitate deeper self-disclosure, even surpassing FtF interactions in certain cases. Their study showed that CMC participants asked more intimate questions and shared more personal information to compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues. Interestingly, both participants and their partners rated CMC relationships as more intimate than FtF ones, challenging earlier assumptions that online communication inherently diminishes relational closeness. Their findings imply that digital environments, through features like instant messaging and customizable expressions, may promote greater self-disclosure, thus enhancing intimacy.

Despite these positive findings, the inconsistency in defining and specifying CMC modalities remains problematic. Many early studies, such as that by Cummings et al. (2002), focused exclusively on email, a communication form with limited personalization and immediacy. This narrow scope likely contributed to the mixed results regarding the impact of CMC on intimacy. Email's asynchronous nature and lack of visual cues contrast sharply with IM or video chat, which offer real-time interaction and richer sensory cues, potentially influencing relational outcomes differently.

Furthermore, Cummings et al. (2002) noted that the context of communication also matters significantly. Their review included studies with participants engaged in professional or academic exchanges, where relationship development might not prioritize intimacy but rather task completion or information exchange. This context could explain the lower levels of self-disclosure observed in email-based communication within these studies. Conversely, platforms like IM and video chat are more often used for personal, emotionally significant exchanges, further highlighting the importance of considering the specific modality when examining online relationship processes.

The disparate findings across studies underscore the need for comprehensive, multi-modal research on online communication’s effects. As digital platforms evolve, so too do the ways individuals engage in relational exchanges. For instance, video conferencing combines visual and auditory cues, potentially approximating FtF interactions more closely than text-based channels. The personalized features of IM, such as emoticons, voice, and video options, might foster intimacy more effectively than less interactive forms like email.

In addition, technological advancements enable asynchronous and synchronous communication modes to coexist within the same platform, complicating the classification of CMC. Future research should therefore adopt an inclusive approach, examining all relevant modalities—email, IM, social media, video chat, online journals, chat rooms—to assess their respective and combined impacts on relational outcomes. Such an approach would help clarify whether specific features or interaction patterns foster greater intimacy and closeness or if certain modalities hinder relationship development.

The implications of these findings are substantial for both relationship counseling and the design of digital communication tools. Recognizing the varying effects of different modalities can inform strategies for maintaining long-distance relationships, supporting online friendships, or enhancing professional collaborations. For example, employing real-time, personalized channels like video chat may be more conducive to nurturing intimacy than relying solely on asynchronous communication such as email.

In conclusion, the significant variations in how CMC is defined and operationalized across studies have limited our understanding of its true impact on relationships. Future research must integrate a broad spectrum of communication modalities, considering their unique features and contextual use cases. Only then can we develop a holistic understanding of how digital communication influences relationship formation, maintenance, and dissolution. This comprehensive perspective will be essential as digital communication continues to enrich and complicate human relational life.

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.
  • Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 102-115.
  • 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(3), 317-348.
  • Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
  • Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321-326.
  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press.
  • Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177-192.
  • Lo, V., & Wei, R. (2017). The impact of online communication on offline relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 362-370.
  • Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons.

Related Assignments