M5 pys492

Running Head: Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research 1

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research 7

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research

Yinglee M Chan

Module 2 – Assignment 3

Argosy University - Online

There are many pieces of research which have been carried out on different facets of internet relationship; they mainly focus on closeness, frequency, intimacy and different modalities of communication on the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). From these researches, there are contradicting results which come up meaning that only some aspects of CMC were investigated, in this case, email only. Looking at Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) for instance, there is the suggestion that face to face communication is more effective than the computer-mediated communication, especially email. This is because face to face communications creates feelings of intimacy or closeness while there are other studies which suggest opposite of this. To get a good understanding of how computer-mediated communication affects both internet and no-internet communication then there is needed to look at all forms of communication. To carry out this, I will examine Cummings et al.'s research against other CMC research to show that there is need of further research to have a better understanding of how online communication can affect relationships.

Literature Review

According to Cummings et al.'s (2002) article, the three studies which were carried out in online relationships, it was concluded that CMC and especially email was less effective in creating and maintaining a close relationships as compared to face to face communication. According to different reviewed studies which were conducted, it was found that the only relationship which was strong and lasted was by face to face, followed by phone and then email communication.

Another study the HomeNet project which was reviewed by Cummings and which compared the internet and non-internet communication in maintaining relationships showed that partners interacted less in the internet communication as compared to non-internet communication. This shows that in internet communication there is less creation of feeling between the partners involved as compared to non-internet communication where the partners are close and thus creating feelings between them. There was a general conclusion from the study that email communication is inferior and cannot be used in personal communication.

Creation and maintenance of any relationship, intimacy is necessary because it defines ad shows the innermost being of the other person. Self-disclosing between the partners who are in the relationship is very important regardless of the mode of communication in the relationship. There are contradicting results in the review of Cummings and other studies on the issue of intimacy and relationship through computer-mediated communication.

For instance, according to Hu et al. (2004), it was found that the use of Instant Messenger (IM) instead of email as a mode of internet communication was perceived to create some intimacy between partners. This is because unlike emails IM is a non-professional environment and it allows the exchange of intimate information. From these results, it was found that IM was able to support positive relationship because there is intimacy and the partners feel as though they are close to one another.

In a similar study by Underwood and Findlay (2004) on how relationships can be affected by the use of different modes of communication and whether there is the creation of intimacy. The study shows that many people share or disclose themselves more easily in internet relationships more than in their primary relationship. In the past, the study shows that self-discloser was common in the primary relationship, but due to the changing environment, many partners find it easy to share their secrets in the internet communication than before. This is maybe the reason why many partners are turning to the internet because they feel free to share a lot wither their partners.

Tidwell and Walther (2002) in their hypothesized computer-mediated communication showed that there is a deeper self-discloser in internet communications as compared to face to face communication. There argued that partners tend to ask more intimate questions during internet communication more than they do in face to face communication. What creates and keeps a relationships is the sharing of intimacy and being open to one another, and from their research, they found that partners effectively employed more intimacy exchange on the internet than they do in face to face.

Discussion

In determining the effectiveness of online social relationships, there were conflicts or differences between Cummings et al.'s research and other researchers who were carried almost the same time. These differences call for discussion on what brought the discrepancies. There are various theoretical which try to explain these differences.

Limitations on Cummings et al. can be attributed to the following issues which are of importance in the process of carrying out research.

Demographic limitations. In his study Cummings et al. mainly concentrated on employees working in international banks and colleges students. In this case, there is a general perception that emails are used in conducting business issues, and thus people will have the view that this is an official way of communication and one cannot share intimacy through emails. With this perception, there will be less personal self-disclosure, and thus intimacy levels are expected to be lower as compared to face to face communication. In this kind of environment, you cannot expect free communication between the boss and the other employees, the same with the professor and his or her student to be exchanging intimacy through emails because this is considered to be a professional relationship.

Technological limitations. The research by Cummings was only limited to one mode of computer-mediated communication, that is email, and ignored other modes of communications such Instant Messenger which was considered by Hu et al. IM brings in more personal communication as compared to email which was viewed as used for official communication. Due to its non-professional manner, IM can be used to share personal texts, pictures, and variety of emotions through emoticons which are available in the program. The options which are available in IM make the partners increase self-expressions and hence break the barrios which are created by other CMC modes such as email.

Modality limitations. Cummings et al. and the HomeNet project mainly concentrated on the already existing relationships and how they were being affected by online communication. This gave them a limited space of carrying out their research because they were not interested in the relationships which were new and which mainly used online communication modes to share their personal information. With the email, it gave them a lower level of intimacy and closeness among the partners who engaged online compared to those in face to face communication. Since there were barriers which already existed in email communication, this formed part of their conclusion, and they never thought of and another form of online communication which can be used instead of email.

Conclusions

Since according to the researches which are available there is no clear understanding on the effects of computer-mediated communication, there is need to conduct further study which will put into consideration all modes of computer-mediated communication. Some of the modes which should be includes in the study include; voice-chat, IM, emails, social groups, chart rooms, online journal and diaries. As shown in the email and IM, the discrepancies in each of these modes maybe different and thus will give a wide view on the effects. Since the world is changing the mode of communication is also changing and the way people share their personal issues might shift from one mode of communication to another. There is possibility that some of these modes have a positive effect and partners feel save and free to share intimacy and hence have a positive impact on their relationship.

References

Frisby, B.B. & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2012). The “how” and “why” of flirtatious communication between marital partners. Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 465-480.

Frisby, B.N. (2009). “Without flirting, it wouldn’t be a marriage”: Flirtatious communication between relational partners. Qualitative Research Reports in Communicatio, 10(1), 55-60. doi: 10.1080/17459430902839066

Gottman, J.M. & Krokoff, L.J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47-52.

Hanzal, A. & Segrin, C. (2009). The Role of Conflict Resolution Styles in Mediating the Relationship Between Enduring Vulnerabilities and Marital Quality. Journal of Familty Communication, 9(3), 150-169. doi: 10.1080/15267430902945612

Horan, S.M. & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 394-413. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524876

Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

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.