Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 1

Running Head: ONLINE COMMUNICATION DEFINITIONS & RELATIONSHIPS

The running
The title head is a
should shortened
summarize version of the
the paper’s paper’s full title,
main idea and and it is used to
identify the help readers
variables identify the
under titles for
discussion published
and the articles (even if
relationship Varying Definitions of Online Communication and your paper is
between not intended for
them. publication, your
Their Effects on Relationship Research paper should
The title still have a
should be running head).
centered on
the page and
typed in 12-
The author’s Elizabeth L. Angeli The running
name and head cannot
point Times
institution exceed more
New Roman
should be Purdue University than 50
Font. It characters,
double-
should not be
spaced and including spaces
bolded, and
centered.
underlined, or
punctuation.
italicized.
The running
head’s title
should be in
capital letters
on the title page
only.

Blue boxes contain

directions for writing
and citing in APA
style.

Green text boxes

contain explanations
of APA style
guidelines.
 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 2
The section
title should
Abstract be centered
and typed
The This paper explores four published articles that report on results from research conducted in 12-point
Times New
abstract is
Roman. Do
a brief on online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationship and their relationship to not indent
summary of
the first
the paper,
allowing computer-mediated communication (CMC). The articles, however, vary in their line of the
abstract
readers to
paragraph.
quickly
definitions and uses of CMC. Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-face (FtF) All other
review the
paragraphs
main points
in the
and interactions are more effective than CMC, defined and used as “email,” in creating
paper
purpose of
should be
the paper.
feelings of closeness or intimacy. Other articles define CMC differently and, therefore, indented.

The
abstract offer different results. This paper examines Cummings et al.’s research in relation to
should not
be more
than 120
three other research articles to suggest that all forms of CMC should be studied in order
words.
Abbre- to fully understand how CMC influences online and offline relationships.
viations and
acronyms
used in the
paper
should be
defined in
the
abstract.
 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 3 The full
title is
repeated
Online Communication Definitions Effect on Relationship Research here and
centered at
the
Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of Internet relationships, beginning
of main
focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different communication modalities, and body of the
paper.
The
introduc- the frequency of use of CMC. However, contradictory results are suggested within this
tion
If an article
presents research mostly because only certain aspects of CMC are investigated, for example, email has three
the
to five
problem
authors,
that the only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that FtF interactions are more
write out all
paper
of the
addresses.
effective than CMC (read: email) in creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while authors’
names the
first time
other studies suggest the opposite. In order to understand how both online (Internet) and they
appear.
offline (non-Internet) relationships are affected by CMC, all forms of CMC should be Then use
the first
author’s
studied. This paper examines Cummings et al.’s research against other CMC research to last name
followed by
propose that additional research be conducted to better understand how online “et al.” for
all
subsequent
communication effects relationships. citations.

In-text
citations
In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three empirical studies on
include the
author’s/ online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially email, was less effective
authors’
name/s and
the
than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social relationships. Two of the three
publication
year. reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-Internet and Internet relationships
The
publication mediated by FtF, phone, or email modalities found that the frequency of each modality’s
year and
not page use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular relationship (Cummings et
number is
used,
because al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best by FtF and phone
APA users
are
communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means of maintaining personal
concerned
with the
date of the relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts (Cummings et al., 2002).
article (the
more
current the
Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted in 1999 by the
better).
HomeNet project. In this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and Scherlis
 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 4

(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
Hu, Wood,
reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-CMC or CMC. Cummings
Smith, &
Wester-
brook is et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that research the connection
written in
full because
it is the
between intimacy and relationships through CMC.
first time
this citation Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant
appears.
Notice the
citation is Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM
changed to
“Hu et al.” instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional
in this
paragraph.
Their environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004). Their results suggest that a
names are
now
shortened
positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and intimacy, demonstrating
because
they have that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time progresses through this CMC
all been
listed they
first time modality.
the citation
appeared. Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet

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

 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 5

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 study, Tidwell and Walther (2002) 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 partner,

and both participants and their partners rated their CMC relationship as more intimate

than their FtF relationship.

A sub-
Discussion
heading
should be In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their research conflicted
flush left
and
italicized. If with other data examining the effectiveness of online social relationships. This statement
you use
more than is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research. There may be a few
two levels
of
headings, possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies. First, one reviewed study by
consult
section
3.30 of the
Cummings et al. (2002) examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality.
APA manual
(5th ed.).
 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 6

Because all Therefore, the study is limited to only one mode of communication among other
research
has its alternatives, e.g., IM as studied by Hu et al. (2004). Because of its many personalized
limitations,
it is
important features, IM provides more personal CMC. For example, it is in real time without delay,
to discuss
the
limitations
voice-chat and video features are available for many IM programs, and text boxes can be
of articles
under personalized with the user’s picture, favorite colors and text, and a wide variety of
examina-
tion.
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 (2002). Self-disclosure and intimacy may result from IM’s

individualized features, which are not as personalized in email correspondence.

In addition to the limitations of email, Cummings et al.’s (2002) reviewed studies

focused on international bank employees and college students. 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.

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

 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 7

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.

In order to gain a complete understanding of CMC’s true effect on both online

and offline relationships, it is necessary to conduct a study that examines all aspects of

CMC. This includes, but is not limited to, email, IM, voice-chat, video-chat, online

journals and diaries, online social groups with message boards, and chat rooms. The

effects on relationships of each modality may be different, and this is demonstrated by

the discrepancies in intimacy between email and IM correspondence. As each mode of

communication becomes more prevalent in individual’s lives, it is important to examine

the impact of all modes of CMC on online and offline relationship formation,

maintenance, and even termination.

 Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 8

Start the References

reference
list on a Tidwell, L.C., & Walther, J.B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on
new page
and center
the title disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one
“Referen-
ces.” Do
not bold,
another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317-348.
underline,
or italicize Cummings, J.N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social
the title.
Double-
space all relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.
entries.
Every Hu, Y., Wood, J.F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM:
article
mentioned
in the Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of
paper
should have
an entry.
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1).

Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary

relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 127-140.