Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 1 Running Head: ONLINE COMMUNICATION DEFINITIONS & RELATIONSHIPS Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research

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 et al.’s 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 not exceed 120 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 section title 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. Online Communication Definitions & Relationships 3 Online Communication Definitions Effect on Relationship Research 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 CMC. However, contradictory results are suggested within this research mostly because only certain aspects of CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that FtF interactions are more effective than CMC (read: email) in creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies suggest the opposite. In order 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 effects relationships. 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 In-text citations include the author’s/ authors’ name/s and the publication year. If an article has three to five authors, write out all of the authors’ names the first time they appear. Then use the first author’s last name followed by “et al.” The publication year and the not page number is used, because APA users are concerned with the date of the article (the more current the better). The full title is repeated here and centered at the beginning of main body of the paper. The introduction presents the problem that the paper addresses. See the OWL resources on introductions: http://owl. english.pur due.edu/ow l/resource/ 724/01/ 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., selfdisclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004). Relationships are facilitated by the 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. Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004). 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