1. 1
UNDERSTANDING COLLEGE STUDENTS’ USE OF CMC.
Coordinated Management of Meaning: Understanding College Students’ Use of Computer
Mediated Communication.
Lindsay Crouse, Justin Kubiak, Greg Nosal
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown

2. 2
Abstract
This study examines how Coordinated Management of Meaning theory is used when
college students communicate. Coordinated Management of Meaning is prevalent in today’s
society among young people, especially college students. Computer Mediated Communication
(CMC) adversely affects interpersonal communication in the studies shown in the literature
review. This study crucially shows how students identify the CMC model in their day to day
activity and how it affected the students who participated in this study with a positive or negative
outcome. The students were taken from a local university in the area. The way the study was
conducted was through focus groups. The results expected to be found are that interpersonal
communication, mostly face-to-face(FTF) is declining, and that most social interaction occurs
using technology, which is what is leading to the decrease in FTF communication. The CMC and
CMM models are influencing interpersonal communication among the students and these
influences directly affect social interactions.

3. 3
Introduction
In today’s society, CMC is prevalent among young students in their daily lives and
activities. The purpose for conducting this research is to attain a better understanding of how
students are communicating with their peers. The focus is on how the students are using
technology versus how they would communicate face-to-face, while examining the inherent
negative reactions between online and in-person communication. The focus group sessions are
meant to examine the interaction between students while using face-to-face communication.
It is expected that emotions are given more consideration by both parties in person,
which is thought to be due to the fact that face-to-face communication gives the conversation the
opportunity to come alive due to being within the same proximity of another person. Those
results are expected to differ greatly from the anonymity that CMC provides, as well as that
CMC actually encourages harsh and offensive language which, after years of exposure, leads to
decreased social skills.
Another theory that is used frequently in today society when communicating is CMM.
This theory is used when two people who are interacting socially, construct the meaning of their
conversation. Each of the individuals is also comprised of an interpersonal system which helps
explain their actions and reactions. This is a way for people who are conducting a social
interaction to decide what actions are appropriate. This has become an issue for interpersonal
communication due to social media and CMC.

4. 4
Literature Review
Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory
The theory of Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) was developed in the mid-
1970s by W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon E. Cronen. CMM has continued to evolve along a
trajectory from an interpretive social science, to one with a critical edge, and, finally, to what its
founders call a "practical theory." This theory explains relationships between individuals in his
or her society. This allows us to create and manage our social reality through communication.
Coordinated Management of Meaning relies on three basic processes which are coherence,
coordination, and mystery.
Coherence is when the content or the message is being spoken out loud in a
communicative form. This is considered the basic building blocks of language. Next is
coordination in CMM theory. Coordination is when individual’s actions do not stand alone with
communication. The verbal cues and words or actions that we use during a conversation come
together to produce patterns in the communication formed with someone. Pearce and Cronen
(1970) pointed out that coordination does not imply an obligation to coordinate "effortlessly",
but rather the idea is meant to provide the foundation for being aware of the other responses.
Lastly, the mystery of CMM theory is used when discussing stories unspoken/private. It is
acknowledged that "the world and our experience of it is more than any of the particular stories
that make it coherent or any of the activities in which we engage in.” (Pearce, W. B., & Cronen,
V. (1980). This leads the communication between two people or more to have a surprising
outcome. This can lead to arguments, disagreements, and etc. Communicating through the CMM
and CMC has taken a spin on the way we interoperate and communicate.

5. 5
Computer Mediated Communication Theory
Computer Mediated Communication Theory also serves as a useful theoretical
framework to explore individual’s interactions via online communication. This theory is
basically any form of communication that uses any source or form of computers or network
connection for interactions. This often times includes social media (i.e. Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, etc...). When using this type of communication there are advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage that CMC gives is that it helps eliminate geographical barriers. This
helps people who are overseas communicate from a distance or with different languages. This
offers another platform for communication between people. The main disadvantage that CMC
has is the lack of human interaction and face- to-face communication. More and more people
rely on computers or other social media related websites to communicate with one another. This
decreases learned face-to-face interpersonal communication between others, and often times
hinders communication skills and interactions with others.
Computer Mediated Communication
The amount of time people are online has revolutionized how we communicate and
perceive each other across all cultures (Bansal & Sharma, 2012). Even though this doorway has
been opened, a kind of veil has been created due to the anonymity that comes standard with the
usage of the internet. Bansal and Sharma (2012) label a part of this new kind of anonymous
interaction as flaming. Flaming describes the level of harsh comments made by users to one
another while online. There are four different levels of flames based on severity. There are
direct flames, indirect flames, satirical flames, and straightforward flames (Bansal & Sharma

6. 6
2012). An example of flaming would be a race-related remark (direct flame). This study
hypothesizes that students are less likely to give racist remarks without the anonymity that CMC
provides, and that the otherwise negative encounter online would turn into a civil and overall
positive one if that conversation were to take place FTF, where the rules of social interaction are
vastly different. Controlling these types of flaming remarks online is near impossible however
due to the unknown variable of age and the anonymity provided by a CMC account, so a further,
more complex qualitative study would have to be devised in order to receive consistent results.
Haines (2012) suggests that anonymity’s reduction in awareness of others affects the
expression and interpretation of comments that are made during a discussion. In particular,
anonymity will increase the likelihood that comments will be made that are contrary to the
majority opinion, while at the same time decreasing the effect that those contrary arguments have
on other group member’s opinions. This essentially renders online interaction very challenging
for individuals to sort through all the “clutter” and receive the initial message sent rather than be
a part of the argumentative aftermath the sent message created.
These situations led a group of researchers to begin studying micro-data. Micro-data are
small glimpses into the true personality of the anonymous user, but their studies further showed
the psychological disconnect users experience in online conversations as opposed to face-to-face
interactions. Ogara (2014) examined the “why” of interacting online and tries to find out what
motivates a user to interact the way they do online. Findings suggest that user experience,
perceived richness and interactivity are important in the design of social presence, and that these
two motivators are what promotes different levels of user satisfaction while interacting with
CMC (Ogara 2014). So if the users experience is overall positive while interacting online, they
are more likely to reciprocate positively.

7. 7
This study examines ways to find how CMC has changed communication and in what
ways relationships differs from those that socially interact compared to face to face interactions;
what do people prefer and how has the interaction change people’s perception of one another. In
what ways is it seen positive and negative and how this interaction saves face and protects self-
image. The research that has been relative to the subject is experiments that need to be dealt
with: Teaching a second language by interacting face to face versus CMC, interpersonal effects,
relational effects, learners anxiety, while performing tasks, and finally how these interactions
were viewed in a positive or negative manner.
Okdie (2010) examined how long two people were able to sustain their conversations
when communicating through a computer via instant messenger and again through face-to-face.
CMC has positives and negatives that can be identified through this study. The first is that
participants reported they liked instant messenger because they were hidden behind a curtain that
protected their face. The person felt more comfortable and had not been insecure; participants
reported giving more time and thought to offer their responses. Okdie (2010) helps the person
communicate because it is based solely off first impressions and when talking to strangers it is
hard to have a steady flow of conversation “participants reported it to be more difficult than
interacting via CMC. Particularly, while interacting face-to-face, participants found it more
difficult to come up with topics for discussion and felt that it was harder to keep the conversation
going compared to those who interacted over the computer” (Okdie, pg 4, 2010) in which CMC
cuts off the awkwardness or shyness someone may demonstrate. However there are some
negatives that the conversation holds such as nonverbal communication and body language.
Without seeing someone’s face they hide nonverbal cues which can greatly affect the
conversation, knowing when someone is enjoying the conversation by smiling or touching their

8. 8
hair or face can tell if they are truly happy or liking the other person. Although there are different
computer languages that can express facial displays, such as emoticons, there is still room for
them to lie and it is harder for a person to recognize this through CMC. The results of Okdie’s(
2010) study had showed that participants had enjoyed CMC over face-to-face interaction because
of the ability to save face and communicate without being judged based off first appearances.
Baralt (2011) tested whether CMC has an overall effect to reduce learners’ state anxiety
which can be formed from face to face interaction. A questionnaire was designed for students, to
be completed before the task was administered and afterwards. Baralt (2011) reported “learners’
state anxiety was not significantly lower in the CMC mode than the FTF mode. In fact, learners’
reported state anxiety was comparable across modality. The use and implications of both
interactional modes for foreign language learning contexts are discussed, as are students’
perceptions of interaction in the CMC” (Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss, pg 1, 2011). The participants
also indicated the positives and negatives aspects of both. When listening to the tone and pitch of
the administrator’s voice, participants had felt more pressure and seeing facial expressions was
another indicator they looked for. The individuals reported that they would have trouble giving
clear concise answers when speaking to the administrator unlike CMC they could reread their
statements before sending them.
Baralt’s (2013) researched “the impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy
during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks” and was interested in whether completing
tasks is simpler through CMC or face-to-face and how well the participants learn the material
and are able to complete tasks more efficiently in different manners. The experiment
administered tasks from both a teacher and computer. Baralt (2013) stated that “unlike the

9. 9
common-made assumption in the literature, anxiety is not significantly lower in CMC when
compared to FTF. In fact, results demonstrate that both modalities yield very similar levels of
state anxiety halfway through and immediately following an interactive task, despite the fact that
learners spent twice the amount of time-on-task in the CMC modality (Baralt, 2011, pg.19).
Perhaps this was the case because it seems easier to interact FTF when trying to learn because
individuals are able to perform quick responses. Students are able to ask questions about the
problems and in return will be answered in ways that they are able to understand more clearly
because each person learns at a different capacity or rate.
Communication research like other studies measure the positive and negative effects of
computer mediated communication (CMC) and how different types of language affect
interpersonal communication such as nonverbal, body language, paralanguage, and other
symbolic language. From these types of visual communication, further examination has looked at
how tones can change conversation. Identifying different body language and paralanguage gives
each converser hints as how the conversation is going. Whether it be facial expressions like
smiles, eye rolls, smirks, eye gaze, pitch in voice, and many more. These expressions allow us to
fully indicate how the other is feeling during their interaction and some of these crucial
nonverbal allow us to make assumptions of the others true intentions and feelings. When
communicating interpersonally over CMC nonverbals are left out, not knowing if someone is
truthful and not picking up on facial cues will affect someone’s full understanding of a
conversation. Walthers (p.30, 1992) says that “CMC is not substitutable for face to face
communication primarily because CMC takes a great deal longer than face to face interaction to
accomplish more than simple data transfer, there are occasions when much more is needed to be
discussed in a short time and CMC would impede the goal. Although CMC may not be as

10. 10
efficient, however there is less reason to think it may not be as effective when time is not of the
essence”.( Walthers p.1 , 1992)
These studies revealed that communicating either CMC or FTF are required when
different circumstances arise that may be more useful when communicating, which requires one
form of interaction more acceptable than the other. Such situations that were shown within the
research of Baralt and Walthers.
ResearchQuestion
RQ1:
How do college students use Computer Mediated Communication differently than face-to-face
communication interpersonal interaction?
Methodology
The type of research being conducted is Qualitative research. Three focus group sessions
will be conducted over the course of three days. Participants will be expected to fill out a short
answer form, (12 Questions) and participants will use those answers to serve as a catalyst to the
group discussion. The exact amount of students participating will vary due to the voluntary
nature of the study, but the goal is to interact with at least 40 (total) UPJ students of all age, race,
year (freshman, sophomore etc.) and sex. The Independent Variable of this study is the
computer technology used for social interaction. The Dependent Variables are the student’s
perceptions of the quality of the communication interaction.

11. 11
Limitations
Something that limited this study is the small demographic used while conducting this
research. Since only UPJ students will be used for this survey, no credence/consistency can be
factually stated. Due to the qualitative style of research, lying and liars can manipulate
responses/discussion and skew observations. There is a marginally disproportionate
representation of all college students; 40 students is nowhere near being representative of an
entire school/social group. College students are not the only ones engaging in CMC, children
and adults are not equally represented.
Future research
Make a Twitter/Facebook dedicated to the promotion of this research study in order to
diversify qualitative answers and group discussion, as well as reach a much larger demographic.
The research could be taken from an entirely different perspective, researchers could find user
names that have continual interactions with each other, target them for the survey by bringing
them in face-to-face, and see how they interact in each other’s presence and compare that to how
they interact online. Instead of having three focus group meetings for just college students,
allow all ages to participate in order to deepen the implications of this research.
Implication
How communicating through CMC changes the students perceptions of the quality of
interpersonal interaction versus communicating FTF? The study will show that students’ quality
of information can change from variation of the conversation. A conversation can be stimulating
for both CMC and FTF, depending on how well they can find a connection to the other person.

12. 12
Through CMC, individuals are able to think of replies while not having the pressure of looking at
another person face to face.
However, FTF participants will be able to feel more comfort because they have someone
they can look at, and able to truly tell if the conversation is stimulating from viewing that person
nonverbal. Participants have given information why people would prefer to use one form of
interaction over the other; most common answers for CMC were: It’s faster, not time consuming,
I don’t have to look nice, Its private, we can reply when we want to or not at all”; most common
answers for FTF were: Its truly interpersonal, Its more meaningful, I like to know their facial
expressions, and conversing is more pleasant if the individual is attractive. The results of this
study show that the quality of interaction varies, however the context of situations the would
require a certain type of communication will change the form of response, this includes
communicating professionally versus socially, communicating when conversing with friends
over CMC or FTF, communicating with teachers, communicating with complete strangers, and
communicating with the opposite sex.
This study concluded that participants would provide different responses based off of
context; people still have a sense of what’s right and wrong and will choose which type of
communication is necessary. A conversation where participants had a higher quality of
interaction would be preferred face to face rather than CMC. This was due to the fact that people
can relate to one another or like someone based off physical attractiveness. However, as
participants are more reliant on technology, their ability to hold conversation was much harder to
maintain rather than those who communicated through technology.

13. 13
Conclusion
As more research studies are conducted between the correlations between each
researcher’s findings of a technology filled world where people must adapt to the new tools that
has enhanced and changed the way people around the world interact and communicate. Most
users today are communicating through computers instead of seeing people face-to-face. CMC
has become easier and socially acceptable; people accept the change and find having more time,
being able to multi-task. This new way of conversing with people has changed from physically
telling someone they look pretty to liking their picture on Instagram, or commenting with an
emoji that has a smiley face with hearts for eyes. The same overall meaning is present, but the
way it is being presented has drastically changed and this study is intended to shine light on the
differences, however subtle, and how those differences translate into FTF communication for
better or worse, in the case of this study: worse. The study was designed to highlight how CMC
users, even though they are being social, have the freedom to drastically act in different ways
they would not typically act in social situations. This is due to the anonymity provided by social
media, and these disruptive skills acquired online reach over into FTF communication, often
leading to disconnected and awkward personal social interactions.

14. 14
References
Bansal, A., & Sharma, S. (n.d.). Classification of Flames in Computer Mediated Communications.
International Journal of Computer Applications,,21-26.
Baralt, M. (2013). The Impact Of Cognitive Complexity On Feedback Efficacy During Online Versus
Face-To-Face Interactive Tasks. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition,689-725.
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners' state anxiety during task-based
interaction
in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research,201-229.
Bargh, J., McKenna,K. A., & Fritzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can You See the RealMe? Activation and
Expression of the "True Self" on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues,33.
Cao, L., Hanies, R., Hanies, D., & Hough, J. (n.d.). Anonymity in Computer-Mediated Communication:
More Contrarian Ideas with Less Influence. Springer Science BusinessMedia ,765-786.
Cemalcilar, Z., Falbo, T., & Stapleton, L. (2005). Cyber communication: A new opportunity for
international students’ adaptation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations,91-110.
High, A.,& Caplan, S. E. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial
interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,475-
482.
Jones, Q., Motahari, S., & Ziavras, S. (n.d.). Online Anonymity Protection in Computer-Mediated
Communication. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security,570-580.
Lillqvist, E., & Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2014). Facing Facebook: Impression Management Strategies in
Company-Consumer Interactions. Journal of Businessand Technical Communication,3-30.
Ogara,S., & Koh, C. (n.d.). Investigating Design Issues in Mobile Computer-mediated Communication.
Journal of Computer Information Systems,87-98.
Okdie, B., Guadagno, R.,Bernieri, F., Geers, A.,& Mclarney-Vesotski, A. (2011). Getting To Know
You:
Face-to-face Versus Online Interactions. Computers in Human Behavior,153-159.
Pearce,W. B.,& Cronen, V. (1980). Communication, action, and meaning: The creation of social
realities.
Walther, J. (1992). Interpersonal Effects In Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective.
Communication Research,52-90.

15. 15