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 ...

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.
Assignment 1: LASA # 2: PowerPoint Presentation
Utilizing the information you compiled for your literature
review paper, and the feedback you received from your

7. instructor about the literature review, prepare a 10-15 minute
Power Point presentation on your topic, summarizing the key
points and conclusions. Be sure to direct this presentation to an
audience in the community. For example, if your paper
pertained to a topic in developmental psychology, direct your
presentation toward parents, or a parenting center. If your topic
pertained to substance abuse, direct it toward a community
service agency which may use this information for educating
teens or parents about preventing drug use, or current clients
about treatments and facilities available. Please state in your
presentation the specific audience toward whom your
presentation is aimed. Include a reference page in APA format,
as well as speaker notes and an audio file with your
presentation.
Your slides should provide answers to the following questions:
· What was your topic?
· What question did you hope to answer by completing this
literature review paper? Explain the practical implications of
the conclusions of the literature review and the audience to
which they are directed.
· Given the results of your literature review, what is/are the
prevailing argument(s)? In other words, which of those is
supported by the existing evidence? Be sure to include full
coverage of the arguments, including strengths and weaknesses
of each of them, supported by your findings from reviewing the
relevant articles.
· Did the researchers consider multicultural factors in their
studies? If not, what factors may be involved? What
multicultural factors should future studies include?
· What ethical issues are related to your topic and/or discussed
in the studies you reviewed?
· How do the conclusions of your literature review relate to the
various specialization areas in psychology? Tie them to as many
as apply from the following areas: biological, cognitive,
developmental, social, personality theory, psychopathology, and
applied psychology.

8. · How can the conclusions of your literature review inform the
population towards whom your presentation is directed? How
can they apply this information to their daily lives? What advice
or ‘take home message’ can you provide to your audience based
on the research you reviewed?
· What research question could you ask in order to further
develop this area of study?
· Why is your research question important and relevant to the
current work being done on your topic?
Your presentation should also follow these guidelines:
· It should be approximately 10-15 minutes in length.
· It should be clear, concise, and professional. Writing should
be free of spelling and grammatical errors; it should conform to
current APA style (including any in-text citations).
· It should include graphs, tables, figures, or images illustrating
your ideas.
· There should be a final slide listing references in current APA
style.
· The bulk of the text should be placed in the Notes pages of
each slide. Keep the amount of text on the slide, itself, to a
minimum.
· You should record an audio file of your oral presentation. You
should also type the text of the speech you would give while
showing these slides to an audience should be typed into the
Notes area. If you are unable to use the audio feature, the Notes
text will suffice.
· You can refer to the Power Point tips document provided in
the Doc Sharing section of the course.
Submit your presentation to the M5: Assignment 1 Dropbox by
Week 5, Day 5.
Assignment 1 Grading Criteria
Maximum Points
Describes topic and explains the practical implications of the
conclusions of the literature review with clarity and detail.
Describes the audience to which the presentation is directed.
20

9. Revises the literature review based on feedback from the
instructor.
Presentation of information is clearly focused on the specific
audience.
Explains the prevailing argument(s), including their strengths
and weaknesses, supported by findings from relevant articles.
Synthesizes key points established in and through the literature
review.
40
Elaborates on multicultural factors relevant to the topic and to
the studies reviewed.
Discusses how the findings can be extended to a more diverse
population or additional multicultural factors that should be
included in future studies.
40
Discusses relevant ethical issues related to the topic and to the
studies reviewed.
Describes how they were or could be addressed in the research.
20
Relates the conclusions of the literature review to at least two
specialization areas in psychology.
40
Applies the conclusions from the literature review to specific
populations or issues.
40
Provides well-reasoned conclusions, and pointed towards areas
for future research.
Provides suggestions for future work that are appropriate and
have an applied focus.
36
Introduction has an opening, provides come background
information, and states the topic.
Transitions between slides are present.
16
Design of presentation (i.e. background, pictures, text etc.) is
clear, appropriate for the assignment, balanced and compliments

10. both the writing and speaking throughout the presentation.
16
Any written portion (including writing on the slides and in
notes) follows conventions of spelling and grammar
throughout. Errors are infrequent and do not interfere with
comprehension.
24
Using APA format, accurately paraphrased, quoted, and cited in
many spots throughout when appropriate or called for. Errors
present are somewhat minor.
8
Total:
300