New Page 4

Introduction

Have you ever been curious about what’s lurking behind the chat rooms marked "Singles Only" or "The Love Connection" which are popping up all across the Internet? Have you or a friend gone into those rooms, chatted, and maybe even formed a relationship on-line? It’s not uncommon anymore -- beginning and maintaining interpersonal relationships in the virtual realm is becoming increasingly more popular in our society. As new communication networks are scanning the world, people are using technology not only in business, industry, education or communication, but as a social tool that is linking together people all across the globe.

Social linkages in the form of E-mail and discussion groups appeared in the first days of the Internet and have grown ever since (Parks and Floyd, 1996). This medium blurs the traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication phenomena and raises new opportunities and risks for the way people relate to one another. In 1992, around 12 million people in the United States were regularly using electronic mail, and according to the Internet Society, its use is growing exponentially. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Today communication with someone on the opposite side of the globe is about as easy as it is as speaking with someone in the next room.

Electronic Mail, computer conferences, bulletin boards, and MUDS provide evidence that significant, strong, and often enduring personal relationships can emerge over the computer medium. (Reid, 1994). These relationships often develop in the virtual world, some of which are exclusively maintained on-line, and others of which become integrated with face to face, social lives. Yet relationships that develop through communication media do not fit easily into existing models of attraction and intimacy (Lea and Spears, 1995). This relationships seem to exhibit characteristics and attributes which make them unique.

The study of on-line relationships offers various challenges to the current models of relationship processes. Characteristics of on-line communication such as the lack of non-verbal communication, physical cues, and the impersonality of the computer system have made these relationships seem to stand apart from current research. Yet it is because of its frequency and its uniqueness that it is important for study in the realm of computer mediated communication. And with its popularity among computer users, as a topic the media, and even the subject of many recent book publications -- it may also be one of the most interesting.

My hope is that these topics will introduce you to many of the important topics in on-line personal relationships and give you an introductory scan. The following lecture, assignment, and required readings will also help to give you more information and hopefully raise insightful and interesting questions.

There are many aspects which make up the study of CMC and personal relationships. This module will focus on 3 important questions for research in this area:

1. How and Why are people having relationships on-line? -- This section will discuss where people are forming relationships and the wide variety of types. There are many sources and places on the web for forming relationships. What motivates people to have on-line relationships and what do those relationships look like?

2. Can we compare On-line and Face to Face personal relations? -- Once we have established how and why people have relationships on-line then we will work into research on CMC and relationships. This module will talk about the notion of comparing on-line relationships to face to face and whether the research in interpersonal fits with these types of relationships.

3. What are the effects of personal relationships on-line? -- This topic will address the impact of CMC personal relationships on people and its possible outcomes. It will also look at the role of on-line identity and future of CMC.

1. How and Why are People Having Relationship On-Line?

It is often asked -- "Why would people WANT to go on-line to have a personal relationships?" or "What draws people to the virtual world when they could meet people face to face?" These are all questions that researchers in fact have tried to explain. There are are a few theories which try and explain why the "lost art of conversation is surviving on-line" (Kaufman, 1996). Three ideas are based on social interaction, affiliation, or a sense of community. The following is a discussion of these ideas:

Social Interaction

At a time when community life in North American cities is unraveling --some people hope that people can meet and enrich their social lives at work and home via computer networks. Kling (1996) notes that the deterioration of communities and people who fear street crime and stay off streets at night may be another factor leading people to their computers. People can do many of the same things in CMC that they could do in real life. They can shop online, go to school, send messages back and forth between family and friends, or even go to a chat room and meet new people. From the comfort and safety of their own homes, people can now socialize on-line and make connections and communities easily and effectively.

In the social realm, people who may have not been able to get out of their homes, work unusual hours, or those with restricted lifestyles may find on-line situations particularly attractive. In addition, CMC may also have some different social properties. Sproull and Kiesler (1996) argue that the use of e-mail enables people who are peripheral in groups to become more visible. This means that people of lower status can easily communicate with those of higher status. The format for electronic communicate can not only equalize status, but help make connections and heighten the sense of social solidarity in an organization.

A need for affiliation

Walther (1992) writes that it is affiliation that is a driver for on-line interaction. Affiliation is an axiomatic principle that humans are driven to interact with one another and seek social rewards from others. He notes that people extend considerable social energy attempting to get others to like and appreciate them. CMC users, just like communicators in any context, should desire to transact personal, rewarding, complex relationships and that they will communicate to do so. This is shown most clearly in e-mail usage in organizations. While this system may have been implemented for reasons such as "to accomplish Internet tasks, to coordinate diverse activities, and interpret the internal environment," (Daft and Lengel, 1986, p.555) it may also be used for acceptance and developing relationships (Walther, 1992).

On-line Community

It may also be feeling apart of a community that encourage people to make personal relationships on-line. The search for "a sense of community" has been an enduring theme in the United States culture (Kling, 1996). People are looking for other people to relate to, share with, and become close to. Perhaps people who aren’t able to find community in real life can find it in cyberspace

Certain benefits may also exist. People who join on-line communities find that they differ in substantial ways from other communities to which they belong. The report that these groups may be smaller and more tightly knit (Kling, 1996)

Much research has been done on online communities. Baym (1998) believes are they many different kinds of relationships going on in the virtual world. Relationships between people become enduring and may keep them returning to an online community day after day. She found, from looking at a chat room for "All My children" that people who become apart of an on-line group develop rituals and emotional investments with people that keep them returning. She also found that people form relationships from commonalities and interests in CMC, rather than by location when face to face.

In addition, CMC may help foster a sense of community among geographical or organizationally isolated professionals (Kling, 1996). This is because technology can break down time or place barriers for people. In the virtual realm, everyone can meet in a common place at nearly anytime.

How do people get on-line?

After discussing some of the reasons why people are forming personal relationships on-line, the next question to answer is how people have these relationships. Where do people go to form personal relationships and what are there reasons for doing so?

The short answer is that people need only a computer, modem, and an Internet service provider for most basic online communication. These are pieces of equipment available in homes, schools, offices, even libraries or cafes around the world. With the afford ability and accessibility of this equipment, its use is growing. The first computer networks and conference systems supported communications between people who used them at work, the biggest growth now seems to be for people to use them outside of work -- for finding friends and lovers, pursuing hobbies, scavenging for investment tips, political organizing, and so on (Kling, 1996).

People find these systems very accessible, which may contribute to their popularity. At nearly anytime of the day or night there are people to chat with, bulletin boards to post, or e-mail that can be sent. Times of day can be set to meet with people, and with new programs like instant message people can alert other chatters to when they are on-line. People aren’t limited to a chatting room with people either, they may also go chat one on one in a private location.

There is also large diversity in the availability of on-line forms. It is reported that there are some 60,000 independent computerized bulletin boards, via information services like CompuServe, Prodigy, America On-line, or complex networks like the Internet (Kling, 1996). Millions of people are corresponding through these electronic news groups, bulletin boards, conferences, distribution lists and similar media. People are now even able to see images of each other in video conferencing.

This growth in Internet use doesn’t seem to quit either. Since its birth in the late 1960's, the Internet has grown between 30 and 40 million people. Figures are constantly increasing for the future. Who uses this system? The fact is that the research now currently lacks even the most basic information about the participants in on-line relationships. However, we do know that women are more likely than men to have formed a personal relationships on-line (Parks and Floyd, 1996),

We now have basic framework behind the motivators for people to form an on-line relationships -- whether it be for social issues, affiliation, or community. We also have looked at the diversity of on-line forums and the growth of these types of relationships. With this information we can now begin a look at what these relationships look like interpersonally and how they relate to our current knowledge about face to face relationships.

2. Can We Compare Online and Face to Face Relationship?

There are two schools of thought regarding on-line relationships. One side views on-line relationships as shallow, impersonal, and hostile. They believe only the illusion of community can be created in cyberspace. The other side argues that computer mediated communication liberates interpersonal relationships from the confines of physical locality and those creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities (Parks and Floyd, 1996).

Views

Those who view on-line relationships more negatively point to a reduction in social cues. They point out that cues about the physical context are missing as well as nonverbal cues, physical qualities, body movements, facial expressions, and appearance. It is because of the reduced bandwidth in CMC that less of this information is passed in than in face to face communication (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Researchers have reported that in the on-line settings there are more incidences of flaming (Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989) and that people have greater difficulty recognizing and moving towards shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). It is these social disadvantages that should prevent positive relationships from occurring frequently in on-line settings.

Yet, why do on-line relationships continue to form? Some believe that these disadvantages are seen as part of the "magic" of on-line relationships. The fact that the interactants have not met face to face does not necessarily seem to mean that the relationships are any less "real" or significant for those involved. (Lea and Spears, 1995). Communicators may learn to adapt to these situations and reduced cues.

Emotion

This is especially true in the case of emotions. Daft and Lengel in their Media Richness Theory (1986) talk about why CMC is not a rich medium for communication since it has a narrower bandwidth and has reduced social cues. They assert that this communication can be described as less friendly, emotional, or personal and more business like or task oriented. However, Rice and Love (1987) found that CMC systems can support socioemotional communication. They point out that CMC users adapt to the inherent bandwidth.

How do you experience emotion online? One of the ways in which people may communicate emotion is through the use of emoticons (Examples: :) to indicate happy or CAPITAL LETTERS to indicate yelling). Walther (1992) points out that these marks conceptualize the message within the relationship and that they are becoming conventions among those who use and recognize them. Another way is just through continued interaction with the medium. Have you ever noticed through continued use of e-mail or chatting that you have self-disclosed or built intimacy through this virtual medium? A possible explanation is the reinterpretation of social presence theory. It states that information is passed slower through this text based medium, however it also states that self-disclosure, development of trust, and communication of intimacy are possible on-line (Lea and Spears, 1995).

Additional findings

Communicators tend to use knowledge generating strategies more often online such as interrogation, self-disclosure, deception, detection, and deviation testing to gather psychological level information about other persons (Walther, 1992). And while the process for relationship development may be slower in this CMC medium, Walther (1992) still believes that textually conveyed information about persons and their characteristics will accumulate. Primarily because communicators in CMC, like other communicators, are driven to develop social relationships (p.72). Overall, growing numbers of reports are appearing that reflect more personal CMC interaction, sometimes just as personal as face to face interaction (Walther, 1996).

Applying Interpersonal theory to On-line Relationships

An even harder task than simply comparing face to face interaction to CMC is comparing the two bodies of research. Largely, at this time, this is a small body of research surrounding the study of on-line personal relationships. Lea and Spears (1996) note that the study of on-line relationships throws up various challenges that are not easily met by the addition of some simple contingencies to current social psychological models of relationship processes (p.198). They also note that mediated communication is neglected in personal relationships research, largely because these studies focus on direct face to face interaction as the primary vehicle for relationship formation.

For example, face to face relationship development research talks about how powerful physical appearance is as selection criteria for forming relationships. Physical attractiveness can be used to infer such qualities as personality, intelligence, similarity, and social desirability before these traits can be revealed and is often found in relationship development models (Lea and Spears, 1995). However, in CMC the physical attractiveness element is undermined and may recede into this background. Therefore, traditional models of relationship development can longer for work..

On the other hand there are other communication models which would seem to apply to this context. Dialectical Theory (Baxter, 1990) talks about how partners deal with three contradictions that exist in intimacy: autonomy vs connectedness, novelty vs. familiarity, and openness vs. closeness. If relationship partners meet on-line and form a genuine relationship, it would still be possible to experience emotion and relationship progression. Likewise partners would also concerned with satisfying needs in the relationship (Baxter, 1998).

Here is an example of how this theory might be applied. Issues of autonomy vs. connectedness might be a factor due to the computer medium. Partners may feel like they are connected on-line when they are talking, but still feel autonomous since it is not possible for them to interact face to face with their partner. Novelty versus predictability might also be a factor since partners may find the predictable nature of always meeting on the computer frustrating (which may be the reason people need to meet face to face in the end). Finally, due to the nature of the medium and lack of nonverbal cues people may be less open because they are unsure of what lies on the other side of the screen or more open because that unknown factor is there.

This illustrates a direct application of an interpersonal communication theory to CMC. While this study has never been completed, it is one of several other theories which might easily been compared or applied to this context. This illustrates the idea of parallelism, the idea that interpersonal theories and online personal relationships canparallel each other and be compared to one another. On the other had, due to the nature of the medium, there may be just as many instances where CMC doesn’t fit with theory because it breaks all the rules. In these cases separate theories may apply solely to online relationships. In the end though, creation of these theories comes from comparison and study, realizing where these gaps exist.

3. What are the Effects of On-Line Relationship?

Moving from the beginning and maintenance of an on-line relationships, our last topic will deal with the effects. In the past this has been a hot topic in current media. People have become concerned about the "crazies" (as they are often referred to) that are lurking on the Internet. They may also doubt if real relationships are possible online. Perhaps you have been apprehensive to begin an online relationship or worry about the possible effects of staying in one. Or has your mother ever warned you about the types of people who frequent the Internet and begin relationships? This section will look at some of the positive and negative factors of on-line relationships and help to talk about some specific implications of CMC.

Positivity

On the positive side, people may able to form high quality relationships. On-line relationships are genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants, some people even report that they are much deeper and better quality than real-life friendship (Bruckman, 1992). This is illustrated by the high numbers of people who decide to meet in real life. Parks (1996) found that relationships which begin on-line rarely stay there and may move to telephone, letters, or even meeting face to face. This may represent the way in which relational partners can overcome the limitations of computer mediated channels.

People may also form groups and communities to be apart of support networks. Groups for cancer patients, pregnant women, victims or abuse, or even followers of Martha Stewart form on-line communities even though they have never met face to face. These virtual groups are not only concerned with exchanging information or debating, but they provide a shared context for social interaction (Lea and Spears, 1995) Members in these groups may come and go, and members may also form other groups as a result of them.

Some feel another benefit of CMC as that it allows people to overcome the shyness they may feel in face to face interaction. They can achieve this through repeated conversation with people on the Internet and slowly become more comfortable. People are also able explore issues of personal behaviors and sexuality. This medium can allow them to explore who they really are or who they would like to be. People can try out a new gender or experiment with sexuality in a way that is educational and beneficial for them without the risks.

Negativity

At the same time that groups are positive, they sometimes get a bad rap. Most common are the stories of women going on-line to meet men, only to find out those men are really women!

CMC creates many opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea and Spears, 1995). Many feel that this manipulation is not ethical and not fair for the participants involved.

People may also be disillusioned when they meet there online partners in real life, when virtual reality doesn’t make actual reality.

Stories on the Internet also include those of people being abused or "raped" online. This is seen as an obvious misuse of the system. Included in this required reading is an article by Diane Witmer on the possible effects of sexually explicit behavior on-line, she talks specifically about some of the negative ramifications of on-line encounters.

Perhaps the best explanation is that the virtual realm has as many of the problems which exist offline also exist online. As Nancy Baym (1998) points out, "I am sure everything bad that happens online happens offline too" (p. 5)

Implications

This discussion illustrates that research into the world of online personal relationships is huge. And because it is a relatively new area of research in communication, it can also seem very exciting! Aside from just looking at how they relate to face to face, we have just explored a whole other realm of research – how identity is constructed in online relationships, whether online relationships practices are ethical, and a look at the importance of online activity to people’s life and individual functioning. This shows us that the research possibilities are huge and cover a span of issues that are just beginning to be explored.

I do think, however, there are certain themes that keep recurring. In the case of this lecture, one common theme seems to underlie everything – How "real" is this system for its users and more specifically, how "real" are these online relationships? Perhaps, as early research suggests, they are impersonal. The cues are reduced making communication shallow and task oriented. On the other hand, perhaps the relationships are interpersonal? Participants are able to establish interpersonal communication as in face to face, but at a much slower pace.

When you think about online relationships and how do you view them? Do you see them as relationships filled with emotion, productivity, intimacy and communication or do you view them as relationships with about as much interpersonal communication as standing with strangers on a bus, or asking paper or plastic when you check out at the grocery store? More and more of research is moving away from this impersonal notion and towards an idea that online relationships do have meaning for its participants. It is also beginning to recognize that these relationships are clearly unique from anything else, but not uncommon.

A third explanation is that online relationships are hyperpersonal. Walther (1996) believes that there are several instances in which CMC can surpass the level of affection and emotion of parallel face to face interaction. He further believes that these take place not only in social settings, but also in business and decision making groups. In a study looking at CMC rating group members communication (Walther, 1996), CMC groups were rated significantly more positive than their face to face counterparts on several dimensions of intimacy as well as on social orientation.

CMC groups were outperforming their interpersonal counterparts. How does this seem possible?

He reports that we may qualify the strengths of others information based on the lack of face to face cues. He also believes that we experience we attribute greater similarity and liking with our partners.

This can easily be applied to our look at online personal relationships. Perhaps these relationships aren’t just impersonal or interpersonal, perhaps they are relationships which seem more positive and mean more to the participants. As we’ve seen throughout this module, partners are seeing benefits to on-line relationships and its growth on the Internet proves it. What do you think about these ideas? Do you think that online relationships have the potential to be as much or more rewarding as face to face? What do you think of the notion that we may feel we have stronger connections to people on-line and may think more positively of people based on our lack of social cues? And if so, what are the implications for future research?

I think these are all important questions to ask as we direct our focus towards the future. It is important that we continue to study and shed new light on this debate. As more and more people join together in a virtual world, we must also seek to understand it.

Readings