英语论文网

t 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
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
modality.
Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet
relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships and the perceived Running head: 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.
Discussion
In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their research conflicted
with other data examining the effectiveness www.51lunwen.orgof online social relationships. This statement
is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research. There may be a few
possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies. First, one reviewed study by
Cummings et al. (2002) examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality. Running head: ONLINE COMMUNICATION DEFINITIONS & RELATIONSHIPS 6
Therefore, the study is