Running head: CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
Computer Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relationships
Katrina Vincent
University of Kentucky
1
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
2
Abstract
In today’s society, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) is heavily relied upon for people
to keep in touch, whether they are down the street or across the globe. CMC includes textmessaging, e-mail, social media sites, phone calls, video calls, etc. Although CMC is used more
often in today’s world than in the past, it has yet to replace face to face communication (FtF; Ean,
2013). Some people believe that CMC has only a negative impact on various relationships such
as friendships, family, and romantic connections. However, much research has been done to
prove that there are a number of benefits in using CMC, (Adler & Proctor, 2013). Steve Jobs has
been quoted in saying that personal computers should be renamed “interpersonal computers”,
(Adler, et al., 2013). Self-disclosure and identity management are among the specific topics that
will be explained and related to CMC as it pertains to interpersonal relationships. The following
review is meant to show the good that can come from CMC, but the negative effects will also be
discussed.
Keywords: CMC, self-disclosure, friendship, Facebook, social media, identity management,
family, romantic relationships
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
3
Computer Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Relationships
CMC is a highly discussed topic in this day and age. Friends, family members, and
people dating or married take advantage of the benefits of CMC. There are some who claim that
CMC is not entirely negative as some like to believe, but they also agree that there are times
when it can have detrimental effects on different relationships. Computer Mediated
Communication (CMC) has many effects on different interpersonal relationships: friendships,
family relations, and romantic connections which can be positive or negative, sometimes both on
the same relationship.
Friendships and CMC
To look at friendships and the effect of CMC, you must first look at self-disclosure. Selfdisclosure is “the process of deliberately revealing information about oneself that is significant
and would not normally be known by others”, (Adler, et al., 2013). Research shows that people
seem to have an easier time revealing more personal information over the internet or SMS than in
person. Instead of the self-disclosure there is also a term used for SMS known as CMC
disclosure. It is the use of emoticons and text messages sent back and forth between friends
(Anderson & Wang, 2005). Some reasons that self-disclosure is perceived as being easier
through CMC are a sense of disinhibition and identity management. Disinhibition means to
speak before thinking about what one will say. Identity management is a broad topic. People
tend to have multiple selves, or different “faces” they reveal when communicating with various
people. Some are private and some are public (Adler, et al., 2013). For example, on Facebook
someone might give off the impression they are studious and moral. This person may also have a
Twitter account and on this social networking site they may give the impression that they like to
party or do not care about their studies as much. They may consider their Twitter feed their more
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
4
open self, where their Facebook account might be for family or potential employers. Another
example is found in an interview hosted by Katie Davis (2009). In this interview some girls said
they used a blogging website called LiveJournal to help maintain their current friendships. They
said the website also helped them find their own voice and opinions concerning different things.
This helped them find out more about themselves during their high school years. They also said
the blogs gave them more insight into their friends’ lives that they would not have received in
Face-to-Face (FtF) interaction. They were able to see different experiences through the blog
author’s eyes rather than their own. On the other hand a few of the girls said they felt strange
knowing so much about their online friends when there was little interaction outside of
LiveJournal (Davis, 2009).
Anderson and Wang (2005) said in their article about self-disclosure and long distant
friendships (LDFs) that because of the growing number of easily accessible communication tools,
the impact of geographic location are lessening. People are better able to stay in touch over long
distances, whether it is states away or on the other side of the world.
Family and CMC
One article said college students use e-mail to communicate with family multiple times a
week (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2008). On the flip side of this opinion is what
Ball, Wanzer, and Servoss (2013) say in their article about parent and child communication
through Facebook. They say that young adults typically do not want to accept their parents’
friend requests because they feel they may disappoint their parents with what they post or that
their parents will become even more concerned about what they are doing, where they are, who
they are with.
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
5
Family dynamics can be universal in their communication styles regardless of how
“normal” or dysfunctional they may be. The use of CMC has to do with the pattern of
communication in the family. A family can be conversational or conformity oriented (Adler, et
al., 2013). Conversational orientation refers to how open a family is with their communication.
Conformity orientation refers to how uniform and rule driven a family is. A family higher on the
conversational orientation scale will be more likely to benefit from CMC. A student away at
college will want to call mom or dad out of pure desire to talk to them, not out of obligation
because it is what is expected of him.
A study done on the use of cell phones in regards to parent and child relationships
concluded various results: some young adults said they rarely used their phones to “just chat”
with their parents. Parents agreed that they rarely spoke to their children in a “chit-chat” way; the
phones were primarily used for specific reasons (Devitt & Roker, 2009). Instead young adults
typically had a specific reason for contacting them. Others said they enjoyed the convenience of
their cell phone and the freedom it provided. They said they could call their mom or dad when
they were done spending time with friends and ready to return home. Some were even allowed to
stay out longer because they had their phones.
Romance and CMC
Romantic relationships can be maintained the same ways as friendships and family
relationships using CMC. There was a study done looking at online relationships and the
satisfaction of those relationships. These relationships were strictly online and had no contact
outside of CMC. The researchers found that the couples in the study were satisfied in their
relationships; however there were similarities in their online relationships and FtF relationships.
Trust was the main aspect discussed in comparison of online and FtF relationships. Another
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
6
comparison made was that the length of the relationship had less to do with satisfaction than how
often the couples communicated. Those who interacted more often were happier than those who
did not; regardless of how long they had been together (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006).
Adler and Proctor say that romantic relationships require maintenance (2013, p. 299). In
a study they looked at female college students. These women said openness and mutual problemsolving were necessary to maintain long distance relationships (Adler, et al., 2013). Without the
vast amount of communication tools CMC offers this maintenance, it can be said, would be
much more difficult for couples.
According to another article, Facebook has changed the way romantic relationships form.
The author looked at Knapp’s Relational Stage Model (1978) and how Facebook had influenced
the escalating stages (“Relationship Development Via Facebook”, 2012). There are five stages in
the Knapp’s Model for beginning relationships. These stages are initiating, experimenting,
intensifying, integrating, and bonding (Adler, et al., 2013). Facebook has changed the way
people initiate relationships. Before social networking sites (SNSs), if two people had a
conversation and one was interested in the other they would ask for each other’s numbers. Now
with Facebook and other SNSs, a person can avoid having to ask for the number right away by
sending a friend request on Facebook and continuing conversation through private messages. If
it appears to be going well, then the phone number exchange can happen with a lesser chance of
rejection (“Relationship Development Via Facebook”, 2012).
This brings it back to the discussion of self-disclosure within CMC. People are more
comfortable sharing more personal information through SNSs and text messaging because they
do not have to see the other person’s reactions; their non-verbal cues (Adler, et al., 2013). They
get to the point of their conversation much quicker with leaner messages. A person may say
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
7
more in a short text message than they could in a FtF conversation because they cannot see the
receiver’s face. The sender does not have to worry about potential rejection or other unwanted
emotions.
The main implication is that there needs to be more research on long distance
relationships. The current research is informative and gives much insight into the topics of CMC
and interpersonal relationships. Friends, family, and those dating or married can take advantage
of CMC in various ways. This does not mean that CMC should be solely relied upon as the only
means of communication; there can be negative effects on different relationships. CMC will
continue to be a topic of discussion with the ever changing technology of this day and age.
Future research should look at the benefits of CMC and its role in long distance
relationships between friends, family, and romantic relationships. Look at specific benefits
people can gain from using CMC in their different relationships. Researchers should also look at
the impact that CMC is having on these long distance relationships; look into potential negative
effects.
CMC and Interpersonal Relationships
8
References
Adler, R. B., & Proctor, R. F. (2013). Looking out, looking in (14th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Andersen, P., & Wang, H. (2005). Self-disclosure in long-distance friendships: a comparison
between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Conference Papers -International Communication Association, 1-44.
Anderson, T., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online
romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.
doi:10.1080/10510970600666834
Ball H., Wanzer M. B., Servoss T. J. (2013). Parent–child communication on Facebook: family
communication patterns and young adults' decisions to “friend” parents. Communication
Quarterly, 61(5)
Davis, K. (2009). Adolescent friendships on LiveJournal. Rocky Mountain Communication
Review, 6(1), 47-50.
Devitt, K., & Roker, D. (2009). The role of mobile phones in family communication. Children
& Society, 23(3), 189-202. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00166.x
Johnson, A., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. H., Craig, E. A., & Wigley, S. (2008). College students’
use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically
close relationships. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(2), 381-404.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00401.x
The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: an exploration of Knapp's relational
stage model. (2012). Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 132.