EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 1
THE ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
THE EFFECT OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS:
A META-ANALYSIS
By
LINDSAY WHEELER
A paper submitted
In partial fulfillment of the
Bachelor of Science degree
in Advertising & Public Relations
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 2
Table of Contents
Abstract
3
Literature Review
4
Research Hypotheses
7
Methods
7
Results
10
Discussion
16
Conclusion
18
Works Cited
20
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 3
THE EFFECT OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ON
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A META-ANALYSIS
Name: Lindsay Wheeler
Department: Department of Communication
Professor: Dr. Tracy Worrell
Degree: Bachelors of Science
When a new form of technology is introduced it is common to try to test what
effects it has had on the industry. This has been the case with computer-mediated
communication or CMC. There have been many studies done to see what effects the
internet, texting, video chatting and other forms of CMC have on the message but what
about the effects on interpersonal communication? That is the purpose of this metaanalysis. Five studies that have been performed to look at the effects CMC has on faceto-face communication will be looked at to determine if CMC is causing interpersonal
communication to adapt. The use of CMC does not always allow the communicators to
pick up on non-verbals that would normally be present in a face-to-face setting. This
analysis looks at five studies from 1995 to 2011 to see if there is any statistical evidence
to suggest that CMC is the preferred mode of interpersonal communication over faceto-face communication. The results show that although individuals become more
comfortable with CMC as they use it, it is not necessarily their first choice for
interpersonal communication.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 4
Literature Review
The tools we use in society to communicate with one another have evolved over
the years. With each advance, starting with the telephone in 1876 through Facebook in
2004 and everything in between, technology has brought more people together in a
faster and easier way. It is not uncommon for people to have conversations with people
from half way around the world on their laptops or cell phones. The ease with which
we can reach one another at any point of any given day and share what we are doing to
a mass audience with the click of a button make computer mediated communication or
CMC very appealing. CMC has actually become an important part of initiating,
developing and maintaining relationships, especially those that are long-distance (Tong
& Walther, 2011). It is very easy to list the advantages that CMC brings to the table, but
what about the changes it is causing to interpersonal communication?
Researchers Culnan and Markus (1987) coined the term “Cues-filtered-out”
referring to CMC and its lack of non-verbal cues. They theorized that since these cues
were excluded from CMC that our socialization habits were changing. Factors like eye
contact and touch are not present in CMC therefore the intimacy that they represent is
not conveyed in the communication (Culnan & Markus, 1987) Since their work was
done in the late 1980’s it does not include types of CMC like Skype and Face time which
allow people to video chat.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 5
These innovations are the reason why some other theorists have come up with a
series of “Cues-filtered-in” theories. They suggest that the use of CMC does not
decrease the effectiveness of a message; the lack of visual cues is made up for in writing
style and message length (Walther & Parks, 2002). We can even try to show emotions in
text messages with things like smiley faces ☺ and emoji, which are symbolic pictures
used to enhance text. “Cues-filtered-in” theories vary slightly but the main idea that
people are adapting to be able to communicate as effectively without non-verbal cues as
they do with them is consistent throughout them (Thompson & Foulger, 1996).
The inconsistencies in research between the “Cues-filtered-in” and “Cuesfiltered-out” theories present a problem. How is it that some research can show
evidence to suggest that non-verbals do not exist in CMC and therefore make it a lesser
form of communication and also that the lack of non-verbals allows the message to be
understood better? Joseph Walther (1992) introduced the social information processing
perspective; he concluded that there were specific factors within the studies done
supporting the “Cues-filtered-out” theory that could account for their findings. Among
them was the duration of the studies. Walther believed that if the studies had lasted an
extended time their results would not have shown such an impersonal relationship with
the individuals using CMC (Walther, 1992).
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 6
Even with these enhancements some researchers still believe it is difficult to
really grasp the tone of a message through CMC. Wright and Webb (2011) found that
deception in CMC relationships is much harder to detect. If the tone deception are
difficult to decipher yet CMC is still a prominent form of interpersonal communication,
it is possible that we really are adapting our needs when it comes to communicating.
Researchers like John Phalan have predicted that face-to-face communication will soon
become obsolete because the essential needs of interpersonal communication are
evolving and the ease and timeliness of CMC are preferred (Phalan, 2011).
If Phalan’s prediction is correct, that process would start with attitudes (a
person’s readiness to respond toward an object or class of objects, in a favorable or
unfavorable manner) toward CMC becoming more positive than those toward face-toface communication. Sassenberg, Boos and Rabung (2004) discovered a difference in
attitude depending on an individual’s level of self-awareness. Only the individuals that
were put into the high self-awareness group reported having a more positive attitude
towards face-to-face interactions. Those with average or low self-awareness preferred
CMC. Psychologists believe that a high use of CMC will create a lower sense of selfawareness because of the lack of social cues. These individuals will struggle to convey
the correct tone with a message and find it harder to pick up on the non-verbal cues
within an interaction (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984). This evidence suggests that it is
possible for exposure to CMC will change the way individuals communicate.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 7
Research Hypotheses
The first hypothesis is that the average attitude towards face-to-face
communication will be rated more negatively than CMC. This is significant to the
research because it will show that more people prefer CMC to face-to-face interactions.
A preference to CMC indicates that society values ease and timeliness over being able to
pick up on the non-verbals that face-to-face interactions offer. It would mean that
people’s needs, when it comes to interpersonal communication, are indeed changing to
adapt to CMC.
The second hypothesis is that there will be a direct relationship between the level
of exposure to CMC and the attitude toward CMC. This will show that the more
familiar individuals are with CMC, the more they will prefer to use that type of
interpersonal communication. The purpose of looking at this is to see if it is necessary to
continue research in CMC and interpersonal relationships. If time and exposure to CMC
changes one’s attitude toward it, it would be beneficial to continue studying the effects
it has on interpersonal communication.
Methods
Studies Used
•
Relational Aspects of Computer-mediated Communication: Experimental
Observations over Time by Walther, 1995
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 8
•
Evaluating Self and Others in Electronic and Face-to-face Groups by Weisband &
Atwater, 1999
•
Computer Mediated Communication: Task Performance and Satisfaction by
Simon, 2006
•
Comparing Uncertainty Reduction in Face-to-face and Computer-mediated
Communicaton: A Social Information Processing Theory Perspective by
Westerman, 2007
•
Comparing Learners’ State Anxiety During Task-based Interaction in Computermediated and Face-to-face Communication by Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2011
Participants
Five different studies were looked at for this meta-analysis. Four of them were
quantitative and one was a blend of quantitative and qualitative, for the purpose of this
analysis the quantitative and qualitative results were used to analyze hypothesis 1. The
studies were executed over a span of 17 years ranging from 1995 to 2011. This stretch in
time is significant because it allowed the analysis to compare attitudes from 1995 to
attitudes of 2011 to see if there is any difference in results over a large amount of time.
In total there were 506 participants, individually the studies ranged from 25 to 160
participants with an average of 102. All of the studies used undergraduate students as
participants.
Procedure
The studies were all found on the Rochester Institute of Technology library
database searching for CMC and face-to-face communication and the attitudes
associated with them. The results of each study were analyzed and the relevant
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 9
information was recorded. Since some of the studies looked at aspects other than CMC
and face-to-face communication, only the results pertinent to those topics were
recorded. Each quantitative study had a different way of measuring the attitude
therefore this analysis looks at the results for immediacy, formality, trust (Walther,
1995), liking of others (Weisband & Atwater), satisfaction, quality (Simon, 2006),
uncertainty (Westerman, 2007) and anxiety (Baralt & Gurzynski-Weiss, 2011). The
qualitative research had students compare face-to-face and CMC by describing it in
words. The full study looked at levels of anxiety in face-to-face compared to CMC but
found no statistical difference.
Treatment
The studies were analyzed to find evidence to support or refute the two
hypotheses; A. that the average attitude towards face-to-face communication will be
rated more negatively than CMC, and B. that there will be a direct relationship between
the level of exposure to CMC and the attitude toward CMC.
A. The studies were analyzed by taking the average rating of attitude measured by
the factors listed in the procedure section of both CMC and face-to-face
interactions, these averages included both before and after results. Since the
results of each study were already tested to see if there was a statistical difference
there was no need to repeat that analysis. On Table 1 each factor was checked as
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 10
being higher for either CMC or face-to-face interactions or no statistical
difference. This chart was then used to see which form of communication more
positive aspects of attitude had associated with it.
The qualitative analysis deals with words used to describe both face-to-face and
CMC interactions while performing a task. The list of positive adjectives to
describe face-to-face communication will be analyzed next to the list of positive
adjectives used to describe CMC. The same will happen for the negative
adjectives. This will provide a way to see if there were more positive things said
about CMC than face-to-face interactions as well as negative things.
B. Similar to the first test, the before and after attitudes from the studies were
recorded based on the 7 factors listed in the procedures section. They were then
analyzed to see if the rating was higher before or after the exposure to CMC. This
is marked in Table 2 with an X. Table 3 was created to determine if there were
more positive changes in the factors of attitude than negative ones.
Results
The present analysis sought to support or refute two hypotheses; the first being
that the average attitude towards face-to-face communication will be rated more
negatively than CMC and the second that there will be a direct relationship between the
level of exposure to CMC and the attitude toward CMC. Both quantitative and
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 11
qualitative research was used to determine that there is currently no difference in
attitude between CMC and face-to-face communication before the completion of a task
and that the attitude of CMC does become more positive as exposure increases.
Hypothesis 1
Quantitative
Table 1
Attitude Factor
Immediacy
CMC
FTF
NONE
Formality Trust
Liking
of
others
Satisfaction Quality
X
Uncertainty
Anxiety
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1 shows the factors used in this analysis to determine attitude. The X
represents which method was rated higher in each of these factors. It was concluded
that CMC was rated higher in immediacy and quality meaning that participants
believed that CMC allowed the message to be sent and received and then responded to
faster than in face-to-face interactions. Since quality was rated higher for CMC it means
that the participants believed that the message was clearer in CMC than in face-to-face
interactions. Face-to-face was rated higher in trust, liking of others and satisfaction. The
participants felt that they could trust what others in the group were saying more in a
face-to-face setting rather than using CMC. They ended up liking the others in the
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 12
group better when interacting with them face-to-face which indicates that there is less
intimacy within CMC. Satisfaction refers to how well the participants felt about the
overall experience completing the task with both face-to-face and CMC interactions,
since face-to-face was rated higher it means that the overall experience was better for
them than CMC participants. Formality, uncertainty and anxiety showed no statistical
difference between CMC and face-to-face tasks. Since neither had a higher level of
formality, that means that participants thought that both methods were equally relaxed.
Both CMC and face-to-face tasks showed a similar average level of uncertainty. This
uncertainty refers to that which the participant felt toward the method of
communication when it came to completing the task they were presented with.
Similarly, the level of anxiety was not statistically different between the two methods
showing that participants were equally as nervous about completing the task through
CMC as they were about completing it face-to-face. Since two factors were in favor of
CMC and three in favor of face-to-face communication there is no evidence to support
the hypothesis that attitudes are more positive for CMC than face-to-face
communication.
Qualitative. Each participant was asked to describe their feelings about the faceto-face task as well as the CMC task. Table 2 shows the words used to express positive
and negative feelings about CMC and face-to-face communication.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 13
Table 2
CMC
Interesting
Learning
experience
Thoughtful
Different
New
Informal
Active
More
articulate
Quicker
Direct
Efficient
Confident
Helpful
Positive
FTF
Social
Good
practice
Natural
Engaged
Complex
Challenging
Both
Fun
Enjoyable
CMC
Annoyed
Grammatical
Relaxed
Unnerving
Comfortable
Easier
Frightening
Frantic
Intimidating
Impersonal
Detached
Negative
FTF
Confusing
Fast
Nerve
wracking
Embarrassing
Awkward
Complex
Disappointed
Broken
Both
Frustrating
Anxious
Stressful
Difficult
Long
Tedious
Confident
This table shows that although there were more positive things said about CMC than
face-to-face tasks, there were also more negative things said. This also fails to find
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the attitude towards CMC is more positive
than face-to-face interactions.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 14
Hypothesis 2
Table 3
Attitude Factor
Immediacy Formality
Before
After
X
X
Trust
Liking
of
others
Satisfaction
Quality
Uncertainty
X
X
X
X
X
Similar to Table 1, Table 3 represents the attitudes of CMC before and after a task
was performed. The X indicates whether the rating was higher for before or after the
use of CMC for each of the factors of attitude being evaluated. The ratings for
immediacy, formality, trust and uncertainty are higher before the use of CMC. This
means that for immediacy, the participants believed that CMC would be faster than it
actually was. This means that the attitude for immediacy was more positive before the
use of CMC. Formality was rated higher before the use of CMC as well but this actually
means that the participant felt more open to using CMC after the task. This actually
means that the attitudes were more positive after the task. Trust was rated higher before
the task indicating that participants trusted the use of CMC more before actually using
it. This suggests a negative attitude for trust. Uncertainty was rated higher before the
task; this means that after using CMC, the participants felt more confident with CMC as
a form of communication. They were more certain that they could complete group tasks
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 15
using CMC after they had already completed one. This indicates a positive attitude
toward CMC.
Liking others, satisfaction and quality were all rated higher after the CMC task.
Participants rating “liking of others” higher after the CMC task indicates that there was
a level of intimacy present within CMC. Since the participants were able to know
enough about the other members of the group to say that they liked them more after the
task, they must have found a way to judge them without actually meeting them face-toface. This shows a positive attitude towards CMC. Satisfaction with CMC is rated
higher after the use of CMC than before. This indicates that with exposure to CMC,
satisfaction increases. This also shows a positive attitude. Quality of the method of
communication was also rated higher for CMC after the task. This means that
participants thought that the quality of communication for a task was better after the
exposure the task provided.
Table 4
Attitude Factor
Immediacy Formality Trust
Positive
Negative
X
X
X
Liking Satisfaction Quality Uncertainty
of
others
X
X
X
X
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 16
Table 4 shows the change in attitude for each of the factors in this analysis. An X
was placed in the positive column if the results indicated that the attitude became more
positive after the task than before, and the same for the negative column. The ratings for
immediacy and trust declined after the CMC task was completed. These show that the
attitude slightly declined with the exposure to CMC. The ratings of the remaining five
factors indicate a positive change in attitude after exposure to CMC. Since the majority
of the factors were rated higher after the CMC task, this data supports the second
hypothesis that there is a direct relationship between the level of exposure to CMC and
the attitude toward CMC.
Discussion
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to understand the effect CMC has on
interpersonal relationships, particularly face-to-face interactions. The analysis
specifically looked at the attitude of CMC versus face-to-face communication and the
correlation between exposure and attitude when examining CMC. The analysis did not
find any notable difference between the attitude toward face-to-face interactions and
CMC. It did find an increasing positive attitude toward CMC as exposure increased.
This meta-analysis is important for future research because it shows that there is
a correlation between time spent using CMC and the attitude toward CMC becoming
more positive. It is also important to note that the attitude toward face-to-face
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 17
communication and CMC were similar. If the attitude toward CMC becomes more
positive as exposure increases it is possible that in a matter of years the attitudes will be
more positive for CMC than face-to-face communication. This meta-analysis will serve
as a baseline assessment of the attitudes for further analysis. From this point on the
exposure to CMC will increase thus making the attitudes more positive, it is important
to know that at one time (now) they were similar to the attitudes toward face-to-face
communication.
The present analysis could have benefited from more studies that looked at the
effect of CMC over an extended amount of time. Even though the studies spanned over
17 years of research, the findings were similar throughout all 17 years. The next step in
this research would be to do a study that looks at the effect that exposure to CMC has
on both the attitudes toward CMC and face-to-face interactions over an extended time
(ex. a full year). This would show if there is a limit to the amount of exposure that has
an effect on CMC attitudes, to see if the change in attitude plateaus at all after a certain
amount of exposure. If there is a point where it plateaus, another analysis of the
attitudes toward CMC versus face-to-face interactions would be excellent to do. A study
like that would expand on the findings of this analysis.
The analysis would have more merit if there had been more studies to compare
to one another. Since only five were found, if the data from one was skewed from any
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 18
outside factor it could influence the findings for the entire analysis. If another analysis
were to be done, at least 10 studies should be looked at to minimize the possibility of
corrupt data.
Conclusion
The main idea of this analysis was to look at the effects CMC has on
interpersonal communication. The present meta-analysis sought to support two
hypotheses. The first was that the average attitude towards face-to-face communication
will be rated more negatively than CMC and the second that there will be a direct
relationship between the level of exposure to CMC and the attitude toward CMC. These
hypotheses were tested by looking at five previous studies that tested the attitudes
toward CMC and face-to-face communication when working in groups to perform a
series of tasks. The results from these studies were analyzed based on the eight factors
of attitudes created for this analysis. These factors included immediacy, formality, trust,
liking of others, satisfaction, quality, uncertainty and anxiety. Each of the factors was
rated as either being higher for CMC, face-to-face or no significant difference. The
results showed that there was no real difference in attitude towards CMC and face-toface communication. CMC was higher in aspects like immediacy and quality whereas
face-to-face was higher in trust, liking of others and satisfaction. For the second
hypothesis the before and after attitudes toward CMC were analyzed. Using the same
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 19
eight factors of attitude the results showed an increase in positive attitude for all but
two of the factors, immediacy and trust. This showed that there was a correlation
between exposure to CMC and a more positive attitude toward CMC.
This analysis serves as a baseline measure of attitudes toward face-to-face and
computer-mediated communication. Since there is evidence that the attitude toward
CMC becomes more positive with increased exposure, it will be important to note that
as of now there is no difference in attitudes. This analysis also shows that there is a
correlation between exposure to CMC and the attitude towards CMC. This is important
to inspire scholars to create new studies that look at long-term effects of CMC exposure
and the attitudes toward CMC. This analysis was constricted by the lack of research
done on attitudes between face-to-face communication and CMC. Future research will
be able to resolve this limitation by looking directly at these attitudes instead of other
effects of CMC.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 20
Works Cited
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, 15(2), 201-229.
Culnan, M. J., & Marcus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K.
H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer
mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39¸ 1123-1134.
Phelan, J. (2011). Igniting the 'social' in networks. Media Development, 58(1), 42-45.
Sassenberg, K., Boos, M., & Rabung, S. (2005). Attitude change in face-to-face
and computer-mediated communication: Private self-awareness as mediator and
moderator. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 362-373. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.254
Simon, A. F. (2006). Computer-mediated communication: Task performance and
satisfaction.
The Journal of social psychology, 146(3), 349-379.
Thompson, P. A., & Foulger, D. A. (1996). Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming
in
electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 225-243.
Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. Computer-mediated
communication in personal relationships, 98-118.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A
relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-89.
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication:
Experimental
observations over time. Organization Science, 6(2), 186-203.
EFFECT OF CMC ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 21
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer
mediated communication relationships. In M. L. Knapp, J. A. Daly, & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), The handbook of Interpersonal Communication (3rd. ed., pp. 529-559).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weisband, S., & Atwater, L. (1999). Evaluating self and others in electronic and face-toface
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 632-639.
Westerman, D. (2007). Comparing uncertainty reduction in face-to-face and computer
mediated communication: A social information processing theory perspective.
Michigan State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 149. Retrieved
from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/docview/304849017?accountid=108
Wright, K. B., & Webb, L. M. (2011). Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal
Relationship. Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.