computer-mediated communication 1 running head: cmc in

Computer-Mediated Communication 1

Running head: CMC IN LONG-DISTANCE FRIENDSHIP MAINTENANCE

Computer-Mediated Communication in Relationship Maintenance:

An Examination of Self-Disclosure in Long-Distance Friendships

Hua Wang

University of Southern California

Peter A. Andersen∗

San Diego State University

∗ Author Note: Hua Wang is a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California. Peter Andersen is a professor of communication at San Diego State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hua Wang, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281. E-mail: [email protected]


Abstract

This study focused on computer-mediated communication (CMC) in relationship

maintenance between geographically separated friends who established their friendships

in previous face-to-face (FtF) interactions. A central relational maintenance strategy –

self-disclosure was examined in comparison between FtF and CMC contexts. Data from a

heterogeneous sample of 353 individuals via a web survey elucidated associations among

media consumption, communication contexts, sex factors, cultural values, geographic

distance, and relationship quality. CMC was found popular among far-flung friends,

although telephone was used most frequently among close friends. People’s media use

changed over time and across different relational stages. CMC disclosure complemented

FtF self-disclosure in achieving relational satisfaction. Participants reported more self-

disclosure in FtF settings than in CMC, and women are slightly more disclosive than men

in both contexts. Culture and geographic distance did not have significant influence on

long-distance friendships.


Computer-Mediated Communication in Relationship Maintenance:

An Examination of Self-Disclosure in Long-Distance Friendships

It is an undeniable fact that “the Internet is rapidly becoming part of the fabric of

our lives, not only in advanced societies but in the core activities and dominant social

groups in most of the world” (Castells, 2002, p. xxix). Understanding this phenomenon

requires the right questions to be answered. A group of elite scholars have pointed out

that instead of asking whether this new information and communication technology will

induce changes in contemporary societies and human interactions, the key inquires

revolve around “under what circumstances, in what ways, and to what extent” (Herring,

2004, p. 27; see also Matei & Ball-Rokeach, 2002). The social organization, practices,

and consequences of the Internet vary across individual users and communities as well as

social conditions and communication contexts (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002; Wellman

& Haythornthwaite, 2002). Therefore, rather than analyzing the impact of computer-

mediated communication (CMC) on interpersonal relationship maintenance in general,

we focused in this study on the role of CMC in long-distance friendships previously

established in face-to-face (FtF) interactions and examined the dynamics of media

consumption, communication contexts, sex factors, cultural values, geographic distance,

and relationship quality by comparing self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC settings.

The world continues to experience increased contact between people from

different backgrounds due to mounting geographical mobility and new communication

technologies. Educational pursuits, a global economy, military deployment, the entrance

of more women into the workforce, and immigration are several factors that amplify

long-distance relationships (Stafford, 2005; Wellman, 1999) and challenge traditional


assumptions about FtF interaction and geographic proximity for close relationships

(Aylor, 2003; Stafford, 2005). Not coincidentally, the penetration of the Internet has

refocused relationships research to CMC. Scholars today explain relational

communication online from perspectives such as social information processing (SIP)

theory and the hyperpersonal model (for a review, see Walther & Parks, 2002). As Baym

(2006) stated, “Although computer-mediated communication was not invented with

interpersonal interaction in mind, the rise of the Internet has clarified that this technology

is fundamentally social” (p. 35) (also see Baym, 2002; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Sproull &

Faraj, 1997).

However, substantial schisms exist between literature on CMC and interpersonal

relationships. First, in CMC research “most of the attention … has explored the formation

of new relationships” (Baym, 2006, p. 43). Research shows that CMC is important in

relationship initiation and development, yet how CMC works in maintenance of

relationships is poorly understood (Aylor, 2003; Baym, 2006; Rabby & Walther, 2003;

Stafford, 2005; Walther & Parks, 2002). Second, our understanding of the general effects

of CMC on human relationships is still in its infancy. “Significant weaknesses exist in the

dominant theories that describe CMC relationships, especially insofar as relationship

maintenance is concerned” (Rabby & Walther, 2002, p. 158). Current CMC theories are

often biased toward traditional interpersonal communication assumptions situated in FtF

settings, and theoretical adaptations are needed to study relationships involving a mix of

traditional communication channels and new media (Baym, 2002, 2006; Lea and Spears,

1995; Rabby & Walther, 2003; Stafford, 2005). Third, research on computer-mediated

relationships lacks contextual sensitivity. CMC in preexisting relationships is rarely


discussed, and when it is, the relationship type (i.e. family, friend, romantic partner,

geographically close or long-distance, etc.) is either not specified or treated as a molar

category of interpersonal relationships. Finally, CMC in traditional long-distance

friendships can be relegated to an understudied area within another understudied area.

Rohlfing (1995) identified long-distance relationships as a significant communicative

phenomenon that received minimal attention. Although the situation has improved, little

research has examined computer-mediated, traditional long-distance friendships which

constitute a substantial part of daily Internet traffic. In this article, we attempted to

redress some of these theoretical and empirical deficiencies through an examination of

self-disclosure behaviors between long-distance friendships that have gone online.

CMC and Long-Distance Friendship Maintenance

Stafford (2005) categorized computer-mediated long-distance relationships into

three groups: (1) pure virtual relationships; (2) migratory relationships from the Internet

to FtF, also called mixed-mode relationship (Walther & Parks 2002); and (3) traditional

long-distance relationships established through FtF encounters. Many empirical studies

emphasize the potential that the Internet provides for establishing new relationships, but

we intentionally focused on preexisting long-distance relationships in the present study.

Friendships are one of the most important types of long-distance relationships.

The warm feelings of friendship are a cornerstone of our happiness and emotional well-

being (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998; Samter, 2003). The voluntary and reciprocal qualities

of friendship are a unique and indispensable part of social life (Fehr, 1996; Hays, 1988;

Rawlins, 1992). Long-distance friendships are common. Before the Internet became a

popular communication conduit, close to 90% of people reported having at least one


close, long-distance friend (Rohlfing, 1990; Rohlfing & Healey, 1991). More recently,

Pew Internet & American Life Project (hereafter “Pew”) (2001, 2002) showed that a

majority of Americans, especially youth, employ a variety of online communication tools

to keep in touch with their far-flung friends. The pervasiveness of long-distance

friendships in CMC makes it essential to study.

CMC is generally understood as both task- and relationship-oriented

communication conducted via computers, which include (1) asynchronous

communication such email, newsgroups, and BBS; (2) synchronous communication such

as instant messenger (IM), chat rooms, and MUDs; and (3) information retrieval, storage

and manipulation through computers and electronic databases (Ferris, 1997). Among the

various types of CMC, email and IM are considered especially interpersonally oriented

(Baym, 2002; Stafford, Kline, and Dimmick, 1999). Email and IM are predominantly

used for communicating with friends (Pew, 2002, 2006). They enhance the

communication between friends by increasing the ease and frequency of social contacts,

especially with the ones at a distance (Chen, Boase, & Wellman, 2002; Pew, 2000, 2001;

Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2002). Therefore, email and IM were used as the prominent

CMC channels for examinations in this study.

Self-disclosure is vital for relationship maintenance and a crucial predictor of

friendship quality (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Johnson, 2001;

Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984). CMC, a cue-limited communicative channel, employs

more language use and textual expressions than FtF (Herring, 2004; Walther & Parks,

2002) suggesting verbal self-disclosure may be an important relational communication

behavior between friends on the Internet. Self-disclosure has been conventionally defined


as verbal messages that people reveal about themselves in FtF settings (e.g., Archer,

1980; Cozby, 1973; Derlega, et al., 1993). But we agreed with some scholars (e.g.,

Dindia, 2000a; Goodstein & Reinecher, 1974; Pearce & Sharp, 1973) that this

information should be hard to obtain unless disclosed by oneself, and therefore defined

self-disclosure as any information that reveals private, intimate, and/or risky personal

facts, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions via either FtF verbal expressions (FtF

self-disclosure) or CMC text-based messages (CMC disclosure).

The Dynamics of Media Consumption in Long-Distance Communication

People choose different media to satisfy their particular relational communication

needs. In long-distance communication, the Internet competes with telephone. Dimmick,

Kline, and Stafford (2000) found that nearly half of their respondents reported a decline

in long-distance phone calls since the advent of the Internet. Likewise, Chen et al. (2002)

reported that email was more frequently used than telephone in communicating with far-

away friends in many countries around the world. However, Baym (2004) argued that

though the general impression is that CMC is more likely to be long-distance and

telephoning is more likely to be local, comparisons of media use in geographically close

and distant social circles indicated that telephone overrides Internet for both long-

distance and geographically close relationships.

Some scholars have investigated the associations between the uses of different

media. Some found a displacement effect (Dimmick et al., 2000) while others suggested

that CMC covaries with the use of other communication channels (Chen et al., 2002). A

recent report from Pew (2006) suggested that a large portion of CMC occurs within the

same social circles people communicate with in person and by phone. Within core social


ties, FtF contact was most widely employed, followed by landline telephone, cell phone,

email, and IM; the more close friends were seen in person, the more they were

communicated with via email (Pew, 2006). Dainton and Aylor (2001) found positive

relationships between the use of oral channels such as FtF contact and telephone

conversations, positive relationships between the use of written channels such as text-

based CMC and traditional letters, but negative relationships between oral and written

channels. We thought additional research should examine the maintenance of long-

distance friendships, such as how media use varies across time and different relational

stages. This discussion led to our first research question:

RQ1: Compared to other communication channels, what is the role of CMC in maintaining long-distance friendships?

CMC, Self-Disclosure, and Relationship Quality

In their overview of computer-mediated relational communication, Walther and

Parks (2002) stated that “Internet access makes it possible for people to connect more

readily to preestablished partners” (p. 546) and “CMC may be a more satisfying choice

than more traditional channels such as letters or the telephone” (p. 545) in the

maintenance of long-distance social ties. Pew (2001) reported 37% of online teens used

IM to write something they would not have said in person. Sandlund and Geist-Martin

(2001) showed the power of CMC in disclosing strong emotions through ethnographic

stories about reconnecting with former lovers via email. However, only a few studies to

date have examined CMC disclosure and most have focused on self-disclosure behaviors

between strangers. These studies generally found that the anonymity feature of the

Internet tends to encourage self-disclosure in CMC environments; people use more direct

and intimate approaches and display more depth and breadth of questions in the initial


stage of relational communication (e.g., Joinson, 2001; McKenna, Green, & Gleason,

2002; Rumbough, 2001; Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Whitty, 2002). Although current

findings indicate greater self-disclosure via the Internet than in person, how CMC affects

disclosure between socially-close relational partners such as friends at a distance remains

a puzzle.

Relationship quality has been extensively investigated in long-distance romantic

relationships (e.g., Guldner & Swensen, 1995) and friendships (e.g., Nicotera, 1993;

Parker & Asher, 1993; Rose & Roades, 1987), but not in the context of long-distance

friendships or directly tested in relation to self-disclosure in FtF and CMC environment.

To determine if new communication technologies really make a difference in self-

disclosure between long-distance friends, it is important to evaluate the overall

relationship quality perceived by people who are involved in both FtF and CMC contexts.

Therefore, our second set of research questions dealt with the association between self-

disclosure, communication contexts, and relationship quality.

RQ2a: Among preexisting long-distance friends, are there differences in self-disclosure between FtF and CMC contexts?

RQ2b: What combination of FtF and CMC contexts mediates the relationship

between self-disclosure and relationship quality in long-distance friendships?

Sex Effect, Friendship, and Self-Disclosure

Some scholars suggest that women engage in more intimacy behaviors including

self-disclosure, emotional expressiveness, and mere talk, whereas men’s friendships tend

to be less expressive and activity-centered (e.g., Brehm, 1992; Fehr, 1996). Some use

similar descriptions of this dichotomy, such as talking versus doing (Caldwell & Peplau,

1982), face-to-face versus side-by-side (Wright, 1988), and communal versus agentic


(Duck & Wright, 1993). However, scholars have also been debating for years about the

extent to which men and women are similar or different in displaying intimacy and

maintaining friendships. Considerable evidence indicated that they share fundamental

similarities with small differences and the differences are even smaller in close

relationships (Hays, 1985; Monsour, 1992; Wright, 1998). Likewise, most scholars claim

that females self-disclose somewhat more than males do (e.g., Dindia, 2000b; Dindia &

Allen, 1992; Reis, 1998). A meta-analysis of sex differences in self-disclosure found that

females tend to disclose more than males, though the difference is smaller than self-

disclosure theorists have suggested (Dindia & Allen, 1992).

Sex of the disclosure recipient or target person is one of the key factors that help

explain sex differences in self-disclosure (Cozby, 1973; Hill & Stull, 1987; Rosenfeld,

Civikly & Herron, 1979). Reis’ (1998) meta-analysis found that men’s same-sex

interaction is substantially less intimate than women’s same-sex interaction, whereas

opposite-sex interaction yields no consistent trend. Given these conflicting results, the

third set of our research questions were proposed as follows.

RQ3: How does the sex of both the subject and the target person in long-distance friendships affect their self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts?

Cultural Values, Friendship, and Self-Disclosure

The meaning of self-disclosure in friendships may vary in cultures possessing

different value orientations (Nakanishi & Johnson, 1993). With globalization, studies

today should take a worldwide view, but most communication studies have been

conducted in North American culture. Hall (1976) suggests that cultures could be divided

into two groups, low-context cultures where messages are conveyed mainly through


explicit codes such as language and high-context cultures where people utilize mostly

physical context or nonverbal cues that imply their messages. Given the more explicit

nature of CMC communication compared to the more implicit medium of FtF with its

rich nonverbal cues, people in low-context cultures would rely on verbal expression in

their relational communication and would be more likely to disclose in CMC settings

than those in high-context cultures.

Hofstede (1983, 1986; 2001) proposed among others the crucial cultural

dimension of individualism/collectivism. Individualistic cultures are more self-oriented

whereas collectivistic cultures are more group-oriented. This suggests that the cultural

norm for self-disclosure in individualistic cultures ars expressiveness and assertiveness

while people in collectivistic cultures tend to be inexpressive, inscrutable, and impassive,

(Nakanishi & Johnson, 1993; Rubin, Yang, & Porte, 2000; Yum, 1991).

Several cross-cultural studies have explored contrasting norms for self-disclosure.

In studies of self-disclosure in relationship maintenance, Ting-Toomey (1991) found that

the Japanese, a high context, collectivistic culture, exhibited less self-disclosure than

North Americans and French. Similarly, self-reported disclosure among Taiwanese was

lower than North Americans (Chen, 1995; Wolfson & Pearce, 1983). However, the roles

that cultural values play in CMC disclosure and long-distance friendship maintenance are

still unknown. This discussion led to our fourth research question.

RQ4: Are people’s cultural values associated with self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts?

CMC, Geographic Distance, and Self-Disclosure

In her book, Cairncross (2001) proposed the concept of the “death of distance”

which suggests that the influence of geographic distance on relational communication is


diminishing with the development of new communication technologies. In other words,

once two people are separate, it really doesn’t matter how far apart they are from each

other. Jackson (2002) explained that people tend to create an image of their

communication partner when engaged in CMC and “talk” to their friend regardless where

they are physically located. Ylinen and Valo (2004) studied the concept of copresence in

maintaining close interpersonal relationships and emphasized the significance of

expressions of intimacy such as self-disclosure via CMC in long-distance friendships.

Other studies suggest that a distance still matters and more communication occurs

in geographically close relational partners than those who are far apart (Chen et al., 2002;

Hampton & Wellman, 2001; Quan-Haase & Wellman, 2002). Quan-Haase and Wellman

(2002) also claimed that despite the unique features of CMC, geographic distance still

constrains communication. Based on this debate, our fifth set of research questions

investigated the association between CMC, geographic distance, and self-disclosure.

RQ5a: Does geographic distance affect self-disclosure in long-distance friendships in both FtF and CMC contexts?

RQ5b: Is the amount of CMC disclosure more important to relational quality in

long-distance friendships of greater geographic distance?

Methods

Participants

Participants included 353 volunteer respondents at a large southwestern university

who were assured anonymity. About 68% of the respondents came from an introductory

undergraduate communication course with extra credit incentives and 32% were recruited

via the listserv of the International Student Center on campus. To qualify respondents had

to be 18 years of age or older, be currently enrolled in college, have at least one friend


living in another city, state, or country, have established their long-distance friendships in

FtF settings, and have communicated with their far-flung friends through the Internet.

Among the 353 participants, there were 69.9% females and 30.1% males. Age

ranged from 18 to 42 (M = 20.4, mode = 18). College students represent the group of a

generation growing up with the Internet as part of their mundane daily routines. In fact,

participants in this study were all virtually competent in CMC, as the relationship

between self-disclosure and friendship quality before controlling for CMC competence

measured on Spitzberg’s (2006) scales was not significantly different from after

controlling for CMC competence (r = .53, rp = .48, p < .001).

Participants were also from diverse cultural backgrounds as they were raised in 38

countries and regions. The number of close, long-distance friends they reported ranged

from 1 to 57 (M= 10.29; mode = 5). Among the long-distance friends who were the

disclosure targets in this research, 66.5% were female and 33.5% were male. Age of

friends ranged from 16 to 63, (M = 21.3, mode = 18), and they were raised in 40

countries and regions. Although 71.0% were in the United States, 29.0% of the long-

distance friends were located in 33 countries and regions around the world at the time of

the study.

Procedures

Subjects participated in the study through a web survey. Questions were randomly

rotated to avoid response bias. Students could easily access the questionnaire via a link

sent in an email. The survey would skip to a designated question based on the

respondent’s answer to previous question. Respondents were told they could not change

their answers once they passed a screen, but could exit the survey at any point.


Respondents receiving class extra credit were asked to send a message to an email

address independent of the survey so they would remain anonymous.

Measures

Self-Disclosure Measures. Modified scales based on Wheeless and Grotz (1976)

and Wheeless (1978) were used to measure self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC

contexts. Participants were asked to focus on a particular long-distance friend of theirs

and then rated a series of statements about FtF self-disclosure and CMC disclosure. In

order to avoid cross-over effects, half of the respondents answered questions about FtF

self-disclosure first, and the other half answered questions about CMC disclosure first.

These statements were dedicated to the breadth, depth, and reciprocity aspects of self-

disclosure that are pertinent to long-distance friendships (e.g., Johnson, Becker, Wigley,

Wittenberg, & Haigh, 2003) and measured on a 5-point scale, where 1 means strongly

disagree and 5 means strongly agree. The statements included: “I talk about all kinds of

issues with my long-distance friend,” “Our conversations usually cover a variety of

topics,” “I tell my long-distance friend personal opinions about sensitive issues,” “I tell

this long-distance friend about things I normally would not tell,” “My long-distance

friend discloses about the same amount as I do,” “I know my intimate disclosure to this

long-distance friend will be rewarded,” “My long-distance friend always lets me know

about his/her feelings” (αFtF = .81; αCMC = .81).

Relationship Quality Measures. Modified scales based on the work of Fletcher,

Simpson, and Thomas (2000) and Nicotera (1993) were used to measure relationship

quality in long-distance friendships. Participants rated a series of statements on a 5-point

scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree. Three statements


were dedicated to each of the three aspects of relationship quality: increasing intimacy,

communication effectiveness, and personal growth. These statements included: “I have

warm feelings toward my long-distance friend,” “I feel close to my long-distance friend,”

“I feel emotionally distant from my long-distance friend,” “Overall, the communication is

effective between my long-distance friend and I,” “I am unhappy with my long-distance

friendship,” “I am satisfied with my long-distance friendship,” “This long-distance friend

takes more than he/she gives,” “I have developed into a better person because of this

long-distance friend,” “I have learned a lot from my long-distance friend” (α = .79).

Cultural Dimension Measures. To explore cultural influences participants were

asked to report the country in which they were raised. Based on Hofstede’s (2001)

country index, each respondent was given a cultural-level individualism score. Similarly,

a cultural level score measuring high-versus low-context culture was assigned to each

respondent according to relevant literature (e.g., Andersen & Wang, 2005; Hall, 1976).

Geographic Distance Measurement. Several scholars have argued that the self-

defined approach in long-distance relationship research is more valid than definitions

based on the number of miles separated or specific geographical boundaries such as state

lines (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Dellman-Jenkins, Bernard-Paolucci, & Rushing, 1993). As

recommended by Aylor (2003), participants of this study were allowed to determine if

their relationship with a friend of their choice was a long-distance friendship. Participants

reported the location of their long-distance friend and a GIS system was used to measure

the geographic distance between long-distance friends. This GIS system uses US Census

data and a list of world cities to calculate latitude and longitude. If a respondent provided

the name of the city, state/province, country, and zip code (if located in the United


States), the city was used to measure geographic distance. If a respondent provided a state

in the United States, a city near the center of the state was used for calculations. If a

respondent provided only a country or if a foreign city was not listed in the database, the

capital city of the country was employed. This yielded a linear measure of distance

between long distance friends in miles.

Statistical Analyses

Research questions were examined through frequency distributions, correlation

coefficients, partial correlations, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and regression analysis.

Statistical significance was set at .05 alpha level. Power coefficients were computed for

all non-significant findings (Cohen, 1988).

Results

CMC in the Dynamics of Long-Distance Friendship Maintenance

RQ1 examined the position of CMC in maintaining long-distance friendships in

comparison to other communication channels. Based on a 5-point scale where 1 means

never and 5 means always, participants rated their frequency of using different media to

communicate with their long-distance friends. As illustrated in Table 1, telephone, email,

and IM were the three primary communication channels they used. FtF interactions were

fourth. Letters and other types of CMC were used much less often. These results indicate

that CMC is a popular communication conduit in preexisting long-distance friendships,

but not the only or preferred channel at current time.

Although all the participants in this study reported that they met their long-

distance friends in FtF interactions, when they were asked “How often do you

communicate with your long-distance friend through the following channels (now)”,


2.8% of people responded “not at all”. Results shown in Table 2 imply that individual’s

adoption and continued use of certain communication channels may vary across time. In

long-distance friendships, CMC provides a convenient channel of communication when

meeting in person becomes difficult or impossible. Media use may also vary among a

great variety of CMC tools, as a number of respondents admitted that they weren’t using

email or IM with their long-distance friends.

Three tendencies were found when the associations between relational stage and

media consumption were tested (see Table 3). As the relationships unfolded, the number

of communication channels increased from a single medium to multiple media.

Furthermore, their media use also changed from nearly never to very frequently. Results

of correlation coefficients also indicated that the more intimate the relationships were, the

more number of channels were employed for long-distance communication (r = .19,

p < .001), and the more frequently people communicated via these channels (r = .30,

p < .001). Consistent with the findings in Baym, Zhang, and Lin’s (2004) study,

telephone usage suppressed CMC in maintaining long-distance friendship as the

communication needs expand.

In addition, the use of computer-mediated relational communication does not

result in a decrease in the use of other channels. In fact, some CMC forms are positively

related to the use of traditional media. For example, there was a moderate positive

relationship between the use of email and letters (r = .29, p < .01). There was an even

stronger positive relationship between telephone use and FtF interactions (r = .37,

p < .01). These findings echo Dainton and Aylor’s (2001) claim about positive


correlations among oral communication channels and positive correlations among written

communication channels.

Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC Contexts

RQ2a asked if there are any differences in self-disclosure between FtF and CMC

contexts. Results of one-way repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that people disclose

significantly more in FtF settings (M = 29.84, SD = 4.13) than in CMC context (M =

28.09, SD = 4.63), F (1/346) = 64.29, p < .001, eta² = .16. These results contradict

previous findings from relationships initiated on the Internet and self-disclosure

behaviors in relationship formation stages rather than maintenance stages.

RQ2b examined what combination of FtF and CMC contexts mediates the

relationship between self-disclosure and relationship quality. Regression analysis

revealed that self-disclosure is important to relationship quality in long-distance

friendships in both FtF settings [F (1/345) = 165.69, p < .001, adjusted R² = .32] and the

CMC context [F (1/345) = 133.19, p < .001, adjusted R² = .28]. Yet a combination of

both FtF self-disclosure and CMC disclosure accounts for even greater variance in

relationship quality [F (2/344) = 107.24, p < .001, adjusted R² = .38].

Sex Effects

RQ3 examined sex differences in self-disclosure between long-distance friends. In

general, females tend to disclose slightly more than males in both FtF and CMC contexts.

A one-way ANOVA showed that women (M = 30.51) disclose more than men (M =

28.28) in FtF contexts [F (1/344) = 22.57; p < .001; eta² = .06] and women (M = 28.47)

also disclose more than men (M = 27.22) in CMC contexts [F (1/344) = 5.31; p = .02;

eta² = .02].


These sex effects were further explored by examining self-disclosure of same-sex

and cross-sex dyads across both FtF and CMC contexts. As demonstrated in Table 4,

participants generally shared higher self-disclosure when the target person was a female

friend and this effect is more notable during CMC interactions. In addition, consistent

with our previous findings, self-disclosure in FtF settings was greater than CMC

disclosure across all four groups except that the mean values for opposite-sex friendships

were almost identical.

Friendship May Be Trans-Cultural

RQ4 inquired whether cultural values are associated with self-disclosure in FtF

and CMC environments. ANOVA revealed no significant difference in self-disclosure in

people from low-context cultures (M = 29.89) than those from high-context cultures (M =

29.87) in FtF context [F (1/332) = .002; p = .97]. Nor did it indicate any difference in

self-disclosure for people from low-context cultures (M = 28.20) and high-context

cultures (M = 28.08) in CMC contexts [F (1/332) = .035; p = .85]. Power analysis

revealed there was about 75% chance of detecting a small effect (Cohen, 1988).

However, the chance of detecting a medium or a large effect exceeded 99%.

Correlations indicated no significant relationship between self-disclosure and

people’s cultural background based on Hofstede’s (1983, 1986, 2001) conception of

individualism versus collectivism in either FtF (r = .02, p = .67) or CMC context (r = .06,

p = .30). Power analyses showed a 56% chance of detecting a small effect and a 99%

chance of detecting medium or large effect (Cohen, 1988).


The Death of Distance

RQ5a was posed to determine if the amount of CMC disclosure was more

important to relational quality in long-distance friendships of greater distance. The

correlations showed no relationship between geographic distance and self-disclosure in

either FtF (r = -.03, p = .63) or CMC context (r = .01, p = .92). Power analysis suggests

there was about 56% chance of detecting a small effect, but the chance of detecting a

medium or a large effect exceeded 99% (Cohen, 1988).

RQ5b questioned about whether the amount of CMC disclosure is more important

to relational quality in long-distance friendships of greater geographic distance. Partial

correlations were used to test the influence of geographic distance on the relationship

between CMC disclosure and relationship quality. The zero-order correlation between

these two variables (r = .529, p < .001) was virtually identical with their relationship after

controlling for distance (rp = .532, p < .001).

Discussion

Summary of findings

This study provides some important information regarding the use of CMC in

maintaining increasingly prevalent long-distance friendships. First, computer-mediated

means have certain advantages in communicating people at a distance, yet CMC

primarily serves as a useful alternative in traditional long-distance friendship

maintenance. Telephone is used most often although email and IM are also very popular.

People’s media consumption for relational communication changes over time. Certain

channels may be adopted or dropped as the relationship dynamics flow. However, the


more intimate relationships are, the more number of channels are employed and the more

frequently people use them to keep their social ties.

Second, although some prior CMC studies suggest that people in general are more

likely to disclose in CMC than FtF environment, this study indicates in traditional long-

distance friendships, people disclose more in FtF than in CMC context. What’s more

important is that although FtF self-disclosure and CMC disclosure are each associated

with relationship quality individually, a combination of both works with greater power in

achieving satisfactory long-distance friendships.

Third, consistent with prior research, these results suggest women disclose

somewhat more than men in both FtF and CMC settings. Additionally, females share the

highest disclosure with female friends, opposite-sex friendships share somewhat less

disclosure, and males share the lowest disclosure with male friends. Greater FtF self-

disclosure than CMC disclosure is true in three out of the four groups.

Some null findings are potentially as illuminating as the significant ones. Cultural

values do not have much influence on self-disclosure behaviors in either FtF or CMC

context. Contrary to the findings of many cross-cultural studies, self-disclosure trumps

culture in the present study, which suggests that the intimate nature of friendship may be

trans-cultural.

The data also lend support to the notion of the death of distance, suggesting that

geographic distance has no significant impact on self-disclosure behaviors or relationship

quality in long-distance friendships. Given the results of this study, once two people are

separate, it really wouldn’t matter if one’s long-distance friend in located in a city far


away or closer, people still disclose to their friends through CMC in order to maintain

their relationships.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Internet shapes human communication and changes

comtemprary societies, but it shapes the ways of communication and changes the

practices within a society in different ways among various groups of people. This study

examined how college students with diverse backgrounds used CMC to maintain their

long-distance relationship with friends previously met in FtF settings. This is a

population that continues to incorporate new technologies into their social and relational

communication on a day-to-day basis. This is also a population that perhaps values

friendship more than anything else. However, the interplay between the Internet and

long-distance friendships is not as simple as keeping in touch via email or IM. Our study

has demonstrated the complexity of this pervasive cultural phenomonon.

People did not have to wait till the invent of the Internet to cope with long-

distance relationships, but the emergence of the Internet did make relational

communication between long-distance friends more affordable and convenient. However,

this study cautions us that CMC disclosure cannot substitue FtF self-disclosure. Only

when CMC is used in combination with FtF self-disclosure does it truly help maintain a

satisfactory long-distance friendship. Furthermore, the social use of the Internet does not

take away the value and necessity of communicating through other channels. In fact, the

more intimate the relationships become, the more communication channels people

adopts, and the more frequently they use these tools to keep the relationship going. The

existance of CMC provides them an array of options for relational communication.


People can choose based upon specific social conditions in order to fulfill their particular

relacional and communication goals.

These findings have important implications for theoretical development as well.

CMC theorists should avoid mystifying the Internet but position it in the larger context of

social practices and communication activities. Acknowledging the limitations of our

sample, we have no intention to generalize these findings beyond the population studied.

However, future research can improve the argument by using a larger size random sample

and by studying a different group of Interent users in long-distance relationships.


References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal

relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Andersen, P. A. & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). The bright side of relational communication:

Interpersonal warmth as a social emotion. In P.A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero

(Eds.). The handbook of communication and emotion. (pp. 303-329). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Andersen, P. A., & Wang, H. (2005). Unraveling cultural cues: Dimensions of Nonverbal

Communication across cultures. In L. Samovar, R. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel

(Eds.), Intercultural Communication: A Reader (11th ed.) pp. 250-266, Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.

Archer, R. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self

in social psychology (pp. 183-204). London: Oxford University Press.

Aylor, B. (2003). Maintaining long-distance friendships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton

(Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual,

and cultural variations (pp.127-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baym, N. K. (2002). Interpersonal life online. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.),

Handbook of new media (pp. 62-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baym, N. K. (2006). Interpersonal life online. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.),

Handbook of new media (Updated student ed.) (pp. 35-54). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.


Baym, N., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M. (2004). Social interactions across media:

Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone and face-to-face. New

Media & Society, 6(3), 299-318.

Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cairncross, F. (2001). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is

changing our lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendships. Sex

Roles, 8, 721-732.

Castells, M. (2002). The Internet and the network society. In B. Wellman & C.

Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. xxix-xxxi). Malden,

MA: Blackwell.

Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus

Chinese: A comparative study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 84-91.

Chen, W., Boase, J., & Wellman, B. (2002). The global villagers: Comparing Internet

users and uses around the world. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.),

The Internet in everyday life (pp. 74-113). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,

73-91.

Dainton, M. & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, &

maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships.

Communication Quarterly, 49, 172-188.


Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Dimmick, J., Kline, S. L., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of personal e-

mail and the telephone: competition, displacement, and complementarity.

Communication Research, 27 (2), 227-248.

Dindia, K. (2000a). Self-disclosure, identity, and relationship development: A dialectical

perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal

relationships (pp. 147-162). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Dindia, K. (2000b). Sex differences in self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and

self-disclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In S. Petronio (Ed.),

Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.

Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in friendship: A close

look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709-727.

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ferris, P. (1997). What is CMC? An overview of scholarly definitions. Computer-

Mediated Communication Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2002 from

http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/ferris.html

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, F. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and

evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 79, 933-941.


Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Empirical and theoretical extensions of self-disclosure. In G. R.

Miller (ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication, (pp. 197-215). Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Goodstein, L. & Reinecker, V. (1974). Factors affecting self-disclosure: A review of the

literature. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 7, 49-77.

Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality:

Long-distance relationships as a test case. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 12, 313-320.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press.

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2001). Long distance community in the network society.

American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 476-496.

Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.

Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships

(pp. 391-408). London: John Wiley & Sons.

Herring, S. C. (2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-

mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26-36.

Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1987). Gender and self-disclosure: Strategies for exploring the

issues. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research and

therapy (pp. 81-100). New York: Plenum Press.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions.

In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expectations in cross-

cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.


Hofstede, G. (1986). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Camparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jackson, M. (2002). Familiar and foreign bodies: A phenomenological exploration of the

human-technology interface. Royal Anthropological Institute, 8, 333-346.

Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences

between geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication

Quarterly, 49, 425-436.

Johnson, A. J., Becker, J., Wigley, S., Wittenberg, E., & Haigh, M. (2003, May). What

geographic distance can illustrate about relational closeness: Close long-distance

friendships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International

Communication Association, San Diego.

Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of

self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31,

177-192.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over

computer networks. In J. Y. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understanding

relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of new media: Social shaping and

consequences of ICTs. London: Sage.

Matei, S., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2002). Belonging in geographic, ethnic, and Internet

spaces. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life

(pp. 404-430). Malden, MA: Blackwell.


McKenna, K. Y.A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on

the Internet: What’s the big attraction. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-32.

Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 277-295.

Nakanishi, M., & Johnson, K. M. (1993). Implications of self-disclosure on

conversational logics, perceived communication competence, and social

attraction. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication

competence (pp. 204-221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nicotera, A. M. (1993). Summary of studies on the theory of friendship and consideration

of implication. In A. M. Nicotera (ed.), Interpersonal communication in friend

and mate relationships (pp. 125-138). Albany, NY: State University of New York

Press.

Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood:

links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social

dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.

Parks, R. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘Making MOOsic’: The development of personal

relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517-537.

Pearce, W. B., & Sharp, S. M. (1973). Self-disclosing communication. Journal of

Communication, 23, 409-425.

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How women

use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Washington,


DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 10, 2003 from

http://www.pewInternet.org

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2001, June 20). Teenage life online: The rise of

the instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and

family relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Retrieved December 8, 2002, from http://www.pewInternet.org

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002, September 15). The Internet goes to

college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology.

Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved December 8,

2002, from http://www.pewInternet.org

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2004, August 11). The Internet and daily life:

Many Americans use the Internet in everyday activities, but traditional habits still

dominate. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved

June 20, 2006, from http://www.pewInternet.org

Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2006, January 25). The strength of Internet ties:

The Internet and email aid users in maintaining their social networks and provide

pathways to help when people face big decisions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet

and American Life Project. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from

http://www.pewInternet.org

Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2002). Capitalizing on the net: Social contact, civic

engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite

(Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 291-324). Malden, MA: Blackwell.


Rabby, M. & Walther, J. (2003). Computer-mediated communication effects on

relationship formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.),

Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and

cultural variations (pp.141-162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life

course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Reis, H. T. (1998). Gender difference in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and

process. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in

communication (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rohlfing, M. E. (1990, November). Communicating long-distance friendship. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association,

Chicago.

Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). “Doesn’t anybody stay in one place anymore?” An exploration of

the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. T. Wood & S.

Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (Vol. 6) (pp. 173-

196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rohlfing, M. E., & Healey, A. C. (1991, May). Keeping the tie that binds: The

communication patterns of geographically separated female friends. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the International Communication

Association, Miami.

Rose, S. & Roades, L. (1987). Feminism and women’s friendships. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 11, 243-254.


Rosenfeld, L. B., Civikly, J. M., & Herron, J. R. (1979). Anatomical and psychological

sex differences. In G. J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and

implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 80-109). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rosenfeld, L. B., & Kendrick, W. L. (1984). Choosing to be open: An empirical

investigation of subjective reasons for self-disclosing. Western Journal of Speech

Communication, 48, 326-343.

Rubin, D. L., Yang, H., & Porte, M. (2000). A comparison of self-reported self-

disclosure among Chinese and North Americans. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing

the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 215-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rumbough, T. (2001). The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships

through computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports,

18, 223-229.

Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B.

R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp.

637-684). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sandlund, E. & Geist-Martin, P. (2001). A blast from the past: Emotions in e-motion in

the email reconstruction of past love. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.

Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-

mediated communication (CMC) competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 11(2), article 12.


Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social

technology. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 35-52). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stafford, L., Kline, S. L., & Dimmick, J. (1999). Home e-mail: Relational maintenance

and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43,

659-669.

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.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the

United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29-46.

Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1984). Self-disclosure, intimacy, and the depenetration

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 84-90.

Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-

mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.),

Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Wellman, B. (1999). The network community. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the

global village (pp. 1-48). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure,

and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157.


Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-

disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 338-346.

Whitty, M. T. (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest

people are in chat rooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 343-352.

Wolfson, K., & Pearce, W. B. (1983). A cross-cultural comparison of the implications of

self-disclosure on conversational logics. Communication Quarterly, 31, 249-256.

Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in friendship: A case for

moderation and a plea for caution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

5, 367-373.

Wright, P. H. (1998). Toward an expanded orientation to the study of sex differences in

friendship. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in

communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in

interaction (pp. 41-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ylinen, A., & Valo, M. (November, 2004). Experiencing and expressing co-presence in

technologically maintained close relationships. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Yum, J. O. (1991). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and

communication patterns in Eat Asia. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.),

Intercultural communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 66-77). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.


Table 1 Frequency of Media Use in Long-Distance Friendship Maintenance

Type of Media M SD

Telephone 3.53 1.11

Email 3.42 1.15

IM 3.39 1.48

Face to face 3.03 0.93

Letter 1.86 1.01

Chat room 1.40 0.87

Blog 1.24 0.69

Pager 1.10 0.49

Note. The mean values were computed based on a 5-point scale where 1 means never and 5 means always.


Table 2 Media Type Not Used for Long-Distance Friendship Maintenance

Type of Media N Valid percent

Pager 334 94.6

Blog 303 85.8

Chat room 277 78.5

Letter 166 47.0

IM 66 18.7

Email 23 6.5

Phone 15 4.2

FtF 10 2.8


Table 3 Associations between Relational Stage and Media Consumption

Acquaintance Just friend Good friend Close friend Best friend

(N=1) (N=13) (N=59) (N=115) (N=158)

Medium Mean Medium Mean Medium Mean Medium Mean Medium Mean

IM 2.00 Email 3.31 IM 3.54 Email 3.56 Phone 3.98

Email 1.00 IM 3.15 Email 3.24 Phone 3.36 IM 3.44

Phone 1.00 Phone 2.62 Phone 3.03 IM 3.23 Email 3.41

FtF 1.00 FtF 2.62 FtF 2.78 FtF 2.95 FtF 3.25

Note. The mean values were computed based on a 5-point scale where 1 means never and 5 means always.


Table 4 Sex Effects on Self-Disclosure in Long-Distance Friendships

FtF Self-Disclosure CMC Disclosure Group N

M SD M SD

Female – Female 198 30.86 3.75 28.70 4.84

Male – Female 32 28.72 4.55 28.75 3.43

Female – Male 44 28.93 4.21 27.43 4.51

Male – Male 72 28.08 4.13 26.54 4.27

computer-mediated communication 1 running head: cmc in

Documents