Post on 24-Apr-2022
Predictors of Relationship Satisfactionin Online Romantic RelationshipsTraci L. Anderson & Tara M. Emmers-Sommer
Based on traditional theories of interpersonal relationship development and on the
hyperpersonal communication theory, this study examined predictors of relationship
satisfaction for individuals involved in online romantic relationships. One hundred-
fourteen individuals (N¼114) involved in online romantic relationships, and who had
only engaged in computer-mediated communication (CMC) with their partners, com-
pleted an online questionnaire about their relationships. Intimacy, trust, and communi-
cation satisfaction were found to be the strongest predictors of relationship satisfaction
for individuals involved in online romances. Additionally, perceptions of relationship
variables differed depending on relationship length and time spent communicating.
Implications for interpersonal and hyperpersonal communication theories, and future
investigation of online relationships, are discussed.
Keywords: Computer-Mediated Communication; Relationship; Online; Satisfaction;
Uncertainty; Hypersonal; Interpersonal
More people are becoming involved in computer-mediated romantic relationships.
These individuals inhabit an interesting relational niche because they engage in rela-
tionships that are perceived by some scholars as either nontraditional or understu-
died (Emmers-Sommer, 2005). Given these atypical relational circumstances, such
individuals might also lack information about online romantic relationships and
social support networks from which to gain confirmation about their relationship.
Manuscript accepted for publication with minor revisions in Communication Studies, June 2005. Traci
Anderson (Ph.D., University of Oklahoma) is Assistant Professor at Bryant University. Tara Emmers-Sommer
(Ph.D., Ohio University) is Associate Professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. This manuscript repre-
sents a portion of the first author’s dissertation that was directed by the second author. An earlier version of this
paper was presented at International Network on Personal Relationships conference in 2001. The authors would
like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Jim Query for their helpful comments. Correspondence to: Traci L.
Anderson, Bryant University, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI, 02917, U.S.A. Tel: (401) 232-6582; E-mail:
tanderso@bryant.edu
Communication Studies
Vol. 57, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 153–172
ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2006 Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510970600666834
Although there is an abundance of research on romantic relationships in general,
there is still much to be learned about relationships that form in online settings. The-
oretically, current interpersonal theories do not completely account for the develop-
ment of, or what occurs within, online romantic relationships (Merkle & Richardson,
2000). Practically speaking, it is possible that people in online romantic relationships
will experience relationship problems or struggle with the stigma that comes from
having an online romantic relationship (Wildermuth, 2004) as people tend to per-
ceive online relationships negatively (Anderson, 2005), thus, people might seek coun-
seling from a practitioner who, at the present time, would be hard pressed to find any
substantial research on online romantic relationships.
To date, there has been minimal research conducted in the area of computer-
mediated romantic relationships. Much of the existing research has been concerned with
how online relationships are initially established or perceived and managed as ‘‘real’’
relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Such research is indeed valuable, yet we must also
study other aspects of these relationships, such as what contributes to online relation-
ship success. Researchers are beginning to take note of this issue (e.g., Baker, 2002;
Rumbough, 2001); however, few studies of online interpersonal relationship ‘‘success’’
or satisfaction have been published. We seek to establish which predictors of face-to-face
(FTF) relationship satisfaction hold true for online romantic relationships. Indeed, to
further our understanding of what contributes to successful online romantic relation-
ships it would be fruitful to examine what predicts online romantic relationship satis-
faction. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which similarity,
commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction
predicts relational satisfaction in online romantic relationships.
Computer-Mediated Communication and Relating
Initial research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) incorporated such
theories as media richness theory (Draft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987) and social pres-
ence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976), currently known as the ‘‘cues filtered
out’’ perspective (Culnan & Markus, 1987). Proponents of the cues filtered out per-
spective advocated that CMC was not conducive for forming close ties online due to
the minimal social context and nonverbal cues inherent to CMC. Some went so far as
to suggest that online relationships, if formed, were ‘‘inauthentic’’ (e.g., Chenault,
1998). However, more recent research indicates that CMC does allow for people to
achieve closeness through communicating online. By extending previous theoretical
work on CMC, such as the social information processing (SIP) model (Walther,
1992) and the social identification=deindividuation (SIDE) model (Spears & Lea,
1994), Walther (1996) proposed a ‘‘hyperpersonal model’’ of CMC. He argued that
online interpersonal communication lends itself to rapidly developing relationships
because CMC is more intimate and moves more quickly than FTF communication.
According to Walther, this closeness develops due to the sender’s ability to carefully
present him- or herself, the afforded ability to edit messages before sending them, the
receiver’s tendency to form positive and ideal partner attributions, and the dyad’s
154 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
level and intensity of self-disclosure. These factors then combine cyclically such that
online communicators reinforce one another’s perceptions of the idealized partner.
Many researchers have conducted studies in which the cues filtered-out model was
shown to be inaccurate for explaining much of what occurs in online interactions.
Walther and Burgoon (1992) found that in the initial stages of online relationship
development, individuals are less open and self-disclose more slowly. However, later
studies (Walther, 1993, 1996) demonstrated that individuals in such relationships
quickly adapt to the lack of bandwidth. Walther (1996) has noted that CMC over-
comes certain limitations of FTF interactions by providing a context in which people
can interact with relative anonymity (or pseudonymity). Once in an online environ-
ment, persons may alter their names, physical presence, or any other personal detail
about which they might feel uncomfortable or self-conscious (Lea & Spears, 1995).
The de-emphasis of physical presence is conducive to genuine, free, and open com-
munication (e.g., Myers, 1987) and subsequently may reduce communication appre-
hension (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).
The above might help to explain how people form online social and personal rela-
tionships. Parks and Roberts (1998) investigated personal relationships in various types
of multi-user domains (MUDs) and discovered that nearly 94% of their 235 parti-
cipants had formed an online relationship of some kind (friendship or romantic in nat-
ure). The authors indicated that participants reported relationship breadth and depth,
commitment, predictability, and understanding of one another as being moderate to
high. Furthermore, nearly one third of their sample had progressed to in-person meet-
ings. Whitty and Gavin (2001) conducted interviews of 60 Internet users involved in
online relationships and reported that participants indicated ‘‘traditional’’ relationship
characteristics such as trust and commitment are equally important components in
relationships formed online. Baker (2002) examined case studies of eight couples that
met online to determine what characteristics led them to be successful after meeting
FTF and found that increased communication time and effective conflict management
skills were two factors that contributed to making the move to FTF. Wright (2004)
examined the relational maintenance strategies used by persons in nonromantic online
relationships and found that positivity and openness were the two most common stra-
tegies reported. These researchers are moving forward the study of online relationships,
yet further research into the burgeoning realm of online relationships is warranted as
personal relationships that develop online continue to increase and, in many cases,
move off-line (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002).
Relationship Satisfaction
Relationship satisfaction, the degree to which an individual is content and satisfied
with his or her relationship, is a strong indicator of relationship length and success
in traditional FTF intimate relationships. Therefore, relationship satisfaction is
important not only for understanding successful online relationships but also as a
potential indicator of an online relationship that might effectively move to an
off-line, FTF relationship. Relationship satisfaction has been examined as both an
Online Relationship Satisfaction 155
individual and dyadic construct, and researchers have found that it is affected
by individuals’ perceptions of their partners’ various attitudes, behaviors, and
communication (Guerrero, 1994). For example, Burleson, Kunkel, and Birch
(1994) discovered that relationship satisfaction could in part be predicted by simi-
larity in communication values. Additionally, Neimeyer (1984) suggested that simi-
larity of interpersonal variables is a predictor of marital satisfaction.
Rusbult and Buunk (1993) found that couples that reported high relationship sat-
isfaction also reported higher levels of intimacy and commitment. In fact, numerous
studies that have examined the investment model show relationship satisfaction and
commitment are positively correlated whereas they are negatively correlated with
relationship alternatives. If an individual feels highly committed to an online partner
and is anticipating future interaction with the partner in an off-line context then per-
ceived commitment of the partner might influence satisfaction as the future success
of the off-line relationship may hinge upon the partner’s commitment to the
relationship as it stands. This is exacerbated by the knowledge that if the relationship
does progress to FTF, it may likely continue (at least for some time) as a long distance
relationship. This is because a large number of people who meet online are not geo-
graphically close and geographical distance may potentially lead to an increased need
for trust and commitment (see Rohlfing, 1995 for review).
Similarity
One variable that has been shown to influence relationship satisfaction is similarity,
the degree to which individuals perceive themselves as similar to others (e.g., Byrne,
1971; Duck, 1994). Barnes (2003) has suggested that similarity is important in online
relationships because it takes the place of proximity; people may not be able to be
close in physical location to someone with whom they are interacting online, yet they
can find others who share common interests and attitudes. Research has shown that
similarity attracts individuals to others with similar attitudes and backgrounds in
online social support groups that are based on specific interest and hobbies (e.g.,
Wright, 2000). According to Walther’s hyperpersonal model (1996), in the absence
of information not available online such as physical appearance, social status, and
so forth, interactants may make over-attributions about their own and their partners’
similarities and encourage responses that confirm this. Thus, if someone perceives
her=his online partner as highly similar, s=he may be interpersonally attracted to
the conversational partner and experience greater relationship satisfaction. In
addition, Barnes (2003) found that perceived similarity is a primary factor in decid-
ing whether to develop an online relationship.
Commitment
Commitment—the extent to which people in romantic relationships experience
relational cohesion (togetherness), exclusivity, and anticipated continuance of
the relationship (dedication)—is another factor shown to be important to FTF
156 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
relationships (Rusbult, 1983). Researchers have found that commitment is linked to
relationship satisfaction (Sprecher, 1999). Rusbult (1980) argued for an investment
model of relationship development, positing that commitment is the result of indivi-
duals’ perceived alternatives to their current relationships, investment in the relation-
ships, and relationship satisfaction. Thus, consistent with Rusbult’s model, a person’s
perception of various factors in a relationship is central to that person’s relationship
satisfaction (and own level of commitment). In fact, Rusbult and Buunk (1993) stated
that ‘‘Highly committed individuals need their relationships, feel connected to their
partners and have a more extended, long-term time perspective regarding their rela-
tionships’’ (p. 180). Focusing on CMC, Parks and Floyd (1996) examined online
friendships formed in MUDs and reported that people experience moderate levels
of commitment with their online friends. It is possible that people online would
not only feel commitment toward online romantic partners but also that the level
of commitment would positively influence online relationship satisfaction.
Intimacy
A significant factor in the development of and satisfaction in relationships is inti-
macy. Social penetration theory posits that there is a significant alteration in patterns
of communication as intimacy develops in relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Furthermore, intimacy has been closely linked with communication satisfaction
(e.g., Hecht, 1978, 1984). Walther (1993, 1996) and others have explained that people
who engage in CMC tend to adapt to the low bandwidth of the context and use other
means to indicate nonverbal (including vocal) behaviors that connote intimacy.
Methods of adapting include the use of emoticons that can be used to convey inti-
macy in online contexts and to positively influence the development of online rela-
tionships (Utz, 2000; Walther & D’Addario, 2001). Walther (1996, 1997) reported
that even among those who had not met previously, people achieved higher levels
of intimacy through CMC than in similar FTF interactions. Corroborating Walther’s
findings, Hian, Chuan, Trevor, and Detenber (2004) examined how intimacy devel-
ops in FTF versus CMC contexts and reported that intimacy develops more quickly
in the CMC context due to the high frequency of interaction. Because intimacy is
likely to develop quickly and intensely in CMC due to the way persons process infor-
mation online in personal relationships, we can expect high levels of intimacy among
romantic online partners. In turn, we know that intimacy is a primary component in
the development of relationships; thus, heightened levels of intimacy may contribute
to relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships.
Trust
According to uncertainty reduction theory, people will seek to gain information
about their relational partners in an effort to reduce uncertainty about those partners
(Berger, 1979; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Because a central component of trust is a
relational partner’s behavioral predictability, a person in an intimate relationship will
Online Relationship Satisfaction 157
engage uncertainty-reducing strategies to gain knowledge of a partner’s relationship-
oriented behaviors. People high in uncertainty and subsequently low in trust possess
greater motivation to examine and assess their partner’s level of commitment than do
people high in certainty and trust (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Although this lack of
trust can be caused by any number of personal and=or relational issues, people with
uncertainty and lacking in trust are inclined to react negatively to information about
their partners that they perceive to be unfavorable. According to Holmes and
Rempel, the very goal of uncertainty reduction is to ascertain a sense of security in
the relationship based on the partner’s level of attachment. Because online relation-
ships are forming and involve having trust in a relational partner (which is gained, in
part, through the development of intimacy), the degree to which one trusts an online
partner may affect level of relationship satisfaction. In addition, researchers have
recently found that strong levels of trust are not only possible when communicating
interpersonally online (Henderson & Gilding, 2004; Parvaneh, Lazar, & Preece, 2004)
but may be facilitated by CMC (Hardey, 2004).
Attributional confidence
Clatterbuck (1979) argued that increasing one’s attributional confidence is tantamount
to reducing uncertainty. Thus, a person has attributional confidence when s=he
perceives that information obtained about the relational partner is sufficient to explain
the partner’s current behaviors and predict future behaviors. When one does not feel
confidence about her=his ability to predict behaviors, s=he will experience uncertainty,
which is the inability to explain and to predict a relational partner’s actions (Berger &
Bradac, 1982). Uncertainty and its subsequent reduction have been posited to be a pri-
mary factor in the initiation and development of relationships (e.g., Berger & Bradac,
1982; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). In recent years, researchers have turned their attention
to the investigation of uncertainty in CMC environments (e.g., Pratt, Wiseman, Cody,
& Wendt, 1999). Tidwell and Walther (2002) found interactants using CMC tend to
adapt their uncertainty management strategies to the context and engage in more inter-
active strategies and fewer passive and active strategies than do persons communicating
FTF. Key elements in uncertainty reduction in relationships such as attraction and
nonverbal affiliative expressiveness may not take the same role in relationships where
partners do not interact FTF. Uncertainty or degree of predictability of a partner’s level
of commitment and feelings of intimacy could affect relationship satisfaction. In CMC
contexts the possibility of feedback delays and lack of social and visual cues may lead to
higher uncertainty due to the inability to reduce uncertainty about the partner’s
behavior (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Thus, level of uncertainty=certainty may influence
one’s relationship satisfaction; we might expect that as one’s attributional confidence
goes up, so will relationship satisfaction.
Communication satisfaction
According to the social exchange perspective, relationships continue to develop as
rewards exceed costs (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Because communication is a building
158 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
block of relationships (Duck & Pittman, 1994), satisfying interpersonal communication
should aid in relationship development (Hecht, 1978). Satisfying communication
occurs when one’s expectations for the interaction are met and fulfilled. In addition,
when a person feels understood by her or his partner, this person experiences greater
relationship happiness (e.g., Cahn, 1983). Perceptions of understanding and success
in communication interactions contribute to communication satisfaction. In an
examination of FTF relationships, Emmers-Sommer (2004) found that communi-
cation satisfaction contributed to relational closeness and satisfaction. It is of interest
to examine this pattern in an online context as well.
Research has shown that these aforementioned relational variables—similarity, com-
mitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction—
influence relational outcomes and often predict relationship satisfaction. For example,
Gottman (1999) reported that intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and communication
are positively related. However, it is unknown how these variables affect relationship
satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Following Walther’s premise that online
interactants are prone to a engaging in a cyclical process in which they selectively edit
messages and information when presenting themselves, make positive over-attributions
about CMC partners and increase levels of self-disclosure, persons in online romantic
relationships may have heightened perceptions of relational variables that will posi-
tively influence online relationship satisfaction. In addition, it is important to examine
which relational variables function together to predict online relationship satisfaction
because satisfaction predicts the stability of a relationship to large extent (Rohlfing,
1995). Therefore, we posit the following question:
RQ1: To what degree do similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributionalconfidence, and communication satisfaction predict relationship satisfactionfor individuals in online romantic relationships?
In addition, prior research indicates that CMC becomes more personal over time
and, as interaction increases, perceptions of CMC partners become positively skewed
(Hian, Chuan, Trevor, & Detenber, 2004; Walther, 1996). However, we do not know
how perceptions of similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence,
and communication satisfaction are affected by amount of communication time. We
may expect that those people in online relationships who spend more time com-
municating may perceive their relationships differently than those who communicate
fewer hours. However, because CMC can become intimate so quickly, differences
may not be as extensive. Additionally, relationship length may positively affect per-
ceptions as well because if hyperpersonal interaction is occurring then over time
people may intensify their idealized notions of their partners. Thus:
RQ2: For individuals in online romantic relationships do perceptions of simi-larity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and com-munication satisfaction differ depending on relationship length?
RQ3: For individuals in online romantic relationships do perceptions of simi-larity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and com-munication satisfaction differ depending on amount of communication?
Online Relationship Satisfaction 159
Method
Participants and Sampling Protocol
One hundred-fourteen (N ¼ 114) voluntary participants who were in exclusively
online-based romantic relationships completed a Web-based survey. Participants
had not met their romantic partner in person nor had spoken to them on the tele-
phone. To solicit participants, a researcher entered online chat rooms that focus
on online friendships, relationships, and long-distance relationships1 to request
volunteers. Additionally, the researcher posted messages asking for volunteers in
Usenet romance-related men’s and women’s newsgroups.
The participants were demographically diverse and, although the majority was
from the United States, they represented many countries.2 The sample was comprised
of 32 (28.1%) men and 82 (71.9%) women, with ages ranging from 18 to 62
(M ¼ 31.49, SD ¼ 9.88). Participants’ levels of education ranged from some high
school to a doctorate degree, with most participants having earned a bachelor’s
degree. Ninety participants (78.9%) met their online romantic partners serendipi-
tously in a synchronous communication environment (e.g., chatting), 10 (8.8%)
participants met their partners serendipitously in a listserv or bulletin board, and
14 (12.3%) participants met their partners through an online dating service. The
average length of relationships was 27.17 weeks (SD ¼ 20.03).
Measures
Similarity
The Measure of Perceived Homophily (McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975) was
used to assess the degree to which participants perceive they are similar to their
respective online relational partners. The eight item, seven-point semantic differential
scale assesses two dimensions, attitude and background homophily, and has been
shown to be reliable in past research (e.g., Elliot, 1979). The current study yielded
Cronbach’s alphas ¼ .79 for both attitude and background dimensions.
Commitment
Perception of both online and off-line relational alternatives was conceptualized as
the degree to which one possesses alternatives (other relational partners, either on-
or off-line) to the current relationship. Relational commitment was measured using
eight seven-point, Likert-type scale items adapted from Rusbult’s (1980) tests of her
investment model. The scale assesses one’s dedication to the relationship and one’s
perceived relational alternatives, which are fundamental to the notion of commit-
ment. Previous research for this measure has demonstrated a reliability of .90 (Cloven
& Roloff, 1993). Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .92 in the current study.
Intimacy
Feelings of intimacy were assessed using Miller’s Social Intimacy scale (MSIS) (Miller
& Lefcourt, 1982). Baxter (1988) reported that this scale yielded high reliability scores
160 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
and in the current study the scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .90. The measure
contains 17 items measured on a 10-point Likert-type scale that assess degree and fre-
quency of perceived closeness as achieved through behaviors and communication
interactions. The MSIS taps into the dimension of psychological intimacy only, which
is most appropriate for this study given that participants are not geographically close
to partners.
Trust
The Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) was used to measure the parti-
cipants’ degree of trust for their respective partners. The measure contains eight,
seven-point Likert-type items. Larzalere and Huston reported an alpha reliability
of .93, and Baxter (1988) has argued that, based on evidence from prior studies,
the Dyadic Trust Scale has greater construct validity and internal reliability than
other trust measures. Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .90 in the current study.
Attributional confidence
The short version of the Attributional Confidence Scale (CL7) (Clatterbuck, 1979)
was used to assess participants’ perceived level of certainty about their online rela-
tionships. Specific to this investigation, the CL7 was utilized to measure the degree
to which individuals could make attributions with confidence (i.e., with certainty)
about occurrences in their online relationships. Certainty is measured on a 0% to
100% scale. This short, proactive version of the scale—which focuses on one’s con-
fidence in making attributions before events occur instead of retroactively making
attributions—is preferred over the longer version of the scale (CL65) due to ease
of administration. Prior research has yielded reliabilities of .76 to .97 (e.g., Clatter-
buck, 1979). Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .89 in the current study.
Communication satisfaction
Interpersonal communication satisfaction was conceptualized as ‘‘the emotional
reaction to communication which is both successful and expectation fulfilling’’
(Hecht, 1984, p. 201). This predictor variable was assessed using a shortened version
of Hecht’s (1978) seven-point Likert-type measure of communication satisfaction.
This eight-item abridged version has been factor analyzed and shown to be reliable
(a ¼ .93) in previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (VanLear, 1988,
1991) and had an alpha of .96 in the current study.
Relationship satisfaction
Relationship satisfaction is the degree to which an individual is content with his or
her current relationship. To assess relationship satisfaction the researchers used a
version of Norton’s (1983) Quality Marriage Index (QMI) adapted for persons in
(nonmarital) online romantic relationships. The QMI is a six-item Likert-type scale.
Online Relationship Satisfaction 161
Norton’s measure is considered by many to be an improvement on early measures of
relationship satisfaction and has yielded Cronbach alpha scores ranging from .88 to
.96 (e.g., Baxter, 1988; VanLear, 1991). Additionally, the measure has remained
reliable in previous studies when adapted for nonmarried persons (VanLear, 1991).
Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .95 in the current study.
Relationship length
Relationship length was measured by asking participants to report how many weeks
they had been involved with their current online romantic partner. Length ranged
from 3 to 53 weeks with an average of 27.17 weeks (SD ¼ 20.03).
Amount of online communication
The time spent communicating online was measured by asking participants how
many hours per week, in general, they communicated online with their partners
including all forms of communication (e.g., sending and reading e-mail, interacting
in a MUD). Communication time ranged from 1 to 40 hours a week with an average
17.64 hours (SD ¼ 14.20). ‘‘Amount’’ was operationalized not in terms of ‘‘how
often’’; rather, it was operationalized as ‘‘how much’’.3
Results
All tests were conducted at the p < .05 level. Only significant results are reported and
addressed in the discussion.
The first research question asked what relational variables predicted relationship
satisfaction for individuals in online romantic relationships. To test RQ1, we conduc-
ted a forced entry linear regression, which showed that the predictor variables (atti-
tude similarity, background similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional
confidence, and communication satisfaction4) accounted for 85% of the variance in
online relationship satisfaction, R2 ¼ .85, adjusted R2 ¼ .84, F (7, 106) ¼ 98.96,
p < .001. Results of the regression model indicated that three predictors—intimacy,
trust, and communication satisfaction—were significant at an alpha of less than .01.
Standardized beta coefficients, t-values, and partial correlations (holding the effects
of all other predictor variables constant) for these three variables are listed in Table 1.5
The second research question asked whether perceptions of similarity (attitude
and background), commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and com-
munication satisfaction differ depending on relationship length. The authors conduc-
ted analyses of variance to examine whether the perceived levels of the reported
relational variables differed based on length of relationship (short, average, long).
The ANOVA scores were significant for attitude similarity F (2, 111) ¼ 4.58,
p ¼ .01, g2 ¼ 0.8, intimacy F (2, 111) ¼ 15.23, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.22, trust F (2,
111) ¼ 10.37, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.16, and attributional confidence, F (2, 111) ¼ 5.65,
p < .01, g2 ¼ 0.09. Multiple comparison procedures were conducted using the Tukey
162 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
HSD test. Results indicate that levels of perceived attitude similarity differed signifi-
cantly between those persons whose relationship length was average and those
persons who were in a lengthy online relationship. For perceived intimacy, levels
differed significantly between people in long relationships and average-length
relationships, and between people in average-length relationships and short relation-
ships. Specifically, those who had been in their online relationships a greater amount
of time reported greater levels of intimacy. For trust, there were significant differences
between those who had been together the longest and those who were together an
average length of time. There were also differences in trust levels between those
who had the longest and shortest relationships. Finally, regarding attributional con-
fidence, means differed significantly between those persons who had been in their
online relationships the shortest length of time and those who had been involved
the longest. Means and standard deviations for attitude similarity, intimacy, trust,
and attributional confidence are listed in Table 2.
The third research question asked whether perceptions of similarity (attitude and
background), commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communi-
cation satisfaction differ depending on amount of time spent communicating with
one’s partner. Again, the authors conducted a series of ANOVAs to examine whether
the levels of the reported relational variables differed based on time spent communi-
cating with one’s partner (low, moderate, and high). The tests were significant for
attitude similarity F (2, 111) ¼ 24.07, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.30, background similarity
F (2, 111) ¼ 8.33, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.13, commitment F (2, 111) ¼ 27.93, p < .001,
g2 ¼ 0.34, intimacy F (2, 111) ¼ 17.19, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.24, trust F (2, 111) ¼19.05, p < .001, g2 ¼ 0.26, attributional confidence F (2, 111) ¼ 7.40, p ¼ .001,
g2 ¼ 0.19, and communication satisfaction F (2, 111) ¼ 7.52, p ¼ .001, g2 ¼ 0.20.
Post hoc tests for the analyses of variance indicate there are significant differences
in perceptions of attitude similarity. Specifically, low and high communicators, as
well as moderate and high communicators, were significantly different from one
another with the higher communication groups reporting greater perceived attitude
similarity. For background similarity, moderate communicators differed significantly
from both low and high communicators, such that the moderate communicators
reported higher levels of perceived background similarity. Regarding commitment,
low and moderate communicators, and moderate and high communicators, reported
significantly different commitment levels; as communication time went up so did
Table 1 Standardized Beta Coefficients, t-Values, Partial Correlations, Unstandardized
Beta Coefficients and Confidence Intervals for Main Predictors of Relationship
Satisfaction
Variable ß t value Sig. Partial r B Lower CI Upper CI
Trust .377 4.112 .000 .369 .426 .220 .631
Intimacy .328 3.645 .000 .332 .477 .217 .736
ComSat .442 7.609 .000 .593 .800 .592 1.009
Online Relationship Satisfaction 163
perceived commitment. Perceptions of intimacy differed among all groups. High
communicators reported significantly more intimacy than did moderate or low com-
municators, and moderate communicators reported significantly less intimacy than
low communicators. For trust, both low and moderate communicators reported sig-
nificantly lower levels of trust than did high communicators. Levels of attributional
confidence differed significantly between those persons who communicated at moder-
ate and high levels, with those communicating a greater amount reporting higher attri-
butional confidence. Last, regarding communication satisfaction, both the low and
moderate groups reported significantly lower satisfaction than did the high communi-
cation group. Means and standard deviations for these variables are listed in Table 3.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine key predictors of relationship satisfaction
in online romantic relationships. Specifically, to what extent do similarity, commit-
ment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Relationship Variables
with Significant Differences Based on Relationship Length�
Variable
Relationship length Mean SD
Attitude similarity
Short 5.57 1.35
Average 5.18��� 1.39
Long 6.04��� 1.05
Intimacy
short 8.50�� 1.08
Average 8.93�� .55
Long 9.47�� .56
Trust
Short 5.62 1.32
Average 5.97 1.10
Long 6.66���� .42
Attributional confidence
Short 80.17��� 17.56
Average 85.86 7.14
Long 90.15��� 12.2
�n sizes for each respective relationship group are as follows: short ¼ 34, average ¼ 40,
long ¼ 40.��each group significantly different from the other at p < .05.���groups significantly different from one another at p < .05.����group significantly different from other groups at p < .05.
164 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
affect and predict the degree to which a person feels relationally satisfied when
involved with another person romantically online. In addition, we were interested
in examining whether differences existed among these variables based on online
relationship length and amount of time online partners communicated with each
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Relationship Variables
with Significant Differences Based on Amount of Communication
Variable
Amt. of com time Mean SD
Attitude similarity
Low 4.78 .19
Moderate 5.33 .18
High 6.48���� 1.70
Background similarity
Low 5.24 .25
Moderate 4.00���� .24
High 5.13 .23
Commitment
Low 4.70�� 1.80
Moderate 5.80�� 1.26
High 6.81�� .30
Intimacy
Low 8.41�� .83
Moderate 9.02�� .80
High 9.42�� .61
Trust
Low 5.47 1.10
Moderate 5.92 1.22
High 6.78���� .39
Attributional confidence
Low 84.37 7.83
Moderate 80.59��� 17.54
High 91.16��� 9.94
Com satisfaction
Low 6.45 .56
Moderate 6.47 .98
High 6.94���� .11
�n sizes for each respective amount of communication group are as follows: low ¼ 33,
moderate ¼ 38, high ¼ 43.��each group significantly different from the other at p < .05.���groups significantly different from one another at p < .05.����group significantly different from other groups at p < .05.
Online Relationship Satisfaction 165
other. The following section addresses some theoretical implications of this research,
limitations, and suggestions for future research.
Results of our analysis reveal that intimacy, trust, and communication satisfaction
significantly predicted online relationship satisfaction. Although it was surprising
that some of the predictor variables did not significantly predict satisfaction, this
finding does reveal that some important FTF relational components also contributed
to satisfaction in online romantic relationships. When evaluating the role of trust in
predicting online relationship satisfaction, because people rely on their perceptions of
their partners when gauging partner’s trustworthiness, the hyperpersonal model may
account for the relatively high levels of trust in this study and the effect of trust on
relationship satisfaction. Additionally, those who are trusting use this trust to frame
partner’s behaviors (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Thus, interpretations of one’s partner
may become a function of selective perception by which a partner’s behaviors are
interpreted as consistent with one’s positive expectations (Murray & Holmes,
1993). Furthermore, one’s opportunity for an ‘‘enhanced performance’’ online and
the development of a trustworthy reputation are two main components of online
trust (Henderson & Gilding, 2004). Hyperpersonal interaction allows for such
enhanced interactions online that in turn may facilitate a favorable reputation as per-
ceived by one’s partner. Additionally, trust and intimacy are linked closely; as part-
ners grow closer and depth increases, trust develops and as trust increases, so do
levels of intimacy. Wright (2004) found that openness was one of two most com-
monly used maintenance strategies for online relationships, which suggests that rela-
tional behaviors of persons in online relationships tend to facilitate intimacy, and
research has found intimacy develops quickly online (Hian et al., 2004; Walther,
1997). Furthermore, the role of intimacy in predicting relationship satisfaction in this
study is consistent with a wealth of personal relationship research that indicates
intimacy is a key component of relationship and marital satisfaction (e.g., Feeney,
Noller, & Ward, 1997; Hassebrauck & Fehr, 2002).
It is not surprising that communication satisfaction predicted relationship satis-
faction. Communication is a central component of establishing and developing
relationships (e.g., Duck & Pittman, 1994), and in online relationships simple, every-
day interaction allows partners to maintain their relationships (Rabby & Walther,
2003). In essence, given online partners’ inability to ‘‘go out,’’ have physical contact,
or experience other components related to physical presence that are enmeshed in
FTF romantic unions, the online communication is the relationship. Furthermore,
researchers have found that communication satisfaction is positively correlated with,
and predictive of, FTF relationship satisfaction (e.g., Emmers-Sommer, 2004;
Guerrero, 1994). Additionally, persons lacking other cues in CMC are likely to attend
more closely to the textual messages sent by one’s partner, while at the same time the
CMC partner is likely editing and presenting oneself carefully, thus leading to the
‘‘idealized’’ perceptions of one’s communicative partner (Walther, 1996). Thus, fol-
lowing hyperpersonal theory, CMC provides an immense opportunity for perceived
communication satisfaction. Because an online relationship is wholly dependent upon
communication (albeit primary textual, such as chat and e-mail), communication
166 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
satisfaction is necessary for relationship satisfaction as there is little else on which to
base perceptions of the relationship; if communication ceases, so does the relation-
ship. Additionally, hyperpersonal interaction afforded by CMC may have enhanced
perceptions of one’s communication with an online partner by facilitating idealized
perceptions of that partner and her=his communication skills (Walther, 1996).
Results also indicated that individuals who communicated a greater amount of
time per week reported higher communication satisfaction with their partners than
those who communicated with their partners a fewer number of hours per week. This
finding is encouraging as it relates to CMC. Specifically, in an examination of what
best predicted relational satisfaction and intimacy—quality or quantity time—
Emmers-Sommer (2004) found that quality of communication better predicted those
outcomes than quantity of communication. Although a variety of mediums were
evaluated, results indicated that FTF communication was key for quantity of com-
munication. The findings of the present study, however, indicate that participants
were satisfied with their online communication and the relational outcomes associa-
ted with CMC.6 Length of relationship did not account for as many differences in
perceptions as did amount of communication; people who had been involved for
longer periods of time with their online romantic partners reported greater levels
of intimacy, trust, and attributional confidence than did those who had been dating
online for shorter periods of time. Attributional confidence levels also differed
according to amount of communication time, with those persons who communi-
cated a greater amount reporting higher attributional confidence levels. Thus,
amount of communication time (accounting for significant differences in attitude
and background similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence,
and communication satisfaction) had a greater impact on perceptions than did length
of relationship (accounting for differences in intimacy, trust, and attributional con-
fidence only).
Increased communication time with online partners may have led to participants
forming idealized=heightened perceptions of similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust,
attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction because CMC interaction
allows people to engage in hyperpersonal behaviors. That is, participants were able
to attend to cues that confirmed their desired perceptions (cues that were carefully
edited by their respective relational partners) and, due to information lacking in
CMC, they did not have access to cues that may have contradicted those idealized
perceptions. These findings are consistent with prior research that shows frequency
of CMC affects perceptions of online partners (Walther, 1996; Wright, 2004).
Additionally, intimacy, trust, and attributional confidence may be greater for those
in longer relationships because, when communicating online, it takes longer for
socioemotional indicators to manifest themselves (Walther, 1992, 1993; Walther &
Burgoon, 1992).
One limitation of the current study was the use of a nonrandom convenience
sample of persons in online romantic relationships, largely because it is impossible
to obtain a list of the population of persons involved in online romantic
relationships. In fact, because there is often a stigma for people in online relationships
Online Relationship Satisfaction 167
(Wildermuth, 2001), people may be hesitant to identify themselves and participate
in related research. The sample may have affected the relatively high levels of satisfac-
tion reported by participants because it is possible that only those persons who
were highly satisfied with their online relationships chose to participate. That is,
self-selection might have been an issue. Another limitation was the use of a one shot
cross-sectional design and the lack of a FTF comparison group. As it is worthwhile to
explore whether perceptions in CMC differ from FTF (Parks & Roberts, 1998), a
comparison of online and FTF relationship predictors is warranted to assess the
degree to which predictors found in this study were influenced by the medium.
Future researchers could benefit from investigating the ways in which intimacy,
trust, and communication satisfaction mutually influence one another in hyperper-
sonal interaction and how they work collectively to predict satisfaction in online
romantic relationships. Additionally, researchers should examine whether predictors
of relationship satisfaction in nonromantic relationships differ from the predictors
noted here and whether hyperpersonal communication functions differently in
romantic versus nonromantic relationships. Perhaps most importantly, future
research should explore how perceptions of relationships formed via hyperpersonal
communication affect perceptions once partners have met FTF and the extent to
which these perceptions predict a successful move from an online to a FTF romantic
relationship. Because many online relationships become long-distance relationships
after moving to FTF, it may be fruitful to investigate how predictors of relationships
satisfaction affect relationships and whether predictors of satisfaction change as these
relationships move from online to primarily Internet-based (geographically sepa-
rated) relationships (Wright, 2004), and from primarily Internet-based relationships
to fully FTF (geographically close) relationships. Specifically, future research may
focus on the extent to which perceptions of relational variables, established through
hyperpersonal interaction, carry over to the relationships once they move off-line. Of
additional importance and interest is whether positively skewed perceptions of online
partners are maintained or disconfirmed if the relationship moves off-line; and, if
disconfirmed, what this means for the future of relationships initiated online that
progress off-line.
Notes
[1] Using a list of all chat rooms available on AOL that dealt with online friendship and
romance, and long-distance relationships (e.g., social support and sexual chat rooms, for
example, were not used), every 30th chat room was visited by the researcher for a total of
15 chat rooms.
[2] Country of origin break down for participants was as follows: United States (n ¼ 77,
67.5%), Canada (n ¼ 14, 12.3%), Australia (n ¼ 8, 7%), France (n ¼ 3, 2.6%), Germany
(n ¼ 2, 1.8%), Italy (n ¼ 1, .9%), the Netherlands (n ¼ 3, 2.6%), New Zealand (n ¼ 1,
.9%), and the United Kingdom (n ¼ 3, 2.6%).
[3] Initially, we examined frequency of interaction as a predictor variable as well, but the vari-
able suffered from lack of variability. Specifically, the mean, median, and mode were the
same (7 on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 ¼ days a week). As a result, we removed frequency
168 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
of interaction from the current analyses. However, consistent with Walther’s work, we
recognize frequency of interaction to be an important variable and one worthy of inclusion
in future studies.
[4] We used criteria established by Stevens (1996) to test for high multicollinearity. These
criteria included the examination of a correlation matrix for any bivariate correlation over
.80 and the examination of the predictors’ variance inflation factors for any variance
inflation factor (VIF) over 10.00, which identified one correlation higher than .80; trust
and intimacy were correlated at .842 (p < .001). However, Meyers (1990) argues there is
need for concern (and subsequent variable deletion) if a VIF exceeds 10 and, because neither
VIF was above ten (trust VIF ¼ 5.89; intimacy VIF ¼ 5.86), both distinct variables were
retained.
[5] Although beta coefficients indicate a positive relationship among trust, intimacy, and
communication satisfaction, due to the prior decision rules established for dealing with mul-
ticollinearity, variables were kept as distinct entities and not combined into any composite
variables.
[6] It should be taken into consideration that Emmers-Sommer (2004) did not collect data in an
online forum, whereas the current study involves an online collection (i.e., participants
might self-select medium based on preferences).
References
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among internet attitudes, internet use, romantic beliefs, and
perceptions of online romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8, 521–531.
Baker, A. (2002). What makes an online relationship successful? Clues from couples who met in
cyberspace. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5, 364–375.
Barnes, S. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the
Internet. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Baxter, L. A. (1988). Dyadic personal relationships: Measurement options. In C. H. Tardy (Ed.),
A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing,
measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 193–283). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development
of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social
psychology (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Berger, C. R. & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal rela-
tions. London: Arnold.
Berger, C. R. & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,
1, 99–112.
Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A. W., & Birch, J. D. (1994). Thoughts about talk in romantic relation-
ships: Similarity makes for attraction (and happiness, too). Communication Quarterly, 42,
259–273.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cahn D. D. (1983). Relative importance of perceived understanding in initial interaction and devel-
opment of interpersonal relationships. Psychological Reports, 52, 923–929.
Chenault, B. G. (1998, May). Developing personal and emotional relationships via computer-
mediated communication. Retrieved April 18, 2000 on the World Wide Web: http://
www.december.com/ cmc/mag/1998/may/chenault.html
Clatterbuck, G. W. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human
Communication Research, 5, 147–157.
Online Relationship Satisfaction 169
Cloven, D. H. & Roloff, M. E. (1993). The chilling effect of complaints in intimate relationships:
Aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communi-
cation Monographs, 60, 199–219.
Culnan, M. J. & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. Jablin, L. L. Putnam,
K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 420–443).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Draft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and man-
ager performance: Implication for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355–366.
Duck, S. W. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relationships. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Duck, S. W. & Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 676–695). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elliot, S. (1979). Perceived homophily as a predictor of classroom learning. Communication Year-
book, 3, 585–602.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2004). The effect of communication quality and quantity indicators on
intimacy and relational satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 399–411.
Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2005). Non-normative relationships: Is there a norm of (non) normativ-
ity? Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 1–4.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Ward, C. (1997). Marital satisfaction and spousal interaction. In
R. J. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 160–189). New York:
Guilford.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically-based marital therapy. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.
Guerrero, L. K. (1994). ‘‘I’m so mad I could scream’’: The effects of anger expression on relational
satisfaction and communication competence. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 135–141.
Hardey, M. (2004). Mediated relationships. Information Communication & Society, 7, 207–222.
Hassebrauck, M. & Fehr, B. (2002). Dimensions of relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 9,
253–270.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication
satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253–264.
Hecht, M. L. (1984). Satisfying communication and relationship labels: Intimacy and length of
relationship as perceptual frames of naturalistic conversations. Western Journal of Communi-
cation, 48, 201–216.
Henderson, S. & Gilding, M. (2004). ‘‘I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life’’: Trust
and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6, 487–506.
Hian, L. B., Chuan, S. L., Trevor, T. M. K., & Detenber, B. H. (2004). Getting to know you: Explor-
ing the development of relational intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9(3). Retrieved October 7, 2004 from http://www.
ascusc.org/jcmc/vol9/issue3/detenber.html
Holmes, J. G. & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close rela-
tionships: Review of personality and social psychology, 10. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kellerman, K. (1986). Anticipation of future interaction and information exchange in initial inter-
action. Human Communication Research, 13, 41–75.
Larzelere, R. E. & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal
trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595–604.
Lea, M. & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer
networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track
(pp. 197–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of
perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,
1, 323–332.
170 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer
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, 9–31.
Merkle, E. R. & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing
computer-mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187–192.
Meyers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston: Duxbury
Press.
Miller, R. S. & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The measurement of social intimacy. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 46, 514–518.
Murray, S. L. & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults: Negativity and the transformation of
interpersonal narratives in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
707–722.
Myers, D. (1987). ‘‘Anonymity is part of the magic’’: Individual manipulation of computer-
mediated contexts. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 251–266.
Neimeyer, G. J. (1984). Cognitive complexity and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 2, 58–263.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
Parks, M. R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46,
80–97.
Parks, M. R. & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘‘Making MOOsic’’: The development of personal relation-
ships online and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 517–537.
Parvaneh, J. F., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathy and online interpersonal trust: A fragile
relationship. Behavior & Information Technology, 23, 97–106.
Pratt, L., Wiseman, R. L., Cody, M. L., & Wendt, P. F. (1999). Interrogative strategies and infor-
mation exchange in computer-mediated communication. Communication Quarterly, 47,
46–66.
Rabby, M. K. & Walther, J. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication impacts on relationship
formation and maintenance. In D. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships
through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 141–162).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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. Woods and S. Duck
(Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rumbough, T. (2001). The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships through
computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 18, 223–230.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the invest-
ment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterio-
ration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.
Rusbult, C. E. & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdepen-
dence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–205.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunication. London:
John Wiley.
Spears, R. & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon: The hidden power in computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research, 21(4), 427–459.
Sprecher, S. (1999). ‘‘I love you more today than yesterday’’: Romantic partners’ perceptions of
changes in love and related affect over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 46–53.
Online Relationship Satisfaction 171
Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in networked organization.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
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(3), 317–348.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in virtual
worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved Aug. 28, 2003 from http://www.behavior.
net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html
VanLear, C. A. (1988, July). Perceived openness of self and other across relationships with differential
growth trajectories: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the Fourth International Confer-
ence on Personal Relationships, Vancouver, Canada.
VanLear, C. A. (1991). Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness in relational develop-
ment: Two longitudinal studies. Communication Monographs, 58, 337–361.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspec-
tive. Communication Research, 19, 52–90.
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal
of Communication, 57, 381–398.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-
personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collab-
oration. Human Communication Research, 23, 342–369.
Walther, J. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interac-
tion. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88.
Walther, J. B. & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in
computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323–345.
Whitty, M. & Gavin, J. (2001). Age=sex=location: Uncovering social cues in the development of
online relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 623–630.
Wildermuth, S. M. (2001). Love on the line: Participants’ descriptions of computer-mediated close
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 89–95.
Wildermuth, S. M. (2004). The effects of stigmatizing discourse on the quality of on-line relation-
ships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 73–84.
Wright, K. B. (2000). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived
homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support
groups. Communication Quarterly, 48, 44–59.
Wright, K. B. (2004). On-line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within
exclusively internet-based and primarily internet-based relationships. Communication
Studies, 55, 239–253.
172 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer