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]
Computer-Mediated Communication 2
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 3
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 4
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 5
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 6
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 7
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 8
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 9
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 10
(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
Computer-Mediated Communication 11
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 12
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 13
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 14
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 15
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 16
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)”,
Computer-Mediated Communication 17
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 18
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].
Computer-Mediated Communication 19
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).
Computer-Mediated Communication 20
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 21
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 22
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 23
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 24
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 25
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 26
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 27
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 28
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 29
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,
Computer-Mediated Communication 30
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 31
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 32
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 33
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 34
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 35
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 36
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
Computer-Mediated Communication 37
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.
Computer-Mediated Communication 38
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
Top Related