Try the new Google Books
Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features
Try the new Google Books
Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features
Try the new Google Books
Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features
Try the new Google Books
Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features
JCMC 10 (1), Article 6, November 2004
Collab-U CMC Play E-Commerce Symposium Net Law InfoSpaces Usenet
NetStudy VEs VOs O-Journ HigherEd Conversation Cyberspace Web Commerce
Vol. 6 No. 1 Vol. 6 No. 2 Vol. 6 No. 3 Vol. 6 No. 4 Vol. 7 No. 1 Vol. 7 No. 2 Vol. 7 No. 3
Vol. 7 No. 4 Vol. 8 No. 1 Vol. 8 No. 2 Vol. 8 No. 3 Vol. 8 No. 4 Vol. 9 No. 1 Vol. 9 No. 2 Vol. 9 No.
3 Vol. 9 No. 4
Friendships through IM:
Examining the Relationship between Instant Messaging and Intimacy
Yifeng Hu
Jacqueline Fowler Wood
Vivian Smith
Nalova Westbrook
The Pennsylvania State University
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Literature Review/Rationale
o Two Conflicting Approaches in CMC
Lost Perspective Literatures
Liberated Perspective Literatures
o IM Use and Intimacy
• Research Question/Hypothesis
• Method
o Participants
o Procedure
o Independent Variable Measures
o Dependent Variable Measures
o Data Analytical Techniques
• Results
o Univariate Analysis
Descriptive information
Reliabilities
o Bivariate Analysis
• Discussion
• Acknowledgements
• References
• About the Authors
• Appendix
Abstract
This study explores the relationship between the amount of Instant Messenger (IM) use
and the level of perceived intimacy between friends. Results showed the amount of IM
use was positively associated not only with verbal intimacy, but also with affective and
social intimacy. Findings are consistent with the relationship liberated perspective of
computer-mediated communication, and suggest that IM promotes rather than hinders
intimacy. Moreover, frequent conversation via IM actually encourages the desire to meet
face-to-face. Theoretical as well as practical implications of the results for geographically
remote friends and families are discussed.
Introduction
Instant messaging offers two functions unique to computer-mediated communication
(CMC): the ability to know who is connected to the shared space between or among
friends, and the ability to conduct a text-based conversation in real time. Increasingly, IM
software features audio and video components as well. IM has proven to be one of the
most popular online applications, resulting in dramatically increased Internet connection
time nationwide. This phenomenon fosters a sense of online community that perhaps no
other application has done (Alvestrand, 2002). Some reasons for IMs popularity may be
that this form of communication is inexpensive compared to other forms of media such as
the telephone (Grinter & Eldridge, 2001). Beyond economic factors, some of the
attributes of IM also contribute to the acceptance of IM. Near synchronous and text-based,
IM may be administered in one-on-one or in group communication settings, virtually
combining features of the telephone, e-mail and chat rooms into one (Nardi, Whitaker, &
Bradner, 2000).
With the steep increase and advancement of communication technologies, what are their
influences on interpersonal communication and relationships? History has shown that
communication technologies are not replacing face-to-face (FTF) interactions (e.g.,
Walther, 1992), but how are they influencing relationship building and the way in which
people communicate in an increasingly global world? Will IM provide more
opportunities for friends to stay connected? In considering possible affective and
cognitive implications of increased popularity of IM, one population may be more
affected than others � college students. The Internet has become an integral part of
college life, and not just for studying. According to a survey released by the Pew Internet
& American Life Project (Jones et al., 2002), college students are among the heaviest
users of IM in the US. The survey of college students across the country found that 86%
use the Internet, compared with 59% of the overall US population. Moreover, college
Internet users are heavier users of IM than those in the overall online population. While
only half of all Internet users have sent instant messages, nearly three quarters of college
Internet users have done so. College Internet users are twice as likely as the average
Internet users to use IM on any given day. 85% of college students consider the Internet
an easy, convenient choice for communicating with friends, and, furthermore, 72% report
that most of their online communication is with friends.
These statistics show that college students actively utilize IM more than the overall US
population, and over two-thirds of college students report that most of their on-line
communication is with friends, so the proposed influences of the amount of IM use on
friendships would be most appropriately examined within this context. To date, little
research examines the relationship between the amount of IM use in college students and
their social connectedness, which is key in examining �IM intimacy.�
Does this real-time CMC application contribute to a sense of closeness between friends?
This study explores the correlation between the amount of IM use and intimacy in
friendships. Some research focuses on the social and organizational aspects of the amount
of IM use, but very little examines the effects on an individual level. From an
organizational perspective, research suggests that IM supports a variety of informal
communication tasks in the workplace (Nardi, Whittacker, & Bradner, 2000).
Furthermore, the ability for interactive text in IM is expected to support informal,
spontaneous, and opportunistic communication which makes it particularly suitable for
geographically distributed teams (Herbsleb, Atkins, Boyer, Handel, & Finholt, 2002).
This casual environment can create a relaxed atmosphere conducive to intimate
exchanges.
Research also shows that many people use IM at home, in private, and late at night (Hu,
2004). Because environment has been shown to influence the nature of interpersonal
communication (Fitzpatrick, 1988), one can speculate that such a private setting leads to
more self-disclosure on IM.
Literature Review/Rationale
Existing research that focuses on IM use at an individual level examines the phenomenon
within a uses and gratifications context. This study examines more closely the definition
of intimacy through CMC. Current theories on CMC generally fall under two competing
categories of relationship lost and relationship liberated, but few seek a relationship
between time spent on IM and intimacy. This study seeks to continue where others left
off, and make an improvement in understanding the influence of CMC on interpersonal
communication.
Two Conflicting Approaches in CMC
In previous CMC studies, two conflicting approaches to online relationships emerge: lost
and liberation. Lost approach regards online relationships as shallow, impersonal, and
often hostile. This approach also suggests that only the illusion of community can be
created in cyberspace (e.g., Beniger, 1987; Heim, 1992). Critics of relationship lost argue
that CMC can, to a large degree, liberate relationships from the confines of physical
locality and thus create opportunities for new, but genuine, interpersonal relationships
and communities (e.g., Pool, 1983; Rheingold, 1993).
Lost Perspective Literatures
The relationship lost perspective attests that CMC lacks many aspects of traditional
communication, such as physical presence, social, nonverbal, and contextual cues. From
this point of view, CMC is utilitarian but not relational. Meaning, usually aided by the
use of nonverbal cues, is more likely to be misunderstood and unclear. Less information
is available without the physical experience of communication.
CMC is generally assumed to be short of many factors underlined in conventional
theories of relationship development (Lea & Spears, 1995). Traditional personal
relationship theory suggests that the relative lack of social cues and the potential for
feedback delays should lead to higher uncertainty and more difficulty in reducing
uncertainty about how to behave, how the partner will behave, and how to explain the
partner�s behavior. The incapability to reduce uncertainty stops, or at least slows down,
the development of interpersonal relationships, according to uncertainty reduction theory
(Berger & Calabrese, 1975). In addition, theories of relational development highlight the
importance of physical appearance and physical attraction, especially in the development
of romantic relationships (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Yet such information is
usually unavailable in CMC settings.
Next, other theories appear to support the relationship lost approach. For example, both
social presence theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and social context cues theory
(Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991), which are generally called cues-filtered-out approach
(Culnan & Markus, 1987), show that the decline in contextual, visual, and aural cues
should lead to decreased awareness and sensitivity, causing CMC to be more impersonal
than FTF communication.
Media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984) suggests that CMC has a narrower
bandwidth and less information richness than FTF communication. They argue that
different communication channels have different capabilities of processing information;
�rich� media is more suitable than �lean� media for socially sensitive or
intellectually difficult information, and for persuading, bargaining, or getting to know
someone. CMC is attributed to relatively lean media model (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino,
1987). According to Daft and Lengel (1984), relatively lean media are not good channels
for interpersonal communication. Therefore, CMC is deemed more appropriate for task-
oriented activities, but a weak medium through which to develop interpersonal
relationships.
Liberated Perspective Literatures
Walther�s (1992) social information-processing theory is representative of many
previous studies supporting the liberation approach. Walther first argues that early
experimental findings consistent with the lost perspective deserve close conceptual and
methodological scrutiny, due to the inadequate use of field observation (see also Culnan
& Markus, 1987). Actually, before Walther, a few scholars had observed some cases of
relationship development in online communities from field studies (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978),
and that users could adapt to new technologies gradually (Kerr & Hiltz, 1982).
Walther then emphasizes that, because people need to manage uncertainty and develop
relationships, they will adapt the textual cues to meet their needs when faced with a
channel that does not carry visual and aural cues. Using email as an example, Walther
illustrates that over time, email provides no less opportunities for positive personal
relationships than FTF communication. As a conclusion, it is not that CMC cannot
convey relational messages, but that it needs more time.
Three factors are presented in social information-processing theory that influence
interpersonal relationships within CMC. First, people are naturally motivated to build an
affiliation with others (�relational motivators�). In a study of newsgroups, 60.7% of
newsgroup users developed relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996). Also in a study of
MUDs (Multiple User Dimensions, Multiple User Dungeons, or Multiple User
Dialogues), 73.6% of the respondents reported that they had made friends (Utz, 2000).
Researchers got an even higher rate (93.6%) of user relationships in a study of MOOs
(multi-user-dimensions, object-oriented) (Parks & Roberts, 1998). These figures reflect
the expected motivation for making friends via CMC.
Second, over time, CMC users develop the skills to decode textual cues to form
interpersonal impressions. One example of this would be the use of �emoticons,� such
as using �:-)� to indicate a smile. Through these emoticons, some limitations of CMC
may be overcome. The study on MUDs shows that the more that MUDers used the
MUD-specific emoticons, the more friendships they formed (Utz, 2000).
Finally, individuals that communicate through these technologies adapt strategies for
attaining psychological-level knowledge within this new environment. For example,
interrogation, self-disclosure, deception detection, etc. are developed to function without
contextual or nonverbal cues. Based on these three factors, individuals are able to form
impressions, gain interpersonal knowledge, and develop relationships solely through
textual interaction.
Walther (1996) later developed the Hyperpersonal Model of CMC, which states that
CMC is sometimes even more friendly and social than FTF communication. In CMC,
users have the opportunity for selective self-presentation and can choose the positive
aspects. The reduced social cues in CMC, on the other hand, can lead to an idealized
perception by the perceiver. The ability to express emotions in text and self-presentation
are very important for a social and friendly atmosphere, leading to the development of
friendships.
IM Use and Intimacy
Studies that have recently examined IM on an individual level explore uses and
gratifications (Leung, 2001; Schiano, Chen, Ginsberg, Gretarsdottir, Huddleston, &
Isaacs, 2002). However, little research addresses the relationship between the amount of
IM use and intimacy, a concept of central importance in human relationships (Fisher &
Stricker, 1982).
The word intimacy is derived from the Latin intimus, meaning inner or inmost. To be
intimate with another is to have access to, and to comprehend, his/her inmost character
(Sexton & Sexton, 1982). Philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1969) gave intimacy a definition
using poetic expression: "Even if I cannot see you, if I cannot touch you, I feel that you
are with me" (p. 25).
Intimacy is a very complex and heterogeneous concept that has generated a variety of
definitions. For social science researchers, these definitions can be generalized into two
broad categories. First, intimacy is the sharing of one�s innermost being, or essence,
such as strength and vulnerability, weakness and competence, with another person. It is a
warm, close, and communicative relationship with one person in particular (e.g., Erber &
Erber, 2001; Frank, 1996; Lerner, 1990; McAdams, 1989; Piorkowski, 1994).
Second, intimacy is the experience of another�s wholeness, an awareness of the
innermost character of another person. It is much more a matter of tuning into someone
else�s reality, and risking being changed by that experience, than a matter of extending
your self-absorption to include someone else (e.g., Bennett, 2000; Dowrick 1991; Wilner,
1982).
To Tolstedt and Stokes (1983), three important types of intimacy emerge: verbal,
affective, and physical. Most operational definitions of intimacy used in research have
emphasized the verbal aspects of intimacy -- that is, self-disclosure. Social Penetration
Theory (Altman, 1973; Altman & Taylor, 1973) views various aspects of self-disclosure
as important variables in the development of intimacy. Intimacy that is reflected in overt
verbal exchange could be called verbal intimacy. The second type of intimacy, affective
intimacy, reflects feelings of closeness and emotional bonding, including intensity of
liking, moral support, and ability to tolerate flaws in the significant other. Finally,
physical intimacy encompasses sex and other physical expressions of love.
Researchers are aware of the fact that intimacy is not only sexual intimacy. As
Piorkowski (1994) points out, in general, people are well aware of the passionate, sexual
side of intimacy in contrast to its quieter, companionable component. Garlikov (n.d.) also
states that many people desire emotional intimacy, which does not always accompany
sexual intimacy, and often occurs in non-sexual circumstances. Sexual (or physical)
intimacy and emotional intimacy are not the same thing and do not necessarily occur at
the same time. �Emotional intimacy is the sharing of emotional feelings, thoughts, and
self-disclosure of one�s innermost thoughts to one�s mate or significant other via
communicative verbal means� (Shaughnessy, 1995). Because this research examines
intimacy via IM, and because CMC does not require shared physical space between
individuals engaged in conversation, physical intimacy was excluded from this study.
Research Question/Hypothesis
Because the majority of IM research focuses on use patterns and gratifications, the need
for a closer examination of the interpersonal effects of IM is merited. Studies on other
related, real-time communication technologies, like the telephone and cell phones, which
examine their relationship with intimacy are useful points of reference (Leung & Wei,
2000). However, because IM is unique in its real-time, text messaging capacity, this
study pulls together areas in which research overall is lacking, and attempts to give new
perspectives to traditional human communication study.
Based on the rising IM use among US college students, the research question is: For
college students, controlling for gender and age, is there a correlation between the
amount of IM use and the level of perceived intimacy between friends? Based on prior
research, we expect to find support for the liberation perspective on the amount of IM use.
Trends show that IM users are increasingly turning to textual cues, such as
�emoticons,� to supplement the lack of visual and aural cues (Ogan, 1993; Walther,
1992). These adaptations help overcome the barriers said to limit CMC to shallow,
superficial conversations presented in the relationship lost perspective. Furthermore, U.S.
college campuses are becoming increasingly global environments where families are
separated and friendships span worldwide. The hypothesis is: The amount of the amount
of IM use will be positively correlated with the level of perceived intimacy between
friends. This research design attempts to examine this relationship.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 138 college students at a large university in the
northeastern United States. Every third student exiting one of three central campus
buildings was asked to fill out a short survey on IM at the university. The three buildings
were selected based on their central location and decentralized patronage (populated by a
variety of majors and ages). The buildings were the student union center, main campus
library, and graduate school lounge and caf� (often populated by both undergraduate
and graduate students). The response rate was 58.9 %. Once data collection was complete
(N=138), participants who indicated they did not use IM software to talk with friends
were excluded from analysis. 89% of our respondents stated that they did use IM, while
11% said they did not.
Procedure
We administered surveys in teams of two to help maintain consistent count in heavy
traffic areas. Students who agreed to participate in the survey were asked to read and sign
an informed consent form that explained that the survey was part of a communication
course project. The two-page, 15-question survey (Appendix) that contained measures for
amount of IM (defined in the survey as �AOL Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger, ICQ,
etc.�), location of IM use, and intimacy among �IM friends� was administered over a
four-day period on campus. Data was gathered on a Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and
Tuesday in early November. Data was also gathered during morning, midday, afternoon,
and evening hours.
Independent Variable Measures
The survey contained measures for the amount of IM use (actual use and idle time on the
program) and IM use location. In a study of MUD use, Utz (2000) has found that people
who continuously run a window with the MUD in the background of their computer
report high numbers of MUD use per week, although their actual usage may be lower.
For this reason, we found a distinction between time idle and actual amount of use
necessary (also supported in a pretest). To measure the amount of IM use, participants
were asked to estimate amount of time per day spent with IM software idle and the
amount of time spent actually talking with friends. Participants were also asked to
estimate the frequency with which they use IM at home (or dorm), computer lab, or at
work (or the office).
Dependent Variable Measures
Tolstedt and Stokes (1983) describe intimacy, the dependent variable, in three parts:
verbal (self-disclosure), affective (feelings of closeness and emotional bonding), and
physical intimacy (physical expressions of love, such as kissing, hugging, and sex). As
mentioned before, this research focuses on non-physical intimacy, in which physical
intimacy does not play a major role. As an alternative, three categories of intimacy
questions were employed: verbal intimacy, affective intimacy, and questions from the
Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS) (Miller & Lefcount, 1982). MSIS was selected as an
additional measure for intimacy, because this was one of the few measures for intimacy
that addresses interpersonal relationships between friends and within marriages. It
addresses the frequency of affective intimacy. The majority of other intimacy measures
focus solely on marriages.
Verbal intimacy items (questions 7 a-g), addressing conversation content or self-
disclosure, were based on a 10-point frequency scale anchored by never (1) and almost
always (10). After running a factor analysis, questions 7 a, b, c and g were removed from
analysis. Question 8c, based on a Likert scale, was reverse coded. This item also
addressed verbal intimacy; however, after running a factor analysis, this item was also
removed from analysis. Affective intimacy items (questions 6 a-g and 8d), addressing
feelings of proximity, understanding, and trust, were operationalized by a 10-point Likert
scale ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (10). Questions 6c and 6g were
reverse coded in order to make them consistent with other affective-intimacy items, such
that higher scores indicate greater intimacy. Questions 6a and 6g were also eliminated
after running a factor analysis. Finally, six items (question 9 a-f) from MSIS were
included. These 10-point frequency scale items range from never (1) to almost always
(10), and they address the frequency of affective intimacy. From this point on, these
frequency-based items will be referred to as social intimacy. After doing a factor analysis,
question 9a was eliminated. In addition, factor analysis showed that questions 8a and 8b
should be categorized into social intimacy. We thus combined the raw scales because
they are on the same number of scale points, i.e., 10, and the frequency items could very
well be read as an agreement item. Age and gender were recorded as control variables.
Data Analytical Techniques
Descriptive statistics included frequency distributions of age, gender, amount and
location of IM use, and computer ownership. Factor analysis was used to determine if any
natural correlations existed between the data collected for intimacy measures.
Cronbach�s alpha was used to confirm a strong relationship between intimacy factors.
Regression analysis was used to examine the correlation between the amount of IM use (a
continuous variable) and intimacy (a continuous variable).
Results
Univariate Analysis
Descriptive information
From our sample of 138 participants, 89% acknowledged that they use IM (N = 123). The
average age of our participants was 21.4 years old. 64% of the sample was male, and
46% was female. Participants reported using IM most often at home (score of 7.47 on a
scale of 10), as opposed to the computer lab (3.7/10) or at work (2.18/10). On average,
they reported having the software on, and idle, on average, for about 10 hours per day,
however, they reported actually using IM only about 2 hours per day.
Reliabilities
Because each intimacy factor focuses on different aspects of intimacy, they were kept
separate when doing analyses. Cronbach�s alphas for verbal, affective, and social
(MSIS) intimacy were .74, .82, and .87, respectively, indicating acceptable internal
consistency (Table 1).
Verbal
Intimacy Affective
Intimacy Social
Intimacy
Verbal Intimacy
Love/sex .83 .01 .25
Significant others .80 -.11 .21
Social gathering .68 -.07 -.00
Affective Intimacy
Talk anything .23 -.67 .14
Shallow conversation (RC) -.08 -.60 .19
Understand me -.03 -.76 -.01
Feel close .11 -.81 .05
Warm atmosphere .16 -.78 .13
Understand friends� feelings -.05 -.67 .29
Social Intimacy
Can�t wait .03 -.07 .64
Face-to-face .06 .03 .62
Important to listen .09 -.14 .73
Satisfying .06 -.39 .69
Encouraging to me .16 -.17 .86
Important in life .11 -.17 .86
Encouraging to them .23 -.17 .72
Eigenvalue 1.99 3.38 3.98
Proportion of explained variance .12 .21 .25
Total eigenvalue = 9.35
Total proportion of explained
variance = .58
Table 1. Factor analysis for intimacy
Bivariate Analysis
Pairwise correlations confirmed that a relationship did in fact exist between the amount
of IM use and intimacy (Table 2). Stepwise regressions were thus used to test our
hypothesis of a positive relationship between the amount of IM use and level of perceived
intimacy. Our hypothesis was supported by data (Tables 3-5). As the amount of IM use
increased, so did the level of perceived verbal intimacy, F(1, 108) = 8.24, p < .01. As the
amount of IM use increased, so did the level of perceived affective intimacy, F(1, 108) =
4.87, p < .05. As the amount of IM use increased, so did the level of perceived social
intimacy, F(1, 108) = 10.24, p < .01.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Age -.19* -.22* .11 -.15
2. IM Use Amount .32*** .19* .34***
3. Verbal Intimacy .16 .35***
4. Affective Intimacy .38***
5. Social Intimacy
Table 2. Pairwise correlations among age, the amount of IM use and verbal, affective,
and social intimacy
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
β RSquare Change F Statistics
IM Use Amount .23** 8.24
Age -.05 .02
Gender -.22 .02 7.62
Table 3. Stepwise multiple regression among the amount of IM use, age, gender and
verbal intimacy
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
β RSquare Change F Statistics
IM Use Amount .17* 4.87
Age .08* .04 4.17
Gender -.02 .00 .02
Table 4. Stepwise multiple regression among the amount of IM use, age, gender and
affective intimacy
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
β RSquare Change F Statistics
IM Use Amount .22** 10.24
Age -.01 .00 .16
Gender -.16 .01 1.45
Table 5. Stepwise multiple regression among the amount of IM use, age, gender and
social intimacy
*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
Discussion
Although our study should be considered preliminary due to the relatively small sample,
this research has started a new direction for studies of communication technologies and
their influences on interpersonal communication. Our results lend support to our
hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between the amount of IM use and verbal,
affective, and social intimacy. Our findings are consistent with the liberation position of
CMC relationships, and suggest that IM promotes rather than hinders intimacy. What is
more, our research indicates that frequent conversation via IM actually encourages the
desire to meet face-to-face. For example, participants who reported heavy IM use more
strongly agreed with the following statement in our questionnaire �after talking with my
friends on IM, I want to see them face-to-face.� This finding implies that online
communication can reinforce face-to-face interaction.
Consideration of some of the attributes of IM � near synchronous and text-based �
could explain our findings. Text-messaging allows for students to more carefully craft
messages, than, for instance, telephone or face-to-face communication � indicative of a
situation that encourages intimate exchange (Lenhart et al., 2001). In addition, the notion
of privacy, or a private atmosphere, seems to play a central role in the level of intimacy
exposed in IM communication. We must also take into account the environment in which
people use IM. One theory in interpersonal relationships that may be applied to IM use is
that the level of self-disclosure is based, to some extent, on the surroundings (Fitzpatrick,
1988). Research has found that many people often use IM at home, late at night, and
separately, where they are vulnerable and lonely (Hu, 2004). Consequently, our research
show that more IM users disclose personal, private matters at home than they would
elsewhere, which suggests that the context of IM heavily contributes to the relationship
between IM and intimacy in college students groups.
The implications of our research suggest that colleges and universities could use IM to
appeal to potential college students. That students enhance their relationships with friends
through IM may also be applied to family members. Family members, knowledgeable of
their college children�s changing communication habits, may adopt the technology as
well. Parents of college students are reported to use IM considerably less than their
children who are in college, but growth in IM among older demographic populations may
be imminent (Lenhart et al., 2001).
Manufacturers of IM could tailor the medium more for the college user. Suggested
improvements include offering a variety of interfaces from which the college student
might choose to develop a personal setting, and increasing the number of available
emoticons. Additionally, from an advertising perspective, manufacturers could target
college-aged students who will be leaving family and friends behind to attend college.
They could emphasize the usefulness of their product(s) for staying connected with
friends and family, and, likewise, they could target parents who want to stay connected to
their children away at school. Our study helps confirm that geographically remote friends
and families can and do benefit from IM. Advertisers can use that knowledge of audience
to tailor campaigns.
Limitations of our study include those often understood to be shortcomings of survey
research, namely recall of our participants and our inability to show causation. Also, our
intimacy measures could be influenced by the mood of our participants and the friends
about whom each participant was thinking at the time of our survey. We also asked our
participants to generalize about their friendships in the context of IM. Level and type of
friendships were not taken into account in our questionnaire, which hinders us from
extending our findings to the variety of friends with which college students might
communicate when using IM.
Therefore, our study could benefit from future research in which we address friendship at
a micro level. Such an exploration should also include whether intimacy between friends
has already been established before IM. Of course, a counter argument to that point is
many college students might increasingly forge friendships online first. Nonetheless, we
recognize that a stronger conceptualization of friends would strengthen our research. In
addition to observing intimacy before IM use, establishing causation in our research will
require at least an experiment or a longitudinal study, as well considering the degree to
which we can rule out confounding or third variables such as friendship type.
Another area for further exploration is a comparison of IM to other media in order to
better understand the extent to which IM contributes to intimacy between college students
and their friends. According to Jones et al. (2002), IM accounts for 29% of online
communication between college students and their friends, whereas e-mail accounts for
62%. Considering the popularity of other forms of online communication, and the relative
newness of IM, other investigations should compare intimacy to various media. While
our research focuses on intimacy exclusively within the context of IM, future research
could examine the relationship between IM, e-mail, telephones, and cellular phones and
intimacy in general.
Additionally, more demographic populations should be considered. Controlling for
gender and age did not affect the relationship between IM and intimacy; but other
demographic variables such as race, nationality, socio-economic status may have an
affect on the relationship.
Lastly, we expect that additional methods of studying our dependent variable, in
particular, a content or textual analysis, could provide further support for our results. We
asked participants to generalize about the content of their IM conversations; however, we
may be able to support our analysis of participants� survey responses with actual
records of their conversations on IM. This, as well as other methodological approaches,
may enhance our research.
Acknowledgements
This research was initially conducted as part of the course requirements of COMM 506:
Introduction to Mass Communications Research, taught by Professor S. Shyam Sundar at
The Pennsylvania State University. The authors would like to thank the advisor and the
peers in the class who provided comments and suggestions on this research.
References
Altman, I. (1973). Reciprocity of interpersonal exchange. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behavior, 3(2), 249-261.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Alvestrand, H. (2002, September 11). Instant messaging and presence on the Internet.
Internet Society (ISOC). Retrieved December 9, 2002 from
//www.isoc.org/briefings/009/.
Beniger, J. R. (1987). Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo-
community. Communication Research, 14(3), 352-371.
Bennett, J. B. (2000). Time and intimacy: A new science of personal relationships.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
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(2), 99-112.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial
behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media
selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 11(3), 355-368.
Dowrick, S. (1991). Intimacy and solitude. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Erber, R., & Erber, M. W. (2001). Intimate relationships: Issues, theories, and research.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fisher, M., & Stricker, G. (1982). Intimacy. New York: Plenum Press.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Frank, A. (1996). Intimacy and individuation. In S. Akhtar & S. Kramer (Eds.), Intimacy
and infidelity: Separation-individuation perspectives, (pp. 71-89). Northvale: Jason
Aronson Inc.
Garlikov, R. (n.d.). The concept of intimacy. Retrieved August 9, 2003 from
//www.garlikov.com/philosophy/intimacy.htm.
Grinter, R. E., & Eldridge, M. A. (2001). y do tngrs luv 2 txt msg? In W. Prinz, M. Jarke,
Y. Rogers, K. Schmidt & V. Wulf (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work ECSW '01 (pp. 219-238). Bonn,
Germany, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Retrieved November 16,
2004 from //www.grinter.org/ecscw01.pdf.
Heim, M. (1992). The erotic ontology of cyberspace. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace:
First steps (pp. 59-80). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Herbsleb, J. D., Atkins, D. L., Boyer, D. G., Handel, M., & Finholt T. A. (2002).
Introducing instant messaging and chat in the workplace. Proceedings of ACM, CHI 2002
(pp. 171-178). Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved December 9, 2002, from
//www.crew.umich.edu/Technical%20reports/Herbsleb_Atkins_Boyer_Handel_Finh
olt_Introducing_instant_messaging_12_10_01.pdf.
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via
computer. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.
Hu, Y. (2004). Interpersonal communication in virtual reality: Romantic ICQ.
Communication & Management Research, 3(2), 31-66.
Jones, S., Madden, M., Clarke, L. N., Cornish, S., Gonzales, M, Johnson, C., Lawson, J.
N., Smith, S., Bickerton, S. H., Hansen, M., Lengauer, G., Oliveria, L., Prindle, W., &
Pyfer, J. (2002). The Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with
today's technology. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 16, 2004
from //www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf.
Kerr, E. B., & Hiltz, S. R. (1982). Computer-mediated communication systems: Status
and evaluation. New York: Academic Press.
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). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., Lewis, O., Fox, S., Horrigan, J., Spooner, T., & Carter, C. (2001).
Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message generation and the Internet's impact
on friendships and family relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
November 16, 2004 from //www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf.
Lerner, H. G. (1990). The dance of intimacy: A woman's guide to courageous acts of
change in key relationships. New York: Harper & Row.
Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ. New Media & Society,
3(4), 483-500.
Leung, L., & Wei, R. (2000). More than just talk on the move: Uses and gratifications of
the cellular phone. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 308-320.
Marcel, G. (1969). The philosophy of existence. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press.
McAdams, D. D. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close. New York: Doubleday.
Miller, R. S., & Lefcount, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 46, 514-518.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant
messaging in action. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work, 79-88. Retrieved December 9, 2002 from
//www.research.att.com/~stevew/outeraction_cscw2000.pdf.
Ogan, C. (1993). Listserver communication during the Gulf War: What kind of medium
is the electronic bulletin board? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 37, 177-
196.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of
Communication, 46(1), 80-97.
Parks, M. 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(4), 517-537.
Piorkowski, G. K. (1994). Too close for comfort: Exploring the risks of intimacy. New
York: Plenum Press.
Pool, I. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Schiano, D. J., Chen, C. P., Ginsberg, J., Gretarsdottir, U., Huddleston, M., & Isaacs, E.
(2002). Teen use of messaging media. Human factors in computing systems: CHI 2002
extended abstracts. New York: ACM. Retrieved December 9, 2002 from
//hci.stanford.edu/cs377/nardi-schiano/CHI2002.Schiano.pdf.
Sexton, R. E., & Sexton, V. S. (1982). Intimacy: A historical perspective. In M. Fisher &
G. Stricker (Eds.), Intimacy (pp. 1-20). New York: Plenum Press.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1995). Sexual intimacy and emotional intimacy. Sexological Review,
3(1), 81-95.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of
telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked
organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1983). Relation of verbal, affective, and physical
intimacy to marital satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(4), 573-580.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships
in virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1(1). Retrieved Aug 14, 2003 from
//www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
Wilner, W. (1982). Philosophical approaches to interpersonal intimacy. In M. Fisher & G.
Stricker (Eds.), Intimacy (pp. 21-38). New York: Plenum Press.
About the Authors
Yifeng Hu is a doctoral student in the College of Communications at The Pennsylvania
State University. She has ongoing research interests in computer-mediated
communication and psychological effects of media. Currently, her research focuses on
exploring the characteristics, roles and effects of interactive media in a health
communication context. Hu earned her master's degree in Communication from The
Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2002.
Address: 201 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802-5101. Tel: (814) 865-
3070,(814) 865-6106; fax: (814) 863-8044.
Jacqueline Fowler Wood is a master's degree student in the College of Communications
at Pennsylvania State University. Her primary research interest is in emotional affinity
and attachment to brands and characters through media.
Address: 201 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802-5101. Tel: (615) 941-5389.
Vivian Smith is an MA student in Media Studies at Pennsylvania State University who is
interested in researching the interrelationships of lesbian and bisexual health concerns,
race, class, and media coverage of health issues.
Address: 201 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA 16802-5101. Tel: (814) 865-3070.
Nalova Westbrook is a doctoral student in Language and Literacy Education at
Pennsylvania State University in the department of Curriculum and Instruction. She holds
a master's degree in Media Studies from Pennsylvania State University. Her research
interests are reading policy and media history and their relationship to the development of
institutions of African descent.
Address: 274 Chambers Building, University Park, PA 16802. Tel: (814) 865-1500; fax:
(814) 863-7602.
Appendix
QUESTIONNAIRE: INSTANT MESSENGER USE
**THANK YOU FOR TAKING A FEW MINUTES TO FILL OUT THIS SURVEY
CAREFULLY AND COMPLETELY.**
1. Do you ever go on-line? Y N
a. If no, go to number 10.
b. If yes, continue with the next question.
2. Have you ever used any Instant Messenger (IM) software (e.g. AOL Instant Messenger
[AIM], MSN Messenger, ICQ, etc.)? Y N
a. If no, go to number 11.
b. If yes, continue with the next question.
3. PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING.
a. On average, how many hours per day do you have your IM software on your computer?
(0-24) _____ hrs
b. On average, how many hours per day do you actually use IM (versus just having the
program open on your desktop)? (0-24) _____ hrs
4. PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING.
I use IM at/in:
some of the time almost always never
a. Home/Dorm
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. Computer Lab
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. Work/Office
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. Other places (please specify):
____________________________________________
5. Do you use IM to talk with your friends? Y N a.
If no, go to number 12. b.
If yes, continue with the next question.
6. PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU AGREE WITH THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.
When I talk to my friends on IM:
strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree
a. It�s like they are in the next room.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. I feel like I can talk about anything.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. I feel like our conversation is predominately shallow.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. I feel they really understand me.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10 e.
I feel close to them.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
f. A warm atmosphere is created.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
g. I feel like they might judge me.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
7. PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING.
When I talk to my friends on IM, generally our conversations are about:
never some of the time almost always
a. Family-related issues
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. Fears
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. Future aspirations
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. Love/sex
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
e. Relationships with significant others
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
f. The latest social gathering
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
g. What happened to each of us during the day
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
8. PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU AGREE WITH THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENTS.
strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree
a. I can�t wait to see if my friends have sent me an instant message.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. After talking with my friends on IM, I want to see them face-to-face.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. I tend to keep very personal information to myself when talking with my friends on IM.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. I am able to understand my friends� feelings when talking with them on IM.
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
9. PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING.
never some of the time almost always
When you use IM to talk with your friends:
a. Do you feel close to your friends most of the time?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. Do you feel it is important for you to listen to your friends� very personal disclosures?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. Do you feel your relationship with you friend is satisfying?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. Do you feel it is important to you that they be encouraging?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
e. Do you feel your relationship with them is important in your life?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
f. Do you feel like being encouraging and supportive to your friends when they are
unhappy?
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
**PLEASE GO TO NUMBER 11.**
10. Why don�t you go on-line? (please explain)
______________________________________________
11. How often do you use the following media?
never some of the time almost always
a. Telephone
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. Cellular phone
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. E-mail
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. Other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________
12. How often do you communicate with your friends using the following media?
never some of the time almost always
a. Telephone
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
b. Cellular phone
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
c. E-mail
1��2��3��4��5��6��7��8��9��10
d. Other (please specify)
______________________________________________________
13. Age (in years): _____
14. Gender: M F
15. Do you own a computer? Y N
**END OF THE SURVEY. THANK YOU!!**
©Copyright 2004 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication