Making Friends in Cyberspace

Abstract

From its birth as a way of linking a few university and defense laboratories in the late 1960s, the Internet has grown into a global network connecting between 30 and 40 million people (Elmer-Dewitt, 1995). Social linkages in the form of E-mail and discussion groups appeared in the first days of the Internet and have grown explosively ever since. Today there are over 5,000 Internet discussion groups (Hahn & Stout, 1994). Aside from its sheer size, this new social milieu commands scholarly attention because it is one of the new “collaborative mass media forms” in which messages come from a wide variety of participants with little or no centralized control (Rafaeli & LaRose, 1993). It therefore blurs the traditional boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication phenomena and raises new opportunities and risks for the way individuals relate to one another (Lea & Spears, 1995; Williams & Rice, 1983). The purpose of this study was to examine the relational world actually being created through Internet discussion groups (usually called newsgroups).(1) Because the development of personal relationships is a pivotal issue in the larger debate about human relations in cyberspace, this study explores four basic questions: How often do personal relationships form in Internet newsgroups, who has them, how close or developed do they become, and do relationships started on line migrate to other settings? We begin by examining two conflicting visions that have dominated popular and scholarly debate. On one side are those who view on-line relationships as shallow, impersonal, and often hostile. They assert that only the illusion of community can be created in cyberspace (e.g., Beninger, 1987; Berry, 1993; Heim, 1992; Stoll, 1995). On the other side are those who argue that computer-mediated communication liberates interpersonal relations from the confines of physical locality and thus creates opportunities for new, but genuine, personal relationships and communities (e.g., Pool, 1983; Rheingold, 1993). One vision is of relationships lost, while the other is of relationships liberated and found. These conflicting visions are not, of course, unique to debates about computer-mediated communication. Instead they reflect long-running, historical debates about the nature of modernity and the social effects of changes in communication and transportation technology (Marvin, 1987; Wellman, 1979). More specific versions of these debates can be found in the literature on the effects of the reduction in communicative cues associated with computer-mediated communication. They are also reflected in the sharply differing applications of personal relationship theories to on-line settings. Most of the early research on computer-mediated communication involved laboratory studies in which small groups worked on structured problems for limited periods of time (Garton & Wellman, 1995). Groups that communicated by means of computer (CMC) were compared to groups that communicated face-to-face (FtF). Findings from this line of research have generally emphasized the social disadvantages of computer-mediated communication, therefore implying that highly developed, positive personal relationships should occur infrequently in on-line settings. Computer-mediated groups, for example, have greater difficulty recognizing and moving toward shared points of view (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). People in CMC groups also engage in more verbal aggression, blunt disclosure, and nonconforming behavior than people in FtF groups (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991; Siegal, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). Such behavior is usually called “flaming,” and it has been observed both in laboratory settings and in a variety of business, governmental, educational, and public networks (e.g., Hiltz, Turoff, & Johnson, 1989; Lea, O'Shea, Fung, & Spears, 1992; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986; Thompsen & Ahn, 1992). Such findings may reflect the comparative anonymity afforded by CMC or local norms that make the overt expression of hostility more acceptable in on-line settings (Lea et al., 1992; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989; Spears & Lea, 1994; Zimbardo, 1969). These differences are most often explained by observing that social cues are filtered out in on-line settings (Culnan & Markus, 1987). Relational cues emanating from the physical context are missing, as are nonverbal cues regarding vocal qualities, bodily movement, facial expressions, and physical appearance. CMC is thus judged to have a narrower bandwidth and less information richness than FtF communication (see Daft & Lengel, 1984; Kiesler, Siegal, & McGuire, 1984). According to both social presence theory (Rice, 1987; Rice & Love, 1987; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976) and social context cues theory (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), this reduction in contextual, visual, and aural cues should cause communication in on-line settings to be more impersonal and nonconforming than communication in face-to-face settings. Both theories predict that participants' awareness of and sensitivity to others will be related to the number of channels or codes available for linking them. Face-to-face communication should breed greater awareness and sensitivity because of its multiplicity of channels, while on-line communication should be more impersonal, less inhibited, and less adaptive. This is not to say that positive personal relationships are impossible. Indeed Sproull and Kiesler (1991) note that electronic settings sometimes provide more opportunities for social relationships and less evaluation apprehensions than face-to-face settings. Nonetheless, theories of computer-mediated communication that are based on the reduced-cues perspective generally predict that positive personal relationships should occur infrequently rather than frequently. Claims that computer-mediated communication is characterized by impersonality, hostility, and nonsocial orientation, however, have been challenged repeatedly. The empirical support for some claims is less robust than researchers first suggested, and critics note that the causal antecedent to some effects may have been identified incorrectly. Because people need to manage uncertainty and develop rapport, they will adapt the textual cues to meet their needs when faced with a channel that does not carry visual and aural cues (Walther, 1992, 1993; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Time is the key element in this adaptation. While the multiple channels and cues available in FtF interaction speed the exchange of task and relational information, the process is slowed by the “reduced bandwidth” of CMC, that is, the inability of CMC to carry aural and visual cues. The important point, however, is not that CMC is unable to convey relational and personal information, but rather that it may take longer to do so. In a meta-analysis of CMC studies, Walther and his colleagues found that the proportion of socioemotional content was higher when interaction time was not restricted (Walther et al., 1994). Thus, the negative effects attributed to the computer as a medium may have instead been the result of the stringent time restrictions placed on interaction. As research on CMC moved from the laboratory to the field, it also became apparent that people related to one another in many more ways than had been envisioned by the reduced-cues perspective. Studies of E-mail in the workplace have consistently shown the interpersonal side of CMC. Users commonly report that they socialize, maintain relationships, play games, and receive emotional support via E-mail (e.g., Feldman, 1987; Finholt & Sproull, 1990; Haythornthwaite, Wellman, & Mantei, 1994; McCormick & McCormick, 1992; Rice & Love, 1987). Further evidence that personal relationships are forming on line can be found in a variety of sources, including popular cyberspace travelogues (Rheingold, 1993), the popular press (e.g., Bock, 1994; De Leon, 1994; Kanaley, 1995; Lewis, 1994; Wright, 1993), and a handful of scholarly reports on specific on-line communities (e.g., Brennan, Moore, & Smyth, 1992; Bruckman, 1992; Myers, 1987; Ogan, 1993; Reid, 1991; Wilkins, 1991). These accounts make it clear that on-line relationships are genuine personal relationships in the eyes of the participants. One person who played a MUD(2), for instance, commented that his on-line friendships were “much deeper and have better quality” than his real-life friendships (Bruckman, 1992, p. 23). Another person who had been active in a computer network for church workers said, “I know some of these people better than some of my oldest and best friends” (Wilkins, 1991, p. 56). In some cases, on-line relationships have blossomed into romance and marriage (Bruckman, 1992; Reid, 1991). These reports also illustrate how people overcome the technical limitations of CMC. In addition to the well-known use of keyboard characters, or “smileys,” to imitate facial expressions and paralinguistic features of conversation (e.g., typing “:-)” to indicate a smile), users frequently express emotion and metacommunicative intent by embedding words in text (Wilkins, 1991). The person who wishes a message to be taken as friendly teasing, for example, may embed a word or phrase like “grin” or “just kidding” in text. Another way people overcome the technical limitations of CMC is simply to supplement CMC with additional channels of communication. There are several reports of mail, telephone, and face-to-face contact as supplements to CMC (Ogan, 1993; Reid, 1991). In some cases, participants in on-line groups have organized social events so that they might meet in person (Bruckman, 1992; Rheingold, 1993). Popular attention has often fixated on the more manipulative and deceptive aspects of on-line relationships. Cases of gender switching (e.g., men pretending to be women) command particular attention (e.g., Bruckman, 1992; Van Gelder, 1985). CMC obviously provides rich opportunities for self-presentation and identity manipulation (Lea & Spears, 1995; Myers, 1987). However, these opportunities also have a positive side. Cyberspace creates an “identity workshop” in which people learn and test social skills (Bruckman, 1992). Some participants, for example, report that their on-line identities allow them to overcome the shyness they feel in face-to-face interaction (Myers, 1987). People who are isolated or disabled can develop social relationships (Bock, 1994; Brennan et al., 1992; De Leon, 1994; Kanaley, 1995). Whereas the possibility of abuse always exists, CMC also provides ways for people to transcend the limitations they experience in face-to-face settings (Walther, 1995). Conflicting predictions regarding on-line relationships can also be obtained from theories of interpersonal communication and relationship development. The relative lack of social cues and the potential for feedback delays, for example, should lead both 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. According to uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Parks & Adelman, 1983), the inability to reduce uncertainty should prevent, or at least retard, the development of personal relationships. Existing theories of relational development pose several other challenges for on-line relationships, as Lea and Spears (1995) observe. For example, most theories assume both physical proximity and frequent interaction between prospective partners (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Huston & Burgess, 1979; Kelley, 1979; Kelley et al., 1983). Existing theories also underscore the importance of physical appearance and physical attraction, especially in the development of romantic relationships (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Yet information regarding physical appearance is usually unavailable in on-line settings. On-line communicators, therefore, are generally assumed to lack many of the things emphasized in traditional discussions of relationship development: physical proximity, frequent interaction, information about physical appearance, cues about group membership, and information about the broader social context (Lea & Spears, 1995). However, a more optimistic assessment of the potential for personal relationships emerges when we re-examine the assumptions about on-line communication. If Walther's (1992, 1993) information-processing perspective is correct, for instance, people in on-line settings may simply take longer to reduce their uncertainty about one another. The lack of proximity and of visual information might be overcome by arranging meetings or by exchanging photographs either electronically or by mail. Information about membership in social groups can be exchanged Thus, many limitations of CMC may be More however, is the of these are for the development of relationships. The placed on like physical appearance or proximity may reflect less of a than a of the that most theories of relational development the in computer-mediated communication In social for example, the relational development is the of a positive & Taylor, theories make assumptions about development (e.g., Huston & Burgess, 1979; Kelley, 1979; Kelley et al., 1983). In theory the is the reduction of uncertainty about the partner and the relationship Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Parks & Adelman, 1983). of these theories physical proximity and frequent interaction as for relational development. These may be but they are not to at predictions of how might how one might feel about another or how one might be by that Whereas studies of face-to-face relationships the and information of physical appearance and physical (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, & no theory of relational development this information as a Information about physical appearance may as a or about other qualities, but it is not the only of or of the information to make of relationships therefore, not either the of on-line communication or the in theories of relationship development. In both popular and scholarly accounts sharply often of the for on-line relationships. is is a research to the of personal relationships in on-line the basic of relational participants, the of development in on-line relationships, and their to or real-life settings. first task was to how personal relationships were in on-line settings. do as as to other research Internet and their were through a In the first were from of groups (Hahn & Stout, in of four and In the people were from of those who had messages to these groups over a several were to prospective participants by were from of the people in this in from to The was more to be than and more to be than had been involved with for two and to an of groups on a was that personal relationships were we had new or other personal relationships as a result of in newsgroups, two that they had a personal relationship with they had for the first time via an Internet the of a personal relationship not the or we is, personal relationships to develop in we They were not restricted to a few of The that personal relationships developed for so many of and so many of that of on-line interaction as being impersonal and are These findings more to of relationships liberated than to of relationships These findings obviously about the of relationships that were that relationships were more than relationships but this was not a few were in from less than a to but most relationships were less than a communicated with their on-line a that they communicated with their partners at least or four a and over communicated with their partners on a Some people may be more than others to develop personal relationships on of people being to cyberspace in the popular the is that we lack the most basic information about the participants in on-line relationships. We compared people who and not have an on-line personal relationship in of their and of Internet were more than men to have a personal relationship on While of had a personal only of men had research will be to potential for this It may from It may simply be that a greater proportion of are for There may be gender differences in the to an on-line relationship as may simply be more in a medium more users are not to be related to the of a personal relationship on and were to have personal relationships that started in The best of an had developed a personal relationship were the and of their in People who personal relationships on line to more groups, than those who had not The two groups not however, in of the number of they the two groups in of either the of time they had been in or the of time they had been to in however, when we the of in the particular we who had on-line relationships had been their particular longer than those who had not those with a relationship had been to their particular longer than those one The of in also people who had developed on-line personal relationships from those who had the two groups not in of how frequently they their newsgroups, they in of how often they messages to their newsgroups, with on-line relationships more often than those who had a personal relationship also E-mail to to a greater number of than those who had not more research is it may be that personal relationships on line is more a of experience than it is of or As people to and involved with their over they to personal relationships with one another. relationships of are usually as from the impersonal to the personal a of specific in in the and of interaction, in interpersonal and in the toward more ways of in and in the of the participants' social who an on-line personal relationship its of development by to to of these These were based on discussions and of the relationship development process (see Altman & Taylor, 1973; Huston & Burgess, 1979; Kelley et al., 1983; Parks & Adelman, 1983; in as as and can be found in Because there was no which to of we the of as a this to the of the thus a of or thus a of development. for of the relational are in by a of in that the was are based on a of higher indicate higher of of in that the was are based on a of higher indicate higher of In its most a relationship as its participants come to on other more and in more ways 1979; Kelley et al., 1983). The personal relationships observed in this in of their of The the that were and of close to the of the of the relationships were this while were Thus, of the as a As relationships the and of interaction & Taylor, 1973; in The variety of and communication channels People more and personal generally to of and in their on-line personal relationships. The observed on the was and the of of the in the of the The of relational development was to and for the a of four points higher than the of the two of the in the of the is also characterized by communicative The participants ways of as personal that allow them to express in more ways and that their relational identity (e.g., & 1992; We this with a observed was points the of at or the of this that most of the personal relationships had not developed highly communication The observed of was and on the of the of the at or this of in the as a as relationships network as the participants one another to and and develop a social & 1991; 1995; in In on-line relationships, network not only that participants were to one on-line but also to people in their real-life social The to this a of the of the of the relationships were in the of the These indicate that network was not in most of the personal relationships we of the that relational partners that there was more their on-line than between their on-line and their of the Internet (see If the view were correct, we should have found few relationships that highly on these In we found on the particular or more of the relationships the of the the of the had no on-line personal relationships, about had a less developed personal and about had might be a highly developed personal that in Internet often to interaction in other channels or settings. E-mail in addition to a number also computer-mediated communication with other of a had the the or face-to-face communication to contact their on-line The number of channels was and two of with personal relationships had communication channels other than the These findings that relationships that begin on line this in the number of interaction is of the relational development process in in it is in on-line relationships. For one it a way in which relational partners can overcome the limitations of computer-mediated and visual information are as participants into other In addition the of communication that people may not a clear line between their on-line and about how his for example, one a had on and to a of the local of the that had a support group because we both found that we were the only on one side of a to and The of computer-mediated communication new challenges for of social relationships both in cyberspace and in in this study has been to provide an empirical for conflicting visions of social in cyberspace by the and development of personal relationships in one on-line on the that we have to be the first of on-line personal relationships in a of participants. was that personal relationships were in this over of the people in that they had a personal relationship of some with they had first through a relationships were not limited to one of but were rather a variety of and to the we found that personal relationships are and as a of time and experience in the on-line of of course, are not the only on-line more will be by to other CMC settings (e.g., Internet and The that personal relationships in on-line settings are so challenges and opportunities for to interpersonal communication and relationship development. Lea and Spears we that theories have settings that do not frequent face-to-face interaction. indicate that of relational development are on How participants manage and and is less clear in on-line settings. Because these in theories of relationship research is to how they in on-line settings. research should also on the development of on-line relationships in The that a proportion of users actually develop personal relationships new opportunities for those who are isolated or disabled in ways that or them in face-to-face interaction (e.g., Bock, 1994; Brennan et al., 1992; Kanaley, 1995). The of this study also have for to computer-mediated communication. relationships were found more often and at a higher of development in this study than can be for by the reduced-cues perspective. The that those who more often and who had been for a longer time were more to have developed a personal relationship on line is with Walther's social information-processing perspective. However, the additional that two of those personal on line to use additional communication channels challenges the that participants are vocal and visual no theory of CMC to for this in channel the Internet the information available to relational participants to as more people use the to exchange and The reduced-cues perspective may simply a the in network The that relationships that begin on line there raises more about of From the discussions of cyberspace have emphasized its more who the in his it as a who one of the first scholarly on cyberspace, it as a a Yet for most of cyberspace is simply another to like people who meet in other those who meet in cyberspace frequently their relationships into settings the one in which they They do not to a between relationships in cyberspace and those in cyberspace is another to we of the relationships there as being and The social of cyberspace will not from its but rather from the that people are it to social