Internet Use
1
Types of Communicators and Their Internet Usage: Communicator Style and Willingness to Communicate in Relation to Computer-Mediated Communication
Karen Feilzer, Blake Snyder, and Ira Young
Communication Research Methods Professor Alan L. Sillars Fall 1998
2
University life is becoming more and more familiar with the Internet as a means of satisfying communication and research needs. The Internet is attracting all types of people and addressing varied needs. Individuals have at their fingertips several avenues to explore on the Internet, examples of which include electronic mail, chat rooms, personal Web-sites, newsgroups, listserv groups, and usenets. The purpose of this research is to explore, in an academic setting, the different types of communication needs being met by the different types of users of the Internet and to determine the extent to which the Internet serves as a functional alternative for interpersonal communication needs. The term functional alternative refers to an alternative channel of communication that can satisfy similar communication needs. In addition, we examine characteristics of different types of users, including communicator style characteristics and un-willingness to communicate. These measures are employed to provide an indication of what types of communicators are using the Internet (and for what purposes) and their overall willingness (or reluctance) to communicate face-to-face (FtF hereafter).
Rationale The uses and gratifications theory of communication maintains that people communicate to “satisfy personal goals” (Katz et al., 1974). This approach, in relation to mass media research, argues that individuals are aware of their needs, evaluate various communication channels and content, and select the channel that they believe will provide the gratification that they are seeking (Perse and
3 Courtright, 1993). Uses and gratifications theory is relevant to this research, as it is argued that individuals use
Types of Communicators and Their Internet Usage: Communicator Style and Willingness to Communicate in Relation to Computer-Mediated Communication
Karen Feilzer, Blake Snyder, and Ira Young
Communication Research Methods Professor Alan L. Sillars Fall 1998
2
University life is becoming more and more familiar with the Internet as a means of satisfying communication and research needs. The Internet is attracting all types of people and addressing varied needs. Individuals have at their fingertips several avenues to explore on the Internet, examples of which include electronic mail, chat rooms, personal Web-sites, newsgroups, listserv groups, and usenets. The purpose of this research is to explore, in an academic setting, the different types of communication needs being met by the different types of users of the Internet and to determine the extent to which the Internet serves as a functional alternative for interpersonal communication needs. The term functional alternative refers to an alternative channel of communication that can satisfy similar communication needs. In addition, we examine characteristics of different types of users, including communicator style characteristics and un-willingness to communicate. These measures are employed to provide an indication of what types of communicators are using the Internet (and for what purposes) and their overall willingness (or reluctance) to communicate face-to-face (FtF hereafter).
Rationale The uses and gratifications theory of communication maintains that people communicate to “satisfy personal goals” (Katz et al., 1974). This approach, in relation to mass media research, argues that individuals are aware of their needs, evaluate various communication channels and content, and select the channel that they believe will provide the gratification that they are seeking (Perse and
3 Courtright, 1993). Uses and gratifications theory is relevant to this research, as it is argued that individuals use
References: Allen, Brenda J. “Gender and Computer-Mediated Communication.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Vol.32, no.7-8: April 1995. Burgoon, J.K. “The Un-willingness to Communicate Scale: Development and Validation.” Communication Monographs. Vol. 43, No. 1; March 1976, pgs. 60-69. Connely, T., Jessup, L.M., and Valacich, J.S. “Idea Generation in a GDSS: Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone.” Unpublished Manuscript, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ: 1988. Eddings, J. How the Internet Works. Emeryville, CA: Ziff-Davis Press, 1994. Garton, L and Wellman, B. “Social Impacts of Electronic Mail in Organizations: A Review of the Research Literature.” Communication Yearbook. 18: 434-453, 1995. Graham, E.E. (1994). “Communicator Style Measure.” In R.B. Rubin, P. Pulmgreen, & H.E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook. (Pp. 134-141). New York, NY: The Guilford Press Hiltz, S.R., and Johnson, K. “User Satisfaction with Computer-Mediated Communication Systems.” Management Science. Vol.36, 739-751: 1990. Hollingshead, Andrea B., Mcgrath, Joseph E., and O’Connor, Kathleen M. “Group Task Performance and Communication Technology: A Longitudinal Study of ComputerMediated Versus Face-to-Face Work Groups.” Small Group Research. Vol.24, no.3: August 1993. Kent, P. 10 Minute Guide to the Internet. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books, 1994. Lindlif, Thomas R. and Shatzer, Milton J. “Media Ethnography in Virtual Space: Strategies, Limits, and Possibilities.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. Vol.42, no.2: Spring 1998. Mabrito, Mark. “The E-mail Discussion Group: An Opportunity for discourse analysis.” Business Communication Quarterly. Vol.58, no.2: June 1995. Markus, M.L. “Finding a Happy Medium: Explaining the Negative Impacts of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work.” ACM Trans. Info. Sys. 12(2): 119-149, 1994. 22 Norton, R.W. (1977). “Foundation of a Communicator Style Construct.” Human Communication Research. Vol. 4, No. 2; (pp. 87-112). Olaniran, Bolanle A. “Group Performance in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication Media.” Management Communication Quarterly. Vol.7, no.3: February 1994. Parks, Malcolm R. And Floyd, Kory. “Making Friends in Cyberspace.” Journal of Communication. Vol.46, no.1: Winter 1996. Perse, Elizabeth M. And Courtright, John A. “Normative Images of Communication Media: Mass and Interpersonal Channels in the New Media Environment.” Human Communication Research. Vol.19, no.4; June 1993. Rice, R.E., & Love, G. (1987). “Electronic Emotion: Socioemotional Content in a Computer-mediated Network.” Communication Research. Vol. 14; (pp. 85-108). Rice, R.E. “Media Appropriateness: Using Social Presence Theory to Compare Traditional and New Organizational Media.” Human Communication Research. Vol.19, 451484: 1993. Thomsen, Steven R. “‘@Work in Cyberspace’: Exploring Practitioner use of the PRForum. Public Relations Review. Vol.22, no.2: Summer 1996. Walther, J.P. “Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction.” Communication Research. 23(1): 3-43, 1996. Walther, J.P. (1993). “Impression Development in Computer-mediated Interaction.” Western Journal of Communication. Fall 1993; pp. 381-398. Wellman, B, Salaff, J, Dimitrova, D, Garton, L, Gulia, M, and Haythornwaite, C. “Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community.” Annual Review of Sociology. Vol.22: 1996.