On‐line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within exclusively internet‐based and primarily internet‐based relationships

This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 05 October 2012, At: 18:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

On‐line relational maintenance strategies andperceptions of partners within exclusivelyinternet‐based and primarily internet‐basedrelationshipsKevin B. Wright Ph.D. aa Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, 610 ElmAvenue, Room 101, Norman, OK, 73019 Phone: (901) 678–2577 Fax: (901) 678–2577 E-mail:

Version of record first published: 22 May 2009.

To cite this article: Kevin B. Wright Ph.D. (2004): On‐line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partnerswithin exclusively internet‐based and primarily internet‐based relationships, Communication Studies, 55:2, 239-253

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388617

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388617

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Communication Studies, 55(2) (Summer 2004), 239-253

ON-LINE RELATIONAL MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES ANDPERCEPTIONS OF PARTNERS WITHIN EXCLUSIVELYINTERNET-BASED AND PRIMARILY INTERNET-BASED

RELATIONSHIPS.

KEVIN B. WRIGHT, PH.D.

While relational maintenance has been found to be an important aspect of interpersonal relationshipswithin the face-to-face world, the nature of relational maintenance among partners within computer-mediated relationships is a relatively unexplored area. This study examined the use of maintenancestrategies and perceptions of relational partners among (N = 178) undergraduate students withinexclusively Internet-based and primarily Internet-based relationships. The findings indicated that positivityand openness were the most frequently used maintenance strategies. People who used positivity and on-lineactivities had higher perceptions of attitude similarity than people using avoidance strategies, and peoplewho used positivity and openness perceived their partner's quality of communication to be higher than thosewho used other strategies. People maintaining primarily Internet-based relationships had higher relationalcommunication and background similarity scores than people maintaining exclusively Internet-basedrelationships. Finally, people maintaining exclusively Internet-based relationships had different perceptionsof on-line friends and acquaintances based upon their frequency of on-line interaction.

R elational maintenance is an important part of all relationships, and communica-tion scholars have found it to be crucial to the survival of a relationship and for

relational partners to be satisfied (Ayers, 1983; Bell, Daly, & Gonzalez, 1987; Dindia& Canary, 1993; Vangelisti & Huston, 1994; Wood, 2000). In recent years, the adventof computer-mediated communication (CMC) has increased the opportunity for peo-ple to establish and maintain new relationships on-line as well as providing individualswith a new medium for maintaining relationships they originally formed in theface-to-face world (Barnes, 2003; Parks & Floyd, 1996).

Communication researchers have traditionally examined relational maintenancein face-to-face relationships (Ayres, 1983; Canary & Stafford, 1994; Dindia & Baxter,1987; Dindia & Canary, 1993), and most research to date has not specifically addressedhow people use computer-mediated communication to maintain relationships. Asopposed to relational maintenance in the face-to-face world, there are two broad typesof relationships that people maintain on the Internet, exclusively Internet-based relation-ships and primarily Internet-based relationships.

Exclusively Internet-based (EIB) relationships refer to relationships that are de-veloped without any face-to-face interaction or interaction through traditional media,such as the telephone, letters, etc. EIB relationships are becoming more prevalent dueto the growth and popularity of on-line communities where people who are geograph-ically dispersed develop relationships and do not typically interact with each otheroutside of cyberspace (Clark, 1995; Cohill & Kavanaugh, 1997; Preece & Ghozati,2001; Rheingold, 1993, Turkle, 1995; Wellman, 1997). According to a large scalestudy of Internet use, 90 million Americans have participated in some type of on-linegroup or community, and that most participants reported that the Internet was ahelpful way to meet new people as well as strengthening existing ties (Fox et al., 2001).

Primarily Internet-based (PIB) relationships are also becoming more commondue to the fact that individuals who are geographically dispersed often prefer the low

Kevin B. Wright, Ph.D. (Oklahoma, 1999) is Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication,University of Oklahoma, 610 Elm Avenue, Room 101, Norman, OK 73019, (901) 678-2577, FAX (901)678-4331, Email: [email protected].

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2

240 COMMUNICATION STUDIES

cost of email/instant messaging instead of using traditional communication technology(e.g. the telephone). However, there other reasons besides cost that have contributedto the increase in these types of relationships. For example, since email is asynchro-nous, people often enjoy the convenience of not having to communicate in real time(Flaherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998; Papacharissi & Rubin, 2000) and many report thatemail allows them to spend more time/control when composing messages (Walther &Boyd, 2002) or it helps them to have more control over impression management(O'Sullivan, 2000).

PIB relationships may include acquaintances, friends, and family members whofind it more convenient to communicate via the Internet, or people who may haveinitially met on-line but who now communicate by other means. However, sometimespeople, such as co-workers engage in primarily Internet-based relationships despitebeing in close proximity to each other. PIB relationships are more common that EIBrelationships, but they are relatively understudied since most relational maintenancestudies (as well as interpersonal research) has focused on face-to-face interaction.

While many studies have examined how relationships are initially formed on-line,and how various perceptions of on-line partners influence different aspects of relation-ships, such as their development, impression management, and relational norms(Baym, 2000; O'Sullivan, 2000; Preece, 1998; Walther, 1992; 1996; Walther & Bur-goon, 1992; Walther & Boyd, 2002), little is known about the communicative strategiesindividuals use to maintain relationships in these contexts, how perceptions of rela-tional partners are related to maintenance strategies, or differences in perceptionsbetween people maintaining EIB and PIB relationships.

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to explore the use of relationalmaintenance strategies and their possible relationships to interpersonal perceptionswithin the context of the computer-mediated environment, and (b) to examine differ-ences in maintenance strategies and interpersonal perceptions between partners withinEIB and PIB relationships.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Relational Maintenance

Successfully maintaining relationships has been linked to several positive out-comes, including relational satisfaction and longevity (Duck, 1994; Guerrero, Eloy,and Wabnik, 1993; Vangelisti & Huston, 1994; Wallerstein, 1995). According toDindia and Canary (1993), relational maintenance is necessary to keep relationships ina stable and satisfactory condition, and proactive maintenance may help relationalpartners circumvent problems that can lead to relational dissolution. Interpersonalscholars have identified a number of relational maintenance behaviors that range frommundane everyday routines (such as sharing tasks or engaging in joint activities) tomore strategic behaviors (such as intentionally calling a friend to provide support forsome crisis he or she is facing) in everyday communication (Canary & Stafford, 1994;Canary, Stafford, Hause, and Wallace, 1993; Duck, 1994; Dindia & Baxter, 1987).These strategies also include conveying openness or willingness to communicate witha partner, being positive during interaction, assuring and supporting each other,communicating affection, spending time with important members of a partner's socialnetwork, and avoiding potentially negative topics or unfriendly behaviors. Canary etal., (1993) developed a relational maintenance strategy typology that includes many ofthese strategies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2

ON-LINE RELATIONAL MAINTENANCE 241

Type/depth of relationship. Variables that may influence the choice of maintenancestrategies that people use often include the type of relationship a person has with hisor her partner and the depth of that relationship. For example, studies have founddifferences in the types of maintenance strategies used in relationships based on thestage of the relationship (Stafford & Canary, 1991), and whether partners wereromantically involved, friends, or family members (Canary et al., Canary, Hause, &Messman, 1993; Fehr, 1996). In terms of the computer-mediated environment, it islikely that people in EIB relationships maintain relationships with partners who rangefrom relative strangers and acquaintances to on-line friends and romantic interests. Forexample, members of on-line communities often report interacting with other peopleusing the community on a frequent basis despite the person remaining somewhat of ananonymous acquaintance (Wood & Smith, 2001). Other individuals may use theInternet to maintain long-distance relationships with people they have met in theface-to-face world, and these relationships may include acquaintances, friends, andfamily members.

Maintenance in long-distance relationships. Research on long-distance relationshipsmay provide some insight into how people maintain EIB and PIB relationships. Sincepeople who engage in EIB relationships are most likely geographically dispersed, thesetypes of relationships are by definition long-distance. While not all PIB relationshipsare necessarily long-distance, many of them are. In recent years our society haswitnessed the growth of long-distance relationships due to factors such as increasedmobility (Rohlfing, 1995). Researchers have focused on characteristics of relationshipsbetween people who are in long-distance relationships that have implications forrelational maintenance.

For example, Van Horn et al. (1997) found that long-distance relationships can beas satisfying as closer relationships, partners in long-distance relationships often haveidealized perceptions of their partners, and they may use positivity and avoidancemaintenance strategies more frequently than people who are not in long-distancerelationships. Van Horn et al. (1997) also contend that people in long-distancerelationships typically choose to interact with each other at times when they feel likecommunicating, when they are on their best behavior, and they may avoid sensitivetopics due to feeling uncomfortable about discussing, such issues when they cannot bewith their partner in a face-to-face context (i.e. avoiding potentially negative topics),and this can lead to idealized perceptions of one's relational partner.

It is likely that the types of maintenance strategies people use in on-line relation-ships will vary depending upon the type of relationship a person has with his or heron-line partner, the depth of that relationship, and whether or not partners have meteach other in the face-to-face world. However, no studies have examined within EIBrelationships or PIB relationships which strategy is used most frequently for maintain-ing on-line relationships. In addition, it is also unknown whether people in EIBrelationships use different maintenance strategies than people in PIB relationships.

RQ1: Which relational maintenance strategy do people use most frequently in predominatelyon-line relationships, and do people in EIB relationships use different maintenance strategiesthan people in PIB relationships?

Computer-Mediated Communication and Interpersonal Perceptions

Researchers in the area of computer-mediated communication during the lastdecade have gained a better understanding of how characteristics of the medium can

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


alter perceptions of on-line partners and the way they communicate. Features ofcomputer-mediated communication, such as limited nonverbal information, delayedfeedback, greater ability for editing text prior to sending messages, idealized percep-tions of the source, difficulty of locating people on-line, and greater opportunities forself-presentation and manipulation of information (Lea & Spears, 1998; Walther, 1992;1996; Walther & Boyd, 2002; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994; Wright, 2000b) likelypresent challenges for maintaining relationships and may impact EIB and PIB rela-tionships differently.

Relational communication/ quality of communication and on-line interaction. Waltherand Burgoon (1992), in one of the first studies of on-line relational communication,found that perceptions of relational communication, including judgments of howsatisfied on-line partners were with each other, were influenced by the amount of timethey interacted with each other. Walther and Burgoon (1992) and Walther (1992)contend that due to reduced nonverbal information in the computer-mediated envi-ronment, it often takes more time to develop satisfying relationships on-line because ittakes more time for socio-emotional content to be conveyed through email, bulletinboards, and chat rooms. Walther (1994), in a study that has important implications forEIB relationships, found that impressions of relational communication between on-linepartners tend to develop over an extended period of time and they develop moreslowly than in face-to-face interaction. In the studies mentioned above, participantsassigned to computer-mediated groups did not interact outside of the computer-mediated environment, and they did not have disconfirming social cues or otherinformation available to them due to the use of text-based communication (in otherwords they had EIB relationships with partners). While newer computer-mediatedtechnologies such as computer-based videoconferencing are similar to face-to-faceinteraction, most people currently communicate on-line through text-based programs.

Walther (1996) mentions that due to limited information in text-based CMC,participants in on-line relationships may "fill in the blanks" when it comes to formingperceptions of others, a concept he labeled "hyperpersonal interaction." In otherwords, participants in on-line relationships may develop idealistic or unrealistic imagesof their relational partners by projecting images of the partner based upon schemasdeveloped in other contexts and idealizing their communicative abilities. For example,Walther (1996) contends if people perceive they are communicating with someonewho is attractive or intelligent, their communication with the person is likely to reflectthis perception (e.g. being more positive, etc.), and their partner is likely to alter his orher communication in reaction to the sender's messages. Hyperpersonal interactionmay affect perceptions of one's on-line relational partner and the quality of his/hercommunication.

Walther and Boyd (2002) suggest that Internet users engage in selective self-presentation, creating within their messages highly preferred personal and relationalcues. Since most computer-mediated communication occurs in textual form, these cuesare more controllable than would be the case in the more spontaneous face-to-faceinteraction. This may affect perceptions of on-line relational partners and quality ofon-line interaction in a variety of ways. For example, Walther (1997) found thatpreviously unknown partners were able to achieve greater intimacy via computer-mediated communication than in parallel face-to-face interaction.

Greater control over message creation and relational content may lead someindividuals to prefer communicating via the Internet to face-to-face interaction. For

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


example, O'Sullivan (2000) found that people often prefer the constrictions of medi-ated channels (such as email) over face-to-face interaction since these limitations areoften seen as advantageous in situations were parallel face-to-face interactions mightpotentially threaten positive impressions (due to disconfirming information commu-nicate through nonverbal codes).

Since developing perceptions of others largely takes place through textual com-munication in CMC interaction, the ability of partners to overcome the constraints oftextual communication become important. Textual communication requires a differ-ent set of competencies than face-to-face interaction, and misunderstandings of mes-sages are often more common in CMC. Individuals make assessments of their partnersbased upon the quality of on-line communication (Barnes, 2003).

Walter & Boyd (2002) also contend that characteristics of computer-mediatedcommunication can affect relational communication by skewing interpersonal percep-tions in extraordinarily positive directions. For example, Wright (2000b), in a quali-tative study of an on-line community for older adults, found that a large number ofparticipants reported that people in their on-line support network were perceived asbeing closer than even members of their own immediate family, despite the fact thatthey had never met their relational partners in the face-to-face world.

Baym (2000), in a qualitative study of an on-line discussion group, found thatpeople vary in terms of the degree of interpersonal closeness they feel toward on-linerelational partners. For some people, on-line partners are perceived as "friendlystrangers," while in other cases they are seen as close friends despite the fact that therelationship exists in cyberspace. While this study did not focus upon on-line relationalmaintenance, participants in the on-line discussion group maintained friendships withothers by supporting each other, using humor, and by engaging in meta-communica-tion about previous message exchanges to clarify misunderstandings.

Perceptions of similarity and on-line interaction. Perceptions of similarity are animportant part of interpersonal attraction, relational development, relational satisfac-tion, and relational maintenance (Byrne, 1971; Burleson, 1998; Burleson & Denton,1992; Burgoon & Hale, 1987), and they are likely important to on-line relationalmaintenance. Wood and Smith (2001) assert that perceived similarity is important formaintaining Internet-based relationships since "people who meet on-line must com-municate enough common ground with one another that the parties involved areinterested in sustaining relational ties." (p. 78). According to Barnes (2003), "On theInternet, shared interests replace proximity as a primary reason for people meetingand developing friendships (p. 142)." Since proximity is typically not a prerequisite forInternet relationships, perceptions of similarity become important in helping people todecide whether they share interests with their on-line relational partners.

Wallace (1999) mentions that similarity is an important perception for relationalpartners in the computer-mediated environment, and that people using on-line dis-cussion groups tend to develop and maintain relationships with others who expresssimilar attitudes, backgrounds, and experiences. However, like other perceptions ofrelational communication, in cases where on-line partners do not have the opportunityto interact outside of the computer-mediated environment, perceptions of similarityare likely affected by how frequently on-line partners communicate (See Walther &Burgoon, 1992). While researchers have examined perceptions of similarity withinon-line relationships (Wright, 2000b), no studies have specifically examined the rela-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


tionship between on-line maintenance strategies and perceptions of similarity or howperceptions of similarity among people maintaining on-line relationships are affectedby the frequency of interaction.

Research on interpersonal perceptions in the computer-mediated context hasfocused on the role of initial perceptions of others and the development of relation-ships (Baym, 2000; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Walther, 1996; Walther & Boyd, 2002), butlittle is known about how perceptions of similarity, quality of communication, andrelational communication among on-line partners may be related to the type of on-linerelational maintenance strategies people primarily use. In addition, it is unknownwhether partners maintaining EIB and PIB relationships differ in terms of interper-sonal perceptions.

RQ2: Do perceptions of similarity, quality of communication, and relational communication differin terms of the type of on-line relational maintenance strategy participants used most fre-quently?

RQ3: Do perceptions of similarity, quality of communication, and relational communication dif-ferent in terms of whether a person is maintaining an EIB or a PIB relationship?

Finally, while previous CMC research that suggests that frequency of interactionon-line affects perceptions of relational partners in a number of ways (Walther, 1996;Walther & Boyd, 2002), especially among people who interact through only throughcomputer-mediated channels, it is unknown how perceptions of similarity, quality ofcommunication, and relational communication among people maintaining EIB rela-tionships might be affected by frequency of interaction. Given that individuals withinPIB relationships have other means than the computer for forming and alteringperceptions of relational partners, examining people who are in EIB relationships isimportant to assess how frequency of on-line interaction (without the influence offace-to-face or other mediated interactions) might be related to perceptions of rela-tional partners. Presumably, people within EIB relationships should have differentperceptions of on-line acquaintances than on-line friends, and people who interactmore frequently should have different perceptions of their relational partner thanthose who communicate less frequently since in the case of EIB relationships allrelational information is conveyed through computer-mediated messages and percep-tions of relational partners have been found to take more time to develop than in theface-to-face world (Walther & Burgoon, 1992; Walther, 1997; Walther & Boyd, 2002).

RQ4: Within EIB relationships do perceptions of similarity, quality of communication, and rela-tional communication differ in terms of the type of on-line relationship a person has and howfrequently he or she communicates with his or her partner?

METHOD

Sample Characteristics

One hundred seventy-seven [N = 178) undergraduate students enrolled incommunication classes at a southern university completed the study questionnaire forextra credit. The sample included 78 males and 100 females with an average age of26.77 [SD = 10.14) years. In terms of ethnicity, 121 individuals were white, 50mentioned they were African-American, 2 students identified themselves as Mexican-American, and 5 said they were Asian American. The students represented a widevariety of undergraduate majors on campus.

Students were asked to identify either a EIB relationship, or a relationship theyhad developed and maintained a relationship with a partner exclusively via the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


Internet (e.g. a relationship in which they had never met their partner in the face-to-face world or communicated through traditional communication channels such as thetelephone), or a PIB relationship, a relationship that they had primarily maintainedwith a partner through the Internet (e.g. a long distance relationship where partnerssaw each other face-to-face on an infrequent basis or if they communicated with theirpartner other than by the Internet). When communicating with his or her partneron-line, each participant reported using either email or a chat program (such as AOL'sinstant messenger). 70 participants identified an exclusively Internet-based (EIB)relationship, and 108 people reported a primarily Internet-based (PIB) relationship. Interms of the type of relationships reported by participants in EIB relationships, 23identified their relational partner as an "acquaintance," 44 chose "friend," and 3indicated "stranger." In terms of people in PIB relationships, 13 people said theirrelational partner was an "acquaintance," 67 mentioned "friend," and 28 said "familymember."

Questionnaire Items

The questionnaire used a number of established measures, and all the reliabilityfor all scales was assessed by Cronbach's alpha.

Similarity. The researcher assessed participant perceptions of similarity with Mc-Croskey, Richmond, and Daly's (1975) Measure of Perceived Homophily. This in-strument assesses two dimensions of perceived homophily, attitude and backgroundhomophily, with a seven-point semantic differential scale, and it had been found to bea reliable measure in previous on-line studies (See Wright, 2000a). Scale items in-cluded descriptors such as "My relational partner is 'like me/unlike me,' 'similar tome/different from me,' and 'he/she is culturally different/he/she is culturally similar.'"The reliability coefficient for attitude homophily was .75, and for background ho-mophily it was .75.

Communication quality and relational communication. Two measures were adaptedfrom Leatham & Duck's (1990) Iowa Communication Record (ICR). The IowaCommunication Record has been found to be a valid and reliable instrument (yieldingCronbach's alphas of .80 and higher) in previous studies (See Duck & Rutt, 1989;Leathern & Duck, 1990), and it was designed to measure the quality and impact ofinteractions within specific conversational contexts.

The items dealing with communication quality consisted of 10 semantic differen-tial scales that assess perceptions of the quality of interaction between a person and hisor her partner. All items used 7-point scales, and included bi-polar descriptors such as"relaxed/strained," "formal/informal," "in-depth/superficial," "guarded/open," and"great deal of understanding/great deal of misunderstanding." The reliability coeffi-cient for this measure was .81.

In addition, the author measured perceptions of relational communication usingfive 7-point scale items adapted from the Iowa Communication Record (ICR) dealingwith relational communication, including bi-polar descriptors such as, interesting/uninteresting, interpersonally satisfying/not interpersonally satisfying, intimate/notintimate, close/not close, and satisfied with the relationship/unsatisfied with the rela-tionship. The reliability coefficient for this measure was .71.

Relational maintenance strategies. To determine which maintenance strategies par-ticipants perceived to be most important in maintaining their on-line relationships, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


TABLE 1FREQUENCIES OF PRIMARY MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES IN ON-LINE RELATIONSHIPS

Type of Strategy

OpennessPositivityOtherOn-line ActivitiesAssurancesAvoidance

EIB

27147

1183

PIB

32291813114

Total

59432524197

researcher drew upon Canary et al.'s (1993) relational, maintenance strategy typologyas well as providing an "other" category so that participants could list other strategies.This typology has been used in a variety of studies measuring relational maintenancestrategies (See Dainton, Stafford, & Canary, 1994; Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000).Briefly, this typology includes six broad maintenance strategies including: (a) "posi-tivity," or efforts to make interaction pleasant, doing favors, or showing affection, and(b) "openness," or efforts to keep communication open by engaging in self-disclosure,giving advice, and showing empathy. In addition, the typology included (c) "assur-ances," or communication that expresses validation or unconditional love/support, (d)"joint activities, such as spending time together in routine or spontaneous ways," (e)"routine communicative activities," such as daily or weekly email messages, and (f)"avoidance," or evading a partner or issues that might foster unproductive conflict ordamage the relationship in some way. Some examples of individual items include: "Itry to make the interaction pleasant by being cheerful (positivity)," "I try to keep thelines of communication open by making disclosures and listening to his/her disclo-sures (openness)," and "I avoid issues or topics that may be difficult for him/her todiscuss (avoidance)." Participants were asked to indicate which maintenance strategythe used most frequently with their on-line relational partner.

Frequency of on-line interaction. Frequency of on-line interaction was measured byasking participants whether they communicated with their on-line partner on a daily,weekly, or monthly basis.

RESULTS

The first research question asked about the relational maintenance strategies thatare used most frequently by people in on-line relationships and whether people inexclusively Internet-based relationships use different maintenance strategies than peo-ple in primarily Internet-based relationships. Table One reports the frequencies ofeach type of maintenance strategy used by the participants. The results indicated thatopenness was the most frequently used type of on-line maintenance strategy for bothEIB and PIB relationships, x2 (5) = 58.28, p < .001. However, people in EIB andPIB relationships did not differ significantly in terms of the types of on-line relationalmaintenance strategies they used most frequently, x2 (5) = 3.66, p > .05, althougha post hoc analysis revealed that for both EIB and PIB relationships there weresignificant differences in maintenance strategies based upon relationship type. Peoplein on-line acquaintance relationships used openness more frequently than other strat-egies, x2 (5) = 15.33, p < .05, while people in on-line friendship relationships, x2

(5) = 44.03, p < .05, used positivity more frequently. People maintaining an on-line

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


relationship with a family member did not use one type of maintenance strategysignificantly more than any other type. Among individuals in PIB relationships whochose the "other" category, the most frequently mentioned strategies were: (a) being inthe same place as their partner, and (b) holding their partner when together. For EIBrelationships, people choosing the "other category" mentioned strategies that largelyreflected the joint activity category from the typology (e.g. "we play on-line gamestogether").

The second research question was concerned with whether perceptions of on-linerelational partners differ in terms of the type of on-line relational maintenance strategyparticipants used most frequently. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures indi-cated that attitude similarity differed significantly by on-line relational maintenancestrategy type, F (5,172) = 3.60, p < .01. A Games-Howell multiple comparisonprocedure test revealed that participants who used positivity (M = 21.0; SD = 4.41)and on-line activities (M = 20.95; SD = 5.18) with their on-line partner as theirprimary maintenance strategy had significantly higher attitude similarity scores thanthose who used avoidance as a maintenance strategy [M = 15.57; SD = 2.44).Perceptions of background similarity (F (5, 172) = 1.12, p > .05), quality ofcommunication [F(5, 172) = 1.01, p > .05), and relational communication {F{5,172) = 1.47, p > .05) did not differ in terms of the type of on-line maintenancestrategy used. However, participants who used the most frequent types of maintenancestrategies, positivity and openness, had significantly higher quality of communicationscores than people using the other on-line relational maintenance strategies, t (176) =1.99, p < .05.

The third research question asked whether people maintaining EIB relationshipsdiffer from people maintaining PIB relationships in terms of perceptions of relationalpartners. One potential confounding variable that was identified is that participants inPIB relationships identified family members as the target person for their on-linerelationship while people in EIB relationships did not identify any family members. Inaddition, most individuals have very different perceptions of family relationships thanacquaintances and friends. Due to this issue, the researcher controlled for type ofrelationship (looking only at friendship and acquaintance relationships) when com-paring perceptions of relational partners between people maintaining EIB and PIBrelationships.

Controlling for type of relationship (friendship or acquaintance), the researcherconducted independent samples t-tests between participants in EIB and PIB relation-ships on each of dependent variable (similarity, quality of communication, relationalcommunication). In terms of friendship relationships, individuals maintaining PIBfriendships had significantly higher relational communication scores (M = 27.41;SD = 3.98) than people maintaining EIB friendships (M = 25.52; SD = 4.08), t(102) = —2.301, p < .05. In addition, participants maintaining PIB friendships hadsignificantly higher background similarity scores (M = 20.63; SD = 5.56) thanpeople maintaining EIB friendships [M = 18.26; SD = 5.42), t (102) = -2 .129,p < .05. There were no significant differences between EIB acquaintances and PIBacquaintances in terms of the other perceptions of relational partners.

The fourth research question asked whether perceptions of similarity, quality ofcommunication, and relational communication among people maintaining EIB rela-tionships differed in terms of the type of on-line relationship a person has and howfrequently he or she communicated with his or her on-line partner. As with the thirdresearch question, the researcher limited the analysis to friendship and acquaintance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


relationships. A series of 2 X 3 ANOVAs were conducted using type of on-linerelationship (acquaintance or friendship) as one factor and frequency of interaction(daily, weekly, or monthly) as independent variables and each perception of relationalpartners (similarity, quality of communication, and relational communication) as thedependent variable.

In terms of attitude similarity, the ANOVAs indicated that, for people within EIBrelationships, there was a significant interaction effect between type of on-line rela-tionship and frequency of interaction, F(2, 55) = 6.64, p < .01, but no significantmain effect for either type of relationship, F[\, 55) = .85, p > .05, or frequency ofinteraction, F(2, 55) = 1.88, p > .05. A post hoc analysis showed that people in EIBrelationships who interacted with an on-line acquaintance on a daily basis had higherattitude similarity scores (M = 24.16; SD — 4.30) than those who interacted with anon-line friend on a daily basis (M = 16.75; SD = 4.80), but individuals in EIBrelationships who communicated with an on-line friend on a weekly basis had higherattitude similarity scores [M = 19.85; SD — 3.99) than participants who interactedwith an on-line acquaintance on a weekly basis (M = 18.00; SD = 4.49). In otherwords, participants in EIB relationships who talked daily to on-line acquaintancesperceived their partner to be more similar in terms of attitudes than people who talkedwith on-line friends on a daily basis. However, people who talked only on a weeklybasis with on-line friends felt they were more similar to their partner than people whotalked to an acquaintance on only a weekly basis.

Similarly, as far as background similarity was concerned, the ANOVAs revealedthat, for people within EIB relationships, there was a significant interaction effectbetween type of on-line relationship and frequency of interaction, F (2, 55) = 3.25,p < .05, but no significant main effect for either type of on-line relationship, F (1,55) = 2.31 p > .05, or frequency of interaction, F(2, 55) = .18, p > .05. Much likethe findings for attitude similarity, the post hoc analysis indicated that people in EIBrelationships who interacted with an on-line acquaintance on a daily basis had higherbackground similarity scores (M— 21.83; SD = 7.33) than those who interacted withan on-line friend on a daily basis (M = 14.62; SD = 3.88), but individuals in EIBrelationships who communicated with an on-line friend on a weekly basis had higherbackground similarity scores (M = 19.95; SD = 5.64) than participants whointeracted with an on-line acquaintance on a weekly basis (M = 18.16; SD = 5.60).Like attitude similarity, people who talked daily with on-line acquaintances perceivedtheir partner to be more similar than people who talked to friends on a daily basis, butpeople who talked to on-line friends on a weekly basis perceived their partner to bemore similar in terms of background than people who talked weekly to an on-lineacquaintance.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the role of relationalmaintenance in on-line relationships, particularly on the types of relational mainte-nance strategies used, and perceptions of similarity, communication quality, andrelational communication in relationships that are being maintained through theInternet. In addition, the study was interested in differences in perceptions of relationalpartners between people maintaining EIB and PIB relationships. This section exploressome of the theoretical implications of the current study for the areas of relationalmaintenance and computer-mediated communication, limitations of the study, andsuggestions for future research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


The findings indicate that while many strategies were used to maintain on-linerelationships in the study, openness and positivity were the most frequent (whetherparticipants were in EIB or PIB relationships and controlling for type of relationship).While this finding is somewhat limited, it sheds some light on strategies that areperceived to be useful or important when maintaining a relationship on the Internet.Since most individuals on the Internet currently use email or chat applications wheninteracting with others, it could be that openness and positivity are more easilyexpressed in written form compared to other strategies (e.g. assurances), or they areperceived as more effective.

In addition, while avoidance strategies may help to preserve relationships in theface-to-face world, they may increase uncertainty in on-line relationships. Some jointon-line activities are possible, including playing on-line games, chatting together, etc.,but these may not be perceived as helpful for maintaining relationships as actually"being together" in the face-to-face world. The relatively high number of individualsin PIB relationships using the "other" maintenance strategy category who mentionedthat being in the same place as their partner or the ability to touch their partnersuggests that some people find email or chatting to be somewhat limiting whenmaintaining a relationship. Future research would benefit by examining unique wayspeople maintain relationships on-line and by developing a relational maintenancetypology specifically for on-line relationships.

Since people in EIB and PIB relationships did not differ significantly in terms ofthe type of on-line relational maintenance strategy they used, it is unknown whetherpeople in each type of relationship have similar maintenance strategy preferences orif limitations of the computer make it easier to engage in some maintenance strategiesover others. Future research on on-line maintenance would benefit from assessing thereasons why people prefer one type of on-line maintenance strategy to another. Itwould be also useful to assess cases in which on-line relational maintenance ispreferred to face-to-face relational maintenance when people are engaged in PIBrelationships. As O'Sullivan (2000) found, people may prefer on-line communicationto face-to-face communication if it allows them certain advantages, such as morecontrol over content and relational communication.

Another focus of the study was the relationship between on-line maintenancestrategies and perceptions of similarity, quality of communication, and relationalcommunication within EIB and PIB relationships. The finding that people who usedpositivity and on-line activities with their on-line partner had higher attitude similarityscores than those who used avoidance indicates that attitude similarity may be impor-tant for those individuals who use positivity and on-line activities as maintenancestrategies. Positivity has been found to be common maintenance strategy for people inlong-distance relationships in previous research (Van Horn et al., 1997), but a limita-tion of the current study is that it is unknown how many of the relationships in thecurrent study were long-distance. Perhaps positivity is seen as effective when peopleperceive their partner to be similar in terms of attitudes. Since the decision to developon-line relationships is largely based upon perceptions of similarity between partners(Barnes, 2003), it is likely that people who wish to maintain an on-line relationshipwould attempt to make the interaction pleasant or convey positive affiliation otherways.

Moreover, unlike background similarity, which is typically assessed in the face-to-face world primarily from nonverbal social cues such as appearance, it is easier toform impressions of attitude similarity in text-based computer-mediated communica-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


tion, and people on-line are likely to make judgments about others based on attitudesimilarity over background similarity. It is not surprising that attitude similarity scoreswere high for people engaging in on-line activities, since mutual on-line activities suchas playing games together typically require a mutual interest in the activity.

It is not relatively apparent why people who used avoidance strategies had lowerattitude similarity scores. Participants who perceived their on-line partner to bedissimilar may have found it easier to avoid talking about certain topics they felt theydid not have in common with their partner or that they reserve for conversations withpeople who hold more similar attitudes. Given that the sample consisted of collegestudents, in the cases where participants were maintaining a relationship with a familymember or even a close friend, there may have been certain topics that participantswanted to avoid (such as new relationships, alcohol use, or their sex life), especially ifthey believed the family member or friend would disapprove due to dissimilar viewson the subject. This would be consistent with Van Horn et al.'s (1997) findingsconcerning long-distance relationships.

In terms of the participants who used avoidance with on-line acquaintances, it ispossible that they perceived them to be dissimilar in terms of attitudes in general, butuseful when talking about certain specific topics. Research on weak tie networks incomputer-mediated contexts indicates that people sometimes form relationships withpeople who are dissimilar in order to receive different information or opinions thanwould be possible in more homogenous networks (Wellman, 1997). For example,since we tend to form relationships with people who are like us, our closer ties oftenhave limited viewpoints and information. According to Wellman (1997), computernetworks support larger networks of weak ties than the face-to-face world, and theseties are "usually better connected to other, more diverse social circles, and hence moreapt to be sources of new information" (p. 189). In cases where participants might havebeen seeking only specific types of information from weak ties, it is likely they avoidedtalking about other topics that might be reserved for closer relationships.

The finding that people using positivity and openness as maintenance strate-gies had higher quality of communication scores than individuals using othermaintenance strategies suggests that individuals may find it easier to use positivityand openness if they perceive their on-line partner's communication to exhibitqualities such as being relaxed, informal, in-depth, and open. Participants whofound the interaction to be more strained, formal, superficial, and closed may havefound that other maintenance strategies were more effective for them. A limitationof the current study is that there are other perceptions of on-line communicationquality that people form based upon messages, such as perceptions of competence.Future research would benefit by more closely examining perceptions of quality ofcommunication (and other characteristics of on-line messages) and how they maybe related to relational maintenance.

In terms of differences in perceptions of similarity, quality of communicationbetween individuals maintaining an EIB or a PIB relationship, the finding thatpeople maintaining PIB friendships had significantly higher relational communi-cation scores and higher background similarity scores than people maintaining EIBfriendships can be partially explained by the limitations of CMC. Having somedegree of face-to-face interaction or communication via richer media (e.g. tele-phone) and/or a relational history with their partner (especially in the case offamily members) allows people to develop more accurate perceptions of theirpartner, and this is likely to effect both relational communication and certainly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


perceptions of background similarity (Wallace, 1999; Walther, 1996). In addition,in the face-to-face world, perceptions based upon nonverbal cues typically overrideperceptions of verbal messages, particularly when nonverbal cues send a messagethat disconfirms the verbal message. Perhaps participants who have not interactedwith a relational partner in the face-to-face world have greater uncertainty abouttheir partners in terms of perceptions of relational communication and backgroundsimilarity. Future research could benefit from assessing whether people in EIBrelationships have greater uncertainty about their partners than people in PIBrelationships, and the effects this might have on the relationship.

The finding that individuals maintaining EIB relationships who talked daily toon-line acquaintances perceived their partner to be more similar in terms ofattitudes and background than people who talked with on-line friends on a dailybasis, and people who talked only on a weekly basis with on-line friends felt theywere more similar to their partner than people who talked to an acquaintance ononly a weekly basis can be partially explained by and Walther's (1994) theory ofon-line impression development and Walther's (1996) theory of hyperpersonalinteraction.

For the people who talked daily with on-line acquaintances, perhaps these indi-viduals developed skewed perceptions of their partner, even though they did notconsider them to be friends. Hyperpersonal interaction theory predicts that when cuesare limited, and people do not have additional disconfirming data, they often developidealized perceptions of their partner, even in cases when a partner is relatively astranger. Perhaps the daily interaction with on-line acquaintances for people in thecues-limited EIB relationships developed skewed perceptions of attitude and back-ground similarity based upon frequent, but incomplete information (due to the lack ofcues that might disconfirm their perceptions).

People in EIB relationships who considered their partner to be a friend may havelearned more about their partner as the relationship intensified and developed morerealistic perceptions of attitude and background similarity. The reasons why a personconsiders an individual a friend rather than an acquaintance may be more importantthan the frequency of interaction since perceptions of friends tended to be similarwhether a person communicated on a daily or weekly basis. In the case of people whoonly talked to an acquaintance on a weekly basis, perhaps not enough interaction hadtaken place for participants to develop the perception (skewed or accurate) that theirpartner was similar in terms of attitude and background. Walther (1994) found that ittakes longer to develop perceptions of relational communication in strictly on-linerelationships, and perhaps it takes a minimal level of interaction to develop eitherskewed or accurate perceptions.

One explanation could be that perceptions in EIB relationships follow a curvi-linear pattern. Initially, people may develop skewed perceptions (even when interact-ing frequently) due to limited disconfirming cues. However, since these cues are oftencommunicated more slowly over time through text-based messages (Walther, 1994),this may lead to more accurate impressions of one's relational partner as the time goeson and the relationship develops (especially if disconfirming information reveals itselfover time through textual messages). After initial perceptions are developed, perhapsthese become part of a person's relational schema for their on-line partner and lessfrequent interaction will not necessarily alter these perceptions. Of course, a majorlimitation of this study was defining frequency of on-line interaction as daily, weekly,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


or monthly. Future studies would benefit from examining the development andmaintenance of EIB relationships over time and how perceptions of relational partnerschange.

REFERENCES

Ayers, J . (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usage. CommunicationQuarterly, 31, 62-67.

Barnes, S. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: Human-to-human communication across the Internet. Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Baym, N. K. (2000). Tune in, log on: Soaps, fandom, and online community. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageBell, R. A., Daly, J . A., & Gonzalez, C. (1987). Affinity-maintenance in marriage and its relationship to

women's marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 445-454.Burgoon, J . K., & Hale, J . L. (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational

communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.Burleson, B. R. (1998). Similarities in social skills, interpersonal attraction, and the development of personal

relationships. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the twenty-first century (pp. 77-84). Boston,Allyn & Bacon.

Burleson, B. R , & Denton, W. (1992). A new look at similarity an attraction in marriage: Similarities insocial-cognitive and communication skills as predictors of attraction and satisfaction. Communication Monographs,59, 268-287.

Canary, D., Hause, K., & Messman, S. (1993, November). Motives, strategies, and equity in the maintenanceof cross-sex friendships. Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association. Miami, FL.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. InD. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.

Canary, D., Stafford, L., Hause, K., & Wallace, L. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenancestrategies: A comparison among young lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10,5-14.

Clark, L. S. (1995). Dating on the net: Teens and the rise of "pure" relationships. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck(Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 159-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohill, A. M., & Kavenaugh, A. L. (1997). Community network: Lessons from Blachburg, Virginia. Norwood,MA: Artech House.

Dainton, M., Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J . (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictorsof love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7, 88 -98.

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158.

Dindia, K., & Canary, D.J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on relational maintenance. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-173.

Duck, S. W. (1994). Steady as (s)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system. In D. Canary,& L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 45-60). New York: Academic Press.

Duck, S. W., & Rutt, D. (1989). The experience of everyday relational communications: are all communi-cations created equal? Paper presented at the annual Speech Communication Association Convention, NewOrleans, LA.

Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional

alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250-268.Fox, S., Rainie, L., Larsen, E., Horrigan, J., Lenhart, A., Spooner, T., & Carter, C. (2001). The Pew Internet and

American life project. Retrieved September 25, 2002, Available: http://www.perinternet.org/Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., & Wabnik, A. I. (1993). Linking maintenance strategies to relationship

development and disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 273-283.Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1998). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In

S. G.Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisting CMC and community (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Leatham, G., & Duck, S. (1990). Conversations with friends and dynamics of social support. In S. Duck &

R. C. Silver (Eds.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 1-29). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.McCroskey, J . C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J . A. (1975). The measurement of perceived homophily in

interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323-332.Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of

maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 67-94.O'Sullivan, P. B. (2000). What you don't know won't hurt ME: Impression management functions of

communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26, 403-431.Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,

44(2), 175-196.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2


Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 14, 85-108.Preece, J . J., & Ghozati, K. (2001). Experiencing empathy on-line. In R. E. Rice, & J . E. Katz (Eds.), The

Internet and health communication: Experiences and expectations (pp. 237-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computer-mediated

communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85-108.Rohlfing, M. (1995). "Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore?" An exploration of the understudied

phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance(pp. 23-44). New York: Academic Press.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Touchstone.Vangelisti, A. L., & Huston, T. L. (1994). Maintaining marital satisfaction and love. In D. J. Canary & L.

Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 165-186). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Van Horn, K. R., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Giffin, M., & Brudi, R. (1997). Physical

distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students' romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4,15-24.

Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.Wallerstein, J . (1995). The good marriage: How and why love lasts. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective.

Communication Research, 19, 50-88.Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in

computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501.Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal

interaction. Communication Research, (23), 3-43.Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction.

Communication Research, 21, 460-487.Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support In C. A. Lin & D. Atkin

(Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153-188). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Walther, J . B., & Burgoon, J . K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human

Communication Research, 19, 50-88.Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet

(pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships (2nd Ed.). Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth.Wood, A. F., & Smith, M.J. (2001). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, and culture. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.Wright, K. B. (2000a). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived homophily,

source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support groups. Communication Quarterly, 48,44-59.

Wright, K. B. (2000b). The communication of social support within an on-line community for older adults:A qualitative analysis of the SeniorNet community. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 1, 33-43.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

8:34

05

Oct

ober

201

2

Documents

On‐line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners within exclusively internet‐based and primarily internet‐based relationships