Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 796

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time

Walther, Joseph B.·1995·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.6.2.186
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous research on the interpersonal effects of computer-mediated communication (CMC) reveals inconsistencies. In some cases CMC has been found to be impersonal, task-oriented, and hostile. Other reports show warm personal relations, and still others show gradual adjustments in interpersonal relations over time. The past research results are also difficult to compare, as their research methods reveal inconsistent approaches. These inconsistencies include the treatment of time limits on group development, the neglect of nonverbal behavior in face-to-face, comparison groups, and other measurement issues. Each of these factors may obscure our understanding of the way CMC partners get to know and come to relate to each other through CMC. The present study attempts to address some of these concerns. This study explored the effects of computer conferencing on the interpersonal messages with which people define their relationships, known as relational communication. Observers rated the relational communication from transcripts of CMC conversations or from videotapes of face-to-face three-person groups who had worked in several sessions. Analyses showed that CMC groups achieved more positive levels on several dimensions of interpersonal communication than did face-to-face groups. On other dimensions, no differences between conditions were found. In no case did CMC groups express less intimacy or more task-orientation than face-to-face groups. Implications are drawn suggesting that under certain conditions, CMC may promote positive relational effects in ways that previous theories have not considered, and in some ways superior to more traditional media.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.6.2.186

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Walther, J. B.
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1995-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
186-203
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.6.2.186
OpenAlex
W1973427002
Cited by
796
References
7
FWCI
17.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.