This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]

On: 27 October 2014, At: 16:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Internet and face‐to‐face

communication: Not functional
alternatives
a b c
Lisa M. Flaherty , Kevin J. Pearce & Rebecca B. Rubin
a
Part‐time instructor in the School of Communication Studies ,
Kent State University ,
b
Assistant Professor of Communication , Bryant College ,
c
Professor of Communication Studies , Kent State University ,
Kent, OH, 44242
Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Lisa M. Flaherty , Kevin J. Pearce & Rebecca B. Rubin (1998) Internet and
face‐to‐face communication: Not functional alternatives, Communication Quarterly, 46:3, 250-268,
DOI: 10.1080/01463379809370100

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379809370100

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Internet and Face-to-Face
Communication: Not
Functional Alternatives

Lisa M. Flaherty, Kevin J. Pearce, and Rebecca B. Rubin

This study is a preliminary investigation of computer-mediated communication (CMC)

as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication. We examined the relationships
between motives for using the Internet as a CMC channel and motives for face-to-face
interactions as well as the influence of locus of control and communication apprehension
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

as antecedents of face-to-face and mediated interactions. We surveyed a sample (N=132)

of Internet users and tested the hypothesis that no differences exist between CMC and
interpersonal communication motives (i.e., that they would be functional alternatives).
We also used MANOVA and ANOVA procedures to see if main and interaction effects
existed for high and low locus of control and high and low CMC apprehension
respondents on interpersonal and media motives. Results indicated CMC Apprehension
main effect differences for communication motives, and that use of the Internet as a
communication channel is not perceived as a functional alternative to face-to-face
communication.

KEY CONCEPTS Internet motives, functional alternatives, interpersonal

motives, locus of control, computer-mediated communication apprehension

Lisa M. Flaherty (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1998) is a part-time instructor in

the School of Communication Studies, Kent State University. Kevin J. Pearce
(M.A., San Diego State University, 1992) is a Doctoral candidate in the School of
Communication Studies, Kent State University, and Assistant Professor of
Communication at Bryant College. Rebecca B. Rubin (Ph.D., University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, 1975) is Professor of Communication Studies, Kent State
University, Kent, OH 44242. A version of this paper was presented at the 1996
International Communication Association annual meeting, Chicago. We thank
Amy L. Barta for her assistance in the initial planning stages and data collection.

W hen was the last time you sent a colleague down the hall an E-mail message
instead of meeting with him/her face-to-face? Why do children who live
next door to one another interact in chat rooms rather than play together
or talk by phone? With the advent of the Internet, some wonder if this channel will
replace interpersonal communication via traditional face-to-face or mediated
channels.

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 46, No 3, Summer 1998, Pages 250-268

 Over the last several decades, communication researchers have examined mass
media and interpersonal as distinct communication channels. However, emergent
technologies now have interactive capabilities that minimize these distinctions
(Williams & Rice, 1983). New communication technologies provide more channels for
communicating (Perse & Courtright, 1993), which impact traditional media use and
affect communication need satisfaction (Williams, Phillips, & Lum, 1985). Williams et
al. suggested research should examine the use of interactive media as a "convenient
substitute" for traditional forms of communication. A. Rubin and Rubin (1985) argued
that mediated and personal channels of communication can "coexist and substitute
for each other" (p. 49). Thus, investigating computer-mediated channels as possible
functional alternatives to face-to-face communication will help us discover which
interpersonal motives influence the use of computers for interpersonal communication.
In this study we explored whether Internet and face-to-face communication
channels are functional alternatives for each other. Katz, Gurevitch, and Haas (1973)
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

argued that if two media serve the same need equally, they are functional alternatives.
Conversely, if two media are designed especially to serve different, particular needs
(e.g., television fulfills entertainment motives better than information motives, which
are better fulfilled by newspapers), then they are not alternatives, but specialized.
Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication seem to be functionally
specialized (i.e., not alternatives). To explore this relationship, we identified six
interpersonal communication motives and seven mediated communication motives.
If the Internet is a functional alternative to face-to-face communication, respondents
should rate the Internet motives as just as likely to gratify interpersonal
communication needs as face-to-face communication motives. If face-to-face
communication is a functional alternative to the Internet, respondents should rate
mediated communication motives just as likely to gratify Internet needs as
interpersonal communication motives.
Some researchers have already examined mediated communication as a
functional alternative to face-to-face interactions (e.g., Perse & Courtright, 1993).
Rosengren and Windahl (1972) noted that people normally have one preferred method
of satisfying a need, but other possible methods exist Their example of the need for
social interaction is especially pertinent here because they argued that people who are
introverted may not be able to use the "natural" method of satisfying this need and
may, instead, choose a substitute, complementary, or supplementary method. In this
study, people who have computer-mediated communication apprehension should
prefer face-to-face communication channels to satisfy at least some interpersonal
needs.
The fastest growing new communication technology is the Internet Although the
Internet has been operational for quite some time, home use has ballooned
substantially in the last five years. In 1994 (Krol), over 30 million people had access to
the Internet and millions have gained access since then. Interactive functions, such as
electronic mail and "chat" sessions, provide opportunities for people to communicate
directly with others via the computer. Prior computer mediated communication
research focused on organizational settings or interactions (Rice, 1993; Steinfield,
1986; Trevino, Lengl, & Daft, 1987; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) or political computer
bulletin boards (Garramone, Harris, & Anderson, 1986). Similarly, other researchers
have explained uses of communication channels by examining various message
channels (Perse & Courtright, 1993), television viewing motives (A. Rubin, 1983),

Internet 251
 videocassette recorders (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1989), computer-mediated communication
(Walther & Burgoon, 1992), and electronic mail (Rice, 1993; Steinfield, 1986; Trevino,
et al., 1987). Collectively, these studies provided support for the impact of changing
technologies on interpersonal communication. Furthermore, they implied that
communication technologies might be functional alternatives to face-to-face
interactions.
Interactive and informational retrieval dimensions characterize new
communication technologies (such as the Internet). The interactive dimensions enable
the medium to satisfy interpersonal needs that have traditionally been satisfied by
other channels (Williams, Stover, & Grant, 1994). Informational retrieval tools, such
as Gopher, World Wide Web (WWW), and File Transfer Protocol (FTP), allow people
to access information from databases all over the world. As a result, the Internet can
function as a unique medium to satisfy both interpersonal and mediated
communication needs. Based on the evidence that changing technologies influence
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

interpersonal interaction, we reasoned that the Internet might be a functional

alternative to face-to-face communication, particularly for interactive purposes.
The present study is a preliminary investigation of computer mediated
communication (CMC) as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication.
First, we examined the relationship between motives for using the Internet as a CMC
channel and for using face-to-face interactions. If CMC complements face-to-face
communication, there will be no difference between the interpersonal motives (e.g.,
inclusion, affection, and relaxation) for communicating on the Internet and
communicating face-to-face; one channel could be a functional alternative for the
other. This notion would be especially true for interpersonal motives that rely on
interaction (e.g., pleasure, affection, and inclusion). But if differences exist between
these two channels, then we cannot consider one a substitute (i.e., a functional
alternative) for the other.
Second, we examined the influence of two antecedents (CMC Apprehension and
Locus of Control) of face-to-face and mediated interactions. In so doing, we examine
antecedents of communication and how they influence the motives for initiating
interaction. Uses and Gratifications provides the guiding perspective for this research.
Uses and Gratifications (U&G) is the most appropriate theoretical framework for
this study because it is suitable for both mediated and interpersonal research (A. Rubin
& Rubin, 1985) and is especially appropriate for studying new communication
technologies (A. Rubin & Bantz, 1987). The U&G perspective is based upon five
underlying assumptions (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1985). First, communication behavior is
goal-directed, purposive, and motivated. Second, people are active in selecting and
using communication vehicles to satisfy needs. Third, people are able to identify their
own communication motives and gratifications. Fourth, the media compete with
other forms of communication for attention, selection, and use. And fifth, people are
influenced by various social and psychological factors when selecting among
communication alternatives. The present study incorporates the assumption that
people are motivated to choose CMC as a functional alternative to face-to-face
interaction. Computer mediated communication is one of the fastest growing new
communication technologies.

Computer-Mediated-Communication
CMC is "synchronous or asynchronous electronic mail and computer

252 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 conferencing, by which senders encode in text messages that are relayed from senders'
computers to receivers'" (Walther, 1992, p. 52). CMC has profound effects on how
people communicate (Fulk & Ryu, 1990; Williams & Rice, 1983) and has extended and
enhanced face-to-face interactions (Cathcart & Gumpert, 1985). CMC can, however,
make communication exchanges more difficult (Bruning, 1992).
Relational dimensions of face-to-face (i.e., nonverbal elements) do not exist in
CMC (Kiesler, Zubrow, Moses, & Geller, 1985) and limit relational meaning. However,
people insert relational icons into the text of the message to convey feelings of sadness
[:(], surprise [:o], or happiness [:)] (Krol, 1994). Electronic paralanguage conveys
relational messages such as intentional misspellings, spatial arrays, and ALL
CAPITAL LETTERS to convey yelling. People who communicate on the Internet alter
the impersonal nature of CMC by using interactive capacities and electronic
paralanguage. These modified interactions create higher social presence (Garramone
et al., 1986) in the medium, which has expanded the amount of and reasons for using
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

new communication technologies. People who use the interactive capabilities of

political computer bulletin boards (i.e., send and receive messages) perceive the
medium as more personal, social, and warm (Garramone et al., 1986). Similarly, the
more personal people perceive E-mail to be, the more people use E-mail to convey
socially related messages (Steinfield, 1986).
Additionally, CMC filters out demographic and socioeconomic information about
the user, such as sex and social status, which also limits relational meaning (Finholt,
Sproull, & Kiesler, 1990). However, information such as status becomes known
through message strategies (Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994; Walther & Burgoon,
1992). For example, people higher in status tend not to "sign" their name at the end of
E-mail messages (Walther, 1992). Because relational adaptations make CMC more
personal in nature and conducive to interpersonal interactions (Walther, 1992), the
importance of understanding the relationship between CMC and face-to-face
interactions becomes evident.
CMC has overcome relational dimension limitations through adaptive message
strategies. Users consider CMC, such as E-mail and political computer bulletin boards,
as vehicles for interpersonal communication because they are interactive and
personal (Garramone et al., 1986; Rice, 1993; Steinfield, 1986; Trevino et al., 1987).
Previous research on CMC has examined the motives for use (Garramone et al., 1986),
but interpersonal motives have not been examined. As CMC becomes more popular for
social interaction, we need to understand why people use the medium for
interpersonal communication.

Interpersonal and Media Motives

Traditional interpersonal communication research examines how people
communicate rather than the reasons why people communicate (R. Rubin, Perse, &
Barbato, 1988). Interpersonal motives are an important link between predispositions
and communication. Interpersonal motives influence communication patterns and
choice of communication partners (Graham, Barbato, & Perse, 1993) as well as channel
choice (Perse & Courtright, 1993). U&G theory stipulates that people are motivated to
fulfill communication needs, and they select appropriate channels to accomplish
interpersonal goals as well (Perse & Courtright, 1993; A. Rubin & Rubin, 1985).
Furthermore, people are motivated to communicate with others face-to-face
to fulfill interpersonal needs. Schutz (1966) identified inclusion, affection, and control

Internet 253
 as the three primary interpersonal communication needs. Inclusion is the need to be
included or include others in a group. Affection refers to the need to express love or be
loved by others. Control is the need to exert power over others or allow others to exert
power. R. Rubin et al. (1988) identified pleasure, relaxation, and escape as three
additional interpersonal communication motives. Pleasure fulfills a need to be
entertained and aroused. Relaxation motives fulfill the need to unwind, rest, or feel less
tense. Escape motives fulfill the need to avoid activities and worries by
communicating with others. Inclusion, affection, control, pleasure, relaxation, and
escape are interpersonal communication motives that have traditionally been
examined in media research (A. Rubin, 1983; A. Rubin & Bantz, 1987; R. Rubin & Rubin,
1992).
Media researchers have identified several media-specific motives for using a
particular medium (Garramone et al., 1986; A. Rubin, 1981; A. Rubin & Rubin, 1989).
Many of these are particularly salient to the Internet social interaction, pass time,
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

habit, information, time-shifting, entertainment, and to meet people. People visit chat
rooms to meet new people and to interact socially with others, they visit web sites to
pass the time of day or for entertainment, they check their E-mail habitually, FTP files
for information, and use E-mail to time-shift
Interpersonal and media communication motives are related (Bruning, 1992; A.
Rubin & Rubin, 1989). People who enjoy interpersonal communication view CMC as
a positive and efficient way to communicate (Bruning, 1992). The mutual use of
interpersonal and media related communication motives indicate people may
communicate on the Internet to satisfy interpersonal needs not satisfied face-to-face.
Interpersonal motives of inclusion, affection, and escape predict VCR motives of
seeking companionship, alleviating boredom, and wanting to entertain others and the
interpersonal control motive predicts VCR motives of time-shifting and learning (A.
Rubin & Rubin, 1989). Additionally, people who communicate for enjoyment also
communicate for relaxation and escape (Bruning, 1992). The results of these studies
underscore the interactive nature of interpersonal motives in media and interpersonal
contexts.
The relationship between interpersonal and mediated communication motives
warrants investigation of the Internet as a functional alternative for interaction. The
first goal of this study is to examine the Internet as a functional alternative to face-to-
face communication. Given the limited research in this area, the following research
questions guide this study:

RQ1: How are interpersonal motives related to computer-

mediated motives?
RQ2: Are computer-mediated communication channels functional
alternatives for face-to-face communication?

Antecedents to Communication Motives

Another goal of this study is to examine communication motives in relation to
antecedent variables in interpersonal and Internet communication. R. Rubin and
Rubin (1992) proposed and tested a model that viewed social position and personality
predispositions as antecedents to communication needs and motives, as stipulated in
U&G's fifth assumption. The model further presented interpersonal and media
channels as functional alternatives (i.e., one can substitute for the other when the

254 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 channel of choice is not available). In the model, needs influence channel choice and
the strategies used to bring about need-fulfilling outcomes. Specifically, two
antecedents that have been found influential in understanding why people
communicate interpersonally are locus of control (Brenders, 1987; Canary,
Cunningham, & Cody, 1988; DeCharms, 1972; A. Rubin, 1993; R. Rubin & Rubin, 1992;
Steinfatt, 1987) and communication apprehension (Kondo, 1994; R. Rubin et al., 1988;
A. Rubin, 1993). This model, firmly grounded in U&G theory, guided the selection of
the antecedent variables in this particular study. Locus of control and communication
anxiety are related to interpersonal communication needs but are they also related to
CMC motives?
Locus of control (LOQ refers to "mastery of one's environment" (A. Rubin, 1993,
p. 162) and helps to explain communication behavior. People who are oriented
internally are assertive, feel powerful, believe they are responsible for change in their
environment (DeCharms, 1972; Rotter, 1966), and communicate prosocially (Canary
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

et al., 1988). Internals interact with others to fulfill inclusion, affection, and control
needs (R. Rubin & Rubin, 1992). People who are oriented externally feel powerless,
believe their environments control them, prefer situations that require little personal
control (Brenders, 1987), and communicate antisocially (Canary et al., 1988).
Externals have a greater need for affiliation (Steinfatt, 1987) and seek conversations
for inclusion, escape, and to some extent, control needs (R. Rubin & Rubin, 1992).
Whether people are internally or externally oriented, LOC serves as an antecedent to
interpersonal communication motivation and behavior (Brenders, 1987; A. Rubin,
1993; R. Rubin & Rubin, 1992). Thus, Internals and Externals both communicate to seek
control and inclusion, Internals to keep the control and inclusion they already enjoy,
and Externals to enhance what little control and connections they have with others.
We might expect differences, however, on affection and escape. Because control was
such a salient factor in prior media research and in uses and gratifications research in
general, we include it here as a possible explanatory variable.
Communication apprehension (CA) also influences interpersonal communication
motivation and behavior (Kondo, 1994; A. Rubin, 1993; R. Rubin et al., 1988).
Communication apprehension is a person's level of anxiety associated with real or
anticipated interaction with others (McCroskey, 1993). High apprehensives
communicate to fulfill inclusion (R. Rubin et al., 1988) and escape needs (Kondo, 1994).
Low communication apprehensives communicate to fulfill pleasure, affection, and
control needs (R. Rubin et al., 1988; Kondo, 1994; A. Rubin, 1993). High and low
apprehensives have different interpersonal needs.
Locus of control is positively related to communication apprehension (A. Rubin,
1993; McCroskey, Daly, & Sorenson, 1976). People who are externally oriented are also
high in communication apprehension. Conversely, people who are internally oriented
are low in communication apprehension. Simply, people who feel powerless are more
fearful of interactions with others than people who feel powerful about events in their
lives. LOC and CA influence how and why people communicate interpersonally and
why people turn to other channels to satisfy interpersonal needs. Accordingly, LOC
and CA should also influence why people communicate on the Internet
The conceptual basis for CA has strongly influenced the development of the
computer-mediated communication apprehension (CMCA) construct As such, CA is
significantly and positively correlated with CMCA (Clarke, 1991). Although research
links CA to several face-to-face communication contexts and variables (R. Rubin et al.,

Internet 255
 1988), we chose to examine CMCA because it reflects anxiety associated with
interacting with others via the computer (Clarke, 1991), thus being appropriate for
mediated interpersonal communication contexts. Although CMCA might not
function precisely as CA would in all interactions, we measured CMCA because (a)
CMCA and CA have a conceptual similarity and (b) this study focuses on mediated
interpersonal communication rather than face-to-face interaction.
Similar to high CAs, high CMCAs should avoid or minimize interaction when
using computer mediated communication systems. Clarke's (1991) study
demonstrated the influences of the communication disposition CMCA on CMC
interactions. These results were concurrent with previous findings on CA. The results
of the above studies provide support for studying the influence of LOC and CMCA in
computer-mediated communication contexts.

Hypotheses
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Locus of control is an antecedent to interpersonal communication motives and

influences interpersonal and mediated communication. External LOC reflects the
belief that one is controlled by one's environment External LOCs are motivated to
engage in face-to-face social interactions as well as use mediated technologies for
inclusion and escape (A. Rubin, 1993) and to some extent, control (R. Rubin & Rubin,
1992). Externals also tend to communicate ritualistically for escape in both mediated
and interpersonal contexts (A. Rubin, 1993).
Conversely, internal LOC reflects the belief that one controls one's environment
Internal LOC people tend to seek out conversations for pleasure, inclusion, affection,
and control (R. Rubin & Rubin, 1992). In fact, the need for control may be much higher
for Internals than for Externals. If the Internet is a functional alternative to face-to-
face, these results will be replicated and consistent for both face-to-face and the
Internet Based upon these findings, we offer the following hypotheses:

Hla: External LOCs will use the Internet and seek face-to-face
interactions for inclusion, escape, and social interaction more
than will internal LOCs.
Hlb: Internal LOCs will use the Internet and seek face-to-face
interactions for pleasure, affection, and control more than
will external LOCs.

Researchers often treat CA, which represents one's level of fear associated with
real or anticipated communication with others, as a face-to-face context dependent
variable (e.g., dyad, small group, meeting, and public). Clarke (1991) has extended
McCroskey's (1993) contexts by looking at CA in computer-mediated dyads and
defined CMCA as the level of anxiety associated with using computers to interact with
others. People high in CA communicate to fulfill inclusion (R. Rubin et al., 1988) and
escape needs (Kondo, 1994). People low in CA communicate to fulfill pleasure,
affection, and control needs (Kondo, 1994; A. Rubin, 1993; R. Rubin et al., 1988).
Because CA and CMCA are positively related, we predicted similar findings for
computer-mediated interaction. These hypotheses serve, in effect, as a null hypothesis
that high apprehensives' motives for using face-to-face and computer mediated
communication would not differ:

256 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 H2a: High CMCAs will use the Internet and engage in face-to-face
interactions for inclusion and escape more than low CMCAs.
H2b: Low CMCAs will use the Internet and engage in face-to-face
interactions for pleasure, affection, and control more than
high CMCAs.

Furthermore, CA is positively related to external locus of control (McCroskey et al.,

1976). People high in CA are less likely to initiate or control conversations (Arnston,
Mortenson, & Lustig, 1980). External LOCs are generally more apprehensive about
interactions (A. Rubin, 1993). Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is
presented:

H3: External LOC will be positively related to CMCA.

Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

METHOD
Sample and Procedures
Similar to past mediated-channel research (A. Rubin & Bantz, 1987; A. Rubin &
Rubin, 1989), a purposive group of Internet users represented our sample. In the Spring
of 1996, we placed a posting message in six technology computer newsgroups and as
the message of the day on the computer system at a Midwestern university. The posting
message provided a general description of the study and request to participate. Self-
administered questionnaires were E-mailed to participants and returned by E-mail to
the researchers. Fifty-seven (92%) of the 62 requests were completed and returned.
Also, 14 computer questionnaires were completed by acquaintances of communication
majors who solicited assistance with the project, and 61 computer users in campus labs
completed questionnaires either at the lab or at home.
Participants (N = 132) ranged in age from 17 to 63 (M = 26.01, SD = 9.27). Fifty-five
percent were female. Almost all of the participants were either college students or had
earned a four-year college degree. Participants were asked to indicate how many hours
they used the Internet "yesterday." The frequency of use ranged from 1 to 13 hours
with an average of 2.73 hours (SD = 4.83). Participants were asked to indicate the areas
of the Internet they use. Ninety-five percent of the participants used electronic mail,
53% used newsgroups, 39% used FTP, 36% used listservs, and 30% used other services
such as WWW and Gopher.

Measurement
Locus of control. We used a modified version of Levenson's (1974) scale to measure
locus of control; R. Rubin and Rubin (1992) used this scale to examine LOC as an
antecedent of media communication motives. This modified scale had acceptable
reliabilities of .70 (powerful others control), .64 (internal control), and .58 (chance
control). The three dimensions combined represent an overall measure of locus of
control. A. Rubin (1993) reported a coefficient alpha of .78 for one 12-item scale. In this
study, the 10 highest-loading items were chosen and respondents indicated how much
they agreed with these statements on a scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5). Items were recoded before summing so that a high score represented
high internal locus of control and a low score indicated high external locus of control.
The present study resulted in a coefficient alpha of .78 for the scale. For some analyses,
high and low LOC groups were formed by using a median (37.5) split

Internet 257
 Computer-mediated communication apprehension. We used a shortened version of
Clarke's (1991) CMCA scale to measure computer-mediated communication
apprehension. The reliability of the CMCA scale was previously established with an
alpha of .93 (Clarke, 1991). The top eight loading items were used in this study; they
were modified to focus on the Internet 1 Respondents were asked to report their level
of agreement, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with statements
regarding anxiety associated with using a computer to communicate. The coefficient
alpha for this 8-item scale was .80. For some analyses, high and low CMCA groups were
formed by using a median (15.0) split
Communication motives. We also used a modified version of the Interpersonal
Communication Motives (ICM) scale (R. Rubin et al., 1988). Previous studies have
shown the ICM to be reliable, with alphas ranging from .66 to .88 for three-item indexes
(Graham et al., 1993; A. Rubin & Rubin, 1989). We felt a need to shorten this measure,
so instead of eliminating possibly important motives, we reduced the number of
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

statements to two per motive. Twelve top-loading items were selected to represent six
interpersonal motives (inclusion, affection, control, relaxation, escape, and pleasure)
for the present study. Seven media motives (social interaction, pass time, habit,
information, time-shifting, entertainment and to meet people) from technology
related studies were also included (Garramone et al., 1986; A. Rubin, 1981; A. Rubin &
Rubin, 1989).2 Social interaction is a companionship motive, whereas meeting people
involves developing new social relationships. Items not relevant to both contexts, and
therefore not included here, were: library storage and freedom of choice (A. Rubin &
Rubin), program content (A. Rubin), and surveillance, access to sponsoring legislator,
utility, curiosity, and technology (Garramone et al.).
Interpersonal and media related motives were measured for both face-to-face and
Internet contexts. We expected higher scores on interpersonal motives in face-to-face
contexts and higher scores on media motives for Internet use. Participants reported to
what degree the statements were like their own reason (1 = not at all, 5 = exactly) for
using the Internet to communicate and interacting face-to-face. Alpha reliabilities for
the two-item interpersonal motives scales ranged from .44 to .91. Alpha reliabilities for
the two-item computer-mediated motives scales ranged from .56 to .98. These alphas
and their corresponding inter-item correlations are reported parenthetically in Table
3.

RESULTS
Research question 1 asked how face-to-face interpersonal communication
motives are related to computer-mediated communication motives. Pearson product-
moment correlations were used to examine the relationships. As shown in Table 1,
many significant positive correlations were found between the face-to-face (FTF) and
Internet (NET) motives. The magnitude of some correlations was substantial. All face-
to-face motives were significantly correlated with their Internet counterparts. In
addition, FTF pleasure was related to NET affection, relaxation, and entertainment
motives. FTF inclusion was related to NET social interaction, pass time, and habit
motives. FTF affection was related to NET pleasure. FTF escape was related to NET
inclusion, relaxation, social interaction, pass time, and habit FTF information was
related to NET affection. FTF time-shifting was related to NET inclusion, control,
escape, and habit FTF social interaction was related to NET inclusion, relaxation,
social interaction, pass time, and habit FTF pass time was related to NET inclusion,

258 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 social interaction, pass time, and habit FTF habit was related to NET inclusion,
relaxation, escape, social interaction, and pass time. FTF entertain was related to NET
pleasure and relaxation. And the FTF meeting people motive was related to NET
affection, relaxation, and information motives.

TABLE 1
Intercorrelations Between Face-to-Face and Internet Communication Motives
Face-To-Face
Internet PL INC CO AF RE ES INF TS SI PT HA EN MP

Pleasure .43c .07 -.13 .26c .11 -.04 .13 .00 .12 .12 .05 .43c .18a
Inclusion .18b .40c .04 ,21b .25b .41c .11 .29c .49c .31c .39c .17a .17a
Control -.01 .14 .50c .01 .05 .24b .12 .27c .17a .06 .11 .03 .09
Affection .30c .18a .10 .39c .23b .02 .29c .19a .20a .15a .06 .24b .34c
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Relaxation .29c .25b .09 .21b .49c .27c .19b .25b .28c .24b .31c .35c .35c
Escape -.06 .24b .09 -.05 .13 .53c -.09 .31c .26b .17a .31c -.10 .01
Information .15a .03 .08 .04 .06 -.02 .27c .13 .07 -.01 -.04 .12 .32c
Time-Shift .01 .13 .07 .02 .16a .19a .07 .32c .17a .08 21 .01 .07
Social .09 .27c .08 .16a .19a .30c .10 .25b .43c .32c .30c .12 .17a
Interaction
Pass Time .04 .30c .08 .12 .21b .30c -.08 .21b .42c .42c .27c .06 .18a
Habit -.01 .36c .09 .03 .25b .36c -.06 .36c .43c .44c .57c -.00 .13
Entertain .26c .01 -.13 .08 .09 -.06 -.09 .00 .09 .10 -.01 .29c .16a
Meet People .21b .01 .01 .05 .15a -.08 .19a .17a -.01 -.00 .09 .17a .39c

Note. ap<.05 bp<.01 c/><.001

Research question 2 asked if computer-mediated communication channels are

functional alternatives for face-to-face communication. Examination of the
intercorrelations between face-to-face and Internet motives would seem to indicate
that they are alternatives, but t-tests were used to examine mean differences of the
motives. As discussed earlier, if means on the Internet motives do not differ from
means on the face-to-face motives, this would indicate the Internet is a functional
alternative to face-to-face interactions for that particular reason for communicating.
Mean differences were found for inclusion, control, affection, relaxation, escape,
information, social interaction, pass time, habit, entertainment, and meeting people,
indicating media specialization for these motives. No differences between face-to-face
and the Internet existed for pleasure and time-shifting motives, indicating functional
alternatives. Although significant differences were found, no motives were rated
higher for using the Internet than face-to-face communication. Table 2 presents t-
values, means, and standard deviations of Internet and face-to-face motives.
The first hypothesis examined motives in relation to locus of control. Hypothesis
la predicted externals would use the Internet and seek face-to-face interactions for
inclusion, escape, and social interaction more than internals. To test these hypotheses,
separate MANOVAs were employed for the face-to-face (F[13,100] = 1.38, p = .18) and
Internet (F[13,103] = 0.57, p = .87) motives. We also computed follow-up ANOVAs
because not all of the motives were significantly inter-correlated (an assumption when
using MANOVA procedures).
The ANOVA results reported in Table 3 indicate that external LOCs used the

Internet 259
 TABLE 2
Mean Motive Differences for Internet and Face-to-Face Channels

Internet Face-to-Face Mean Differences

MOTIVE M SD M SD t P

Pleasure 7.63 2.12 7.95 1.78 1.77 ns

Inclusion 3.94 2.43 6.62 2.56 11.18 .001
Control 3.54 1.79 4.86 2.12 7.56 .001
Affection 5.33 2.18 7.53 2.06 10.70 .001
Relaxation 5.58 2.67 6.52 2.19 4.30 .001
Escape 3.81 1.87 4.94 2.14 6.33 .001
Information 5.54 2.11 7.65 1.59 10.48 .001
Time-Shifting 5.20 2.25 5.57 2.17 1.61 ns
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Social Interaction 3.54 1.98 5.24 2.43 8.04 .001

Pass Time 4.80 2.33 6.06 2.46 5.61 .001
Habit 4.65 2.24 5.14 2.51 2.48 .05
Entertainment 7.92 1.89 8.53 1.47 3.48 .001
Meet People 5.76 2.25 7.27 1.82 7.50 .001

Internet for inclusion and for seeking face-to-face social interaction more than internal
LOCs, but the differences for escape and control were not significant Externals also
communicated face-to-face and through the Internet to pass time, yet used the Internet
for habit motives more than internals.

TABLE 3
ANOVA Summary Table for Communication Motives by Locus of Control

Internal External F <If P eta

Face-To-Face Motives
Pleasure (.85, .74) 8.21 7.92 0.41 1,116 .52 .09
Inclusion (.85, .74) 6.36 7.15 2.66 1,117 .11 .15
Control(.76,.61) 4.92 4.90 0.01 1,116 .92 .00
Affection (.78, .65) 7.82 7.42 0.37 1,117 .55 .10
Relaxation (.91,.83) 6.70 6.55 0.19 ,117 .66 .04
Escape (.58, .38) 4.45 5.58 3.82 1,115 .06 26
Information (.57, .35) 7.82 7.55 0.13 1,119 .72 .09
Time-Shifting (.83, .70) 5.38 5.82 0.24 [,117 .63 .10
Social Interaction (.85, .72) 4.72 5.84 4.27 ,117 .04 .23
Pass Time (.86, .78) 5.62 6.79 6.96 ,119 .01 29
Habit (.86, .75) 4.93 5.54 0.43 1 ,116 .52 .12
Entertainment (.84, .73) 8.85 8.34 2.20 ,119 .14 .19
Meeting People (.44, .32) 7.30 7.30 0.23 ,116 .63 .00
Internet Motives
Pleasure (.86, .72) 7.71 7.66 0.83 1 ,120 .36 .01
Inclusion (.88, .76) 3.50 4.52 4.27 ,120 .04 21
Control (.59, .46) 3.31 3.69 0.67 ,119 .42 .11
Affection (.59, .41) 5.31 5.56 2.23 1,120 .14 .06

260 Flaherty, Pearce, a n d Rubin

 TABLE 3 (cont.)
ANOVA Summary Table for Communication Motives by Locus of Control

Internal External F (if P eta

Relaxation (.96, .92) 5.40 5.98 3.42 ,120 .07 .11

Escape (.56, .38) 3.59 4.17 0.83 1,116 .36 .16
Information (.62, .47) 5.54 5.70 2.02 1,118 .16 .04
Time-Shifting(.80,.61) 4.95 5.51 1.22 ,119 .27 .13
Social Interaction (.77, .61) 3.23 3.93 3.61 1 ,119 .06 .18
Pass Time (.81 ,.68) 4.32 5.37 5.65 1,120 .02 .22
Habit (.78, .63) 4.11 5.24 5.88 1,120 .02 .26
Entertainment (.89, .78) 8.00 7.85 0.24 ,120 .62 .04
Meeting People (.61, .41) 5.76 5.74 0.94 ] ,120 .34 .00
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Note. Alpha reliabilities and correlations between items are in parentheses after each motive.

Hypothesis l b predicted that internals, more than externals, would use the
Internet and seek face-to-face interactions for affection and control. There were no
significant differences between internals and externals on these motives for face-to-
face interactions. However a trend appeared that internals seemingly communicated
face-to-face more for pleasure and entertainment than did externals.
The second hypothesis examined motives in relation to CMCA. We found a
significant main effect for CMCA (F[13,100] = 2.46, p < .01) for interpersonal motives
and a significant main effect for CMCA (F[13,103] = 3.42, p < .001) for Internet motives.
The means and follow-up ANOVA results for CMCA are found in Table 4.
Hypothesis 2a predicted high CMCAs would use the Internet and seek face-to-face
interactions for inclusion and escape. The ANOVAs in Table 4 revealed significant
differences in the expected direction for escape for both channels and for inclusion for
Internet communication. In addition, high computer apprehensives reported higher
motives for control, time-shifting, social interaction, and habit than low apprehensives.

TABLE 4
ANOVA Summary Table for Communication Motives by Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehension

High Low F df P eta

Face-to-Face Motives
Pleasure 7.82 8.20 1.57 1,123 .21 .11
Inclusion 6.89 6.49 0.75 1,124 .39 .08
Control 4.93 4.89 0.01 1,123 .91 .01
Affection 7.34 7.80 1.55 1,124 .22 .11
Relaxation 6.82 6.43 1.06 1,124 .30 .09
Escape 5.64 4.38 11.95 1,122 .001 .30
Information 7.46 7.83 1.75 1,126 .19 .12
Time-Shifting 6.07 5.12 6.18 1,124 .01 .22
Social Interaction 5.60 4.86 2.91 1,124 .09 .15
Pass Time 6.37 5.86 1.34 1,126 .25 .10
Habit 5.94 4.41 12.64 1,123 .001 .31
Entertainment 8.29 8.80 3.93 1,126 .05 .17
Meeting People 7.08 7.52 1.85 1,122 .18 .12

Internet 261
 TABLE 4 (cont.)
ANOVA Summary Table for Communication Motives by Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehension

High Low F df P eta

Internet Motives
Pleasure 7.13 8.05 6.44 1,127 .02 .22
Inclusion 4.64 3.26 11.30 1,127 .001 .29
Control 3.84 3.20 4.18 1,126 .04 .18
Affection 5.11 5.68 2.26 1,127 .02 .13
Relaxation 5.58 5.75 0.14 1,127 .71 .03
Escape 4.57 3.17 20.85 1,123 .001 .38
Information 5.13 6.02 5.78 1,125 .02 .21
Time-Shifting 5.77 4.73 7.03 1,126 .01 .23
Social Interaction 3.94 3.14 5.41 1,126 .02 .20
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Pass Time 5.11 4.54 1.95 1,127 .17 .12

Habit 5.36 3.92 15.05 1,127 .001 .33
Entertainment 7.44 8.35 7.88 1,127 .01 .24
Meeting People 5.34 6.06 3.38 1,127 .07 .16

Hypothesis 2b predicted low CMCAs would use the Internet and seek face-to-face
interactions for pleasure, affection, and control more than high CMCAs. A significant
difference between high and low CMCAs was found for Internet pleasure and
affection motives, but not for control. Low computer apprehensives also used the
Internet for information and entertainment motives more than high apprehensives.
The third hypothesis predicted external locus of control would be positively
related to high computer apprehension. A Pearson product-moment correlation
between CMCA (a low score is low apprehension) and LOC (a high score is internal
control) (r = -.28, p < .01, one-tailed) was significant This hypothesis was modestly
supported.

DISCUSSION
Implications
Locus of control is an antecedent to interpersonal communication motives and
influences interpersonal and mediated communication. People who are externally
oriented believe their life is controlled by others and are motivated to interact face-to-
face and use mediated channels for inclusion and escape (A. Rubin, 1993). The results
of this study do not support previous findings that locus of control is related to control
motives for communicating. We found that externally oriented people use face-to-face
for social interactions and to pass the time more than internally oriented people did.
Internally oriented people tended to use face-to-face interactions for pleasure and
entertainment more than externally oriented people did. In addition, we found that
externally oriented people used the Internet for inclusion more than internally
oriented people. These results suggest that internally oriented people probably have
more fun interacting with others in face-to-face and computer mediated interactions
than externally oriented people do. However, our results suggest that externals
(people who feel they are controlled by others) choose a communication channel based
on their particular communication needs.
We were also interested in examining apprehension as an antecedent that

262 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 influences motives in interpersonal and mediated contexts. While it is true that we did
not measure CA directly in this study, we felt our use of the CMCA measure was more
informative than a CA measure would have been for looking at mediated
interpersonal interaction in that CA measures apprehension in interpersonal, small
group, large meeting, and public contexts.
CMCA is anxiety associated with using the computer to interact with others.
Internet motives and CMCA were assessed in this study to parallel the CA research
conducted on interpersonal communication motives. Past research has indicated that
people high in CA communicate to fulfill inclusion (R. Rubin et al., 1988) and escape
needs (Kondo, 1994). Although the results of this study do not fully parallel these
previous findings, the ANOVAs reveal high CMCAs communicated on the Internet for
inclusion and escape; they also used the Internet for social interaction, control, time-
shifting, and habit motives. Low CMCAs communicated on the Internet for pleasure,
affection, information, and entertainment, and communicated face-to-face for escape,
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

time-shifting, and out of habit People high in CMCA seem to use face-to-face channels
as a distraction from the computer, whereas people low in CMCA use face-to-face
channels because they enjoy i t These results suggest that elements of apprehension
may be common across channels, yet the two channels differ in terms of relevant
motives.
In interpersonal communication, external LOC has been related positively to CA
(A. Rubin, 1993; McCroskey et al., 1976). People who feel powerless are more fearful of
interaction with others. The results of this study supported previous findings, but the
correlation was very modest Perhaps LOC is less of an antecedent of interpersonal
communication motives, both mediated and face-to-face, than apprehension is. Or
perhaps LOC is a general trait (as measured here), whereas CMCA, being computer-
specific, is more state-like. Moderate relationships often exist between states and traits
of the same construct, so the modest correlation found here would indicate a
relationship between the two.
The research questions were concerned with the relationship between
interpersonal and mediated communication motives and channels. Previous research
supports the relationships between interpersonal control and mediated motives of
time-shifting and learning (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1989). Interpersonal motives of
inclusion, affection, and escape were related to mediated motives of seeking
companionship, alleviating boredom, and entertainment (A. Rubin & Rubin, 1989).
The results of this study partially support previous research in that the
interpersonal and mediated motives were related to each other in various ways (RQ1).
The face-to-face motive of escape and the Internet motive of escape were significantly
and positively related. Both the Internet and face-to-face contexts were used to escape
daily activities, friends, and family members. Escape was related to mediated motives
of social interaction, pass time, inclusion, and habit The results suggest those who use
both the Internet and face-to-face interaction to escape do so because they do not want
to be alone or because it alleviates boredom. And although the motivation to escape
was important for both face-to-face and Internet communication for this sample of
Internet users, the highest motives were pleasure and entertainment in both face-to-
face and Internet channels.
The results of the t-tests suggest face-to-face is not necessarily a functional
alternative to the Internet Significant differences were found between all the motives
in the face-to-face context except for pleasure. The means of motives in the face-to-face

Internet 263
 context were higher than Internet motives, which might be expected when considering
the reference point was interpersonal communication motives. The results suggest this
sample viewed the face-to-face context as the most preferred way to fulfill
communication needs.
We expected, however, that many media communication motives would receive
higher or equal ratings for Internet channels as compared to face-to-face. This was not
the case; face-to-face motives were higher, even for media motives. Thus the answer
to RQ2 is no, computer-mediated communication channels are not functional
alternatives for face-to-face channels for most interpersonal needs.
In our study, the average use of the Internet was 2.73 hours. According to Rice and
Shook (1990), the more experience people have with the Internet, the more rich they
view the channel. So, media richness supposedly affects message choice. However, our
findings do not support this.
Because our sample consisted primarily of college students, results may indicate
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

more of an E-mail use of the Internet rather than its other richer possibilities. Saving
money might have been an important reason for using the Internet for interpersonal
communication because access to students is free. Additional motives are possible
with CMC. That is, given this sample, motives for using the Internet may not have been
fully identified in this exploration.
The face-to-face channel has more social presence (Short, Williams, & Christie,
1976) than the Internet; the possibility of immediate feedback with face-to-face
interaction conveys greater personal closeness. The nonsignificant t-tests for pleasure
and time-shifting indicate face-to-face and Internet contexts are both used to satisfy
those needs. Many people find the Internet fun to use and a convenient way of handling
mail at one's own leisure. Consistent with Rosengren and Windahl's (1972)
conceptualization of functional alternatives, face-to-face and Internet channels may
be true functional alternatives for these two motives in that they may substitute for one
another. However, for the remaining motives, the channels are specialized, with most
preferring to gratify their needs in a face-to-face environment Future examinations of
the Internet as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication may investigate
the relative amounts of satisfaction gained by using communication to gain pleasure
and for time-shifting.
Perse and Courtright (1993) suggested that print channels best meet information
needs and interpersonal channels satisfy interpersonal needs best Katz et al. (1973)
also predicted this sort of specialization. Respondents in this study used face-to-face
communication to fulfill information needs (perhaps information about the
Internet?), and the Internet seemed to fulfill entertainment needs. Perhaps the novelty
of the Internet makes it more like a "toy" than a "tool."

Future Research
Although the sample was somewhat limited in that about half came from
academic institutions (the rest gained access through commercial providers, FreeNets,
military, and government organizations), there is no reason to believe that use
patterns on campus differ from those of the current population of Internet users. More
and more businesses are using E-mail and Internet databases and more individuals are
gaining access through commercial providers, so future research might try to better
represent the population of Internet users. The current purposive sample was used to
look at relationships between motives. Future research should attempt to access and

264 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 describe the Internet user population in order to understand who uses the Internet and
why.
Our method of soliciting respondents might have resulted in a rather
homogeneous group. Messages were posted on the Internet in newsgroups and as the
message of the day on a network and volunteers were asked to respond to one of the
researchers if they were interested in participating in the study. This method may have
drawn only the more interested users or more experienced users and low CMCAs.
Novice users may not have been successful at responding to the questionnaire or may
have been the only people interested in responding. Accordingly, the results of this
study may be descriptive of Internet users who simply enjoy participating in Internet
studies, as would be the case with all survey research in general. Future research
should examine how long people have been using the Internet and the stability of their
perception of the medium as a communication channel. People who are just starting
out on the Internet may use the Internet more often for face-to-face alternatives than
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

people who have been using the Internet longer. Specifically, the idea that the Internet
is a functional alternative may "wear off."
The scales used for this study were shortened to make data collection over the
Internet more feasible. The shortened scale may not have adequately measured locus
of control. The CMCA scale was seen as an appropriate measure of apprehension
because of its significant and positive correlation with the PRCA-24, but the
relationship was not perfect (Clarke, 1991). The shortened scale may not have
adequately measured computer-mediated apprehension. Different and more
significant results may have been found if the scales were used in their entirety.
The results of the present study are both similar to and different from previous
research regarding interpersonal motives and mediated communication. The
combined use of interpersonal and media related motives suggests the Internet is not
a true functional alternative to face-to-face interaction. However, high apprehensives
in Internet and face-to-face contexts had similar motives. The results also suggest
people use the Internet to fulfill some interpersonal needs as well as some media-
related needs. Some of these results, however, were dependent on the media-related
motives we chose. When we constructed the face-to-face versions of the Internet
motives, most were salient for the interpersonal context (as Rubin et al. 1988 originally
thought). However, several of these might need greater adaptation to. the other
context Time-shifting, for example, may not have been a salient motive for
interpersonal communication. Results from this study seem to support this in that
time-shifting results were generally not significant The other Internet motives,
however, were relevant to the interpersonal context Future research might consider
rewording the time-shifting items to better reflect an interpersonal context
Future research should also focus on motives specifically targeted to the Internet
(e.g., economics). The mediated communication motives here came from the motives
literature on television, VCRs, and computer bulletin boards. Because the Internet is a
unique medium with increased interactive capabilities, some relevant motives might
not have been studied here. For example, one reason people use the Internet is to save
money (i.e., it is less expensive than making long-distance phone calls). Other issues
include the target of the message, how urgent the message is, and the social- or task-
nature of the message. This study provided an initial look at computer-mediated
communication motives, leaving much fertile ground for subsequent research.

Internet 265
 NOTES
1 CMCA items included the following statements: 1. I feel excited and enthusiastic thinking
about using the Internet to communicate with others. 2. The challenge of learning to use the
Internet is exciting. 3. I don't think I would be as good as others in using a computer to
communicate. 4. I feel insecure about my ability to use the computer to communicate with
other people. 5. It would make me nervous to use the Internet to communicate personal or
private information. 6. When using a computer to exchange valuable ideas, I'm afraid my
ideas would be used without my permission. 7.1 can't type very well so I couldn't use the
computer to communicate with others. 8.1 hesitate to use a computer communication system
for fear of making mistakes that I cannot correct. Items 1 and 2 are reverse-scored.
2 Internet and face-to-face motives (accompanied by the abbreviations found in Table 1) in-
cluded the following statements, preceded by "I use the Internet..." or "I talk to people...": 1.
Because it's enjoyable (EN); 2. Because it's entertaining (EN); 3. Because it passes the time
away, especially when I'm bored (PT); 4. When I have nothing better to do (PT); 5. To com-
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

pare my ideas with those of others (INF); 6. To give me interesting things to talk about (INF);
7. So I won't have to be alone (SI); 8. When there's no one else to talk to or be with (SI); 9. Just
because it's (they're) there (HA); 10. Because it's a habit, just something to do (HA); 11. So I
can get away from family, friends, or others (ES); 12. To put off something I should be doing
(ES); 13. Because I can choose the amount of time I spend interacting with others (TS); 14.
Because I can choose when to initiate conversations with others (TS); 15. Because it is fun
(PL); 16. Because it is exciting (PL); 17. To help others (AF); 18. To let others know I care about
their feelings (AF); 19. Because I need someone to talk with or be with (INC). 20. Because I just
need to talk about my problems sometimes (INC); 21. To meet people (MP); 22. Because it
relaxes me (RE); 23. Because it allows me to unwind (RE); 24. Because I want someone to do
something for me (CO); 25. To tell others what to do (CO); 26. To participate in discussions
(MP). Respondents completed four additional items included to improve reliability of poten-
tially unstable new scales; those items with lowest item-total correlations were dropped prior
to data analysis.

REFERENCES
Arnston, P. H., Mortenson, C., & Lustig, M. W. (1980). Predispositions toward verbal behavior in
task-oriented interaction. Human Communication Research, 6, 239-252.
Brenders, D. A. (1987). Perceived control: Foundations and directions for communication re-
search. Communication Yearbook, 10, 86-116.
Bruning, S. D. (1992). An examination of the social, psychological, and communication variables
that influence user perceptions of computer-mediated communication technologies (Doctoral
dissertation, Kent State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54-04, A1148.
Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J. (1988). Goal types, compliance-gaining and
locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 249-269.
Cathcart, R., & Gumpert, G. (1985). The person-computer interaction: A unique source. In B. D.
Ruben (Ed.), Information and behavior: Vol. 1 (pp. 95-112). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Clarke, C. T. (1991). Rationale and development of a scale to measure computer-mediated com-
munication apprehension (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, 1991). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52-04, A1129.
DeCharms, C. (1972). Personal causation training in schools. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
2, 95-113.

266 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin

 Finholt, T., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1990). Communication and performance in ad hoc task
groups. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.,), Intellectual teamwork: Social and techno-
logical foundations of cooperative work (pp. 291-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fulk, J., & Ryu, D. (1990, June). Perceiving electronic mail systems: A partial test of social information
processing model of communication media in organizations. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland.
Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C. & Anderson, R. (1986). Uses of political computer bulletin boards.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 325-339.
Graham, E. E., Barbato, C. A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). The interpersonal communication motives
model. Communication Quarterly, 41, 172-186.
Katz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Haas, H. (1973). On the use of mass media for important things.
American Sociological Review, 38, 164-181.
Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., & Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated commu-
nication. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 77-104.
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

Kondo, D. S. (1994). A comparative analysis of interpersonal communication motives between

high and low communication apprehensives. Communication Research Reports, 11, 53-58.
Krol, E. (1994). The whole Internet (2nd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-
external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 377-383.
McCroskey, J. C. (1993). An introduction to rhetorical communication(6thed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., & Sorenson, G. (1976). Personality correlates of communication
apprehension: A research note. Human Communication Research, 2, 376-380.
Perse, E. M., & Courtright, J. A. (1993). Normative images of communication media: Mass and
interpersonal channels in the new media environment. Human Communication Research, 19,
485-503.
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional
and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19, 451-484.
Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. (1990). Relationships of job categories and organizational levels to use of
communication channels, including electronic mail: A meta-analysis and extension. Journal of
Management Studies, 27, 195-229.
Rosengren, K. E., & Windahl, S. (1972). Mass media consumption as a functional alternative. In
D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of mass communications (pp. 166-194). Middlesex, England: Pen-
guin.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-
ment. Psychological Monographs, 80, (Whole No. 609).
Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motives. Communication Research, 8,
141-165.
Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and
motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.
Rubin, A. M. (1993). The effect of locus of control on communication motivation, anxiety, and
satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 41, 161-171.
Rubin, A. M., & Bantz, C. R. (1987). Utility of videocassette recorders. American Behavioral Scien-
tist, 30, 471-485.
Rubin, A. M., & Bantz, C. R. (1989). Uses and gratifications of videocassette recorders. In J. G.
Salvaggio & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media Use in the Information age: Emerging patterns of adoption and
consumer use (pp. 181-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Internet 267
 Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A re-
search agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2, 36-53.
Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1989). Social and psychological antecedents of VCR use. In M. R.
Levy (Ed.), The VCR age: Home video and mass communication (pp. 92-111). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of inter-
personal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602-628.
Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1992). Antecedents of interpersonal communication motivation.
Communication Quarterly, 40, 305-317.
Schutz, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London:
John Wiley & Sons.
Steinfatt, T. M. (1987). Personality and communication: Classical approaches. In J. C. McCroskey
& J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 42-126). Newbury Park,
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 16:55 27 October 2014

CA: Sage.
Steinfield, C. W. (1986). Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: Ex-
plaining task-related and socioemotional uses. Communication Yearbook, 9, 777-804.
Trevino, L. K., Lengel, R. H., & Daft, R. L. (1987). Media symbolism, media richness, and media
choice in organizations. Communication Research, 14, 553-574.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational per-
spective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. W. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated
interaction: A meta-analysis of social and antisocial communication. Communication Research,
21, 460-487.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interac-
tion. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Williams, F., Phillips, A. F., & Lum, P. (1985). Gratifications associated with new communication
technologies. In K. E. Rosengren, L. A. Wenner, & P. Palmgreen (Eds.), Media gratifications
research (pp. 241-254). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Williams, F., & Rice, R. E. (1983). Communication research and the new media technologies.
Communication Yearbook, 7, 200-224.
Williams, F., Stover, S., & Grant, A. E. (1994). Social aspects of new media technologies, In J.
Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 463-482).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

268 Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin