Interpersonal Communication- A Mindful Approach to Relationships, 2020a

impacts interpersonal relationships. In this section, we’re going to examine two specific communication
factors that have been researched in a variety of CMC contexts: communication apprehension and
impression formation.
Most of the research examining CA and CMC started at the beginning of the 21 st Century. Until 1996
when America Online (AOL) provided unlimited access to the Internet for a low monthly fee, most
people did not have access to the Internet because of the cost. It wasn’t until the public became more
actively involved in interacting through technology that communication scholars became interested in
communication traits related to CMC. One early study conducted by Scott W. Campbell and Michael R.
Neer investigated whether an individual’s level of communication apprehension (CA) could predict how
they felt about CMC. 15 In the study, the authors predicted that an individual’s level of CA could predict
whether the individuals believed that CMC was an effective medium for interpersonal communication;
however, the researchers did not find a significant relationship. Furthermore, the researchers found that
there wasn’t a significant relationship between CA and people’s satisfaction with their CMC experiences.
Here’s how the researchers attempted to make sense of these findings:
One plausible interpretation is that high apprehensives simply do not view CMC positively or negatively.
Yet, they recognize that it reduces the threat posed to them in FtF settings. An equally plausible
explanation is that high apprehensives do not regard CMC as an interpersonal obstacle to overcome
because it is not FtF, but a substitute that fails to challenge or override their apprehension level. 16
Jason S. Wrench and Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter furthered the inquiry into CA and CMC by
exploring how people reacted to different types of CMC. Specifically, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter
were interested in examining email CA, online chatting CA, and instant messaging CA. You can see
the measures that Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter created for this study in Table 12.1. It’s important to
emphasize that the technologies listed in Table 12.1 here were the technologies most commonly used by
the public when this study was conducted in the mid-2000s.
In addition to CMCA, Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter were also interested in an individual’s skill
levels with CMC. CMC skill was defined as three distinct concepts: computer efficacy (individuals’
confidence in using a computer), Internet efficacy (individuals’ confidence in using the Internet), and
CMC competence. Brian H. Spitzberg believed that CMC competence consisted of three important
factors: 1) people must be motivated to interact with others competently, 2) people must possess
specialized knowledge and technical know-how, and 3) people must learn the rules and norms for
communicating in the CMC context. 17 Wrench and Punyanunt-Carter found that CMCA was negatively
related to computer efficacy, Internet efficacy, and CMC competence.
In a subsequent study by Daniel Hunt, David Atkin, and Archana Krishnan, the researchers set out
to examine CMCA and Facebook interactions, using a revised version of the Wrench and Punyanunt-
Carter CMCA scales to measure Facebook CA. 18 The study showed that CMCA decreased one’s
motivation to use Facebook as a tool for interpersonal communication. These findings were similar to
those of Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter, J. J. De La Cruz, and Jason S. Wrench, who examined CMCA
on the social media app Snapchat. 19 In this study, the researchers examined CMCA with regards to
satisfying a combination of both functional and entertainment needs. Functional needs were defined as
needs that drive an individual to accomplish something (e.g., feel less lonely, solve a problem, meet new
people, decision making). Entertainment needs were defined as needs that allow an individual to keep
Interpersonal Communication 418