The diffusion of the personal computer has given rise to a variety of communication services available for use within the American home. One of these new services is electronic mail (e-mail). Katz and Aspden (1997) found in a nationwide survey that the most frequent reason given by respondents for desiring Internet access was the use of electronic mail. One on-line service company president said recently that America On-line alone carries over 13 million e-mail messages daily (Lawe, 1997). While research on the organizational or business uses of e-mail has grown considerably in recent years (see Garton & Wellman, 1995, for a review), few studies have examined the medium as a household utility or as a means for sustaining interpersonal relationships. The major purpose of this study is to explore the household use of e-mail.

From its inception, scholars of computer mediated communication (CMC) have discussed its utility in creating social connections within organizational contexts (e.g., Dunlop & King, 1991; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993; Sproull & Kiesler 1991). Walther (1992, 1994, 1997) has also examined the development of interpersonal messages in computer mediated zero-history task groups. Other studies have shown the role of e-mail and bulletin boards in providing support and information exchange among groups of professionals such as teachers (e.g., Katz, Inghilleri, McSweeney, Sayers, & Stroud, 1989; Ruopp, Pfister, Drayton, & Gal, 1993) and scientists (Sproull & Faraj, 1995). In sum, the majority of work on CMC has focused on its use in organizational contexts and its general effect on social relationships within this context.

Wellman and Gulia (in press) have noted that it is "unfortunate" that "researchers have looked more at the presence of supportive, intimate relationships in on-line work relationships than" in other settings (p. 11). Indeed the use of CMC for information exchange and emotional support among individuals with common social or health related concerns is becoming more widely acknowledged (Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, & Haythornthwaite, 1996). For example, studies have examined CMC use among AIDS patients, Alzheimer's patients, and hemophiliacs (Brennan, Moore, & Smyth, 1991; Ripich, Moore, & Brennan, 1992; Scheerhorn, Warisee, & McNeilis, 1995).

However, the interpersonal connections formed through such computer mediated interactions are generally considered to be "weak ties," lacking the "depth" of intimate personal relationships (Wellman & Gulia, in press). Yet initial evidence suggests that people are using electronic mail and bulletin boards to develop new relationships which they consider personal and quite close (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993; Lea & Spears, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996).

Most directly relevant is the work of Parks and Floyd. They surveyed 176 newsgroup users to see if they were able to form what they would consider to be a personal relationship on-line. Nearly two- thirds reported that they had formed a personal relationship with another newsgroup user. Users reported that these relationships developed similarly to those formed in face-to face interaction, in that users reported becoming more interdependent with and committed to their on-line partner, reported moderate to high levels of breadth and depth in their on-line interactions, and reported substantial feelings of predictability and understanding about their partners.

Such studies show that e-mail and bulletin boards can provide social support to users and facilitate the initiation and development of new relationships. Given that these uses are themselves steeped in interpersonal relationship processes, it is possible that people may also be using electronic mail to maintain the personal relationships they already have as well as those they have developed via the computer.

Despite the likelihood that people use e-mail to maintain their relationships, and despite the growth of research on the maintenance of interpersonal relationships, to date most work on relational maintenance by interpersonal communication scholars operates under the assumption that maintaining a relationship is something people do only in face-to-face interaction, without the use of technology. For example, virtually all categories developed in the typologies of maintenance behaviors by Stafford, Canary and their colleagues refer to activities that presume the physical presence of the partner (Canary & Stafford, 1992; Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace 1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1993, Stafford & Canary, 1991; also see Guerrero, Eloy, & Wabnik, 1993; Ragsdale, 1996). Canary and Stafford's (1994) review of relational maintenance reveals that mediated messages are typically collapsed as one category called "cards, letters, and calls."

Given the predominant focus upon business or organizational e-mail by CMC researchers, and the bias toward face-to-face interaction evidenced by interpersonal communication researchers on relational maintenance, it is not surprising that research on on-line interpersonal relationships outside of work settings is rare. Further, Wellman and Gulia argue that many scholars have divided the topic into false dichotomies: on-line and off-line relationships. However, they note that interpersonal ties are often maintained by both face-to-face contact and the telephone. They argue that e-mail is moving from the work sphere to the domestic sphere, and as it does, interpersonal ties will also be sustained through face to-face interaction, the telephone, and e-mail. However, researchers have not ascertained whether people report they use CMC to maintain the personal relationships they have formed through other means.

The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which people spontaneously indicate that they use e-mail to maintain their personal relationships; relationships which did not necessarily develop on-line. Specifically, the following research question is posed:

   [RQ.sub.1]: What are the reasons people use e-mail from their home
   computers: specifically, do home e-mail users report the use of e-mail for
   sustaining their interpersonal relationships?

Second, we are interested in the relationship between respondents' reported reasons for use of e-mail and their demographic characteristics. If individuals do report the use of e-mail for the maintenance of personal relationships, does this use vary across demographic characteristics of e-mail users? For example, given the traditional stereotype of the computer user as male, and Parks and Floyd's (1996) finding that news group users are more likely to be male: Are males more likely than females to maintain relationships via e-mail? Are younger respondents, who grew up with the personal computer, more likely to use e-mail for maintenance purposes than older respondents? Our second research question was formulated:

   [RQ.sub.2]: Do reasons for e-mail use vary by the demographic
   characteristics of e-mail users?

Method

Respondents

The sample consisted of 881 randomly selected adults who completed the Buckeye State Poll. The analyses for the primary research question was conducted on a subsample of 112 individuals who indicated home e-mail use. The Buckeye State Poll is a monthly sample survey of Ohio residents conducted by the survey research unit of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at The Ohio State University. The survey was based on telephone interviews conducted from February 5 to 25, 1997.

A probability sample of computer-generated telephone numbers was used to reach households throughout the state regardless of whether phone number was listed or unlisted. Within each household, one English-speaking adult was selected by a random procedure (most recent birthday) to be a respondent for the survey. A total of 3,143 randomly-generated telephone numbers were used, with many being called 10 or more times to reach a respondent at a time convenient for her or him. Of these numbers 1,649 were known to reach a household in Ohio with an eligible respondent. Of these households, interviews were completed in 53% of the cases.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted by trained employees of the Survey Research Unit. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their background, including their age, sex, marital status, level of education, household income, and race. Respondents were also asked a series of questions about their computer use. They were asked if they had a home computer. If they had a home computer, they were asked separate questions about whether or not they used the Internet, and whether or not they used e-mail. Although respondents were allowed to use their own definition of e-mail, the responses showed that the vast majority of people distinguished between general Internet usage and e-mail.

If respondents indicated they used e-mail from home, the interviewers then said the following:

   Most of us choose activities in our daily lives, including sending e-mail
   messages, for a variety of reasons. What I'd like you to do is to think
   carefully about the reasons that you send and receive e-mail, especially
   those messages you've sent or received over the past week or so. In telling
   me about the reasons, please use words or phrases that are meaningful to
   you. Feel free to think out loud. I'll pause for a while to give you time
   to think ... ... Now would you describe the reasons you send and receive
   e-mail?

Interviewers were instructed to reinforce each reason with "I see" or "OK" or "please go on" until the person ran out of reasons. Interviewers were also instructed to ask for more detailed explanations when the person was vague about any of the reasons.

Home computers were owned by 358 (40.6%) of the sample of 881, and 112 (12.7%) reported using e-mail from home. The responses of these 112 individuals were transcribed and unitized, resulting in 203 statements about reasons for e-mail use.

Using analytic induction procedures, these 203 statements were content analyzed for the number and kind of reasons offered for their home use of e-mail. Students, blind to the purposes of the study, served as coders. The analytic induction procedures involved one coder initially segmenting the transcripts into idea units or independent clauses similar to the procedures utilized by Saeki and O'Keefe (1994). These thought units were then grouped based upon their semantic similarities which produced about 20 categories. These were then collapsed into 15 larger thematic categories, again based upon semantic correspondences (Saeki & O'Keefe, 1994). Using these 15 categories, two coders then worked through the manuscripts. Coding disagreements were resolved through discussion. Interrater reliability was computed by having two coders unitize and categorize the responses on 30% of the sample. The agreement for unitizing reliability was 89% and categorizing reliability was 94%. The Cohen kappas for intercoder reliability was at an acceptable .72 or above on the all the categories. These 15 categories were then collapsed into four superordinate categories for analyses.

Results

   [RQ.sub.1]: What are the reasons people use e-mail from their home
   computers: specifically, do home e-mail users report the use of e-mail for
   sustaining their interpersonal relationships?

The four superordinate reasons are reported in Table 1 along with the percentage of occurrence. The main reasons people give for using email in their homes are interpersonal relationships (61%), gratification opportunities (31%), personal gain (30%) and business reasons (25%).

Table 1 Percent of Reasons for Using Electronic Mail

                                                         Responses
                                                          n = 203

I. Interpersonal                                           (41.5)
    1. To send and receive personal messages                 7.4
    2. To keep in touch with friends                        14.8
    3. To keep in touch with family or relatives, like
       children in college                                   8.5
    4. To keep in touch with friends or relatives who        5.4
       live far away
    5. To share ideas or opinions, or to exchange
       information with people you know                      5.4
II. Personal Gain                                          (22.6)
    6. For learning, education, acquiring information       10.8
    7. For recreation, fun, keep up with news, sports
       and travel information                               11.8
III. Business Use                                          (25.2)
    8. For business reasons, corresponding with
       clients, telecommuting                               11.8
    9. For shopping, travel reservations, manage             3.4
       investments
IV. Gratification Opportunities                            (19.7)
    10. For communication that is less expensive             4.9
    11. For communication that is quick or fast              3.9
    12. For communication that is simple and easy            5.4
    13. For communication that is conversational             3.0
    14. For communication that is convenient; allows
        one to work efficiently                              2.5
    15. No geographic boundaries                             5.4

The interpersonal relationships category was comprised of responses related to "personal" communication. People frequently mentioned they used e-mail to "keep in touch" with "family," "friends, "and relatives" who lived "out of state" or "around the world." Respondents said they used e-mail for "talking" with their sons, daughters, or friends in college, or for "staying in contact" with "brothers and sisters in different parts of the country."

The category of "personal gain" included information acquisition, learning, recreation, and information exchange. E-mail was used to "access the library," acquire consumer and travel information, and "keep up with sports." Respondents also reported sharing ideas, exchanging information, and voicing opinions to web sites. Use of e-mail for shopping and recreational purposes were also included in this category. Recall that participants were allowed to use their own definition of e-mail, so some respondents considered e-mail broadly and included references to web sites and bulletin boards. Such references were most often placed in this category. The business category reflects those people who indicated that they telecommuted, or that they had home-businesses, or second businesses that they operated over the computer.

Finally, gratification opportunities emerged from the analysis. Gratification opportunities refer to the use of a particular medium in the belief that beneficial attributes of that medium allow the user to obtain gratifications more readily than other media (Dimmick, 1993). Many people mentioned that e-mail provided greater opportunities for satisfying their interpersonal needs than the telephone, postal system or face-to-face interaction. Respondents reported that e-mail is much less expensive, quicker, simpler, and more convenient. For example, respondents noted e-mail was "fast," "it's more of a conversation than regular mail," and "less expensive than the telephone." Also, e-mail had "no geographic boundaries."

   [RQ.sub.2]: Do reasons for e-mail use vary by demographics of e-mail users?

In order to address this question, it was first necessary to determine the profile of both home e-mail users and non-e-mail users. As can be seen in Table 2, home e-mail users are proportionally likely to be younger and have a higher level of income and education than their non e-mail counterparts. E-mail users are also proportionately more likely to be "coupled" (married or cohabiting) as opposed to single (never married, divorced, or widowed). The findings must be stated tentatively, however. Although the findings were statistically significant, the associations were weak. The percentages, statistical tests of significance, and measures of association are reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Demographics of Home E-mail Users Compared to Non E-mail Users (%)

                                                e-mail    non e-mail
                                                n = 112    n = 769

Sex ([R.sup.2] = 21.41, p < .001, df= 1,
 [??.sup.2] = 21.41)
  Male                                           65.2        41.9
  Female                                         34.8        58.1
Race ([R.sup.2] = 4.69, p < .10, df= 2,
 [v.sup.2] = .01)
  Caucasian                                      90.9        87.1
  African American                                5.5         3.5
  All other combined                              3.5         9.3
Marital Status ([R.sup.2] = 8.23, p < .01,
 df = 1, [v.sup.2] = .01)
  Coupled (married or cohabiting)                70.3        29.7
  Single (never married, separated, divorced,    29.7        44.1
   widowed)
Education level ([R.sup.2] = 33.45, p < .001,
 df = 4, [v.sup.2] = .04)
  did not finish high school                      3.6        12.3
  high school degree                             20.5        38.6
  some college                                   32.1        26.2
  college degree                                 26.8        13.3
  post graduate work                             17.0         9.6
Income ([R.sup.2] = 29.17, p < .001, df = 3,
 [v.sup.2] = .03)
  under $30,000                                  16.5        43.1
  30,001-60,000                                  50.6        39.0
  60,001-100,000                                 24.3        13.5
  over 100,000                                    8.7         4.4

The four superordinate reasons (interpersonal relationships, personal gain, business, and gratification opportunities) were examined in association with the demographics of sex, relationship status, education, income, and age. Given that 90% of the sample were Caucasian, race was not analyzed. The percentages and corresponding [R.sup.2] values are reported in Table 3. No differences were found in the reasons for e-mail use among these various groups. The similarity in the patterns among the various demographic groups reinforces the notion that interpersonal reasons are the major reasons for use of home e-mail across differing demographics.

Table 3 Reasons for E-mail Use by Demographic Characteristics

                          Relationships   Personal Gain
Relationship status
  coupled (78)                66.6%           26.9%
  single (33)                 48.5%           33.3%
    [R.sup.2]                  2.84            1.82

Sex
  female (39)                 58.9%           35.9%
  male (73)                   61.6%           28.8%
    [R.sup.2]                   .77             .06

Income
  under $50,000 (55)          63.0%           30.1%
  over $50,001 (48)           60.3%           27.1%
    [R.sup.2]                   .07             .53

Education
  no college degree (63)      55.6%           30.0%
  college degree (49)         67.3%           30.6%
    [R.sup.2]                  1.11             .01

Age
  Under 40 (57)               59.6%           35.1%
  40 and over (54)            62.9%           24.1%
    [R.sup.2]                   .09             .50

                          Business   Opportunities
Relationship status
  coupled (78)             24.4%         28.2%
  single (33)              30.3%         39.3%
    [R.sup.2]                .63           .68

Sex
  female (39)              25.6%         33.3%
  male (73)                26.0%         27.4%
    [R.sup.2]                .03           .57

Income
  under $50,000 (55)       23.6%         32.7%
  over $50,001 (48)        29.2%         27.1%
    [R.sup.2]                .59           .16

Education
  no college degree (63)   28.6%         25.3%
  college degree (49)      22.4%         38.7%
    [R.sup.2]                .75          2.81

Age
  Under 40 (57)            26.3%         29.8%
  40 and over (54)         25.6%         29.9%
    [R.sup.2]                .01           --

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents. Rows and columns do not total 100% because percentages are computed on number of reasons given, and most respondents gave more than one reason for using e-mail. None of the [R.sup.2] values reported above reached significance.

Discussion

Two visions of "on-line relationships" have evolved in the literature. One view is that on-line relationships are "impersonal" and "shallow" while the second view is that relationships conducted through computer mediated communication are often meaningful relationships (Parks & Floyd, 1996). We concur with the Parks and Floyd observation that the first view currently predominates. However, like Parks and Floyd, our goal is to further explore the second.

The findings of this study lend credence to the view that meaningful relationships are maintained via computer mediated communication: individuals appear to sustain relationships via e-mail. Although the responses in this telephone survey do not allow for direct mapping onto the typologies developed in previous maintenance research, many of the phrases imply similarities with maintenance categories. This is especially evident in the typology offered by Dainton and Stafford (1993). For example, phrases offered by this e-mail sample such as "sharing ideas or opinions" and "exchanging information" appear similar to their description of "openness." The e-mail users' responses of "keeping in touch" with friends and relatives implies the proactive prosocial behaviors of "positivity." The supportive, continued contact reported by the e-mail users reflect the maintenance category of "assurances." Dainton and Stafford's category of "talk," which includes "small talk" and simply spending time talking, is also evident in this data. For example, individuals reported using e-mail for "personal talk."

While our findings suggest that e-mail users sustain their interpersonal relationships with this communication technology, these findings must be considered in conjunction with the gratification opportunities the technology affords. Some respondents indicated that it was easier to voice opinions, share ideas, and exchange information with friends, acquaintances, and family over e-mail, because their e-mail recipients lived in different places around the world, in different time zones, or with different schedules. In many instances in this sample, opportunities were stated in a manner as to imply a comparison with other media, such as e-mail is "faster" than mail or "cheaper" than the telephone. Many people use this medium, not simply for the reason of maintaining the relationship, but also for the gratification opportunities the medium affords.

This interpretation is buttressed by the work of O'Sullivan (1996) who has proposed an impression management model to understand communication technology use in close relationships. O'Sullivan argues that people view communicative choices based upon the way the particular medium enables the user to manage information and that relational partners select particular channels of interaction to manage their self-presentational issues.

In support of this thesis, O'Sullivan found that people selected the channel of interaction that they felt best managed their projected image. He also found that the key considerations involved in determining channel preferences were channel symbolism and interactional control, quite similar to the gratification opportunities mentioned in this study. As in O'Sullivan's work, gratification opportunities provided by e-mail played a prominent role in the decision by respondents to use a particular medium to conduct their relationships.

Wellman (1994) contends that in contemporary North America electronic mail will become a primary mode of relational connection. Indeed our respondents reported personal relationships formed primarily through face-to-face interactions, such as kinships and friendships, are migrating to the computer. Our findings lend support to claims that computer mediated communication can and does enhance relational connections, dispute the view of computer mediated communication as shallow and impersonal, and challenge the view of relational maintenance as occurring only in face-to-face settings.

The blurring of traditional boundaires of research is becoming more necessary. As Wellman and Gulia (in press) argue, e-mail is moving from the work sphere to the domestic sphere, interpersonal ties will be sustained through both e-mail and face-to-face interaction. Future research in both the areas of interpersonal relationship maintenance and computer mediated communication needs to move away from false dichotomies such as "interpersonal" communication versus "mediated" communication or "on-line" versus "off-line" relationships in order to develop a more complete understanding of the both the uses of computer mediated communication and the maintenance of relationships. Currently, the authors are conducting a study of e-mail and the telephone and their respective roles in supporting intimate relationships. This study will add knowledge about the ways technology is used in everyday life to sustain relationships among networks of family and friends.

References

Brennan, P.F., Moore, S.M., & Smyth, K.A. (1991). Computerlink: Electronic support for the home caregiver. Advances in Nursing Science, 13, 14-27.

Canary, D.J. & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and Equity in Marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 239-267.

Canary, D.J. & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D.J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and Relational Maintenance (pp. 3-22). San Diego: Academic Press.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K.S., & Wallace, L.A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: A comparison among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 19, 5-14.

Chafe, W. L. (1979) The flow of thought and the flow of language. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 159-182). New York: Academic Press.

Dainton, M. & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255-271.

Dimmick, J. (1993). Ecology, economics, and gratification-utilities. In A. Alexander, J. Owers & R. Carveth (Eds.), Media Economics: A Reader (pp. 135-156).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dimmick, J., & Stafford, L. (1997, May). Telephone sociability gratifications and relational maintenance: Implications for community. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Montreal.

Dunlop, C., & King, R. (Eds.) (1991). Compterization and controversy: value conflicts and social choices. Boston, MA: Academic Press.

Garton, L. & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the literature. In B. Burleson (Ed.) Communication Yearbook 18, (pp. 434-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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.

Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1993). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Rev. Ed. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Katz, J,. & Aspden, P. (1997). Barriers to and motivations for using the internet: Results of a national opinion survey. Internet Research Journal: Technology, Policy and Applications, 7, 170-188.

Katz, M., Inghilleri, M., McSweeney, E., Sayers, D., & Stroud, K. (1989). Talking about teaching by writing: the use of computer-based conferencing for collegial exchange among teachers. Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 363).

Lawe, R.K. (May 29, 1997). Computer services "warping" their way into common use. Columbus Dispatch, pp. 1-2 D.

Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks. In J.T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships. Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O'Keefe, B. J., & Lambert, B. L. (1995). Managing the flow of ideas: A local management model to message design. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 18. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O'Sullivan, P.B. (1996, November). An impression management model for the study of mediated communication: The implications of interpersonal technology use in personal relationships. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Parks, M. R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80-97.

Ragsdale, J. D. (1996). Gender, satisfaction level, and the use of relational maintenance strategies in marriage. Communication Monographs, 63, 354-369.

Ripich, S., Moore, S., & Brennan, P. (1992). A new nursing medium: Computer networks for group intervention. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 30, 15-20.

Ruopp, R., Pfister, M., Drayton, B., & Gal, S. (1993). Supporting teachers with telecommunication: the labnetwork. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9, 2-19.

Saeki, M., & O'Keefe, B. J. (1994). Refusals and rejections: Designing messages to serve multiple goals. Human Communication Research, 21, 67-102.

Scheerhorn, D., Warisse, J., & McNeilis, K. (1995). Computer-based telecommunication among an illness-related community: Design, delivery, early use, and the functions of HIGHnet. Health Communication, 7, 301-325.

Sillars, A., Weisberg, J., Burggraf, C. S., & Wilson, E. A. (1987). Content themes in marital conversations. Human Communication Research 13, 495-528.

Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1995). Atheism, sex, and data bases. In B. Dkahin & J. Keller (Eds.), Public access to the Internet (pp. 62-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D.J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8, 217-242.

Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

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. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research 23, 342-369.

Wellman, B. (1979). The community question, American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201-31.

Wellman, B. (1994). I was a teen-age network analyst: The route from the Bronx to the information highway. Connections, 17, 28-45.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (forthcoming). Net surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. In P. Kollock and M. Smith (Eds.) Communities in Cyberspace. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., D., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., & Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.

Wellman, B., & Tindall, D. How telephone networks connect social networks. In W. Richards, Jr. & G. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences pp. 63-91.

Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1983). Evaluating college writing programs: Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Laura Stafford and John Dimmick and Susan L. Kline are Associate Professors in the School of Journalism and Communication at The Ohio State University. Data collection for the study was supported by a small grant to the third author from the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.