The case study demonstrates a role related and ethical conundrum when the nurse is taking care

of an end stage aggressive lung cancer patient, Mr. Wilson, who expressed suicidal intentions to

the nurse and asked to keep the secret from his family and the hospital staff.

If the nurse knows of Mr. Wilsons’ plan for rational suicide, would the nurse be obligated to

intervene? If so, what actions could the nurse take at this point? Does a nurse have the right to

try to stop a person from committing rational suicide (to act in the best interest of the patient)?

Is a nurse supposed to support the person’s autonomous decision to commit rational suicide?

even when that decision is morally and religiously incompatible with the nurse’s perspective?

What is the nurse role?

INSTRUCTIONS:

The case study must be typed in APA format with a minimum of 750 words (excluding first and references page) with a minimum of 4 evidence-based references using the required Arial 12 font, double spaced. Follow the APA example paper under the folder APA tools. Make sure references are used according to APA guidelines and electronic references must be from reliable sources.

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and

Their Effects on Relationship Research

Elizabeth L. Angeli

State University

Author Note

Elizabeth L. Angeli, Department of Psychology, State University.

Elizabeth Angeli is now at Department of English, Purdue University.

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Sample Grant

Program.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth

Angeli, Department of English, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 55555.

Contact: author@boiler.edu

The running
head cannot
exceed 50
characters,
including spaces
and
punctuation.
The running
head’s title
should be in
capital letters.
The running
head should be
flush left, and
page numbers
should be flush
right. On the
title page, the
running head
should include
the words
“Running head.”
For pages
following the
title page,
repeat the
running head in
all caps without
“Running head.”

The title
should be
centered on
the page,
typed in 12-
point Times
New Roman
Font. It
should not be
bolded,
underlined, or
italicized.

The author’s
name and
institution
should be
double-
spaced and
centered.

The running
head is a
shortened
version of the
paper’s full title,
and it is used to
help readers
identify the
titles for
published
articles (even if
your paper is
not intended for
publication, your
paper should
still have a
running head).

The title
should
summarize
the paper’s
main idea and
identify the
variables
under
discussion
and the
relationship
between
them.

Green text boxes
contain explanations
of APA style
guidelines.

Blue boxes contain
directions for writing
and citing in APA
style.

Running head: VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 1

The author note should appear on printed articles and identifies each author’s
department and institution affiliation and any changes in affiliation, contains
acknowledgements and any financial support received, and provides contact
information. For more information, see the APA manual, 2.03, page 24-25.
Note: An author note is optional for students writing class papers, theses, and
dissertations..

An author note should appear as follows:
First paragraph: Complete departmental and institutional affiliation
Second paragraph: Changes in affiliation (if any)
Third paragraph: Acknowledgments, funding sources, special circumstances
Fourth paragraph: Contact information (mailing address and e-mail)

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 2

Abstract

This paper explores four published articles that report on results from research conducted

on online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships and their relationship to

computer-mediated communication (CMC). The articles, however, vary in their

definitions and uses of CMC. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-

face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC, defined as “email,” in creating

feelings of closeness or intimacy. Other articles define CMC differently and, therefore,

offer different results. This paper examines Cummings, Butler, and Kraut’s (2002)

research in relation to three other research articles to suggest that all forms of CMC

should be studied in order to fully understand how CMC influences online and offline

relationships.

Keywords: computer-mediated communication, face-to-face communication

The
abstract
should be
between
150-250
words.
Abbre-
viations and
acronyms
used in the
paper
should be
defined in
the
abstract.

The
abstract is
a brief
summary of
the paper,
allowing
readers to
quickly
review the
main points
and
purpose of
the paper.

The word
“Abstract”
should be
centered
and typed
in 12 point
Times New
Roman. Do
not indent
the first
line of the
abstract
paragraph.
All other
paragraphs
in the
paper
should be
indented.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 3

Varying Definitions of Online Communication and
Their Effects on Relationship Research

Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of Internet relationships,

focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different communication modalities, and

the frequency of use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). However,

contradictory results are suggested within this research because only certain aspects of

CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002)

suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC (read: email) in

creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies suggest the opposite. To

understand how both online (Internet) and offline (non-Internet) relationships are affected

by CMC, all forms of CMC should be studied. This paper examines Cummings et al.’s

research against other CMC research to propose that additional research be conducted to

better understand how online communication affects relationships.

Literature Review

In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three empirical studies on

online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially email, was less effective

than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social relationships. Two of the three

reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-Internet and Internet relationships

mediated by FtF, phone, or email modalities found that the frequency of each modality’s

use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular relationship (Cummings et

al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best by FtF and phone

In-text
citations
that are
direct
quotes
should
include the
author’s/
authors’
name/s,
the
publication
year, and
page
number/s.
If you are
para-
phrasing a
source,
APA
encourages
you to
include
page
numbers:
(Smith,
2009, p.
76).

If an article
has three
to five
authors,
write out all
of the
authors’
names the
first time
they
appear.
Then use
the first
author’s
last name
followed by
“et al.”

APA
requires
you to
include the
publication
year
because
APA users
are
concerned
with the
date of the
article (the
more
current the
better).

The title of
the paper is
centered
and not
bolded.

The introduc-
tion presents
the problem
that the
paper
addresses.
See the OWL
resources on
introduc-
tions:
https://owl.en
glish.purdue.e
du/owl/resou
rce/724/01/

The title
should be
centered on
the page,
typed in 12-
point Times
New Roman
Font. It
should not be
bolded,
underlined, or
italicized.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 4

communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means of maintaining personal

relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts (Cummings et al., 2002).

Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted in 1999 by the

HomeNet project (see Appendix A for more information on the HomeNet project). In

this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, and Scherlis (1999) compared

the value of using CMC and non-CMC to maintain relationships with partners. They

found that participants corresponded less frequently with their Internet partner (5.2 times

per month) than with their non-Internet partner (7.2 times per month; Cummings et al.,

2002). This difference does not seem significant, as it is only two times less per month.

However, in additional self-report surveys, participants responded feeling more distant,

or less intimate, towards their Internet partner than their non-Internet partner. This

finding may be attributed to participants’ beliefs that email is an inferior mode of

personal relationship communication.

Intimacy is necessary in the creation and maintenance of relationships, as it is

defined as the sharing of a person’s innermost being with another person, i.e., self-

disclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith, & Westbrook, 2004). Relationships are facilitated by the

reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-CMC or CMC. Cummings

et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that research the connection

between intimacy and relationships through CMC.

Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant

Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM

instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional

Use an
appendix to
provide
brief
content
that
supplement
s your
paper but is
not directly
related to
your text.

If you are
including an
appendix,
refer to it
in the body
of your
paper.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 5

environment favoring intimate exchanges (Hu et al., 2004). Their results suggest that a

positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and intimacy, demonstrating

that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time progresses through this CMC

modality.

Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet

relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships and the perceived

intimacy of both. In this study, self-disclosure, or intimacy, was measured in terms of

shared secrets through the discussion of personal problems. Participants reported a

significantly higher level of self-disclosure in their Internet relationship as compared to

their primary relationship. In contrast, the participants’ primary relationships were

reported as highly self-disclosed in the past, but the current level of disclosure was

perceived to be lower (Underwood & Findlay, 2004). This result suggests participants

turned to the Internet in order to fulfill the need for intimacy in their lives.

In further support of this finding, Tidwell and Walther (2002) hypothesized CMC

participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF participants in order to overcome the

limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues. It was found that CMC partners

engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures than FtF partners in order to

overcome the barriers of CMC. In their 2002 study, Tidwell and Walther measured the

perception of a relationship’s intimacy by the partner of each participant in both the CMC

and FtF conditions. The researchers found that the participants’ partners stated their

CMC partner was more effective in employing more intimate exchanges than their FtF

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 6

partner, and both participants and their partners rated their CMC relationship as more

intimate than their FtF relationship.

Discussion

In 2002, Cummings et al. stated that the evidence from their research conflicted

with other data examining the effectiveness of online social relationships. This statement

is supported by the aforementioned discussion of other research. There may be a few

possible theoretical explanations for these discrepancies.

Limitations of These Studies

The discrepancies identified may result from a number of limitations found in the

materials reviewed by Cummings et al. These limitations can result from technological

constraints, demographic factors, or issues of modality. Each of these limitations will be

examined in further detail below.

Technological limitations. First, one reviewed study by Cummings et al. (2002)

examined only email correspondence for their CMC modality. Therefore, the study is

limited to only one mode of communication among other alternatives, e.g., IM as studied

by Hu et al. (2004). Because of its many personalized features, IM provides more

personal CMC. For example, it is in real time without delay, voice-chat and video

features are available for many IM programs, and text boxes can be personalized with the

user’s picture, favorite colors and text, and a wide variety of emoticons, e.g., :). These

options allow for both an increase in self-expression and the ability to overcompensate

for the barriers of CMC through customizable features, as stated in Tidwell and Walther

Because all
research
has its
limitations,
it is
important
to discuss
the
limitations
of articles
under
examination
.

A Level 2
heading
should be
flush with
the left
margin,
bolded, and
title case.

A Level 1
heading
should be
centered,
bolded, and
uppercase
and lower
case (also
referred to
as title
case).

A Level 3
heading
should
indented
0.5” from
the left
margin,
bolded, and
lower case
(except for
the first
word). Text
should
follow
immediately
after. If you
use more
than three
levels of
headings,
consult
section 3.02
of the APA
manual
(6th ed.) or
the OWL
resource on
APA
headings:
https://owl.en
glish.purdue.
edu/owl/reso
urce/560/16
/

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 7

(2002). Self-disclosure and intimacy may result from IM’s individualized features,

which are not as personalized in email correspondence.

Demographic limitations. In addition to the limitations of email, Cummings et

al. (2002) reviewed studies that focused on international bank employees and college

students (see Appendix B for demographic information). It is possible the participants’

CMC through email was used primarily for business, professional, and school matters

and not for relationship creation or maintenance. In this case, personal self-disclosure

and intimacy levels are expected to be lower for non-relationship interactions, as this

communication is primarily between boss and employee or student and professor.

Intimacy is not required, or even desired, for these professional relationships.

Modality limitations. Instead of professional correspondence, however,

Cummings et al.’s (2002) review of the HomeNet project focused on already established

relationships and CMC’s effect on relationship maintenance. The HomeNet

researchers’ sole dependence on email communication as CMC may have contributed to

the lower levels of intimacy and closeness among Internet relationships as compared to

non-Internet relationships (as cited in Cummings et al., 2002). The barriers of non-

personal communication in email could be a factor in this project, and this could lead to

less intimacy among these Internet partners. If alternate modalities of CMC were

studied in both already established and professional relationships, perhaps these results

would have resembled those of the previously mentioned research.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 8

Conclusions and Future Study

In order to gain a complete understanding of CMC’s true effect on both online

and offline relationships, it is necessary to conduct a study that examines all aspects of

CMC. This includes, but is not limited to, email, IM, voice-chat, video-chat, online

journals and diaries, online social groups with message boards, and chat rooms. The

effects on relationships of each modality may be different, and this is demonstrated by

the discrepancies in intimacy between email and IM correspondence. As each mode of

communication becomes more prevalent in individuals’ lives, it is important to examine

the impact of all modes of CMC on online and offline relationship formation,

maintenance, and even termination.

The
conclusion
restates
the
problem
the paper
addresses
and can
offer areas
for further
research.
See the
OWL
resource on
conclu-
sions:
https://owl.
english.pur
due.edu/ow
l/resource/
724/04/

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 9

References

Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social

relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103-108.

Hu, Y., Wood, J. F., Smith, V., & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM:

Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 38-48.

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on

disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one

another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.

Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary

relationships. Behaviour Change, 21(2), 127-140.

Start the reference list on a new page, center the title “References,” and
alphabetize the entries. Do not underline or italicize the title. Double-space all
entries. Every source mentioned in the paper should have an entry.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 10

Appendix A

The HomeNet Project

Started at Carnegie Mellon University in 1995, the HomeNet research project has

involved a number of studies intended to look at home Internet usage. Researchers

began this project because the Internet was originally designed as a tool for scientific

and corporate use. Home usage of the Internet was an unexpected phenomenon worthy

of extended study.

Each of HomeNet’s studies has explored a different facet of home Internet usage,

such as chatting, playing games, or reading the news. Within the past few years, the

explosion of social networking has also proven to be an area deserving of additional

research. Refer to Table A1 for a more detailed description of HomeNet studies.

Table A1

Description of HomeNet Studies by Year
Year
 of
 Study
  Contents
 of
 Study
 
1995-­‐1996
  93 families in Pittsburgh involved in school

or community organizations
1997-­‐1999
  25 families with home businesses
1998-­‐1999
  151 Pittsburgh households
2000-­‐2002
  National survey

Begin each
appendix
on a new
page., with
the word
appendix in
the top
center. Use
an
identifying
capital
letter (e.g.,
Appendix
A,
Appendix B,
etc.) if you
have more
than one
appendix. If
you are
referring to
more than
one
appendix in
your text,
use the
plural
appendices
(APA only).

The first
paragraph
of the
appendix
should flush
with the
left margin.
Additional
paragraphs
should be
indented.

Label tables
and figures
in the
appendix as
you would
in the text
of your
manuscript,
using the
letter A
before the
number to
clarify that
the table or
figure
belongs to
the
appendix.

VARYING DEFINITIONS OF ONLINE COMMUNICATION 11

Appendix B
Demographic Information for Cummings et al. (2002)’s Review

If an
appendix
consists
entirely of
a table or
figure, the
title of the
table or
figure
should
serve as
the title of
the
appendix.