Section 3
In a world that is rapidly becoming more inter-connected, the Internet is an increasingly powerful communication tool. Ten years ago, the Internet was virtually non-existent, yet today with the use of email, websites, and on-line databases, it is certainly emerging as an indispensable part of American society. In 1998, it was estimated that in the U.S. alone, 32.7% of people, (over 90 million Americans) use the Internet. (www.ntia.doc.gov) This number has undoubtedly grown. The Internet can be used for research, to communicate with colleagues and friends, and to purchase anything from groceries to a new car. The information and services that the Internet provides is seemingly endless. One common communication practice concerning the Internet is the use of chat rooms.
The web site, "go.com," offers a variety of chatting options which encompass a wide range of age groups and interests. As Barlow and Rheingold (1995) stated, "you can't simply pick up a phone and ask to be connected to someone who wants to talk about Islamic art or California wine" (p 55). This is possible with the use of chat rooms. Chat rooms vary greatly; some of the options at go.com are groups about: cultures, philosophy, education, family, sports, music, romance, health, careers, and news. The site offers an open forum where users can log-on and
discuss ideas. Participants also have the option of chatting privately with one or more individuals.
Our primary area of focus will be on the twenty-something chat room. We would like to observe this room largely because we are
interested in studying our peers. In addition, it was felt that this broad, age-based chat room would be more universal than a chat room focusing on a specific hobby or interest. (The details of "go.com" and the twenty-something chat room will be discussed in section two).
The advances in technology, as well as the availability of the home PC, have made chat rooms increasingly popular. This popularity is especially strong, though not limited to, the younger generations. Many children born in the U.S. in the last twenty years have grown up with the presence of computers. In addition, many American children born within the last ten years will not remember a time before the Internet. The rapid advancement and interest in technology is one of the primary reasons for studying and observing chat room communities.
In addition, observing chat rooms offers a unique look at meaningful interaction. Participants often develop a specialized vocabulary, comprised of slang words and abbreviations. In a way, this vocabulary is similar to co-cultural argot. As Samovar, Porter and Stefani (1998) describe, argot is "a more or less private vocabulary peculiar to a co-cultural group" (p 136). Whether chat room participants are a co-culture could be debated. Samovar et al. (1998) describe a co-culture as:
groups or social communities exhibiting communication characteristics, perceptions, values beliefs and practices that are significantly different enough to distinguish them from other groups, communities and the dominant culture
(p 50).
The existence of this specialized language is one clear characteristic of chat room behavior. This communication practice, which involves argot, is distinctly different from the dominant culture. In addition, the way that chat room participators value and use technology is arguably different from the rest of the dominant culture. Even if one would like to argue that chat room participators are not different enough from dominant culture to warrant their own subculture, the argot that participants use is a strong reason to investigate chat rooms as a unique communication practice.
Chat room communication has several other distinctive features which make it intriguing to study. Individuality is one such aspect and is also a dominant characteristic of American culture. Americans generally have an "everyone for his/her self" type of attitude, which is reflected in their educational, economical, and social systems. In contrast to other cultures, for example Mexican or Korean, Samovar et al. (1998) describe American schools as predominantly individualistic (p 200-203). In addition, the whole idea of the American capitalist system relies heavily on an individual working diligently and then being rewarded for his/her performance.
Chat rooms parallel this attitude in that one initially communicates alone, from the privacy of his/her home without face-to-face or verbal interaction. The individual has a considerable amount of distance (literally and figuratively) from the other chat room participants. This initial communication is an important step in chat room behavior. Often, after an initial relationship has been established, participants will move to emailing each other, talking on the phone, and/or meeting face-to-face. The trust and relationship-building that can take place in a chat room is closely related to the next distinctive feature of chat room communication: anonymity.
Not only does one engage in chat room activity in an individualistic and arguably distant manner, but one has almost complete anonymity as well. A clear example of this type of privacy is the use of screen names. Although most chat rooms/chat programs require members to register, the identity of participants is fairly well-hidden. Screen names protect one's identity as well as give one the opportunity to represent themselves in whatever ways they desire. Chat rooms differ from other forms of communication because participants have an unusual power to be deceptive and protective of their identity.
This anonymity also offers individuals the chance to build friendships with others without making themselves so vulnerable. For example, Etzioni (2000) states that most virtual communities start from the assumption that "I do not know you, other than your alias, so how can I trust you?" As a chat room participant feels comfortable, s/he can reveal as much or as little of their identity as desired. Pratt, Wiseman, Cody and Wendt (1999) discuss this as the "uncertainty reduction process" (p 52). This is the process where people gain knowledge about others and thus can determine what type of relationship they wish to have. Furthermore, the Internet makes uncertainty reduction simple in that others only know what the individual chooses to tell them. An individual is in complete control of the process because s/he is often the sole supplier of information.
The anonymous aspect of chat rooms clearly has other positive aspects. For instance, this need to create a new identity may not always be hurtful. Consider for instance, the issues of racism, sexism, or people with disabilities. Chat rooms, by being anonymous, allow a new kind of equality that is not present in everyday society. Screen names need not have a physical description, age, race or gender. In this sense, chat rooms offer a virtually stereotype-free means of communication.
One example of this can be found in Friess' (1998) analysis of homosexual chat rooms. He argues that gay chat rooms demonstrate the amazing capabilities for on-line communication. He states that, "for many gay people, chat rooms provide a place where they can be themselves without really having to open the closet door"(p 24). Many homosexuals feel that the on-line chat rooms provide a close substitute to the bar and club scenes.
As one gay man notes in the article, "When I went on-line, it was the first time in my life I was popular" (Friess, 1998, 24.) This comment certainly supports the view that on-line chat rooms give marginalized communities a place where they can be accepted. It is also imperative to realize that on-line chat rooms may provide this sense of community and acceptance while still allowing participants to keep their anonymity.
As described above, chat room behavior is clearly a unique and relevant topic of communication research. It was agreed that our stance as researchers would be as complete observers. This view was elected mainly for its objectivity. The group felt that any participation might taint the observations and influence the data. Having discussed the reasons and method for examining chat room behavior, let's now examine "go.com" and the twenty-something chat room in more detail.
Section Three, continued...
We have discussed that widespread phatic communication was observed in the "go.com" twenty-something chat room. This section will discuss the implications of this practice by examining the type of community (or non-community) that is built in the previously mentioned chat room. In addition, this section will briefly discuss the sexual tone of the chat room which was observed by all group members.
Community Building
To begin with, community is a broad, vague, many-faceted word. According to Barlow and Rheingold (1995), "community is one of those terms that six people in the same conversation might use differently without knowing it" (p 50). This is often the case, as community can mean our physical neighborhood, our school or work environment, and a variety of other things.
Wellman and Hampton (1999) state that, "communities are clearly networks, and not neatly organized into little neighborhood boxes" (p 648, emphasis added). Similarly, they also argue that community is "based on social exchanges, rather than on spatial proximity" (p 649). This has clear implications for our study. If one wishes to define community as networks of social interaction, not necessitating physical space, then the twenty-something "go.com" chat room clearly is a community.
One example of this type of community is Barlow and Rheingold's description of the "mysterious nomadic City of the Deadheads" (1995, p 51). They state that the fans of the band the Grateful Dead, known as 'Deadheads,' had a habit of congregating all over the country. The 'Deadheads' would follow the band, and thus created a sense of community where there was no locational stability. Furthermore, Barlow and Rheingold describe this 'Deadhead' community as existing on-line after the band stopped touring. Again, the 'Deadheads' built a community without a real-life location (Barlow and Rheingold, 1995, p 51).
Even if one accepts the idea of on-line communities, many argue that the Internet is de-valuing traditional senses of the word. Wellman and Hampton (1999) argue that this is not the case but rather, the Internet is changing the conventional view of community. They state that the Internet is not:
pulling people away from deeply meaningful household and neighborhood conversations, it is more likely pulling people away from sitting by themselves in front of the television watching Seinfeld reruns (p 651).
In this sense, chat rooms, are building community in a new, unconventional manner, not degrading the traditional communities that are still in place.
While Internet communities and real-life communities may not be able to offer the same services, many have found the two to be comparable. As discussed earlier, in section one, the Internet provides an opportunity for people to interact without having to reveal personal information such as race, sex, age etc. In an Internet community, however, one cannot receive a hug, or go out and talk face-to-face with another over coffee. Like most real-life communities, however, Internet chat rooms have their "regulars" where chatters can talk with friends and where friends can find them on-line (Mills, 1998, p 31).
Additionally, the non-verbal aspect of communication is largely gone when using the Internet. However people convey these feelings through other means, for example by used of relational icons such as sadness [:(], surprise [:o] and happiness [:)] (Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin, 1998 p 259). Meaning is also communicated through "intentional misspellings, spatial arrays and ALL CAPITAL LETTERS to convey yelling" (Flaherty et al., 1998 p 259).
The differences and similarities of the two community types raise interesting questions for researchers. For example, Flaherty et al. wanted to explore "whether Internet and face-to-face communication channels are functional alternatives for each other" (1998, p 250). They found that the motives people used the Internet and real face-to-face interaction were positively related to one another. Secondly, the research ultimately showed that Internet interaction is not necessarily a functional alternative to face-to-face communication (Flaherty et al. 264). The reason for this is that the respondents were shown to prefer face-to-face communication over Internet communication and this was especially true on the interpersonal level.
It seems however, that we need not make a choice, meaning that we don't need to prefer one community over another. Perhaps we can simply choose each community for separate purposes or at certain times. It is clear that, while some may argue otherwise, the twenty-something chat room does provide a sense of community for many chatters. Although real-life and on-line communities differ, there is a substantial amount of common ground.
Sexual Undertones
One dominant aspect of the twenty-something chat room was a strong sexual theme. The research group, who were complete outsiders to the chat room, immediately noted the sexual focus. We came to wonder what those who participate in the chat room think of the sexual innuendoes. Perhaps it is something that goes unnoticed after time, as one gets comfortable in a specific room. Or perhaps it is a desirable characteristic that chatters enjoy. In this section, the pervasive sexual tone of the chat room will be discussed. While we tried to be tasteful in the use of examples, some of the examples are necessarily explicit in order to discuss this aspect honestly.
The "handle" or "nickname" that one chooses has obvious implications for being sexual. The screen name plays an important part of how chatters are seen and what impression they make on others (Mills, 1998 p 32). Names such as "BigTenInches" and "Busty Debby" are both examples of screen names that foster a sexual atmosphere.
In addition to the sexual nature of some screen names, the conversation of the room often reverts to sexual topics. Masturbation, men's penis size and invitations for sex were commonly talked about topics. This communication was usually perpetuated by a small group of individuals who kept the topic sex-related. Other members of the room were often eager to respond to sexual dialogue.
One reason for this constant sexual undertone may be the fact that it is much easier to be crude and offensive when one does not have to personally responsible for his/her actions. In other words, because chat room conversations take place "at a distance rather than face-to-face, it appears to involve less risk" (Mills, 1998 p 31).
One imperative distinction that needs to be made is between public and private chat. Although the tone of the room was often sexual, we have no way to speculate what went on in private chatting circles. This sexual chat may have intensified or been completely non-existent.
Section Four
One limitation of our study is the lack of member checks. We did not have members of the study give us feedback or opinions about our findings. As was just discussed, the group had no information regarding the more private interactions of the chat room. Because our role was that of complete observer, we had no real interaction with those who were observed. In fact, we know little about them at all. Since we had to take the information that chatters gave us about themselves, we have little way of knowing if the age, gender, physical description etc., that they supplied was true. The aspect of anonymity that was discussed earlier in this paper certainly limited our study, in that we have only a vague idea of the type of people we are studying. In the future, this information would certainly be valuable and could be obtained through member checks and/or interviews.
References
Barlow, J. And Rheingold H. (1995). Cyberhood vs. neighborhood. Utne Reader, Mar/April, 50-56.
Etzioni, A. (2000, February 10). E-Communities build new ties, but ties that bind. The New York Times. pG7
Flaherty, L, Pearce, K, and Rubin, R. (1998) Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250-72.
Friess, S. (1998). A place where no one knows your name. The Advocate, 752, 24-25.
Pratt, L, Wiseman, R, Cody, M. And Wendt, P. (1999). Interrogative strategies and information exchange in computer-mediated communication. Communication Quarterly, 47, 46-68.
Http://www.ntia.doc.gov : US Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Mills, R. (1998) Cyber: Sexual chat on the internet. Journal of Popular Culture, 32, 31-46.
Samovar, L, Porter, R. and Stefani, L. (1998). Communication between cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Wellman, B. And Hampton, K. (1999). Living networked on and offline. Contemporary Sociology, 28, 648-54.
Authored by:
Kevin Sanson
OBSERVATIONS
With any type of naturalistic research, observation is key. From the first time on-site, researchers need to frantically take notes, mentally and physically. Such notes should be an excellent source for understanding. With each jot or legible scribble, researchers can recall what was said, repeat what occurred, and mull over most types of perplexing behavior. When a researcher is available for only limited observations, however, his or her notes can be slightly premature or incomplete. Their logs are inklings of the larger, deeper levels of understanding that loom ahead. This research team has attempted to uncover as much as possible about this virtual environment in a limited amount of time. Our observations occurred bi-weekly over a two-month period. Researchers dedicated one-hour blocks of time during the week and weekend, respectively. Throughout our research, we found specific elements of this chat room to be repetitive and worthy of further inquiry.
From this observation, particular nuances of this "virtual" culture emerged. Our research team felt that these prevalent elements need to be identified and labeled as areas significant elements to this chat room culture. Such apparent nuances include the importance of a chatter's handle and its relation to his or her online persona; a chatter's way of expressing emotions; the use of acronyms and jargon; conversation etiquette and reactive impulses; the appearance of pictures and images alongside text; as well as greetings and farewells. Our research team will also identify chat room traffic; in brief, the days and times of our observations will be noted with respect to the number of chatters present.
One of the first characteristics that becomes apparent to the research team is the unusual and creative choice for handles. Handles are the names that chatters choose as their virtual name. We rarely identified chatters using Christian names, such as Dave129, LittleSue and EricFrankel22. For example, on a Sunday morning at approximately at 1:30 am, only four chatters used Christian names out of the 78 total visitors. The majority of the handles fall into four categories. First, some handles appear as tributes to people other than the chatter. For example, consider the following handles: danascully18, marlboroman_31. Other handles are descriptive. Mexicanboy17, slimone79, and pizzaguy101 seem to allude to certain characteristics of the chatter. Some handles are witty words or phrases like GeneralMalaise, OneSpicyMeatball GentleJEDI. And, finally, some handles are objects or physical things that could be of some importance to the chatter: 99chevycaviliermann, kitty1877 and billabong1019 (note: billabong is usually associated with a brand of snowboarding gear, but could also be interpreted as a reference to a type of drug paraphernalia).
A logical transition from handles is the process that a chatter undergoes to "introduce" him or herself to the room. One of the most obvious aspects of this process is the collective hello. The majority of all chatters break into the room or conversation through a "hello" similar to the following examples: "Hello room," "Anyone want to chat with a(followed by personal description), "Hello everybody," and "What's up all?" There are two variations on the collective hello: solicitation and location hellos. The solicitation hello releases some sort of sexually-related proposition. The location hello is self-explanatory. The following examples clarify each type of hello:
Dragonman74: HELLO LADIES
Chicken50: any horny guys looking for a couple of chicks
BigDawg: any HOT LADIES wanna chat PM me
Olivasboyy: Anyone from Texas?
Once conversations arise, acronyms and jargon abound. Throughout chat room conversations, chatters are quick to abbreviate words. Sometimes, multiple abbreviations exist for the same word, or abbreviations are combined. Consider the following chart on acronyms and abbreviations:
puter computer
pic picture
lol laugh out loud
brb be right back
2to
rofl rolling on the floor laughing
wb welcome back
uyou
asl age, sex, location
yo years old
Those acronyms that are substitutions for an action are often found to be enclosed by an asterisk (*S*) or parentheses ( (((((Blows kiss to))))) ), or written in italics (runs and hugs). In addition, the use of punctuation in the place of emotions occurred in the chat room. For example, and or : ) and : ( are often substituted for happy and sad. Multiple variants exist for these abbreviations as well. Letter substitution and word shortening also occur. For example, the Go Network prohibits profanity. An automatic censor will block such words with asterisks. For example, a profane word would appear as follows: ****. Some chatters, however, avoid this censorship by replacing or inserting a space in between the letters: fvck or f u c k. The internal censor detects neither word. Chatters also utilize a set of words specific to this culture. Such jargon was new to many of the researchers and is an on-going learning process to identify certain definitions. For example, "flooding" and "stats" are often used in the chat room. Flooding is the process by which a chatter posts a large amount of messages, rapidly and repeatedly"flooding" the room with messages. Stats are the chatter's demographic information, such as age, race, sex, sexual orientation, and physical description. This word is most often used after the solicitation hello has been answered.
Another element that is obvious within the chat room is the presence of images. Chatters have the option to include a picture with their text, either with every posted message or only with messages designated by the chatter. These pictures are usually of the chatter. Some pictures, however, are cartoons, celebrities, personal artwork or nonsense sketches. Some chatters choose not to post their picture without a picture in return. This process is often referred to as a "trade." From our observations, a concern arises among chatters as to whether a posted picture is in fact that of the chatter:
onecoolgirl: hey matthew nice pic is that really you?
cmatthew78: yup. yours truly
In some cases, chatters inquire as to whether the posted picture is copied from a website where professional pictures are posted in the sense that the pictures are "too good to be true."
Throughout our observations, we noticed that chatters repeatedly favored certain behaviors more highly than other behaviors. Flooding, as described, is the act of inundating a chat room with numerous messages so rapidly that most chatters have difficulty reading them. This act is viewed negatively by the chat room population. In one instance of flooding, these chatters responded with the following:
Dragonflyz12: hey! Did you know the more you type the less anyone will friggin' talk to you?
LadyBugg69: knock it off! Don't you know how to chat!?!?!?
Lilboyblue22: hey, babygirl did anyone ever tell you how annoying that (flooding) is?
Lilboyblue22: (second posting) If not, I will.
The differences between these postings vary from aggravated to informative to sarcastic, respectively. These postings were chosen due to their representation of the general chat room sentiment towards flooding; each chat room posting could be generally categorized as one of these replies. In contrast, public professions of loneliness generally elicited a positive response from the chat room. In these instances, chatters would commonly post a message that described their loneliness, boredom or depression. In reply, other chatters would post a message of empathy and compassion. Consider the following postings (in bold) and their replies:
SuzyQ2: Why won't anyone talk to me tonight?
SuzyQ2: (second posting) Uggh. It's so boring in here!
Lovemyjeep97: so lonely in new york. anyone wanna be my company?
Loverboy: SuzyQ I'll talk to ya!
Ashleyishere: hey suze what's up?
Golfiscool5545: jeep dude nyc here!
Of course, it is imperative to note that negative behaviors such as flooding elicited a larger response than the behaviors that the chat room received positively. The fact that postings of loneliness, boredom, and depression went ignored by much of the chat room should be noted. Other behaviors that received negative responses from the chat room included nonsense postings, overly vulgar or explicit sexual propositions, personal attacks, and ridicule. Other behaviors that received positive responses from the chat room included announcements of good news such as desired pregnancy, graduation, or engagements, and the reappearance of a 'regular' chatter that had been absent from the chat room for a significant amount of time. These latter behaviors occurred less frequently than flooding and the postings of loneliness.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
Although our research team feels confident that our observations and categories would stand the tests of fellow researchers, we felt it necessary to accumulate other research on computer-mediated communication. One pertinent distinction between our research and the academic inquiry of other research teams resides in the fact that our chat room is not specifically geared towards any type of social support or targets any specific audience. Entitled "20 Something," this room's only qualification is that chatters be between the ages of 19 and 29; other chat rooms create communities for homosexuals, disabled people, people with specific interests such as gardening or cooking, and people suffering from other ailments such as obesity or AIDS.
There is one significant connection between our study and those that concentrated on chat rooms with a more specific focus. Although it is understood that much support is needed for individuals experiencing extremely stressful situations, let it also be understood that social support is still exchanged on a daily basis (Barnes & Duck, 1994; Leach & Braithwaite, 1996; Braithwaite, Waldron & Finn, 1999). Therefore, our study is able to relate to other studies to the extent that the observed interactions are, to some extent, still a form of social support. The chat room culture, regardless of focus, allows this support to be informal, among strangers and counteracts any time or distance constraints. Our chat room still stands a part from other research in that much of the observed support occurred in an environment not specifically designed for social support. Thus, such interactions were saturated with a multitude of other forms of informal, phatic exchange.
Our chat room is more analogous to a "party" than a place to find social support. We often found 40 or more people in the chat room. Since each chatter was usually "paired" with only one or two other visitors, a variety of conversations were occurring at the same time. It often seemed difficult for a "new" chatter to enter into such conversations and find the solace he or she was possibly seeking. As opposed to message boards, which is similar to a bulletin board where messages are posted and answered by a variety of chatters over a short period of time, the conversations in our chat room are continuous and instantaneous. This dilemma relates to an issued raised by some computer enthusiasts about the growth of such social chat rooms. As the amount of traffic that these chat rooms encounter rapidly increases, the level of established relationships and sheer size of the community become barriers to new chatters attempting to enter not only the chat room but also conversations ("How big," 2000). This dilemma was evident multiple times throughout our observations; on various occasions, the collective hello's, as described above, often went unanswered for four or five attempts before another chatter stopped his or her current conversation to welcome the new chatter. This occurrence also suggests another instance in which our particular chat room is not as an accessible forum for social support.
Despite the differences between our research and others, we still found that our chat room exhibited three out of the five types of behaviors outlined by Braithwaite, Waldon & Finn (1999). First, they describe information support as including messages that relayed instructions, including advice; referral to experts; situation appraisal; and teaching. Second, they describe network support as messages that broaden the recipient's social network by connecting him or her to others with similar interests or situations. Although these connections only included non-emotive relationships, the contrary appears in what the researchers defined as emotional support. They describe this type of support as including "all attempts by the sender to express empathy, support the emotional expressions of the recipient, or reciprocate the emotion (136)."
Unfortunately, as our chat room is much more of a phatic environment, some researchers suggest that substituting these "shallow interactions" between strangers for more formal, real-world support may produce negative, real-world effects in the chatter (Bower 1998). Such effects could include loneliness, isolation and depression. This study is somewhat perplexing, as the traditional notion of chat rooms is one of an escape from these same feelings. Since our research focused solely on the conversations and behaviors within the chat room and dealt with the obvious geographic constraints, we had no opportunities to observe chatters outside of the chat room to inquire if any of them experienced such feelings.
RAMIFICATIONS
One concept that kept reoccurring to this research team throughout the study is the idea of this chat room as a forum for social support. Coming into this study, each member of the research team had preconceptions of what this chatroom was to represent. Despite some slight differences, each of us expected to encounter an arena where serious dialogue is facilitated. We anticipated messages in the chatroom to illustrate a genuine concern for the next chatter. Since the room is for individuals in his or her 20s, we also expected discussions of somewhat serious topics, or at least topics that one would expect among mature adults. Simply, each researcher felt that this chatroom's focus would be upon some form of social support where bonding is primary, conversations are necessary and relationships are an abundant result.
Our research team found very little evidence that supported our misconceptions. This chatroom appeared more as a place for people to come together and engage in phatic communication. Conversations in this particular chatroom rarely ventured into topics of a serious nature. As conversations fell into the general categories outline by a fellow researcher, one recognizes the simple trivialness of such topics. Members of our research team were astounded at the abundant vulgarity of the chatroom. Chatters engaged in sexual propositions more so than inquiring about a fellow chatter's emotional state, physical health or general disposition. Language was overly graphic for an arena that the researchers felt had the potential to be an overly accessible forum for social support.
It's important to make a distinction between the type of social support that might occur in a chatroom for obese or disabled individuals to that which might occur in the chatroom we observed. We recognized that in a "20 Something" chatroom social support might resemble the encouragement and understanding between friends, but we still failed to find abundant examples of this type of support. Understanding this observation, it is imperative to question this chatroom's main purpose. All of our observations seem to suggest that this chatroom is more like a purely social gathering, almost a party-like atmosphere where fragmented conversations abound. When the population of the chatroom average around 40 chatters, it is understandable that an individual who was in search of some form of authentic social support might have difficulty "emerging" through all of the phatic communication to receive the necessary support. Therefore, this chatroom's main purpose seems to be to create a forum for phatic social exchange. Fortunately, such phatic communication offers the opportunity to engage in the daily social support as described by other researchers (Barnes & Duck, 1994; Leach & Braithwaite, 1996; Braithwaite, Waldron, & Finn, 1999), but rarely did our research team feel that such support occurred. The conversations in go.com's "20 Something" chatroom were much too fragmented, explicit and profane to suggest that such communication could take place.
REFERENCES
Barnes, M.K. & Duck, S. (1994). Everyday supportive contexts for social support. In B.R. Burleson, L. Albrecht, & I.G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support (p. 175-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Braithwaite, D.O., Waldron, V.R., & Finn, J. (1999). Communication of social support in computer-mediated groups for people with disabilities. Health Communication 11(2), 123-151.
Bower, B. (1998, September 12). Social disconnections on-online. Science News, 154, 168.
How big can a community get? (2000, April 10) Computerworld, 51.
Leach, M.A. & Braithwaite, D.O. (1996). A binding tie: Supportive communication of family kinkeepers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 200-216.
