Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Researchers studying the social implications of online activity often treat media in an 'either/or' manner: either you communicate with others in person, on the telephone or via the Internet. The corollary to this assumption
is that use of one medium displaces the use of others. This study problematizes these assumptions by examining both the volume of communication through various media and the relative combination of different media usage by
relationship type. The more frequently one uses all media with a given social relation, the higher the level of media multiplexity. This study examines levels of media multiplexity with three media: face-to-face, telephone, e-mail/Internet (depending on the question). Our analysis leads us to three important findings. First, high levels of contact online are positively correlated with high levels of contact in person and via telephone. Second, demographic factors play a role in level and type of media use between some relationship roles (i.e. spouse, close friend), but no factor plays a significant part for all relationship roles. Third, regardless of demographic factors, different relationship roles effect the volume of contact via all of media and the specific media most often used.

To address this issue we draw on data from National Geographic Survey 2001, a web-based questionnaire that was posted on the National Geographic website during the fall of 2001. Our analysis focuses on the 9615 adults who completed all necessary demographic questions of interest to us. The web-based data collection method for Survey 2001 was innovative, convenient, cost-effective, and produced a large sample. However, as the survey was not based on random sampling, it constrains our ability to generalize reliably
about the characteristics of Internet users. Moreover, since National Geographic appeals to a literate, family-oriented readership, it is unsurprising that the survey over-sampled well educated and financially comfortable respondents. Nevertheless, our explicit recognition of
these limitations allows us to present a qualified discussion of our results, which are still fascinating in their own right.

Firstly, we completed an analysis of the relationship between telephone calls sent, e-mails sent and face-to-face conversations that the respondent had 'yesterday.' Our findings suggest that heavy users of one medium are
significantly likely to be heavy users of the other two. For example, those who have an Internet connection at home have significantly more conversations at home than those who do not have an Internet connection. These particular results hold for people from 18 - 50 years old, and show a remarkably similar pattern for males and females. Furthermore, those people who did not send e-mail from home were twice as likely not to have a face-to-face conversation at home, married (8 percent- vs. 4 percent-) or single (31 percent- vs. 18 percent-). A more comprehensive presentation of these findings will be presented in the paper.

In addition, we present findings on frequency of use of the three media for each of five selected relationship roles: spouse, family in the house, family not in the house, close friends and work/school. The variables used for this set of questions are ordinal and asked people how often they discussed important matters with people from the groups listed above. The values for a
response ranged from once monthly to over once daily. In our analysis, we found significant differences between the different relationship roles. For example, people communicate by all media more often with spouse than any other relationship type. But while people discuss important matters with their close friends more frequently by telephone, they discuss important matters with family members not living at home with relatively equal frequency across all three media. The most obvious conclusion we draw
make from these findings is that people are certainly willing to discuss important matters by Internet and telephone. This claim undermines naysayers who suggest that the Internet is not a medium for meaningful communication and social support. The second conclusion is that people clearly select different media for different relationship types.

We suggest that the Internet is not simply displacing other media or social interactions. Rather, the Internet is part of a growing toolkit of means of communication that people are selectively using based on the social context, the properties of the medium and the particular disposition of the individual.