he choice of what to reveal about their appearance and they are not bound to it as they often are in face-to-face communication. Others tend to feel very differently about computer-mediated communication. In an article in "Communication Education," researchers came to very different conclusions about computer-mediated communication and it's effects. These researchers point out that when using CMC we lose a lot of social interaction. For example, when chatting or e-mailing someone you do not get the benefit of seeing their body language or hearing their tone of voice. This is a concept known as "cues filtered out" and it plays a major role in the opposition of CMC. By missing these "cues" you are less likely to fully understand what the others person is trying to communicate. Researchers concerned with the social psychological aspects of CMC have proposed that the medium causes "depersonalization" (Kelly). CMC lacks social context cues and shared norms governing its use, which produces greater apprehension and inhibition. Though researchers have opposing opinions about the quality of computer-mediated communication they tend to agree that it has its purpose. Those who feel CMC is an ineffective means of communication will concede that it can be useful and in some cases necessary. CMC tends to be cheap and focused. It allows people to communicate thoughts directly in print, which are often topic based and to the point. Also, researchers concur that it is more cost effective to use CMC as opposed to meeting someone in 3person or talking to them on the phone long distance. In addition, it offers a means of communication to the disabled, such as those who are deaf or mute. There seems to be two clear-cut sides regarding the issue of effectiveness and quality of computer-mediated communication with some neutral meeting ground in between. Some feel that CMC is a superior medium because it removes physical barriers such as appearan...
