The selection of instant messaging or e-mail

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-5227.htm
The selection of instant
messaging or e-mail
College students’ perspective for computer
communication
Sean Lancaster and David C. Yen
Department of DSC and MIS, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
Albert H. Huang
Eberhardt School of Business, University of the Pacific, Stockton,
California, USA, and
Shin-Yuan Hung
Department of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University,
Chia-Yi, Taiwan, Republic of China
Abstract
Purpose – Instant messaging and e-mail are popular communication methods on college campuses.
However, students’ perceptions of the two technologies vary greatly. This study seeks to investigate
the differences between instant messaging and e-mail.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey was given to 545 college students.
Findings – Instant messaging is perceived as offering many advantages over e-mail including
conveying emotions, building relationships and ease of use (EU). Users are more likely to use symbols
with their instant messages to help communicate. College students find both technologies to be easy to
use, but show a preference for the EU of instant messaging. However, despite its perceived functional
benefits, instant messaging is only the favored form of communication for personal and social
relationships.
Originality/value – This paper builds on existing research by discussing information richness, EU,
the use of emotions, multimedia, playfulness, flow, cognitive fit theory, bounded rationality, perceived
commitment, and user satisfaction in the course of the study.
Keywords Computer applications, Communication, Electronic mail
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
E-mail and instant messaging are popular communication technologies on college
campuses. Students are using these technologies to trade messages with friends, keep
in touch over distance, communicate on work-related projects and exchange new ideas.
While studies show that face-to-face relationships are still perceived as being more
valuable than either method in developing relationships, both are increasingly being
used to communicate in social and work environments (Huang and Yen, 2003; Parks
and Floyd, 1996; Parks and Roberts, 1998; Pascal, 2003). Computer mediated
communication has been widely studied, with much research focusing on e-mail, it
simply has been in use longer than instant messaging (Isaacs et al., 2002). Recently,
there has been a surge of research on instant messaging looking at its effects in both
social and work related environments (Lenhart et al., 2001). This paper will look at
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
5
Information Management &
Computer Security
Vol. 15 No. 1, 2007
pp. 5-22
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-5227
DOI 10.1108/09685220710738750

IMCS
15,1
6
college students’ perceptions of both e-mail and instant messaging for conveying
emotions, aiding relationships, usage and reliability.
E-mail is a popular communication tool. IDC Research projects that the total number
of e-mail messages sent daily will exceed 60 billion worldwide by 2006. In 2002,
CyberAtlas found that the internet is the primary mode of communication for
US teenagers. About 91 percent of those aged 18-19 use e-mail. A 2001 Gallup poll
found that nine in ten respondents use e-mail at home while eight in ten use it at work.
Instant messaging has quickly spread as a popular communication tool. Introduced
in 1996, IDC Research now predicts that the instant messaging market will reach
$4.2 billion by 2006. According to Nielson Netratings, by 2002, nearly 40 percent of
online households in the USA were logging into a public instant messaging network at
least once a month. The same study also found that nine out of the top ten online
destinations for children and teenagers were instant messaging tools and services.
Rather than looking at e-mail and instant messaging independently, this paper will
compare student perceptions of the two technologies. The study hopes to answer some
fundamental questions: are instant messaging and e-mail useful for similar types of
communication? Is there a user preference when communicating in social and work
settings? Is either technology superior when attempting to convey emotions?
Evolution of instant messaging
Instant messaging was introduced in 1996 with the introduction of ICQ software by
Mirablis. Upon registering with ICQ, the user is given a universal internet number,
UIN, which allows the individual to be uniquely identified upon log-in. Your profile can
be updated with personal information and a list of contacts, a “buddy list.” Once the
user has accessed the internet, ICQ will share the connection with other ICQ users,
updating the “buddy list” when contacts are available (www.icq.com). The technology
was quickly adopted by young people as a communication method and its popularity
has continued to grow (Huang and Yen, 2003; Schiano et al., 2002; Fang, 2003).
Instant messaging has undergone rapid growth and estimates predict that growth
to continue in the future. IDC Research w estimates that the instant messaging market
will increase from $1.1 billion in 2001 to $4.2 billion in 2006. The Radicati Group
estimates that the active instant messaging accounts will grow from 590 million in
2003 to more than 1.4 billion in 2007. Those estimates include both social and work
related instant messaging accounts.
Instant messaging possesses several characteristics that distinguish it from e-mail.
It allows real time communication, usually between two parties. Users are able to
synchronously communicate by delivering point-to-point text messages (Segerstad and
Ljungstrand, 2002; Grinter and Paylen, 2002). E-mail also allows point-to-point
communication, usually between two parties. The information is not transmitted
real-time, instead using a server for storage until the recipient is able to retrieve the
content. Additionally, an increasing number of graphical emoticons are available to
users of instant messaging (Figure 1). Vendors and users are continuously creating and
increasing the pool of available emoticons. The process is like creating a new language
dedicated for expressing human emotions.
Presently, the major instant messaging services are provided by: AIM w from AOL w
(which now also operates ICQ), Yahoo Messenger w from Yahoo w and MSN
Messenger w from Microsoft w . To this point, the different services use proprietary

Happy
Sad
Wink
Confused
Shock
Angry
Smug
Cool
Worried
Devilish
Crying
Laughing
protocols and thus are not able to be used in conjunction with one another. To eliminate
this incompatibility issue, the Internet Engineering Task Force is working on a
universal protocol that would allow these services to be used together.
Literature review
The present study investigates the potential effects of IM versus e-mail on college
students. Variables from various dimensions are investigated in the study. In the
following section, relevant literature is reviewed, including research on information
richness, ease of use (EU), use of emoticons, multimedia, playfulness, flow, cognitive fit,
bounded rationality, media selection, perceived commitment and user satisfaction.
Information richness/communication quality
Since, IM is a computer-mediated communication (CMC) tool, it makes sense to review
and understand the fundamentals of CMC. An important theory and research subject
regarding the quality of communication via computer-mediated channels is the
information richness theory (IRT). IRT, which has benefited from a great deal of work
from researchers in both the communications and information systems fields (Webster
and Martocchio, 1993, 1995; Potter and Balthazard, 2000; Tan et al., 1998; Tyran et al.,
1992), has been the focus of many studies related to organizational communication and
technology-based communication.
Information richness is the ability of information to change a recipient’s understanding
within a given amount of time (Webster and Martocchio, 1993). In other words, “rich”
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
7
Figure 1.
Graphical emoticon
examples (used by Yahoo!
Messenger w )

IMCS
15,1
8
information can change a recipient’s understanding more quickly than “lean” information,
which will change the recipient’s understanding, but will require more time to achieve the
same result. However, many factors may affect the ability of a medium to transmit rich
information. IRT argues that a medium capable of providing immediate feedback is better
than a medium that only provides unidirectional communication, and that a medium that
carries more cues (e.g. expressions, gestures, tones, etc.) is a better choice than one that
carries fewer cues. Based on these IRT assumptions, e-mail is a leaner medium because it
does not support the same level of communication richness offered by other forms of
communication, such as face-to-face conversation. The main reason for this argument is
that e-mail is text-based, and therefore is incapable of transmitting non-textual cues such
as facial expressions, body language, or vocal tones. Besides, e-mail is asynchronous, and
does not allow for immediate response. IRT also assumes that richness remains constant
for a given medium (Webster and Martocchio, 1993), meaning that e-mail would remain a
lean medium regardless of other factors in the communication process or the
communication’s context.
A different but related theory is the social presence theory. Social presence is the
perception of physical presence during an interaction. Different media offer different
levels of social presence. The choice of a medium is based on the need for social
presence during a particular task (Zack and McKenney, 1995). Using this assumption,
an individual would likely choose e-mail as the communication medium if there were
no perceived need of physical presence to accomplish the task. For example, e-mail is
often used to make announcements such as meeting schedules, but face-to-face
meetings are deemed a more appropriate medium of communication if there is a need
for more social contact (i.e. sales representatives preferring to meet clients in person to
solicit new business).
Despite the popularity of IRT among researchers, several empirical studies have
found evidence that does not agree with IRT’s assumptions and suggestions. Such
studies show that e-mail (a lean medium according to IRT) is indeed capable of
supporting rich information exchange (Dailey and Steiner, 1998; Potter and Balthazard,
2000). Attempting to explain this empirical evidence, Lee (Potter and Balthazard, 2000)
conducted a qualitative analysis of e-mail communication within an organization. He
concluded that e-mail users employed varying techniques to overcome the limitations
of the medium and to convey rich information in a non-traditional way. In other words,
e-mail was seen to be neither a rich nor a lean medium. Communication richness
depended on the interaction between the medium and its users. For example, receivers
of e-mail messages did not need to be passive recipients – they could be active
participants by creating meanings based on the text messages. Therefore, the same
e-mail tool might be a rich medium for users in one organization, but a poor medium for
those in another.
Another perspective that might be used to explain the counter evidences of IRT is
the adaptive structuration theory (AST) (Qureshi, 1995; Weisband et al., 1995). AST
suggests that the symbolic features of communication media are evolving
characteristics rather than constants. Therefore, the characteristics of a medium
may change according to organizational cultures and other environmental factors.
E-mail, for example, might be viewed as a less formal medium than face-to-face
meetings in one organization, but might be seen as a formal mode of communication in
another. Under the assumptions of AST, organizational members communicating with

one another constantly produce and reproduce new structures and actions while
interacting and using various communication technologies. These structures and
actions are produced both by the influence of the technology and by the social
environment of the group (Olaniran and Williams, 1995; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). In
other words, media technology and communication structure continuously transform
each other through interaction.
A similar perspective to AST is the social influence model, which argues that the
properties of a medium depend on the individual using it and the social context in
which it is used. AST also contends that the selection of a medium is not always a
rational process and depends on the influence of groups or friends (Kock, 1998).
Ease of use and usefulness
Another relevant theory is the technology acceptance model (TAM). TAM is a model
that explains the use, the intention to use, and the acceptance of new technology.
The purpose of TAM is to track the impact of external factors on users’ internal beliefs,
attitudes, and intentions (Dailey and Steiner, 1998). The two predictors of IT usage in
the TAM are perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived EU. PU is a user’s subjective
probability assessment of a technology application’s potential contribution to his or her
job performance. EU is a user’s subjective assessment of the amount of effort required
to learn to use a particular technology. The assumption of the model is that both PU
and EU affect users’ attitudes toward a new technology, which in turn affects its actual
usage. Through a series of experiments, the TAM came to three conclusions: first,
technology use can be predicted reasonably well from user intentions. Second, PU is
a major determinant of people’s intentions to use computers. Third, perceived EU is a
secondary determinant of the intention to use computers. These results were
promising – they indicated that the TAM is useful for evaluating technology
applications in their early stages of development (Weisband et al., 1995).
Use of emoticons
Emoticons have a major role in IM communication. The creation and use of emoticons
is an attempt to replace the lost facial cues in certain CMC. Originally, emoticons are
symbols composed by letters and special characters. Emoticons normally need to be
viewed sideway from the right. For example, frequently seen text-based emoticons
include smile, sad, cry, and others (Figure 2). Recently, an increasing number of
graphical emoticons are available to users of IM as a result of improved e-mail
capabilities (Figure 3). Vendors and users are continuously creating and increasing the
pool of available emoticons. The process is like creating a new language dedicated to
expressing human emotions.
EMOTICON EMOTION
:-) Happy
:-( Sad
;~( Cry
:-D Laughing
:-| Uncertain
;-) Winking
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
9
Figure 2.
Text-based emoticon
examples

IMCS
15,1
10
Figure 3.
Graphical emoticon
examples (used by Yahoo!
Messenger w )
Happy
Sad
Wink
Confused
Shock
Angry
Smug
Cool
Worried
Devilish
Crying
Laughing
Preliminary research results have shown a positive impact on the communication
process with the use of emoticons (Rivera et al., 1996). A recent study found that both
female and male users are equally likely to use emoticons. In addition, both females
and males exhibit an increase in the frequency of emoticon use, rather than females
muting emotional expression as with face-to-face interaction. In addition, females were
found to use emoticons mostly for humor, whereas males tended to use emoticons to
express teasing and sarcasm (Wolf, 2000).
Emoticons are effective shorthand symbols designed to convey specific attitudes,
moods and emotions on the internet (Kay, 2002). They provide the electronic gestures
and convey the warmth that is apparent in face-to-face communications. They also add
breadth to the message (Blake, 2000). Rules in e-mails regarding emoticons and
abbreviations are not standardized. Symbols can convey voice inflections, facial
expressions and bodily gestures over the internet. Emoticons can be effective in
conveying nonverbal cues between computer users and influence of these emoticons that
can be used as substitute for face-to-face communication (Walther and D’Addario, 2001).
Multimedia
The use of emoticons adds a graphical dimension, and therefore qualifies instant
messaging as a multimedia communication tool. In the past decade, multimedia
applications have appeared in many areas such as computer-based training, business
presentation, merchandising, and communications (Finholt and Sproull, 1990; Kock,
1998; King and Weidong, 1997). There have been many investigations into the

effectiveness of multimedia use, particularly in a learning environment (Kock, 2001).
Studies have demonstrated that multimedia significantly improves comprehension, and
even increases users’ problem-solving capability (Weisband et al., 1995). Many previous
studies have found multimedia training methods to be more effective than traditional
training methods. Other studies have shown that multimedia users had a higher
retention rate and a shorter learning curve (Jarvenpaa et al., 1988). Still other findings
have indicated that multimedia training is generally more effective than conventional
training for enhancing subjects’ knowledge, performance, and retention. The effect of
multimedia was also found to be non-industry-specific (Finholt and Sproull, 1990).
Playfulness
The ability to enjoy work and treat work as play is often viewed as a characteristic of
successful adult learners (Carroll and Mack, 1984). One measure of such ability is
playfulness, which describes a user’s tendency to interact with computers
spontaneously, inventively, and imaginatively (Webster and Martocchio, 1992).
In other words, a playful user tends to explore new ways of using computer systems with
creative approaches. They may also be less afraid of making mistakes and therefore do
not always follow instructions. Many microcomputer applications encourage a playful
attitude, because they are easy to use, responsive, and customizable (Starbuck and
Webster, 1991). Studies showed that the potential advantages of playfulness include
increased involvement, positive mood, and satisfaction (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;
Sandelands et al., 1983; Webster and Martocchio, 1992). Potential negative effects of
playfulness include longer time to completion (Sandelands, 1988), and over involvement
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Users with high computer playfulness may become
unproductive if they spend too much time playing games.
Flow
A related construct to playfulness is flow. Flow is a useful construct for understanding and
studying human interaction with computers. Flow characterizes human-computer
interaction as a playful and exploratory experience (Webster et al., 1993). According to the
flow theory, flow is the feeling of “in control of our actions, master of our own fate ...we
feel a sense of exhilaration, a deep sense of enjoyment” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow can
occur when there is a balance between task demands and the capability of the individual.
For example, overly challenging tasks produce anxiety instead of flow. On the other hand,
overly simple tasks produce boredom rather than flow. Flow can be measured using four
different dimensions: control, attention focus, curiosity, and intrinsic interest in the
interaction (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Trevino and Webster, 1992; Webster et al., 1993).
In human-computer interaction terms, control refers to users’ ability to direct the
computer to do what they want. For example, some web sites force users to re-enter
information when the BACK button is used in navigation. Users are often frustrated by
the inability of the system to retain the information already entered. Other web sites
might allow users to go back and forth between pages without losing previously
entered data. In such cases, users feel that they have more control over the interaction.
Attention focus is the extent of concentration which users exhibit in the interaction.
A computer user in flow may lose self-consciousness and become more absorbed in
the activities (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). An individual’s level of curiosity is higher in the
flow state (Malone, 1981). Computer systems with more functions for users to explore
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
11

IMCS
15,1
12
tend to stimulate higher curiosity. In the flow state, users also find the activities
intrinsically more interesting. In terms of human computer interaction, users might
find new and powerful computer applications interesting or fun to use. Flow has been
found to correlate with work outcomes and effectiveness. In addition, flow is also
positively correlated with the perception of flexibility, experimentation, and expected
use of the technology (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Trevino and Webster (1992).
Cognitive fit theory
Another theoretical perspective regarding the potential impact of IM on group tasks is
the cognitive-fit theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Baroudi and Orlikowski, 1988). The
cognitive fit theory argues that, to be effective, the representation of a problem, the
desired solution to the problem and the recommended method for solving the problem
should all be presented to the subject using the same illustrative technique. In other
words, when there is a good “fit” between the problem representation, the solution, and
the method, the problem-solving process will be more efficient and accurate because
the problem solver does not have to mentally transform some of the information in the
equation into a different modality that is more suitable for the task. For instance, if a
task required the acquisition of spatial information, a spatial problem representation
would likely simplify the problem-solving process. Therefore, because IM offers
different capabilities than e-mail and other CMC tools, there may be a cognitive effect.
As a result, the use of IM results in changes of the task outcome and user perception.
Bounded rationality
Another category of relevant previous research includes studies based on the bounded
rationality theory. Bounded rationality is a well-researched theory that explains the
information gathering behavior of decision makers (Kraut et al., 1998; Hiltz and
Johnson, 1990). According to the bounded rationality theory, decision makers often are
faced with complex situations that require the intake of a large amount of information
before making a decision. Yet, practical constraints and cognitive limitations often
restrict decision makers from obtaining all the information they need to make good
decisions, and so they make decisions with whatever information they have available
under the circumstances (Treviño et al., 2000).
Based on the bounded rationality theory, IM may affect decision makers’ behavior
due to a different communication pattern and amount of information received when
compared with e-mail.
Tasks and media selection
Similar to the cognitive fit theory, previous research shows that different tasks require
different media to achieve best results. For example, activities that require convergent
communication, such as organizing ideas and building consensus normally call for
verbal discussion and clarification of issues. On the other hand, in cases that the
objective was to collect ideas, electronic communication channels are preferred by
managers (Tyran et al., 1992).
Perceived commitment
Perceived commitment to a group task is an important measure of group member
satisfaction. The relationship between perceived commitment and the contribution of

peer group members and the use of CMC has been investigated in previous research.
Research results show that groups that used computer-mediated group decision
support systems produced a significantly higher level of perceived contribution (Dailey
and Steiner, 1998).
User satisfaction
Implementing a new technology in a business environment is always a risky venture.
Objective measurable outcomes are rarely available. The question about the success of
a system implementation often cannot be answered using a simple “yes” or “no”.
A particular system may be viewed as a success by some users, while viewed as a
failure by the others. Therefore, a more subjective and less discrete measure, a user
satisfaction level that ranges from low to high, has been used extensively as an
important gauge of IS success. Using survey methods, users provide their subjective
assessment of their attitude toward the system and gauge how satisfied they are with
the system (McHaney et al., 2002). User satisfaction is easy to use but has its flaws
(Melone, 1990 in McHaney et al. (2002)). However, the preponderance of empirical
evidence show that user satisfaction is still a useful measure of system success.
Research model
This study was designed to explore the pertinent beliefs on the differences of using
instant messenger services and e-mail. Owing to the differences between the two
technologies highlighted above, user perception should vary greatly. In order to look at
a broad range of perceptions, questions were structured around four categories: the
ability to convey emotions, aid in building relationships, EU and reliability (Figure 4).
Research methodology
A survey of 69 questions was given to MIS students at a Midwestern University during
the 2005 academic year. One thousand surveys were distributed with 545 of those
being properly completed and returned. Participation was voluntary and all
Communication Tools
IM
Email
Research Categories
Convey emotions
Relationships
Ease of use
Reliability
Culture
United States
College students
Literature
Information richness
Ease of use
Use of emoticons
Multimedia
Playfulness
Flow
Cognitive fit theory
Bounded rationality
Media selection
Perceived commitment
User Satisfaction
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
13
Figure 4.
Visual representation of
research model

IMCS
15,1
14
participants were given at least 15 minutes to complete the survey. Both, verbal and
written instructions were given to the students.
The pre-phase of the research consisted of designing the survey using Likert
scaling. Once the four categories (emotion, relationship, usage and reliability) had been
determined, questions were written for a pilot study, which was given to the authors
and selected colleagues and students. The post-phase of the study consisted of an
evaluation of the linguistics, ensuring that the verbiage of the questions was proper,
easy to comprehend and not misleading. A complete list of questions can be found in
Table I.
Analysis
Conveying emotions
The questions in this section, all dealt with how effectively the different technologies
conveyed feelings and emotions. While the results show that both instant messaging
and e-mail communicate more than just text, there is a clear preference for instant
messaging for communicating emotions.
The responses to questions 1 and 4 clearly show a preference to use symbols with
instant messaging to show feelings and emotions. Over 12 percent of all respondents
strongly agreed, while 40 percent agreed, that they use symbols with instant
messaging. Comparatively, less than 2 percent strongly agreed, while fewer than
9 percent agreed, that they use symbols with e-mail (Figure 5).
Questions 2 and 5 dealt with the use of symbols by friends to convey emotions and
feelings. More than 70 percent strongly agreed, or agreed, that their friends use
symbols while instant messaging. Likewise, fewer than 14 percent agreed that their
friends use symbols with e-mail.
Questions 3 and 6 also compared the level of emotions conveyed from instant
messaging and e-mail. More than 62 percent of respondents either strongly agreed or
agreed that instant messages convey more than just text. E-mail is also believed to
convey more than just text, with more than 50 percent strongly agreeing or agreeing
that it conveys other information cues.
Finally, question 7 states that it is easier to convey emotions using instant
messaging rather than e-mail. More than 75 percent of respondents were in agreement.
Relationships
Another group of questions deals with how useful instant messaging and e-mail are in
building relationships. While both technologies are believed to be useful in work and
social relationships, there is again a preference for instant messaging.
Questions 13 and 16 look at how the technologies can aid the growth of friendships.
More than 50 percent agreed that instant messaging allows friendships to grow more
quickly. Just over 25 percent felt the same way about the use of e-mail.
Questions 14 and 15 looked at how the two technologies can improve the
relationships of friends and/or team members. Of the 60 percent than agreed that
instant messaging allows people to feel closer to their friends and teammates, nearly 20
percent strongly agreed. Comparatively, only 7 percent strongly agreed that e-mail
brings them closer to friends and team members, while fewer than 50 percent agreed.
A number of individual questions also provide insight into the preference of instant
messaging when building relationships. Nearly, 20 percent strongly agreed, and more

No. Question
1 When I use instant messaging to communicate, I use a great deal of symbols to represent my
feelings or emotions
2 My friends who send me instant messages often use symbols to represent their feelings or
emotions
3 Instant messaging conveys more than just text, other information cues are also conveyed
4 When I use e-mail, I use a great deal of symbols to represent feelings and emotions
5 My friends who send me e-mail often use symbols to represent their feelings or emotions
6 E-mail conveys more than just text information; other information cues are also conveyed
7 It is easier to convey emotions using instant messaging than e-mail
8 My friends and I often have a good time when we use instant messaging to communicate
9 I enjoy the process of using instant messaging
10 My friends and I often have a good time when we use e-mail to communicate
11 I enjoy the process of using e-mail
12 I enjoy the instant messaging more than e-mail
13 Instant messaging allows friendships to develop more quickly
14 Instant messaging makes me feel closer to my friends or team members
15 E-mail makes me feel closer to my friends or team members
16 E-mail allows friendships to develop more quickly
17 Instant messaging is more personal than e-mail
18 Instant messaging is better than e-mail for social interaction
19 Instant messaging allows me to communicate more information than e-mail
20 I feel that instant messaging conveys a large amount of information faster
21 It is easy to use instant messaging
22 It is easy to use e-mail
23 Instant messaging is easier to use than e-mail
24 E-mail is more accessible than instant messaging
25 It only takes a short time to learn how to use instant messaging
26 It only takes a short time to learn how to use e-mail
27 Instant messaging is better than e-mail for clarifying ambiguous (hard to understand) issues
28 Instant messaging is better than e-mail for explaining confusing matters
29 Instant messaging is better than e-mail for resolving disagreements
30 Instant messaging can be as effective as face-to-face meetings
31 E-mail can be as effective as face-to-face meetings
32 Instant messaging is a useful tool for work
33 Instant messaging is useful for social networking
34 Instant messaging is more useful than e-mail for interacting with friends
35 Instant messaging is more useful than e-mail for interacting with co-workers (or fellow students
working in a team on assignments)
36 I use e-mail frequently
37 I use e-mail almost everyday
38 I use instant messaging frequently
39 I use instant messaging almost everyday
40 I can use instant messaging anywhere (home, residence hall, classroom, lab, library, etc.)
41 I can use e-mail anywhere (home, residence hall, classroom, lab, library, etc.)
42 Instant messaging is very reliable
43 E-mail is very reliable
44 Instant messaging is very secure
45 I do not worry about security when I use instant messaging
46 E-mail is very secure
47 I do not worry about security when I use e-mail
(continued)
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
15
Table I.
Survey questions

IMCS
15,1
16
Table I.
Figure 5.
Percentage in agreement
that friends use symbols
to convey emotion when
using instant messaging
and e-mail
Figure 6.
Instant messaging is
better than e-mail for
social interaction
No. Question
48 I believe my privacy is protected with instant messaging
49 I do not worry about my privacy when I use instant messaging
50 I believe my privacy is protected with e-mail
51 I do not worry about my privacy when I use e-mail
52 In the future, I will use instant messaging more than e-mail
53 In the future, I will use e-mail more than instant messaging
54 Have you ever used wireless instant messaging?
55 Have you ever used wireless e-mail?
56 I use e-mail mainly for???
57 I use instant messaging for???
58 For social interactions, I prefer to use???
59 For work or coursework related interactions, I prefer to use???
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Instant Messaging
E-mail
than 65 percent agreed, that instant messaging is more personal than e-mail
(question 17). Question 18 states that instant messaging is better than e-mail for social
interaction. About 80 percent agreed with that statement, with more than 25 percent in
strong agreement. Nearly, 50 percent agreed that instant messaging is able to
communicate more information than e-mail (question 19). Likewise, only 3 percent were
in strong disagreement. More than 75 percent of respondents agreed, with question 33,
that instant messaging is useful for social networking (Figure 6).
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly Agree
Agree

A most interesting pair of questions, 34 and 35, look at the preference of instant
messaging or e-mail when interacting with friends and coworkers. More than
75 percent were in agreement that instant messaging is more useful than e-mail when
interacting with friends. However, when asked the same question about coworkers,
only 44 percent were in agreement. Also, nearly 32 percent were neutral, while
24 percent were in disagreement.
Usage
A number of questions were organized around the EU of instant messaging and e-mail.
Both communication methods are considered easy to use and learn. Also included in
the usage section is the preferred usage of instant messaging and e-mail for work or
social interaction. A striking preference was found. Instant messaging is strongly
favored for personal use while e-mail is the preferred method for work. Finally, despite
the support for both instant messaging and e-mail, face-to-face communication is still
regarded as much more effective.
Questions 21 and 22 compare the EU of instant messaging and e-mail. In both cases,
more than 90 percent found the technologies to be easy to use and learn. Questions 25
and 26 found similar results with more than 90 percent agreeing that instant
messaging and e-mail take only a short time to learn. One discrepancy can be found in
question 23. More than 40 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
instant messaging is easier to use than e-mail.
Questions 56 through 59 sought the preferred use of the two technologies. There is a
distinct preference for the use of instant messaging for personal and social interaction.
More than 60 percent use instant messaging for those reasons, while less than 1 percent
use instant messaging for work related activities. Also, nearly 80 percent preferred
using e-mail for work, while nearly 75 percent preferred using instant messaging for
social interaction (Figure 7).
Finally, question 30 compares the effectiveness of instant messaging with
face-to-face meetings. More than 63 percent disagreed that instant messaging is as
effective with face-to-face meetings. Question 31 was even more striking with nearly
75 percent in disagreement with the belief that e-mail can be as effective as face-to-face
meetings.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Work Personal Both
Instant
messaging
E-mail
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
17
Figure 7.
Preferred use of instant
messaging and e-mail

IMCS
15,1
18
Figure 8.
Protection of user privacy
when using e-mail and
instant messaging
Reliability
A final group of questions centered on the reliability, security and privacy of instant
messaging and e-mail. In all areas, users perceive e-mail more favorably.
Questions 42 and 43 looked at the perceived reliability of the two technologies.
More than 16 percent strongly agreed, and more than 48 percent agreed, that instant
messaging is very reliable. Yet, more than 28 percent strongly agreed, with more than
52 percent in agreement, that e-mail is very reliable.
Questions 44 through 47 gauged the believed security of instant messaging and
e-mail. While just over 30 percent of respondents agreed that instant messaging is very
secure, more than 50 percent agreed that e-mail is very secure. However, the gap is
much narrower, and nearly indistinguishable, with the statement that users did not
worry about their security when using the technologies. More than 13 percent strongly
agreed with the statement when using instant messaging, compared to the more than
15 percent when using e-mail.
Questions 48 through 51 looked at the privacy beliefs when using instant messaging
and e-mail. Again, a slight preference for e-mail can be found. Nearly, 50 percent agreed
that their privacy is protected with e-mail, compared to just under 35 percent with
instant messaging. Also, more than 60 percent agreed that they did not worry about
their privacy when using e-mail. About 53 percent were in agreement when the
communication method was changed to instant messaging (Figure 8).
Limitations
The limitations of this study stem from the use of college students as the subjects of the
survey. As such any work related conclusions can only be applied to their experience of
working on homework and small group assignments. Also, because the subjects of this
study were all in a similar age range (18-22), the conclusions should not be applied to
the entire population. Additional studies should be conducted looking at the differences
between instant messaging and e-mail in business environments as well as including
other age groups.
Conclusion
E-mail and instant messaging are popular communication methods for college
students. This study looks at the perceived differences college students have between
the two technologies. The results show that instant messaging is perceived as offering
many advantages over e-mail including conveying emotions, building relationships
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
E-mail
Instant Messaging

and EU. Users are more likely to use symbols with their instant messages to help
communicate. College students find both technologies to be easy to use, but show a
preference for the EU of instant messaging. However, despite its perceived functional
benefits, instant messaging is only the favored form of communication for personal
and social relationships. E-mail is still preferred for work related communication, while
both technologies are still less desirable than face-to-face communication.
References
Baroudi, J.J. and Orlikowski, W.J. (1988), “A short-form measure of user information satisfaction:
a psychometric evaluation and notes on use”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 44-59.
Blake, R. (2000), “Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage”,
Language Learning & Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 1120-36.
Carroll, J.M. and Mack, R.L. (1984), “Learning to use a word processor: by doing, by thinking, and
by knowing”, in Thomas, J.C. and Schneider, M.L. (Eds), Human Factors in Computer
Systems, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 13-51.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper & Row,
New York, NY.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play,
Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Dailey, B.F. and Steiner, R.L. (1998), “The influence of group decision support systems on
contribution and commitment levels in multicultural and culturally homogeneous
decision-making groups”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 147-62.
Fang, X. (2003), “Instant messaging systems”, Computer Communications, Vol. 27, p. 141.
Finholt, T. and Sproull, L. (1990), “Electronic groups at work”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 41-64.
Grinter, R. and Paylen, L. (2002), “IM everywhere: instant messaging in teen life”, Proceedings of
the 2002 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, November.
Hiltz, S.R. and Johnson, K. (1990), “User satisfaction with computer-mediated communication
systems”, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 739-64.
Huang, A.H. and Yen, D.C. (2003), “Usefulness of instant messaging among young users: social
vs work perspective”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, p. 63.
Isaacs, E., Kamm, C., Schiano, D.J., Walendowski, A. and Whittak, S. (2002), “Short talks:
characterizing instant messaging from recorded logs”, paper presented at Conference on
Human Factors in Computer Systems, April.
Jarvenpaa, S., Rao, S. and Huber, G. (1988), “Computer support for meetings of groups working
on unstructured problems: a field experiment (in special section on GDSS)”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 645-66.
Kay, R. (2002), “Emoticons and internet shorthand”, Computerworld, January 14.
King, R.C. and Weidong, X. (1997), “Media appropriateness: effects of experience on
communication media choice”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 877-910.
Kock, N. (1998), “Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An
action research study”, Inform. Manag., Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 295-305.
Kock, N. (2001), “Compensatory adaptation to a lean medium: an action research investigation of
electronic communication in process improvement groups”, IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 267-85.
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
19

IMCS
15,1
20
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T. and Scherlis, W. (1998),
“Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1017-31.
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L. and Lewis, O. (2001), “Teenage life online: the rise of the instant-message
generation and the internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships”, Pew
Internet and American Life Project, available at: www.pewinternet.org
McHaney, R., Hightower, R. and Pearson, J. (2002), “A validation of the end-user computing
satisfaction instrument in Taiwan”, Information & Management, Vol. 39, pp. 503-601.
Malone, T.W. (1981), “Toward a theory of intrinsically motivated instruction”, Cognitive Science,
Vol. 4, pp. 333-69.
Melone, N.P. (1990), “A theoretical assessment of the user-satisfaction construct in information
systems research”, Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 76-91.
Olaniran, B. and Williams, D. (1995), “Communication distortion: an intercultural lesson from the
visa application process”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 225-40.
Parks, M.R.and Floyd, K. (1996), “Making friends in cyberspace”, Communications, Vol. 46, pp. 80-97.
Parks, M.R. and Roberts, L.D. (1998), “Making MOOsic: the development of personal
relationships online and a comparison to their offline counterparts”, Social and Personal
Relationships, Vol. 15, pp. 517-37.
Pascal, C.L. (2003), “Enabling chance interaction through instant messaging”, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 46, Part 2.
Potter, R. and Balthazard, P. (2000), “Supporting integrative negotiation via computer mediated
communication technologies: an empirical example with geographically dispersed Chinese
and American negotiators”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 7.
Qureshi, S. (1995), “Organisations and networks: theoretical considerations and a case study”,
PhD thesis, London School of Economics, London.
Rivera, K., Cooke, N. and Bauhs, J. (1996), “The effects of emotional icons on remote
communication”, paper presented at CHI Conference Companion, pp. 99-100.
Sandelands, L.E. (1988), “Effects of work and play signals on task evaluation”, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 1032-48.
Sandelands, L.E., Ashford, S.J. and Dutton, J.E. (1983), “Reconceptualizing the overjustification
effect: a template- matching approach”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. pp. 229-55.
Schiano, D.J., Chen, C.P., Isaacs, E., Ginsberg, J., Gretarsdottir, U. and Huddleston, M. (2002),
“Interactive posters: teen use of messaging media”, paper presented at Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computer Systems, April.
Segerstad, Y.H.A. and Ljungstrand, P. (2002), “Instant messaging with WebWho”, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 147-71.
Starbuck, W.H. and Webster, J. (1991), “When is play productive?”, Accounting, Management,
and Information Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-90.
Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.-K., Watson, R.T. and Clapper, D. (1998), “Computer mediated
communication and majority influence: assessing the impact in an individualistic and a
collectivitistic culture”, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 1263-78.
Trevino, L.K. and Webster, J. (1992), “Flow in computer-mediated communication”,
Communication Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 539-73.
Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L.P. and Brown, M. (2000), “Moral person and moral manager: how
executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership”, California Management Review,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 128-42.

Tyran, C.K., Dennis, A.R., Vogel, D.R. and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr (1992), “The application of
electronic meeting technology to support strategic management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 313-34.
Walther, J.B. and D’Addario, K.P. (2001), “The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in
computer-mediated communication”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 324-47.
Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. (1992), “Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure
with workplace implications”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 201-26.
Webster, J. and Martocchio, J. (1993), “Turning work into play: implications for microcomputer
software training”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 127-46.
Webster, J. and Martocchio, J. (1995), “The differential effects of software training previews on
training outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 757-87.
Webster, J., Trevino, L. and Ryan, L. (1993), “The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 411-26.
Weisband, S.P., Schneider, S.K. and Connolly, T. (1995), “Computer-mediated communication
and social information: status salience and status differences”, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1124-51.
Wolf, A. (2000), “Emotional expression online: gender differences in emoticon use”,
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 827-33.
Zack, M.H. and McKenney, J.L.M. (1995), “Social context and interaction in ongoing
computer-supported management groups”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 394-422.
Further reading
Adrianson, L. (2001), “Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in
problem solving”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 71-94.
Ahuja, M. and Galvin, J. (2003), “Socialization in virtual groups”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, p. 161.
Andres, H. (2002), “A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams”, Team
Performance Management, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, p. 39.
Castella, A.M., Zornoza, A., Alonso, P. and Silla, P. (2000), “The influence of familiarity among group
members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three
different communication media”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-59.
Chidambaram, L. and Jones, B. (1993), “Impact of communication medium and computer support
on group perceptions and performance: a comparison of face-to-face and dispersed
meetings (in theory and research)”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 465-91.
Csikszenthmihalyi, M. (2000), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and
Play, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Dailey, B.F., Whatley, A., Ash, S.R. and Steiner, R.L. (1996), “The effects of a group decision
support system on culturally diverse and culturally homogeneous group decision
making”, Information & Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 281-9.
El-Shinnawy, M. and Vinze, A. (1998), “Polarization and persuasive argumentation: a study of
decision making in group settings”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 165-99.
Fulk, J. (1993), “Social construction of communication technology”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 921-50.
Griffith, T. and Northcraft, G. (1994), “Distinguishing between the forest and the trees: media,
features, and methodology in electronic communication research”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 272-85.
Instant
messaging or
e-mail
21

IMCS
15,1
22
Jarvenpaa, S. and Leidner, D. (1999), “Communication and trust in global virtual teams”,
Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 791-815, Special Issue: Communication Processes
for Virtual Organizations.
Klebe, L., Trevino, J., Webster, E. and Stein, E. (2000), “Making connections: complementary
influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use”, Organization Science,
Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 163.
Kline, C. and Peters, L. (1991), “Behavioral commitment and tenure of new employees:
a replication and extension”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 194-205.
Kock, N. and Davison, R. (2003), “Can lean media support knowledge sharing? Investigating a
hidden advantage of process improvement”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 50 No. 2, p. 151.
Korsgaard, A.M., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), “The role of procedural justice in
building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-85.
McCrickard, S.D., Czerwinski, M. and Bartram, L. (2003), “Introduction: design and evaluation of
notification user interfaces”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58
No. 5, pp. 509-14.
Murthy, U. and Kerr, D. (2003), “Decision making performance of interacting groups:
an experimental investigation of the effects of task type and communication mode”,
Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 351-60.
Orlikowski, W., Yates, J., Okamura, K. and Fujimoto, M. (1995), “Shaping electronic
communication: the metastructuring of technology in the context of use”, Organization
Science, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 423-44.
Potter, R. and Balthazard, P. (2002), “Virtual team interaction styles: assessment and effects”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 423-43.
Rafaeli, S. and Noy, A. (2002), “Online auctions, messaging, communication and social
facilitation: a simulation and experimental evidence”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, p. 196.
Straus, S.G. and McGrath, J.E. (1994), “Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and
technology on group performance and member reactions”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Webster, J. and Trevino, L. (1995), “Rational and social theories as complementary explanations
of communication media choices: two policy-capturing studies”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1544-73.
Weisband, S.P. and Reinig, B.A. (1995), “Managing user perceptions of email privacy”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 40-7.
Yoo, Y. and Alavi, M. (2001), “Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence,
task participation, and group consensus”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 371-91.
Corresponding author
David C. Yen can be contacted at: yendc@muohio.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints