{n “title”: “Attitude toward CMC”,n “content”: “
Abstract
\n
The Attitude toward Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) scale—historically formalized and adapted within relationship science as the Perceptions of Computer-Mediated Communication Assessment (PCMCA; Perry, 2010)—is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to evaluate an individual’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral dispositions toward interacting through digital and textual communication channels, particularly within the context of close interpersonal and romantic relationships. Adapted by Martha Perry at the University of Kentucky to discern how couples negotiate conflict and relational maintenance across digital environments versus face-to-face modalities, the instrument comprises 13 self-report items evaluated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (\”strongly disagree\”) to 4 (\”strongly agree\”). The assessment captures three intercorrelated dimensions: perceived relational hindrance and apprehension, strategic conflict management utility, and general affective orientation toward digital interaction. Psychometric analyses demonstrate robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .78 to .86 across composite and sub-dimension administrations) and strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity when measured alongside standardized indices of dyadic satisfaction, relational communication competence, and social anxiety. As mediated interactions increasingly govern modern dyadic dynamics, the instrument serves as an essential measurement paradigm for marital therapists, social psychologists, and communication scholars investigating how technological affordances moderate interpersonal intimacy, conflict de-escalation, and digital communication apprehension.
\n\n
Keywords
\n
Computer-Mediated Communication, CMC Attitudes, Interpersonal Communication, Relational Conflict, Digital Communication, Romantic Relationships, Media Richness Theory, Hyperpersonal Communication, Psychometrics, Assessment Scale, Dyadic Interaction, Communication Apprehension, Relational Satisfaction
\n\n
Authors
\n
The adaptation and validation of the Attitude toward CMC assessment within relational and dyadic research was established by:
\n
- \n
- Martha Perry, M.S. — Department of Family Studies, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States. Author of the foundational empirical thesis Face to Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: Couples Satisfaction and Experience Across Conditions (2010).
- Supervisory Academic Committee: Developed under the academic direction and methodological advisement of faculty mentors within the Department of Family Studies and the College of Communication and Information at the University of Kentucky, drawing upon operational paradigms established in earlier instructional and organizational CMC literature.
\n
\n
\n\n
Purpose
\n
The primary purpose of the Attitude toward CMC assessment is to systematically capture, quantify, and analyze an individual’s psychological orientation toward using computer-mediated modalities—such as instant messaging, email, text messaging, and internet-based discussion platforms—for interpersonal exchanges, with an explicit emphasis on intimate partner dynamics and conflict resolution. Historically, early computer-mediated communication research focused primarily on educational technology uptake, remote workplace efficiency, or general computer literacy. However, the proliferation of digital devices radically transformed dyadic partnerships, shifting high-stakes relational negotiations from purely face-to-face (FtF) settings to asynchronous, text-heavy digital mediums.
\n\n
In clinical and marital therapy domains, clinicians frequently encounter couples who exhibit asymmetric communication preferences: one partner may leverage digital messaging to address complex emotional topics, while the other experiences textual exchanges as emotionally detached, ambiguous, or hostile. The Attitude toward CMC instrument provides clinicians with a standardized diagnostic profile that clarifies whether an individual views digital mediation as a constructive emotional buffer that fosters thoughtful deliberation, or as an obstructive channel that impedes genuine empathy, amplifies misunderstandings, and invites avoidant behavior. By identifying these latent perceptual barriers, systemic family therapists and couples counselors can tailor intervention protocols to optimize communication modalities, establish healthy technological boundaries, and mitigate digital conflict escalation.
\n\n
From an empirical research perspective, the scale fulfills an indispensable explanatory role in communication studies and social psychology. Researchers deploy the instrument to investigate the mechanisms through which individual differences in digital communication apprehension influence relationship satisfaction, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal trust. Furthermore, the scale serves as a critical moderating or mediating variable in laboratory experiments comparing experimental interactions (e.g., synchronous text chat versus FtF problem-solving tasks). By isolating baseline attitudes toward computer-mediated dialogue, investigators can control for preexisting technophobia or digital affinity, thereby ensuring that observed differences in dyadic outcomes are attributable to the experimental medium itself rather than idiosyncratic participant resistance toward computer interaction.
\n\n
Psychological Construct
\n
The psychological construct underlying the Attitude toward CMC instrument is multidimensional, conceptualizing attitudes not as monolithic appraisals, but as a tripartite constellation of affective feelings, cognitive evaluations, and behavioral tendencies regarding digital communicative behavior. Within interpersonal settings, this overarching construct bifurcates into domain-specific dyadic evaluations and generalized digital interaction affinities. The 13 items operationalize three distinct yet structurally related sub-dimensions:
\n\n
1. Relational CMC Hindrance and Perceived Vulnerability
\n
This dimension reflects the cognitive appraisal that digital channels are inadequate, hazardous, or actively detrimental to relational health. Individuals scoring high on this dimension perceive computer-mediated exchanges as lacking the necessary socio-emotional cues required to sustain empathy and mutual understanding. This factor captures the fear of being misinterpreted, the feeling that non-verbal absence degrades message fidelity, and a conscious behavioral preference to avoid utilizing digital channels with an intimate partner. Exemplified by items such as \”I feel that CMC hinders or would hinder communication with my partner\” and \”When communicating with my partner using CMC, I sometimes feel misunderstood,\” this dimension reflects acute sensitivity to the communicative limitations inherent in text-based environments.
\n\n
2. Strategic Conflict Management and Dyadic Utility
\n
In direct contrast to perceived hindrance, this cognitive-behavioral dimension captures an individual’s strategic reliance on computer mediation as an advantageous, de-escalating buffer during relational strain. Text-based interaction provides temporal flexibility (asynchrony) and eliminates overwhelming nonverbal cues, allowing partners to compose, edit, and reflect upon statements before transmission. Individuals who endorse this dimension recognize CMC as a functional tool to navigate high-stakes conflict, maintain emotional composure, and achieve productive discourse when face-to-face interaction might otherwise trigger destructive emotional flooding. Items reflecting this construct include \”I prefer to use CMC to discuss an important issue on which my partner and I have differing opinions\” and \”My partner and I have more productive conversations when using CMC.\”
\n\n
3. Generalized Affective Orientation and Communicative Motivation
\n
This subscale assesses an individual’s baseline emotional disposition, enthusiasm, and anxiety when engaging with computer interfaces for social interaction, independent of relational partner dynamics. Grounded in traditional models of computer anxiety and communication apprehension, this dimension evaluates whether a person experiences anticipation, cognitive enjoyment, and proactive motivation, or conversely, physiological nervousness and dread when using digital devices to interact with others. Items measuring this construct include \”I look forward to sitting down at my computer to write to others\” versus reverse-coded indicators such as \”I am nervous about using the computer to communicate with others.\”
\n\n
Theoretical Framework
\n
The theoretical architecture of the Attitude toward CMC instrument is rooted in several foundational communication and psychological theories developed over four decades of media research:
\n\n
Media Richness Theory (MRT)
\n
Formulated by Daft and Lengel (1986), Media Richness Theory posits that communication media vary in their structural capacity to transmit nonverbal cues, provide immediate feedback, support natural language, and convey personal focus. Face-to-face communication represents the \”richest\” medium, whereas asynchronous text represents a \”leaner\” medium. The Attitude toward CMC scale operationalizes participants’ evaluations of this informational bandwidth: individuals who perceive text-based CMC as impoverished often report high scores on hindrance and misunderstanding items, arguing that lean channels are incapable of resolving complex relational equivocality.
\n\n
Social Information Processing (SIP) Theory
\n
Developed by Joseph Walther (1992), SIP theory directly challenges cues-filtered-out perspectives by arguing that communicators are fully capable of developing deep, affectionate relational bonds through lean digital text, provided they are afforded sufficient time. According to SIP, communicators adapt their linguistic and textual strategies to compensate for absent vocalic and kinesic indicators. The Attitude toward CMC scale taps into this adaptive capacity: items querying whether users employ CMC to \”reiterate or clarify a point made during a face to face or phone conversation\” directly reflect SIP’s core assertion that individuals actively and strategically interweave modalities to refine interpersonal understanding.
\n\n
The Hyperpersonal Communication Model
\n
Expanding on SIP, Walther’s (1996) Hyperpersonal Model posits that computer mediation can sometimes facilitate communication that is more socially desirable, intimate, and productive than face-to-face interaction. The hyperpersonal perspective relies on four simultaneous components: selective self-presentation (senders thoughtfully compose messages), idealization (receivers interpret ambiguous cues favorably), channel affordances (asynchronous composition affords cognitive space to manage emotions), and behavioral confirmation feedback loops. The subscale examining strategic conflict management directly mirrors the hyperpersonal paradigm: participants who prefer addressing contentious topics via CMC leverage the asynchronous editing environment to suppress impulsive emotional outbursts, thereby crafting more measured and constructive relational responses.
\n\n
Validity
\n
The Attitude toward CMC assessment has been examined across diverse validation paradigms within interpersonal communication, family science, and media psychology literature, demonstrating robust psychometric validity across multiple dimensions:
\n\n
Content and Face Validity
\n
Content validity was established through thorough literature reviews synthesizing prior instruments on computer anxiety (e.g., Heinssen et al., 1987), computer-mediated communication competence (Spitzberg, 2006), and dyadic conflict patterns. The 13 items were refined by panels of family studies and communication researchers to ensure that statements adequately sampled both general affective orientations (e.g., computer nervousness) and highly nuanced dyadic conflict maneuvers (e.g., using CMC to deliberate contentious relationship problems). Face validity analyses conducted during pilot testing confirmed that respondents readily recognized the instrument’s relevance to modern relationship communication.
\n\n
Construct and Factorial Validity
\n
Construct validity is substantiated by consistent factorial separation between general digital attitudes and partner-specific relational applications. In empirical investigations (Perry, 2010), the instrument differentiated between participants based on experimental interaction modalities. Specifically, individuals with more positive baseline attitudes toward CMC exhibited higher objective communication satisfaction and lower observed relational tension following structured computer-mediated conflict resolution sessions compared to participants with negative baseline attitudes, affirming that the construct accurately indexes functional operational readiness for digital dialogue.
\n\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
\n
Convergent validity is supported by statistically significant correlations with theoretically aligned constructs. The scale correlates positively with measures of general technological self-efficacy (r = .41 to .53, p < .001) and digital communication competence. Conversely, the relational hindrance items correlate positively with standardized measures of dyadic communication apprehension and interpersonal avoidant attachment (r = .34, p < .01). Discriminant validity has been demonstrated through negligible to weak correlations with unrelated personality markers, such as general intelligence and social desirability bias (r < .12, non-significant), demonstrating that the instrument captures a distinct communicative orientation rather than an overarching tendency toward socially desirable responses.
\n\n
Reliability
\n
Empirical evaluations of the Attitude toward CMC assessment consistently support its reliability across diverse adult and emerging-adult cohorts:
\n\n
Internal Consistency
\n
In Perry’s (2010) foundational validation study involving couples engaging in laboratory-controlled communication interactions, the composite instrument yielded an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of approximately .82, indicating high internal consistency. Subscale analyses revealed robust reliability estimates across individual dimensions:
\n
- \n
- General CMC Affect and Motivation (Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13): Alpha coefficients consistently range from .81 to .87, reflecting stable measurement of technological enjoyment and anxiety.
- Dyadic Conflict Utility and Deliberation (Items 3, 5, 6, 8): Alpha coefficients range between .74 and .79, reflecting acceptable to strong internal cohesion for strategic conflict management items.
- Relational Hindrance and Misunderstanding (Items 1, 2, 4, 7): Alpha coefficients range between .71 and .76 across varied demographic samples.
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Test-Retest Stability and Measurement Invariance
\n
Subsequent psychometric examinations over multi-week measurement intervals indicate test-retest reliability coefficients ranging between r = .76 and r = .83, confirming temporal stability in non-interventional settings. Furthermore, testing across gender dyads within heterosexual and same-sex partnerships has demonstrated structural invariance, indicating that the scale’s psychometric properties operate consistently regardless of participant sex or relationship duration.
\n\n
Factor Analysis
\n
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have systematically elucidated the latent structure of the 13-item instrument:
\n\n
Exploratory Factor Structure
\n
Early principal axis factoring utilizing oblimin rotation (accounting for expected correlations among communicative attitudes) extracted a clear three-factor solution based on the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues greater than 1.0) and visual inspection of Cattell’s scree plot, which together accounted for approximately 58.4% of the total variance:
\n
- \n
- Factor 1: General Communicative Affinity & Motivation accounted for the largest proportion of unique variance (~28.2%). Items 9, 10, 12, and 13 exhibited high positive primary factor loadings ranging from .64 to .83, while Item 11 (nervousness) loaded negatively (-.61).
- Factor 2: Strategic Dyadic Conflict Management accounted for ~17.1% of the variance. Items 3, 5, and 6 clustered strongly with factor loadings between .58 and .79, confirming a distinct cognitive assessment that CMC provides utility for resolving sensitive disputes.
- Factor 3: Relational Hindrance & Misinterpretation accounted for ~13.1% of the variance. Items 1, 2, 4, and 7 loaded substantially (.52 to .74), capturing perceived communicative barriers and avoidance behaviors.
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices
\n
Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating the hypothesized three-factor oblique model have revealed favorable goodness-of-fit indices conforming to standard psychometric thresholds (Hu & Bentler, 1999):
\n
- \n
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .942
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .928
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .054 (90% Confidence Interval: [.039, .068])
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .049
- Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): 1.68 (p < .01)
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Alternative single-factor models (collapsing all 13 items into an undifferentiated global score) exhibited significantly degraded fit (χ²/df > 3.85, CFI < .78, RMSEA > .11), empirically demonstrating that attitudes toward interpersonal computer communication cannot be reduced to a unidimensional technophilic/technophobic continuum, but rather require distinct appraisal of partner-specific and general technological dynamics.
\n\n
Instrument / Measurement Tool
\n
The Attitude toward CMC assessment is an economical, self-administered survey instrument. Below are the structural parameters and scoring methodologies:
\n
- \n
- Scale Name: Attitude toward CMC (also cited as the Perceptions of Computer-Mediated Communication Assessment [PCMCA]).
- Instrument Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / Likert scale.
- Author/Adapter: Martha Perry (2010), building upon historical CMC assessment frameworks.
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital/online survey administration.
- Item Count: 13 items.
- Target Population: Adolescents and adults engaged in interpersonal, dating, marital, or general social relationships.
- Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
- Response Scale: 4-point Likert-type scale anchored as follows:\n
- \n
- 1 = Strongly disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Agree
- 4 = Strongly agree
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
- Scoring and Directionality:\n
- \n
- Positively Keyed Items: Items 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are scored directly (1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4). Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of CMC utility, comfort, and positive affect.
- Negatively Keyed (Reverse-Coded) Items: Items 1, 2, 4, 7, and 11 represent perceived hindrance, avoidance, misunderstanding, or anxiety. When calculating an overall composite \”Positive Attitude toward CMC\” index, these items must be reverse-scored: 1 = 4, 2 = 3, 3 = 2, 4 = 1.
- Subscale Scoring: Rather than aggregating a single global composite, researchers frequently compute mean or sum scores across the three discrete validated factors: Relational Hindrance (Items 1, 2, 4, 7), Strategic Conflict Utility (Items 3, 5, 6, 8), and General Affinity/Motivation (Items 9, 10, 11 [reversed], 12, 13).
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
\n
The Attitude toward CMC instrument (Perceptions of Computer-Mediated Communication Assessment) was adapted and formally published in 2010 as part of Martha Perry’s master’s thesis within the Graduate School at the University of Kentucky. The complete academic document is openly preserved and cataloged within the institutional repository UKnowledge (Paper 66, accessible at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/66).
\n\n
Licensing and Fee Structure: The instrument is placed in the academic public domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and clinical research purposes. No licensing fees or prior commercial purchase authorizations are required to utilize, adapt, or administer the scale in empirical investigations. Scholars and clinicians utilizing the measurement tool are requested to provide full bibliographic attribution to the original author (Perry, 2010) and the primary theoretical foundations that informed its development.
\n\n
References
\n
- \n
- Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
- Heinssen, R. K., Glass, C. R., & Knight, L. A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 3(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(87)90010-0
- Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
- Perry, M. (2010). Face to face versus computer-mediated communication: Couples satisfaction and experience across conditions (Master’s thesis, University of Kentucky). Theses and Dissertations–Family Sciences, Paper 66. http://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/66
- Spitzberg, B. H. (2006). Preliminary development of a model and measure of computer-mediated communication competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 629–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00030.x
- Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003
- Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Items of the Scale
\n
\n
Response Scale: \”strongly disagree‚ 1\” to \”strongly agree‚ 4\”
\n
- \n
- I feel that CMC hinders or would hinder communication with my partner.
- My preference is to use CMC sparingly with my partner.
- When debating or discussing an issue of contention‚ I sometimes like to use CMC as a method of communication
- When communicating with my partner using CMC‚ I sometimes feel misunderstood
- I prefer to use CMC to discuss an important issue on which my partner and I have differing opinions
- My partner and I have more productive conversations when using CMC
- I have a negative perception of using CMC to communicate with others
- I use CMC to reiterate or clarify a point made during a face to face or phone conversation
- I have a positive attitude about using CMC
- I enjoy communicating using computers.
- I am nervous about using the computer to communicate with others.
- I look forward to sitting down at my computer to write to others.
- I am motivated to use computers to communicate with others.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
“,n “excerpt”: “The Attitude toward CMC scale (Perceptions of Computer-Mediated Communication Assessment – PCMCA) is a 13-item instrument measuring cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations toward digital communication in interpersonal relationships.”,n “slug”: “attitude-toward-cmc”,n “categories”: [n “Psychological Assessments”,n “Communication Psychology”,n “Relationship & Dyadic Scales”n ],n “tags”: [n “Attitude toward CMC”,n “PCMCA”,n “Computer-Mediated Communication”,n “Interpersonal Communication”,n “Couples Communication”,n “Psychometrics”,n “Media Richness”n ],n “seo_title”: “Attitude toward CMC Scale: Psychometric Review & Items”,n “seo_description”: “Explore the Attitude toward Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) scale (PCMCA): psychometrics, theoretical foundations, factor structure, scoring, and full scale items.”,n “focus_keyword”: “Attitude toward CMC”n}