I Will post both files. You need to convert the APA file to MLA as well as convert the MLA file to APA.

I Will post both files. You need to convert the APA file to MLA as well as convert the MLA file to APA.
Varying Definitions of Online Communication 5 Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research Elizabeth L. Angeli COMM 345 March 20, 2006 Varying Definitions of Online Communication and Their Effects on Relationship Research Numerous studies have been conducted on various facets of Internet relationships, focusing on the levels of intimacy, closeness, different communication modalities, and the frequency of use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). However, contradictory results are suggested within this research because only certain aspects of CMC are investigated, for example, email only. Cummings, Butler, and Kraut (2002) suggest that face-to-face (FtF) interactions are more effective than CMC (read: email) in creating feelings of closeness or intimacy, while other studies suggest the opposite. To understand how both online (Internet) and offline (non-email) relationships are affected by CMC, all forms of CMC should be studied. This paper examines Cummings et all.’s research against other CMC research to suggest that additional research be conducted to better understand how online communication affects relationships. Literature Review In Cummings et al.’s (2002) summary article reviewing three empirical studies on online social relationships, it was found that CMC, especially email, was less effective than FtF contact in creating and maintaining close social relationships. Two of the three reviewed studies focusing on communication in non-internet and Internet relationships mediated by FtF, phone or email modalities found that the frequency of each modality’s use was significantly linked to the strength of the particular relationship (Cummings et al., 2002). The strength of the relationship was predicted best by FtF and phone communication, as participants rated email as an inferior means of maintaining personal relationships as compared to FtF and phone contacts. Cummings et al. (2002) reviewed an additional study conducted in 1999 by the HomeNet project. In this project, Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler and Scherlis (1999) compared the value of using CMC and non-CMC to maintain relationships with partners. They found that participants corresponded less frequently with their Internet partner (5.2 time per month) than with their non-Internet partner (7.2 times per month) (as cited in Cummings et al., 2002). This difference does not seem significant, as it is only two times less per month. However, in additional self-report surveys, participants responded feeling more distant, or less intimate, towards their Internet partner than their non-Internet partner. This finding may support participants’ beliefs that email is an inferior mode of personal relationship communication. Intimacy is necessary in creation and maintenance of relationships, as it is defined as the sharing of a person’s innermost being with another person, i.e. self-disclosure (Hu, Wood, Smith & Westbrook, 2004). Relationships are facilitated by the reciprocal self-disclosing between partners, regardless of non-CMC or CMC. Cummings et al.’s (2002) reviewed results contradict other studies that research the connection between intimacy and relationships through CMC. Hu et al. (2004) studied the relationship between the frequency of Instant Messenger (IM) use and the degree of perceived intimacy among friends. The use of IM instead of email as a CMC modality was studied because IM supports a non-professional environment favoring intimate exchanges. Their results suggest that a positive relationship exists between the frequency of IM use and intimacy, demonstrating that participants feel closer to their Internet partner as time progresses through this CMC modality. Similarly, Underwood and Findlay (2004) studied the effect of Internet relationships on primary, specifically non-Internet relationships and the perceived intimacy of both. In this study, self-disclosure in their Internet relationship as compared to their primary relationship. In further support of this finding, Tidwell and Walther (2002 hypothesized CMC participants employ deeper self-disclosures than FtF participants in order to overcome the limitations of CMC, e.g., the reliance on nonverbal cues. It was found that CMC partners engaged in more frequent intimate questions and disclosures than FtF partners in order to overcome the barriers of CMC. (Remainder of paper intentionally not included here. Please do not include this line in your conversion of this paper to MLA format. Continue on to next page for conversion of References to Works Cited). References Cummings, J., Butler, B. & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103 – 108. Hu, Y., Wood, J. Smith, V. & Westbrook, N. (2004). Friendships through IM: Examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 10, 38 – 48. Tidwell, L. & Walther, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 217 – 348. Underwood, H. & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary relationships. Behavior Change, 21(2), 127 – 140.
I Will post both files. You need to convert the APA file to MLA as well as convert the MLA file to APA.
Velasquez 1 Rosa Velasquez Professor Nguyen English 1A 2 June 2009 Personality and Birth Order: First-Borns and Later-Borns Does birth order have any effect on personality? The naysayers, including psychologists Monica A. Seff, Viktor Gecas, and James H. Frey, argue that “research on birth order effects has been remarkably inconsistent and inconclusive with regard to various personality and behavioral outcomes.” MIT historian Frank Sulloway disagrees. In his book, Born to Rebel, he offers proof of the relationship between birth order and personality. Researching the lives of historical figures, Sulloway observes that later-borns tend to champion liberal or unconventional ideas while first-borns do not: “Later-borns were more likely than first-borns were to support each of the 61 liberal causes … surveyed, from the Protestant Reformation to the American civil-rights movement” (qtd. In Cowley). Rule-breaking later-borns include Susan B. Anthony, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Charles Darwin. In contrast, first-borns defend the status quo (Sulloway 79). Naturalist Louis Agassiz fits this mold. The most influential naturalist of his day, first-born Agassiz staunchly opposed Darwin’s radical notions about biological change: When Darwin proposed a revolutionary solution — that all nature’s variety stems from a simple process that preserves useful variations and discards harmful ones – the authorities were appalled. “A scientific mistake, “ thundered Louis Agassiz, […] “untrue in its facts … and mischievous in its tendency.” (Cowley) (Remainder of paper intentionally not included here. Please do not include this line in your conversion of this paper to APA format. Continue on to next page for conversion of Works Cited to References.). Works Cited Cowley, Geoffrey. “First Born, Later Born.” Newsweek 7 Oct. 1996, 65+. Academic Search Premier, Web. 16 July 2009 Seff, Monica A., Viktor Gecas, and James H. Frey. “Birth Order, Self Concept, and Participation in Dangerous Sports.” The Journal of Psychology 127.2 (1993): 221+. Academic Search Premier. Web. 16 July 2009. Sulloway, Frank J. Born to Rebel. New York: Pantheon, 1996. Print. (Remainder of paper intentionally not included here. Please do not include this line in your conversion of this paper to APA format. Continue on to next page for conversion of Works Cited to References.).