“When someone says ‘I love you,’ would you want to hear it over the phone, through a text message or face-to-face?” asks Mark Redmond, associate professor of English.

Redmond said most people want to hear those magic words face-to-face, since this form of communication is popularly considered to be the most warm and meaningful. But despite its rich sentiments, face-to-face communication is not the only way interpersonal communication takes place in dating relationships.

Computer media communication (CMC) includes e-mails, instant messages, text messages and other technological forms that Redmond said are “great tools as supplements to face-to-face communication.”

Social information processing, a theory that states that relationships develop just as closely through CMC as they do face-to-face, was originally applied to CMC, but the theory has now been changed to say that relationships develop faster when mediated by technology because people are “able to share more information more quickly,” Redmond said.

He said e-mails and instant messaging allow communication to be more self-focused, whereas face-to-face communication is initially less revealing of one’s self.

Although relationships may develop more quickly through computer use, Redmond said college students generally have ample opportunities to meet people in person on campus instead of using technology.

Still, there are young men and women who seek a romantic partner through CMC. Redmond used the example of Facebook’s relationship status as one way people communicate “whether or not they want to be approached.”

Not everyone devotes attention to these approaches, however.

“I have a MySpace page, and there are guys who send messages saying, ‘You’re hot’ or whatever, but I disregard them because it’s important to know their character,” said Catie Beck, junior in political science.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project Web site, a nonprofit project exploring the impact of the Internet on people’s everyday lives, “those who describe themselves as single and looking for a partner comprise a relatively small segment of the online population that totals about 10 million people.”

Of the 10 people surveyed, four reported using the Internet to flirt with someone.

“I can see where [CMC is] easier, because you don’t have to put yourself out there,” Beck said.

Redmond said there is much debate as to whether intimacy can be reached through CMC.

“Half of my students say that physical contact is needed, and the other half say that, assuming there is honesty in the relationship, an intimate relationship can form through CMC to find a best friend or a true love,” Redmond said.

Beck said she has a friend who met her current husband randomly through Facebook, and although she understands that meaningful relationships can form through CMC, she prefers the intimate aspect of meeting someone in person.

Others, like Dustin Salmons, sophomore in elementary education, don’t use CMC for flirting or to find an initial date. Instead, he uses CMC to maintain his current long-distance relationship.

Salmons’ girlfriend is studying in London for the spring semester. Salmons said they use Facebook, cell phones, Google Talk and Skype to stay in touch.

“It involves making priorities, such as staying up late or getting up early, because of time differences and definitely requires work if you really want it … but we’ve grown 200 percent closer because we communicate over a long distance,” Salmon said. “We keep our priorities.”

Although they have grown closer, Salmons agrees with Redmond’s view that face-to-face communication is more meaningful.

“I miss her quite a bit, and spending time with someone can’t be matched with the use of technology,” he said.