Computerized Bulletin Boards (CBBs) allow two or more people to communicate via computer and the phone. The computer simply does electronically what an ordinary bulletin board does physically. For the social scientist, the interesting feature of the CBB is the fact that it automatically maintains data on the time and length of communications, as well as the parties involved. This documents a particular kind of social interaction, and the data can be used to see whether this interaction conforms to patterns observed in other types of social interaction.

Mihalo uses the data from one CBB about the interactions between two users to test two hypotheses from the exchange theory of George Homans [1]. Using such data to test theories of interaction is an interesting methodological idea that holds considerable promise. One of the greatest difficulties for the social scientist is getting good data, normally a time-consuming and expensive process. Here, the computer automatically keeps the appropriate data.

From this good methodological beginning, Mihalo quickly runs into problems. By his own statement, his hypotheses are “loosely based on Homans.” He hypothesizes that reciprocity will result in interactions of the same length and the same frequency. Homans, however, hypothesizes that the amount of interaction is related to the perceived value of the interaction. Mihalo does nothing to logically justify his version, thereby making any connection to the work of Homans very tenuous indeed.

More significantly, one set of observations is not sufficient to test any hypothesis. The use of such a limited database is particularly strange since the CBB would have collected data on many sets of interactions. Why more were not entered into the data pool is a mystery. Mihalo is, therefore, at best, suggesting a methodology for testing hypotheses. He cannot, on the basis of the data, draw any conclusions about his hypotheses as he attempts to do.

Based on this limited data and these loosely constructed hypotheses, Mihalo concludes that CBB relationships “can be as durable as other types of social relationships.” There is not a shred of evidence for such a conclusion.

Mihalo introduces an interesting methodology for using CBB data to test theories of social interaction. He then proceeds to inappropriately develop hypotheses, to use an extremely limited data set, and to arrive at an unwarranted, broad general conclusion.