Samuel Jackson and Scott Braithwaite, Department of Psychology
Introduction
Communication in romantic relationships is changing. Partners today increasingly choose to communicate via technology1, and use a mix of communication channels ranging from purely verbal formats (e.g., text messaging) to those rich in nonverbal expression (e.g., video chats). Despite this, theories about romantic communication tend to assume or focus on only face-to-face interactions, or lump all computer-mediated channels into a single category2. These limitations harm the study of modern relationships. Expanding scientific knowledge about how young people use various media in their relationships can greatly benefit the future study of romantic communication and mate selection, and inform efforts in the prevention of relationship-linked distress and divorce.
This project focuses on two basic questions, each with a number of smaller facets:
-
- How do emerging adults choose which communication channel they will use for a particular interaction?
- How does channel use relate to long-term relationship outcomes?
Previous theoretical approaches to communication channel selection have focused primarily on business applications, and have yielded mixed results3. This study is one of the first to examine which factors influence channel selection in romantic relationships. It also aims to explore how the choices people make regarding communication channel use impact their long-term ability to form and maintain healthy relationships.
Methods
In order to answer questions dealing with long-term outcomes, this study was set up longitudinally, meaning participants respond to a series of questionnaires over a period of time. Participants were gathered through the Amazon service Mechanical Turk (MTurk, http://www.mturk.com) and, by the study’s conclusion, will have responded to four Qualtrics surveys. The first of these surveys asked detailed questions about which communication channels they tend to use (in-person conversation, text messaging, phone calls, etc.) for a variety of relationship interaction types (initial contact, conflict, breakups, etc.). Participants also rated how they felt about each of those types of interactions (to what extent they were important, risky, common, and ambiguous). These factors have previously been associated with channel selections in business communication theories4. Then, those currently in romantic relationships answered a series of questions about the quality, duration, and communication patterns of that relationship. In follow-ups at 4, 8, and 12 months, participants again answered these questions about their current relationship, with those not in relationships reporting on the length of their last relationship and the reasons for its ending.
Data from the first survey was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics and correlation tests. Once all follow-ups are complete, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) will be used to analyze models for the relationships between interaction ratings, channel selection, and relationship outcomes.
Results and Discussion
Only the initial survey and one follow-up have been completed at this time, so results are incomplete. Final follow-up will occur in April and May of 2017, with the complete analysis occurring sometime after. In the meantime, however, some analyses have been conducted on the data from the first survey.
These data indicate that people tend to use a wide variety of communication channels in their relationships, and that channel use varies depending on interaction type. Scheduling, initial contact with potential partners, and small talk had the highest rates of text-based communications (49.4%, 46.2%, and 44.1%, respectively), and the highest rates of in-person communication were used for breaking up, talk about sex, and conflict (65.7%, 57.9%, and 55.3%, respectively).
These differences, though, were not closely linked to participants’ ratings of the different interaction types. Correlation tests showed nonsignificant relationships between interaction ratings (importance, risk, commonality, and ambiguity) and channel usage (all r’s were between -0.13 and +0.13). This result, contrary to our hypotheses, indicates that these data are not consistent with the prevailing theories about how people select communication channels5. Instead, it seems that other factors not assessed in this project are more important in determining which communication channels emerging adults use for their romantic communication. Future research could, for example, investigate the impact of societal norms, personal habits, convenience, or other factors on communication channel selection.
1 Rappleyea, Damon L., Taylor, Alan C., & Fang, Xiangming. (2014). Gender differences and communication technology use among emerging adults in the initiation of dating relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 50(3), 269-284. doi:10.1080/01494929.2013.879552
2 Luo, Shanhong, & Tuney, Shelley. (2015). Can texting be used to improve romantic relationships?—The effects of sending positive text messages on relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 670-678. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.035 Rappleyea, Damon, and Fang (2014)
3 El-Shinnawy, M., & Markus, M. L. (1997). The poverty of media richness theory: Explaining people’s choice of electronic mail vs. voice mail. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(4), 443-467. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0099
4 The predominant theories regarding channel selection are Media Richness Theory and Impression Management. Media Richness theory states that media richer in nonverbal expressiveness should be used for communications which are more likely to be ambiguously interpreted, or those which are more important. Impression Management says instead that channel selections are a part of people’s efforts to control how they are perceived by others.
5 Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191-233. Ramirez, Artemio, Jr., & Broneck, Kathy. (2009). ‘IM me’: Instant messaging as relational maintenance everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(2-3), 291-314. doi:10.1177/0265407509106719