“i luv u :)!”: a descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships

SARAH M. COYNE, LAURA STOCKDALE, DEAN BUSBY, BETHANY IVERSON, AND DAVID M. GRANTBrigham Young University

‘‘I luv u :)!’’: A Descriptive Study of the Media Use

of Individuals in Romantic Relationships

In this study, we address the communicationtechnologies individuals within romantic rela-tionships are using to communicate with oneanother, the frequency of use, and the asso-ciation between the use of these technologiesand couple’s positive and negative commu-nication. Participants consisted of individualsinvolved in a serious, committed, heterosexualrelationship. The Relationship Evaluation Ques-tionnaire instrument was used to assess a varietyof relationship variables. The majority of indi-viduals within the study frequently used cellphones and text messaging to communicate withtheir partner, with ‘‘expressing affection’’ beingthe most common reason for contact. Youngerindividuals reported using all forms of media(except for e-mail) more frequently than olderparticipants. Relationship satisfaction did notpredict specific use of media but predicted sev-eral reasons for media use. Additional analysesrevealed that text messaging had the strongestassociation with individuals’ positive and neg-ative communication within their relationships.Specifically, text messaging to express affection,broach potentially confrontational subjects, andto hurt partners were associated with individ-uals’ view of positive and negative communi-cation within their relationship. Implications ofthe results are discussed.

School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, JFSB2087, Provo, UT 84602 ([email protected]).

Key Words: communication, media, romantic relationships,text messaging.

Every day, over a billion text messages are sentthrough mobile phones around the world (Bargh& McKenna, 2004). In the past, the ‘‘digitaldivide,’’ or the gap between higher socio-economic groups and lower economic groups’access to new technology and media, was areality in the United States, but the last decadehas provided an ever-shrinking gap betweenthese groups (Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan,2009). The majority of American householdshave access to the Internet creating the possibil-ity of communication through e-mails, instantmessaging, chat rooms, and other sites (Bachen,2007). Social networking sites such as ‘‘My-Space’’ and ‘‘Facebook’’ are growing in pop-ularity and reach (Sheldon, 2008). More publiclibraries, schools, and businesses are providingaccess to the Internet, shrinking the digital divideeven further. It seems that the majority of Amer-icans have an endless array of communicationpossibilities and outlets within their grasp.

According to the sociotechnological model,to understand the impact of new communicationtechnologies on the family, researchers mustaddress the characteristics of the new technol-ogy, individual traits of the users, family factors,and extrafamilial influences (Lanigan, 2009).The combination of these factors provides a morecomplete understanding of the effects of bothverbal and nonverbal communication technolo-gies on the family. Although several studies haveexamined the use of newer forms of technol-ogy in parent/child relationships, little researchhas focused on couple relationships, arguablyone of the core components of most families.

150 Family Relations 60 (April 2011): 150 – 162DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x

Media Use and Romantic Relationships 151

Accordingly, in this study, we examined howindividuals in romantic relationships use differ-ent types of newer forms of technology (bothcomputer mediated and noncomputer mediated)to connect with their romantic partner.

COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

Recently, researchers have focused on the effectsof computer-mediated communication (e.g., e-mail, social networking sites) on friendships andrelationships. For example, Walker, Krehbeil,and Knoyer (2009) found that the majority ofcommunications done through MySpace werefriendly inquiries or greetings and expressionsof affection and encouragement. FrequentInternet use has been associated with increasedsociability across multiple cultures and contexts(Rasanen & Kouvo, 2007) and closeness infriendships, particularly among shy individuals(Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).

Although little research has placed computer-mediated forms of communication in a familycontext, a few studies show that such commu-nication can have mixed results. For example,Mesch (2003) found that adolescent Internet usewas not related to overall time spent with parents;however, their Internet use was negatively corre-lated to family closeness even when controllingfor the amount of time spent together.

Other research has focused on romanticrelationships, particularly on the formation ofsuch relationships via technology (e.g., Scott,Mottarella, & Lavooy, 2006; Sprecher, 2009).Other researchers (Manago, Graham, Green-field, & Salimkhan, 2008) have examinedhow computer-mediated communication mightenhance relationship displays online. Further-more, a few studies have shown how Internetuse might influence feelings in relationships. Forexample, Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Ledbetter, andLin (2007) found that type of communication(whether via Internet or phone conversation)had no effect on relationship satisfaction. Otherresearchers have found that the use of Facebookis associated with increased jealousy in relation-ships (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).

Although this literature gives us a smallglimpse into the ways technology has influ-enced relationships, researchers have not exam-ined the association between individuals’ nor-mative media use and their perceptions ofromantic relationship outcomes. Whether suchcomputer-mediated communication is common

among individuals in romantic relationships isunknown. Likewise, the effects of using suchcommunication on individuals’ feelings of con-nectivity and satisfaction within their relation-ship are also unknown. One of the primary aimsof the current research was to assess both the fre-quency of computer-mediated communication inromantic relationships and the potential benefitsor consequences of using such communicationto connect with a romantic partner.

NONCOMPUTER-MEDIATED FORMSOF COMMUNICATION

The use of cell phones to communicate isquickly becoming one of the most commonand easiest ways to connect with others (seeGreen, 2003; Ling, 2004). Both actual cellphone conversations and the use of textingare extremely popular, especially among theadolescent and emerging adult populations (e.g.,Kamibeppu & Sugiura, 2005). When emergingadults were asked why they preferred mobilephone conversations and text messaging overother forms of communication they explainedthat non-face-to-face communication gave themthe option of talking to multiple people at once,to leave large gaps in the conversation, to concealtruth, and the ability to immediately clarifymisunderstandings (Madell & Muncer, 2007).These individuals also claimed that there wereoften misunderstandings when they used thisform of communication, but they felt it gavethem more time to ponder and articulate whatthey were trying to express.

The potential ‘‘misunderstanding’’ on thepart of the receiver may be particularlylikely for a text message, as compared toface to face and actual phone conversation.Tone of voice and facial cues have beenfound to be important aspects of interpersonalcommunication that help enhance the clarityof messages (Zuckerman, Amidon, Bishop, &Pomerantz, 1982). When verbal and textualcommunication and nonverbal communicationdid not correspond, misunderstandings werelikely to occur (Lanigan, 2009). ‘‘Mismatch,’’or when senders’ facial cues do not match themessage of the sender, was related to negativecouple outcomes (Van Buren, 2002). Coupleswho experienced low levels of mismatchwithin their face-to-face communication hadmore stable and satisfying relationships thancouples with greater mismatch (Koerner &

152 Family Relations

Fitzpatrick, 2002). It is possible that newcommunication technologies are inherentlyprone to misunderstandings because they do notcontain these vital nonverbal aspects.

Most research has focused on general cellphone and texting trends, as opposed to placingthis form of communication in a relational con-text. In one qualitative study, Pettigrew (2009)found that the majority of couples claimed thattext messaging had benefited their relationshipand allowed them to remain in constant con-tact with one another.This study, however, wasentirely descriptive and did not address the issueof whether such communication was actuallyrelated to core relationship communication orsatisfaction. Some scholars studying traditionalcommunication methods have found that thesheer amount of overall couple communicationalone was significantly correlated to relationshipsatisfaction, especially for women (e.g., Rehman& Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007). Therefore, it ispossible that the use of mobile phones repre-sents a convenient way for couples to connectthroughout the day and to increase their lev-els of communication when apart. This addedopportunity for communication might suggesta positive consequence on couple relationships.As stated before, however, cell phone use, andespecially texting, might be associated with morefrequent misunderstandings in communicationthat may have a negative effect on the rela-tionship. Accordingly, one of the primary aimsof this study was to examine the frequencyand potential consequences of cell phone use(both conversations and texting) in romanticrelationships.

THEORETICAL APPROACH AND RESEARCHQUESTIONS

In accordance with the sociotechnological model(Lanigan, 2009), communication technologiesand the family can only be understood when thecharacteristics of the technology, the individualtraits of the user, family factors, and extrafamil-ial influences are taken into account. Techno-logical characteristics include the accessibility,scope or malleability, obtrusiveness, resourcedemands or costs, and gratification potentialof any communication technology. Individualtraits include the personality, personal goals,attitudes toward technology, processing styles,and general demographics such as age, gender,

and income of the individual using the tech-nology. Family factors are demographics suchas how many people are in the family, stageof development, how many people within thefamily use the technology, and family processes.Finally, extrafamilial influences include commu-nity and workplace acceptance of communica-tion technologies. All these factors work togetherto influence how strongly these communicationtechnologies impact the family (Lanigan).

The sociotechnological model is particularlypertinent when addressing new communicationtechnologies such as social networking sites,blogs, text messaging, and e-mails (as in thisstudy) for several reasons. First, the characteris-tics of all these technologies make them highlyaccessible and rewarding for families to use. Themajority of families own cell phones and haveaccess to the Internet either within their homesor in the community, making texting, social net-working sites, and other forms of Internet com-munication highly accessible and cost-effective.Furthermore, these communication technologiesare very adaptive and can be used in multiplesituations and circumstances. Families are alsovery likely to see these communication technolo-gies as rewarding and gratifying because theyare new, trendy, and make it possible for fami-lies to constantly be in contact with one another.Finally, extrafamilial influences such as workand the community tend to be very supportiveof these communication technologies, makingthem much more likely to have an impact on thefamily.

We focused on only one aspect of the family,namely romantic relationships, in this study. Inaccordance with the sociotechnological model,however, we examined technological charac-teristics (e.g., type of media, context of use),individual characteristics (e.g., demographicvariables), and family factors (e.g., relationshipsatisfaction) to assess the frequency of use andimpact of computer-mediated (e.g., social net-work sites, e-mail, blogging) and noncomputer-mediated (cell phone/texting) forms of com-munication on relationship communication andsatisfaction. As stated earlier, little is knownregarding how individuals in romantic rela-tionships use newer forms of technology tocommunicate with each other. This study hasthe potential to shed some light on not only theways media is used within relationships but alsothe potential consequences of such use. Withinthe context of the sociotechnological model, we


will focus on two research questions outlinedbelow.

RQ1: How often are cell phones, text messaging,e-mail, instant messaging, social networking sites,blogs, and webcams used within romantic relation-ships to communicate? Are there any demographic(i.e. gender, age, ethnicity, educational attainment)or relationship (e.g., length, status, satisfaction)differences in use?

RQ2: What is the relationship between the useof communication via technology and relationshipsatisfaction and communication?

METHOD

Participants

Participants were drawn from the entire popu-lation of respondents (approximately 5,124 peo-ple) who completed the Relationship EvaluationQuestionnaire (RELATE; Busby, Holman, &Taniguchi, 2001) in 2009. Individuals completedthe RELATE online after being introduced to theinstrument through a variety of settings. Someparticipants were requested to take the RELATEas part of a class, others completed it as part ofa workshop for couples, some individuals com-pleted it after finding it on the Web, and somecompleted it as part of an assessment pack-age given by a professional therapist or clergymember.

Because of the relationship variables thatwere analyzed in this study, the only individ-uals retained in the sample were participantsin a heterosexual relationship who were in aserious/steady dating relationship or who wereengaged or married. This also included indi-viduals who were separated or remarried butwere currently in a serious relationship. We alsoeliminated any participants with missing valueson any of the variables used in this study tomore appropriately evaluate the models withoutresorting to any type of substitution processes formissing values. This resulted in a final samplesize of 1,039 participants.

Approximately 60% of participants werewomen and over 40% were men. Eighty-twopercent of the sample were Caucasian, 4.3%African American, 4.6% Asian, approximately5% Latino, 3.2% mixed/biracial, 7% NativeAmerican, and <1% ‘‘other.’’ In terms ofeducation, 6% had a high school education orless, 13.5% of the participants had completed

some college, but were not currently enrolled,16% were currently enrolled in college, 25.4%had received a Bachelor’s degree, and 27.4% hadbegun or completed an advanced degree. Themean age of the respondents was 32.31 years(SD = 10.01 years). Thirty-nine percent of theparticipants were in a committed, intimate,dating relationship and 48% were married.Twenty-four percent of the participants werecohabitating with their partner, 25% were ina first marriage with their partner, 6.6% wereremarried, and 2% were separated from theirpartner. Approximately 58% of the respondentshad been in their current relationship for <1year and approximately 42% had been in theirrelationship for over a year.

Approximately 20% of the participants wereCatholic, 28% were Protestant (Methodist,Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc.), about 20% wereLatter-Day Saints, approximately 3% wereJewish, less than 3% were Buddhist, Hindu,or Sikh, approximately 1% were Muslim,approximately 1% were other, and 25% werenot affiliated with any religion.

Measures

The RELATE is a 300 plus-item questionnairedesigned to evaluate the relationship betweenromantically involved partners, be they dating,engaged, or married. The questions examineseveral different contexts—individual, cultural,family (of origin), and couple—in order toprovide a comprehensive comparison and eval-uation of challenges and differences in areas thatmay prove helpful to couples. Previous researchhas documented the RELATE’s reliability andvalidity, including test-retest and internal con-sistent reliability, and content, construct, andconcurrent validity (Busby et al., 2001). Werefer the reader specifically to the Busby and col-leagues’ discussion of the RELATE for detailedinformation regarding the theory underlying theinstrument and its psychometric properties. Thescales utilized in this study are detailed below.

Relationship length. To determine the relation-ship length, questions assessing the length ofcourtship and length of marriage were summed.Individuals were asked ‘‘How long has it beensince you first started dating your partner. (Ifmarried, how long did you date your partnerbefore marriage)?’’ Items were ranked on a scalewith 11 categories ranging from 1 (0 – 3 months)


and 11 (more than 40 years). Next, marriedparticipants were asked, ‘‘How long have youand your partner been married?’’ These wereagain answered on a scale with 11 categoriesranging from 1 (0 – 3 months) to 11 (more than40 years).

Communication. In the couple context, the cou-ple’s self-reported positive and negative commu-nication and their perception of their partners’positive and negative communication were mea-sured. For all analyses, partner and self-reportwere combined in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2008) tocreate an overall communication measure. Twosubscales of communication (positive and neg-ative) were utilized. The ratings of self and theratings of the partner were combined becauseprevious research has documented that they arehighly correlated, appropriately combined intoone general measure of the quality of communi-cation in the relationship, and better predictorsof couple outcomes (Busby & Gardner, 2008;Busby, Holman, & Niehuis, 2009).

Positive communication. The positive commu-nication scale was designed to provide anoverall measure of individuals’ perception ofpositive communication within their romanticrelationship. This scale included 14 questions,addressing individuals and their perception oftheir partner’s communication within their rela-tionship such as, ‘‘in most matters, my partnerunderstands what I am trying to say’’ and ‘‘Isit down and talk things over with my partner.’’The questions were answered on a 5-point Lik-ert response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5(very often). Internal consistency estimates ofreliability were computed for couple’s positivecommunication. The Cronbach’s α was .93.

Negative communication. The negative com-munication scale was designed to provide anoverall measure of the use of negative commu-nication within the couple context. This scalewas based on Gottman’s (1999) conflict cascadeof communication and included 16 questions,addressing how individuals felt they and theirpartner used negative communication patternswithin their relationship such as ‘‘my part-ner doesn’t censor his or her complaints atall. She or he really lets me have it in fullforce’’ and ‘‘I show no respect for my partnerwhen we are discussing an issue.’’ The ques-tions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Internalconsistency estimates of reliability were com-puted for couple’s negative communication andthe Cronbach’s α was .92.

Relationship satisfaction. The relationship sat-isfaction scale was designed to provide an overallmeasure of individuals’ satisfaction within theirrelationship and their perception of their part-ner’s satisfaction within the relationship. Thisscale included seven questions, addressing howsatisfied they were with issues such as ‘‘theamount of relationship equality you experience’’and ‘‘the amount of love you experience.’’ Thequestions asking ‘‘the quality of your commu-nication’’ and ‘‘how conflicts were resolved’’were removed because of the potential over-lap in content with the communication scales.The questions were answered on a 5-point Likertscale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (verysatisfied). Internal consistency estimates of reli-ability were computed for couple’s relationshipsatisfaction and the Cronbach’s α was .87.

Media communication. Questions were de-signed to discover the types of media thatindividuals used to communicate with theirromantic partner. Participants were asked sevenquestions to assess how often they used eachtype of media to connect with their romanticpartner. Items included ‘‘How often do youuse each of the following types of media toconnect with your partner? Call using a mobilephone, text using a mobile phone, e-mail, instantmessenger, social networking sites, blog, andwebcam.’’ The questions were answered on a7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7(more than once a day).

Media connectivity. Finally, several contextualquestions were asked regarding the media typeslisted above. As these variables did not loadtogether well enough to create scale scores, allvariables were analyzed separately. Questionsincluded ‘‘How often do you use the abovemedia to . . .’’ ‘‘discuss serious issues withyour partner,’’ ‘‘hurt your partner,’’ ‘‘broacha potentially confrontational subject with yourpartner,’’ ‘‘apologize to your partner for some-thing,’’ ‘‘express affection to your partner,’’ and‘‘connect with others while you and your partnerare interacting (e.g., sending a text or checkinge-mail while having a conversation with yourpartner)?’’ The questions were answered on a


7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7(more than once a day).

Analyses Strategy

The initial analyses were conducted to showwhich types of media were used most frequentlyin relationships and whether any demographicdifferences existed in use or reasons foruse. After this, several regression analyseswere conducted to assess whether relationshipsatisfaction predicted media use and reasons,after controlling for all demographic variables.Finally, we constructed an exploratory modelin AMOS to assess any media effects onrelationships.

RESULTS

Frequency of Media Use

A series of paired-samples t tests were conductedto assess the frequency of media use in romanticrelationships. Individuals were significantlymore likely to use cell phones (conversations)to communicate with their partner than anyother medium (p < .001). Means and standarddeviations can be found in Table 1. Textmessaging was the second most commontype of communication medium for individualsin romantic relationships. Individuals reportedusing text messaging to communicate with theirpartner on average more than once a week(although see Table 2 for a breakdown by age).E-mails were used significantly less than cellphones and text messages for communication,but significantly more than instant messaging,social networking sites, blogs, and webcams(p < .001). There was no significant difference

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Each Typeof Media

Variables M SD

Cell phone 6.42b,c,d,e,f ,g 0.99Text messaging 5.20a,c,d,e,f ,g 2.20E-mail 4.10a,b,d,e,f ,g 2.21Social networking sites 2.15a,b,c,f ,g 1.72Instant messaging 2.02a,b,c,g 1.99Blogs 1.19a,b,c,d 0.77Webcams 1.18a,b,c,d 0.74

Note. Superscripted letters denote a significant differencebetween each variable p < .05.

between individuals’ use of instant messagingand social networking sites to communicate withtheir partner (p > .05). Participants reportedusing instant messaging, social networking sites,blogs, and webcams to communicate with theirromantic partner rather infrequently.

We next conducted several multivariateanalyses of variance (MANOVAs) to determineany demographic or relationship differences inoverall media use and reasons for media use.

Demographic Differences

Media use. A MANOVA on demographicvariables (gender, age, ethnicity, educationallevel, and religious affiliation) was conductedon media use. To conserve space, we only reportthe multivariate effects; statistics regarding maineffects and follow-up analyses of variance(ANOVAs) can be obtained by submitting arequest to S.M.C. There was no significantmultivariate effect for gender, F (7, 885) =1.64, p = .12, η2 = .01. Age was split into

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Age and Media Type

Age Group

Measure 17 – 25 26 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61 and older

Call using a mobile phone 6.42 (1.00) 6.47 (0.92) 6.36 (1.05) 6.10 (1.20) 5.67 (1.33)Text using a mobile phone 6.16 (1.69) 5.47 (2.01) 4.44 (2.40) 3.62 (2.60) 1.83 (1.47)E-mail 3.33 (2.00) 4.78 (2.01) 4.53 (2.07) 4.18 (2.22) 4.61 (1.91)Instant messaging 2.83 (2.31) 2.27 (2.19) 1.45 (1.32) 1.16 (0.98) 0.00 (0.00)Social networking sites 3.22 (1.98) 2.49 (1.90) 1.44 (1.27) 1.24 (0.98) 0.24 (0.24)Blogs 1.26 (0.96) 1.18 (0.73) 1.06 (0.46) 1.04 (0.42) 0.00 (0.00)Webcams 1.67 (1.51) 1.29 (0.96) 1.11 (0.62) 1.10 (0.54) 0.24 (.24)

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses. Scale was 1 = never, 2 = less than once a month, 3 = once a month, 4 = 2 – 3times a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = once a day, 7 = more than once a day.


five different categories: emerging adult (age17 – 25), young adult (26 – 40), adult (41 – 50),middle adult (51 – 61), and older adult (62+).A significant multivariate effect was foundoverall, F (28, 3192) = 6.89, p < .001, η2 =.05. Follow-up analyses revealed that youngerindividuals were more likely to use each typeof media (p < .01) to communicate with theirpartner as compared to older individuals withthe exception of 17 – 25 year olds and e-mail; 17 – 25 year olds use fewer e-mails tocommunicate with their partner than all otherage groups (see Table 2 for means and standarddeviations for age of participant).

For ethnicity, there was no significant effecton type of media used within relationships F (42,4154) = 1.38, p > .05, η2 = .01. For educationlevel, F (56, 4771) = 4.06, p < .001, η2 = .04,individuals who had more education wereless likely to use technology to communicatewith their partners than those who had lesseducation for almost every single type of media,with the exception of webcams (p < .01).These differences are likely an effect of age,with younger individuals likely to have lesseducation than older individuals in the sample(p < .001). Finally, for religious affiliation,F (56, 4154) = 2.14, p < .001, η2 = .02, follow-up ANOVAs showed that Latter-Day Saintsused significantly less e-mail but more blogsthan individuals who claimed no religion tocommunicate with their partner (both ps < .001).Furthermore, Protestants used significantly lessinstant messaging to connect with their romanticpartner than those who claimed no religiousaffiliation (p < .001).

Reasons for media use. The reasons forusing media were also analyzed. The mostcommon reason was to express affection (75%)followed by discussing serious issues (25%)and apologizing (12%). Using the media tobroach confrontational subjects (6%) and hurttheir partner (3%) was rare. In addition, 38%of participants reported using the media toconnect with others while they were interactingwith their partner. A MANOVA was conductedfor all demographic variables on reasons formedia use. Again, to conserve space, we onlyreport full statistics for the multivariate effectsbelow. There were no significant main effectsfor religious affiliation. For gender, F (6, 901)= 5.29, p < .001, η2 = .03, follow-up analysesrevealed that women were significantly more

likely to use the media to connect with otherswhile interacting with their partner than men(p < .05) and more likely to use the mediato hurt their partner than men (p < .01). Forage, F (24, 3144) = 5.73, p < .001, η2 = .04,younger individuals were also significantlymore likely to use the media to broach apotentially confrontational subject, apologizefor something, express affection, and connectwith others while with their partner than olderindividuals (all ps < .001). For educationstatus, F (48, 4437) = 1.60, p < .01, η2 = .01,individuals with less formal education weresignificantly more likely to use the media tohurt their partner and to discuss a serious issuewith their partner than those with more education(p < .001 and p < .01). Finally, for ethnicity,F (36, 3959) = 1.86, p < .01, η2 = .01, NativeAmericans were more likely to use the media tobroach a potentially confrontational subject thanother ethnic groups (p < .01).

Relationship Variables

For the following analyses, length of relationshipwas split into two groups (less than and morethan 1 year), as was marital status (married ornot married).

Media use. A MANOVA was conducted onrelationship variables (length and martial status)and all media use items. Media use toconnect with romantic partners was significantlydifferent depending on the length of therelationship, F (7, 1014) = 9.79, p < .001,η2 = .06. Follow-up ANOVAs showed thatindividuals who had been in a relationship a yearor less used significantly more text messaging,instant messaging, and social networking sitesto connect with their partner (p < .001). Again,this is likely a reflection of the age of theparticipant. Significant multivariate differenceswere also found for marital status, F (7, 1014)= 2.96, p < .01, η2 = .02. Follow-up analysesshowed that individuals who were married usedsignificantly (p < .01) more blogs to connectwith their romantic partner than those who werenot married; furthermore, those who were notmarried used more e-mail to connect with theirpartner than those who were married (p < .01).

Reasons for media use. A one-way MANOVAwas conducted to determine the effect of rela-tionship variables on reasons for using the


media to connect within romantic relationships.For relationship length, F (6, 1031) = 10.62,p < .001, η2 = .06, individuals who were inrelationships for <1 year were significantly lesslikely to use the media to discuss a seriousissue with their partner, but more likely to usethe media to hurt their partner, broach a poten-tially confrontational subject with their partner,and apologize to their partner for somethingthan those who had been in a relationship for ayear or more (all ps < .01). For marital status,F (6, 1031) = 2.84, p < .01, η2 = .02, individu-als who were not married were also significantlyless likely to use the media to discuss a seriousissue with their partner, hurt their partner, broacha potentially confrontational subject with theirpartner, express affection to their partner, andconnect with others while with their partner (allp < .001).

Relationship satisfaction. We were also inter-ested in whether relationship satisfaction pre-dicted both media use and reasons for mediause. Accordingly, we conducted a series of hier-archical regression analyses to assess whetherrelationship satisfaction predicted media useand reasons for media use, even after control-ling for all the demographic variables above.Interestingly, analyses revealed that relationshipsatisfaction did not predict the use of any typeof media.

We also conducted a series of hierarchicalregressions to assess whether relationshipsatisfaction predicted the reasons for media use.After controlling for all demographic variables,higher relationship satisfaction predicted moremedia use to express affection, β = .18,t = 4.15, p < .001, and less to broach aconfrontational subject, β = −.10, t = −2.22,p = .027.

Exploratory Analysis of Media Influenceon Relationships

Our final analysis included an exploratorymodel of media effects on relationships.Preliminary path analyses in AMOS (ver.17) revealed that text messaging had thestrongest influence on individual’s communi-cation and relationship satisfaction. The othercommunication technologies did not have asignificant association with participants’ positiveand negative communication in their romanticrelationships and were dropped from the final

model. Table 3 shows the correlations betweenall major variables used in subsequent analyses.On the basis of the correlations and earlier analy-ses, a structural equation model was constructedin AMOS. Text messaging and the differentreasons for text messaging within a partnership(to broach a potentially confrontational subject,discuss a serious issue, express affection, hurtyour partner, and connect with others while withyour partner) were constructed to predict par-ticipants’ perceptions of positive and negativecommunication within their relationships. Thisin turn was constructed to predict relationshipsatisfaction.

Model analysis. Several fit indices (see Arbuckle,2008; Byrne, 2001; Hoyle & Panter, 1995) arereported to assist in the evaluation of how wellthe hypothesized model replicated the sampledata. The analyses indicated that the model fitthe data well: χ2(687) = 4607.90, p < .001, TLI= .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .04. The squaredmultiple correlation for positive communica-tion was .23. The squared multiple correlationfor negative communication was .21 and forrelationship satisfaction was .80.

Figure 1 shows the final model and the pathcoefficients after nonsignificant paths were elim-inated. Specifically, significant paths were foundbetween the use of text messaging and express-ing affection, connecting with other people,discussing serious issues, broaching confronta-tional subjects, and hurting each other. Althoughthere was no direct significant relationshipbetween the use of texting and relationshipsatisfaction, texting in a number of differentcontexts was related to positive and nega-tive communication. Text messaging to broachpotentially confrontational subjects showed asignificant relationship with positive communi-cation (−.08) and negative communication (.10).The use of text messaging to express affectionto one’s partner also showed a significant rela-tionship with positive communication (.15) andnegative communication (−.16). Using text mes-saging to hurt one’s partner showed a significantrelationship with positive (−.20) and negativecommunication (.32). Finally, positive commu-nication was also significantly related to overallrelationship satisfaction (.64) as was negativecommunication (−.13).


Table 3. Bivariate Correlations Between Main Variables

M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Positivecommunication

3.75 (.687) — −.66∗∗ .75∗∗ −.21∗∗ .08∗ −.07∗ −.25∗∗ −.20∗∗ −.10∗∗ .26∗∗ .11∗∗

2. Negativecommunication

2.50 (.73) — −.58∗∗ .16∗∗ −.04 .18∗∗ .31∗∗ .28∗∗ .19∗∗ −.15∗∗ −.03

3. Relationshipsatisfaction

3.90 (.95) — −.25∗∗ .09∗ −.09∗∗ −.24∗∗ −.20∗∗ −.05 .30∗∗ −.11∗∗

4. Relationshiplength

— .33∗∗ −.01 −.01 −.07∗ −.11∗∗ −.31∗∗ −.25∗∗

5. Text using amobile phone

5.20 (2.20) — .17∗∗ .11∗∗ .18∗∗ .22∗∗ .34∗∗ .28∗∗

6. Discuss seriousissues withyour partner

2.83 (1.94) — .38∗∗ .54∗∗ .61∗∗ .32∗∗ .19∗∗

7. Hurt your partner 1.32 (.85) — .54∗∗ .37∗∗ .11∗∗ .12∗∗

8. Broach apotentiallyconfrontationalsubject

1.81 (1.24) — .58∗∗ .21∗∗ .23∗∗

9. Apologize to yourpartner forsomething

2.53 (1.47) — .38∗∗ .20∗∗

10. Express affectionto your partner

5.30 (1.85) — .29∗∗

11. Connect withothers whileyou and yourpartner areinteracting

3.40 (2.10) —

Note. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first studyto describe different forms of media usewithin romantic relationships. On the whole,individuals are using the media to frequentlyconnect with their romantic partner, primarilythrough the use of cell phone conversations ortexting. The sociotechnological model states thatcharacteristics of the technology determine theimpact these technologies have on the family(Lanigan, 2009). Cell phones, as comparedto other types of media, are probably themost accessible form of media, making contactboth quick and easy throughout the day.Likewise, workplace and communities tend tobe highly supportive of cell phone use, withsome companies even giving cell phones totheir employees as a way to maintain contact.Contact through e-mail, social networking sites,

or instant messaging all occur in romanticrelationships, but not as frequently. We alsofound that individuals rarely use blogs orwebcams to contact their partner. Thus, on thewhole, this study shows evidence of a highamount of media use specifically to contactromantic others, although some forms (cellphones) are used more frequently than others.

We also assessed the reasons why individualsuse the media to connect with their partner.The most common reason by far was to expressaffection. Our analysis with texting for usingthe media in this context was specifically relatedto positive forms of communication, showingthat the media can act as a positive force inmany relationships. It is likely that technologyhas increased the ease with which affection canbe expressed, with individuals being able tocovertly text a quick ‘‘I luv U :)!’’ during anoffice meeting or call while doing the weekly


FIGURE 1. TEXTING AND COUPLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE COMMUNICATION.

RelationshipLength

Text Messagingto Connect With

Your Partner

Discuss SeriousIssues

With Your Partner

Broach a PotentiallyConfrontational Subject

With YourPartner

Express AffectionTo Your Partner

Hurt You rPartner

Connect With OthersWhile With Your

Partner

CouplePositive

Communication

CoupleNegative

Communication

CoupleRelationshipSatisfaction

.17*

.11*

.22*

.21*

.05*

.64*

–.1*

.10*

–.20*

.32*

–.08*

.16*

–.15*

–.39*

Age

Note. ∗p < .001.

shopping. Although face-to-face expressions ofaffection are undoubtedly necessary, it wouldappear that individuals can add to these positivecommunications by using the media to continueto express affection.

Conversely, about a quarter of our samplereported using the media to discuss seriousissues, with around 10% using it either to apol-ogize or to broach a potentially confrontationalsubject. Still fewer (only 3%) reported using themedia to hurt their partner, by sending mean textmessages for example. In our texting analysis,using the media to both hurt one’s partner andbroach confrontational subjects was related tomore negative forms of communication. Anytype of antagonistic or cruel behavior may havea negative effect on relationships, and it appearsthat such behavior in the context of texting is nodifferent. The lack of nonverbal cues and face-to-face interactions are not enough to overcomethe damaging effects of cutting words. Whether

texting mean things to a partner is ‘‘better’’than saying them face to face is unknown andshould be a focus for future research. Our results,however, revealed that texting hurtful messagescould have a negative effect on communicationand indirectly on relationship satisfaction. Thus,it seems unlikely that the use of this particulartechnology would completely buffer the effect ofsaying (or in this case texting) hurtful messagesto one’s partner. Although such behavior didoccur in the context of relationships, it should benoted that, on the whole, these results show thatmedia use is very common among individualsinvolved in romantic relationships and that mostcontact via the media is very positive.

When examining demographic differences,we found a few significant findings for gender,ethnicity, and religion. The largest findings,however, were for age, length of relationship,and educational status. Given that youngerindividuals are also likely to have shorter


relationships and less education, these latterfindings are likely a reflection of the age ofthe individual. Specifically, younger individuals(17 – 25) reported using all forms of media tocommunicate with their partner more than oldercouples. This is especially likely in the case oftexting, with older adults (61+) rarely, if ever,texting their partner while young adults (17 – 25)reported texting their partner more than once aday on average. This is not surprising given thepopularity of newer forms of technology amongemerging adults (e.g., Kamibeppu & Sugiura,2005). Older individuals may be contactingtheir partner through more traditional formsof communication (i.e., landlines, notes); thus,these routes should also be examined in thefuture.

Interestingly, married individuals reportedusing almost all types of media (texting,IM, social networking, blogs, and webcams)more frequently than couples who were dating.Married individuals likely have a host ofresponsibilities regarding both the relationshipand family that need to be discussed duringthe day. Technology provides a very quick andaccessible way to deal with concerns at anytime. Dating couples likely have less of a needto deal with as many issues throughout the day;accordingly, their contact through technology isless frequent. Furthermore, a high amount ofcontact via the media early on in the relationshipmay seem like overkill to some couples who arestill just getting to know each other.

Although relationship satisfaction did notpredict media use per se, it did appear to havean influence on several reasons for using themedia. Individuals who were more satisfiedin their relationship reported using the mediamore frequently to express affection towardtheir partner. It is likely that highly satisfiedindividuals are more likely to express affectiontoward their partner in multiple contexts; themedia simply provides yet more ways. Lesssatisfied individuals, however, were more likelyto report using the media to attempt to broacha confrontational subject with their partner.Again, these individuals may simply have moreconfrontational subjects to talk about in theirrelationship. For example, after an argument,individuals might send a text message totheir partners to gauge their feelings on thetopic of discussion. Contact via the mediahas the potential to be less intense and lessemotionally charged than face-to-face contact.

Given the negative relationship with satisfaction,positive communication (as found in our textinganalysis), and the potential ‘‘mismatch’’ thatoften occurs with media and real intent, however,it is likely that using the media in thiscontext is not as successful as other formsof communication. Research should certainlyaddress this issue in the future.

Although it is somewhat unusual to use thesame variable, relationship satisfaction, as apredictor and an outcome in the same study,as our data are correlational it is clearly possiblethat media usage is a result of the overall qualityof a relationship and/or media usage couldcontribute to overall relationship quality. In ourstudy, we tested both options and also foundthat the purposes for using media did influenceoverall relationship satisfaction through positiveand negative communication.

Limitations and Implications for AppliedProfessionals

This study has several limitations. All thedata collected were self-report in nature;thus, future research should obtain partnerreports or observational data regarding mediause. Also, the sample was not random, andtherefore, some of the results might be uniqueto the sample characteristics of this study.Even with the shortcomings of the sampleand data gathering techniques, we were ableto provide important findings about differenttypes of technology use in relationships.Very little is known about the types oftechnologies individuals use to communicate,the types of individuals who use the differenttechnologies, and the influence these usagepatterns have on relationship variables andoutcomes. This article is only a beginning downthe pathway of discovery regarding technology,communication, and relationships. The rapidchanges occurring with our communicationtechnology are challenging to keep up withas individuals, let alone as scholars who mustdesign and conduct research that explores thesechanges, hopefully before some other type oftechnology has emerged and become dominant.Already some forms of technology, such asinstant messaging, seem to be falling out offavor before we even knew much about howit was being used and what impact it had onrelationships.


We expect with the ubiquitous nature ofcell phones and texting that this type ofcommunication will remain common and mightbecome the primary way many couples stay intouch with each other for the near future. Itseems an ideal time to explore the impact ofthis type of technology use on relationships, asthere are still many couples who use it little andmany couples who use it almost hourly. So far,our findings demonstrate that it can have botha positive and negative effect on relationshipsdepending on the intent. In this regard, it doesnot appear to be different from other forms ofcommunication, but long-term effects need tobe studied, especially as texting may be proneto miscommunication because of the missingnonverbal channels. How do couples addressmiscommunication when it comes from textingas compared to face-to-face communication? Dothey initiate communication through a phone callor wait until they are face to face to iron out theproblems? How does this influence their overallrelationship? As media technologies continueto grow in scope and reach, it is importantto understand how media may influence thecreation, shape, trajectory, or overall strength orweakness of a relationship.

Our study also demonstrates the potentialfor including media more in the educationaland therapeutic endeavors of practitioners. Theproblem with many interventions is that theyoccur too infrequently and require individuals togo to an inconvenient location, the practionersoffice, instead of being provided in theirhomes. Already the RELATE and Couple CARE(Halford, Moore, Wilson, Dyer, & Farrugia,2004) programs are being provided over theInternet and by using phones, and couples areresponding to this type of intervention (Halfordet al., 2010). The room for innovation withthese technologies for adapting educational andtherapeutic interventions is almost limitless.Practitioners could easily use automated promptsto individuals or couples to gather informationthrough a quick assessment over cell phonesor to remind family members to interactaround certain topics or in certain ways. Inaddition, the development of apps for smartphones could provide much more advancedforms of communication that are triggeredat certain times of the day, such as whencertain responses are given to a question orwhen certain things are observed in theirrelationships. Although using media to adapt

interventions is sure to provide challenges withcompensation, boundaries, confidentiality, andother issues, there are unique opportunities withthese technologies to meet couples where theyare at, when they need it, and in ways theyare already communicating that may very wellredefine intervention as much as phones, theInternet, and texting have redefined how familymembers stay in touch with each other.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide.Chicago: SPSS.

Bachen, C. M. (2007). Just part of the family?Exploring the connections between family life andmedia use. In S. R. Mazzarella (Ed.), 20 questionsabout youth and the media (pp. 239 – 252). NewYork: Peter Lang.

Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). TheInternet and social life. Annual Review ofPsychology, 55, 573 – 590.

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbet-ter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational quality andmedia use in interpersonal relationships. NewMedia & Society, 9, 735 – 752.

Busby, D. M., & Gardner, B. C. (2008). How do Ianalyze thee? Let me count the ways: Consideringempathy in couple relationships using self andpartner ratings. Family Process, 47, 229 – 242.

Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Niehuis, S. (2009).The association between partner- and self enhance-ment and relationship quality outcomes. Journalof Marriage and Family, 71, 449 – 464.

Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N.(2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation for theindividual, cultural, and couple contexts. FamilyRelations, 50, 308 – 316.

Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling withAMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic:A scientifically based marital therapy. New York:W.W. Norton.

Green, N. (2003). Outwardly mobile: Young peo-ple and mobile technologies. In J. Katz (Ed.),Machines that become us: The social con-text of personal communication technology(pp. 201 – 218). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Halford, W. K., Moore, E. M., Wilson, K. L.,Dyer, C., & Farrugia, C. (2004). Benefits ofa flexible delivery relationship education: Anevaluation of the Couple CARE program. FamilyRelations, 53, 469 – 476.

Halford, W. K., Wilson, K. L., Watson, B., Verner, T.,Larson, J., Busby, D., & Holman, T. (2010). Cou-ple relationship education at home: Does skilltraining enhance relationship assessment andfeedback? Journal of Family Psychology, 24,188 – 196.


Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing aboutstructural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.),Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues,and applications (pp. 158 – 176). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Kamibeppu, K., & Sugiura, H. (2005). Impact of themobile phone on junior high-school student’sfriendships in the Tokyo metropolitan area.CyberPsychology and Behavior, 2, 121 – 130.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Nonver-bal communication and marital adjustment andsatisfaction: The role of decoding relationshiprelevant and relationship irrelevant affect. Com-munication Monographs, 69, 33 – 51.

Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model forfamily research and intervention: How informationand communication technologies affect family life.Marriage and Family Review, 45, 587 – 609.

Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cellphone’s impact on society. San Francisco: MorganKauffman.

Madell, D. E., & Muncer, J. J. (2007). Control oversocial interactions: An important reason for youngpeople’s use of the Internet and mobile phones forcommunication? CyberPsychology and Behavior,10, 137 – 140.

Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., &Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self presentation and gen-der on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmen-tal Psychology, 29, 446 – 458.

Mesch, G. A. (2003). The family and the Internet:The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 84,1038 – 1050.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009).More information that you ever wanted: DoesFacebook bring out the green-eyed monsterof jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12,441 – 444.

Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connect-edness within close interpersonal relationships.Marriage and Family Review, 45, 697 – 716.

Rasanen, P., & Kouvo, A. (2007). Linked or dividedby the web?: Internet use and sociability in fourEuropean countries. Information, Communication,and Society, 10, 219 – 214.

Rehman, U. S., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2007).A cross cultural examination of the relationof marital communication behavior and maritalsatisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21,795 – 763.

Scott, V. M., Mottarella, K. E., & Lavooy, M. J.(2006). Does virtual intimacy exist?: A brief explo-ration into reported levels of intimacy in onlinerelationships. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9,759 – 763.

Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship betweenunwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Face-book use. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories,Methods, and Application, 20, 67 – 75.

Sprecher, S. (2009). Relationship initiation andformation on the Internet. Marriage & FamilyReview, 45, 761 – 782.

Strasburger, V. C., Wilson, B. J., & Jordan, A. B.(2009). Children, adolescents, and the media.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2007). Online commu-nication and adolescents well being: Testing thestimulation verse displacement hypothesis. Jour-nal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12,1169 – 1182.

Van Buren, A. (2002). The relationship of verbal-nonverbal incongruence to communication mis-matches in married couples. North AmericanJournal of Psychology, 4, 21 – 36.

Walker, K., Krehbiel, M., & Knoyer, L. (2009). ‘‘Heyyou! Just stopping by to say hi!’’ Communicatingwith friends and family on Myspace. Marriage andFamily Review, 45, 677 – 695.

Zuckerman, M., Amidon, M. D., Bishop, S. E., &Pomerantz, S. D. (1982). Face and tone of voicein the communication of deception. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43, 347 – 357.

“i luv u :)!”: a descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships

Documents