Patterns of Communication Channel Use in the Maintenance of Long ...

Patterns of Communication Channel Use in the Maintenance of Long-Distance Relationships Marianne Dainton La Salle University

Brooks Aylor La Salle University

The present study focuses_ori_associatioris hetween communication channel use and relgtjonaLmaintenance by individualsj^rij^g^distance romantic relationships. Survey data were collected from 114 individuals in long-distance relationships (LDRs). Results indicate that use of communication channels covaries such that there are positive relationships hetween the use of oral channels (face-to-face and telephone), positive relationships hetween the use of written channels (internet and letters), but negative relationships between the use of oral and written communication channels. Second, the use of each communication channel was positively associated with relational maintenance, with telephone use in particular associated with the use of relational maintenance strategies. Telephone use was also positively associated with relational commitment and satisfaction, and Internet use was positively associated with trust. Finally, amount offace-to-face interaction could successfully distinguish between LDR types, with individuals who have periodic face-to-face interaction using more maintenance and experiencing greater satisfaction and commitment than individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction.

Despite the fact that personal relationships are likely maintained by both face-toface and mediated means (Wellman & Gulia, 1999), the majority of research on relationship maintenance has focused on face-to-face communication strategies. This is surprising, as several research efforts have found that mediated communication serves maintenance functions (e.g., Gunn & Gunn, 2000; Rabby, 1999; Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999). The importance of mediated channels is likely to be heightened in long-distance relationships, because partners typically experience limited face-to-face contact and must rely on mediated communication (Stephen, 1986). Accordingly, this

Marianne Dainton (Ph.D., The Ohio State University, 1994) is Associate Professor of Communication, Department of Communication, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA 19141. Brooks Aylor (Ph.D., The University of Arizona, 1998) is Assistant Professor of Commimication, La Salle University, Philadelphia, PA 19141. The authors would like to thank Jenna Katits for data entry, and the students of Communication 316 during Fall, 1999 for assistance with data collection. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 19, Number 2, pages 118-129

Channels and Mauintenance -119

study seeks to augment previous research into communication channel usage in longdistance relationships. In addition to furthering scholarly examinations of channel use and relational maintenance efforts, the present study is of practical value to individuals involved in long-distance relationships. Distance relationships have become increasingly common in this country and elsewhere, with as many as one million people annually reporting being in a long-distance relationship (Maines, 1994). Distance relationships are particularly prevalent among college students, with 25%-40% of college students involved in a long-distance relationship (Dellman-Jenkins, Bernard-Paolucci, & Rushing, 1993). Thus, the sheer number of individuals involved in LDRs encourages further examination of maintenance behaviors in these relationships. The present study focuses on the relationship between the frequency of use of differing communication channels and relational maintenance strategies for partners in long-distance relationships. Additionally, relationships between channel use and salient relational characteristics such as satisfaction, commitment, and trust are probed. Communication Channels

With the growth of interactive media technologies, scholars have turned their attention to understanding the uses that individuals make of mediated communication. Although several competing theoretical explanations have been formulated, the present study is grounded in a uses and gratifications perspective on communicative channel selection. The assumptions of a uses and gratifications (U&G) perspective make it particularly appropriate for the current study of relational maintenance in long-distance relationships. As Rubin and Rubin (1985) note, a U&G perspective assumes that media use is often goal-directed to satisfy needs and is performed by an active audience that is able to articulate needs and motives. These assumptions are consistent with most perspectives of interpersonal communication (Cohen & Metzger, 1998) and, given the increased cognitive and behavioral demands of many long-distance relationships (Rohlfing, 1995), this perspective seems well suited for the study of this relational context. Uses and gratifications theory argues that individuals choose various media forms based on the gratifications they expect to receive from these media (e.g., Westmyer, DiCiocco, & Ruhin, 1998). That is, certain communication channels might better meet particular gratification needs than other channels. Westmyer et al. (1998), for example, found that face-to-face communication was seen as more effective and appropriate for meeting interpersonal needs than were mediated channels. Within mediated channels, Dimmick, Kline, and Stafford (2000) found that the telephone provided more sociability gratifications such as expressing emotion and providing companionship than did e-mail. This is not surprising, as Westmyer et al. (1998) found that the telephone was frequently seen as a functional alternative to face-to-face communication. Given that these channels are differentially able to meet relational needs, at issue is the extent to which various communication channels are used by individuals in longdistance relationships. For example, there is a cultural belief that face-to-face communication is the preferred channel for those in romantic relationships (O'Sullivan, 2000; Westmyer et al., 1998). By definition, however, individuals in LDRs cannot make frequent use of this channel. Instead, several researchers have underscored the reliance

120 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2002

on telephone and written commimication in LDRs (Carpenter & Knox, 1986; DellmannJenkins et al., 1993; Holt & Stone, 1988). More recent research has also focused on the frequent use of the Internet by those in LDRs (Gunn & Gunn, 2000). To date, however, no study has examined the overall pattern of communication channel use among those in LDRs. From a uses and gratifications perspective, such an effort makes sense; given the gratification of relational maintenance, the question arises as to which communication channels are used. Accordingly, our first research question in posed: RQl: What is the pattern of communication channel use by individuals in LDRs? Maintaining Long-Distance Relationships

Part of the reason that maintenance researchers may have ignored communication channel is that their primary focus has been on the identification of specific maintenance strategies, and the effect of these strategies on the relationship. For example, Stafford and Canary (1991) identified five primary maintenance strategies: positivity (behaving in a cheerful and optimistic marmer), openness (self-disclosure and direct discussion of the relationship), assurances (messages stressing commitment to the partner and relationship), network (relying upon common friends and affiliations), and sharing tasks (taking responsibility for accomplishing responsibilities that face the couple). These strategies have been consistent and strong predictors of relational characteristics such as satisfaction and commitment. Moreover, evidence suggests that these strategies are performed using both mediated and non-mediated channels; Rabby (1999) found evidence for the use of all of these strategies in a sample of on-line relationships. At question is the extent to which the use of particular commimication channels might be associated with the frequency with which maintenance is performed by LDR partners. Previous research suggests that variations exist. Dimmick et al. (2000), for example, found that the use of the telephone better met sociability gratifications (which they claim is analogous to relational maintenance) than did e-mail. Rabby (1999) found that assurances and positivity were used less often in e-mail than in face-to-face interaction. Finally, Gunn and Gunn (2000) found greater use of openness among on-line relational partners than among those who did not make use of the Internet. This is consistent with the hyperpersonal nature of the Internet (Walther, 1996). Clearly, particular communication strategies are better suited to particular media forms (Dimmick et al., 2000). However, from a uses and gratifications perspective, people also adapt to the channels available in order to accomplish their goals. This suggests that all maintenance strategies can be enacted using all communication channels, a presumption that is supported by evidence (Dimmick et al., 2000; Rabby, 1999; Walther, 1996). Accordingly, the focus of the present study is not the identification of which maintenance strategies are enacted using which channels, but, rather, the relationship between the pattern of individuals' communication channel use and their use of relational maintenance strategies. This leads to the next research question: RQ2: What relationships, if any, exist between communication channel use and the frequency of use of maintenance behaviors in LDRs?

Channels and Mauintenance -121

Relational Characteristics and Communication Channel

The majority of research into relational maintenance has sought to uncover the associations between particular maintenance activities and salient relational characteristics. Two characteristics in particular—satisfaction and commitment—have received the lion's share of attention. However, Dainton and Kilmer (1999) argue that given the physical separation between partners, a third relational characteristic—trust—is salient when discussing LDRs. An interesting paradox remains unexplained when considering the success of LDRs. On the one hand, previous research has found no significant differences between LDRs and geographically close relationships (GCRs) on their overall levels of satisfaction, commitment, or trust (see Guldner, 1996; Guldner & Swenson, 1995). On the other hand, LDRs last longer than do GCRs (Stafford & Reske, 1990). A potential explanation for this paradox is that the means for maintaining LDRs might differ from those used in GCRs. For example, what has not yet been tested is the extent to which the use of various communication channels might facilitate relational maintenance; it may be that those who more frequently use particular communication channels (face-to-face, Internet, telephone, letters) might experience more satisfaction, commitment, or trust in their relationship. There is tentative evidence to support this contention, as Stafford and Yost (1990) found that lack of telephone access was a major source of dissatisfaction for long-distance naval couples. More directly, Gunn and Gunn (2000) found that LDR partners who used the Internet reported more love and relational closeness than did LDR partners who did not use the Internet. Therefore, the next research question is posed: RQ3: What are the relationships between satisfaction, commitment, and trust and the use of communication channels? Long-Distance Relational Types

A final possibility is that communication channel use might in fact differentiate between LDR types. Although all distance relationships, by definition, provide limited face-to-face contact, it is possible that those who experience periodic visits with their partner may communicate differently than do those with no face-to-face contact. According to a uses and gratifications perspective, if face-to-face interaction and the telephone are functional equivalents (Dimmick et al., 2000; Westmyer et al., 1998), then one might expect individuals in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction to use the telephone more frequently than would individuals in LDRs with periodic face-to-face interaction. These variations in charmel use might in turn have an impact on the use of relational maintenance strategies, as well as characteristics such as satisfaction, commitment, and trust. Accordingly, the final research questions center on the possibility that communication channel use may distinguish between LDR types. Specifically, we ask: RQ4: Are there differences in the reported use of relational maintenance behavior among those in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction versus those with periodic face-to-face interaction? RQ5: Are there differences in the reported satisfaction, commitment, or trust

122 - Communication Research Reports/Spring 2002

among those in LDRs with no face-to-face interaction versus those with periodic face-to-face interaction? METHOD Respondents were 114 individuals currently in long-distance romantic relationships. Participants in the current study were part of a larger project on relational maintenance (n = 334). As part of a research project in an advanced research methods course, each student was asked to distribute questionnaires to 10 individuals currently in a romantic relationship. Attached to the questionnaire was an envelope. Upon completion of the survey, respondents sealed the survey in the envelope and either returned it to the student (who gave the envelope to the instructor) or mailed it directly to the course instructor. Students distributing the questionnaires were trained in survey data collection and research ethics. Respondents were assured of complete confidentiality and informed consent was obtained from each participant. At no time did any of the students have access to the specific surveys that they solicited. After data collection, the instructor contacted 35% of the sample to verify successful completion of the surveys. Because previous research suggests that LDRs are most prevalent among first-year college students (Knox, 1992), students in "First-Year Experience" courses at the same university were also sampled. Students currently involved in romantic relationships completed surveys in class as part of an FYE project. Completion was voluntary and respondents were assured of complete confidentiality. The average age of respondents was 20, with a range of 17-40 (sd = 3.0). There were 61 females (53.5%) and 53 males (46.5%). Approximately 89% of the sample (n = 102) was European American, 4.5% was African American (n = 5), 3.5% was Asian American (n = 4), and 3% reported Hispanic ethnicity (n = 3). The average length of relationships was 20 months (range = 1 month to 2.5 years). The average distance separating couples was 382 miles. Turning to relationship type, 71% of respondents (n = 81) reported being in serious romantic relationships, while 26% of respondents (n = 30) identified their relationship as casual dating. One respondent was married, and two were engaged but not married. Instrumentation Researchers have debated the most effective marmer by which to conceptualize long distance relationships. Although some past research has used distance apart to categorize LDRs, Dellmann-Jenkins et al. (1993) argue that a more valid approach is to allow the respondents themselves to categorize their relationship as long-distance or geographically close. They argue that "miles separated" standards vary considerably across studies, causing inconsistencies in findings, and that respondents often have difficulty accurately reporting the exact number of miles separating them from their partner. Philosophically, they argue that a person's perceptions of their relationships affect relational consequences and are more valid measures of relational type than artificially created distance standards. Consistent with this approach, in the current study we asked respondents "Would you consider your current romantic relationship to be a long-distance relationship (for this study, a long-distance relationship is one in which you cannot see your partner, face-to-face, most days)?" Those who answered

Channels and Mauintenance -123

this question affirmatively were utilized for the current study. Because a primary goal of the current study was to examine relationships between channel use and maintenance strategies in LDRs, respondents were asked how often, during a typical week, they communicated via different communication channels. Responses on the 5-item Likert measures included never (1), one or two days week (2), three or four days a week (3), five or six days a week (4), and daily (5). Results indicated the following frequencies: face-to-face M = 1.8 (one or two days a week), sd = .79; Internet M = 2,6 (three or four days a week), sd = 1,6; telephone M = 3.7 (five or six days a week), sd = 1.2; and letters/cards M = 1.5 (one or two days a week), sd = .66. To answer the fourth and fifth research questions, individuals who responded with a "1" on the face-to-face question (i.e., "never") were classified as being in a LDR with no face-to-face (n = 37). All others were classified as being in a LDR with some face-toface interaction (n = 74). Three people failed to respond to this question, and were not classified. To date, the most used quantitative measure of relational maintenance is the scale first developed by Stafford and Canary (1991) and subsequently revised by Canary and Stafford (1992). For each of five maintenance categories, respondents indicated how often they had performed the behaviors in the last two weeks using a 7-point Likert scale. Respondents were instructed to only report those behaviors they have done recently, and to not report things they once did but have not done lately. The five maintenance categories in the current study were positivity (alpha = .83, M = 5.8, sd = 1.4), openness (alpha = .86, M = 5.6, sd = 1.2), assurances (alpha = .83, M = 5.9, sd = 1.3), social networks (alpha = .85, M = 5.0, sd = 1.8), and shared tasks (alpha = .84, M = 5.5, sd = 1.4). Finally, maintenance research has sought to examine the effects of relational maintenance on relational characteristics. Norton's (1983) measure of satisfaction (alpha = .93, M = 5.9, sd = 1.3), Stafford and Canary's (1991) commitment scale (alpha = .90, M = 5.8, sd = 1.3) and Larzelere and Huston's (1980) measure of trust (alpha = .76, M = 6.2, sd = .92) were used in the current study. Consistent with previous research, in this study the maintenance strategies were significantly, positively correlated with the relational characteristics, with only three exceptions; network was not sigruficantly related to either commitment (r = .16, p = .09) or trust (r = .16, p = .09), and openness was not significantly related to trust (r = .08, p = .38). All other correlations were significant, ranging from a high between assurances and commitment (r = .70, p < .001) to a low between tasks and trust (r = .19, p = .05). RESULTS

The first research question asked about patterns of relationships in the use of communication channels, Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed, and the results indicated four significant relationships. Specifically, face-to-face interaction was significantly, positively related to telephone use, and significantly, negatively related to Internet use. Internet use was also significantly, negatively related to telephone use, but significantly, positively related to writing letters. The correlation matrix is presented in Table 1. The second research question sought to determine the relationships between the use of communication channels and the performance of relational maintenance strate-

124 - Commumcation Research Reports/Spring 2002

TABLE 1 Correlations Between the Use of Communication Channels

Telephone Intemet Letter

Face-to-Face

Telephone

,36 p = ,00 -,20 p = .O4 ,07 p=,49

-,23 p = ,02 .11 p = .24

Internet

,24

In all cases, the df= 108

gies. Given the interdependence of the communication charmels as assessed above, partial correlations were run between each commtinication channel and the maintenance behaviors while controlling for each additional communication channel. Results, reported in Table 2, indicate that there were significant, positive relationships between each of the communication modes and at least one of the maintenance behaviors. In particular, telephone use was positively associated with three maintenance behaviors. TABLE 2 Partial Correlations Between Communication Channel Use and Relational Maintenance, Controlling for Other Communication Channels Face-to-Face Positivity Openness Assurances Network Tasks

,14 p = .18 ,00 p = ,99 ,02 p = ,82 .11 p = ,28 ,23 p = ,02

Telephone

Intemet

Letter

.09 p = ,40 ,25 p = ,02 ,34 p = ,00 .20 p = ,05 .16 p = ,12

,21 p=,04 -.03 p=,78 ,13 p=,19 .28 p=,01 .19 p=,06

,02 p = ,88 ,10 p = ,33 ,23 p = ,03 -,15 p = ,13 .03 p = ,75

In all cases, the df= 99

The third research question sought to uncover relationships between the frequency of communication channel use and relational characteristics such as commitment, satisfaction, and trust. Again, partial correlations were run between each communication channel and the relational characteristics while controlling for each additional communication channel. Results, reported in Table 3, indicate significant, positive correlations between using the telephone and commitment and satisfaction, and a significant, positive correlation between trust and using the Internet, The fourth research question sought to ascertain if LDRs could be differentiated by channel use. Specifically, the question was posed whether LDRs with some face-toface interaction might vary in their use of maintenance relative to those without faceto-face interaction, A MANOVA was sigruficant [F (5, 97) = 3.022, p