Staying Connected: Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication in College Students' Dating Relationships

Abstract

Little is known about the features, depth, and quality of communication in heterosexual dating relationships that include computer-mediated communication (CMC). This study examined these features as well as CMC's potential to facilitate self-disclosure and information-seeking. It also evaluated whether partner CMC interactions play a role in partner intimacy and communication quality. Young adults (N = 359; 18–24) attending postsecondary education institutions completed an online survey about their CMC use. To be included in the study, all participants were in established dating relationships at the time of the study and reported daily communication with their partner. CMC was linked to partners' disclosure of nonintimate information. This personal self-disclosure was linked positively to relationship intimacy and communication quality, beyond contributions from face-to-face interactions. Breadth (not depth) of self-disclosure and positively valenced interactions, in particular, proved key to understanding greater levels of intimacy in dating relationships and better communication quality as a function of CMC. CMC provides opportunities for partners to stay connected and to improve the overall quality of their intimacy and communication.

Introduction

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is often used to form personal relationships,¹ maintain existing relationships,² and end relationships.^3,4 CMC refers to any interpersonal exchange through technology media, including the Internet and text messages via mobile devices. It permits greater access to a person than relying on face-to-face interactions alone, as messages can be transmitted, received, and reciprocated near constantly throughout the day and in almost any context. For college students, Internet communication and text messaging via mobile devices are currently the most frequent means of computer-based communication within their social networks.^5,6 However, little is known about how CMC is linked to intimacy, self-disclosure, and learning about one's romantic partner in dating relationships—hallmarks of relationship quality.

The Role of CMC in Social Relationships and Associated Outcomes

A considerable body of research has focused on online communication and relationship formation,^7–10 as well as on CMC use with friends and family.^11–13 This research makes clear what has been long known in the communication world that self-disclosure (i.e., the act of revealing personal information to others)¹⁴ and asking personal questions are key strategies for getting to know another individual and for promoting intimacy.^15,16 Intimacy refers to “feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships” and is considered an “emotional investment in the relationship.”¹⁷^(p119) It typically remains at low levels during initial exchanges in a relationship and increases as a couple spends more time interacting, and self-disclosure becomes more frequent and personal. The outcome is often accelerated relationship development when using CMC, reports of feeling closer and knowing each other far better than compared with relationships that rely entirely on face-to-face interactions to learn about each other.^18,19

The case for established dating relationships is less clear: Some research finds that CMC continues to be a venue for disclosing intimate information and increasing intimacy,^20–22 whereas other research finds that CMC evolves into a means of keeping individuals connected throughout the day, but the content becomes increasingly superficial.²³

There has been significant debate about potential negative outcomes that are associated with young people's high rates of CMC use, in particular, concerns that they are spending too much time using screen technology and, as a result, are missing opportunities for developing more important in-person communication skills.^24,25 A key concern has been that relationships incorporating high rates of CMC develop without depth, are transitory, and are nonintimate.^26,27 Research is needed to elucidate how CMC use is associated with the relationship quality of established dating partners.

Theoretical Framework

The current study was guided by Social Penetration Theory (SPT)²⁸ to better conceptualize the role and associated outcomes of CMC in established dating relationships. SPT provides a well-supported framework for understanding relationship development and quality.^29,30 This theory has established how communication between partners is a major contributor to relationship development.^31,32 Proponents of SPT view relationship development as constituting intimate exchanges that rely heavily on two primary components: self-disclosure of important and private information and seeking important and private information about one's partner. SPT views relationship development as a progression from initially impersonal and nonintimate interactions to increasingly meaningful intimate exchanges.^33,34

Tracking new relationships as they are launched and begin to gain ground over time reveals a rapid increase in nonintimate self-disclosure as well as a slow and gradual increase in intimate disclosures.^35–37 According to SPT, it is important to examine the amount, as well as the breadth and depth of any self-disclosure to relationship partners. In addition, the CMC literature—particularly the online dating literature—reinforces the importance of selective (positive) self-disclosure to others through CMC.^18,38 Therefore, amount, breadth, depth, and valence (i.e., positive and negative) are key features of self-disclosure and are assessed here.

Seeking information about one's partner takes place through inquiries, conversation, and discussion and is central to learning about one's partner and to, ultimately, feeling closer. Individuals might ask personal questions to learn about another and seek information about one's partner through mutual friends or other sources, such as online searches or viewing a partner's profile page.^16,39,40

Research on stranger relationships and research addressing online dating indicate that self-disclosure and asking personal questions are core strategies for getting to know another individual through CMC.¹⁶ The primary outcome of these strategies is rapid relationship development compared with face-to-face interactions, as measured by increases in social attraction, intimacy, affection, and liking.^16,41–43 Walther has referred to this as the “hyperpersonalization effect.”⁴³ Newly established relationships are characterized by a high volume of disclosure covering a range of less intimate topics, and higher rates of asking partners personal questions in information-seeking efforts.^28,31,32

The extent to which this effect continues to operate in established dating relationships (i.e., after the initial stages of relationship development) is less clear, but it is a focus of the current study. In fact, relationship duration has often been excluded from analyses examining communication and relationship outcomes.⁴⁴ Partners in more well-established relationships generally tend to maintain a consistent level of intimacy through relationship maintenance behaviors and communication, relying less on intensive self-disclosure and information-seeking, specifically once intimacy is felt.⁴⁵ These shifts in general communication patterns over relationship development were expected to emerge in this study of CMC interactions. Specifically, we explored whether relationship duration moderates the role of CMC in dating relationships.

The Current Study

The goal of this study was to assess how young adults integrate CMC into their communication with dating partners and the associations between CMC use on their dating relationship in terms of intimacy and communication quality. Our research questions were as follows:

RQ1: What are the patterns and perceived quality of communication reported by young adults in dating relationships in terms of in-person communication and CMC? CMC use was measured in terms of the frequency of text messages and written online messages relative to in-person and landline telephone interactions for those in romantic relationships.

RQ2: What associations does CMC use have on relationship intimacy and communication quality of established dating relationships?

In line with theory and research, we developed the following hypotheses specifying that personal self-disclosure and partner information-seeking would be key mechanisms for understanding relationship quality:

H1: Extent of CMC partner interactions (i.e., higher levels of time spent in CMC, amount of partner information-seeking through CMC, and self-disclosure in terms of greater amount, breadth, depth, and more positive valence) would predict higher intimacy and communication quality within the dating relationship over and above face-to-face interactions.

H2: These positive associations between partner CMC interactions and relationship quality would decrease over the duration of the relationship.

Methods

Participants

The sample comprised 359 students (53.8 percent female), 18–24 years (M = 20.2; SD = 1.8 years) who were in heterosexual dating relationships in which they interacted daily (i.e., had some form of communication) with their dating partner either through CMC or face to face. Eligibility criteria included being geographically close to one's partner; those separated by distance from their partners were ineligible for participation, because they were expected to have far fewer face-to-face interactions and to rely more heavily on CMC than their counterparts who were not separated. Students were predominantly White/Caucasian (86.9 percent), Canadian (96.1 percent), and English-speaking (94 percent). The mean age of participants' partners was 20.7 years (SD = 2.7; Median = 20.0; range = 16–41). Participants reported dating their partner on average 18.3 months (SD = 16.7; Median = 13.0, range = 1–78 months). Most (76.5 percent) lived apart; 23.5 percent were cohabiting.

Measures

Background questionnaire

This measure assessed a range of demographic information, including age, gender, orientation, ethnicity, language, major, and place of residence. Respondents described their dating relationship, including age and gender of the partner, relationship duration (in months), frequency and type of interaction, and how they met.

General technology and CMC use

Twenty-two items based on the CMC literature²³ assessed respondent and partner use of technology and CMC. Participants reported their own and their partner's general Internet, mobile device, and CMC use (average hours in a typical day); history with CMC and technology use (in years); and context of Internet use (extent of Internet use across various locations).

Communication with one's dating partner

Participants reported all interactions with their dating partner over the prior 3 days. A 3 day period was chosen to help ensure relatively accurate recall and a sufficient sampling of typical usage across days. A 3 day period has been recommended as an interval for short-term recall of daily events.^46,47 Recall of reported behaviors over a greater length of time has been notably poor in other studies.^48,49 This report included how much time (in hours) they spent communicating (a) in person, (b) via a landline telephone (time, number of calls made/received), (c) via the Internet, and (d) via text messaging on a mobile device.

Self-disclosure

The general tendency to self-disclose to others was assessed by using the 10-item Self-Disclosure Index.⁵⁰ Willingness to self-disclose was assessed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Items were preceded by the stem “In general, I tend to disclose to others” followed by a range of topic areas, including “What I like and dislike about myself” and “Things I have done which I feel guilty about.” Higher scores indicate a greater tendency to self-disclose personal information. The scale has strong psychometric properties.^32–34 A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.84 was obtained for the current study.

Self-disclosure through CMC

Self-disclosure to one's dating partner over the prior 3 days was assessed by using three subscales of the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale⁵¹—Amount, Depth, and Valence (positiveness)—in line with SPT. SPT also emphasizes the importance of disclosure Breadth; therefore, breadth was measured by using a subscale from the Communication Behavior Scale.⁵² The measure consists of 22 items to which respondents indicate the degree to which they communicated with their partner through CMC on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 8 (Strongly Agree). Examples of items include “I did not often talk about myself” and “Our conversations were limited to specific topics” (both reverse scored). Higher scores indicate greater self-disclosure through CMC to one's partner. Internal consistency scores of 0.73, 0.79, 0.83, and 0.66 were found for the Amount, Depth, Positiveness, and Breadth subscales, respectively.

Partner information-seeking through CMC

A modified version of an information-seeking measure⁵³ was used to inquire about partner information-seeking, such as asking one's partner personal questions about himself or herself over the prior 3 day period. This scale includes five items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Completely Disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree). An example of the items is “I asked him/her a number of questions about him/herself.” Higher scores reflect greater information-seeking about one's dating partner. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.81 was obtained.

Perceived intimacy

The widely used Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships (PAIR) scale was used to measure the level of intimacy that participants felt in their dating relationships at the time of the study.⁵⁴ This measure comprises 30 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Two examples of the items are “I often feel distant from my partner” (reverse scored) and “We usually keep to ourselves.” A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 was obtained in the current study.

Perceived communication quality

A measure of perceived communication quality was used based on Knapp's (1978) application of SPT.²⁸ This measure consists of four items that are designed to assess perceived communication quality separately for in-person interactions, phone/online conversations, and CMC text-based communication. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 7 (Strongly Disagree).⁵² Examples of items include “We have trouble understanding each other” (reverse scored) and “We are attentive to each other's comments.” A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.90 was obtained.

Procedure

After ethics approval, men and women were recruited through an Introductory Psychology research pool and online through social media, listservs, and Web sites. In addition, quick response codes were distributed in several locations on the campus of which this study originated. All participants were directed to an online link, which connected respondents to the informed consent form and a secure online survey. Registration allowed participants to login, complete the survey at any time, close the survey, and return to it at a later date. The survey took on average 36 minutes to complete, according to the online survey metrics. Participants were entered into a draw for a chance to win a $25 gift card. A pilot study with 11 individuals who met the study inclusion criteria ensured clarity of all measures, ease of the online software, and sufficient brevity of the survey. For the pilot study, students completed the online survey and took notes of any potential issues or questions associated with the surveys and software; then, they were interviewed briefly about the survey clarity and wording. Results of the pilot study were incorporated before the launch of the full study. No significant alterations were made and the length of the survey was preserved, in accordance with the feedback from the pilot study participants.

Data preparation and analysis

Predictors met the criteria for low multicollinearity.⁵⁵ The following transformations were applied to reduce skewness and kurtosis and to improve bivariate relationships for five variables.⁵⁵ Relationship duration and CMC were logarithmically transformed; in-person communication was transformed by obtaining the square root of the scores; and CMC breadth was reflected and also transformed by obtaining the square roots of the score. Reflected variables were re-reflected for interpretation.

Missing data were examined by using SPSS Analyze Patterns software to determine whether data were missing at random. A low total of 2.06 percent of all values was missing. The greatest percentage of missing data on any one variable was 6.1 percent. Little's Missing Completely At Random (MCAR) test revealed that the data might not be MCAR. Therefore, multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.⁵⁶ Five cases were missing more than 10 percent of the data and were not included in the multiple imputation model. All variables included in the final regression model of the main analyses, as well as background and technology demographic variables, were included in the imputation model.⁵⁷ Fully conditional specification using SPSS20 was used to generate seven imputed data sets.⁵⁸ The parameters of the seven imputed data sets were pooled for each analysis, correcting for the extra uncertainty caused by missing data,^58,59 by using SPSS20 and macros created by van Ginkel.⁶⁰ Graphical diagnostics following the multiple imputations indicated that the data sets had fully converged.

Descriptive data were generated first. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed perceived quality across means of communication (time spent on in-person communication, time spent on communicating through CMC, and time spent on phone calls via the Internet, mobile devices, and landline telephones combined). Two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test to what extent the use of technologies was associated with intimacy and communication quality in students' relationships, after accounting for in-person interactions.

Analyses controlled for the general tendency to self-disclose, gender, cohabitation, participant and partner use of a wide range of communication modes, and relationship duration. These variables influenced either the predictor or criterion variables in preliminary analyses. Individuals vary in their general tendency to self-disclose to others (e.g., strangers, co-workers).³⁷ SPT research indicates that the general tendency to self-disclose should be controlled in studies of self-disclosure in relationship development.²⁸ SPT also recommends that gender be controlled.²⁸ Women place greater importance on personal self-disclosure in their dating relationships compared with men.⁶¹ Women also tend to self-disclose more than do men.⁴⁵ Cohabitation is controlled, as those who live together have more opportunities to communicate face to face (and less need to use CMC) than do those who live apart. The range of communication tools in use would factor into levels of CMC use. The duration of the dating relationships (range in length was 1–55 months) may have affected levels of self-disclosure and relationship development, which was in line with SPT. The hierarchical multiple regression analyses were re-run with the two-way interaction terms between each of the six partner CMC-interaction variables with relationship duration entered as a final step to test whether relationship length moderated the relationship between partner CMC interactions and relationship quality. Predictor variables were first centered, as recommended by Cohen.⁶²

Results

Dating students' communication patterns

With regard to our first research question (RQ1), participants reported having used the Internet for an average of 10.97 years (SD = 2.92; Median = 11.00) and spending a daily average of 3.70 hours online (SD = 2.33, Median = 3.00; range = 0–14 hours). Time spent on mobile devices ranged from 0 to 15 hours (M = 3.06, SD = 3.10; Median = 2.00). Time spent on the Internet, communicating via the Internet, or texting was correlated with reports of partners' time in each activity (r = 0.51; r = 0.50; r = 0.78, p < 0.001).

Of note, the time spent communicating through technologies was considerably lower than the time spent communicating face to face. Following the time spent in person with partners, text messaging and communicating via the Internet were frequent means of communication (Table 1). Video or voice-only calls were not common; most (82.2 percent) people had not spent any time using a landline telephone to talk to their partners over the prior 3 days.

Table 1.

Partnered Communication in Previous 3 Days

Communication mode	% Who used mode in prior 3 days		M hours^a		SD^a	Median^a	M number sent/calls made	M number received
Face to face	100		11.15		10.95	7.00	—	—
Mobile text messages	95		4.01		6.62	2.00	85.66	86.44
Written messages via Internet	100		2-way:	2.31	5.01	1.00	—	—
			1-way (S)^b:	0.50	1.88	0.00	4.23	—
			1-way (R)^b:	0.48	1.55	0.00	—	4.32
Phone calls	Mobile:	27	1.27		3.30	0.00	3.21	2.22
	Landline:	18	0.86		1.59	0.00	0.39	0.41
	Online, voice, and video:	13.8	1.94		2.00	2.00	—	—
	Online, voice only:	10.6	1.60		2.42	1.00	—	—

N = 359.

Of those participants who communicated using this mode over prior 3 days.

A message with no expected return message (e.g., “Thinking of you”).

S, sent; R, received.

Perceived quality of communication in relationships

Participants indicated how well they communicated with partners across three general forms of communication (in-person communication, written communication, and phone calls). A repeated-measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction revealed a significant difference, F(1.78, 619.51) = 78.94, p < 0.001. Post hoc tests using a Bonferroni correction indicated that in-person communication was rated by students as significantly better for communication between partners compared with both written and phone conversations (p < 0.001).

Computer-mediated communication and relationship quality

To assess RQ2, the next analyses tested the extent to which the use of CMC predicted the degree of intimacy and communication quality in students' relationships, after accounting for in-person interactions. Two hierarchical regression analyses were completed in three steps. Step 1 controlled for the general tendency to self-disclose to others, gender, cohabitation, participant use of a wide range of modes, partner use of a wide range of modes, and relationship duration. Time spent on in-person communication over the prior 3 days with one's dating partner (in person) was entered at Step 2. Time spent in CMC, amount, breadth, valence, depth, and information-seeking were added at Step 3.

Intimacy

Applying the model to predict relationship intimacy was significant and accounted for 54 percent of the variance in intimacy, F(13, 319) = 6.66, p < 0.001 (Table 2). The first block of control variables entered at Step 1 was significant, but it accounted for only 5 percent of the variance. Inspection of the semi-partial correlations revealed that gender contributed uniquely to intimacy: Women reported higher levels of intimacy in their relationships than did men. An additional 6 percent of the variance in intimacy was contributed at Step 2 when the in-person variable was entered into the model. This significant contribution indicated that time spent in face-to-face communication was positively related to the level of intimacy, after accounting for the control variables. The inclusion of the six partner CMC interactions at Step 3 was significant; an additional 12 percent of variance was accounted for in intimacy. The semi-partial correlations revealed that breadth contributed uniquely to intimacy, after controlling for face-to-face communication. Those who self-disclosed a wider range of topics through CMC reported greater intimacy compared with those who restricted their breadth of self-disclosures.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Intimacy from Partner Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Interactions

	Intimacy
Predictors	β	sr	R²-change	F
Step 1			0.05^**	2.86^**
Gender	0.15	0.15^**
Cohabitation	−0.02	−0.02
Participant use, No. of modes	0.04	0.03
Partner use, No. of modes	0.09	0.06
Tendency to self-disclose	0.10	0.10
Relationship length	0.00	0.00
Step 2			0.06^***	5.54^***
In person	0.25	0.24^***
Step 3			0.12^***	6.66^***
CMC	−0.07	−0.06
Amount	0.03	0.02
Breadth	0.27	0.23^***
Positiveness	0.14	0.13
Depth	−0.13	−0.10
Information-seeking	−0.11	−0.10
Final R²	0.54

N = 359.

Predictor variables at Steps 2 and 3 describe partner interactions over prior 3 days. With multiple imputation, variance at each step does not add up to total variance, as new samples are drawn at each step.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001

Amount, amount of self-disclosure through CMC; Breadth, breadth of self-disclosures through CMC; CMC, time spent using one-way and two-way computer-mediated communication; Depth, depth of self-disclosures through CMC; Information seeking, time spent seeking partner information through CMC; In person, time spent communicating in-person; Positiveness, valence of self-disclosures through CMC.

Communication quality

The model testing the contribution of CMC interactions after accounting for time spent on communicating in person was significant and accounted for 23 percent of the variance in communication quality, F(13, 307) = 7.69, p < 0.001 (Table 3). Similar to the prediction of intimacy, the first block of control variables entered at Step 1 was significant and accounted for 6 percent of the variance. Gender contributed uniquely to communication quality: Women reported higher communication quality in their relationships than did men. An additional 8 percent of the variance in communication quality was contributed at Step 2 when time spent on communicating face to face with one's dating partner was entered into the model. Thus, spending more time on in-person communication predicted greater communication quality in participants' dating relationships, after accounting for the six control variables. Parallel to the analysis using intimacy, an additional 12 percent of the variance in communication quality was explained by adding the six partner CMC interactions variables at Step 3. Examination of the semi-partial correlations at Step 2 showed that both breadth and valence of respondents' self-communication uniquely contributed to the prediction of communication quality. That is, those who disclosed a wider range of topics about themselves through CMC and those who disclosed more positively valenced personal information reported higher communication quality in their relationships than did those who disclosed a more restricted range of disclosures and more negatively valenced information via CMC.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Communication Quality from Partner Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication Interactions

	Communication
Predictors	β	sr	R²-change	F
Step 1			0.06^**	3.24^**
Gender	0.14	0.14^**
Cohabitation	−0.05	−0.04
Participant use, No. of modes	−0.02	−0.02
Partner use, No. of modes	0.19	0.13
Tendency to self-disclose	0.02	0.02
Relationship length	0.04	0.04
Step 2			0.08^***	6.97^***
In person	0.29	0.28^***
Step 3			0.12^***	7.69^***
CMC	−0.10	−0.09
Amount	−0.09	−0.07
Breadth	0.33	0.28^***
Positiveness	0.12	0.10^*
Depth	0.00	0.00
Information-seeking	−0.07	−0.07
Final R²	0.23

N = 359.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

Relationship duration as potential moderator

No significant additional variance was added to the model by including relationship length interactions with the six partner CMC interactions for the analysis predicting intimacy, nor was communication quality added. Thus, our second hypothesis was not supported.

In sum, after accounting for the six control variables and time that partners spent on communicating in person, breadth of disclosure remained key to understanding greater levels of intimacy in relationships and for better communication quality as a function of CMC. Disclosing positively valenced personal information also uniquely contributed to understanding quality in these dating relationships.

Discussion

In response to the radical uptake of CMC use among young adults, especially college students, the current study explored patterns and characteristics of CMC in the dating relationships of students. A specific focus of the study was self-disclosure and partner information-seeking through CMC—key determinants of relationship quality—in line with SPT. The extent to which students self-disclosed through CMC, the breadth and valence of these self-disclosures, and the extent to which they made efforts to learn about their partners through CMC were associated with relationship quality in directions predicted by the social penetration process.

General technology use

Young adults in higher education use technology at higher rates than do all other adult cohorts.^63,64 Consistent with other research,^65–67 our sample reported daily communication via mobile devices, typically for hours each day. These findings provide further evidence of their near-constant connection to others during their waking hours via technology.⁶⁶ CMC was likely well integrated into their lives during adolescence, the developmental period for onset of relationship schemas, and forming and maintaining dating relationships for the first time.^68,69

In light of continued media concerns that young people are becoming increasingly isolated and missing opportunities for developing interpersonal skills,^24,25 students spent the most time on communicating with their partners face to face, more often than they spent on using all technology modes combined. Technology appears to have provided affordable, efficient, and convenient tools for forming and maintaining relationships, including dating relationships, and for reinforcing the everyday interactions between partners.²

CMC in facilitating self-disclosure and partner information-seeking

A goal of this study was to examine links between CMC use and self-disclosure and partner information-seeking in students' dating relationships over and above face-to-face interactions. CMC was found to be positively associated with self-disclosure in terms of amount, breadth, valence, and depth, as well as with partner information-seeking through CMC. However, only a small amount of variance was accounted for by these analyses, indicating that other variables are likely more important in understanding the extent to which students self-disclose and learn about partners through CMC.

One explanation for the association between CMC use, self-disclosure, and partner information-seeking is that common individual characteristics underlie the tendency for some to engage in each of these behaviors. We know that personality traits are linked to social media use and behaviors (e.g., posting status updates), including extraversion,^70–72 as well as with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism.⁷³ Attachment style also is linked to CMC use among undergraduates.^74,75 Those who spend more time in partner CMC interactions may have underlying traits that would better explain these links.

Features of CMC may have contributed to students' tendency for self-disclosure and partner information-seeking behaviors through CMC. CMC promotes direct communication and expression of thoughts and feelings in an informal venue that allows for private conversations.^16,76 The visual anonymity inherent to CMC and the additional time-afforded responses often lead to greater self-awareness and a heightened tendency to self-disclose information and to ask more personal questions when compared with other communication modes.^39,77,78

Breadth of CMC self-disclosures plays a central role in both relationship intimacy and communication quality, after accounting for other key variables, including relationship length and time spent on communicating in person. Intimacy was uniquely associated with breadth of disclosures. Of course, this study does not allow us to conclude that breadth of disclosures through CMC led to greater levels of intimacy. It could be that students in more intimate relationships share a wider range of information with their partners. Other research highlights the importance of using the range of everyday, mundane communication in understanding relationship maintenance and satisfaction,^45,78–80 perhaps because doing so increases the felt familiarity of another person's life or perceptions of inclusion. Regardless of this, sharing a broad range of self-information with partners through CMC, rather than just sharing deeply private information, proved positive for communication quality in students' dating relationships. Future research should incorporate a longitudinal design to help test potential bidirectional relationships.

Self-disclosure depth is a key variable in the SPT model for understanding and predicting greater intimacy in relationships. However, our results suggest that CMC was not used especially for engaging in highly intimate and private (“deep”) self-disclosure. We found that general, but positive, communication is associated with greater communication quality and relationship satisfaction relative to more intensive, deeply private, or conflictual forms of communication.⁴⁵ CMC is clearly used here for everyday communication to connect offline partners throughout the day rather than for highly intimate exchange.^81,82 However, CMC was used for both intimate and nonintimate exchange in our study, but only breadth of disclosures was linked to intimacy. Less intimate disclosures across a range of topics (i.e., breadth) might be more easily captured over a 3-day reporting period than are highly intimate, “deep” self-disclosures, which tend to occur less frequently in relationships overall.⁸³ This is another area for future inquiry. Researchers have also found that the visual “anonymity” of CMC lowers inhibitions about the sharing of private details to such a point that young people occasionally appear to have trouble in distinguishing between public and private information.⁸⁴

Contrary to expectations, relationship duration was not closely linked to relationship intimacy communication quality. It appears that CMC plays a similar role across dating relationships and does not shift across relationship stages. From an SPT standpoint, these findings reinforce an essential tenet of the theory: It is through self-disclosure by both partners, rather than time itself, that intimacy and closeness (and hence quality) are established.²⁸

This study was cross-sectional in design and examined the perspective of only one partner about couple interactions. The length of the survey may have introduced problems of respondent fatigue. Limitations common to self-report surveys include concerns about poor recall, most relevant here in terms of estimates of time spent in CMC, partner interactions, and partners' CMC use. The results might not be generalized to older students, individuals representing other ethnic groups, or those in same-sex relationships. Variations in educational backgrounds and professions also may reveal different patterns than those found here.

CMC has been incorporated into students' personal relationships at high rates in recent years and appears to play a role in the maintenance of these relationships.^1,2,85 Guided by Altman and Taylor's model of relationship development,²⁸ this study demonstrated the positive implications for relationships when partners develop communication patterns that incorporate technology. Disclosing nonintimate information to partners through CMC played a key role and was positively linked to relationship intimacy and communication quality, above and beyond contributions from in-person communication between partners. This work demonstrates how CMC provides opportunities for partners to stay connected throughout the day in ways that allow them to learn about daily routines and experiences, and to improve the overall quality of their intimacy and communication.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Maddon

, Lenhart

. (2006) Online dating. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Online-Dating/01-Summary-of-Findings.aspx (accessed Feb. 20, 2016).

Johnson

, Haigh

, Becker

JAH

, et al. College students' use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2008; 13:381–404.

Gershon

. Email my heart: remediation and romantic break-ups. Anthropology Today, 2008; 24:13–15.

Weisskirch

, Delevi

. Its ovr b/n u n me: technology use, attachment styles, and gender roles in relationship dissolution. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:486–490.

Johnson

. College student Internet use: convenience and amusement. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2007; 31:1.

Lenhart

, Purcell

, Smith

, et al. (2010) Social media & mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Aditi

. Is online better than offline for meeting partners? Depends: are you looking to marry or to date?. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:664–667.

Bredow

, Cate

, Huston

. (2008) Have we met before?: a conceptual model of first romantic encounters. In: Sprecher

, Wenzel

, Harvey

, eds. Handbook of relationship initiation. New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp. 3–28.

Hall

. First comes social networking, then comes marriage? Characteristics of Americans married 2005–2012 who met through social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:322–326.

10.

Kreager

, Cavanagh

, Yen

, et al. ‘Where have all the good men gone?’ Gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 2014; 76:387–410.

11.

Angster

, Frank

, Lester

. An exploratory study of students' use of cell phones, texting, and social networking sites. Psychological Report, 2010; 107:402–404.

12.

Blair

, Fletcher

, Gaskin

. Cell phone decision making: adolescents' perceptions of how and why they make the choice to text or call. Youth & Society, 2015; 47:395–411.

13.

Wiederhold

. As parents invade Facebook, tweens tweet more. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:385.

14.

Archer

. (1980) Self-disclosure. In: Wegner

, Vallacher

, eds. The self in social psychology. London, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–204.

15.

Gibbs

, Ellison

, Heino

. Self-presentation in online personals: the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 2006; 33:152–177.

16.

Tidwell

, Walther

. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–348.

17.

Sternberg

. A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 1986; 93:119–135.

18.

Joinson

. Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: the role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 31:177–192.

19.

Walther

, Loh

, Granka

. Let me count the ways: the interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and face-to-face affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2005; 24:36–65.

20.

Blais

, Craig

, Pepler

, et al. Adolescents online: the importance of Internet activity choices to salient relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2008; 37:522–536.

21.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents' existing friendships: a longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 2009; 59:79–97.

22.

Pew Research Center. (2015) Couples, the Internet, and social media. www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/ (accessed Feb. 20, 2016).

23.

Ramirez

Jr , Broneck

. ‘IM me’: instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2009; 26:291–314.

24.

Quitney-Anderson

, Rainie

. (2012) Millennials will benefit and suffer due to their hyperconnected lives. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. www.pewinternet.org/topics/Future-of-the-internet.aspx (accessed Feb. 20, 2016).

25.

Search Institute: discovering what kids need to succeed. (2010) Technology and human relationships: a delicate balance [Web log comment]. www.search-institute.org/node/1662 (accessed Feb. 20, 2016).

26.

Jayson

. (2014) Technology can push our crazy buttons, rewire brains. www.mybwmc.org/technology-can-push-our-crazy-buttons-rewire-brains (accessed Feb. 20, 2016).

27.

Steinfield

, Ellison

, Lampe

. Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:4.

28.

Altman

, Taylor

. (1973) Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

29.

Werner

, Altman

, Brown

. A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1992; 9:297–323.

30.

Werner

, Brown

, Altman

, et al. Close relationships in their physical and social contexts: a transactional perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1992; 9:411–431.

31.

Caughlin

, Afifi

. When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 2004; 30:479–513.

32.

Finkenauer

, Hazam

. Disclosure and secrecy in marriage. Do both contribute to marital satisfaction?. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 200; 17:245–263.

33.

Laurenceau

, Barrett

, Rovine

. The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: a daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 2005; 19:314–323.

34.

Sprecher

, Hendrick

. Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2004; 23:857–877.

35.

Taylor

. The development of interpersonal relationships: social penetration processes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1968; 75:79–90.

36.

Altman

, Haythorn

. Interpersonal exchange in isolation. Sociometry, 1965; 28:411–426.

37.

Yum

, Hara

. Computer-mediated relationship development: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:133–152.

38.

Walther

, Ramirez

Jr.

New technologies and new direction in online relating. In Smith

, Wilson

, eds. New directions in interpersonal communication research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 264–284.

39.

Antheunis

, Valkenburg

, Peter

. Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2007; 10:831–835.

40.

Henderson

, Gilding

. ‘I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life’: trust and hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 2004; 6:487–506.

41.

Bargh

, McKenna

KYA

, Fitzsimons

. Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 2002; 58:33–48.

42.

Walther

, Slovacek

, Tidwell

. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 2001; 28:105–134.

43.

Walther

. Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 1994; 20:473–501.

44.

Stafford

, Merolla

. Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2007; 24:37–54.

45.

Dindia

, Emmers-Sommer

. (2006). What partners do to maintain their close relationships. In: Noller

, Feeney

, eds. Close relationships: functions, forms and processes. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis, pp. 305–324.

46.

Tucker

, Welk

, Nusser

, et al. Estimating minutes of physical activity from the previous day physical activity recall: validation of a prediction equation. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 2011; 8:71–78.

47.

Rushovich

, Voorhees

, Davis

, et al. The relationship between unsupervised time after school and physical activity in girls. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2006; 3:20.

48.

Lalande

, Bonanno

. Retrospective memory bias for the frequency of potentially traumatic events: a prospective study. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2011; 3:165–170.

49.

Wenze

, Gunthert

, German

. Biases in affective forecasting and recall in individuals with depression and anxiety symptoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2012; 38:895–906.

50.

Miller

, Berg

, Archer

. Openers: individuals who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983; 44:1234–1244.

51.

Wheeless

. A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 1978; 4:143–157.

52.

Baxter

. Relationship disengagement: an examination of the reversal hypothesis. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 1983; 47:85–98.

53.

Kellermann

, Reynolds

. When ignorance is bliss: the role of motivation to reduce uncertainty in uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 1990; 17:5–75.

54.

Schaefer

, Olson

. Assessing intimacy: the PAIR inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 1981; 7:47–60.

55.

Tabachnick

, Fidell

. (2013) Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

56.

Baraldi

, Enders

. An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology, 2010; 48:5–37.

57.

Enders

. (2010) Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

58.

Rubin

. (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

59.

Schafer

. (1997) Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.

60.

Van Ginkel

. (2010) SPSS syntax for applying rules for combining multivariate estimates in multiple imputation. http://www.datatheory.nl/pages/ginkel.html (accessed Nov. 24, 2015).

61.

Brunell

, Pilkington

, Webster

. Perceptions of risk in intimacy in dating couples: conversation and relationship quality. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2007; 26:92–119.

62.

Cohen

. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Academic Press.

63.

Quan-Haase

. University students' local and distant social ties: using and integrating modes of communication on campus. Information, Communication, & Society, 2007; 10:671–693.

64.

Pew Research Center. (2015) Social media user demographics. www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/social-media/social-media-user-demographics/ (accessed Feb. 21, 2016).

65.

Smith

, Salaway

, Borreson-Caruso

, et al. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2009. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 6. www.educause.edu/ecar (accessed Feb. 21, 2016).

66.

Smith

. (2010) Mobile access 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

67.

Pew Research Center. (2015) Cell phone and smartphone ownership demographics. www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-ownership-demographics/ (accessed Feb. 21, 2016).

68.

Smith

, Welsh

, Fite

. Adolescents' relational schemas and their subjective understanding of romantic relationship interactions. Journal of Adolescence, 2010; 33:147–157.

69.

Drouin

, Miller

, Dibble

. Ignore your partners' current Facebook friends; beware the ones they add!. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 35:483–488.

70.

Correa

, Willard-Hinsley

, Gil de Zúñiga

. Who interacts on the web?: the intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:247–253.

71.

Gosling

, Augustine

, Vazire

, et al. Manifestations of personality in online social networks: self-reported Facebook-related behaviors and profile information. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2001; 14:483–488.

72.

Tait

, Jeske

. Hello stranger! Trust and self-disclosure effects on online information sharing. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2015; 5:42–55.

73.

Moore

, McElroy

. The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 2012; 28:267–274.

74.

Morey

, Creasy

, Westerman

. Young adults' use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and association with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:1771–1778.

75.

Schade

, Bean

, Busy

, et al. Using technology to connect in romantic relationships: effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2013; 12:314–338.

76.

Kindred

, Roper

. Making connections via instant messenger (IM): student use of IM to maintain personal relationships. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 2004; 5:48–54.

77.

Grieve

, Witteveen

, Tolan

. Social media as a tool for data collection: examining equivalence of socially value-laden constructs. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 2014; 33:532–544.

78.

Nosko

, Wood

, Molema

. All about me: disclosure in online social networking profiles: the case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:406–418.

79.

Canary

, Stafford

. Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 1992; 59:243–267.

80.

Duck

, Rutt

, Hurst

, et al. Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: all communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 1991; 18:228–267.

81.

Ellison

, Steinfield

, Lampe

. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1143–1168.

82.

Kimbrough

, Guadagno

, Muscanell

, et al. Gender differences in mediated communication: women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:896–900.

83.

Attrill

, Jalil

. Revealing only the superficial me: exploring categorical self-disclosure online. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:1634–1642.

84.

O'Sullivan

. Open to the public: how adolescents blur the boundaries online between the private and public spheres of their lives. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2012; 50:429–430.

85.

Subrahmanyam

, Reich

, Waechter

, et al. Online and offline social networks: use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2008; 29:420–433.