Suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as roots of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition

Abstract

Relational uncertainty is both prominent and pivotal during the transition from deployment to reintegration. Most prior research has considered the outcomes rather than the origins of relational uncertainty, hampering the development of interventions for military couples. We theorize about two predictors of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition: suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust. Results of an 8-wave longitudinal study involving 287 U.S. military couples (N = 4,147 observations) revealed that relational uncertainty increased over the transition for both returning service members and at-home partners. Suspicion about a partner’s deception, and particularly trust, predicted the relational uncertainty of military couples at homecoming and over time. These findings advance knowledge about the roots of relational uncertainty and suggest ways to assist military couples upon reunion.

Keywords

Deception deployment military couples reintegration relational uncertainty trust

Homecoming after deployment is a time when military couples encounter numerous questions that accumulated while they were apart (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012). During deployment, service members and at-home partners navigate months of separation, radically different ways of life, time zone discrepancies, communication restrictions, and operational security requirements that prohibit them from freely exchanging information (Carter & Renshaw, 2016b; Greene et al., 2010). Service members may withhold details of their work to avoid worrying at-home partners, who in turn may conceal troubles at home to avoid distracting service members from their mission (Carter et al., 2020; Joseph & Afifi, 2010; Rossetto, 2013). Given these constraints on communication during deployment, military couples face a host of unknowns upon reunion (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012).

Questions that arise during the post-deployment transition include how to gauge each person’s commitment, resume everyday routines, deal with household tasks, cope with personality changes, rekindle sexual intimacy, assess the service member’s health, and communicate effectively (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012). Relational uncertainty, which refers to the questions people have about their relationship, carries considerable consequences upon reunion. Reuniting service members and at-home partners experiencing relational uncertainty report less satisfaction with their relationship (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011), more aggressive and avoidant communication (Theiss & Knobloch, 2013), less responsiveness from their partner (Theiss & Knobloch, 2014), and more difficulty adjusting to the transition (Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Oglosky, 2013). In other words, relational uncertainty is a key predictor of dyadic well-being during the transition from deployment to reintegration.

We depart from the bulk of prior research by theorizing about the roots of relational uncertainty rather than its outcomes. Whereas most previous work has focused downstream of relational uncertainty (for review, see Theiss, 2018), we look upstream to identify two aspects of interpersonal risk (Cavallo et al., 2014; Möllering, 2009) as potential precursors of relational uncertainty. Suspicion about a partner’s deception involves judging whether a partner intentionally conceals, distorts, or misrepresents the truth (Buller & Burgoon, 1996; Cole, 2001; DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Trust entails gauging whether a partner is benevolent, dependable, and honest (Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Larzelere & Huston, 1980). The two aspects of interpersonal risk are conceptually related with different valences, but trust is the broader construct because deception is one way to violate trust (Möllering, 2009). Our goal in this study is to examine both constructs as predictors of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition using data from an 8-wave study of military couples.

Roots of relational uncertainty

Uncertainty has a long history of study within relationship contexts. More than four decades ago, uncertainty reduction theory accentuated people’s intrinsic motivation to make sense of a partner’s behavior in the early stages of acquaintance (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Subsequent work emphasized the relevance of uncertainty within established partnerships (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985), which led scholars to explicate relational uncertainty (Theiss, 2018). Relational uncertainty encompasses the questions people have about their own participation in the relationship (self uncertainty), their partner’s participation in the relationship (partner uncertainty), and the nature of the relationship itself (relationship uncertainty; Solomon et al., 2016; Theiss, 2018). Although uncertainty reduction theory conceptualized uncertainty as both a cause and a consequence (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), most research investigating relational uncertainty has privileged its outcomes over its genesis (for review, see Theiss, 2018). Comparatively less is known about the roots of relational uncertainty. Addressing that gap is essential for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the construct.

Theorizing about the origins of relational uncertainty

Extant theories suggest a variety of broad contextual parameters that may give rise to relational uncertainty. For example, uncertainty reduction theory highlights dissimilarity and a lack of shared history between people (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Relational turbulence theory emphasizes changing relationship circumstances (Solomon et al., 2016). Uncertainty management theory privileges health problems (Brashers, 2007). The theory of motivated information management spotlights the discrepancy between the amount of uncertainty people possess versus the amount they desire (Afifi & Robbins, 2015). Whereas these theories point to situational factors that may elicit relational uncertainty, the interpersonal dynamics antecedent to relational uncertainty are less clear.

Other work has adopted a more specific focus on the roots of relational uncertainty within particular kinds of relationships. For example, in a study of geographically proximal and distant romantic relationships, Ellis and Ledbetter (2015) found that relational uncertainty was predicted by fewer long-distance relational maintenance behaviors. In a study of sibling relationships, Schrodt and Phillips (2016) reported that relational uncertainty was predicted by less disclosure among siblings. Both studies called for longitudinal data investigating the origins of relational uncertainty to complement their cross-sectional findings.

We seek to integrate these broad versus specific approaches by considering constructs that may predict people’s experience of relational uncertainty, in general, and military couples’ experience of relational uncertainty after deployment, in particular. We turn to theorizing about interpersonal risk to identify suspicion about a partner’s deception (Buller & Burgoon, 1996) and trust (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) for three reasons. First, both constructs are fundamental aspects of relating with consequences for dyadic well-being (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2014; Kunnel & Quandt, 2016; McCornack & Levine, 1990). Second, cross-sectional evidence supports both constructs as precursors of relational uncertainty (e.g., Knobloch, Basinger, et al., 2018; Mikkelson et al., 2016). Finally, both deception and trust have special relevance to military couples negotiating the deployment cycle (e.g., Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017; Kachadourian et al., 2015). We describe our logic in the next subsections.

Suspicion about a partner’s deception

Individuals value honesty in relationships. Although being completely honest can jeopardize people’s image and hurt their feelings (Cole, 2001; Guthrie & Kunkel, 2013), deceiving a partner is typically considered a violation of trust (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; McCornack & Levine, 1990; Möllering, 2009). Deception can be damaging for all involved (Cole, 2001; Horan & Dillow, 2009). Individuals who suspect that their partner is being dishonest report less relationship satisfaction and commitment (Cole, 2001). Deceivers report less relationship satisfaction and commitment as well (Gillen & Horan, 2013), and they also feel guilt and shame over their actions (Horan & Dillow, 2009). When detected, deception can generate strong negative emotions and lead to relationship dissolution (Jang et al., 2002; McCornack & Levine, 1990).

Suspicion about a partner’s deception as a foundation of relational uncertainty is implied by theorizing that a partner’s predictability is key to how individuals make sense of their relationship (e.g., Berger & Bradac, 1982; Planalp & Rivers, 1996). Suspecting deception may call into question people’s beliefs about the viability of the relationship (e.g., Jang et al., 2002; McCornack & Levine, 1990). Imagining or discovering a partner’s deception may lead individuals to question their own participation in the relationship, their partner’s participation in the relationship, and the state of the relationship itself (Emmers & Canary, 1996; Knobloch, Basinger, et al., 2018; Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985). If people suspect that their partner is being dishonest, their suspicions may spill over to affect their beliefs about other aspects of the relationship (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp et al., 1988), and they may be unsure about continued investment (Knobloch, Basinger, et al., 2018).

Three lines of research support our reasoning that suspicion about a partner’s deception predicts relational uncertainty. Among civilians, a partner’s deception frequently appears on lists of events that increase people’s uncertainty about their relationship (Emmers & Canary, 1996; Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp et al., 1988). Among military couples, individuals identify a partner’s deception as a trigger of relational uncertainty in online forums about military life (Knobloch, Basinger, et al., 2018). With respect to the deployment cycle in particular, military couples have opportunities to deceive each other during the separation. Notable percentages of military personnel report that they cheated on their romantic partner (23%), their romantic partner cheated on them (22%), or they had concerns about their romantic partner cheating on them (29%) during deployment (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017; Kachadourian et al., 2015). We draw on this evidence to examine suspicion about a partner’s deception as a source of relational uncertainty to enhance theory, research, and practice.

Trust in a partner

Trust is an essential ingredient of interpersonal relationships established within interaction (Kunnel & Quandt, 2016). Trust becomes salient as people balance their desire to protect themselves from vulnerability versus strengthen their connection to their partner (Cavallo et al., 2014; Murray & Holmes, 2009, 2011). Trust is conceptually related to deception because both are aspects of interpersonal risk, but they are distinct constructs, and trust is the more expansive of the two because deception is one way of breaking trust (Möllering, 2009). Individuals who open themselves to intimacy run the risk of rejection because a partner’s dependability is never failsafe (Möllering, 2009; Murray & Holmes, 2009, 2011). Accordingly, trust is especially relevant to risky situations in which a partner’s responsiveness is under scrutiny (Cavallo et al., 2014). Homecoming after deployment is fraught with risk because military couples could discover that their relationship is no longer viable after the months apart (e.g., Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017).

Because trust plays a central role in how people regulate the risks of interpersonal relationships (Cavallo et al., 2014; Murray & Holmes, 2009), we theorize that it may be an antecedent of relational uncertainty. Trust signals how safe individuals feel depending on a partner (Murray & Holmes, 2009). It functions as a “motivational gatekeeper” (Murray & Holmes, 2011, p. 193) by providing a lens for people to make judgments about their partner and their relationship (Luchies et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2013). A lack of trust may be a harbinger of relational uncertainty by raising questions about whether a partner will be reliable during times of need (e.g., Murray & Holmes, 2009), particularly among military couples resuming face-to-face interaction after a long separation.

Cross-sectional evidence implies a connection between trust and relational uncertainty among civilians. For example, individuals reporting trust in a partner evaluate the partner’s behavior as more predictable within both Facebook friendships and in-person friendships (Sheldon & Pecchioni, 2014). Other cross-sectional studies have found that trust is negatively correlated with relational uncertainty among dating partners and have identified data collected over time as an important next step (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Mikkelson et al., 2016). We seek to advance the literature by using longitudinal data to evaluate trust as a predictor of relational uncertainty. Accomplishing that task would help to guide theorizing about the roots of relational uncertainty, illuminate the dynamics of trust among military couples, and inform clinical programs to support returning service members and at-home partners during the post-deployment transition.

Partner effects

Our logic to this point has focused on actor effects, which emerge when people’s own experiences predict their outcomes, but the dyadic nature of interpersonal relationships suggests the potential for partner effects, which emerge when a partner’s experiences predict people’s outcomes (Kenny et al., 2006). An individual’s suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust may have implications for the other person’s experience of relational uncertainty. For example, people navigating the post-deployment transition under the cloud of their partner’s suspicion may question the viability of the relationship. Likewise, individuals reuniting after deployment who lack their partner’s trust may entertain questions about the status of the relationship. Prior cross-sectional research with civilians implies partner effects of both deception (Cole, 2001) and trust (Fitzpatrick & Lafontaine, 2017), so we consider the possibility of partner effects among military couples after deployment.

Our theorizing as a whole suggests two hypotheses positioning suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as antecedents of relational uncertainty:

H1: Suspicion about a partner’s deception is positively associated with relational uncertainty at homecoming and over time among military couples during the post-deployment transition.

H2: Trust is negatively associated with relational uncertainty at homecoming and over time among military couples during the post-deployment transition.

We also offer two research questions about partner effects because previous research does not provide sufficient evidence to hypothesize:

RQ1: Is a partner’s suspicion about an individual’s deception positively associated with the individual’s relational uncertainty at homecoming and over time among military couples during the post-deployment transition?

RQ2: Is a partner’s trust negatively associated with an individual’s relational uncertainty at homecoming and over time among military couples during the post-deployment transition?

Method

After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, we evaluated our reasoning by collecting online survey data from U.S. military couples once per month for eight consecutive months (for reports from the larger project, see Knobloch, Knobloch-Fedders, & Yorgason, 2018; Knobloch et al., 2019; Knobloch-Fedders et al., 2020). Wave 1 occurred during the first week after homecoming to provide a proximal view of reunion; data collection continued through Wave 8 to stretch beyond the 6-month period traditionally assigned to the post-deployment transition (Pincus et al., 2001).

Recruitment occurred via military family life professionals, chaplains, social media outlets, listservs, and military installation newspapers. Military couples signed up by email, typically several months ahead of their anticipated reunion date, with others volunteering immediately after the service member’s return. Eligibility was limited to military couples in which (a) partners had separate email accounts, (b) one or both people had recently deployed, and (c) both partners completed the first questionnaire within 7 days after homecoming.

Procedures

The data collection procedures began when both partners replied to an email confirming their consent to participate. Then, we emailed each person a link to the Wave 1 questionnaire and a unique login. We emailed reminders to those who had not completed the questionnaire by the fourth day and the sixth day after homecoming, and the logins expired on the seventh day. We eliminated 13 of the 300 military couples who began the study because one or both partners did not complete the Wave 1 questionnaire within the 7-day timeframe.

We repeated the procedures each month for the 287 military couples eligible to continue. We emailed participants a link to the next questionnaire on the monthly anniversary of their reunion date, sent two reminder emails, and closed the questionnaire after 1 week. Each person received a $15 e-gift card for each questionnaire they completed; they also received a bonus $50 e-gift card if they provided data for all eight waves.

Participants

The sample contained 574 individuals (N = 287 couples; n = 287 men, n = 287 women) from 38 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. All military couples were heterosexual; the vast majority contained a male returning service member and a female at-home partner (n = 284). No dual-deployed couples participated, so the military couples in the sample were distinguishable as returning service members versus at-home partners.

Individuals completed the Wave 1 questionnaire, on average, 4.31 days after homecoming (Mdn = 4.00 days, SD = 1.77 days). The total number of observations was N = 4,147. Table 1 reports demographic information for the sample and participation rates at each wave.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the sample.

	%	M (SD)
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian	81%
Latino/a	11%
Black/African American	2%
Asian or Pacific Islander	2%
American Indian or Alaskan Native	2%
Other	2%
Age in years		30.94 (6.49)
Education level
Some high school	1%
High school graduate	14%
Some college	31%
Associate’s degree	13%
Bachelor’s degree	28%
Advanced graduate degree	13%
Marital status
First marriage for both partners	70%
Remarriage for one or both partners	24%
Not married	6%
Romantic relationship length in years		8.16 (5.32)
Cohabitation status after the service member’s return
Living together	94%
Not living together	6%
Parental status
Parents	69%
Not parents	31%
Household income
$20,000 or less	1%
$21,000 to $40,000	24%
$41,000 to $60,000	32%
$61,000 to $80,000	17%
$81,000 to $100,000	14%
$101,000 to $120,000	6%
$121,000 to $140,000	3%
$141,000 or more	3%
Branch affiliation for returning service members
Army	29%
Navy	29%
Marines	26%
Air Force	10%
Army National Guard	4%
Air National Guard	1%
Coast Guard	1%
Deployment length for returning service members in months		7.72 (2.25)
Deployment mission for returning service members
Combat	56%
Peacekeeping	16%
Training	18%
Relief	4%
Undisclosed	6%
Deployment experience for returning service members
First deployment	30%
One previous deployment	24%
Two previous deployments	17%
Three previous deployments	13%
Four previous deployments	7%
Five or more previous deployments	9%
Military status for at-home partners
Civilian	88%
Currently serving in the military	5%
Veteran of the military	7%
Participation at each wave
Wave 1	100%
Wave 2	91%
Wave 3	93%
Wave 4	88%
Wave 5	89%
Wave 6	88%
Wave 7	87%
Wave 8	89%

Note. N = 287 military couples.

Measures

At Wave 1, we measured demographic characteristics, covariates, and the two substantive predictors. We measured relational uncertainty at all waves. We employed confirmatory factor analysis on the Wave 1 data to verify the unidimensionality of the multi-item measures with criteria for model fit set at CFI > .950, TLI > .950, and RMSEA < .060 (per Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Frequency of communication during deployment

We assessed the frequency of people’s communication during deployment to control for varying amounts of contact between partners while apart. Individuals rated six communication channels (see Carter & Renshaw, 2016a) prefaced by the question, “How frequently did you use the following channels to communicate with your romantic partner during deployment?” (0 = did not use, 1 = once per month, 2 = every other week, 3 = once per week, 4 = several times per week, 5 = once per day, 6 = more than once per day): (a) telephone, (b) video chat/Skype, (c) email, (d) Facebook, (e) instant messaging, and (f) cards and letters. We averaged people’s scores across channels (M = 2.48, SD = 0.97, CFI = .979, TLI = .974, RMSEA = .043).

Relationship satisfaction

We measured relationship satisfaction as a covariate given its links with deception (Cole, 2001), trust (Fitzpatrick & Lafontaine, 2017), and relational uncertainty (Knobloch & Theiss, 2011). Individuals responded to the 4-item Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI; Funk & Rogge, 2007). The first three items asked participants to rate (a) how warm and comfortable their relationship is with their partner, (b) how rewarding their relationship is with their partner, and (c) in general, how satisfied they are with their relationship (0 = not at all, 5 = completely). A final item asked people to indicate the degree of happiness, all things considered, of their relationship (0 = extremely unhappy, 6 = perfect). Following Funk and Rogge’s (2007) recommendation, we calculated the variable as the sum of responses (M = 17.43, SD = 3.14, α = .83, CFI = .993, TLI = .992, RMSEA = .035).

Suspicion about a partner’s deception

Individuals completed Cole’s (2001) 4-item measure of perceived partner deception at Wave 1: (a) I think my partner sometimes lies to me, (b) I think my partner is very honest with me (reverse scored), (c) I think my partner tries to mislead me, and (d) I think my partner withholds important information from me (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores, computed as the average of the responses, were relatively low across the sample (M = 1.72, SD = 0.89, α = .86, CFI = .992, TLI = .990, RMSEA = .037).

Trust

Participants responded to Larzelere and Huston’s (1980) 8-item measure at Wave 1. We computed the scale as the average of the five items that were unidimensional according to CFA results: (a) there are times when my partner can’t be trusted (reverse scored), (b) my partner is primarily interested in his/her own welfare, (c) my partner is truly sincere in his/her promises, (d) my partner treats me fairly and justly, and (e) I feel that my partner can be counted on to help me (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Scores for trust were relatively high on average (M = 4.35, SD = 0.75, α = .79, CFI = .977, TLI = .972, RMSEA = .056).

Relational uncertainty

Individuals completed short form measures of self, partner, and relationship uncertainty (Knobloch & Knobloch-Fedders, 2010). Four items for each scale followed the stem “How certain are you about…?” (1 = completely uncertain, 6 = completely certain; all items were reverse scored). Self uncertainty contained the items (a) how you feel about your relationship, (b) your view of your relationship, (c) how important your relationship is to you, and (d) your goals for the future of your relationship (Wave 1 M = 1.44, SD = 0.67, α = .87, CFI = .989, TLI = .986, RMSEA = .046). Partner uncertainty included parallel items: (a) how your partner feels about your relationship, (b) your partner’s view of your relationship, (c) how important your relationship is to your partner, and (d) your partner’s goals for the future of your relationship (Wave 1 M = 1.58, SD = 0.93, α = .94, CFI = .991, TLI = .989, RMSEA = .044). Relationship uncertainty encompassed the items (a) the current status of your relationship, (b) how you can or cannot behave around your partner, (c) the definition of your relationship, and (d) the future of your relationship (Wave 1 M = 1.49, SD = 0.78, α = .87, CFI = .993, TLI = .991, RMSEA = .036). The mean scores showed relatively low levels of relational uncertainty in the sample.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Bivariate correlations revealed a variety of associations at Wave 1 (see Table 2). Among both returning service members and at-home partners, the three sources of relational uncertainty were positively correlated with each other, positively correlated with suspicion about a partner’s deception, and negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction and trust. Suspicion about a partner’s deception was negatively correlated with relationship satisfaction and trust for both partners. Relationship satisfaction and trust were positively correlated for both partners. The frequency of people’s communication during deployment did not correspond with any of the other variables. Finally, the within-couple correlations showed modest positive associations between returning service members and at-home partners.

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations at Wave 1.

	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7
V1: Communication During Deployment	.42***	.05	−.06	.01	−.09	−.05	−.09
V2: Relationship Satisfaction	.08	.32***	−.39***	.47***	−.63***	−.51***	−.62***
V3: Deception	.00	−.59***	.25***	−.72***	.37***	.46***	.43***
V4: Trust	−.03	.59***	−.81***	.26***	−.42***	−.44***	−.43***
V5: Self Uncertainty	−.03	−.66***	.61***	−.59***	.23***	.66***	.82***
V6: Partner Uncertainty	−.07	−.58***	.65***	−.61***	.73***	.18**	.75***
V7: Relationship Uncertainty	−.04	−.68***	.67***	−.66***	.86***	.79***	.28***

Note. N = 287 returning service members (above the diagonal) and at-home partners (below the diagonal). Within-couple correlations are bolded on the diagonal.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Given the conceptual overlap and strong zero-order correlations among the substantive predictors and among the dependent variables, we conducted additional measurement analyses to further examine their factor structure. The nine items measuring suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust fell short of unidimensionality when scored in the same direction (CFI = .938, TLI = .928, RMSEA = .080). The 12 items measuring relational uncertainty were not unidimensional either (CFI = .886, TLI = .870, RMSEA = .113). Consequently, we kept the scales separate based on both the theoretical distinctions between the constructs (see Möllering, 2009; Theiss, 2018) and the CFA findings.

A final preliminary analysis compared returning service members and at-home partners at Wave 1. Paired samples t tests showed that returning service members reported more relationship satisfaction (M = 17.67, SD = 2.91) than at-home partners (M = 17.20, SD = 3.34), t(286) = 2.21, Cohen’s d = .13, p = .028. At-home partners suspected more deception (M = 1.86, SD = 0.99) than returning service members (M = 1.58, SD = 0.75), t(286) = 4.45, Cohen’s d = .26, p < .001, and at-home partners reported less trust (M = 4.29, SD = 0.82) than returning service members (M = 4.40, SD = 0.68), t(286) = −2.09, Cohen’s d = .12, p = .038. No differences emerged for the frequency of communication during deployment or relational uncertainty.

Substantive analyses

Unconditional models

We tested our hypotheses using dyadic growth curve models computed within a structural equation modeling framework (Kenny et al., 2006; Peugh et al., 2013) using data from the full sample of 287 military couples. First, we examined the trajectory of relational uncertainty reported by returning service members and at-home partners over time (see Supplemental Figure A and Supplemental Table A). We calculated three unconditional models without predictors that contained within-couple correlations (a) between the intercepts and slopes, and (b) between the residuals at each wave (following Kenny et al., 2006). For both partners, relational uncertainty showed a statistically significant increase across time, and statistically significant variance in the intercepts and slopes was available to be explained.

Preliminary conditional models

Next, we evaluated how each substantive predictor, considered separately, corresponded with growth in relational uncertainty. We computed six preliminary conditional models that contained people’s Wave 1 reports of either suspicion about a partner’s deception or trust as a predictor of one source of relational uncertainty. We estimated actor and partner effects predicting the intercepts (i.e., relational uncertainty at Wave 1) and the slopes (i.e., change in relational uncertainty over time) of returning service members and at-home partners (see Supplemental Figure B and Table 3).

Table 3.

Preliminary conditional models predicting growth in relational uncertainty.

	Returning Service Members		At-Home Partners
Self Uncertainty Models	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.43***	0.01	0.16**	0.05
Deception β—At-Home Partners	0.16*	0.15	0.68***	−0.22*
R ²	0.24	0.03	0.55	0.04
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.53***	−0.15	−0.15**	−0.17
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.14*	−0.02	−0.68***	0.21*
R ²	0.34	0.03	0.53	0.06
Partner Uncertainty Models	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.44***	−0.07	0.10	0.08
Deception β—At-Home Partners	0.13*	0.06	0.70***	−0.12
R ²	0.24	0.01	0.54	0.02
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.49***	−0.05	−0.10	−0.18
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.21***	0.07	−0.66***	0.17
R ²	0.34	0.01	0.48	0.04
Relationship Uncertainty Models	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.44***	−0.05	0.10	0.13
Deception β—At-Home Partners	0.17**	0.08	0.71***	−0.28**
R ²	0.26	0.01	0.55	0.08
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.51***	−0.07	−0.12*	−0.16
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.21***	0.05	−0.69***	0.22*
R ²	0.36	0.01	0.52	0.06

Note. N = 287 military couples. Actor effects appear in the cells with matching column and row labels (e.g., returning service members/returning service members; at-home partners/at-home partners). Partner effects appear in the cells with nonmatching column and row labels (e.g., returning service members/at-home partners; at-home partners/returning service members).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Findings for the intercepts indicated that both substantive predictors corresponded with actor effects for relational uncertainty at Wave 1 across all models (H1, H2). Partner effects for both substantive predictors were apparent in all of the models containing self uncertainty and in more than half of the models containing partner uncertainty and relationship uncertainty (RQ1, RQ2).

Results for the slopes showed actor effects that were opposite expectations. At-home partners who reported more suspicion about a partner’s deception at Wave 1 experienced a milder increase in self uncertainty and relationship uncertainty over time (H1). Similarly, at-home partners who reported more trust at Wave 1 experienced a steeper increase in self uncertainty and relationship uncertainty over time (H2). No partner effects were evident for the slopes (RQ1, RQ2).

Final conditional models

The N = 4,147 total observations in the dataset afforded the opportunity to evaluate the independent variables together while controlling for key covariates. Accordingly, we computed final conditional models in which the independent variables were people’s reports of suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust at Wave 1 (see Supplemental Figure C and Table 4). The dependent variables were the three sources of relational uncertainty examined in separate models. The covariates were (a) previous deployment experience for the returning service member, (b) deployment length, (c) frequency of communication during deployment, (d) number of days between reunion and Wave 1 responses, and (e) relationship satisfaction at Wave 1.

Table 4.

Final conditional models predicting growth in relational uncertainty.

	Returning Service Members		At-Home Partners
Self Uncertainty Model	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.08	−0.09	0.04	−0.12
Deception β—At-Home Partners	0.05	0.31	0.29***	−0.24
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.20**	−0.36**	−0.01	−0.21
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.02	0.19	−0.21*	0.02
R ²	0.62	0.22	0.73	0.17
Partner Uncertainty Model	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.10	−0.09	0.00	−0.10
Deception β—At-Home Partners	−0.15	0.21	0.39***	−0.09
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.23**	−0.23	0.00	−0.19
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.25**	0.27	−0.17*	0.16
R ²	0.53	0.17	0.65	0.13
Relationship Uncertainty Model	Intercept	Slope	Intercept	Slope
Deception β—Returning Service Members	0.09	−0.09	−0.05	0.03
Deception β—At-Home Partners	−0.06	0.21	0.32***	−0.25
Trust β—Returning Service Members	−0.18*	−0.29*	−0.03	−0.16
Trust β—At-Home Partners	−0.18*	0.25	−0.21**	−0.10
R ²	0.66	0.20	0.73	0.20

Note. N = 287 military couples. Each model contained five covariates. Actor effects appear in the cells with matching column and row labels (e.g., returning service members/returning service members; at-home partners/at-home partners). Partner effects appear in the cells with nonmatching column and row labels (e.g., returning service members/at-home partners; at-home partners/returning service members).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Covariates

Previous deployment experience and deployment length did not correspond with the magnitude or change in relational uncertainty for either returning service members or at-home partners (contact the first author for details about the covariate results). Similarly, the number of days between reunion and Wave 1 responses and the frequency of people’s communication during deployment were largely unrelated to relational uncertainty.

Relationship satisfaction corresponded with both actor effects and partner effects across all models. For both returning service members and at-home partners, more relationship satisfaction at Wave 1 corresponded with less relational uncertainty at homecoming (βs ranged from −0.29 to −0.59, all p < .001). In addition, when returning service members reported more relationship satisfaction at Wave 1, at-home partners reported less relational uncertainty at homecoming (βs ranged from −0.12 to −0.13, all p < .05), and returning service members experienced a steeper increase in their relational uncertainty over time (βs ranged from 0.27 to 0.29, all p < .05).

Suspicion about a partner’s deception

As shown in Table 4, at-home partners who reported more suspicion about a partner’s deception at Wave 1 experienced greater relational uncertainty at homecoming but not over time (H1). No partner effects were apparent (RQ1).

Trust

Trust coincided with actor effects at homecoming and over time (H2). For the intercepts (see Table 4), more trust at Wave 1 corresponded with less relational uncertainty at homecoming for both returning service members and at-home partners. With respect to the slopes, more trust reported by returning service members at Wave 1 corresponded with a milder increase in their self uncertainty and relationship uncertainty over time.

Partner effects were evident for the intercepts but not the slopes (RQ2). Namely, when at-home partners reported more trust at Wave 1, returning service members reported less partner uncertainty and relationship uncertainty at homecoming.

Discussion

We considered an understudied aspect of relational uncertainty by theorizing about its antecedents during the post-deployment transition. Drawing on theory and research, we evaluated suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as aspects of interpersonal risk that may predict relational uncertainty. We collected eight waves of data from 287 military couples upon reunion following deployment. Results showed that relational uncertainty increased during the months after homecoming for both returning service members and at-home partners. Suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust predicted the relational uncertainty of military couples at homecoming and over time, but when examined in the same model, trust was the more consistent predictor. Next, we discuss what our findings mean for understanding suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust, theorizing about relational uncertainty, and helping military couples manage reunion after deployment.

Understanding suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust

Based on logic that a partner’s unpredictability impedes people’s ability to understand their relationship (e.g., Berger & Bradac, 1982; Planalp & Rivers, 1996; Planalp et al., 1988), we proposed that suspicion about a partner’s deception predicts more relational uncertainty at homecoming and over time. The data revealed actor effects (H1) but not partner effects (RQ1). When suspicion about a partner’s deception was evaluated on its own (see Table 3), results showed that returning service members and at-home partners who were more wary about a partner’s deception experienced more relational uncertainty at reunion. When suspicion about a partner’s deception was examined together with trust (see Table 4), findings revealed that at-home partners who were more suspicious about the deception of returning service members at Wave 1 experienced greater relational uncertainty at homecoming. The composition of our sample (99% female at-home partners) does not allow us to pinpoint whether these latter findings were tied to biological sex or to the role of deploying versus staying, but harboring such suspicion appears to matter for those who remain behind.

Several possibilities may account for the differences in the results. One possibility involves the conceptual and empirical overlap between suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust (see Möllering, 2009 and Table 2). To the extent that deception is a form of trust violation (Möllering, 2009), the greater predictive power for suspicion about a partner’s deception when evaluated separately (Table 3) versus with trust (see Table 4) is compatible with the implication that trust is the broader construct. Another explanation is that returning service members may have a different vantage point than at-home partners. In particular, military personnel who romanticize the comforts of home amid the taxing rigors of deployment (e.g., Pincus et al., 2001) may be less apprehensive about duplicity than individuals who stay in the security of their own routines. Consistent with this logic, the preliminary analyses showed that returning service members reported less suspicion about deception at homecoming than at-home partners. A third possibility involves motives for deception. Just as some reasons for avoiding topics (Donovan-Kicken & Caughlin, 2010) and keeping secrets (Caughlin et al., 2009) are judged more favorably than others, the motives for deception may matter as well. Reasons for deception during and after deployment include maintaining the relationship, managing face, balancing competing desires, protecting the partner from worry, and exerting control (e.g., Carter & Renshaw, 2016b; Joseph & Afifi, 2010; Rossetto, 2013). We look forward to future research testing all three potential explanations.

Trust was a more straightforward predictor of relational uncertainty. Findings supported theorizing about risk regulation in relationships, which suggests that mistrust may prompt individuals to wonder if they can count on their partner in stressful situations (Cavallo et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2013; Murray & Holmes, 2009). When at-home partners reported more trust at Wave 1, both people experienced less relational uncertainty at reunion (H2, RQ2). Similarly, when returning service members reported more trust at Wave 1, they experienced less relational uncertainty at homecoming and a more gradual increase in relational uncertainty during the months afterward (H2). These findings imply that trust cultivated during deployment may be protective against the challenges of reunion. By extension, our data also underscore the importance of facilitating trust between partners during deployment (e.g., Carter & Renshaw, 2016a, 2016b) as well as circumventing gossip within military units in theater (e.g., Pincus et al., 2001) and within family support groups at home (e.g., Sahlstein Parcell & Maguire, 2014).

The robust associations that we observed between trust and relational uncertainty invite future research about whether those linkages translate to civilian couples or are specific to military couples after deployment. On one hand, prior cross-sectional work has documented correlations between trust and relational uncertainty among civilians in everyday situations (Dainton & Aylor, 2001; Mikkelson et al., 2016; Sheldon & Pecchioni, 2014), which offers evidence in favor of generalizability. On the other hand, the challenges embedded in the post-deployment transition (e.g., Knobloch & Theiss, 2012; Yablonsky et al., 2016) may make reunion a risk regulation situation particularly likely to activate the trust system (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2013). For example, reuniting military couples may discover problems such as infidelity, lack of commitment, or personality changes in one or both partners (e.g., Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017; Kachadourian et al., 2015; Knobloch & Theiss, 2012). Perhaps the degree of interpersonal risk involved plays a role in the magnitude of the link between trust and relational uncertainty. More generally, we look forward to additional work delving into the applicability of our findings for civilian couples versus military couples.

Implications for theory and practice

An implication for theory involves spotlighting the roots of relational uncertainty. Berger and Calabrese (1975) set the stage for work in this area by emphasizing that communication can be both a precursor and a product of uncertainty, but subsequent work tended to ignore the origins of uncertainty in favor of its outcomes. Whereas conceptual frameworks such as relational turbulence theory (Solomon et al., 2016), uncertainty management theory (Brashers, 2007), and the theory of motivated information management (Afifi & Robbins, 2015) document the consequences of uncertainty within interpersonal situations, much less theorizing has targeted the genesis of relational uncertainty. Our longitudinal results for suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust may prove helpful for theory-building efforts into the future.

Our findings imply four practical recommendations for military couples and the practitioners who assist them. First, returning service members and at-home partners should be prepared for escalating questions across the post-deployment transition. Military couples alert to the possibility of increasing relational uncertainty may stave off disenchantment if they have an authentic view of homecoming (e.g., Knobloch & Theiss, 2012; see also Karakurt et al., 2013). Second, deception and trust may be targets of intervention for easing the transition from deployment to reintegration. Relational uncertainty itself is complicated to address because military couples are reluctant to discuss sensitive topics when they are unsure about their relationship (Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Theiss, 2013), but focusing upstream on deception and trust as precursors may preclude relational uncertainty from becoming entrenched. Third, because trust was a more consistent predictor of relational uncertainty than suspicion about a partner’s deception, a wellness approach that emphasizes building trust may be preferred over a deficit approach that emphasizes minimizing deception (e.g., Easterbrooks et al., 2013). Finally, the partner effects in our data spotlight the importance of attending to the interplay between returning service members and at-home partners. Clinical programming should target military couples together rather than focusing on returning service members or at-home partners separately (e.g., Erbes et al., 2008).

Strengths, limitations, and directions for future research

Among the strengths of our project are the dyadic and longitudinal features of our research design. Soliciting data from military couples over eight waves allowed us to assess interdependence between partners as well as relational dynamics over time. Our sample also contained diversity with respect to the military branch of returning service members, their mission during deployment, and their previous deployment experience. Covarying several features of deployment along with people’s Wave 1 relationship satisfaction offered a clearer view of the hypothesized associations.

Limitations exist as well. First, our eligibility criteria required both partners to have the ability, capacity, and motivation to complete the Wave 1 questionnaire within 7 days after reunion. Accordingly, military couples with plans to separate upon homecoming or those experiencing particularly tumultuous reunions may have been deterred from participating. Although we statistically controlled for relationship satisfaction, we cannot rule out the possibility of ceiling effects or floor effects among our substantive variables, so a lingering question is whether our findings apply to military couples experiencing markedly high levels of suspicion about a partner’s deception, distrust, and relational uncertainty. Second, we lack insight into the experiences of military couples before or during deployment. Work soliciting people’s responses across the deployment cycle would help distinguish existing vulnerabilities from deployment-related challenges (e.g., Bagnell et al., 2013). Third, although our sample contained heterogeneity in military branch, deployment mission, and previous deployment experience, our convenience sampling techniques attracted disproportionate numbers of male active duty service members and White individuals. More work is needed to understand the communication dynamics of diverse groups (e.g., Negrusa et al., 2016), including deployed women (e.g., Creech et al., 2016).

Two other directions for future work involve conceptualizing key constructs at different levels of abstraction than we did here. For example, research on how individuals produce and process deceptive messages within conversation has identified uncertain, tentative, and ambiguous language as linguistic markers of dishonesty (Burgoon, 2018). We see value in work considering the link between deception and relational uncertainty within naturally-occurring interaction. As a second example, research on how people make sense of uncertainty-increasing events has highlighted trust as fragile in the wake of an unexpected episode in the relationship (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp et al., 1988). We recommend investigating the connection between trust and episodic shifts in relational uncertainty. Both lines of research would represent complementary yet novel twists on the ideas examined here.

Conclusion

Helping military couples navigate questions about their relationship during the post-deployment transition requires a more nuanced understanding of relational uncertainty than provided by extant theory and research. We collected longitudinal data from 287 military couples to investigate suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as potential antecedents of relational uncertainty. Relational uncertainty increased over the transition for both returning service members and at-home partners. Both suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust predicted the relational uncertainty of military couples at homecoming and over time, but trust was a more consistent predictor. Taken together, these results are valuable for advancing theory and informing clinical services.

Supplemental material

Supplemental_Materials - Suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as roots of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition

Supplemental_Materials for Suspicion about a partner’s deception and trust as roots of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition by Leanne K. Knobloch, Lynne M. Knobloch-Fedders, Jeremy B. Yorgason, Erin D. Basinger, Bryan Abendschein and Kelly G. McAninch in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Authors’ note

A version of this paper was presented at the 2020 Conference of the National Council on Family Relations, where it received the Military Families and Children Focus Group Outstanding Professional Proposal Award.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Daniel Byrne, Hallie Davis, Dale Erdmier, J. Kale Monk, Matthew Muscatella, Matthew Pasquini, Laura Saldivar, Claudia Szczepaniak, Erin C. Wehrman, and Sylvie Xiaowei Zhuang.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs through the Military Operational Medicine Research Program (Award W81XWH-14-2-0131). The U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, 820 Chandler Street, Fort Detrick MD 21702-5014, was the awarding and administering acquisition office. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the U.S. Department of Defense.

ORCID iDs

Leanne K. Knobloch

Lynne M. Knobloch-Fedders

Jeremy B. Yorgason

Erin D. Basinger

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was pre-registered. The aspects of the research that were pre-registered were the study design and methods. The registration was submitted via an application to the U.S. Department of Defense for federal funding for this study. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained via emailing knobl@illinois.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Afifi

W. A.

Robbins

(2015). Theory of motivated information management: Struggles with uncertainty and its outcomes. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 143–156). SAGE.

Bagnell

M. E.

LeardMann

C. A.

McMaster

H. S.

Boyko

E. J.

Smith

Granado

N. S.

Smith

T. C.

(2013). The association of predeployment and deployment-related factors on dimensions of postdeployment wellness in U.S. military service members. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(2), e56–e66. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.120727-quan-366

Balderrama-Durbin

Stanton

Snyder

D. K.

Cigrang

J. A.

Talcott

G. W.

Smith Slep

A. M.

Heyman

R. E.

Cassidy

D. G.

(2017). The risk for marital infidelity across a year-long deployment. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(5), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam000028

Berger

C. R.

Bradac

J. J.

(1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. Edward Arnold.

Berger

C. R.

Calabrese

R. J.

(1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Brashers

D. E.

(2007). A theory of communication and uncertainty management. In Whaley

B. B.

Samter

(Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 201–218). Erlbaum.

Buller

D. B.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6(3), 203–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00127.x

Burgoon

J. K.

(2018). Predicting veracity from linguistic indicators. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(6), 603–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x18784119

Carter

S. P.

Renshaw

K. D.

(2016a). Communication via different media during military deployments and postdeployment relationship satisfaction. Military Behavioral Health, 4(3), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2016.1153535

10.

Carter

S. P.

Renshaw

K. D.

(2016b). Spousal communication during military deployments: A review. Journal of Family Issues, 37(16), 2309–2332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14567956

11.

Carter

S. P.

Renshaw

K. D.

Curby

T. W.

Allen

E. S.

Markman

H. J.

Stanley

S. M.

(2020). Protective buffering by service members during military deployments: Associations with psychological distress and relationship functioning. Family Process, 59(2), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12426

12.

Caughlin

J. P.

Scott

A. M.

Miller

L. E.

Hefner

(2009). Putative secrets: When information is supposedly a secret. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(5), 713–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347928

13.

Cavallo

J. V.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

(2014). Risk regulation in close relationships. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 237–254). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14250-014

14.

Cole

(2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501181005

15.

Creech

S. K.

Swift

Zlotnick

Taft

Street

A. E.

(2016). Combat exposure, mental health, and relationship functioning among women veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000145

16.

Dainton

Aylor

(2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385624

17.

DePaulo

B. M.

Kashy

D. A.

(1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63

18.

Donovan-Kicken

Caughlin

J. P.

(2010). A multiple goals perspective on topic avoidance and relationship satisfaction in the context of breast cancer. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751003758219

19.

Easterbrooks

A. M.

Ginsburg

Lerner

R. M.

(2013). Resilience among military youth. The Future of Children, 23(2), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0014

20.

Ellis

N. K.

Ledbetter

A. M.

(2015). Why might distance make the heart grow fonder? A relational turbulence model investigation of the maintenance of long distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 63(5), 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1078390

21.

Emmers

T. M.

Canary

D. J.

(1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing strategies on young couples’ relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44(2), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370008

22.

Erbes

C. R.

Polusny

M. A.

MacDermid

Compton

J. S.

(2008). Couple therapy with combat veterans and their partners. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(8), 972–983. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20521

23.

Fitzpatrick

Lafontaine

(2017). Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: Investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 640–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12203

24.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

25.

Gillen

H. G.

Horan

S. M.

(2013). Toward an understanding of the relationships among deceptive affection, deceptive beliefs, and relational qualities. Communication Research Reports, 30(4), 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.836629

26.

Greene

Buckman

Dandeker

Greenberg

(2010). How communication with families can both help and hinder service members’ mental health and occupational effectiveness on deployment. Military Medicine, 175(10), 745–749. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-09-00278

27.

Guthrie

Kunkel

(2013). Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet) little lies: Deception in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 64(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.755637

28.

Holmes

J. G.

Rempel

J. K.

(1989). Trust in close relationships. In Hendrick

(Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187–220). SAGE.

29.

Horan

S. M.

Dillow

M. R.

(2009). Deceivers and emotion: The relationships among deceptive message type, relational qualities, and guilt and shame. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870903156126

30.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

31.

Jang

S. A.

Smith

S. W.

Levine

T. R.

(2002). To stay or to leave? The role of attachment styles in communication patterns and potential termination of romantic relationships following discovery of deception. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750216543

32.

Joseph

A. L.

Afifi

T. D.

(2010). Military wives’ stressful disclosure to their deployed husbands: The role of protective buffering. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 412–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.513997

33.

Kachadourian

L. K.

Smith

B. N.

Taft

C. T.

Vogt

(2015). The impact of infidelity on combat-exposed service members. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(5), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22033

34.

Karakurt

Christiansen

A. T.

MacDermid Wadsworth

S. M.

Weiss

H. M.

(2013). Romantic relationships following wartime deployment. Journal of Family Issues, 34(11), 1427–1451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12470799

35.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.

36.

Knobloch

L. K.

Basinger

E. D.

Abendschein

Wehrman

E. C.

Monk

J. K.

McAninch

K. G.

(2018). Communication in online forums about the experience and management of relational uncertainty in military life. Journal of Family Communication, 18(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1373355

37.

Knobloch

L. K.

Ebata

A. T.

McGlaughlin

P. C.

Ogolsky

(2013). Depressive symptoms, relational turbulence, and the reintegration difficulty of military couples following wartime deployment. Health Communication, 28(8), 754–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.800440

38.

Knobloch

L. K.

Ebata

A. T.

McGlaughlin

P. C.

Theiss

J. A.

(2013). Generalized anxiety and relational uncertainty as predictors of topic avoidance during reintegration following military deployment. Communication Monographs, 80(4), 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.828159

39.

Knobloch

L. K.

Knobloch-Fedders

L. M.

(2010). The role of relational uncertainty in depressive symptoms and relationship quality: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509348809

40.

Knobloch

L. K.

Knobloch-Fedders

L. M.

Yorgason

J. B.

(2018). Communication of military couples during deployment predicting generalized anxiety upon reunion. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000344

41.

Knobloch

L. K.

Knobloch-Fedders

L. M.

Yorgason

J. B.

(2019). Mental health symptoms and the reintegration difficulty of military couples following deployment: A longitudinal application of the relational turbulence model. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 75(4), 742–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22734

42.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2011). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024063

43.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

(2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the post-deployment transition: Applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(4), 423–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431186

44.

Knobloch-Fedders

L. M.

Knobloch

L. K.

Scott

Fiore

(2020). Relationship changes of military couples during reintegration: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(7), 2145–2165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520917461

45.

Kunnel

Quandt

(2016). Relational trust and distrust: Ingredients of face-to-face and media-based communication. In Blöbaum

(Ed.), Trust and communication in a digitized world: Models and concepts of trust research (pp. 27–49). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_2

46.

Larzelere

R. E.

Huston

T. L.

(1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(3), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.2307/351903

47.

Luchies

L. B.

Wieselquist

Rusbult

C. E.

Kumashiro

Eastwick

P. W.

Coolsen

M. K.

Finkel

E. J.

(2013). Trust and biased memory of transgressions in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031054

48.

McCornack

S. A.

Levine

T. R.

(1990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376190

49.

Mikkelson

A. C.

Hesse

Pauley

P. M.

(2016). The attributes of relational maximizers. Communication Studies, 67(5), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1239644

50.

Möllering

(2009). Leaps and lapses of faith: Exploring the relationship between trust and deception. In Harrington

(Ed.), Deception: From ancient empires to internet dating (pp. 137–153). Stanford University Press.

51.

Murray

S. L.

Gomillion

Holmes

J. G.

Harris

Lamarche

(2013). The dynamics of relationship promotion: Controlling the automatic inclination to trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 305–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030513

52.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

(2009). The architecture of interdependent minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychological Review, 116(4), 908–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017015

53.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

(2011). Trust as motivational gatekeeper in adult romantic relationships. In Horowitz

L. H.

Strack

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 193–207). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118001868.ch12

54.

Negrusa

Hosek

(2016). Deployment and divorce: An in-depth analysis by relevant demographic and military characteristics. In MacDermid Wadsworth

Riggs

D. S.

(Eds.), War and family life (pp. 35–54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21488-7_3

55.

Peugh

J. L.

DiLillo

Panuzio

(2013). Analyzing mixed-dyadic data using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20(2), 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.769395

56.

Pincus

S. H.

House

Christenson

Adler

L. E.

(2001, April–June). The emotional cycle of deployment: A military family perspective. U. S. Army Medical Department Journal, 15–23.

57.

Planalp

Honeycutt

J. M.

(1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11(4), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1985.tb00062.x

58.

Planalp

Rivers

(1996). Changes in knowledge of personal relationships. In Fletcher

G. J. O.

Fitness

(Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 299–324). Erlbaum.

59.

Planalp

Rutherford

D. K.

Honeycutt

J. M.

(1988). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 516–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00166.x

60.

Rossetto

K. R.

(2013). Relational coping during deployment: Managing communication and connection in relationships. Personal Relationships, 20(3), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12000

61.

Sahlstein Parcell

Maguire

K. C.

(2014). Comfort, cliques, and clashes: Family readiness groups as dilemmatic sites of relating during wartime. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514521766

62.

Schrodt

Phillips

K. E.

(2016). Self-disclosure and relational uncertainty as mediators of family communication patterns and relational outcomes in sibling relationships. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1146406

63.

Sheldon

Pecchioni

(2014). Comparing relationships among self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability and trust in exclusive Facebook and exclusive face-to-face relationships. American Communication Journal, 16(2), 1–14.

64.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091

65.

Theiss

J. A.

(2018). The experience and expression of uncertainty in close relationships. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423264

66.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2013). A relational turbulence model of military service members’ relational communication during reintegration. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12059

67.

Theiss

J. A.

Knobloch

L. K.

(2014). Relational turbulence and the post-deployment transition: Self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence. Communication Research, 41(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211429285

68.

Yablonsky

A. M.

Barbero

E. D.

Richardson

J. W.

(2016). Hard is normal: Military families’ transitions within the process of deployment. Research in Nursing & Health, 39(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21701

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB