1
Abstract
Today, millions of people are starting, maintaining, and ending relationships
through communication technologies. People are finding love in their inboxes, and
experiencing heartbreak through relationship statuses on Facebook. This thesis explores
the changing state of romantic relationships through the use of new communication
technologies, such as instant messaging and social networking sites. More importantly, it
seeks to assess how these modes of communication are affecting our relationships with
others. By taking a functional approach and using traditional communication theories,
this work delves into technology’s impact on relationship initiation, maintenance, and
dissolution. Society has allowed technology to be pervasive and powerful in romantic
relationships. However, it is too soon to tell whether society is writing a utopian or a
dystopian romance novel. This thesis offers story elements to consider.
2
“Hey, what’s up?”
Eye contact and verbal greetings are practically nonexistent when walking around
the University of Arizona campus. With heads looking down and overzealous fingers
working away, people are texting, checking emails, logging into their social media
outlets, and disregarding the opportunity for face-to-face human interaction. The irony in
this setting is that everyone feels social. Many of these people also feel connected. Their
cell phones are portals into their online worlds, where family and friends are available to
interact with at a moment’s notice. Many people will argue a person being only a text or
tweet away has made society more social and more connected. But, what if it’s actually
the opposite? What if people are progressively becoming more antisocial and emotionally
distant from each other? These questions arise when two people are having a
conversation, and one person compulsively picks up his or her phone to text midsentence,
leaving the speaker talking to the top of a person’s head. The investigation of
interpersonal communication in the electronic age would be so vast and multifaceted that
for the sake of time and sanity, this thesis will assess how communication technologies
are affecting romantic relationships.
The impressionable young minds of the 1990s grew up on the prehistoric notions
of romance. Through Walt Disney princess movies, and influence from Generation X,
children were primed to follow the old fashioned recipe for falling in love. Girls were
arguably targeted the most by Disney princess movies spoon-feeding the romantic ideals
of being courted and saved by a man. This paper isn’t on feminism, although
preconceived ideas of how a relationship begins, continues, and ends, are important to
consider throughout this paper. Here’s a preconceived idea: when two potential partners
3
first met, their meeting would be organic. It would be an in-person experience, filled with
intense eye contact and witty banter. He would ask for her number, he would call, and
they would date. Their conversations and time spent together would be primarily inperson. The phone would only serve as a catalyst for meeting, or a means to talk until the
late hours of the night. The couple would then write the rest of their love story together,
with an ending like her favorite romantic comedy. It’s a summarized version, but it’s an
outdated version, nonetheless. Here’s the reality: today, millions of romantic
relationships are sparked by messages in an inbox.
Whether it’s through email, social networking sites, or simple text messaging, the
classic, “boy meets girl” story has transformed into “boy sends text.” Take Facebook for
example. The New York Times deems Facebook as the largest social network in the world
(Facebook Inc.). In December of 2012, Facebook announced it reached over one billion
active users, with 618 million using it daily, and 680 million using it monthly through
Facebook mobile applications (Facebook Newsroom). The Facebook version of boy
meets girl transpires like this: a boy sees an attractive girl in class, and proceeds to login
to Facebook to find the attractive girl. He sends her a message through Facebook, and if
she’s interested, she’ll reply by maybe giving him her phone number – then the texting
games begin. Nowadays, it’s common for two people to, “get to know each other,”
through text messaging and social networking, before actually meeting or talking inperson. It’s also common for two people to both meet and start dating electronically
through online dating sites. Instead of swooning over receiving flowers on a first date,
girls swoon over a “good morning” text. Actually, girls swoon over any text received by
a potential love interest. The use of technology has become a norm in relational
4
maintenance, and can also be the demise of relationships. Communication technologies
are inextricably woven into the fabrics of modern day romantic relationships. This paper
will attempt to shed light on romantic relationships in the digital age.
Love in a utopia or a dystopia?
Guy Montag comes home to find his suicidal wife escaping her reality by either
droning out the world with radio ear buds, or watching television until her eyes glaze
over. Montag lives in Ray Bradbury’s 1953 dystopian novel, Fahrenheit 451, where
books are outlawed and firemen burn down any house that contains them. Utopian and
dystopian novels, like Bradbury’s, are on the English class reading lists for teenagers
across the nation. Another prominent example includes Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel,
Brave New World. Set in London of AD2540, his dystopian novel depicts a world in
which government psychologically manipulates its citizens by enforcing reproductive
technology and sleep-learning. The overarching theme in both of these novels is how
technology is negatively impacting society, which is the definition for technological antiutopianism, or dystopia.
The late social scientist, Rob Kling (1996), defines technological utopians and
anti-utopians in his work, Hopes and horrors: Technological utopianism and antiutopianism in narratives of computerization. Unlike technological utopian writing that’s
crafted to stimulate hope over the positive potentials of new technology, dystopian
writing creates counterpoints, showing how technology, such as computerization, will
inevitably have a detrimental impact on society (Kling, 1996, 51). New health procedures
that wouldn’t exist without technological advancements could be considered as a utopian
example, or being able to talk to loved ones across the country through video messaging
5
sites like Skype. A dystopian theme can be seen at the movie theaters. Nowadays before a
movie starts, there are about three different advertisements pleading the audience to not
text or use their cellular devices throughout the movie. These advertisements indicate
peoples’ attachment to cell phones and their lack of self-control when around them. This
lack of self-control often results in a blatant disregard of social norms, and results in
rudeness. This theme is further seen in the classroom when students are texting during
lecture, at lunch when your friend is texting when you’re trying to talk, and when you
almost hit pedestrians aimlessly walking into the street while texting. One can argue that
this disregard of social etiquette is a result of cell phone technology. Did Bradbury and
Huxley predict the future, or is society currently writing its own dystopian tale? Answers
to these questions will vary, because perceptions of technology’s impact on society are
highly subjective. Perhaps it will depend on the facets of life it’s affecting, resulting in
some generalized conclusions and some conflicting ones. Either way, technological
utopianism and anti-utopianism are themes to be considered throughout this writing.
A media theory that can be used to assess technology’s impact on society is
technological determinism. This theory argues that technology’s inherent characteristics
govern the direction of its development, while setting the conditions for social change.
The theory views the relationship between new technology and society as a linear one of
cause and effect. Proponents of this theory can view technology as extreme or weak,
thinking communication technology will either revolutionize society and how people
think, or that technology is only a factor, with social factors playing equally influential
roles (Barnes, 2003). Soft technological determinists can also be considered as social
determinists, arguing that technological development is just a symptom of social change,
6
not the catalyst (Barnes, 2003). Playing off of the movie theater example above, extreme
technological determinists might argue that cell phones have made people rude. Whereas,
soft technological determinists or social determinists might argue that people are
dependent in nature, eventually becoming dependent on their cell phones, resulting in
rude behavior. Both instances are cause and effect relationships, however one views
technology as the cause, whereas the others put social norms as the cause.
Lastly, the philosophy of technological realism can be applied to this paper.
Technological realism states that technology is a powerful agent for social change and
progress, however people can control its use. There’s an underlying utopian spirit that
remains optimistic about people remembering social values when using technology
(Barnes, 2003). In addition to the themes of utopianism and anti-utopianism, the theories
of technological determinism, social determinism, and technological realism are
ideologies to consider throughout this writing.
CMC vs. FtF
The term computer-mediated communication (CMC) denotes communication
through technologies, such as the Internet, email, and cell phones. Like the name
suggests, face-to-face (FtF) communication occurs in-person. Some important differences
to consider between CMC and FtF are synchronicity and nonverbal cues. FtF
communication is synchronous, with two people talking to each other simultaneously in
real time. CMC is often asynchronous communication that occurs outside of real time,
allowing for delayed and calculated responses. In regards to nonverbals, FtF
conversations provide the essential accompaniments to verbal conversations. Facial
expressions, mannerisms, and unique voice inflections are all present in FtF
7
communication. Whereas most forms of CMC are void of nonverbals. One form of
synchronous CMC is video conferencing, which does provide some nonverbals through
being able to see the person you’re talking to. Nonverbal cues are essential to verbal
conversations, because they provide meaning and clarification. CMC is a breeding
ground for misinterpretations, which will be discussed later in the paper.
Seven Functions for Instant Messaging and Social Network Sites (SNSs)
Considering SNSs prominence in millions of people’s lives, it is useful to take a
functional approach when assessing its impact on romantic relationships. Bryant, Marmo,
and Ramirez (2011) outline seven different functions of SNSs. While many people report
using SNSs to maintain already established relationships, another primary function (and
the authors’ first function) is relationship initiation (as cited in Wright & Webb, 2011,
p.4). Friendships are made without ever meeting. Electronic databases, or cupid robots,
match potential romantic partners based off of their online dating profiles. Professional
relationships and resulting business deals are created. Oftentimes, people start one-sided
relationships with someone by following a person on a SNS to never get a follow back.
For the more introverted people, who might have a difficult time meeting people in
person, using SNSs for relationship initiation might be socially beneficial. Parks and
Roberts (1998) found that people form more opposite sex relationships online, than they
do offline (as cited in Bryant et al., 2011, p.5). Even though thousands, if not millions, of
new relationships are initiated everyday through SNSs, its prevalence begs the question
of whether or not our culture is redefining the meaning of a relationship? Despite two
people ever meeting or verbally speaking to each other, a relationship can begin and
persist.
8
This relational persistence leads to the chapter’s next function of relational
maintenance. Relational maintenance refers to the continuous actions and behaviors
enacted by two people within a relationship to maintain a desired equilibrium (Bryant et
al., 2011, p.6). Communication technologies, and especially SNSs, have opened a
multitude of doors for people to uphold their relationships. Two people can literally keep
in contact all day through instant messaging and SNS activity. While some romantic
couples take this immediacy to an extreme, it can be a beneficial tool for long distance
relationships. When seeing each other in person isn’t an option, the ability to send a quick
message, or the option to look at photos of loved ones, can go a long way emotionally.
However, using SNSs and instant messaging for relational maintenance can be
perplexing, as well. For example, birthday notifications on Facebook draw relational
maintenance activity out of people, who haven’t communicated with each other since last
year’s birthday. Another example comes from my roommate, who recently posted a
status about her new job on Facebook. Literally hundreds of people she hasn’t spoken to
in years either sent her messages congratulating her, or “liked” her status. While it’s
flattering, it’s also inherently bizarre.
Bringing out ghosts of relationships past leads to the third function of relational
reconnection. Currently there are no published academic reports on this function,
however, press reports support its importance across multiple demographics. Workplace
surveys found that the majority of people use SNSs to reconnect with family and friends.
Moreover, data was collected from six different college campuses across the country, and
found that relational reconnection is a primary function for college students as well,
especially for reestablishing past friendships (Bryant et al., 2011, p.8).
9
The fourth function is identity experimentation, which involves online users
shaping, altering, and sometimes completely changing their identities through SNSs.
According to Bryant et al. (2011, p.9), “online users are like actors playing a role; they
can claim to be whomever they want, whenever they want” (as cited in Wright & Webb,
2011). This controversial function can even be taken to the extreme of online identity
theft. Some people use fake names and other people’s photos to create false identities,
which they use to meet new people, and even embark on romantic relationships with
them.
A real life example comes from the popular 2010 documentary “Catfish.” The
definition of catfish is: “To pretend to be someone you're not online by posting false
information, such as someone else's pictures, on social media sites usually with the
intention of getting someone to fall in love with you” (Catfish). Yaniv "Nev" Schulman
was the victim of “catfishing.” The 2010 documentary takes viewers through his online
romantic relationship with a girl named Megan. Schulman eventually discovers
everything about Megan is a lie, and that the girl he fell for didn’t even exist. Megan’s
pictures and information were stolen pieces of another girl’s identity. The documentary
was so popular, and surprisingly, so relatable, that it turned into an MTV series also
entitled, “Catfish.” In the hit show, Schulman now helps other online lovers discover if
the people they fell in love with through the LCD screen, are actually who they say they
are (Catfish). In one episode, a young man discovers that the cute, blonde girl he
developed a relationship with through Facebook was actually a young, gay man (Catfish).
The show is both fascinating and entertaining, but most importantly, it serves as a
poignant example of the identity experimentation function. Identity experimentation
10
doesn’t always result in identity fabrication, yet it seems more susceptible in relationships
that are solely based online. Millions of people use SNSs as supplements to offline
relationships, leaving little room for any fabrication in online profile sites. Therefore,
people use the SNSs for impression formation and management – the authors’ fifth
function.
Impression formation and management channels people’s inner publicists in
controlling their personal images online. This function also includes people using SNSs
to make inferences about other people (Bryant et al., 2011, p.10). Self-concept, or how
people perceive themselves, plays a huge role in impression formation. Self-concept can
be further dissected into several dimensions, including the actual self, the ideal self, and
the ought self. The actual self is characteristics one currently possesses. The ideal self is
characteristics one would like to possesses, and the ought self pertains to the
characteristics one thinks he or she should possess (Bryant et al., 2011.44). Not
surprisingly, many users attempt to maximize their positive traits in their profiles,
sometimes stretching the truth to meet their respective conceptions of ideal. In doing so,
many users also minimize or withhold negative facets of their actual self (Bryant et al.,
2011, p.10).
An example of this function’s power comes from a study published in
CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, which found that people who used
Facebook more thought that other people were happier, had better lives, and that life was
unfair. These findings even pertained to the Facebook friends that the participants didn’t
personally know. Other researchers found this glamorization to be a risk factor for
psychological distress. The American Academy of Pediatrics discovered and coined the
11
term, “Facebook Depression,” which occurs when peoples’ envy of other peoples’
superior lives, evolves into internal remorse. The study primarily focused on children and
adolescents, but researchers say the findings are applicable to all age groups. Though, this
function doesn’t have to be negative. A more positive outcome of glamorization could be
getting a job online. The Huffington Post reported that 37 percent of employers surveyed
now use Facebook to screen applicants, and to keep tabs on current employees.
Therefore, channeling one’s ideal self, and even one’s ought self, can reap occupational
benefits.
Employers’ use of SNSs to screen potential employees can also be an example of
the sixth SNS function of information seeking. Through the search functions of SNSs,
people can find and view other people’s profiles. For romantic interests, the uncertainty
reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) can be applied. According to the theory,
people attempt to rid themselves of the anxiety that comes with the unknown by seeking
out information (as cited in Bryant et al., 2011, p.11) Before relationship initiation, many
people consult SNS profiles to learn whether or not someone is already involved in a
romantic relationship. If not, they look for commonalities or talking points. In regards to
Facebook, multiple press outlets have labeled the above actions as, “Facebook Stalking.”
For the most part, the term is used in jest, however it can lead to extremes, which will be
discussed in the relationship dissolution section.
The seventh and last function offered by the authors is metacommunication,
which is simply communication about communication (Bryant et al., 2011, p.13).
Comment sections, the “Like” button, the “Favorite” button, and retweets, are all
examples of metacommunication in SNSs. This function is imperative in relational
12
maintenance, and can result in strong, psychological effects. Metacommunication, along
with the additional six functions listed above, are evident in technology’s impact on
romantic relationships.
He added me on Facebook: Relationship Initiation in the Digital Age
In relational communication there are multiple theories and models to
demonstrate relationship development. To best illustrate technology’s impact on an
intimate relationship’s initiation, maintenance, and dissolution, Knapp’s staircase model
will be used. His model was based on FtF interactions, however technology can easily be
incorporated into its framework (Galvin, 2011, p.151). There are two broad categories
within the model – coming together and coming apart – with each category consisting of
five steps. Relationship initiation and maintenance can be seen throughout the five
ascending steps of the model: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and
bonding. And, relationship dissolution, or disengagement, can be viewed through the five
descending steps of a relationship: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding,
and terminating (Tubbs, 2009, p. 235).
The initiating step in Knapp’s model consists of the relationship’s first moments.
From the first words spoken, to the first actions performed, the initiating step is when
interest is sparked in a budding romantic relationship (Galvin, 2011, p.154). Ultimately,
it’s where communication begins between the dyad. Following the initiating step, the
experimenting step can be considered as the preliminary discovery period, where the
couple begins to learn about each other. Respective background information, interests,
passions, and goals start to surface. In Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration
theory, the theorists use an onion to describe the human personality. Through self-
13
disclosure in the experimenting step, the surface layers of the onion begin to be
penetrated. These above actions that were once reserved for FtF communication, or
verbal conversations, are now capable of occurring through communication technologies
and the Internet. The use of communication technologies is so prevalent that it’s now
both a catalyst and a judged dating criteria in potential relationships. Its use in the
initiating and experimenting stages can be seen in the popularity of online dating sites,
Facebook monitoring, and texting.
Online dating sites can be considered as niche SNSs, enabling the functions of
identity experimentation, impression formation and management, and information
seeking. Within the world of online dating there are even more specialized sites for
virtually any race, religion, region, or sexuality. Christianmingle.com and
blacksingles.com are some examples. Match.com started its services in 1995, and is often
touted as a pioneer in the industry. According to the company, 20 percent of today’s
relationships begin online. Moreover, over 40 million Americans use online dating
services to meet a potential, romantic partner (Match.com). These online dating services
can be deemed as electronic cupids, analyzing profiles using mathematical matching
algorithms, and shooting digital arrows at compatible partners. In the quest to find love,
40 million Americans trust these virtual cupids more than they trust themselves, arguing
it makes the initiation step more efficient and less anxiety inducing. Toma and Hancock
(2011) argue online dating profiles provide the breadth and depth that’s often missing
when you meet someone in-person. When people meet FtF, their first impressions for
romantic chemistry are primarily based on physical appearance. Whereas online dating
profiles provide the breadth of background information, and the depth of personal
14
information, that is often unavailable in FtF meetings (as cited in Wright & Webb, 2011,
p.41). If and when a match is made, people progress into the experimentation stage
through chatting online.
Research conducted by Finkel et al., (2012) explains that online dating is
fundamentally different than traditional offline dating, and has changed modern dating
overall. Compared to traditional dating, online dating offers three unique services to its
clients: access, communication, and matching services. Access encompasses the
availability to search and screen for candidates, communication refers to the option of
CMC before FtF interaction, and matching is the mathematical algorithms addressed
above (p.3-4). As for online dating’s superiority over traditional means of dating, that’s
entirely subjective. There is no supporting evidence for algorithms being more successful
than a person’s intuition. Furthermore, online dating sites and their respective cupids can
neither predict the future, nor infer how people will change over time (Finkel el al., 2012,
p.3-4). More importantly, online dating profiles cannot screen for honesty. Deception will
be discussed in the relationship dissolution section.
Facebook is often touted for relational maintenance, but it’s also a primary means
to find and meet people – especially for college students. Haspel (2008) conducted a
study on college students’ Facebook use on campus, discovering that many students use
the SNS to both build and promote FtF relationships. Students argue that Facebook
expedites and simplifies first encounters by lessening initial insecurity (as cited in Galvin,
2011, p.151). Facebook is also used as a screening device for potential love interests. All
facets of Facebook facilitate the information seeking function. Through photos and
provided personal information, people can become their own private investigators and
15
matchmakers before actually initiating a romantic relationship. Facebook even has a
specific relationship feature that allows users to signify whether or not they’re in
romantic relationships with people. Tong and Walther (2011) consider this electronic
testament as a “tie sign.” A user’s list of friends can also be considered as a tie sign (as
cited in Wright & Webb, 2011, p.112). As discussed earlier, a message, comment, or
friend request can spark a relationship on Facebook or any SNS. Another primary means
for relationship initiation is texting. It’s common for two people who meet to exchange
numbers and begin a relationship through texting. After the relationship initiation, the
dyad takes a step up to experimentation, where small talk begins. Through small talk, the
dyad attempts to reduce uncertainty and ultimately gauge whether or not they’re
compatible for each other. There’s no greater example of technology’s impact on this
stage than texting.
The majority of SNSs have an instant messaging feature, although nothing
compares to the cell phone’s feature of short message service (SMS), or simply texting,
in the experimentation stage. People of all age groups rely on texting to get to know
someone. Both men and women are equally guilty of this. From looking for short-term
flings, to embarking on long-lasting romantic journeys, cellular discourse is now crucial
in the process. In the past, people judged potential mates by evaluating their physical
appearances, personalities, and respective lifestyles. In addition to these categories today,
a now more relevant and scrutinized trait is a person’s texting habits. A person’s texting
abilities, and texting politics in general, can make or break a budding relationship.
Caroline Nachazel is a journalism and communication senior at the University of
Arizona. She’s 21 years old, not married, and currently dating. Nachazel reaffirms the
16
role of texting in relationship initiation, stating that the most common form of
communication at the beginning stages of a relationship is texting. Nachazel sheds light
on the “24-hour window of opportunity.” “If you don’t get a text from a guy you gave
your number to, you’re wondering what you did wrong,” Nachazel said. “If I were to give
a guy my number, I would be waiting for a text that night, if not, then within a 24-hour
window. If that 24-hour window closes, then that door closes too” (C. Nachazel, personal
communication, April 17, 2013).
Many refer to the process as the “texting games.” Who texts who first, how long a
person waits to text back, tones based off of periods versus exclamation points, number
of characters used, and time of day texts were sent, are only some of the aspects people
mull over when trying to either decipher or create the subtexts of texts. If a guy waits 20
minutes to respond to a text, then the girl might wait 25 minutes. If a guy is constantly
texting a girl first, then he will wait for the girl to finally initiate the conversation. Tim
Kosch is a 25-year-old copywriter living and dating in New York City. He admits to
partaking in the texting games. “Since it's so common, texting is critical,” Kosch said.
“Everything from the time it takes to respond to how eager you sound is analyzed. Plus,
since it isn't a phone or an in-person conversation, a person has time to craft thoughts and
responses, which isn't always a good thing. I think the odds are against you when it
comes to texting. Too much can go wrong or be misinterpreted, which is less likely to
happen in person” (T. Kosch, personal communication, April 24, 2013). Kosch further
admits to judging potential partners off of their texting habits.
If text messages come off as code, or results in mixed messages, then people will
consult their allies – their friends – who are likely fighting the same fight. Nachazel
17
admits to overanalyzing the subtext of text messages. “It could take anywhere from two
minutes to two hours,” Nachazel said. “Sometimes I have to call all five of my best
girlfriends, read them the text, get everyone’s feedback, and use the feedback mixed with
my own to make my perfect response” (C. Nachazel, personal communication, April 17,
2013).
Texting can be a breeding ground for miscommunication and misunderstanding,
yet people still allow it to evoke strong emotional reactions. Oftentimes these emotional
responses manifest in obsessive behavior. Take the website, hetexted.com, for example.
A group of girls, who were tired of trying to decipher texts from guys on their own,
created hetexted.com. The website allows women to submit their texting conversations
with guys for other women to help decipher them. Users can even ask a “Bro,” who is an
experienced and unbiased guy willing to lend his sex’s perspective. The purpose of the
site is to gain insight, and have a better idea of whether or not a guy is actually interested
in a romantic relationship with you. Even
though the site is designed for women, Kosch
says men are equally guilty of overanalyzing
text messages. “I think the differences
between men and women are actually much
smaller than they used to be,” Kosch said.
“Women are in complete control and men are
at a disadvantage. Since technology has made
An example from hetexted.com
communication so easy, guys hit on girls more than they use
to, which gives girls countless options at a time. Unless there's the rare mutual attraction,
18
you need to stand out (through texting), while not being over the top,” (T. Kosch,
personal communication, April 24, 2013).
Texting’s popularity isn’t surprising. With busy or conflicting schedules, it’s a
quick and convenient means for conversation. Similar to Facebook’s use in relationship
initiation, texting also lessens insecurity and nerves that often come with getting to know
someone. Texting allows people to avoid potentially awkward FtF conversations, while
simultaneously reducing feelings of vulnerability. Overall, texting allows respective
lovers to maintain a sense of control in the experimentation stage. Through trial and error,
Nachazel now likes getting the guy’s number so she can control when and how they
communicate. She isn’t against picking up the phone to call, although she says it’s rather
uncommon these days. “Picking up the phone to call is a bold move, Nachazel said.
“With texting you kind of get to feel him out, rather than when you call it’s live, and you
don’t have the time to think about what you’re going to say, or feel out the situation.
That’s why I think people are more hesitant to call. However, if it were someone I was in
an established relationship with, obviously I would call,” (C. Nachazel, personal
communication, April 17, 2013).
There are some specific characteristics of texting that need to be considered.
When you’re texting someone, you don’t know what the person is physically doing and
you cannot tell the person’s mood, tone, or inflections. Oftentimes, you really don’t know
if someone has seen your text or not, unless your phone has a feature indicating the text
was indeed read. “Sometimes texts don’t even go through, and then you assume the
person is ignoring you,” said Chloe Steadman, a 22-year-old political science senior at
the University of Arizona. “One time someone invited me to go somewhere and the text
19
didn’t go through. If he had called, then I would have known” (C. Steadman, personal
communication, April, 10, 2013). Another risky possibility is accidentally sending the
wrong person the wrong text, which Steadman has also experienced. As a self-proclaimed
former “text-a-holic,” she’s had a few texting mishaps.
“I was texting two different people I was dating at the same time, and I was
talking poorly about one of them to the other, while simultaneously trying to
maintain a conversation with person A (the person being talked about). I
accidentally sent the wrong text to the wrong person and it was rude. I got called
out, which I deserved, and I was embarrassed” (C. Steadman, personal
communication, April 10, 2013).
These considerations stem from the inherent differences between CMC and FtF
communication. These differences in communication often result in unnecessary conflict
that can be avoided by meeting in person, or simply picking up the phone to call. A twohour texting conversation could be achieved in perhaps 20 minutes on the phone.
Are you Facebook Official: Relationship Maintenance in the Digital Age
After the first relational steps of initiation and experimentation, the next three
steps in Knapp’s “coming together” stage are intensifying, integrating, and bonding. The
intensifying stage is when two people begin to develop a sense of partnership, and within
this partnership, self-disclosure and feelings of connectedness begin to increase.
Following intensification comes integration, where respective personalities and lifestyles
seem to fuse together. In this step, two people are an established couple progressively
heading towards the final ascending step of bonding. Bonding is traditionally referred to
as a public ritual showcasing a relationship’s formal contract, like marriage (Galvin,
20
2011, p.155-157) However, the phrase can be more loosely used to signify public tie
signs – like announcing you’re in a relationship with someone on Facebook. Today, a
modern phrase used to signify a monogamous relationship is “Facebook official.” If two
people are in an exclusive relationship, they each change their relationship statuses to “In
a relationship with...” These final “coming together” steps fall under the broad category
of relational maintenance. According to Tong and Walther (2011) relational maintenance
encompasses the performance of behaviors necessary to sustain both the existence of a
relationship, and the satisfaction of each partner. For romantic relationships, major
components of relational maintenance would be maintaining certain levels of intimacy
and trust (as cited in Wright & Webb, 2011, p.99). Much like relationship initiation,
technology has had a profound impact on relational maintenance. It is used to supplement
communication in proximate romantic relationships, while it’s heavily relied on to uphold
long distance romantic relationships.
Once a couple has become official, the use of technology within the relationship
doesn’t stop there; its functional purposes just shift. While information seeking and
impression management remain, its primary function of relationship initiation shifts to
relational maintenance. Many couples now use communication technologies to
supplement their communication throughout the day. Despite seeing each other on a daily
basis, texting and social networking is both used and expected. For proximate romantic
relationships, this can throw certain relational dialectics off balance. Baxter and
Montgomery’s (2004) relational dialectics theory argues that relationships are comprised
of opposing tendencies, or dialectics, that have couples performing a continuous
balancing act. An important dialectic within intimate relationships is autonomy and
21
connection, which refers to the balance of independence and interdependence between a
dyad (Miller, 2012, p. 338). Steadman has experienced this conflict. While she’s
currently single and dating, her last relationship used texting as a primary form of
communication throughout the day. It wasn’t necessarily her preferred means of
communication, but since it was her boyfriend’s, she felt the need to conform, she said.
He would get frustrated with her when she didn’t have her phone on her. “I would just
need some space,” Steadman said. (C. Steadman, personal communication, April 10,
2013)
Researchers Duran, Kelly, and Rotaru published a study in 2011 entitled “Mobile
Phones in Romantic Relationships and the Dialectic of Autonomy Versus Connection.”
The study’s theoretical framework is based on Katz and Aakhus’ (2002) Apparatgeist
theory for communication technology development. From the theory, the study extracts
the concept of “perpetual contact,” which is the power for people in a relationship to
contact one another at any time due to cell phones. The theorists also characterize
perpetual contact as sociologic in which society establishes the rules surrounding this
new phenomenon. This notion presents the still unanswered question of “appropriate
contact” for cell phone use within an already established relationship. The researchers
argue perpetual contact potentially creates an imbalance of autonomy and connection,
overemphasizing connection and disregarding a person’s need for individuality – or in
Steadman’s example, “space.”
Overall, the findings included complaints for both a lack of individuality and a
lack of connection with cell phone use. Some partners felt as if they lost their
individualities when the other partner would persistently call or text them throughout the
22
day. Conversely, participants who thought their partners didn’t text or call enough felt as
if the relationship was lacking connection. These tensions would often result in reported
arguments and fights. For example, some people think they’re being ignored if their
partners are not immediately texting them back, when in reality they don’t have their cell
phones on them. Couples would then attempt to establish rules such as setting appropriate
times and appropriate amounts for cell phone use. The study ultimately concludes that
this dialectical tension in romantic relationships will only increase in severity and
number, as society continues to put more emphasis on cell phone use as a primary means
of communication. Concrete or objective rules for cell phone use in a relationship do not
exist. In order to have balanced autonomy-connection dialectics, two people must have
the same level of availability expectations for cell phone use. Perhaps rules should be
established at the onset of a relationship. Steadman never created any rules for her
relationship.
Nowadays couples showcase their relationships through SNSs like Facebook.
They not only state their relationship statuses on their sites, but also display multiple
photographs and conversations for their friends and families to see. This impression
management function can backfire by progressing into an obsessive information seeking
function. Darvell et al., (2011) used the theory of planned behavior to assess romantic
partners’ use of Facebook for monitoring their relationships. The researchers found that
Facebook is also used as a monitoring device within romantic relationships. Moreover,
there are some psychological predictors of this behavior. By looking at self-esteem, trust,
and various demographic characteristics, the researchers were able to determine the
circumstances in which some partners might be more prone to this watchdog behavior.
23
According to the results, level of trust in a partner, not self-esteem, significantly predicted
frequent Facebook partner-monitoring intentions. Moreover, frequent Facebook partner
monitoring is influenced by attitudinal, normative, and relational factors.
While CMC is important in proximate romantic relationships, the importance of
its utility significantly increases in long distance romantic relationships. When my
grandfather was fighting in World War II, he would send love letters to my grandmother
from overseas. Oftentimes they wouldn’t speak for weeks, let alone see each other for
months. Today, long distance lovers can not only communicate with each other on a
regular basis, but also see each other through electronic video conferencing. In 2009,
seven million people reported being in long-distance romantic relationships (Tong &
Walther, 2011, p. 100). Two of these people were Abby Simmons and Matt Read.
Simmons is a 23-year-old graduate student at the University of Houston, and Read is a
25-year-old college basketball coach in the Houston, Texas area. They have been dating
for over three years, with two of those years being long distance – they’re currently living
near each other now. Both Simmons and Read said they heavily relied on their cell
phones throughout the two years of long distance, frequently calling each other and
texting each other throughout the day. They would sometimes use Skype, as well. “There
is no way we would have made distance work without our phones,” Simmons said. (A.
Simmons, personal communication, April 15, 2013)
Many scholars (Duck & Pittman, 1994) once argued the necessity of FtF
interaction for relational maintenance, but with increasing use of CMC in relationships,
scholars (Tong & Walther, 2011) are beginning to see the silver lining (p.101). For
example, Stephen (1986) determined that a heavy use of CMC in romantic relationships
24
didn’t affect positive levels of affection. He also determined that the loss of nonverbals in
long distance relationships placed greater importance on verbal communication. If verbal
communication was satisfactory, then positive levels of affection were achieved (as cited
in Tong & Walther, 2011, p.101). Similarly, the use of CMC in long distance
relationships resulted in greater levels of love and intimacy, as well as a positive
correlation with partner trust (Gunn & Gunn, 2000; Dainton & Aylor, 2002, p.101). Read
had a similar experience:
“During the two years we did long distance, there were many ups and downs.
However, I feel that Abby and I are closer and trust each other more because of
the experience of long distance. We stuck through the hard times and it proved to
me that we could endure any kind of obstacle that life throws at us. Now we are
not just boyfriend and girlfriend, but best friends that trust each other and love
each other unconditionally” (M. Read, personal communication, April 15, 2013).
In regards to Stephen’s (1986) finding that lack of nonverbal communication
increases the importance of verbal communication, further research shows that CMC can
improve aspects of FtF communication. Tong and Walther (2011) argue that its
asynchronicity offers greater control over what is said and how something is said, which
can improve relational communication (as cited in Wright & Webb, 2011, p.101). While
it might not be as organic, this can be beneficial in long-distance romantic relationships.
Much like past lovers who were separated by war, written communication today is also
found to generate idyllic conceptions of one’s partner. Stafford and Reske (1990) found
that “…written communication leads partners to idealize one another; they forget the
difficult aspects of FtF conversation and cohabitation when they use relatively restricted
25
media…” (as cited in Tong & Walther, 2011, p.102). The first communication
technologies used to support long-distance romance were the telegraph, the telephone,
and then email. In today’s distance relationships, couples have multiple outlets for written
(or typed) communication. Email, texting, and SNSs are all used to stay connected.
Another primary reason as to why CMC helps distant romantic relationships is its
ubiquity (Tong & Walther, 2011, p.104).
While some are more private than others, publicizing one’s relationship has also
become a norm. As discussed earlier, tie signs and senses of social presence through the
use of these technologies can trigger psychological experiences of closeness and
connectedness (Tong & Walther, 2011, p.112). A potential drawback of always being
connected and constant communication through CMC is mundane conversations.
Mundane conversations consist of the same talk regarding daily activities and
experiences. “We had to make sure we talked at least once a day, and saw each other on
FaceTime or Skype at least two times per week,” Read said. “Sometimes our
conversations did become complacent. In that case, we wouldn’t just sit on the phone and
not say anything. We would find something else to do and go about our business” (M.
Read, personal communication, April 15, 2013). Without sharing in-person moments in a
long-distance romantic relationship, couples can fall victim to the dangerous habit of
having the same conversation, over and over again (Tong & Walther, 2011, p.113).
He broke up with me over a text message: Relationship dissolution in the digital age
It’s now time for the bad news. We’ve ascended up Knapp’s staircase and have
reached the final step. For many romantic couples, the goal is to stay here. However, this
act is much easier said than done. With the love that doesn’t last, couples walk down the
26
last five steps in Knapp’s “coming apart” stage: differentiating, circumscribing,
stagnating, avoiding, and terminating (Tubbs, 2009, p. 235). We can further categorize
these steps as relationship dissolution. In the differentiating stage, partners begin to
realize how dissimilar they really are in values or personality traits. For some couples this
is acceptable, or welcomed, however if these differences are deal breakers, then they
move on to circumscribing. Circumscribing is when both quality and quantity of
communication decreases. While circumscribing occurs throughout a relationship, if left
uncorrected for too long, then couples take another step down to stagnating – not acting
or attempting to change the relationship due to a feeling of hopelessness. The emotionally
avoidant behavior observed in stagnating then leads to physical avoidance in the next
stage of avoiding. Once a couple is apathetic, and becomes both emotionally and
physically distant, then the inevitable step of terminating the relationship occurs (Galvin,
2011, p.274-276). Just as communication technologies and their respective features can
begin and maintain relationships, they can also contribute to the demise of relationships.
The best examples to illustrate its dystopic potentials are deception, infidelity, antisocial
behavior, and obsessive monitoring.
Before delving into deception, it’s important to consider the functions of
impression formation and management, and identity experimentation. The trigger words
here are “management” and “experimentation.” Communication technologies allow
people to morph their actual selves into their ideal and ought selves. Walther’s (1996)
hyperpersonal model of impression formation in computer-mediated environments can be
used to assess the characteristics of CMC that lend to artificial self-presentation.
According to Walther, self-presentation is easier to control in CMC versus FtF because of
27
three primary affordances: editability, asynchronicity, and the re-allocation of cognitive
resources. Editability is simply the ability to edit your profile after it’s posted. This
negates the primacy effect that occurs in FtF interactions, more commonly referred to as
first impressions. As discussed before, asynchronicity is the time lapse between
messages, giving the receiver time to construct and edit a message. And, the re-allocation
of cognitive resources refers to the ability to solely focus on composing self-presentation.
In natural FtF meetings, there can be distractions that affect the process of selfpresentation, and subsequently the receiver’s perception (Toma & Hancock, 2011, p.45).
All of these affordance combine for Walther’s (1996) concept of selective selfpresentation.
There are various degrees of deception. My earlier example of the MTV show
“Catfish,” could serve as a higher degree of deception. Stealing someone’s identity and
then continuing to be that person in an online, romantic relationship, is taking the identity
experimentation function to a dangerous extreme. Communication technologies also
provide different, and arguably easier methods for emotional and sexual infidelity. Barta
and Kiene (2006) studied Internet infidelity or cyber cheating, and found that biological
sex is a good determinant for a person’s motivation to cheat online. Women are more
likely to cheat when they are emotionally dissatisfied, whereas men are more likely to
cheat if they’re sexually dissatisfied (Hans et al., 2011, p. 316). For example, a woman
might have an emotional affair through text with a coworker at work that never results in
sexual relations. A man might spend time on a sex chat room and participate it
anonymous cybersex. Nachazel unintentionally discovered an ex-boyfriend’s infidelity
on Facebook. “I did have an instance in a past relationship of mine where I was not even
28
meaningfully searching the person’s Facebook and found out my partner had been
cheating on me – both emotionally and physically,” Nachazel said. (C. Nachazel,
personal communication, April 17, 2013)
Along the lines of biological sex, another example of deception is gender bending,
when people pretend to be the opposite sex to reap perceived positive advantages online
(Hans et al., 2011, p.312). Lower degrees of deception can be a white lie in online dating
profiles, like lying about your weight. Smudging the numbers on the scale happens to be
the most frequent form of deception in online dating profiles. Unattractive female users
are also more likely to use inaccurate pictures of themselves than their attractive
counterparts in dating profiles (Toma & Hancock, 2011, p.52). Regardless of the degree,
it’s still deception.
After doing an extensive review on digital deception in relationships, Dunbar and
Jensen (2011) came to three overarching, tentative conclusions. First, it’s not necessarily
easier to deceive through CMC than through FtF, especially in close (romantic)
relationships. Even though there is evidence supporting both sides of this statement, the
researchers conclude there isn’t enough evidence to have a definitive answer. Second, the
motives for deception are the same in both FtF and CMC. And third, if partners want to
deceive, then their best approach is using media that is synchronous, record-less, and has
interactants physically apart. Overall, the researchers state that further research on digital
deception is necessary, seeing that it’s relatively new, and even newer forms of digital
deception are arising everyday (Jensen & Dunbar, 2011, p.337-339). Moreover, it’s
difficult to get people to be honest about their acts of deception.
29
With Facebook, many people don’t realize that by only portraying their ideal
selves, they’re also being deceiving. The whole premise of Facebook is inherently
deceiving, really what is social about it? At first, it might seem social to continuously
create small talk with others. In reality, people are sitting alone, behind computer screens,
selectively choosing what they say, and looking at what people only want them to see.
What is social about using a keyboard to relay thoughts and emotions to others? What is
social about being able to calculate your every move, or being able to portray yourself as
someone totally different than who you really are? People are not only lying to others, but
they’re also lying to themselves. The same goes for texting. Through text messaging,
people can seem outgoing and inquisitive, but talk to them in person, and they can be
some of the shyest people you’ve ever met. Perhaps people feel empowered or protected
by their cell phones and computer screens. But this false sense of protection can backfire.
In romantic relationships, texting and SNSs can also be used for surveillance.
Even when there’s no sign of deception or infidelity, some partners whose judgment isn’t
affected by the truth bias, use texting and SNSs to keep tabs on their partners – where
they’re at, who they’re with, and more importantly, who they’ve been talking to, are all
points of interest in relational monitoring (Dunbar & Jensen, 2011, p.328). Some
behaviors are more obsessive than others, however any degree of electronic intrusion can
cause strain on a relationship. And, whether it’s warranted or not, it can lead to jealousy
and loss of trust. As for texting, it’s not uncommon for a suspicious partner to scroll
through their significant other’s text message history to look for red flags. This type of
surveillance crosses the line into invasion of privacy. Even with her past, Nachazel
doesn’t invade a guy’s cell phone, but some of her friends do. “ I do have girlfriends that
30
read their boyfriends texts when they’re sleeping, and they have a lot of issues over that,
she said. “She (a friend) reads way too much into them and tricks herself into thinking the
texts mean something totally different. It always results in a huge ordeal, and it’s pretty
stupid” (C. Nachazel, personal communication, April 17, 2013).
Ttyl:
Technology’s pervasiveness and power can be seen throughout all stages of a
romantic relationship. From relationship initiation to relationship dissolution, people’s
use of technology can either help or hinder their love. Today, millions of people are
finding love on Internet dating sites. Long distance couples can see each other at a
moment’s notice through video messaging, and romantic relationships can end through
CMC’s facilitation of deceptive practices. Even though there are both utopian and
dystopian elements to this novel that society is currently writing, should we be allowing
technology to play as influential of a role as we’re currently letting it? Is it even
controllable? Is technology’s infiltration into every aspect of our relationships inevitable,
leaving us no choice but to conform? Past and current research has mixed results, but it’s
too soon to tell. Only time will tell what technology is really doing to the state of our
interpersonal relationships, and ultimately our communication. As for love in the digital
age, you never know who’s waiting inside your inbox.
31
References
(2013). Catfish. Retrieved from http://www.mtv.com/shows/catfish/series.jhtml
(2013). Facebook Inc. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/facebook_inc/index.html
(2013). Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/
(2013). HeTexted. Retrieved from http://hetexted.com/
(2013). Match.com. Retrieved from match.com
(2012, April 20). 37 Percent Of Employers Use Facebook To Pre-Screen Applicants,
New Study Says. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/employers-use-facebook-to-prescreen-applicants_n_1441289.html
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of
Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Barnes, S. B. (2003). Computer-mediated communication. Allyn and Bacon.
Barta, W., & Kiene, S. (January 01, 2005). Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual
dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual
orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 3, 339-360.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics (pp. 1
285). Guildford Press.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT).
32
Bryant, E. M., Marmo, J., & Ramirez, A. (2011). A Functional Approach to Social
Networking Sites. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated
Communication in Personal Relationships (pp. 3-20). New York: Peter Lang
Publishing, Inc.
Chou, H.-T. G., & Edge, N. (February 01, 2012). “They Are Happier and Having Better
Lives than I Am”: The Impact of Using Facebook on Perceptions of Others'
Lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 2, 117-121.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the
maintenance of long!distance relationships. Communication Research Reports,
19(2), 118-129.
Darvell, M. J., Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Facebook Tells Me So: Applying the
Theory of Planned Behavior to Understand Partner-Monitoring Behavior on
Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(12), 717-722.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0035
Duck, S., & Pittman, J. (1994). Social and personal relationships', Chapter 17 in Knapp
ML and Miller GR (Eds):'Handbook of interpersonal communication'.
Dunbar, N. E., & Jensen, M. (2011). Digital Deception in Personal Relationships. In K.
B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal
Relationships (pp. 324-343). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile Phones in Romantic Relationships
and the Dialectic of Autonomy Versus Connection. Communication Quarterly,
59(1), 19-36. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.541336
33
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online
Dating: A Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science.
Psychological Science In The Public Interest (Sage Publications Inc.), 13(1), 366. doi:10.1177/1529100612436522
Galvin, K. M. (2011). Making connections: Readings in relational communication. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals
The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived
Success in Internet Dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.
doi:10.1177/0093650205285368
Gunn, D. O., & Gunn, C. W. (2000). The quality of electronically maintained
relationships. In annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers,
Lawrence, KS.
Hans, M. L., Selvidge, B. D., Tinker, K. A., & Webb, L. M. (2011). Online Performance
of Gender: Blogs, Gender-Bending, and Cybersex as Relational Exemplars. In K.
B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal
Relationships (pp. 302-323). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Haspels, M. (2008). Will you be my Facebook friend? In K. Gaspel (Author), Making
connections: Readings in relational communication (p.151). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kling, R. (1996). Hopes and horrors: Technological utopianism and anti-utopianism in
34
narratives of computerization. In R. Kling (ed.), Computerization and
controversy: Value conflicts and social choices, (pp. 40-58). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2005). Relationship stages: A communication
perspective. Interpersonal communication and human relationships, 36-49.
Miller, R. S. (2012). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Parks, M. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). Making MOOsic': The development of personal
relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of
social and personal relationships, 15(4), 517-537.
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance
premarital relationships. Family Relations, 274-279.
Stephen, T. (1986). Communication and interdependence in geographically separated
relationships. Human Communication Research, 13(2), 191-210.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). A New Twist on Love’s Labor: Self-Presentation
in Online Dating Profiles. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), ComputerMediated
Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational Maintenance and CMC. In K. B. Wright
& L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal
Relationships (pp. 98-118). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Tubbs, S. L. (2009). Human communication: Principles and contexts. New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal interaction. Communication research, 23(1), 3-43.
35
Wright, K. B., & Webb, L. M. (2011). Computer-mediated communication in personal
relationships. New York: Peter Lang.