The role of communication technologies in serial arguments: a communicative interdependence perspective.

AuthorPusateri, Kimberly B.
PositionReport

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES IN SERIAL ARGUMENTS: A COMMUNICATIVE INTERDEPENDENCE PERSPECTIVE

The study of technologically-mediated communication (TMC) within personal relationships has become a significant topic of study (Baym, 2010). Yet, there is a dearth of research on the role of TMC in relational conflict (for exceptions, see Caughlin, Basinger, & Sharabi, in press; Scissors & Gergle, 2013). This is surprising given evidence that romantic partners commonly use both TMC and face-to-face (FtF) communication during conflict episodes (Caughlin et al., in press). The popularity of communication technologies opened up the possibility that people engage in serial arguments, a specific type of conflict in which partners repeatedly confront one another about the same issue (Trapp & Hoff, 1985) in ways they would not (or could not) have before. For example, when a FtF serial argument episode ends without resolution, relational partners can now continue talking about the issue in subsequent FtF or TMC conversations.

One way to explore this issue is by employing Caughlin and Sharabi's (2013) communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships. The communicative interdependence perspective highlights how close relational partners use several communication modes when discussing relational topics. For example, in addition to FtF communication, dating partners now have the option to video conference while communicating in real-time via text message or asynchronously via email (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2013). Relational partners who can easily integrate several communication modes may have higher levels of relational closeness and satisfaction when compared to couples who segment communication to one mode (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013).

The communicative interdependence perspective has important implications for how scholars investigate conflict more broadly, and serial arguments specifically. Some evidence (e.g., Caughlin et al., in press) suggests that relational partners integrate and segment communication modes during relational conflicts. For example, some dating partners used TMC in order to continue a conflict that began in person (FtF and TMC integration) whereas others noted that they engaged in the conflict only through technology (TMC segmentation). Alternatively, many participants felt that FtF was the only appropriate channel for relational conflicts (FtF segmentation). Because Caughlin and his colleagues did not consider serial arguments, it is unclear whether partners will similarly integrate TMC and FtF communication during this particular type of argument and how these decisions will impact relational markers. Because serial arguments extend beyond a single episode (Trapp & Hoff, 1985), it is possible that relational partners integrate several communication modes over time. Alternatively, relational partners may segment communication to one mode, like FtF, if they feel that conducting a serial argument episode over technology is inappropriate. Exploring this communication process is important because the decision to integrate and segment has implications for partners' relational closeness and satisfaction (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013).

The goal of the present study is to explore if (and how) individuals in dating relationships integrate or segment communication modes during serial arguments. By doing so, we extend the utility of the communicative interdependence perspective into a new communication context. With this in mind, our paper begins with an overview of Caughlin and Sharabi's (2013) communicative interdependence perspective. Then, we explicate the role of TMC in serial arguments in order to conceptualize the interconnections between FtF and TMC modes in this context.

COMMUNICATIVE INTERDEPENDENCE PERSPECTIVE

The communicative interdependence perspective (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013) acknowledges that understanding how communication channels operate together is more important than exploring how they function in isolation. Although dating partners more often use multiple modes (rather than one mode) over various conversations in their relationships (Baym, 2010; Caughlin et al., in press), the bulk of previous research has treated communication channels as isolated rather than investigating the interconnections between various channels. The communicative interdependence perspective fills this gap by exploring how partners may strategically integrate or segment communication modes.

Caughlin and Sharabi (2013) proposed that the interconnectedness between how relational partners engage in both TMC and FtF interactions reflects a mutual sense of closeness and satisfaction above and beyond the number of modes used. Relational partners who integrate TMC and FtF communication by moving between different modes of contact in the same conversation or set of related conversations appear to have higher levels of relational closeness and satisfaction. Alternatively, partners who segment modes by talking about certain issues via only one mode of communication tend to have lower levels of relational closeness and satisfaction. One exception, however, is that segmenting certain topics to FtF may be seen as particularly meaningful (rather than an indication of lower closeness or satisfaction). In addition, relational partners' ability to transition between modes may vary (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013). Communicative interdependence is considered high to the extent that it is easy to transition from one mode to another. That is, romantic partners who find it easy to transition between communication modes are expected to report higher levels of relational closeness and satisfaction. Romantic partners who find it difficult to transition from mode to mode are expected to report lower levels of relational closeness and satisfaction.

Because the communicative interdependence perspective has not yet been tested in various samples or populations, the first goal of this investigation was to replicate Caughlin and Sharabi's (2013) findings linking integration, segmentation, and difficulty transitioning between modes to relational closeness and satisfaction.

H1: Integration between communication modes will be positively associated with closeness and satisfaction.

H2: Segmentation of communication modes will be negatively associated with closeness and satisfaction, except in the case of FtF segmentation.

H3: Difficulty transitioning between TMC and FtF interaction will be negatively associated with closeness and satisfaction.

COMMUNICATIVE INTERDEPENDENCE DURING SERIAL ARGUMENTS

Although Caughlin and Sharabi (2013) found that more integration and less segmentation generally were associated with heightened closeness and satisfaction in dating relationships, they conceptualized and operationalized these concepts without specifying the type of conversation. Thus, it is unclear whether these relational markers are similarly associated with integration (or segmentation) about serious topics (e.g., infidelity) and mundane topics (e.g., where to eat dinner). An important next step for the communicative interdependence perspective, then, is to consider how segmentation and integration are related to relational closeness and relationship satisfaction across different discursive contexts.

Conflict is one discursive context that commonly occurs both via FtF and different forms of TMC (Caughlin et al., in press). Dating partners may integrate TMC and FtF modes during conflict in order to take advantage of the unique affordances of different TMC modes. For example, the asynchronous nature of TMC can help conflicting partners achieve multiple goals through careful message construction (Caughlin et ah, in press) and more easily maintain emotional control (Scissors, 2012). However, utilizing TMC during conflict may also make it more difficult to effectively resolve conflict due to the inability to assess nonverbal behaviors (Roache, Pusateri, & Sharabi, 2014). College students appear to acknowledge both benefits and drawbacks of using TMC during conflict (e.g., texting while engaged in a FtF conflict, using TMC to continue a conflict that began FtF). Some individuals may feel that TMC use affords them time to find the right words to manage the conflict more successfully, whereas others may feel that any TMC use during conflict is categorically inappropriate (Caughlin et ah, in press). Thus, although there is robust evidence that contemporary conflicts do occur via multiple channels, connections between mode integration and segmentation and relational closeness and satisfaction remain unexplored.

Serial Arguments

The current investigation focused on mode integration and segmentation during serial arguments (Trapp & Hoff, 1985). Several features of serial arguments suggest that strategic segmentation and integration of communication modes is likely. For example, because serial arguments extend over time and go through cycles in which they become a central focus or lay dormant (Trapp & Hoff, 1985), it is likely that partners use different modes over the course of time. Indeed, Frisby and Westerman (2010) found that dating partners who used text messaging to avoid a conflict topic assumed they would have to talk with their dating partner about that topic again at some point. In a similar vein, because partners in romantic relationships engage in an average of three to four ongoing arguments during the course of a given relationship (Johnson & Roloff, 1998), it is possible that relational partners learn to use different modes for specific communicative and relational purposes (Dimmick, Feaster, & Ramirez, 2011). This suggests that conducting a serial argument via one mode may impact future communication via other modes.

Although there are reasons to think different modes of communication may become implicated in serial arguments over time, it is not clear whether certain modes, or combinations of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT