Channels of Computer-Mediated Communication and Satisfaction in Long-Distance Relationships
Channels of Computer-Mediated Communication and Satisfaction in Long-Distance Relationships
Channels of Computer-Mediated Communication and Satisfaction in Long-Distance Relationships
interpersona.psychopen.eu | 1981-6472
Articles
[a] Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. [b] Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA. [c] Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Abstract
In the last decade, there has been a surge in the number of ways in which romantic partners can remain in contact with each other. The
use of communication technologies may have important implications for the maintenance of relationship satisfaction. Unfortunately, most
research in this domain has been conducted with samples that are composed predominantly by individuals in geographically-close
relationships. This study examined the use of communication technologies in long-distance relationships, including how various mediums of
communication are associated with relationship satisfaction and communication satisfaction. Using a diverse online sample of individuals in
long-distance relationships, we found that the frequency of utilizing various channels of communication was associated with relationship
satisfaction and communication satisfaction. The most frequently used channel of communication was text messaging. However, Skype
use was the strongest predictor of both relationship satisfaction and communication satisfaction. Further, communication satisfaction
mediated the relation between Skype use and relationship satisfaction. We integrate our findings into theoretical perspectives on computer-
mediated communication.
Many couples are geographically separated for an extended period of time due to factors such as work,
education, and the military (e.g., Firmin, Firmin, & Merical, 2013). With the recent rise in new mediums of
communication (e.g., text messages, Skype, social media), however, long-distance couples now have many
ways to stay in contact on a daily basis and be interdependent even when separated. The availability of new
forms of communication, however, does not mean that they are all used. Research on the use and effects of
various communication technologies in personal relationships “is at a nascent stage” (Stafford & Hillyer, 2012,
p. 290); furthermore, less is known specifically in regard to their effects, such as on satisfaction, in long-
distance relationships (LDRs).
Despite their lack of frequent face-to-face contact, partners in LDRs have been found, in many studies, to have
similar levels of satisfaction to those in geographically close relationships (e.g., Guldner & Swensen, 1995;
Roberts & Pistole, 2009; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). In addition, early research found that greater
communication in LDRs (i.e., frequent phone contact) while the partners were separated was associated with
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 172
satisfaction (Dainton & Aylor, 2002). Less is known, however, regarding how frequently those in LDRs use new
communication technologies to stay in contact and how the use of the new communication modes is associated
with relational quality outcomes. In this study, an international sample of 588 individuals who were currently
involved in a LDR completed a survey that assessed their use of multiple communication technologies, as well
as their communication satisfaction and overall relationship satisfaction.
Beyond video chatting services, other forms of CMC are being adapted by geographically-close and long-
distance partners alike (e.g., Snapchat, texting, picture messaging). These types of communications can serve
as “social snacks” to long-distance partners (Gardner, Pickett, & Knowles, 2005). People can satiate their
“social” appetite via various mediums, including pictures or mementos associated with a partner. Such
mementos, in turn, temporarily fulfill a sense of belongingness (Gardner et al., 2005). Transmission of photos
and text messages are ‘leaner’ mediums than communication mediums such as Skype, but they may still help
to increase social and visual presence between long-distance partners. Whether use of such lean mediums
facilitates positive relational evaluation, compared to other mediums, is one of the empirical notions at question.
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 173
example, observed that even continuous computer-mediated chats with no face-to-face contact between
strangers facilitated rapport through mechanisms such as perceived responsiveness and knowledge of the
other.
Intimate communication over CMC may be particularly important in LDRs. Geographically-close partners have
the option to wait until face-to-face interaction to engage in intimate communication, but partners in LDRs often
need to find other ways to communicate (Kirkpatrick, 2007). As such, “lean” modalities (e.g., text messaging)
are likely to be used for communicating rich, social information in LDRs, resulting in communication that is more
intimate than what might occur in geographically-close relationships in the same modalities (Kelmer, Rhoades,
Stanley, & Markman, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2007; Stafford & Reske, 1990).
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 174
LDRs to indicate how many hours per week they used each of several communication channels. The couples
reported that Skype and Facebook were the most frequently used communication channels. Time spent on
Skype positively predicted relationship satisfaction. Facebook communication, however, was negatively
associated with satisfaction. Furthermore, the more time that the participants reported using the various
communication technologies, the higher their scores on a relational maintenance measure. In a very recent
study (Janning, Gao, & Snyder, 2017), individuals were surveyed about their communication in a LDR (past or
present) for both the period when they were long-distance and the period when they were geographically close.
During both periods, phone (audio), texting, and digital chatting were used frequently. Video chatting was found
to be more frequently used during the long-distance period of the relationship.
As stated above, video communication may be particularly important for LDRs, as it allows for a richer format of
interaction than do other forms of communication (e.g., text messages, phone calls). This channel offers both
video and audio channels and makes the other person salient through a shared presence. In turn, the sense of
shared space can aid in emotional closeness (Kolozsvari, 2015). Neustaedter and Greenberg (2012) found
suggestive evidence of the importance of video communication for LDRs through their assessment of the use
of video communication as routes of relationship maintenance in interviews of 14 persons involved in LDRs. A
majority of the participants said they used video chats to be able to see each other’s face and to “hang out”
together, being better able to share day-to-day life. Furthermore, the participants in the Janning et al. (2017)
study of LDRs reported that visual and audio communication formats were meaningful to them because of the
intimacy possible in these communication modes.
Geographically close couples also use several communication technologies to stay in contact and express
affection when not together (Boyle & O’Sullivan, 2016; Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011;
Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013; Ramirez & Broneck, 2009; Ruppel, 2015; Stewart,
Dainton, & Goodboy, 2014; Toma & Choi, 2015). In both LDRs and geographically-close relationships,
maintenance strategies and relationship satisfaction may be enhanced through the use of communication
technology (e.g., Houser, Fleuriet, & Estrada, 2012; Miller-Ott, Kelly, & Duran, 2012; Morey et al., 2013;
Pettigrew, 2009; Stewart et al., 2014; Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015). Nonetheless, newer forms of
communication technology may also have mixed effects on relationships, including increased opportunities for
conflict, tension, and jealousy (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Murray & Campbell, 2015; Neustaedter & Greenberg,
2012; Ruppel, 2015; Schade, Sandberg, Bean, Busby, & Coyne, 2013; Stewart et al., 2014). Furthermore,
some research has found no association between the use of communication technology and relationship
satisfaction (Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Ledbetter, & Lin, 2007; Coyne et al., 2011). Therefore, it is important to
examine the role of newer forms of communication technology in predicting relationship outcomes, particularly
in the type of relationship that relies on communication technology for its maintenance – the long-distance
relationship.
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 175
limit themselves to a focus on face-to-face interaction, but should also examine the role of all communication
channels in relational maintenance (p. 127).” Today, the communication channels are numerous.
This study extends prior research in two ways. First, we provide a current description of the modes of
communication that individuals in LDRs use to communicate. We were specifically interested in which channels
of communication people in LDRs use most frequently to stay in contact with their partners (Research Question
1). Drawing from media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), we would expect that long-distance partners
would enact communication frequently over video-chatting services (i.e., Skype, Facetime, Google Hangouts)
as a substitute for their lack of richer communication occurring face-to-face. However, use of leaner modalities
may also be frequent in LDRs. Long-distance partners can easily cater to their social appetite via leaner
mediums such as texting and photo transmissions, thus increasing the social presence and connectedness
between them (Gardner et al., 2005).
The second and primary goal of this research was to examine how the frequency use of various channels of
communication is associated with satisfaction in LDRs, as well as more specifically with communication
satisfaction. In examining how the use of communication channels in LDR is associated with relationship
outcomes, we focus on relationship satisfaction because it is a central construct studied in literature on
relationships (Fincham, Rogge, & Beach, 2006), and has been highly linked to other indicators of relationship
quality such as commitment, love, and relationship maintenance (e.g., Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006;
Hendrick, 1988) and to individual health outcomes (Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007). The expansive literature
on relational satisfaction presents aspects of communication (quality and quantity) to be major predictors of
satisfaction (e.g., Fincham et al., 2006). To our knowledge, however, with the exception of Kirk’s (2013) study,
researchers have yet to examine and compare how the use of new communication technologies is associated
with relationship satisfaction in LDRs. As noted above, an earlier study (Dainton & Aylor, 2002) – which was
conducted before the widespread use of the newest communication technologies (e.g., digital text, video
chatting) – found that the use of telephone communication was positively associated with satisfaction in LDRs.
In addition to examining how forms of communication are associated with relationship satisfaction, we consider
how they are also associated with communication satisfaction more specifically. People not only assess their
overall satisfaction in the relationship, but also satisfaction with specific areas of the relationship, which may not
always correspond with overall satisfaction (i.e., one could be dissatisfied with a specific area of the
relationship, while still satisfied with the entire relationship, or vice versa).
As the exchange of social information is pivotal in increasing positive relational outcomes (i.e., social
information processing theory, Walther, 1995), we predict that the more frequently individuals communicate with
their long-distance partners, the more satisfied they are with their communication and also with their entire
relationship (Hypothesis 1). However, we consider the possibility that not all types of communication channels
may be equally beneficial for LDRs, and explore whether the use of some mediums of communication
technology are more highly associated with relationship satisfaction and communication satisfaction than others
(Research Question 2). Rich video chatting services, such as Skype, may be particularly beneficial for the
relationship because of the social presence they provide the couples. Conversely, other communication
channels (e.g., Facebook) may increase tension in the relationship because of jealousy that can occur
(Elphinston & Noller, 2011). In addition, use of cell phones (both voice and text) could be beneficial because of
the ability to stay in frequent contact, but could also generate misunderstandings that can occur without the aid
of visual channels (e.g., Coyne et al., 2011).
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 176
Method
Our initial sample consisted of 879 participants involved in LDRs. We eliminated 155 participants who opened
the online survey but either did not complete any of the items or completed only the first few, 12 participants
who reported an age younger than 18, and 11 participants who replied “No” to the question “Are you currently
part of a long distance relationship?” We further eliminated two participants who reported living less than 30
miles from their partner and 11 participants who reported that they saw their partner “daily” or “a few times a
week” (even though they had defined the relationship as long-distant). We also decided to eliminate those who
responded “We have no face-to-face interaction” (n = 100) to the question on how often they see their partner.
People who have an exclusively online relationship may be different in many ways from those who have some
face-to-face contact.
Our final sample consisted of 183 (31.1%) men and 405 (68.9%) women. Their ages ranged from 18 to 62, with
a mean age of 22.65 (SD = 4.41). In response to a question that asked participants about their race/ethnic
background, 76.6% said White, 1.4% said African American, 7.6% said Hispanic/Latino, 14.4% said Asian, and
the remaining either checked “Other” (and typically wrote in a mixed race) or left the question blank. The
majority of the participants came from the United States (61%), although participants came from many other
countries, including the United Kingdom (9%), Canada (9%), and Australia (2%). To a question that asked the
participants how they would best define their relationship, a majority (86.4%) defined their relationship as
seriously dating; 5.5% were casually dating, 6.6% were engaged, and 1.5% were married. The majority of
participants (53%) reported to have been in their LDR for 12 months or less, 26% of participants reported to
have been in the LDR between 12 and 24 months, and the remaining (21%) were in longer-term LDRs.
Measures
Frequency Use of the Various Mediums of Communication
Participants were presented with twelve mediums of communication and were asked to indicate how often they
used each medium in their LDR. The twelve mediums were: phone calls, received text messages, sent text
messages, received picture messages, sent picture messages, instant messaging, Skype, Facetime, Snapchat,
Facebook, Twitter, and Google Hangouts. Email was inadvertently left off the list of communication mediums.
However, recent research has shown that romantic partners do not use email as frequently as cell phone texts
for relaying messages (Coyne et al., 2011; Toma & Choi, 2015). Participants reported their use of each
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 177
communication medium with a 9-point response scale: 1 (do not use), 2 (once a month), 3 (every other week),
4 (once a week), 5 (a couple of times during a week), 6 (four to five times a week), 7 (daily), 8 (a couple times a
day) and 9 (several times throughout the day).
Relationship Satisfaction
The relationship assessment scale (e.g., Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998) was used to assess relationship
satisfaction. Sample items of the seven-item scale include, “How well does your partner meet your needs?” and
“In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?” Participants responded to each item on a five-point
response scale, with the specific anchors depending on the item (e.g., Not at all/Completely; Never/Always).
Two of the items were in the negative direction (e.g., “How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this
relationship?”) and were reverse coded before a composite score was created (α = .78).
Results
To test whether some channels are used more than others, we employed a within-subjects ANOVA, which
yielded a main effect of communication medium, F(6, 3,490) = 90.73, p < .0001, η2 = .11 (see Figure 1).
Overall, people used text messaging the most and Snapchat the least. Recall that we had eliminated
FaceTime, Google Hangouts, and Twitter from the analyses, but these were the least common modes of
communication. Post-hoc analyses with Šidak corrections revealed that the use of all channels yielded
statistically significant differences (at p ≤ .012) with three exceptions: the use of instant messages did not differ
from Skype; the use of phone calls did not differ from the use of Facebook; and the use of Facebook did not
differ from the use of Snapchat.
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 178
Table 1
Mean Frequencies of Use of the Seven Communication Mediums of Interest
Medium M SD
Figure 1. General frequency of use for each medium of communication. Error bars represent standard errors for each
mean.
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 179
Table 2
The Associations of Each Communication Medium With Relationship Satisfaction, Communication Satisfaction, and Sex
Relationship Communication
Medium Satisfaction 95% CI Satisfaction 95% CI Sex 95% CI
Phone .02 -.06, .10 .05 -.04, .13 .02 -.06, .10
Text Messaging .04 -.04, .12 .04 -.04, .13 -.003 -.08, .08
Picture Messaging .06 -.02, .14 .14** .06, .21 .001 -.08, .08
Skype .12* .04, .20 .21*** .13, .29 -.02 -.10, .06
Instant Messaging .05 -.04, .13 .07 -.01, .16 -.07 -.15, .01
SnapChat -.01 -.10, .07 .01 .07, .09 -.04 -.12, .04
Facebook .08 -.01, .16 .06 -.03, .14 .002 -.08, .08
Note. Displayed are correlation coefficients between each communication medium and the variable in the respective column, followed by
the 95% Confidence Interval of each correlation coefficient.
*p = .0037. **p = .001. ***p < .0001.
RQ2: Which Media of Communication Are Most Highly Associated With Relationship
Satisfaction and Communication Satisfaction?
Our tests of H1 suggested that not all media are related to the two outcome variables overall. For example,
Snapchat, and perhaps surprisingly, phone calls, showed little to no relation between both variables. Skype
showed a consistent positive association with both outcome variables, whereas picture messaging was also
positively associated with communication satisfaction. Thus, it appears that an avenue in which one can see
the partner most strongly affects relationship and communication satisfaction.
We followed-up our correlation analyses with two complementary multiple regressions in which all seven
communication media were considered as potential predictors of communication and relationship satisfaction.
An advantage to such analyses is that the results allow us to further examine each medium’s unique effect on
the outcome variable. To account for potential violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance, we used
robust standard errors in our analyses.
See Table 3 for the results of the regression analysis. We present the standardized slopes (βs) to ease
interpretation. When controlling for the use of the remaining communication media, Skype was the sole
predictor of relationship satisfaction; and picture messaging and Skype were the sole predictors of
communication satisfaction.
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 180
Table 3
Regression Analyses for the Relations Between Communication and Relationship Satisfaction
and Each Communication Medium
Relationship Satisfaction
Phone .01
Text Messaging .08
Picture Messaging .06
Skype .11*
Instant Messaging .03
SnapChat -.06
Facebook .08
Communication Satisfaction
Phone .04
Text Messaging .001
Picture Messaging .14**
Skype .21**
Instant Messaging .02
SnapChat -.03
Facebook .03
*p = .012. **p ≤ .001.
To test this potential indirect effect, we used a non-parametric Monte Carlo simulation method, in which the
indirect effect obtained from the a (the link between the predictor variable and the indirect effect variable) and b
(the link between the indirect effect variable and the dependent variable, controlling for the remaining
predictors) paths in a series of regression analyses is simulated k number of times using the slopes and
standard errors obtained from the data (we used k = 50,000). If a 95% Confidence Interval of the indirect effect
does not contain a zero, then the mediation can be considered statistically significant at p ≤ .05 (Preacher &
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 181
Selig, 2012; see Selig & Preacher, 2008 for an online utility for computing Monte Carlo indirect effect
Confidence Intervals). We obtained the a path from the multiple regression analysis we performed on
communication satisfaction above.
The analysis yielded a statistically significant indirect effect (95% CI [0.01, 0.03]). In other words, Skype’s ability
to predict relationship satisfaction potentially stems from its link to communication satisfaction: regardless of
their use of other communication channels, the more people talk to their partners on Skype, the more satisfied
they will be in their communication, which in turn bolsters relationship satisfaction. A complementary indirect
effect analysis in which we used picture messaging as a predictor of the a path yielded evidence for an indirect
effect (95% CI [0.006, 0.03]). Because picture messaging did not predict relationship satisfaction, this result
may further demonstrate the importance of satisfactory communication in evoking relationship satisfaction.
We also considered an alternative model in which the effect of Skype use on communication satisfaction may
be driven by relationship satisfaction. That is, we considered whether Skype increases communication
satisfaction through increased relationship satisfaction. The results revealed that controlling for Skype use,
relationship satisfaction indeed predicted communication satisfaction, b = 1.19, SE = 0.08, p = .001. Skype use,
however, remained a statistically-significant predictor in this model, b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, p < .001. Monte Carlo
tests revealed support for such an indirect effect, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05]. Still, because Skype use continued to be
a predictor of communication, this indirect effect was only partial, compared to the full effect we saw in our initial
test.
Discussion
The advances in modern computing have substantially facilitated the ease to which two people can
communicate with one another, regardless of whether they are two rooms or two countries apart. Our purpose
in this research was to investigate the use of various mediums of communication technologies in long distance
relationships (LDRs) and how their use is associated with relational outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction).
Participants reported using a diverse array of communication mediums to stay in contact with their LDR
partners, although some channels were infrequently used (e.g., Twitter, Google Hangouts, FaceTime). The
participants in the current study most favored text messaging (both sent and received) above all other
communication platforms. This finding may be explained by the large surge of hyperconnectivity in recent years
(Rainie & Wellman, 2012). With the recent increase in the desire to be socially connected, people (especially
today’s young adults) have their cell phone readily available to them. The communicative options that a modern
cell phone allows can provide a wide range of channels of communication for long-distance couples.
We found that participants generally did not use social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and SnapChat
as common means of communication in their LDRs. This may be due, in part, to public availability of the
information shared between persons in such communication mediums. Couples in LDRs may prefer more
private and easily accessible communication channels (Yang, Brown, & Braun, 2014). Thus, social media is not
an optimal medium of private communication for long-distance couples. Concerning video-based
communication, Skype was the most-commonly used platform, although the use of alternative video
communication platforms (i.e., Facetime and Google Hangouts) was limited. This discrepancy may have
resulted from computer operating system constraints in the use of this software. Whereas Skype is available on
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 182
most major computer operating systems, Facetime is limited to users of Apple products (Google Hangouts
appears to be relatively unpopular in general, even though it is also cross-platform).
Beyond exploring the frequency that various communication technologies are used in LDRs, we were
specifically interested in whether one or more communication mediums would be associated with overall
relationship satisfaction and with communication satisfaction. As predicted, the use of the various
communication platforms was not uniformly associated with relational outcomes. Skype was the only medium
of communication that was positively associated with overall relationship satisfaction – this communication
medium was also most strongly associated with communication satisfaction, compared to all other mediums. It
is evident that Skype, compared to all other communication channels, is unique in its association with positive
relational outcomes in LDRs. Indeed, our ancillary mediation analysis revealed that Skype facilitated
relationship satisfaction by bolstering communication satisfaction. In other words, Skype use led to
communication satisfaction, which in turn evoked relationship satisfaction. Still, it is possible that rather than
Skype use increasing relationship satisfaction through communication satisfaction, satisfaction in these
domains leads to increased Skype usage between partners; alternatively, both causal directions could be in
operation. Further research is warranted to clarify these causal paths.
Our findings align with several theoretical perspectives. Supporting media richness theory (Daft & Lengel,
1986), participants who used Skype as a medium of communication had the opportunity to enrich their
interaction in a way that no other communication platform allows: in real time, with audio and visual support.
Skype allows partners to see each other, and can thus create a shared social presence between them, allowing
the benefit of both verbal and nonverbal cues for understanding. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suggest that
participants who used Skype frequently had the opportunity to accomplish their interaction goals with their long-
distance partners. That is, this shared presence could have given couples the ability to respond to body and
facial expressions (which aid in avoiding miscommunications that other channels may elicit), confront
relationship problems in a way that is productive (allowing opportunities to reflect and further explain individual
perspectives), and even sexually express themselves – all of which contribute to positive relational outcomes
(Janning et al., 2017; Neustaedter & Greenberg, 2012). Although not as rich as video chatting, exchanging
picture messages also allows for richer communication than mere words exchanged, such as in text messages.
Indeed, we did see that this channel predicted communication satisfaction, although not relationship
satisfaction, in LDR couples. Thus, in line with media richness theory, our results suggest that the use of richer
forms of interaction is associated with more positive outcomes for the relationship.
These channels’ “riches” also align with perspectives from social information processing theory. In other words,
seeing cues beyond mere words allows for greater abilities to exchange a wider array of social information,
from emotion to how one may appear that day. Finally, in the view of the hyperpersonal model of CMC, these
channels allow for further control of positive self-presentation, as persons may have sufficient time to get
themselves ready for a conversation or a quick picture to their significant other. Taken together, these three
theoretical perspectives capture unique aspects of the ways in which such channels of CMC may offer positive
effects to one’s relationship.
Another theoretical construct that can capture the positive effects of technological mediums of communication
on relationship satisfaction is Gardner et al.’s (2005) idea of social snacking. As noted in the introduction,
people can “snack” to fulfill their sense of belongingness even via small social cues. In LDRs, it is possible that
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 183
forms of communication such as text messaging, and especially video communication, can serve as viable
social snacks and facilitate closeness and satisfaction between the two members of a romantic couple. Thus,
the richness of the mediums of communication that members of a LDR can use (cf. Daft & Lengel, 1986) serve
as social snacks, perhaps to different degrees. A person may feel socially full after either a text message or a
video conversation, although the latter may lead to a larger alleviation of social hunger than the former. This
idea, however, warrants future investigation.
Our study was limited in its underrepresentation of couples who do not use Reddit. It may be possible that
those who are active on Reddit use internet-based communication channels (e.g., Facebook, instant
messaging) more frequently than long-distance partners who do not frequent the forum. Some Reddit users on
the long-distance forum may also be qualitatively different from other individuals in LDRs if they utilize the
forum to receive advice regarding their relationships. While our sample did hold these limitations, we believe
that it also affords our study a key strength, in that it allowed us to examine our questions with a sample of
those who not only use computers, but who are specifically in LDRs from many areas of the world.
It is also worth noting that we did not assess the reasons behind the geographical separation of the LDRs. It is
possible that factors behind being in a LDR, such as whether it is because the partners attend different colleges
or because they are separated due to work or military service, may affect the dynamics of communication and
their effects on the relationship itself. In addition, only a unidimensional measure of communication satisfaction
was implemented. While it was our intent to reduce the length of the survey for participants, future research
would benefit from utilizing a multidimensional measure of communication satisfaction, such as Hecht’s (1978)
communication satisfaction scale.
This study is only an initial step in learning more about LDRs in the modern technological age. Future research
should implement longitudinal methods to examine the variability in communication technology’s effects on
relationships, as well as any variables that may affect its influence on relational outcomes. An additional route
for future research is to examine communication technology’s effects on different types of relationships, such as
casual versus committed. It is possible that varying mediums of communication may be more important to
committed relationships that are characterized by investment (Rusbult, 1980). It is perhaps equally as important
to examine when communication technology may impede relationships. Research has already demonstrated
that the use of social networking can evoke jealousy (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). An interesting question for
future research is whether any specific type of communication, or a particular combination of channels, may
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 184
negatively affect a LDR. Finally, our sample consisted of individuals in relationships. Future work should employ
dyadic methods to examine both partners’ communications tactics and relational outcomes in pursuit of a more
in-depth, comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
Funding
The authors have no funding to report.
Competing Interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors have no support to report.
References
Anderson, T. L., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships.
Communication Studies, 57, 153-172. doi:10.1080/10510970600666834
Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A. D., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M.-C. (2007). Relational quality and media use in
interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 9, 735-752. doi:10.1177/1461444807080339
Boyle, A. M., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Staying connected: Computer-mediated and face-to-face communication in college
students’ dating relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 299-307.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0293
Brody, N. (2013). Absence—and mediated communication—makes the heart grow fonder: Clarifying the predictors of
satisfaction and commitment in long-distance friendships. Communication Research Reports, 30, 323-332.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2013.837388
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 185
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use
of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60, 150-162. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA,
USA: Sage.
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication channel use in the maintenance of longdistance relationships.
Communication Research Reports, 19, 118-129. doi:10.1080/08824090209384839
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32, 554-571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and
romantic satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 631-635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318
Fincham, F. D., Rogge, R., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Relationship satisfaction. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 579-594). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Firmin, M. W., Firmin, R. L., & Merical, K. L. (2013). Extended communication efforts involved with college long-distance
relationships. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6, 97-110. doi:10.19030/cier.v6i1.7608
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Knowles, M. L. (2005). Social snacking and shielding: Using social symbols, selves, and
surrogates in the service of belongingness needs. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel (Eds.), The social
outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 227-241). New York, NY, USA: Psychology Press.
Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality: Long-distance relationships as a test
case. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 313-320. doi:10.1177/0265407595122010
Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication satisfaction. Human
Communication Research, 4, 253-264. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00614.x
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98.
doi:10.2307/352430
Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 15, 137-142. doi:10.1177/0265407598151009
Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Advantages and disadvantages of technology in relationships: Findings from an open-
ended survey. Qualitative Report, 19, 1-11. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss11/2
Houser, M. L., Fleuriet, C., & Estrada, D. (2012). The cyber factor: An analysis of relational maintenance through the use of
computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 29, 34-43. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.639911
Janning, M., Gao, W., & Snyder, E. (2017). Constructing shared “space”: Meaningfulness in long-distance romantic
relationship communication formats. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0192513X17698726
Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-
distance relationships. Family Process, 52, 257-270. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Channels of Communication Technologies and Satisfaction 186
Kirk, A. (2013). The effect of newer communication technologies on relationship maintenance and satisfaction in long-
distance relationships. Pepperdine Journal of Communication Research, 1, 3-7. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/pjcr/vol1/iss1/2
Kirkpatrick, D. C. (2007). Predictors of relational satisfaction and intimacy in the computer-mediated communication of
romantic partners (Master’s thesis, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304861117
Kolozsvari, O. (2015). “Physically we are apart, mentally we are not”: Creating a shared space and a sense of belonging in
long-distance relationships. Qualitative Sociology Review, 11, 102-115. Retrieved from
http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/archive_eng.php
Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on satisfaction in romantic
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17-34. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.642263
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication
technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior,
29, 1771-1778. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019
Murray, C. E., & Campbell, E. C. (2015). The pleasures and perils of technology in intimate relationships. Journal of Couple
& Relationship Therapy, 14, 116-140. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.953651
Neustaedter, C., & Greenberg, S. (2012). Intimacy in long-distance relationships over video chat. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 753-762). doi:10.1145/2207676.2207785
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships. Marriage & Family
Review, 45, 697-716. doi:10.1080/01494920903224269
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication
Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 69, 576-593. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new operating system. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
doi:10.4018/jep.2013040106
Ramirez, A., Jr., & Broneck, K. (2009). “IM me”: Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 291-314. doi:10.1177/0265407509106719
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote
attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557-570. doi:10.1037/a0022885
Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. C. (2009). Long-distance and proximal romantic relationship satisfaction: Attachment and
closeness predictors. Journal of College Counseling, 12, 5-17. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2009.tb00036.x
Ruppel, E. K. (2015). Use of communication technologies in romantic relationships: Self-disclosure and the role of
relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 667-686. doi:10.1177/0265407514541075
Interpersona
2017, Vol. 11(2), 171–187
doi:10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Hampton, Rawlings, Treger, & Sprecher 187
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using technology to connect in romantic
relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 12, 314-338. doi:10.1080/15332691.2013.836051
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating
confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer Software]. Available from http://quantpsyc.org
Stafford, L. (2010). Geographic distance and communication during courtship. Communication Research, 37, 275-297.
doi:10.1177/0093650209356390
Stafford, L., & Hillyer, J. D. (2012). Information and communication technologies in personal relationships. The Review of
Communication, 12, 290-312. doi:10.1080/15358593.2012.685951
Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long-distance dating relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 37-54. doi:10.1177/0265407507072578
Stafford, L., & Reske, J. R. (1990). Idealization and communication in long-distance premarital relationships. Family
Relations, 39, 274-279. doi:10.2307/584871
Stewart, M. C., Dainton, M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Maintaining relationships on Facebook: Associations with uncertainty,
jealousy, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 27, 13-26. doi:10.1080/08934215.2013.845675
Toma, C. L., & Choi, M. (2015). Mobile media matters: Media use and relationship satisfaction among geographically close
dating couples. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social
Computing (pp. 394-404). doi:10.1145/2818048.2835204
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and
Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141-146. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time.
Organization Science, 6, 186-203. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.186
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. L.
Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th edition, pp. 443-479). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
Yang, C.-c., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of electronic intimacy in college
students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5-23. doi:10.1177/1461444812472486