Rules for Mediated Romance: A Digital Exploration of How Couples Negotiate Expectations Open Access

Abstract

Framed by expectancy violation theory, this study used joint interviews to explore why couples create communication rules for their technology use and what happens if the expectation is violated. Participants’ (n = 36) narratives were analyzed through four coding cycles: in vivo, initial, value, and focused coding. Interviews with romantic couples resulted in three themes: rules are performative, rules reduce conflict, and rules guide modality weaving. During an expectation violation, findings revealed that the magnitude of the violation is first determined by the violator defending their behavior. Then, based on the appraisal process, the couple reframes the rule to better work for their future interactions. Key findings conclude that rules are not rigid; they are fluid and develop naturally over time. This research adds to the literature about how mediated communication transforms the dynamics of romantic relationships as couples explicitly and implicitly create communication rules to help maintain their partnership.

It is now commonplace for committed romantic partners to navigate their relational communication through a mediated world. Many couples communicate with each other during the day through text messages, instant messages, social media posts, e-mail, and other mobile phone applications. Researchers can no longer discuss the inner workings of close interpersonal relationships without acknowledging that technology, and expectations for these mediated practices, are embedded into these partnerships. For example, suppose an individual frequently talks to their romantic partner via text messages when they are physically apart throughout the day. In that case, this practice becomes an element of their larger expectations for relational communication in that relationship. This study conceptualizes expectations as beliefs about a relational partner’s behavior; specifically, how people should behave based on social norms, previous knowledge about that individual’s behavior, and reoccurring relational patterns that surface over time (Burgoon & Jones, 1976).

Previous research discovered that integrating mediated communication and face-to-face communication in a close relationship positively relates to relational closeness and enhanced relational quality (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013). However, couple’s social norms for mediated communication differ from their established face-to-face communication patterns (Hertlein & Blumer, 2014; Miller-Ott et al., 2012). Social norms are defined as a shared understanding of informal and formal rules that guide social action and dictate what appropriate behavior to perform in a given context (McLaughlin & Vitak, 2012). Nevertheless, how couples construct and negotiate their social norms for their mediated communication is still unclear (Bryant & Marmo, 2012; Eden & Veksler, 2016; Hall et al., 2014; Miller-Ott et al., 2012).

Today, couples have a multi-modal relationship as technology becomes embedded further into a dyad’s relational communication practices (Eden & Veksler, 2016; Scissors & Gergle, 2013). Furthermore, individuals increasingly rely on mobile technology to facilitate continuous mediated contact and positive action in their multi-channel interactions (Murray & Campbell, 2015; Pettegrew & Day, 2015). However, these digital channels are not just vessels for the messages people send and receive; they are always on and always affecting interpersonal exchanges. There are still many unanswered questions regarding how expectations for technology use are established in romantic relationships. Therefore, this study fills the scholarly gap by investigating what types of rules couples adopt for their technology use and how they may negotiate these fluid guidelines for their computer-mediated communication (CMC).

This study defines communication rules as informal and formal relational guidelines that govern individuals’ behaviors in specific contexts (Baxter et al., 2001; Shimanoff, 1980). In other words, communication rules are a list of behaviors individuals should or should not perform that are born out of previously held relational expectations (e.g., an individual’s personal beliefs about the desired behavior). Hertlein and Twist (2019) add that relationships are often “defined and bounded by rules” (p. 193). Rules then serve as patterns of behavior that dictate what is “allowed, forbidden, and expected based on context and roles” (Hertlein & Twist, 2019, p. 193). Using the framework of expectancy violation theory (EVT; Burgoon, 1978), this study aims to explore romantic partners’ use of communication rules and how the pair negotiates perceived expectation violations as they consider technology’s place in their relationship.

Literature Review and Research Questions

Expectancy Violation Theory

First proposed by Burgoon (1978), EVT claims that social norms and idiosyncratic norms inform expectations. Social norms are general expectations individuals from the same culture share (Hall et al., 2014). For example, in modern-day romance, it is seen as inappropriate to break up with someone over a text message if the couple previously established they were monogamously dating (Miller, 2014), although Harrison et al. (2015) discovered that 26% of their participants performed this behavior even though they believed it was inappropriate. Researchers agree that no formal rules constitute digital etiquette; instead, rules are culturally driven and change based on individual needs and preferences (Duran et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2014; Harrison et al., 2015; Hertlein & Twist, 2019). Thus, social norms are understood simply as a more extensive behavioral guide, while idiosyncratic norms are unique to the relational pair.

For instance, if one person sends their partner a digital heart emoji in a romantic relationship, this could signal to them that they are thinking about them without the need to include the phrase, “I’m thinking about you.” This type of mediated nonverbal behavior may be expected in this specific relationship based on the shared understanding of this norm. However, if it is performed with other individuals, it may not communicate the same message. As a theory, EVT is a fruitful framework to study couples’ mediated expectations because how an individual reacts to a potential violation could influence their current and future relational talk. This study seeks to extend EVT to understand how violations are negotiated in dyadic communication as couples create formal and informal communication rules for their mediated interactions. In other words, this research fills the scholarly gap by discussing how rules are contextual, flexible, and simultaneously implicit and explicit.

The core features of EVT are expectancies, violation valence, and communicator reward value (Burgoon, 1978; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Together, these components predict how individuals will perceive and respond to behaviors that violate a pre-established rule. First, expectancies are defined as expected behavior based on the interactional context (i.e., setting), relationship type (e.g., the degree of closeness between the dyad), and an individual’s unique characteristics (e.g., gender identity, age, sexual orientation, communication style, past experiences, etc.). Expectations are sometimes based on general social norms but can also be established by the couple’s knowledge of each other, relational history, and observations of relational communication over time (Burgoon & Hale, 1988; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).

Second, violation valence refers to “the desirability (or undesirability) of a violating behavior” (Johnson et al., 2019, p. 266). That is, to what degree does an individual perceive the violated behavior as positive or negative? When a norm violation occurs, the witness tends to seek out an explanation from the violator and often imposes a judgment on the behavior (Hall et al., 2014). These behaviors are then evaluated based on the perceived violation valence. Miller-Ott and Kelly (2015) explain, “judgments of valence come from evaluating the actual behavior, determining how much it differs from expectations, and assessing whether the behavior is better or worse than what was expected” (p. 255). Norm violations can result in an unfavorable evaluation of the person who broke the rule, negatively impacting a couple’s relational satisfaction (Baxter et al., 2001; Miller-Ott et al., 2012) and perceptions of desirability (Johnson et al., 2019). Thus, EVT declares that individuals follow specific rules in certain situations to maintain a positive status within their relationship and to mitigate potential conflict. Lastly, communicator reward value is conceptualized as the total positive and negative attributes (e.g., relational satisfaction, partner knowledge, perceived similarity, and the type of feedback they have received in the past) plus the potential for positive or negative actions in the future (Burgoon, 1978, 2015). The reward value an individual assigns to their conversational partner will affect their expectations for that person and how they will judge a violation (Burgoon, 1978, 2015; Johnson et al., 2019; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015).

Communication Rules

Contemporary uses of EVT correlate with Shimanoff’s (1980) explanation of how interpersonal dyads use communication rules to regulate their interactions. These interactional rules are based on a shared belief and help coordinate social meaning (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014). According to Shimanoff, couples develop unique rules that they consciously and unconsciously follow; these “rules” relate to what EVT scholars call expectancies.

When examining EVT online, scholars must address the contextual variables that create social norms for digital behaviors (Bevan et al., 2014). For instance, the simple act of not responding to a text message right away may be viewed as a violation for some couples if this behavior was already an established communication rule for the dyad. However, this expectation may change if the couple considers it no longer needed or appropriate for their current situation (e.g., an individual’s new work environment does not allow mobile phone use; Duran et al., 2011). Therefore, some expectations are more static, while other expectations may be held on a condition-by-condition basis (Baxter et al., 2001; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015; Shimanoff, 1980), both of which affect the violation valence (Johnson et al., 2019).

Ultimately, this theoretical framework allows for expectations, violations, and responses to the violations to be visible while considering how expectations are co-constructed and negotiated when a violation occurs (Kelly et al., 2017; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015). Thus, this qualitative study seeks to add to the growing body of literature that uses EVT to examine the negotiations of technology use in romantic relationships (Bevan et al., 2014; Kelly et al., 2017; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2015; Pickens & Whiting, 2020). Next, the following section helps position the study’s research questions within the current scholarship on mobile technologies and romantic relational communication.

Technology Use in Romantic Relationships

Mobile communication technologies have reshaped social culture by providing users with the ability to communicate free from contextual constraints (Duran et al., 2011; Miller-Ott et al., 2012). Past research argues that mobile technology allows users to feel relationally connected (Billedo et al., 2015; Hampton et al., 2017; Hobbs et al., 2017; Murray & Campbell, 2015) and serves as an emotional resource (Duran et al., 2011; Hertlein & Chan, 2020; Jin & Peña, 2010; Pettigrew, 2009; Scissors & Gergle, 2013). The ability to send voice and text-based communication through mobile phones enable romantic partners to engage in flirtatious and joking behavior, idiosyncratic communication, and love messages even when they are physically separated (Billedo et al., 2015; Duran et al., 2011; Jin & Peña, 2010; Pettigrew, 2009). Furthermore, McEwan and Horn (2016) discovered that the desire to communicate through a text message compared to face-to-face communication or voice calls may allow the couple to sustain their relationship at a particular level that other channels do not offer. Overall, past research confirms that when an individual sends a text message to their romantic partner, it can help increase feelings of closeness (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013; Coyne et al., 2011; Duran et al., 2011; Jin & Peña, 2010; McEwan & Horn, 2016; Pettigrew, 2009) and it can be a useful administrative tool (e.g., used for reminders, arranging travel details, coordinating social plans, etc.; Harrison et al., 2015; Hertlein & Chan, 2020; McEwan & Horn, 2016; Murray & Campbell, 2015).

Furthermore, text messages increasingly include photographs, emojis, and other graphics that may heighten interpersonal connection and add to a couple’s relational satisfaction (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013; Duran et al., 2011; Hampton et al., 2017; McEwan & Horn, 2016; Pettigrew, 2009). Pettigrew (2009) discovered that over 50% of messages sent through mobile phones served primarily to maintain the relationship and promote feelings of connectedness between the pair. Pettigrew’s participants justified text messaging their partner more than calling as a way to converse, especially during times when voice conversations are taboo, such as in a movie theater or at work. Past research found that individuals develop strong ties with their relational partners through text messaging and mobile messages can play a role in how a couple develops unique communication patterns (Duran et al., 2011; Eden & Veksler, 2016; Jin & Peña, 2010; Pettigrew, 2009; Pickens & Whiting, 2020).

In contrast, there is also a dark side to the increased use of mobile technology in close interpersonal relationships. For instance, individuals reported that they are aware that some digital behavior is considered ‘rude’ in the presence of others; however, it is difficult for individuals to ignore an unread message no matter the context (Hall et al., 2014). In connection to EVT, Johnson et al. (2019) add that an expectancy violation occurs when individuals with no prior relationship to one another use their mobile phones when they are talking face-to-face. This behavior violates what the authors call “normal conversation behavior expectations” (Johnson et al., 2019, p. 270) and results in the violators being rated less desirable, thus negatively impacting the assessment of the pair’s face-to-face interaction.

Becoming distracted by technology is also referred to as phubbing (David & Roberts, 2021; McDaniel et al., 2021). Phubbing, known as phone snubbing, occurs when an individual is preoccupied with their phone while in the presence of another person (David & Roberts, 2021; McDaniel et al., 2021). David and Roberts (2021) discovered that partner phubbing could reduce overall relational satisfaction and increase feelings of romantic jealousy. Similarly, McDaniel et al. (2021) argue that the perceived distraction of technology use during ‘couple time’ results in feeling less satisfied with the time a couple spends together and thus can increase episodes of conflict. McDaniel and colleagues explain that the distraction caused by technology use during couple time can negatively impact relational quality.

With the ease of having mobile communication technologies within arm’s reach, an expectation to always be available to others has surfaced (Katz & Aakhus, 2002). According to Katz and Aakhus (2002), this increased connectivity allows individuals to rediscover their intimate partnerships yet can sometimes also be a source of relational conflict. McDaniel et al. (2021) argue that conflict may occur “when an individual perceives a mismatch between their own and their partner’s technology use” (p. 657). Therefore, creating communication rules may also mitigate potential conflict due to an ‘always-on’ expectation (Katz & Aakhus, 2002; Pickens & Whiting, 2020). Likewise, communication rules become necessary in dyadic relationships because they represent a set of behaviors that dyads agree to perform or avoid, which is believed to optimize interpersonal satisfaction in the existence of perpetual contact (Bryant & Marmo, 2012; Katz & Aakhus, 2002).

While previous research explores many facets of integrating mediated communication into relational life, there are gaps in the scholarship about how romantic pairs, individually and jointly, create communication rules surrounding their technology use. The place of technology in romantic relationships is quickly changing as new technologies and updated communication platforms enter these relational spaces and provide an opportunity for continual interaction. Therefore, this study aims to add to the social findings of EVT in two primary ways. First, by uncovering how couples negotiate their expectations for mediated communication. Second, by exploring how norm violations may impact the communication rules couples deem essential for their relationship. So, to add to this existing scholarship, the following research questions are advanced:

RQ1: What types of rules (explicit or implicit) do couples develop for their mediated communication?

RQ2: Why do couples create communication rules for their technology use?

RQ3: How do couples negotiate their communication rules during an expectation violation?

Methods

Procedure and Sample

The author conducted semi-structured interviews between November 2018 and July 2019 with 18 couples (n = 36) in committed romantic relationships. For this study, a committed romantic relationship was characterized as a monogamous relationship where individuals share an emotional, romantic, and potentially sexual connection; and both partners define their partnership as exclusive where they do not share a similar relationship with another person (Adams & Jones, 1997).

Following institutional review board approval, the author recruited participants for interviews in three ways. First, a recruitment message was posted to a public Facebook page created for this research study. Second, a flyer was posted on public announcement boards at a large Midwestern university to reach a broader audience that may not be online. Last, snowball sampling encouraged participants to tell other eligible couples about this study. This recruitment continued until data saturation was reached and there was enough data for rich analysis. Saturation occurs when no new information is obtained during the data collection and analysis process (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018; Morse, 1995). Although data saturation was reached after the 16^th couple, two more dyads were interviewed to ensure data comprehensiveness (a procedure similar to Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018). Interviews concluded after the 18th couple when no new data was added (Morse, 1995).

All participants received an informed consent form and were provided a short demographic questionnaire (e.g., What is your age or age range? What is your gender identity? How do you define your relationship status?) returned to the author prior to scheduling the joint interview. Each semi-structured interview took approximately 30-to-60 minutes, with an average length of 42.37 minutes. All interviews were audio-recorded and conducted in-person (n = 15), over the phone (n = 1), or online through Skype (n = 2). The sample for this study consisted of individuals 19–42 years old, with an average age of 31-years-old. Couples self-identified as straight (n = 16) or gay (n = 2), with reported relationship lengths ranging from six months to 22 years, with an average of 6.14 years. Couples reported their relationship status as married (n = 7), engaged (n = 3), living together (n = 4), and dating (n = 4; see Appendix for more details).

Semi-Structured Interviews

The goal of the semi-structured joint interview was to encourage the couple to tell stories about their use of technology in their relationship and discuss how they negotiate their expectations for mediated communication. Sample interview questions included: (Q1) What expectations, if any, do you and your partner have about your use of technology in your relationship? (Q2) Are there specific topics you cannot discuss over digital communication channels? (Q3) Can you tell me a story about a time your digital communication made you feel more connected (or supported) in your relationship? Additionally, the interview guide included probe questions after each initial question to inquire about the different aspects of the discussion. Sample probe questions included: (Probe Q1) Can you tell me a story about how you expect to use technology (e.g., smartphone devices, computers, social media platforms, text messaging, etc.) when you are both physically together? Can you give me an example of how you expect to communicate through technology when you are apart? How have these expectations evolved as your relationship developed? (Probe Q2) How do these expectations of ‘off limit’ topics vary over your digital channels (i.e., text message, social media, e-mail, etc.)? (Probe Q3) Why did this message elicit feelings of connection? When was it in your relationship that you started to send messages like this through technology that made you feel closer? Was this a practice that continued as your relationship developed? [If yes, why was this important to continue? If no, why did you discontinue this behavior?]

By adopting joint interviews for this study, the author compared individual experiences, perceptions, and narratives about the couple’s mediated communication (a procedure similar to Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018). Interviewing couples together provided rich data about the dyad’s experiences and technology preferences more directly (Scissors & Gergle, 2013) while uncovering when their accounts differed. Ultimately, joint interviewers offered a unique landscape to understand the phenomenon of mediated expectations from the couple’s perspective while simultaneously allowing the researcher to observe the interaction between the dyad unfold in real-time.

Data Analysis

Audio recordings from the joint interviews were transcribed with Otter.ai after each interview. Then transcripts were imported into MAXQDA, a qualitative software program, for coding and analysis. Data analysis included four steps. The first step involved repeatedly reading each interview transcript and creating codes from the participant's words (In vivo Coding; Saldaña, 2013). After each interview transcript was imported into MAXQDA, the author reviewed each transcript and applied in vivo coding to create initial categories in the data. In vivo coding was used as a descriptive form of coding to become familiar with each participant’s language and perspectives about their digital communication practices.

Second, the author used initial coding to start thinking about the data from a higher theoretical perspective (Saldaña, 2013). During this second phase, initial codes were divided into distinct parts derived from a larger interpretation of participants’ narratives and closely examined based on past interpersonal scholarship. The author used MAXQDA to organize the data and create thematic folders to store interview segments and field notes. This process enabled the author to begin to reflect on the nuances of the data by breaking the data down into distinct categories based on similarities and differences (Saldaña, 2013).

Third, the author utilized value coding to reflect on participants’ beliefs and attitudes surrounding their digital communication practices (Saldaña, 2013). During this analysis stage, the author relied on MAXQDA to help develop a thematic, conceptual, and theoretical organization of the first cycle codes (Saldaña, 2013). Finally, the author adopted focused coding to “search for the most frequent and significant initial codes” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 155). During this data analysis stage, the author used MAXQDA to create boundaries around the coded segments, which helped label and categorize final thematic codes. This second-level coding method provided the major themes for this study and revealed data that “crystallized participant’s experiences” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 54).

Lastly, the author used respondent validation to increase the rigor of this qualitative investigation and add to the validity of this study (Birt et al., 2016); specifically, each participant was individually e-mailed copies of their final interview transcript as a form of member-checking. The author asked each respondent to check and confirm the accuracy of their accounts to ensure the interview data used for coding resonated with the participant's relational experiences and opinions—a procedure frequently adopted in previous research to combat potential researcher bias (see Birt et al., 2016; Carlson, 2010; Maxwell, 1992). Member checking occurred after all interview data were collected and transcribed, and initial themes emerged (a procedure similar to Carlson, 2010). In the end, the author’s interpretation of the interview data was a reconstruction of the participants’ accounts. Maxwell (1992) explains that a member check can also help the researcher “construct what these objects, events, and behaviors mean to the people engaged in and with them” (p. 288, emphasis in original).

Results

The purpose of this study was to understand how couples create and negotiate their communication rules for technology use. Interviews with 18 couples revealed that all dyads identified rules that evolve through direct communication (i.e., explicit rules) and observations of each other’s communication styles (i.e., implicit rules). Thus, the first contribution of this research is an explication of explicit and implicit rules when it comes to mediated communication.

Research Question One

In response to RQ1, this study identifies explicit rules as expectations about digital communication practices that the couple directly discusses with one another. Throughout the data, there were several instances where couples unanimously agreed that they had a specific conversation surrounding their expectations for technology use and digital communication with one another. For instance, Kristen and Brad¹ (Couple # 16) recently started a long-distance relationship (LDR) after two years of living close to one another. The example below reflects the explicit nature of their conversations leading up to this LDR:

Brad: Well, we’ve had a lot of discussion about how we want to communicate.

Kristen:  Yes, but not enough ((laughs)) I think that because we are in a long distance relationship, we are attached to our phones as it is the only connection to one another. This means that our phones are a huge part of our lives, time, and bodies when we are apart.

Brad:  Yeah, it is always on me, always on ringer. But when we are together, we are rarely on our phones at all.

Kirsten:  ((nodding)) I don’t think I would use my phone nearly as much if we weren’t in a long distance relationship.

As close relationships evolve, dyads continually reflect on communicating in these intimate partnerships. Here Kristen agrees with Brad’s comment that they have recently had more direct conversations about their communication practices. However, she signals that these discussions about their communication habits need to be ongoing, especially now that they are in a LDR. Kristen and Brad point to the fact that their patterns of communication with one another had to change due to their LDR status, which creates a need for more explicit rules to revolve around their mediated communication. It appears that this explicit dialogue helps maintain the relationship day-to-day but is also never finished.

The participants in this study who are in LDRs compared to geographically close partnerships discuss technology’s role in their relationship differently since long-distance couples have less opportunity for in-person interaction; technology plays a more prominent role in their everyday communication. As a result, LDR couples rely more heavily on technology to perform their relational actions. Therefore, they appeared to discuss the creation of explicit communication rules more often than other participants who live nearby (or with) their romantic partner.

Next, implicit rules are defined as behaviors that evolve naturally over time without a need to be directly communicated. Results reveal that couples begin to form these implicit expectations after an action is repeatedly performed a certain way without objection from one or both members of the dyad. In a sense, implicit rules are the behind-the-scenes expectations that frame a couple’s interactions. There are many instances where couples discussed the natural progression of their communicative practices and media use throughout these interviews. For instance, Chester and Steve (Couple # 2) said:

Chester:  I think it’s just one of those things we’ve never had to really set any sort of ground rules, it’s just kind of evolved over time and I think that the more comfortable we’ve become with one another the more comfortable we’ve gotten with communication, ya know, using different modalities.

Steve:  Yeah, I don’t think we have real rules. I think that over time we just kind of matched one another’s communication style.

This example illustrates how implicit rules surface in romantic relationships as couples adapt to each other’s communication styles. Together, they develop unsaid, implied assumptions about communicating digitally and using technology in their relationship. In this instance, Couple # 2 acknowledges that rules develop naturally over time. Steve even describes them as not “real rules”; instead, implicit rules are conceptualized as unsaid expectations. Likewise, when asked about expectations for digital communication, Kayla (Couple # 15) had a similar response:

Kayla:  Yeah, no rules. We’re very transparent with each other when it comes to cell phone use. No rules of engagement have ever needed to be set.

For Couple # 15, it appears that most of their expectations for their digital practices are implicit, and for this couple, rules may only emerge out of necessity. However, similar to previous research, this couple may not recognize that they have rules because they have not labeled them as such (see Duran et al., 2011); instead, their mediated expectations are implicit.

Upon further analysis, relationship length seems to impact the amount of explicit versus implicit rules couples create. Results reveal that couples who date for the least amount of time (under one year) have fewer conversations about explicit rules. Instead, the expectations discussed during their interview tend to align more often with socially driven rules. For instance, the dialogue between Katherine and Justin (dating for seven months) illustrates this point:

Justin:  I don’t think we’ve ever explicitly discussed

Katherine:((shakes her head no)) I mean so we haven’t had a specific conversation with one another about, well I think maybe without saying it we don’t spend a lot of time while we are with one another on the phone communicating with other people.

Justin:  Yeah I don’t think so. Part of that is because it’s rude, you don’t want to do that but I try and keep … I try to minimize how much I use my phone when we’re together

Katherine:  Right, we try to minimize being elsewhere because I feel like we …. It’s just like a boundary I have personally and I think Justin too

Justin:  Yeah, it’s a general thing like if I’m out with friends I would try not to have my phone out, it’s just rude.

Katherine:  Exactly, so I guess that is a rule. But we haven’t had to say anything about it because it is also social etiquette.

Here Katherine and Justin acknowledge that they follow a larger social norm about minimizing phone use when they are together, so there was no need to explicitly set up communication rules for this behavior. Instead, this was an implicit expectation they each adopted, which was born out of their media use habits. In comparison, other couples that report longer relationship lengths (e.g., 4+ years) reference more instances of explicit dialogue about their technology use because these couples declare a “need” to discuss how they want to best weave technology into their relational communication practices. Perhaps as relationships develop, couples have more opportunities to engage in explicit conversations about their mediated communication.

This study concludes that couples adopt explicit and implicit communication rules to navigate their multi-modal relationship. So, what is the difference between these two categorizations—explicitly and implicitly created rules? Explicit rules emerged from previous conflicts, frustrations, or unwanted behavior (Baxter et al., 2001; Shimanoff, 1980). One member of the pair tries to perform a particular behavior or communicate a certain way in a digital channel, which sparks an argument or overall feeling of discomfort, frustration, or annoyance. For example, Grace and Rachel (Couple # 12) describe an explicit decision they made about putting their mobile phones screen side down or closing laptops when the pair is having a face-to-face conversation:

Rachel:  If I am trying to have a conversation with Grace when she is on the phone reading something or whatever she is absorbed into it and I think I got my message across but in reality it didn’t get across so there ends up being miscommunication and I get so annoyed because I am like ‘I told you this’ but in reality she didn’t really hear me.

Grace:  Yeah, that was the cause of a lot of fights, ya know? Rachel has been getting annoyed with me when I’m at home checking work e-mails, and we’re trying to talk about what’s for dinner or our daughter’s schedule for the week and she’s like ‘put it away, put it away, disconnect’ ((laughs)). So, I think when you’re on your phone it’s not that obvious to the other person that you’re really into your phone and you’re not paying attention. It’s like they are physically in the room, so they should be able to hear me, and we just start saying, “ya know this happened blah blah blah” and not realizing the other person is really involved in their device.

Rachel:  Exactly, so we decided that for the first hour when we get home from work, and we are recapping our day or trying to make a plan, we will physically turn the devices over, put them on do not disturb, and such so we can give each other our attention.

Grace:  Yeah, so that is now a rule ((laughs)) for the time being. It seems silly, but it has stopped the miscommunication and annoyed feelings, for the most part ((laughs))

This example demonstrates what is common for many couples interviewed for this study. Due to feeling annoyed or frustrated by a pre-established behavior, the couple creates an explicit rule to mitigate potential conflict in the future. Based on the findings for RQ1, it appears that explicit rules are circumstantial. However, if explicit rules are violated (as demonstrated in the analysis of RQ3), individuals reframe the rule to better fit the couple’s dynamics at that moment. In the end, valence judgments come from an underlying assessment of the type of rule that was violated (e.g., explicit rules—what couples deem as “real rules”—compared to implicit rules), which guides how much importance is assigned by the pair.

Research Question Two

The second research question explores why couples create communication rules for their technology use. Results reveal that couples co-produce communication rules for three primary reasons: first, to aid in interpersonal performance as couples navigate their relational activity through a mediated landscape (i.e., rules are performative). Second, to mitigate potential conflict episodes as their relational communication stretches across multiple channels, or what McEwan (2021) refers to as modality weaving (i.e., rules reduce conflict). Third, to establish expectations for navigating their mixed-media relationship (i.e., rules guide modality weaving). Each of these are essential areas to address when it comes to the use of CMC and the maintenance of contemporary romance.

Rules Are Performative

The first theme to emerge in this study is that rules are performative. All couples identified explicit rules that evolved through direct communication about their technology use. These explicit rules affected how they communicate with their partner based on observations of each other’s communication styles. Some of the explicit expectations couples reported emerged from a request to match the other person’s unique communication preferences. For example, Couple # 1 explained that Brooke asked Connor to “create a bitmoji to send through [their] text messages.” A bitmoji is a personal emoji a user can develop and send through an application (e.g., text message, Snapchat, etc.). These cartoon avatars help users express different moods and extend a couple’s ability to communicate nonverbally in a digital setting. This example of an explicit practice grew out of one partner’s request for the other to partake in a specific digital behavior. For Brooke and Connor, the simple act of including a bitmoji in their text-based communication becomes part of their performance of relational activities (e.g., communicating effectively, adding humor to their dialogue, and offering social support). As Brooke explained, “Connor’s bitmoji makes me smile, and he knows when I need that, especially when I’m stressed at work.” Thus, with the explicit request to create a bitmoji character, the couple acknowledges that this is now part of their everyday expected mediated communication.

Likewise, Katherine and Justin (Couple # 11) reported a similar request in their relationship:

Justin:  Initially, I didn’t know what a bitmoji was and then I saw this character that looked eerily like Katherine and I eventually asked, ‘where are you getting these?’

Katherine:  Yeah, and then I asked him to make one, so we could use them in our texts.

Justin:  Right, and now I have my own bitmoji character in this thing I didn’t even know existed before

Katherine:  ((laughing)) and it looks just like you.

For Couple # 1 and Couple # 11, a bitmoji is now part of their expectations for their text message content because of an explicit conversation around this practice. When placed into their text-based communication, it becomes a performance of humor and relational connection.

Similarly, part of relational performance surrounding technology use speaks to the idea of an always-available culture created by mobile devices. Previous research discovered a culturally driven social norm that dictates a quick response time to text messages since this is viewed as an instantaneous way to communicate (Coyne et al., 2011; Duran et al., 2011; Hertlein & Chan, 2020). However, this study adds that couples adjust their expectations to match their unique preferences for what is seen as appropriate. A longer response time than expected based on societal norms will not cause conflict between the pair, as long as there is an explicit or implicit understanding about what constitutes a “reasonable amount of time” for returning a message. For example, Jennifer (Couple # 6) explains:

Jennifer:  When we were dating I got really upset because he didn’t answer my text messages and phone calls when he was out with his buddies. So, I think that’s how we came to the conclusion that we will always try to get back to each other in a reasonable amount of time.

For this couple, their communication rule about response time emerged out of a previous argument and serves as a way to acknowledge that text messages should be answered as soon as possible. However, the couple’s definition of a “reasonable amount of time” fluctuated as their relationship status changed, they moved states away from their family and friends, and had children. Again, creating this communication rule becomes part of their relational performance. The importance of the rule is not to assign a specific time for when a response should be received, but rather a couple’s expectation to respond in an appropriate amount of time can mitigate feelings of anxiety and frustration, and adds to relational characteristics like commitment and trust. This point is illustrated as Charles and Jennifer continue to talk about their rules surrounding response time:

Charles:  Yeah the expectation for how quickly I text back has changed. Now it’s like, I’m not texting back because I’m at work.

Jennifer:  And if I don’t text him back it’s because I am dealing with this crazy kid over here.

Charles:  ((laughs)) right, so the expectation still exists it just adjusted

Jennifer:  Exactly. Because we’ve gained trust in each other and we know those messages become a priority when we can get to them.

Charles:  And we’re married boring old people now ((laughs)) there is no more game playing

This example references what happens in many partnerships; the way a couple incorporates expectations for mediated communication changes due to their relationship’s natural ebbs and flows. To summarize, the first significant theme visible in these data is that rules are performative and dynamic. Couples continuously need to adjust their digital communication to align with their communicative tendencies and relationship needs. Couples create explicit and implicit communication rules for their technology use as a way to perform different relational activities that extend across their in-person and mediated interactions.

Rules Reduce Conflict

The second theme to transpire is that rules reduce conflict. Similar to past research findings, most communication rules emerged from previous conflict or unwanted behavior (Baxter et al., 2001; Pickens & Whiting, 2020; Shimanoff, 1980). Therefore, in this study, relational conflict was a source of communication rule construction. These findings demonstrate that after relational partners get into an argument, one way to mitigate this tension is to set-up communication rules for future interactions. For example, the dialogue between Penelope and Samuel (Couple # 4) illustrates how communication rules materialize after a quarrel:

Penelope:  We’ve been in a long-distance relationship before while we were dating and that didn’t go very well because we were not communicating well via our phones.

Samuel:  Really? You didn’t enjoy the fights and hanging up like conversations

Penelope:  No ((laughs)) I did not

Samuel:  What? ((laughs))

Penelope:  So, given that, we’ve learned some really harsh lessons and the fact that we were so used to being with each other, when we went long distance just the idea that we had to make time to call each other made us make rules.

Samuel:  Yeah, so it is now you call x times, I’ll call y times or you know just like Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So it’d be Monday, I’ll call her. Tuesday, she’ll call and so on.

In this example, Penelope and Samuel recount past hardships, and since their LDR did not go well the first time, they created specific rules to help combat the tension before starting their current LDR. Also, the couple uses humor to discuss these past problems when Samuel says sarcastically, “really, you didn’t enjoy the fights and hanging up like conversations.” Throughout the interviews, dyads continually use humor as a tactic when reflecting on previous disagreements in front of a third party. In the example above, with Samuel’s comment and the couple’s joint laughter, the dyad uses humor to try and make light of the situation as they describe a previous source of tension in their relationship. Penelope explained that since LDRs rely on mobile phones and other digital communication channels more than geographically close couples, it was vital for them to set up clear rules. Kristen and Brad (Couple # 16) also shared a similar need for explicit rules surrounding their long-distance communication and expected phone behavior. Kristen explained:

Kristen:  I often want to be on my phone less, and therefore talk to Brad less, and that hurts him. It’s not part of my personality to be on my phone all the time, but I still want to uphold the communication of a ‘normal’ relationship even though we are long distance. So we had to lay out what we expect from each other.

For Couple # 16, their expectations for availability and their individual relationship to their phone had to change when they started their LDR. After conflict emerged about the phone's role in their lives due to their long-distance status, the couple created an explicit rule that their phones had to “always be on ringer.”

Two areas of conflict surfaced during the joint interviews that couples seemed to unanimously agree resulted in the creation of communication rules after the conflict episode. First, for long-distance and geographically close couples, the mere act of mindless phone behavior was identified as a significant source of conflict. This act forced couples to create explicit rules for mobile phone usage when they were physically together. For example, Couple # 6 states:

Charles:  When we get home we’re both always on our phones, we’re bad about it, there has been a couple nights where we’re like ‘alright we are taking both of our phones and putting them upstairs’ because we’re just constantly, one of us is doing it and the other one just gets on.

Jennifer:  Right, so now we have a rule that after the kids go to bed the phones stay upstairs.

On the other hand, many couples also implicitly mentioned expectations surrounding mindless technology practices. For instance, Daniel and Mia (Couple # 10) demonstrate the implicit nature of this rule to avoid feeling annoyed by their partner’s needless media use:

Daniel:  I don’t know, I feel like when we’re on our devices, like when she’s on Instagram that annoys me the most if we’re doing an activity together. She tunes me out when she’s on her phone.

Mia:  I don’t just do it with that. I do it when I’m involved in anything. It’s a result of having so many siblings. It’s a skill ((laughs)). But yeah, I guess Instagram is a waste of time ((laughs)) sorry.

These negative feelings towards mindless technology use relate to McDaniel’s (2015) discussion of technoference, defined as “times when technological devices intrude, interrupt, and/or get in the way of couple or family communication and interactions in everyday life” (p. 228). McDaniel suggests that as we become more entrenched in a digital world, individuals need to thoughtfully discuss technology use with family members and romantic partners. Similarly, some of the mindless phone behavior addressed in the examples above relates to Spencer and colleagues’ (2017) conceptualization of problematic media use (e.g., feeling ignored, frustrated, or perceiving your partner prioritizes technology over your interaction). In line with previous research, this study also argues that it is crucial to set up clear expectations for mobile phone behavior in close interpersonal relationships to combat perceived phone snubbing or what researchers call phubbing (David & Roberts, 2021).

In addition, couples develop idiosyncratic codes for unwanted technology use. For example, Couple # 17 explains:

Joy:  So, we don’t have rules set in place but it’s casual, like the “eye” we give each other a little look and then we put our phones down.

Rick:  Or we say like ‘Facebook Facebook’ every time, like if she’s on the phone, I’ll say ‘Facebook Facebook’ and she’s like “alright”

Joy:  ((laughs)) yeah, we have our code words.

Here Joy and Rick have set up an implicit expectation for a particular nonverbal message (i.e., “the eye”) or use code words to signal it is time for devices to be put away. For Couple # 17, this becomes an expectation for limiting technology use during their quality time at home. Like other couples interviewed (Couple # 2, Couple # 5, Couple # 6, and Couple # 12), individuals develop unique codes to signal that technology use should end because it is time to be present. For Joy and Rick, these idiosyncratic messages help mitigate a potential argument around mindless technology use.

The second common area of conflict for couples discussing their mediated communication practices revolved around what channel was deemed appropriate for certain types of conversations. In other words, results revealed that digital channels do not replace face-to-face interactions. Many participants reported that ‘real conversations’ should be held in person rather than through digital channels, if possible. However, ‘real conversations’ mean different things to different couples; a few agree that this is a rule they created based on past conversations about digital communication practices and how to navigate a multi-modal relationship. For instance, Couple # 14 defines ‘real conversations’ in the transcript below:

Melissa:  One rule we set up is if it’s a real conversation then it needs to be had in-person to some extent.

Interviewer  What do you mean by “real conversation”?

George:  Like if it has any bearing on us actually as a couple we need to have that in- person because I just won’t be able, I will end up being short and I just won’t

Melissa:  And I get

George:  Pissed

Melissa:  Yeah, like frustrated

George:  Yeah

Melissa:  Because we’re not giving as much information as we would in-person and that creates a pretty big barrier.

Melissa and George touch on the notion that digital channels may be viewed as supplementary to face-to-face conversations, especially when the topic holds some weight on the relationship. Therefore, an explicit rule was created in their relationship not to have arguments through text messages. This example is comparable to Mia and Daniel’s (Couple # 10) discussion about avoiding fights over a text message:

Mia:  We don’t fight over text message

Daniel:  Yeah

Mia:  That’s a real rule ((laughs)). We specifically had to have that conversation because of one

Daniel:  Yeah because I was the genius ((laughs)) who said

Mia:  We were having a conversation that way

Daniel:  Turning into a real fight

Mia:  Right, we were having a conversation that was turning into an argument

Daniel:  And I said I can only have an argument with you in real life and then I stopped responding

Mia:  ((laughing))

Daniel:  And it was fine and now we don’t fight over text.

Mia jokes that this is a “real rule” in their relationship, an expectation that emerged from a previous conflict and is now part of their explicit communication expectations. Ultimately, the second central theme discovered that rules reduce relational conflict, and help couples manage future conflict episodes.

Rules Guide Modality Weaving

The third prominent theme to emerge is that rules guide modality weaving.McEwan (2021) explains that modality weaving goes beyond a simple “switch from one modality to another, but rather [relational partners] engage in weaving multiple modalities throughout their relational communication” (p. 1). This study supports the idea of modality weaving as joint interviews revealed how couples layer together their various computer-mediated channels with in-person interactions into their relational communication. In addition to couples creating explicit and implicit communication rules for their mediated behaviors, interviews uncovered that co-communicators fluidly weave their interactions throughout different channels. In other words, each platform (e.g., text message, e-mail, instant message, social media posts, etc.) comes with different motivations for exchanging messages, and partners weave together a multitude of communication channels to support their various relational functions. Particularly, modality weaving is common and provides an accurate understanding of the multi-layered dialogue couples engage in throughout their relationship.

Results revealed that dyads create implicit rules about moving from one channel to another. For instance, Couple # 16 uses text messages in the morning to send a “good morning” text, and then they move on to Snapchat to share videos and images from their day. Finally, they coordinate when to FaceTime later that evening during a quick phone call between classes. The couple follows an unsaid expectation for when and how to communicate through the different communication channels available. Also, couples use different mediated channels to signal the level of importance of their message. In the transcript below, Anna (Couple # 5) explains how a phone call signals immediacy for her message:

Anna:  I expect that if I call Nick and leave him a voicemail that he needs to call me back ASAP. Like he needs to call me back before he gets home, and I guess there’s never been an instance where my expectation was not satisfied.

Furthermore, Matthew (Couple # 9) illustrates a similar expectation for his multi-modal relationship with Betty:

Matthew:  If I’m at work and she calls me it’s usually something pretty important that needs to be addressed right away. And the text is like she doesn’t know when I will see it or when I will be able to answer back.

In both of these examples, each participant illustrates that a phone call signals the message holds more importance and, therefore, requires an immediate response. In contrast, a text message is viewed as a message where a longer response time is acceptable. The various channels used between the pair hold a different significance about the urgency for the sender's message and paints an implicit expectation for response time.

Likewise, all couples agreed that no topic is off-limits in a text message. Individuals feel like they can discuss anything in their text messages with one another; this is viewed as an intimate channel of communication and an extension of their face-to-face interactions. Therefore, all participants agreed that they could freely move from discussing a topic in person (or over the phone) to a text message. For instance, Charlotte (Couple # 3) says, “I share anything that comes to mind through a text message. There are no topics that are forbidden.”

Sensitive topics were unanimously explained as “ok” to initiate over a text message; if the conversation starts to escalate into an argument, an explicit expectation emerges signaling the dyad should call one another or wait to talk in person. Specifically, it appears that the type of topic (i.e., a sensitive topic versus making plans) warrants a different expectation about what channel is most appropriate to use. Katherine (Couple # 11) states:

Katherine:  If the criteria for good news is extra special I guess I would like to hear about that in-person or over the phone. But if it’s like ‘oh can we have tacos for dinner?’ That’s good news that can come via text ya know.

The type of content changes the perception of whether the content is suitable for a mediated channel or reserved for in-person. Eleven of the couples interviewed agreed that their relational communication unfolds across various channels; primary reasons for modality weaving include avoiding conflict escalation, adjusting to partner preferences, managing emotions, or even clearing up a misunderstanding. For example, Penelope (Couple # 4) states:

Penelope:  Even if we started arguing over text and one of us feels like it’s escalating or the other person is completely misreading the tone then we will just be like ‘can we talk about this over the phone?’

Sometimes text-based methods do not provide the same clarity as a voice-based message. However, for other couples, modality weaving is less about the specific topic that requires a change in the channel used and more about a personal preference to limit digital communication in general. For instance, Couple # 5 says:

Anna:  I like to use technology for task-related conversations, but I would rather talk face-to-face and will limit my communication with Nick via technology if given the option.

Nick:  Yeah, but you’ve always been like that, which is fine.

For Couple # 5, this implicit rule of limiting the majority of their digital communication stems from Anna’s individual preferences for technology, which have bled over into her and Nick’s relational communication when it comes to using technology as a whole. In the end, this study found that internalized communication rules are often unique to relational pairs and materialize differently depending on the context. Thus, this third central theme reveals that another function of creating communication rules is for couples to successfully navigate multiple channels and media platforms based on their communication goals.

Research Question Three

The third research question asked about how couples negotiate their communication rules during an expectation violation. Results revealed that dyads develop relational expectations to successfully navigate through their multiple layers of mediated communication. When expectations are not met, couples appear to individually or jointly assess the severity of the violation. Then a rationale from the violator for breaking the rule is presented, which impacts the violation valence. Based on the violation’s importance—in other words, what impact the couple deems the violation to have on their relationship, future interactions, and perceptions of the other person—the couple will reframe the rule.

To begin, the first step in the negotiation process for an expectation violation is justification from the violator. When an expectation violation occurs, an individual’s rationale for the violated behavior appears to mitigate the adverse reaction from their romantic partner. For example, Edward (Couple # 8) provides a reason for breaking one of the couple’s explicit communication rules:

Marie:  One very explicit rule is that if Edward is coming home from work or band practice late like after 1:00 am he needs to text me and let me know so I don’t wait up or wake up at 2:00 am and worry. But a lot of the times he forgets and doesn’t do it.

Edward:  Yeah, that is a rule, but I forget sometimes. It’s not intentional.

Marie:  I know, but it has caused a lot of fights

Edward:  Yeah … but you know I get distracted and then I hop on my bike and I realize while I’m biking, ‘shit I forgot to text Marie’ but I’ll be home in 10 minutes anyways so

Marie:  Yeah I know

Edward:  But now you follow me on Find Friends so I don’t need to text

Marie:  That’s true, but that’s a recent thing.

Edward:  Right, yeah… I’m sorry I make you worry babe

Marie:  You could be dead on the side of the road for all I know ((laughs))

Edward:  If I was I wouldn’t be able to text anyway ((laughs))

Marie:  Well that’s dark

Edward:  You love me

Marie:  I do ((laughs))

Edward:  ((turns towards interviewer)) I guess I need to be better about texting ((laughs))

Marie:  He is getting better

During this conversation, Edward defended his behavior by justifying to his partner, Marie, why the couple’s rule was violated. The explanation appears to lessen the violation magnitude since, towards the end of the dialogue, both participants laugh, and Edward says, “you love me,” while Marie agrees. During this back and forth exchange between Edward and Marie, the appraisal process for the expectation violation is filtered through the violator’s justification for why he broke this rule. Similarly, Pickens and Whiting (2020) found defending behavior to be a prominent theme when couples discussed their technology-related issues. This rationale for violating an expectation is vital for helping couples determine the severity of the violation magnitude.

For instance, Couple # 1 also reveals an expectation violation, and after the violator defends her behavior, the importance of the violation is reduced:

Brooke:  No phone at the dinner table, especially when we’re out. That is a rule we’ve had from the beginning.

Connor:  Yeah, but you break that sometimes

Brooke:  Well, only if I am on the phone and I am trying to finish a conversation as we are walking into a restaurant … it’s hard since all my friends and family live out of state and in a different time zone, and sometimes it can go a little long.

Connor:  Yeah, I know. It’s not really a big deal. We are pretty good about that rule.

Brooke:  Yeah, no phone at the dinner table … we try ((laughs))

During Connor and Brooke's discussion about breaking the “no phone at the dinner table” rule, Brooke defends her behavior by explaining how this only occurs when she finishes a phone conversation with family or friends who live far away. This example shows how context is a significant factor in determining if the violation is deemed more or less important and thus predicted the magnitude of the violation. Connor determines the rule violation as “not a big deal,” and although it is viewed as undesirable behavior, the violation does not result in an unfavorable evaluation of the person who broke the rule.

Furthermore, couples acknowledged the potential to recreate any violated communication rules that do not appear to work for their current relational environment. For example, response time was recognized as an implicit expectation that is often violated in several interviews collected for this study. Charlotte (Couple # 3) demonstrates how the expectation for acceptable response time between text messages was reframed in their relationship when Brandon appeared to violate the social norm of quickly replying to a message:

Charlotte:  When we first started dating, you weren’t really a phone person, and you’re still not really a phone person, but I would wait a loooong time for a response

Brandon:  I’m so bad

Charlotte:  He wasn’t very good about responding or anything, so I now expect a two-hour wait once I send him a text message

Brandon:  Yeah ((laughs))

Charlotte:  It’s like I better get one in now because I’ll be waiting all night to hear from you ((laughs))

Brandon:  Yeah, but I feel like I’ve definitely gotten quite a bit better at it ((laughs)) I mean I get to work and I put my phone down so it’s like I disappear for a couple hours at a time and then I’m like oh shit I haven’t had my phone on me for like 3 hours … I try

Charlotte:  Yeah he responds … a lot more now.

For Couple # 3, their rules for response time are influenced by their learned behavior about each other’s technology practices. Additionally, Brandon offers a rationale for breaking this social norm by explaining how he gets to work and does not have access to his phone. In this example, Charlotte says that she now “expects a two-hour wait,” and she uses humor to mitigate Brandon’s violation of a larger social norm (e.g., text messages are a quick form of communication and require an equally speedy response). Then, Brandon attempts to save face when he chimes in that he “has gotten quite a bit better” now. This statement demonstrates to Charlotte (and the interviewer) that he has shifted his behavior. Charlotte continues to describe that this expectation was created at the very beginning of their relationship, and because of this, there are no major conflicts surrounding response time for their digital messages.

This “response time” violation enabled the couple to create their own idiosyncratic rule for the behavior. Now the violation is not perceived as negative since Brandon’s longer response time is a part of their implicit communication rules. As demonstrated by Charlotte and Brandon, and aligning with EVT scholars, violating a rule can also lead to the renegotiation of a couple’s communication behaviors. Since relationships are dynamic, just like a couple’s previously formed expectations, the pair must adjust to each other’s preferences and communication styles to maintain the relationship at a satisfying level.

Similarly, seven other couples interviewed share the same sentiment about response time expectations and how they are modified based on individual technology preferences and work schedules. For example, Betty (Couple # 9) says:

Betty:  I let him know I can’t get to the phone for like 4 hours or whatever if I’m at work because I know I get really worried when he doesn’t respond for a super long time so we started giving each other a heads up if we will be away from our phones.

These examples illustrate that context is key when it comes to what is deemed an appropriate length of time to reply to a digital message. Some couples incorporate a verbal explanation if they deviate from expected appropriate behavior and, like Betty, often construct implicit rules for their actions based on their preferred way to communicate.

One key finding to emerge under this study’s third research question is that rules are not rigid; they are fluid and develop naturally over time. Penelope’s (Couple # 4) comment nicely illustrates the fluidity of communication rules:

Penelope:  When I was in Chicago and I had one of those big assignments coming up he never said ya know you’re not sticking to the rules or you’re not calling me on these dates. He kind of just understood it and I think in that way it has made me feel more connected to him. Like when you’re with each other you can see those unsaid moments and feel the unsaid understandings, but when you’re apart for a person to just understand, I mean I know he doesn’t like it but he kind of gets the idea that I have a deadline and I’m just not in the mind space to talk to him.

The participant reflects on a time when she had to break an explicit rule she and Samuel created when they started their LDR. Contrary to what EVT proposes, this violation is not viewed negatively and does not cause conflict in their relationship because Samuel “understands” the shifting nature of their communication rules. Upon examining mediated communication through the lens of EVT, context and an individual’s reason for technology use are significant predictors of the expectations couples set for one another and the direction of valence if the expectation is violated. Therefore, this study adds to the scholarship that the process of responding to a rule violation is fluid and transforms along with the couple’s dynamic in their relationship.

Discussion

To review, the purpose of this study was to explore why couples create communication rules for their technology use and what happens if the expectation is violated. First, key findings reveal that communication rules serve three central purposes: (a) rules become part of the couple’s relational performance. (b) Rules offer a strategy for conflict management. (c) Rules help navigate modality weaving as couples explore how to best incorporate technology into their daily interactions. Second, this study concludes that when expectations are not met, the magnitude of the violation is first determined by the violator defending their behavior. Then, couples either move on from the violation, and the defender claims they will avoid violating that behavior again in the future, or the couple reframes the rule to better work for their future interactions; thus, concluding that communication rules are fluid and change with the relationship. Finally, this study found that although couples create explicit rules surrounding their technology use, many of them rely more heavily on implicit rules to help navigate their multi-modal relationship. This discovery is similar to past research that determined implicit rules were the predominant way expectations were constructed in close relationships (Hertlein & Twist, 2019; Pickens & Whiting, 2020).

Ultimately, two fundamental results surfaced when coding for an explicit mention of communication rules. First, it was hard for couples to identify specific rules or expectations for digital communication in their relationships. Since it takes communication to uncover relational expectations, it is unusual for individuals to reflect on their communicative behaviors, which is why the couples interviewed mentioned more implicit rules. Shimanoff (1980) explains that people often do not notice that communication rules have been established in their relationships until one is violated. Breaking a rule draws attention to the fact that there was a previously held expectation. Second, couples in a LDR had the most frequent examples of explicit communication rules during their interviews. Burgoon (2015) argues that dyads constantly renegotiate their relational expectations, especially during shifting relational milestones (i.e., beginning a LDR when the couple is used to living in the same location); therefore, this study adds to this finding from previous research.

Furthermore, this study declares that implicit rules are recognized as invisible forms of expectations that evolve during relationships. Even if the individual does not call them “rules,” all couples discussed expectations that were created implicitly (i.e., through observed personal behavior and general social norms). Overall, communication rules come and go as individuals evolve their unique communication practices and the couple shifts through different relational milestones. Sometimes implicit rules are never acknowledged in the relationship and simply reflect an individual’s unique communication preferences or underlying wishes for using technology in their romantic relationship. Other times an implicit rule may morph into an explicit rule when asked about it from a third party. This discussion forces the couple to reflect on their communication practices and why they may prioritize certain expected behaviors over others.

The findings from this study build upon the theoretical contribution of EVT by further expanding the framework outside the field of nonverbal communication and into the study of mediated communication. Also, this study’s theoretical contribution adds to the literature about people’s response to unexpected violations of communication rules when it comes to their mediated practices. The idea of modality weaving present in contemporary relational communication, along with the fluidity of communication rule construction, encourages scholars to move past labeling a perceived violation as positive or negative. Instead, there is a need to expand this dichotomy and look more closely at additional relational factors (like context, relationship type, relational history, and communication preference) to fully understand the impact of expectation violations in interpersonal literature. By examining how people negotiate technology use in their close relationships, scholars can obtain a more nuanced understanding of how couples manage violations of social and relational expectations as the courtship unfolds. In the end, it appears that not all expectation violations are viewed as significant. With some additional communication between the couple (i.e., justifying behavior and reframing the rule), a violation does not necessarily induce a negative evaluation of the person who broke the rule.

Future Research

To continue and expand the social findings of EVT, future researchers should consider exploring violations in more detail to better understand why some rules cause negative violations while others do not. Perhaps questions for future investigations should be: What predicts the weight of a rule violation (in other words, if it will cause conflict or be ignored)? When does the severity of the violation lead to more considerable relational consequences? How do individuals negotiate communication rules in ways that support their partner and the health of their relationship while also honoring their expectations in the process?

Additional research is also needed to investigate how the creation of communication rules, and potential violation of these relational expectations, impact feelings of relational closeness and relational satisfaction. Incorporating a longitudinal study design can help uncover the impact of expectation violations on the communication reward value, which can provide a more nuanced understanding of EVT in romantic relationships, further exposing how violation valence may influence relational closeness and satisfaction over time. Likewise, a longitudinal research design is also necessary to fully capture the potential effects of modality weaving for relational partners. Finally, Hertlein and Twist (2019) explain that relational roles relate to the structure of the relationship and power dynamics that emerge, all of which influence current and future behaviors. Therefore, future investigations can continue to bridge the study of relational communication with media studies by exploring how relationship roles influence the creation and negotiation of communication rules surrounding technology use in romantic relationships.

To end, this study adds to the scholarship that communication rules come and go as the individuals in the relationship change and evolve their communication practices. Individuals are constantly navigating social norms, and this requires negotiation. Rules are not rigid; they are fluid and develop naturally over time, just like close relationships. The rules co-constructed by the dyad appear in the everyday situations they experience throughout their courtship. Mobile technologies make the rules process tangible and remind us that explicit and implicit rules are flexible, contextual, and help couples reduce conflict.

Data Availability

The data underlying this article are available in the article as participant quotes. The rest of the data (e.g., full transcripts) are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Footnotes

References

Appendix

Participant Demographics