Maggie Franke

COMM 301

MWF 11:35-12:45

Dr. Langan

Media Multiplexity and More

Communication theories have evolved and changed as years have past, and Caroline

Haythornthwaite’s media multiplexity theory is a representation of one of the most recent

additions to the field. With the emergence of computers, email, and social media, communicating

has looked quite different for this generation than for ones in the past, as it always does. As

technology advances, communication does as well. While the theory is fairly new, there are

many aspects of it that are backed by research data and a copious amount of ways that theorists

can and are expanding on this theory. On its own though, media multiplexity theory represents

the amount to which our understanding of relationships has needed to adjust thanks to the influx

of innovative media forms.

Media multiplexity was a new theory addition to the 10th edition of A First Look at

Communication Theory, and is highly applicable to society today. Based in cybernetics and

socio-psychological traditions, Caroline Haythornthwaite was influenced heavily by

psychological research on strong and weak ties (Griffin, E. 2018). Haythornthwaite then

expanded upon these ideas about social groups, and her theory focuses on the idea

communicative information is more determined by the strength of the relationship (tie strength)

than by the medium (Griffin, E. 2018). Also, Haythornthwaite argues that the influence of group

norms on media usage is significant while changes, positive or negative, in the variety of media

usage has a stronger impact on weaker ties (Griffin, E. 2018). In short, this summary of media
 Franke 1

multiplexity theory wraps up the majority of the information presented in A First Look at

Communication Theory.

The theory itself is based in the socio-psychological tradition. While A First Look at

Communication Theory touches on Mark Granovetter’s 1973 research in the chapter covering

media multiplexity theory, Haythornthwaite did not necessarily include a large portion of

Granovetter’s socio-psychological theory. Granovetter’s research revealed that strong ties are no

better than weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). If anything, Granovetter unearthed an unknown reality

that weak ties are essential to communities and social life (Granovetter, 1973). While

Haythornthwaite does not necessarily make this statement, her theoretical points do parallel with

the broader revelation of Granovetter’s work debunking the myth that strong ties are “better

than” weak ties. Haythornwaite’s theory is not a critical theory, and, therefore, her own opinions

on strong and weak ties are mostly left out. Also being based in the cybernetics tradition, media

multiplexity then affirms that communication is a means to which information is processed.

This theory has been tested quite a bit in recent years thanks to its popularity and

relevance to modern society and culture. Studies about media usage impacting relationships have

become increasingly common as different media forms emerge or are invented. One of the busy

theorists in recent years has been Dr. Andrew Ledbetter of Texas Christian University; the

majority of published studies that analyze media multiplexity theory were led by or had

contributions from Ledbetter. While media multiplexity focuses heavily on relationship ties,

Ledbetter found that Haythornthwaite’s research was relatively one-dimensional. In 2010,

Ledbetter researched how relationship ties, emphasized in media multiplexity, and message

content both have an impact on the quality of friendship influence (Ledbetter, 2010). Focusing

on an aspect called control mutuality, an ideal of Ledbetter’s relationships, Ledbetter’s findings

 Franke 2

in this study of more than 400 individuals, coincided with Haythornthwaite’s theory because

media usage predicted better control mutuality. However, Haythornwaite does not give message

content as much as Ledbetter found it deserved in that study. In 2009, Ledbetter studied how

media use and multiplexity influenced same-sax friendships and his findings once again

coincided with Haythornthwaite’s original theories (Ledbetter, 2009). Media use and

multiplexity consistently predicted friendship interdependence, except for postal mail and email.

Haythornwaite did not clarify in her theory that certain media forms, as technology advances,

might be inherently less valuable to a relationship than others. She made the assumption and

hypothesis that all media forms have the same value; what matters more is the number of them.

There are other studies that Dr. Ledbetter did not organize that coincide with media multiplexity

theory as well. For example, first-year college students that maintained long distance friendships

via phone call and text message were closer than friends that shared only one of those media

forms (Ruppel, 2017). Here, Haythornwaite’s claims are supported again: multiple media forms

are representative of a stronger tie and fewer media forms are representative of a weaker tie. In

2011, another study found that the amount media usage was weakly related to relational

solidarity (Miczo, 2011). Repeated again, but to a lesser extent, is Haythornwaite’s correlation

claim between relationship ties and media usage. While studies time and time again back up

Haythornthwaite’s claims, theorists are aiming to expand upon her theory as well.

While Haythornthwaite’s primary driving factor in her theory is the strength of the

relationship tie, there are many other factors that also influence whether or not media

multiplexity and usage will maintain a relationship. Ledbetter organized a study in 2011 that

focused on how a person’s attitude toward online self-disclosure and online social connection

impacted communication frequency and relationship closeness via Facebook friends (Ledbetter
 Franke 3

2011). Haythornthwaite’s theory does not delve into this idea, and the expansion on media

multiplexity is important to its credibility. “This pattern of results supports our chief contention

that OSC [online social connection] is a healthy, communicatively competent motivation for

using online communication; however, motivation arising from OSD [online self-disclosure] is

associated with negative relational outcomes,” (Ledbetter, 2011). Here, social penetration theory

seems to add a layer onto media multiplexity by emphasizing the importance of self-disclosure

and being comfortable with self-disclosing over that medium. Haythornwaite does not touch on

this question. What if one partner values communicating online but the other partner does not?

Will that relationship maintain its strong tie or will the difference of opinion about that

communication medium have an effect on the relationship itself? This study opened the door on

this specific missing aspect of media multiplexity theory, but there will most likely be many

other theories that evaluate how social penetration theory as theorists seek to expand on it.

Haythornthwaite’s broad statement that group norms determine media usage could also

be more specific and does not focus on the impact of culture on media usage and then on

relationships. Familial relationships that are limited in media usage across international borders

were not inhibited by that lack of media usage (Barakji, 2018). While this does coincide with

Haythornwaite’s theory that strong ties are less affected by changes in media usage,

Haythornwaite did clarify how it might be difficult for two partners from different cultures to

communicate via media forms that are significant to them. The previously mentioned study

found that culture can also have a large effect on media usage even if that media usage difference

does not affect the relationship. Besides culture, people might have different perspectives about

media forms because of religion, race, socio-economic status, sex, gender, and even their

location. By gender specifically, different gendered people are more or less likely to use various
 Franke 4

forms of media. Ledbetter found in 2009 that there were strict gender differences; for example,

women enjoyed more intimate forms of communication (Ledbetter, 2009). While this study

might not have debunked any major areas of media multiplexity, it does clarify that there are

other parts of human existence that impact media usage and its effect on relationships.

Despite being a concise theory, media multiplexity has a lot of applications to the lives of

communicators living in today’s world. These conversation and questions will be studied thanks

to the conversation that Haythornthwaite started in 2005. As it is expanded on, studied,

researched, tested and developed, media multiplexity theory could very well be something that

non-communication students and scholars will read about because they live it out every day

unknowingly. While papers could go on and on about various ways that this theory needs to

change or evolve as time goes on, the truth about media multiplexity theory is that in a few years,

it might look totally different. The theory will probably end up being one of the more lengthy

theories in A First Look at Communication Theory’s 12th or 13th edition because the research is

happening right now. For the sake of media multiplexity right now, it is best to leave the door

open to let more media forms and studies add to it in the future.
 Franke 5

Works Cited

Barakji, F., Maguire, K. C., Reiss, H., Gaule, J., Smith, N., Pelliccio, L., … Oshagan, H.

(2018). Cultural and Transnational Influences on the Use of Information Communication

Technologies in Adult Long-Distance Family Relationships: An Extension of Media

Multiplexity Theory. Journal of Family Communication, 0(0), 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2018.1530675

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology,

78(6), 1360–1380.

Griffin, E. (n.d.). A first look at communication theory (10th ed.). Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Patterns of media use and multiplexity: associations with sex,

geographic distance and friendship interdependence. New Media & Society, 11(7), 1187–1208.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342057

Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). Content- and medium-specific decomposition of friendship

relational maintenance: Integrating equity and media multiplexity approaches. Journal of Social

& Personal Relationships, 27(7), 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510376254

Ledbetter, A. M., & Mazer, J. P. (2014). Do online communication attitudes mitigate the

association between Facebook use and relational interdependence? An extension of media

multiplexity theory. New Media & Society, 16(5), 806–822.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813495159

Ledbetter, A. M., Taylor, S. H., & Mazer, J. P. (2016). Enjoyment fosters media use

frequency and determines its relational outcomes: Toward a synthesis of uses and gratifications

theory and media multiplexity theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 149–157.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.053
 Franke 6

Miczo, N., Mariani, T., & Donahue, C. (2011). The Strength of Strong Ties: Media

Multiplexity, Communication Motives, and the Maintenance of Geographically Close

Friendships. Communication Reports, 24(1), 12–24.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2011.555322

Ruppel, E. K., Burke, T. J., & Cherney, M. R. (2018). Channel complementarity and

multiplexity in long-distance friends’ patterns of communication technology use. New Media &

Society, 20(4), 1564–1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817699995

Search Results. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2018, from

http://journals.sagepub.com/action/doSearch?

field1=Title&text1=attitudes+toward+online+social+connection+and+self-

disclosure+as+predictors+of+facebook+communication+and+relational+closeness&Ppub=&Ppu

b=&AfterYear=&BeforeYear=&access=

Search results | Taylor & Francis Online. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2018, from

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?

AllField=cultural+and+transnational+influences+on+the+use+of+information+communication+t

echnologies+in+adult+long-distance+family+relationships

%3A+an+extension+of+media+multiplexity+theory&

Taylor, S. H., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2017). Extending media multiplexity theory to the

extended family: Communication satisfaction and tie strength as moderators of violations of

media use expectations. New Media & Society, 19(9), 1369–1387.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816638458
Franke 7