4 Rules For Mediated Romance A Digital Exploration 2021

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
FULL-LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE
Rules for Mediated Romance: A Digital

Exploration of How Couples Negotiate
Expectations
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Jamie Foster Campbell
Communication Department, University of Illinois Chicago, 1007 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
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 vio-
lated. Participants’ (n ¼ 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 vio-
lation, 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 im-
plicitly create communication rules to help maintain their partnership.
Lay Summary
This qualitative investigation examines how couples create and negotiate their communication
rules for technology use. Through interviews with 18 couples in committed romantic relation-
ships, this study found 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. Additionally, when one member breaks an established communication
rule, the couple often reframes the rule to better work for their future interactions. This study dis-
covered 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. Mobile technologies make the rules process tangible and remind us that
communication rules are flexible, contextual, and help couples reduce conflict.
Corresponding author: Jamie Foster Campbell; e-mail: jfoste2@uic.edu

Associate Editor: Jeffrey Boase; Received: 29 July 2021; Revisions received: 8 February 2022; Accepted: 13 March 2022.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 V C The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press 1
on behalf of International Communication Association. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Communication Rules J. Foster Campbell
Keywords: Computer-Mediated Communication, Communication Rules, Romantic Relationships,

Expectancy Violation Theory, Relational Communication
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac007
It is now commonplace for committed romantic partners to navigate their relational communica-
tion 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 relation-
ships 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 com-
munication in a close relationship positively relates to relational closeness and enhanced rela-
tional 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 in-
formal 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 negoti-
ate 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 unan-
swered questions regarding how expectations for technology use are established in romantic relation-
ships. 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 gov-
ern 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
2 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

J. Foster Campbell Communication Rules
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 some-
one 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 behav-
ior 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 prefer-
ences (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 communi-
cation rules for their mediated interactions. In other words, this research fills the scholarly gap by dis-
cussing 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, nega-
tively impacting a couple’s relational satisfaction (Baxter et al., 2001; Miller-Ott et al., 2012) and per-
ceptions of desirability (Johnson et al., 2019). Thus, EVT declares that individuals follow specific rules
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 3

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 attrib-
utes (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 af-
fect 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, cou-
ples 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 ro-
mantic 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 re-
search 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 re-
source (Duran et al., 2011; Hertlein & Chan, 2020; Jin & Pe~ na, 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 & Pe~ na,
2010; Pettigrew, 2009). Furthermore, McEwan and Horn (2016) discovered that the desire to commu-
nicate 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 &

Pe~na, 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 par-

ticipants justified text messaging their partner more than calling as a way to converse, especially dur-
ing 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 & Pe~ na, 2010; Pettigrew, 2009; Pickens & Whiting, 2020).
In contrast, there is also a dark side to the increased use of mobile technology in close interper-
sonal 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 un-
read 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 vio-
lators 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 preoccu-
pied 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 rela-
tional 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 col-
leagues explain that the distraction caused by technology use during couple time can negatively im-
pact 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 be-
come 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 rela-
tional 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 relation-
ships is quickly changing as new technologies and updated communication platforms enter these rela-
tional 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 ¼ 36) in committed romantic relationships. For this study, a committed romantic relation-
ship was characterized as a monogamous relationship where individuals share an emotional, roman-
tic, 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 re-
search study. Second, a flyer was posted on public announcement boards at a large Midwestern uni-
versity 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 satu-
ration was reached and there was enough data for rich analysis. Saturation occurs when no new infor-
mation is obtained during the data collection and analysis process (Mavhandu-Mudzusi, 2018; Morse,
1995). Although data saturation was reached after the 16th 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 ques-
tionnaire (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 ¼ 15), over the phone (n ¼ 1), or on-
line through Skype (n ¼ 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 ¼ 16) or gay (n ¼ 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 ¼ 7), engaged (n ¼ 3), living together (n ¼ 4),
and dating (n ¼ 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 expecta-
tions 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 contin-
ued 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, percep-
tions, 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; Salda~ na, 2013). After each interview
transcript was imported into MAXQDA, the author reviewed each transcript and applied in vivo cod-
ing 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 (Salda~ na, 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 in-
terpersonal 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 differ-
ences (Salda~ na, 2013).
Third, the author utilized value coding to reflect on participants’ beliefs and attitudes surrounding
their digital communication practices (Salda~ na, 2013). During this analysis stage, the author relied on
MAXQDA to help develop a thematic, conceptual, and theoretical organization of the first cycle codes
(Salda~na, 2013). Finally, the author adopted focused coding to “search for the most frequent and sig-
nificant initial codes” (Salda~ na, 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 interpreta-

tion 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 rela-
tionship, we are attached to our phones as it is the only connection to one an-
other. 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 part-
nerships. Here Kristen agrees with Brad’s comment that they have recently had more direct conversa-
tions 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 oppor-
tunity for in-person interaction; technology plays a more prominent role in their everyday communi-
cation. 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 interac-
tions. There are many instances where couples discussed the natural progression of their communica-
tive 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 com-
fortable 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 com-
municating digitally and using technology in their relationship. In this instance, Couple # 2 acknowl-
edges 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., 4þ 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 prac-
tices. Perhaps as relationships develop, couples have more opportunities to engage in explicit conver-
sations 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—explic-
itly 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 mis-
communication 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 re-
ally into your phone and you’re not paying attention. It’s like they are physi-
cally 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 miti-
gate 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), indi-
viduals reframe the rule to better fit the couple’s dynamics at that moment. In the end, valence judg-

ments 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 land-
scape (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 af-
fected how they communicate with their partner based on observations of each other’s communica-
tion 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 non-
verbally 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 instanta-
neous 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 con-
flict 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 mes-
sages 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 argu-
ment 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 sta-
tus 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 dy-
namic. Couples continuously need to adjust their digital communication to align with their communi-
cative 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 inter-
actions. For example, the dialogue between Penelope and Samuel (Couple # 4) illustrates how com-
munication 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 rela-
tionship. 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 tech-
nology use with family members and romantic partners. Similarly, some of the mindless phone be-
havior 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 technol-
ogy 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 per-
ceived 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 cou-
ples 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 prac-
tices 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 par-
ticipants reported that ‘real conversations’ should be held in person rather than through digital chan-
nels, 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-per-
son 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 mes-
sages. 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 be-
cause 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 previ-
ous conflict and is now part of their explicit communication expectations. Ultimately, the second cen-
tral 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 [rela-
tional 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 mes-
sage, 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 un-
said 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 mes-
sage. 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 relation-
ship 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 expec-
tation 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 mes-
sage. There are no topics that are forbidden.”
Sensitive topics were unanimously explained as “ok” to initiate over a text message; if the conver-
sation 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 din-
ner?’ 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 com-
munication unfolds across various channels; primary reasons for modality weaving include avoiding

conflict escalation, adjusting to partner preferences, managing emotions, or even clearing up a misun-
derstanding. 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 rela-
tional 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 navi-
gate through their multiple layers of mediated communication. When expectations are not met, cou-
ples 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 viola-
tion’s importance—in other words, what impact the couple deems the violation to have on their rela-
tionship, 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 any-
ways 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 expec-
tation 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 dis-
cussed 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 cou-
ple 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 state-
ment 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 behav-
ior. 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 schol-
ars, violating a rule can also lead to the renegotiation of a couple’s communication behaviors. Since rela-
tionships 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 expecta-
tions 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 de-
viate 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, con-
text and an individual’s reason for technology use are significant predictors of the expectations cou-

ples 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 tech-
nology 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 expect-
ations are not met, the magnitude of the violation is first determined by the violator defending their be-
havior. 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 interac-
tions; 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 simi-
lar to past research that determined implicit rules were the predominant way expectations were con-
structed in close relationships (Hertlein & Twist, 2019; Pickens & Whiting, 2020).
Ultimately, two fundamental results surfaced when coding for an explicit mention of communica-
tion rules. First, it was hard for couples to identify specific rules or expectations for digital communi-
cation 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 inter-
viewed 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 rela-
tional milestones (i.e., beginning a LDR when the couple is used to living in the same location); there-
fore, this study adds to this finding from previous research.
Furthermore, this study declares that implicit rules are recognized as invisible forms of expecta-
tions that evolve during relationships. Even if the individual does not call them “rules,” all couples dis-
cussed 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 commu-
nication 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 communi-
cation 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 commu-
nication. 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 com-

munication rule construction, encourages scholars to move past labeling a perceived violation as posi-
tive 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 un-
derstanding 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 vio-
lation 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 rela-
tional 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 rela-
tional satisfaction. Incorporating a longitudinal study design can help uncover the impact of expecta-
tion violations on the communication reward value, which can provide a more nuanced
understanding of EVT in romantic relationships, further exposing how violation valence may influ-
ence 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 ex-
ploring how relationship roles influence the creation and negotiation of communication rules sur-
rounding technology use in romantic relationships.
To end, this study adds to the scholarship that communication rules come and go as the individu-
als 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 cou-
ples 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 com-
promise 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.
Note
1. Throughout this article, couple numbers and pseudonyms are used to maintain the confidential-
ity of the participants; these correspond to demographic information presented in the Appendix.
References
Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An integrative
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1177–1196. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.72.5.1177
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network
members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0265407501182002
Bevan, J. L., Ang, P., & Fearns, J. B. (2014). Being unfriended on Facebook: An application of expec-
tancy violation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.
2014.01.029
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship
maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance
trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Bryant, E. M., & Marmo, J. (2012). The rules of Facebook friendship: A two-stage examination of inter-
action rules in close, casual, and acquaintance friendships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 29(8), 1013–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512443616
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial
test. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.
tb00603.x
Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The
International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and applica-
tion to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637758809376158
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their viola-
tions. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.
tb00706.x
Carlson, J. A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15, 1102–1113.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1332

Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close rela-
tionships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of
Communication, 63(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
SAGE.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
David, M. E., & Roberts, J. A. (2021). Investigating the impact of partner phubbing on romantic jeal-
ousy and relationship satisfaction: The moderating role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521996454
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the dialectic
of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/01463373.2011.541336
Eden, J., & Veksler, A. E. (2016). Relational maintenance in the digital age: Implicit rules and multiple
modalities. Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.
1103279
Hall, J. A., Baym, N. K., & Miltner, K. M. (2014). Put down that phone and talk to me: Understanding
the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships. Mobile Media &
Communication, 2(2), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157913517684
Hampton, A. J., Rawlings, J., Treger, S., & Sprecher, S. (2017). Channels of computer-mediated com-
munication and satisfaction in long-distance relationships. Interpersona: An International Journal
on Personal Relationships, 11(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v11i2.273
Harrison, M. A., Bealing, C. E., & Salley, J. M. (2015). 2 TXT or not 2 TXT: College students’ reports of
when text messaging is social breach. The Social Science Journal, 52(2), 188–194. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.soscij.2015.02.005
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2014). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate rela-
tionships in a digital age. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203081815
Hertlein, K. M., & Chan, D. (2020). The rationale behind texting, videoconferencing, and mobile
phones in couple relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 56(8), 739–763. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01494929.2020.1737624
Hertlein, K. M., & Twist, M. L. (2019). Strengthening roles, rules, and boundaries. In The Internet fam-
ily: Technology in couple and family relationships (pp. 191–200). Routledge. http:
//doi.org/10.4324/9781351103404-8
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital
transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1440783316662718

Jin, B., & Pe~na, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, rela-
tional uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment style. Communication Reports, 23(1), 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934211003598742
Johnson, T. J., Kaiser, M. Y., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Social and cognitive effects of smartphone use in
face-to-face verbal interactions. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 24(4), 265–273. https://
doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN24.4.265
Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. (2002). Conclusion: Meaning making of mobiles - A theory of Apparatgeist. In J.
E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance

(pp. 301–320). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489471.023
Kelly, L., Miller-Ott, A. E., & Duran, R. L. (2017). Sports scores and intimate moments: An expectancy
violations theory approach to partner cell phone behaviors in adult romantic relationships.
Western Journal of Communication, 81(5) 619–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.
1299206
Mavhandu-Mudzusi, A. H. (2018). The couple interview as a method of collecting data in interpreta-
tive phenomenological analysis studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750994
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review,
62(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.3.8323320856251826
McDaniel, B. T. (2015). “Technoference”: Everyday intrusions and interruptions of technology in cou-
ple and family relationships. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the age of digital and
social media (pp. 228–244). Peter Lang Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1668-1
McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., & Drouin, M. (2021). Daily technoference, technology use during
couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychology, 24(5), 637–665. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15213269.2020.1783561
McEwan, B. (2021). Modality switching to modality weaving: Updating theoretical perspectives for
expanding media affordances. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1880958
McEwan, B., & Horn, D. (2016). ILY & can u pick up some milk: Effects of relational maintenance via
text messaging on relational satisfaction and closeness in dating partners. Southern
Communication Journal, 81(3), 168–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2016.1165728
McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2012). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society,
14, 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412712
Miller, A. (2014, April). Digital heartbreak: Psychologists are finding that how romance blooms and
withers is different in the digital age. American Psychological Association – GradPSYCH Magazine.
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2014/04/digital-heartbreak.aspx
Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interac-
tions: An expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80(4), 253–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2015.1055371
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(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01463373.2012.642263
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147–149. https://
doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201
Murray, C. E., & Campbell, E. C. (2015). The pleasures and perils of technology in intimate relation-
ships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 14, 116–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.
2014.953651

Pettegrew, L. S., & Day, C. (2015). Smart phones and mediated relationships: The changing face of rela-
tional communication. Review of Communication, 15(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15358593.2015.1044018
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships.
Marriage and Family Review, 45(6–8), 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920903224269
Pickens, J. C., & Whiting, J. B. (2020). Tech talk: Analyzing the negotiations and rules around technol-
ogy use in intimate relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 42, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10591-019-09522-9

Roggensack, K. E., & Sillars, A. (2014). Agreement and understanding about honesty and deception
rules in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 178–199.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513489914
Salda~na, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publication Ltd.
Scissors, L. E., & Gergle, D. (2013). Back and forth, back and forth: Channel switching in romantic cou-
ple conflict. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San
Antonio, TX, pp. 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441804
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules theory and research. Sage Publication Ltd.
Spencer, T. A., Lambertsen, A., Hubler, D. S., & Burr, B. K. (2017). Assessing the mediating effect of re-
lationship dynamics between perceptions of problematic media use and relationship satisfaction.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 39, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9407-0

Appendix
Participant Demographics
Identifier Gender and Relationship Length of How the Couple Met

Age Status Relationship
Couple # 1 M, 31; F, 28 Married 5 years The male was the female’s

dog walker.
Couple # 2 M, 26; M, 27 Dating and 1.5 years Through mutual friends.
cohabitating
Couple # 3 M, 28; F, 29 Dating and not 6 months At work, the male was a
cohabitating customer at the restaurant
the female manages.
Couple # 4 M, 31; F, 34 Married; LDR 8 years At work
Couple # 5 M, 42; F, 40 Married 6 years Through mutual friends
Couple # 6 M, 33; F, 31 Married 4 years Online (Match.com)
Couple # 7 M, 31; F, 32 Married 8 years Through mutual friends
Couple # 8 M, 33; F, 35 Engaged 8 years Through mutual friends
Couple # 9 M, 19; F, 20 Dating 4 years Through mutual friends
Couple # 10 M, 34; F, 31 Dating and 4 years Through mutual friends
cohabitating
Couple # 11 M, 29; F, 32 Dating 7 months Online (Coffee Meets Bagel)
Couple # 12 F, 36; F, 34 Married 7 years At school (college)
Couple # 13 M, 32; F, 31 Dating and 5 years At work
cohabitating
Couple # 14 M, 33; F, 30 Engaged 9 years Pre-season Football game
Couple # 15 M, 37; F, 37 Married 22 years At school (high school)
Couple # 16 M, 20; F, 20 Dating; LDR 3 years At school (high school)
Couple # 17 M, 39 ; F, 37 Engaged 4.5 years Online (Match.com)
Couple # 18 M, 26 ; F, 28 Dating and 4 years Through mutual friends
cohabitating

4 Rules For Mediated Romance A Digital Exploration 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

4 Rules For Mediated Romance A Digital Exploration 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Rules For Mediated Romance A Digital Exploration 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

FULL-LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE

Rules for Mediated Romance: A Digital

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Corresponding author: Jamie Foster Campbell; e-mail: jfoste2@uic.edu

Keywords: Computer-Mediated Communication, Communication Rules, Romantic Relationships,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

2 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Literature Review and Research Questions

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Technology Use in Romantic Relationships

4 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 5

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Procedure and Sample

6 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 7

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Research Question One

8 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 9

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

10 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Research Question Two

Rules Are Performative

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 11

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

12 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Rules Reduce Conflict

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 13

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

14 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Rules Guide Modality Weaving

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 15

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

16 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Research Question Three

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 17

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

18 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 19

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

20 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26 21

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/27/3/zmac007/6567657 by guest on 28 August 2022

22 Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 00 (2022) 1–26