Relational turbulence and social network engagement during the summer of COVID-19: A repeated measures,dyadic analysis

Abstract

Background/Purpose: Relational turbulence theory suggests that changes in and around relationships create the potential for relational turbulence when everyday routines and scripts are upended and communication becomes polarized. In turn, perceptions of a romantic relationship as chaotic or tumultuous can influence a person’s engagement with their social network. Alternately, previous research also suggests that engagement with friends and family has the potential to influence married partner’s relationship quality. Research Design: This study examined these propositions among a sample of married couples (N = 64, 128 individuals) whose daily experiences and relationship dynamics changed during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Results/Conclusions: Based on a 10-week, weekly diary repeated measures design, results suggest that relational turbulence and the valence of social network engagement may be mutually influential, such that (a) relational turbulence may influence the way in which married partners interpret communication with social network members and (b) the valence of communication with social network members may influence experiences of relational turbulence.

Keywords

COVID-19 marriage relational turbulence social network engagement social support

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Todd

(2020). Meeting the school-age childcare needs of working parents facing COVID-19 distance learning. (Report No. ED610005). Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/meeting-school-age-child-care-needs-working-parents-facing-covid-19-distance-learning

Brandon

D. M.

Long

J. H.

Loraas

T. M.

Mueller-Phillips

Vansant

(2013). Online instrument delivery and participant recruitment services: Emerging opportunities for behavioral accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria-50651

Brisini

K. S. C.

Solomon

D. H.

(2020). Relational turbulence and perceptions of social network support for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Southern Communication Journal, 85(5), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2020.1816608

Brisini

K. S.

Solomon

D. H.

Tian

(2021). Relational turbulence and openness to social network support for marital conflicts. Western Journal of Communication, 1–20(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2021.1994638

Bryant

C. M.

Conger

R. D.

(1999). Marital success and domains of social support in long-term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end? Journal of Medicinal Food, 61(2), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/353760

Chung

Chan

X. W.

Lanier

P. W. Y.

(2020). Associations between work-family balance, parenting stress, and marital conflicts during COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/nz9s8

Felmlee

D. H.

(2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 79(4), 259–1287. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2001.0039

Günther-Bel

Vilaregut

Carratala

Torras-Garat

Pérez-Testor

(2020). Mixed-method study of individual, couple, and parental functioning during the state-regulated COVID-19 lockdown in Spain. A Family Process, 59(3), 1060–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12585

Harrist

A. W.

Waugh

R. M.

(2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’sdevelopment. Developmental Review, 22(4), 555–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00500-2

10.

Henderson

M. D.

Wakslak

C. J.

Fujita

Rohrbach

(2011). Construal level theory and spatial distance. Social Psychology, 42(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000060

11.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006) Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford.

12.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.

13.

Knobloch

L. K.

Donovan-Kicken

(2006). Perceived involvement of network members in courtships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Personal Relationships, 13(3), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00118.x

14.

Knoster

Howard

H. A.

Goodboy

A. K.

Dillow

M. R.

(2020). Spousal interference and relational turbulence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication Research Reports, 37(5), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2020.1841621

15.

Kowal

Coll‐Martín

Ikizer

Rasmussen

Eichel

Studzińska

Koszałkowska

(2020). Who is the most stressed during the COVID-19 pandemic? Data from 26 countries and areas. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 946–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12234

16.

Lebow

J. L.

(2020). Family in the age of COVID-19. Family Process, 59(2), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12543

17.

McLaren

R. M.

Solomon

D. H.

Priem

J. S.

(2011). Explaining variation in contemporaneous responses to hurt in premarital romantic relationships: A relational turbulence model perspective. Communication Research, 38(4), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377896

18.

Norton

(1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302

19.

Parks

M. R.

(2013). Personal relationships and personal networks. Routledge.

20.

Philpot

L. M.

Ramar

Roellinger

D. L.

Barry

B. A.

Sharma

Ebbert

J. O.

(2021). Changes in social relationships during an initial “stay-at-home” phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal survey study in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine, 274, 113779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113779.

21.

Schmid

Wörn

Hank

Sawatzki

Walper

(2020). Changes in employment and relationship satisfaction in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the German family Panel. European Societies, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1836385

22.

Solomon

D. H.

Brisini

K. S.

(2017). Operationalizing relational turbulence theory: Measurement and construct validation. Personal Relationships, 24(4), 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12212

23.

Solomon

D. H.

Knobloch

L. K.

Theiss

J. A.

McLaren

R. M.

(2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12091

24.

Sprecher

Felmlee

(2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00020.x

25.

Stein

J. B.

Mongeau

P. A.

Truscelli

N. I.

(2020). Identifying and measuring network-based uncertainty, relational: Looking outside of the dyadic bubble. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 491–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519865022

26.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2012). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and privacy boundary turbulence: Explaining spousal discrepancies in infertility disclosures. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511406896

27.

Widmer

E. D.

Giudici

Le Goff

J.-M.

Pollien

(2009). From support to control: A configurational perspective on conjugal quality. Journal of Marriage & Family, 71(3), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00611.x