Maintaining satisfying close relationships is important for individuals’ well-being. In the digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) has growing applications for relationship maintenance and thus implications for relational well-being. We hypothesize that although using AI to help with relational maintenance may reduce an individual’s effort, their partner may perceive AI-augmented activities negatively. According to the investment model and equity theory, perceptions of diminished effort in a relationship may lead to less satisfaction and greater uncertainty about the partner’s involvement in the relationship. In an online experiment, we presented participants (N = 208) with hypothetical scenarios of relational maintenance initiated by a fictional close friend, with a 3 (agency: self-without-augmentation vs. AI-augmented vs. human-augmented) × 3 (relational task: support-giving vs. advice-giving vs. birthday celebration) between-subjects design. Compared to the self-without-augmentation condition (i.e., the control condition) where the friend completed a relational task with no external aid, using AI assistance led participants to perceive the friend expended less effort, reducing participants’ relationship satisfaction and increasing uncertainty. Getting help from another person was not significantly different from using AI in terms of perceived partner effort, relationship satisfaction, uncertainty, and perceived appropriateness. We discuss the implications of the findings for relational maintenance and technology-mediated communication.
ArriagaX. B. (2001). The ups and downs of dating: Fluctuations in satisfaction in newly formed romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.754
2.
BakerL. R.McNultyJ. K.OverallN. C.LambertN. M.FinchamF. D. (2013). How do relationship maintenance behaviors affect individual well-being? A contextual perspective. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612452891
3.
BayerJ. B.EllisonN. B.SchoenebeckS. Y.FalkE. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 956–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084349
4.
BurkeM.KrautR. E. (2016). The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(4), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162
5.
CamererC. (1988). Gifts as economic signals and social symbols. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl), S180–S214. https://doi.org/10.1086/228946
CanaryD. J.StaffordL. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376268
8.
CanaryD. J.StaffordL.HauseK. S.WallaceL. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099309359913
9.
DaintonM. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 827–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500176007
10.
DindiaK.CanaryD. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000201
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
14.
Fuller-IglesiasH. R. (2015). Social ties and psychological well-being in late life: The mediating role of relationship satisfaction. Aging & Mental Health, 19(12), 1103–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.1003285
HamiltonK. A.BenjaminA. S. (2019). The human-machine extended organism: New roles and responsibilities of human cognition in a digital ecology. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.01.001
17.
HancockJ. T.NaamanM.LevyK. (2020). AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
18.
HatfieldE.RapsonR. L. (2012). Equity theory in close relationships. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds), Handbook of theories of social psychology (2, pp. 200–217). Sage.
19.
HatfieldE.WalsterG. W.BerscheidE. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Allyn & Bacon.
20.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.
21.
HendrickS. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430
22.
Holt-LunstadJ.RoblesT. F.SbarraD. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. The American Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103
23.
JacksonS.JacobsS. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research, 9(2), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00691.x
24.
JoelS.GordonA. M.ImpettE. A.MacDonaldG.KeltnerD. (2013). The things you do for me: Perceptions of a romantic partner’s investments promote gratitude and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497801
25.
KellyR.GoochD.PatilB.WattsL. (2017). Demanding by design: Supporting effortful communication practices in close personal relationships. In BarkhuusL.BorgesM.KelloggW. A. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 70–83). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998184
26.
KingS.ForlizziJ. (2007). Slow messaging: Intimate communication for couples living at a distance. In KoskinenI.KeinonenT. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2007 conference on designing pleasurable products and interfaces (pp. 451–454). Association for Computing Machineryhttps://doi.org/10.1145/1314161.1314204
27.
KnoblochL. K.SolomonD. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979909388499
28.
KnoblochL. K.TheissJ. A. (2011). Depressive symptoms and mechanisms of relational turbulence as predictors of relationship satisfaction among returning service members. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 25(4), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024063
29.
KubackaK. E.FinkenauerC.RusbultC. E.KeijsersL. (2011). Maintaining close relationships: Gratitude as a motivator and a detector of maintenance behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(10), 1362–1375. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616721141219
30.
LiuB.SundarS. S. (2018). Should machines express sympathy and empathy? Experiments with a health advice chatbot. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(10), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0110
31.
LiuY.MittalA.YangD.BruckmanA. (2022). Will AI console me when I lose my pet? Understanding perceptions of AI-mediated email writing. In BarbosaS.LampeC.AppertC.ShammaD. A.DruckerS.WilliamsonJ.YataniK. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–13). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517731
32.
LucasG. M.GratchJ.KingA.MorencyL. P. (2014). It’s only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.043
33.
LugerG.StubblefieldR. (1997). Artificial intelligence: Structures and strategies for complex problem solving. Addison-Wesley.
34.
McAndrewF. T. (2021). Costly signaling theory. In ShackelfordT. K.Weekes-ShackelfordV. A. (Eds), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science (pp. 1525–1532). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_3483
35.
McEwanB.SumnerE.EdenJ.FletcherJ. (2018). The effects of Facebook relational maintenance on friendship quality: An investigation of the Facebook relational maintenance measure. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1361393
36.
MurrayS. L.PinkusR. T.HolmesJ. G.HarrisB.GomillionS.AloniM.DerrickJ. L.LederS. (2011). Signaling when (and when not) to be cautious and self-protective: Impulsive and reflective trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023233
37.
NassC. I.LombardM.HenriksenL.SteuerJ. (1995). Anthropocentrism and computers. Behaviour & Information Technology, 14(4), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449299508914636
38.
OgolskyB. G.MonkJ. K. (2018). Maintaining relationships. In VangelistiA. L.PerlmanD. (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 523–537). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417867.040
39.
OswaldD. L.ClarkE. M.KellyC. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(3), 413–441. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.3.413.35460
40.
PenningtonN.HallJ. A. (2021). Does facebook-enabled communication influence weak-tie relationships over time? A longitudinal investigation into mediated relationship maintenance. Communication Monographs, 88(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1854476
41.
RicheY.Henry RicheN.IsenbergP.BezerianosA. (2010). Hard-to-use interfaces considered beneficial (some of the time). In FitzpatrickG.HudsonS.EdwardsK.RoddenT. (Eds), CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2705–2714). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753855
42.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
43.
RusbultC. E.AgnewC. R.ArriagaX. B. (2012). The investment model of commitment processes. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds), Handbook of theories of social psychology (2, pp. 218–231). Sage.
44.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x
45.
ShaferK.JensenT. M.PaceG. T.LarsonJ. H. (2013). Former spouse ties and postdivorce relationship quality: Relationship effort as a mediator. Journal of Social Service Research, 39(5), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2013.834284
46.
SolomonD. H.KnoblochL. K.TheissJ. A.McLarenR. 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
47.
SosikV. S.BazarovaN. N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(12), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044
48.
StaffordL.DaintonM.HaasS. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376512
49.
TaylorS. H.ZhaoP.BazarovaN. N. (2022). Social media and close relationships: A puzzle of connection and disconnection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.004
50.
TheissJ. A. (2020). Uncertainty perspectives on relationship maintenance. In OgolskyB. G.MonkJ. K. (Eds), Relationship maintenance: Theory, process, and context (pp. 69–85). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108304320.005
51.
TongS.WaltherJ. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In WrightK. B.WebbL. M. (Eds), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 98–118). Peter Lang.
52.
WhittonS. W.KurylukA. D. (2012). Relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms in emerging adults: Cross-sectional associations and moderating effects of relationship characteristics. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 26(2), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027267
53.
WuY.KellyR. M. (2020). Online dating meets artificial intelligence: How the perception of algorithmically generated profile text impacts attractiveness and trust. In AhmadpourN.LeongT.PlodererB.ParkerC.WebberS.MunozD.LokeL.TomitschM. (Eds), Proceedings of the 32nd Australian conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 444–453). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441074
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
