Communication technologies are widely used to manage interpersonal relationships, but little is known about which media are most useful at different stages of relationship development, and how the pattern of usage may be influenced by contextual factors or users’ gender. Drawing on theories of relationship development, this study examined usage patterns among 34 college students participating in six geographically stratified focus group interviews. Analyses revealed a sequence of media use tied to stages of relationship development − from Facebook in early stages to instant messaging and then cell phones as a relationship progressed. Judgments about the efficacy and appropriateness of using a medium were based on how well its salient features matched prominent goals or addressed major concerns of a relationship at the given stage. International students added two technologies to the sequence to accommodate time differentials and distance from communication partners. Males were less explicit about the sequence, except when referring to cross-sex relationships.
AltmanITaylorDA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
2.
BaxterLA (1990) Dialectical contradictions in relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships7(1): 69–88.
3.
BaymNKZhangYBLinM (2004) Social interactions across media. New Media & Society6(3): 299–318.
4.
BergerCRCalabreseRJ (1975) Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research1(2): 99–112.
5.
BergerCRGardnerRRParksMR. (1976) Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In: MillerGR (ed.) Explorations in Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, pp.149–171.
6.
BoaseJWellmanB (2006) Personal relationships: On and off the Internet. In: PerlmanDVangelistiAL (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.709–723.
7.
BonevaBSKrautRFrohlichD (2001) Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 530–549.
BuoteVMPancerSMPrattMW. (2007) The importance of friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1-year university students. Journal of Adolescent Research22(6): 665–689.
10.
ChoiSMKimYSShonD (2011) Bridging or bonding? A cross-cultural study of social relationships in social networking sites. Information, Communication & Society14(1): 107–129.
11.
ConnollyJAMcIsaacC (2009) Romantic relationships in adolescence. In: LernerRMSteinbergL (eds) Handbook of Adolescence. 3rd ed.New York: Wiley, pp.104–151.
12.
CummingsJNLeeJBKrautR (2006) Communication technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In: KrautRBryninMKieslerS (eds) Computers, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.265–278.
13.
CutronaC (1982) Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In: PeplauLAPerlmanD (eds) Loneliness: A Source-Book of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience, pp.291–309.
14.
DaftRLLengelRH (1984) Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior6: 191–233.
15.
DimmickJFeasterJCRamirezA (2011) The niches of interpersonal media: Relationships in time and space. New Media & Society13(4): 1265–1282.
16.
EllisonNSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
17.
FulkJSchmitzJSteinfieldC (1990) A social influence model of technology use. In: FulkJSteinfieldC (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp.117–140.
18.
HancockJTTomaCLFennerK (2008) I know something you don’t: The use of asymmetric personal information for interpersonal advantage. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, 8-12 November 2008, pp.413–416. New York: ACM.
19.
HaysRB (1984) The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships1(1): 75–98.
20.
HaysRB (1985) A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48(4): 909–924.
21.
JonesSJonson-YaleCMillermaierS. (2009) US college students’ Internet use: Race, gender, and digital divides. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(2): 244–264.
22.
KimHKimGJParkHW. (2007) Configurations of relationships in different media: FtF, email, instant messenger, mobile phone, and SMS. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1183–1207.
23.
McKennaKYABarghJA (2000) Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review4(1): 57–75.
24.
OdellPMKorgenKOSchumacherP. (2000) Internet use among female and male college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior3(5): 855–862.
25.
OksmanVTurtiainenJ (2004) Mobile communication as a social stage. New Media & Society6(3): 319–339.
26.
OswaldDLClarkEMKellyCM (2004) Friendship maintenance: An analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology23(3): 413–441.
27.
PempekTAYermolayevaYACalvertSL (2009) College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology30(3): 227–238.
RoseSSeraficaFC (1986) Keeping and ending casual, close, and best friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships3(3): 275–288.
30.
SaldañaJ (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
SitkinSBSutcliffeKMBarrios-ChoplinJR (1992) A dual-capacity model of communication media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research18(4): 563–598.
32.
SubrahmanyamKReichSMWaechterN. (2008) Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology29(6): 420–433.
33.
TrevinoLKDaftRLLengelRH (1990) Understanding managers’ media choices: A symbolic interactionist perspective. In: FulkJSteinfieldC (eds) Organizations and Communication Technology. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp.71–94.
34.
UristaMADongQDayK (2009) Explaining why young adults use MySpace and Facebook through uses and gratifications theory. Human Communication12(2): 215–229.
35.
WaltherJB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23(1): 3–43.
36.
WaltherJBParksMR (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In: KnappMLDalyJA (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.529–563.
