Understanding how people use communication technologies (CTs) in close relationships requires examining interdependencies in or patterns of CT use in those relationships. We combined channel complementarity theory and media multiplexity theory to investigate first-year college students’ (N = 155) use of CTs (video chat, phone calls, and text messaging) in close, long-distance friendships over a 3- to 10-day period. Overall, CTs were used complementarily. However, complementary use of phone calls and text messaging was higher in closer friendships. In contrast, phone calls and video chat were complementary at low but not high levels of closeness. These findings suggest utility in combining channel complementarity theory and media multiplexity theory to understand the “web” of CTs used in daily communication in long-distance friendships and point to similarities in and differences between CTs that might affect complementarity.
BaymNKLedbetterA (2009) Tunes that bind?Information, Communication & Society12: 408–427.
2.
BeckerJAHJohnsonAJCraigEA, et al. (2009) Friendships are flexible, not fragile: turning points in geographically-close and long-distance friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships26: 347–369.
3.
BryantJFondrenW (2009) Displacement effects. In: NabiRLOliverMB (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 505–516.
4.
CaughlinJPSharabiLL (2013) A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: the connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication63: 873–893.
5.
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.
6.
DeHartTPelhamBMurrayS (2004) Implicit dependency regulation: self-esteem, relationship closeness, and implicit evaluations of close others. Social Cognition22: 126–146.
7.
DimmickJKlineSLStaffordL (2000) The gratification niches of personal e-mail and the telephone. Communication Research27: 227–248.
8.
Dutta-BergmanMJ (2004) Interpersonal communication after 9/11 via telephone and internet: a theory of channel complementarity. New Media & Society6: 659–673.
9.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12: 1143–1168.
10.
FehrB. (1999) Stability and commitment in friendships. In: AdamsJMJonesWH (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Commitment and Relationship Stability. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 259–280.
11.
GuerreroLKChavezAM (2005) Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships characterized by different types of romantic intent: an exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication69: 339–358.
12.
HaythornthwaiteC (2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society8: 125–147.
13.
JiangLCHancockJT (2013) Absence makes the communication grow fonder: geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication63: 556–577.
14.
JohnsonAJ (2001) Examining the maintenance of friendships: are there differences between geographically close and long-distance friends?Communication Quarterly49: 424–435.
15.
JohnsonAJBeckerJAH (2010) CMC and the contextualization of “friendship”: how friendships have changed with the advent of new methods of interpersonal communication. In: WrightKBWebbLM (eds) Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 225–243.
16.
JohnsonAJBeckerJAHCraigEA, et al. (2009) Changes in friendship commitment: comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships. Communication Quarterly57: 395–415.
17.
JohnsonAJHaighMMBeckerJAH, et al. (2008) College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 381–404.
18.
JohnsonAJHaighMMCraigEA, et al. (2009) Relational closeness: comparing undergraduate college students’ geographically close and long-distance friendships. Personal Relationships16: 631–646.
19.
JonesWHCarpenterBNQuintanaD (1985) Personality and interpersonal predictors of loneliness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48: 1503–1511.
20.
LedbetterAM (2009) Patterns of media use and multiplexity: associations with sex, geographic distance and friendship interdependence. New Media & Society11: 1187–1208.
21.
LedbetterAMBroeckelman-PostMAKrawsczynAM (2011) Modeling everyday talk: differences across communication media and sex composition of friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships28: 223–241.
22.
LedbetterAMTaylorSHMazerJP (2016) Enjoyment fosters media use frequency and determines its relational outcomes: toward a synthesis of uses and gratifications theory and media multiplexity theory. Computers in Human Behavior54: 149–157.
23.
LiuDYangC (2016) Media niche of electronic communication channels in friendship: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21: 451–466.
24.
OswaldDLClarkEM (2003) Best friends forever?: high school best friendships and the transition to college. Personal Relationships10: 187–196.
25.
PistoleMCRobertsA (2011) Measuring long-distance romantic relationships: a validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development44: 63–76.
26.
PiwekLJoinsonA (2016) “What do they Snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior54: 358–367.
27.
RamirezABroneckK (2009) “IM me”: instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships26: 291–314.
28.
RanneyJDTroop-GordonW (2012) Computer-mediated communication with distant friends: relations with adjustment during students’ first semester in college. Journal of Educational Psychology104: 848–861.
29.
ReederHM (2000) “I like you. as a friend”: the role of attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships17: 329–348.
30.
RuppelEKBurkeTJ (2015) Complementary channel use and the role of social competence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20: 37–51.
31.
StaffordL (2005) Maintaining Long-Distance and Cross-Residential Relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
StaffordLKlineSLDimmickJ (1999) Home e-mail: relational maintenance and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media43: 659–669.
33.
UtzS (2007) Media use in long-distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society10: 694–713.
34.
WisemanJP (1986) Friendship: bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships3: 191–211.
35.
YangCBrownBBBraunMT (2014) From Facebook to cell calls: layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society16: 5–23.
