The impact of media use on the spillover and crossover effect of couple conflict

Abstract

This 5-day daily diary study examined the influence of media use on the spillover and crossover effect of couple conflict among married and dating couples. Couples aged 18–38 years recorded their daily overload, negative mood, couple conflict, media use, flooding, and satisfaction. The results showed negative spillover and crossover effects: individuals reported more negative moods and couple conflict in response to their own and their partners’ increase in daily overload. Following media synchronicity theory, the more synchronous media couples used in conflict, the more they resolved the conflict. In addition, the more couples segmented their channels, the less they flooded and the more they resolved the conflict. The results suggest that dating and married couples might benefit from managing conflict associated with spillover and crossover effects using synchronous channels that are segmented.

Keywords

Crossover interpersonal conflict mixed-media relationships spillover

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amstad

Meier

Fasel

, et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16: 151–169.

Anders

Coleman

Castleberry

(2020) Communication preferences of business-to-business buyers for receiving initial sales messages: a comparison of media channel selection theories. International Journal of Business Communication 57(3): 370–400.

Barki

Hartwick

(2004) Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management 15(3): 216–244.

Baym

Ledbetter

(2009) Tunes that bind? Predicting friendship strength in a music-based social network. Information, Communication & Society 12(3): 408–427.

Bevan

(2017) Romantic jealousy in face-to-face and technologically-mediated interactions: a communicative interdependence perspective. Western Journal of Communication 81(4): 466–482.

Bolger

DeLongis

Kessler

, et al. (1989) The contagion of stress across multiple roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family 51: 175–183.

Caughlin

Sharabi

(2013) A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: the connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication 63: 873893.

Caughlin

Basinger

Sharabi

(2017) The connections between communication technologies and relational conflict: a multiple goals and communication interdependence perspective. In: Samp

(ed.) Communicating Interpersonal Conflict in Close Relationships: Contexts, Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Routledge, pp. 57–72.

Chan

Margolin

(1994) The relationship between dual-earner couples’ daily work mood and home affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11(4): 573–586.

10.

Coyne

Stockdale

Busby

, et al. (2011) “I luv u :)!”: a descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations 60: 150–162.

11.

Dennis

Fuller

Valacich

(2008) Media, tasks, and communication processes: a theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly 32: 575–600.

12.

Doumas

Margolin

John

(2008) Spillover patterns in single-earner couples: work, self-care, and the marital relationship. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 29(1): 55–73.

13.

Driver

Gottman

(2004) Daily marital interactions and positive affect during marital conflict among newlywed couples. Family Process 43(3): 301–314.

14.

Frisby

Westerman

(2010) Rational actors: channel selection and rational choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(7): 970–981.

15.

Gallup (2017) Eight in 10 Americans Afflicted by Stress. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/224336/eight-americans-afflicted-stress.aspx

16.

Gallup (2019) Americans’ Stress, Worry and Anger Intensified in 2018. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/224336/eight-americans-afflicted-stress.aspx

17.

Gistelinck

Loeys

(2019) The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: an implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 26(3): 329–347.

18.

Gottman

(1993) A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology 7: 57–75.

19.

Gottman

(1999) The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically-based Marital Therapy. New York: WW Norton & Company.

20.

Gottman

(2011) The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples. New York: WW Norton & Company.

21.

Gottman

Levenson

(1992) Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(2): 221–233.

22.

Granovetter

(1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.

23.

Haythornthwaite

(2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Community & Society 8(2): 125–147.

24.

Jiang

Hancock

(2013) Absence makes the communication grow fonder: geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication 63: 556–577.

25.

Kashian

(2019) The influence of channel, flooding, and repair on effective couple conflict communication. International Journal of Communication 13: 1–20.

26.

Kashian

Walther

(2020) The effect of relational satisfaction and media synchronicity on attributions in computer-mediated conflict. Communication Research 47(5): 647–668.

27.

Kenny

(2017) Dyadr: Web Programs for Dyadic Data Analysis. Available at: http://davidakenny.net/DyadR/DyadRweb.htm

28.

Kenny

Kashy

Cook

(2006) Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

29.

Kiecolt-Glaser

Newton

(2001) Marriage and health: his and hers. Psychological Bulletin 127(4): 472–503.

30.

Lenhart

Duggan

(2014) Couples, the Internet, and Social Media. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/

31.

Levenson

Gottman

(1985) Physiological and affective predictors of change in relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 85–94.

32.

Makki

(2019) The role of communication channels in conflict communication: Differences in arousal, communication outcomes, and conflict strategies across channels. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.

33.

Marsden

Campbell

(1984) Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63: 482–501.

34.

Parks

(2017) Embracing the challenges and opportunities of mixed-media relationships. Human Communication Research 43: 505–517.

35.

Pusateri

Roaché

Wang

(2015) The role of communication technologies in serial arguments: a communicative interdependence perspective. Argumentation and Advocacy 52: 44–60.

36.

Repetti

(1989) Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: the roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 651–659.

37.

Rispens

Greer

Jehn

, et al. (2011) Not so bad after all: how relational closeness buffers the association between relationship conflict and helpful and deviant group behaviors. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 4(4): 277–296.

38.

Roseth

Saltarelli

Glass

(2011) Effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated constructive controversy on social interdependence, motivation, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 103(4): 804–820.

39.

Ruppel

Burke

Cherney

(2018) Channel complementarity and multiplexity in long-distance friends’ patterns of communication technology use. New Media & Society 20(4): 1564–1579.

40.

Rusbult

Martz

Agnew

(1998) The investment model scale: measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships 5: 357–387.

41.

Schulz

Cowan

, et al. (2004) Coming home upset: gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology 18: 250–263.

42.

Scissors

Gergle

(2013) Back and forth, back and forth. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work—CSCW, San Antonio, TX, 23–27 February, pp. 237–247. New York: ACM.

43.

Scissors

Roloff

Gergle

(2014) Room for interpretation. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 20–23 October 2019, pp. 3953–3962. New York: ACM.

44.

Sears

Repetti

Robles

, et al. (2016) I just want to be left alone: daily overload and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology 30: 569–579.

45.

Stas

Kenny

Mayer

, et al. (2018) Giving dyadic data analysis away: a user-friendly app for actor-partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships 25(1): 103–119.

46.

Story

Repetti

(2006) Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology 20: 690–700.

47.

Taylor

Bazarova

(2018) Revisiting media multiplexity: a longitudinal analysis of media use in romantic relationships. Journal of Communication 68(6): 1104–1126.

48.

ten Brummelhuis

Haar

van der Lippe

(2010) Crossover of distress due to work and family demands in dual-earner couples: a dyadic analysis. Work & Stress 24(4): 324–341.

49.

Vogels

(2019) Millennials Stand Out for Their Technology Use, but Older Generations Also Embrace Digital Life. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/09/us-generations-technology-use/

50.

Wang

Roaché

Pusateri

(2019) Interconnection of multiple communication modes in long-distance dating relationships. Western Journal of Communication 83(5): 600–623.

51.

Wheeler

Nezlek

(1977) Sex differences in social participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(10): 742–754.

52.

Whitton

James-Kangal

Rhoades

, et al. (2018) Understanding couple conflict. In: Vangelisti

Perlman

(eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–310.

53.

Williams

Alliger

(1994) Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal 37(4): 837–868.

54.

Woodin

(2011) A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology 25(3): 325–335.

55.

Zhang

Andreychik

(2013) Relational closeness in conflict: effects on interaction goals, emotion, and conflict styles. Journal of International Communication 19(1): 107–116.