Although central to media multiplexity theory’s logic, the proposition that tie strength and media multiplexity mutually cause each other has received limited empirical test. This study evaluated this proposition via survey data collected from friends in Spring 2020 and Spring 2021, examining their friendship across the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. When examining retrospective reports of the relationship pre-pandemic, results supported the claim that media multiplexity predicts tie strength; in contrast, longitudinal results between Spring 2020 and Spring 2021 supported the claim that tie strength predicts media multiplexity. These findings may indicate a need for clearer boundary conditions for the theory, as well as more thorough consideration of the explanatory mechanisms that underlie the link between multiplexity and tie strength.
AronAAronENSmollanD (1992) Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63(4): 596–612.
BarakjiFMaguireKCReissH, et al. (2019) Cultural and transnational influences on the use of information communication technologies in adult long-distance family relationships: an extension of media multiplexity theory. Journal of Family Communication19(1): 30–46.
5.
BaymNKLedbetterAM (2009) Tunes that bind? Predicting friendship strength in a music-based social network. Information, Communication & Society12(3): 408–427.
6.
CampbellJF (2022) Rules for mediated romance: a digital exploration of how couples negotiate expectations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication27.
7.
CaughlinJPSharabiLL (2013) A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: the connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication63(5): 873–893.
8.
CohenJCohenPWestSG, et al. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
FloydKBorenJPHannawaAF, et al. (2009) Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication73(2): 113–133.
10.
GranovetterMS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology78(6): 1360–1380.
11.
GriffinELedbetterASparksG (2023) A First Look at Communication Theory. 11th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
13.
HaythornthwaiteC (2000) Online personal networks: size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media & Society2(2): 195–226.
14.
HaythornthwaiteC (2001) Exploring multiplexity: social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class. The Information Society17(3): 211–226.
15.
HaythornthwaiteC (2002) Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society18(5): 385–401.
16.
HaythornthwaiteC (2005) Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society8(2): 125–147.
17.
HaythornthwaiteCWellmanB (1998) Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology49(12): 1101–1114.
18.
HechtML (1978) Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication Research4(4): 350–368.
19.
JoJKHarrisonDAGraySM (2021) The ties that cope? Reshaping social connections in response to pandemic distress. Journal of Applied Psychology106(9): 1267–1282.
20.
KahlowJACokerMCRichardsR (2020) The multimodal nature of Snapchat in close relationships: toward a social presence-based theoretical framework. Computers in Human Behavior111: 106409.
21.
LedbetterAM (2009) Patterns of media use and multiplexity: associations with sex, geographic distance and friendship interdependence. New Media & Society11: 1187–1208.
22.
LedbetterAM (2010) Content- and medium-specific decomposition of friendship relational maintenance: integrating equity and media multiplexity approaches. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships27(7): 938–955.
23.
LedbetterAM (2021) Media multiplexity theory: explaining tie strength and technology use. In: BraithwaiteDOSchrodtP (eds) Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives. 3rd ed.New York: Routledge, pp. 354–365.
24.
LedbetterAMKuznekoffJH (2012) More than a game: friendship relational maintenance and attitudes toward Xbox LIVE communication. Communication Research39(2): 269–290.
25.
LedbetterAMMazerJP (2014) Do online communication attitudes mitigate the association between Facebook use and relational interdependence? An extension of media multiplexity theory. New Media & Society16(5): 806–822.
26.
LedbetterAMGriffinESparksGS (2007) Forecasting “friends forever”: a longitudinal investigation of sustained closeness between best friends. Personal Relationships14(2): 343–350.
27.
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.
28.
McEwanB (2021) Modality switching to modality weaving: updating theoretical perspectives for expanding media affordances. Annals of the International Communication Association45(1): 1–19.
29.
MeschGTalmudI (2006) The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society22(3): 137–148.
30.
RainsSABrunnerSR (2015) What can we learn about social network sites by studying Facebook? A call and recommendations for research on social network sites. New Media & Society17(1): 114–131.
31.
RamirezAJrDimmickJFeasterJ, et al. (2008) Revisiting interpersonal media competition: the gratification niches of instant messaging, e-mail, and the telephone. Communication Research35(4): 529–547.
32.
RawlinsWK (1992) Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life-Course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
33.
RosseelY (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software48(2): 1–36.
34.
RuppelEKBurkeTJCherneyMR (2018) Channel complementarity and multiplexity in long-distance friends’ patterns of communication technology use. New Media & Society20(4): 1564–1579.
35.
ScottCRTimmermanCE (2005) Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication to new communication technology use in the workplace. Communication Research32(6): 683–704; 709–725.
36.
SharabiLLDorrance HallE (2021) Conceptualizing and measuring communication interdependence: the technology and face-to-face integration scale. Communication Methods and Measures15(3): 222–242.
37.
ShiWWeberM (2021) Media multiplexity in entrepreneur-mentor relationships. In: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Wailea, HI, 5–8January, pp. 5173–5182. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
38.
SmythBMAinscoughGPayneJL (2020) Modes of communication between high-conflict separated parents: exploring the role of media multiplexity and modality switching. Journal of Family Communication20(3): 189–205.
39.
TaylorSHBazarovaNN (2018) Revisiting media multiplexity: a longitudinal analysis of media use in romantic relationships. Journal of Communication68(6): 1104–1126.
40.
TaylorSHLedbetterAM (2017) Extending media multiplexity theory to the extended family: communication satisfaction and tie strength as moderators of violations of media use expectations. New Media & Society19(9): 1369–1387.
41.
TaylorSHLedbetterAMMazerJP (2020) Initial specification and empirical test of media enjoyment theory. Communication Research47(8): 1246–1271.
42.
VangelistiALCaughlinJP (1997) Revealing family secrets: the influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships14(5): 679–705.
43.
VannierSAO’SullivanLF (2018) Great expectations: examining unmet romantic expectations and dating relationship outcomes using an investment model framework. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships35(8): 1045–1066.
44.
WaltherJB (1996) Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research23(1): 3–43.
45.
WeissbourdRBatanovaMLovisonV, et al. (2021) Loneliness in America: how the pandemic has deepened an epidemic of loneliness and what we can do about it. Making Caring Common Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Available at: https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/loneliness-in-america (accessed 23 February 2023).
Supplementary Material
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.
