4 Question comm!

The Use of Relational Maintenance Behaviors in Sustained Adult Friendships Sara LaBelle & Scott A. Myers

The purpose of this study was to investigate the enactment of relational maintenance behaviors across three types of adult friendship. Participants (N = 139) completed an online questionnaire in which they were randomly assigned to an active, dormant, or commemorative friendship condition. After reading a description of the friendship type, participants identified one friend who met this description and indicated their use of relational maintenance behaviors with this friend. The results of multivariate analysis of covariance treating age as a covariate indicated that individuals reporting on an active friendship used the understanding, self-disclosure, assurances, and tasks rela- tional maintenance behaviors at a higher rate than individuals reporting on a com- memorative friendship.

Keywords: Adult Friendships; Friendships; Relational Maintenance; Relational Maintenance Behaviors

The examination of relational maintenance behaviors, their antecedents, and their effects has spanned nearly 30 years and produced an impressive body of knowledge on how romantic, platonic, and familial relationships are maintained (Canary & Dainton, 2003; Canary & Zelley, 2007). A central assumption guiding this body of research is that all relationships require active maintenance lest they deteriorate (Canary & Stafford, 1994). As noted by Canary, Stafford, Hause, and Wallace (1993), however, individuals enact fewer maintenance behaviors in friendships than in either romantic or familial relationships.

Sara LaBelle (PhD, West Virginia University, 2014) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communica- tion Studies at Chapman University. Scott A. Myers (PhD, Kent State University, 1995) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Correspondence: Scott A. Myers, Depart- ment of Communication Studies, P.O. Box 6293, 108 Armstrong Hall, Morgantown, WV 26506; E-mail: scott. [email protected].

Communication Research Reports Vol. 33, No. 4, 2016, pp. 310–316

ISSN 0882-4096 (print)/ISSN 1746-4099 (online) © 2016 Eastern Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2016.1224164

Moreover, much of the research conducted to date in the friendship context has focused on the ways in which college students engage in relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships (Guerrero & Chávez, 2005; Malachowski & Dillow, 2011; Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000); friends-with-benefits relationships (Goodboy & Myers, 2008); and the differences between geographically close and long-distance friendships (Johnson, 2001), as well as among best, close, or casual friends (Oswald, Clark, & Kelly, 2004). As maintaining friend- ships in middle to later adulthood faces several unique relational challenges such as marriages and children, time constraints, and geographical boundaries (Rawlins, 1994), this study investigated the extent to which relational maintenance behaviors are used in adult friendships.

Based on a series of interviews with individuals ranging in age from 30 to 65 years old, Rawlins (1994) identified three types of sustained adult friendships: active, dormant, and commemorative. Active friendships reflect mutually negotiated habits of availability, satis- factory contact, and emotional commitment. These friends are expected to be there when needed, as these friendships have “stood the test of time” (p. 292). Dormant friendships share either a valued history or a sufficient amount of sustained contact to anticipate or remain eligible for a resumption of the friendship at any time. These friends have less of an expectation that the other person will be there at any time they need but continue to assume that the friendship exists and has potential for growth, which they find comforting. Commemorative friends retain significance as symbols of particular places or moments in a person’s life, although contact with these friends often is minimal, and the friendship itself may exist largely as a memory reflecting on an earlier period of time in which the two individuals were heavily involved in each other’s lives. As Rawlins noted, the central challenge of sustaining friendships in adulthood focuses on “questions of individual volition in the grips of enveloping and divisive social arrangements” (p. 291), leading scholars to question how and to what extent they maintain volitional, platonic relationships.

Given the differences among these three friendship types, it stands to reason that individuals in active friendships will use relational maintenance behaviors at a higher rate than individuals in either dormant or commemorative friendships. Unlike individuals in these two types of friendship, individuals in active friendships work more diligently at sustaining these relationships, reflecting Dainton, Zelley, and Langan’s (2003) observation that adult friendships require continual redefinition and maintenance throughout the life span. To explore this notion, the following hypothesis is posited:

H1: Individuals who classify their sustained friendships as active will use relational maintenance behaviors at a higher rate than individuals who classify their sustained friendships as either dormant or commemorative.

Method

Participants

Participants were 139 individuals whose ages ranged from 30 to 63 years (M = 45.1, SD = 9.3), with the majority of the participants being female (n = 96, or 70.1%), being

Communication Research Reports 311

married (n = 95, or 68.8%), and having children (n = 109, or 78.4%). They reported on a friend who ranged in age from 20 to 69 years (M = 44.8, SD = 10.6). Similar to the participants, these friends largely were female (n = 89, or 65.4%), married (n = 91, or 66.9%), and had children (n = 98, or 71.0%). Participants reported being involved in the friendship from 1 to 55 years (M = 19.92, SD = 12.25) and reported an average of 15.81 months (SD = 34.53; range = 0–240 months) since they had last commu- nicated with this friend.

Procedures and Instrumentation

Participants were recruited via network sampling in undergraduate Communication Studies courses at a large Mid-Atlantic university. The first author entered these courses and distributed a call for participants, which specified that potential partici- pants must be at least 30 years of age and that they should e-mail her to indicate their interest in participating in the study. Students enrolled in these courses were instructed to distribute this call to individuals in their personal networks who met the aforementioned inclusion criteria.

After e-mailing the first author and agreeing to participate in the study, participants were directed to a link (via surveymonkey.com) to an online questionnaire where they were randomly assigned to an active, dormant, or commemorative friendship condition.1

Once they were assigned to a condition, they were given a description of the friendship type (Rawlins, 1994), 2 asked to identify a friend (by initials) who fit the description, and completed the Relational Maintenance Behaviors Measure (Stafford, 2011) in reference to the identified friendship type. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned to the active friendship condition, 39 participants were randomly assigned to the dormant friendship condition, and 41 participants were randomly assigned to the commemorative friendship condition.

The Relational Maintenance Behaviors Measure is a 28-item, seven-factor instrument in which participants report their use of maintenance behaviors (i.e., positivity, under- standing, self-disclosure, relationship talks, assurances, tasks, and networks) with a relationship partner. In this study, the relational maintenance behaviors were modified to reflect the friendship context (e.g., “talk about our future” was modified to “talk about our future as friends”). Responses are solicited using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Previous reliability coefficients ranging from .83 to .96 have been obtained for the seven behaviors (Stafford, 2011, 2016).

Results

Table 1 contains the mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of each relational maintenance behavior as well as a correlation matrix of the seven relational maintenance behaviors. H1 predicted that individuals who classify their sustained friend- ships as active would use relational maintenance behaviors at a higher rate than individuals who classify their sustained friendships as either dormant or commemorative. The results of

312 S. LaBelle & S. A. Myers

a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) treating age as a covariate revealed partial support for the hypothesis, Wilk’s λ = .71, F(14, 222) = 2.97, p < .001, ηp

2=.16. An examination of the univariate effects (i.e., ANCOVAs with the age covariate appearing in the model as 28.07 years) indicated that the use of four relational maintenance behaviors differed among friendship types (see Table 2). These four relational maintenance behaviors are understanding, F(2, 117) = 3.35, p < .05, ηp

2=.05; self-disclosure, F(2, 117) = 7.62, p < .001, ηp

2= .12; assurances, F(2, 117) = 5.03, p < .01, ηp 2=.08; and tasks, F(2, 117) = 10.28,

p < .001, ηp 2=.15. The use of three relational maintenance behaviors did not differ among

friendship types; these are positivity, (2, 117) = 1.63, p = .20, ηp 2=.03; relationship talks, F(2,

117) = 1.14, p = .32, ηp 2=.02; and networks, F(2, 117) = 1.37, p = .26, ηp

2= .02. Follow-up Bonferroni comparisons revealed that individuals who classify their sustained friendships as active use the understanding, self-disclosure, assurances, and tasks relational maintenance behaviors at a higher rate than individuals who classify their sustained friendships as commemorative.

Table 1 Correlation Matrix of Relational Maintenance Behaviors

Behavior M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Positivity 24.73 3.04 .89 –

2. Understanding 24.24 3.77 .83 .65** –

3. Self-disclosure 22.51 5.68 .94 .51** .62** –

4. Relationship talks 13.73 5.00 .94 .38** .49** .65** –

5. Assurances 20.38 5.11 .83 .44** .57** .74** .79** –

6. Tasks 22.49 4.63 .88 .39** .51** .55** .50** .60** –

7. Networks 22.17 5.54 .69 .09 .12 .29** .24** .23** .35**

**p < .001.

Table 2 Differences in Estimated Marginal Means for Friendship Type Controlling for Age

Active Dormant Commemorative

Behavior M SD M SD M SD

Positivity 6.19 .62 6.36 .68 6.05 .93

Understanding 6.31a .69 6.08 .89 5.82a 1.05

Self-disclosure 6.16a .91 5.56 1.47 5.05a 1.60

Relationship talks 4.87 1.47 4.57 1.83 4.32 1.72

Assurances 5.43a 1.07 5.21 1.17 4.60a 1.38

Tasks 6.08a .72 5.57 1.09 5.03a 1.14

Networks 4.58 .90 4.18 1.18 4.44 1.21

Note. Means sharing subscripts across each row differ significantly.

Communication Research Reports 313

Discussion

As individuals seeking to maintain friendships throughout middle to later adulthood face unique individual and relational challenges (Dainton et al., 2003; Rawlins, 1994), the purpose of this study was to investigate the enactment of relational maintenance behaviors across three types of adult friendship. The results of this study indicate that individuals in active friendships use the understanding, self-disclosure, assurances, and tasks relational maintenance behaviors more frequently than individuals in commemorative friendships. As the frequency of contact and closeness increased in adults’ friendships, so did the amount of patience, forgiveness, expressions of commit- ment, and sharing of joint tasks or activities. Because active friendships are marked by continued and regular contact, it should follow that these relationships involve increased self-disclosure and task sharing.

This study has two notable limitations. First, given that no significant differences emerged in use for the positivity, relationship talks, and networks relational main- tenance behaviors, it is possible that the behaviors identified by Stafford (2011) in reference to romantic partners do not apply to the complex nature of maintaining adult friendships and that a unique set of maintenance behaviors is used across maintaining adult active, dormant, and commemorative friendships. Future research- ers might consider identifying the relational maintenance behaviors individuals use to maintain these three friendship types. Second, the participants in this study were not asked whether they used mediated communication channels (e.g., text messaging, Facebook, letters, holiday cards) as way to maintain their friendships. As researchers have noted (Houser, Fleuriet, & Estrada, 2012; McEwan, 2013; McEwan, Fletcher, Eden, & Sumner, 2014), it is not uncommon for friends to use channels such as Facebook to remain in touch or to stay involved in each other’s lives. Given the longevity of some of the friendships referenced in this study (the average length of the friendship was 20 years), it is likely that individuals, particularly those who classify their friendships as either dormant or commemorative, rely on mediated communica- tion channels as a way to maintain the friendship, even if the two individuals have not orally communicated with each other in years. Future researchers might consider integrating measures of the social mediated channels used to maintain friendships such as the Facebook Relational Maintenance Measure (McEwan et al., 2014) or the Relational Maintenance Strategies on Facebook instrument (Dainton, 2013) into projects examining adult attempts at friendship relational maintenance.

Nonetheless, the results of this study lend support to the use of relational main- tenance behaviors in understanding mature adult friendships. Individuals reporting on active adult friendships varied significantly in their enactment of several relational maintenance behaviors as compared to individuals reporting on commemorative friendships. Although future research is needed to fully explore the complex associa- tion of communication and the maintenance of friendships across adulthood, the results of this study provide insight into a frequently overlooked communication context, which is the definition, redefinition, and maintenance of friendships in adulthood.

314 S. LaBelle & S. A. Myers

Notes

[1] The description of friendship types given to participants was (a) This study involves adults’ maintenance of active friendships. Active friendships are those in which you know that your friend is readily available and you have satisfactory contact with them. These friends are expected to be there when needed, even if it means they would have to travel a significant distance or pay a higher phone bill. In short, these friends come through when needed and have “stood the test of time.” For this survey, please think of one active friendship that you currently have; (b) This study involves adults’ maintenance of dormant friendships. Dormant friendships are those in which you have a valued history with a friend and you have maintained sufficient contact to know that you could resume the friendship at any time if needed. Although you may not see this friend all the time, you know that the friendship continues to exist; this is something you find comforting, helpful, or even enjoyable in that there is potential for the friendship to resume at any time. For this survey, please think of one dormant friendship that you currently have; or (c) This study involves adults’ maintenance of commemorative friendships. Commem- orative friendships are those in which you have lost contact with a friend over time (for various reasons), such that the friendship is mostly a memory at this point. This friendship serves more as a symbol of a particular place or moment in your life, and reflecting on it might even be bittersweet. Thinking about this friend brings back memories of feelings, thoughts, and activities from earlier periods in life. Thinking of this friend, you may have feelings of regret about choices to leave friends behind or even of the inevitability of losing friends as we get older. For this survey, please think of one commemorative friendship that you currently have.

[2] The original sample consisted of 166 participants. As a validity check, once participants read the description of the friendship condition to which they were randomly assigned, they were asked to indicate the friendship condition. Those participants (n = 27) who did not write a description that matched the condition to which they were randomly assigned to (i.e., writing “active,” “dormant,” or “commemorative” in the provided space) were eliminated from further analyses, thus reducing the sample size to 139 participants.

References

Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (Eds.). (2003). Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, friends, relatives, and others. Commu- nication Research Reports, 10, 5–14. doi:10.1080/08824099309359913

Canary, D. J., & Zelley, E. D. (2007). Current research programs on relational maintenance behaviors. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 23, pp. 305–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dainton, M. (2013). Relationship maintenance on Facebook: Development of a measure, relation- ship to general maintenance, and relationship satisfaction. College Student Journal, 47, 113– 121.

Dainton, M., Zelley, E., & Langan, E. (2003). Maintaining friendships throughout the life span. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 79–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). Relational maintenance behaviors of friends with benefits: Investigating equity and relational characteristics. Human Communication, 11, 71–85.

Communication Research Reports 315

Guerrero, L. K., & Chávez, A. M. (2005). Relational maintenance in cross-sex friendships character- ized by different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Com- munication, 69, 339–358. doi:10.1080/10570310500305471

Houser, M. L., Fleuriet, C., & Estrada, D. (2012). The cyber factor: An analysis of relational maintenance through the use of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 29, 34–43. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.639911

Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication Quarterly, 49, 424–435. doi:10.1080/01463370109385639

Malachowski, C. C., & Dillow, M. R. (2011). An examination of relational uncertainty, romantic intent, and attraction on communicative and relational outcomes in cross-sex friendships. Communication Research Reports, 28, 356–368. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.616245

McEwan, B. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actor-partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 863–869. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0717

McEwan, B., Fletcher, J., Eden, J., & Sumner, E. B. (2014). Development and validation of a Facebook relational maintenance measure. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 244– 263. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.967844

Messman, S. J., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. S. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 17, 67–94. doi:10.1177/0265407500171004

Oswald, D. L., Clark, E. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2004). Friendship maintenance: An analysis of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 413–441.

Rawlins, W. K. (1994). Being there and growing apart: Sustaining friendships during adulthood. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 275–294). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. doi:10.1177/0265407510378125

Stafford, L. (2016). Marital sanctity, relationship maintenance, and marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 119–131. doi:10.1177/0192513X13515884

316 S. LaBelle & S. A. Myers

Copyright of Communication Research Reports is the property of Eastern Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.