Texting or face-to-face for support-seeking in romantic relationships: The role of affordances and attachment

Abstract

Support-seeking, a critical and strategic function of close relationships, is increasingly practiced via texting. Guided by attachment theory and an affordance-centric approach, this study investigated to what extent individuals in a romantic relationship would use texting and face-to-face for support-seeking, and what stimulates their interest in mediated support-seeking. A survey of college students in exclusive romantic relationships (N = 211) found that several affordances (i.e., accessibility, the availability of social cues, and conversation control) were associated with varying levels of interest in texting or face-to-face for support-seeking. Both accessibility and the availability of social cues were perceived as less important by avoidant individuals, which was related to a lack of interest in texting and face-to-face interactions for support-seeking. Anxious individuals valued the availability of social cues more, which led to a greater interest in face-to-face interactions when seeking assistance. These findings contribute to a better understanding of support-seeking behavior in today’s mediated world.

Keywords

Support-seeking romantic relationship texting face-to-face interaction affordances attachment style

Oftentimes, facing an acutely stressful event, distressed individuals must actively indicate their need for supportive action. This deliberate communicative activity, known as support-seeking, is ubiquitous and strategic (Burleson et al., 2005; MacGeorge et al., 2011). More importantly, this act compels others to provide high-quality assistance, which contributes to positive psychological and social outcomes (MacGeorge et al., 2011; Overall et al., 2010). Nowadays, various forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC), such as texting, phone-calling, and videoconferencing, have become valuable means to exchange support (Rains & Wright, 2016). In addition to face-to-face (FtF) interaction, the expanded repertoire of communication channels prompted research into how and why people use CMC (rather than FtF) for support-seeking (e.g., Lim et al., 2013; also see Rains & Wright, 2016). Investigation into this question is important because the modality of the supportive interaction (e.g., FtF vs. texting) is directly associated with the quality of support the seeker will receive (Rains et al., 2019; Youngvorst & High, 2018). Support seekers have inherent control over which channel they use to seek assistance. So, what mental calculations lead to their differing interests in CMC or FtF?

One line of research posits that the key factor is the seekers’ need to manage their psychological costs because seeking support poses challenges to their personal relationships and impression management (Lim et al., 2013). CMC is argued to effectively help the seekers manage their psychological costs by giving them easier access to their networks and more control over message composition than FtF interaction. We advance this line of research in this study by looking at the individual and situational factors that influence individuals’ interest in FtF or texting for support-seeking. We investigate this question in the context of dating relationships between young adults who frequently text their significant others (Toma & Choi, 2016). Additionally, a person’s romantic partner is among the most frequent sources of support, and effective support frequently fosters relationship closeness and better wellbeing (Bodie, 2011; MacGeorge et al., 2011).

As described in detail later, we intend to add three key theoretical insights to our understanding of CMC and support-seeking. To begin, CMC is proposed to facilitate support-seeking by fostering conditions in which individuals can better manage psychological costs (Lim et al., 2013; Walther & Boyd, 2002). Unlike prior research focusing on social networking sites (SNS) for support-seeking, we concentrate on texting because of its prevalence among young adults in dating relationships (Morey et al., 2013). More importantly, texting is the quintessential form of CMC that affords completely different functions from FtF interaction, providing a meaningful comparison for our investigation. Second, one’s support-seeking tendency is predisposed by personal characteristics. Previous research has found that attachment style influences how individuals approach stressful situations and their likelihood of seeking support from their romantic partner (Collins & Feeney, 2004). We investigate to what extent insecure attachment leads to varying interest in CMC (vs. FtF) when individuals need support from their romantic partner. Third, functional attributes inherent in communication environments (i.e., affordances) have been conceptualized as beneficial in attaining seekers’ goals, which explains their use of CMC for support-seeking (see Rains & Wright, 2016). However, the seekers’ perceptions of these affordances have rarely been examined. Therefore, we take an affordance-centric approach (Evans et al., 2017; Fox & McEwan, 2017) to identify three critical affordances in relation to support-seeking conversations, orienting the seekers towards texting or FtF for support-seeking. To summarize, we propose that the likelihood of seeking support via texting or FtF is a function of affordances and attachment style.

Support-seeking via CMC

Seeking support often comes with psychological costs (Goldsmith, 1992; Lim et al., 2013). On one hand, soliciting assistance raises questions about the competence of the support seeker, and sharing distressing information creates negative impressions of themselves toward helpers (Lee, 2002). The seekers may view the act of asking for help as their inability to solve their problems, threatening their self-esteem. These concerns heighten the need for impression management in the support-seeking process. On the other hand, most helpers do not volunteer their support, requiring distressed seekers to actively indicate their need for support. By initiating the supportive conversation, seekers inherently face the possibility of rejection or criticism, along with potential disharmony within the relationship, as the partner may be unable or unwilling to help (Taylor et al., 2004). Together, seeking support can induce intrapersonal costs, such as face threats, and interpersonal costs, such as relationship disharmony due to the uncertainty about how others will react (Goldsmith, 1992; Lim et al., 2013).

These psychological costs compete against the seeker’s desire to obtain support. Prior research suggests using CMC mitigates the psychological costs of support-seeking (e.g., Lim et al., 2013; Walther & Boyd, 2002). For instance, SNS affords access to broad and heterogeneous networks, providing unique benefits to garner support from a wide range of sources with relatively little effort and increasing their likelihood of finding the appropriate support (e.g., Zhao et al., 2021). This, in turn, helps support seekers better manage their interpersonal costs. Apart from interpersonal costs, support seekers must manage their fear of negative evaluation while soliciting assistance (Lim et al., 2013). Due to the reduced availability of social cues over CMC, individuals can better control what information to disclose, which is useful in terms of handling intrapersonal costs (O’Sullivan, 2000). As opposed to asking for support through private channels, individuals spend more time crafting sophisticated messages when asking for help over SNS, such as asking for support directly, referring to the stressor, or using humor. (Buehler et al., 2019; Oh & LaRose, 2016). The employment of these support-seeking messages on SNSs suggests the seekers take advantage of CMC to ameliorate their intrapersonal costs.

However, publicly seeking support on SNS may bring risks as well. For instance, it is often challenging to maintain desired impressions to a large audience, which may result in privacy concerns (Vitak, 2012) and increased fear of negative evaluation (Oh & LaRose, 2016). In contrast, texting is preferred over SNS when individuals look for emotional support in intimate relationships (Rife et al., 2016). The solicitation of emotional support via texting also helps the support seekers effectively combat stressors (Rains et al., 2016). Support providers are also more likely to write messages of higher quality via private messaging channels than public channels (Liu & Wei, 2018; Youngvorst & High, 2018). Considering the advantages and disadvantages of seeking support over CMC identified in prior studies, this study contributes to this body of research by assessing support-seekers’ perceptions of the technological features, in conjunction with individual characteristics and situational demands, that lead support seekers to request assistance via texting (rather than FtF).

Attachment style

We first consider attachment style as a key factor shaping the seeker’s support-seeking strategies and the use of texting versus FtF (Barbee et al., 1995; Rains & Wright, 2016). Attachment style is one of the most influential individual factors in close relationship functioning (Collins & Feeney, 2000, 2004). In its original formulation, attachment theory explains why infants become insecure when separated from their caregivers. Scholars then extend this theory to the investigation of social function in adulthood, theorizing two fundamental dimensions of attachment style --- anxiety and avoidance (Fraley et al., 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The anxiety dimension refers to the extent to which one is insecure about the perceived acceptance by others in a relationship. The avoidance dimension refers to the degree to which one eschews intimacy and interdependence with others. Researchers often label individuals who are low in both anxiety and avoidance as being securely attached because they are comfortable with intimacy and willing to rely on others (Fraley et al., 2000). In contrast, individuals who are highly anxious, avoidant, or experiencing both are termed as having an insecure attachment style.

Their insecurity is manifested in how they approach their romantic partner, including how to ask for help (Collins & Feeney, 2000, 2004). For anxious individuals, their low self-esteem exacerbates their impression management concerns, and their lack of confidence in others’ availability inhibits them to disclose their distress openly. Considering this unique need together with the use of CMC, asking for help over texting may assist anxious individuals to access support instantly as well as manage their fear of negative evaluation. For avoidant individuals, their emphasis on self-reliance makes them less likely to directly ask for help and are more inclined to interpret supportive messages negatively (Simpson et al., 1992). Therefore, having an FtF interaction may force avoidant individuals to accept unwanted assistance, whereas texting affords them the ability to leave the interaction freely. Indeed, prior research found that insecure attachment (i.e., high anxiety or avoidance) is strongly associated with frequent usage of SNSs and texting in dating relationships (Luo, 2014; Morey et al., 2013). Therefore, we expect:

H1: High attachment-related anxiety is positively associated with a) interest in texting for support-seeking, whereas negatively associated with b) interest in FtF for support-seeking.

H2: High attachment-related avoidance is positively associated with a) interest in texting for support-seeking, whereas negatively associated with b) interest in FtF for support-seeking.

Situational demands

In addition to the individual factor, it is also important to recognize the support-seeking process can be shaped by situational factors (e.g., the severity of the situation, the type of support). Although the present study used hypothetical scenarios to control the type of support that the seeker is acquiring (i.e., emotional support) and the locus of the seeker’s problem, the magnitude of stressful events shapes how distressed individuals respond (Barbee et al., 1995). When facing severe stress (vs. moderate stress), support seekers tend to experience more intense negative emotions, resulting in a strong desire for help to combat the stressor (Barrett et al., 2001). Severe stress, on the other hand, may raise more serious concerns about psychological costs. In other words, as the magnitude of stress increased, so did the tension between the desire for support and the concerns about psychological costs. As a result, individuals under severe stress may develop a strong interest in texting (vs. FtF) to navigate this tension between the increased psychological costs of seeking support and strong needs for assistance. Considering attachment style as well, we postulate that both individual factors and situational demands influence the likelihood of using FtF and texting for support-seeking. However, it remains unclear why this pattern emerges among certain individuals under certain circumstances. Here, we propose an affordance-based mechanism to illustrate the mental calibration behind the seeker’s interest in texting or FtF.

Affordances-based mechanism for support-seeking

Recently, CMC research has taken an affordance-centric approach. This approach argues that to understand the role of CMC in social interaction, we must explicate the affordances that affect social and psychological processes (Fox & McEwan, 2017). Affordances are the capabilities of the communication environment that users knowingly exploit in the pursuit of their psychological and relational goals (Evans et al., 2017). According to Ruppel (2015), different communicators may perceive the same affordance as more or less important and utilize the affordance differently based on situational demands and relation type. For instance, those in long-lasting relationships (e.g., married couples) find affordances that normally facilitate controllable communication to be less compelling. In contrast, those in relationships of uncertainties (e.g., dating couples) are under more pressure to convey desirable impressions, and consequently, more likely to take advantage of the reduced-cues environment. This affordance-centric approach focuses on the agentic role of users, arguing users’ perceived values of material features can influence how they orient toward CMC or FtF (Evans et al., 2017; Faraj & Azad, 2012).

Considering our study context, different individuals may attach a varying degree of importance to different affordances when they need assistance from their romantic partner. From this perspective, we theorize that support seekers can utilize the affordances of FtF and texting to attain their psychological and relational goals. Although a wide array of affordances has been identified in the literature (Fox & McEwan, 2017), we specify three affordances --- accessibility, the availability of social cues, and conversation control --- that provide critical functions to manage one’s psychological costs when soliciting assistance in an intimate relationship.

First, accessibility refers to one channel’s property of being available for social interaction without any time and physical constraints (Choi & Toma, 2014). Highly accessible channels are desirable when individuals have an imperative need to communicate. The pressing need for disclosure, comfort, and care becomes particularly potent when individuals are in demanding situations (Barrett et al., 2001). For some distressed individuals, the strong urge of sharing the experience to ease the stress outweighs the potential interpersonal costs (e.g., being rejected), making channels with high accessibility more appealing. FtF interaction may not be available immediately after a stressful event occurs. Texting, on the other hand, is markedly more accessible, being embedded in mobile devices and highly prevalent among the younger generation in the US (Perrin, 2021).

Second, the availability of social cues refers to the extent to which verbal and nonverbal cues can be transmitted via a medium (also see “media richness”, Daft & Lengel, 1986; “bandwidth”, Fox & McEwan, 2017). FtF communication is rich in both verbal and nonverbal social cues. Most nonverbal cues that are common in FtF interactions, including the tone of voice and the sense of touch, can hardly be communicated through texting. This means that, over texting, support seekers cannot readily access nonverbal support, such as companionship or physical comfort. But at the same time, the reduction of social cues over texting helps seekers control what information to disclose and manage impressions (O’Sullivan, 2000). In contrast, over FtF interaction, support seekers must manage many nonverbal cues with potential intrapersonal costs, which may influence how effectively their needs for support are communicated.

Thirdly, conversation control refers to the ability to manage the time and flow of social interaction (Feaster, 2010). Texting affords higher conversation control than FtF because there are no nonverbal cues to manage and more time to ponder for responses (O’Sullivan, 2000). Seeking support often induces interpersonal costs and impression management concerns as seekers must engage in the disclosure of weaknesses and can be perceived as incompetent (Burleson et al., 2005; Lim et al., 2013). Although seekers are longing for support, they also want to convey positive impressions. Thus, channels with high conversation control, such as texting, may be favorable so that individuals can easily adjust the conversation length and topics (O’Sullivan, 2000). Thus, individuals who are fearful of negative evaluation may be more interested in texting over FtF to effectively manage their intrapersonal costs.

Considering prior research on support-seeking (e.g., Lim et al., 2013; Oh & LaRose, 2016), the CMC affordances identified above can enhance or diminish the seeker’s ability to effectively manage the costs of support-seeking as well as meet their psychological needs associated with their attachment style. On one hand, anxiously attached individuals strongly desire intimacy, care, and comfort (Collins & Feeney, 2000; 2004), highlighting the need to reach their romantic partner instantly (i.e., the desirability of accessibility). Individuals who are high on anxiety often struggle with a negative evaluation of themselves and are often worried about being abandoned by their partners. Here, texting may render them the ability to better manage their impressions and ease their anxiety. The obscuring of nonverbal cues can protect anxious individuals from receiving and overinterpreting possible negative cues, which can further ease their fear of being abandoned. At the same time, these anxious individuals long for support from their partner that confirms their value in the relationship, due to the fear of rejection. Therefore, the ability to regulate and manage the length and flow of communication could meet such needs for highly controlled interpersonal conversation. Taken these together, we expect:

H3: High attachment-related anxiety is positively associated with the perceived value of (a) accessibility and (b) conversation control, and negatively associated with the perceived value of (c) the availability of social cues.

On the other hand, for those with an avoidant attachment style, their emphasis on independence indicates a fundamental belief that others might be emotionally unavailable or unresponsive (Simpson et al., 1992). Therefore, the accessibility of a medium may be less important to them. In addition, avoidant individuals tend to dislike unsolicited advice, comfort, or care (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Greater control over the timing and content of a conversation would be appreciated as individuals can decide how open they would like to discuss the problem. Thus, those with high avoidance in close relationships may value the ability to exert control over the conversation (i.e., high importance of conversation control), but dislike channels with an abundance of supportive cues (i.e., low importance of the availability of social cues). Taking our analysis here into account, we propose:

H4: High attachment-related avoidance is negatively associated with the perceived value of (a) accessibility and (b) conversation control, and positively associated with the perceived value of (c) the availability of social cues.

In turn, the seeker’s perceived importance of affordances can be translated into their varying interests in FtF and texting for support-seeking. The high accessibility, reduced availability of social cues, and greater conversation control of texting may appeal to those who are seriously concerned about their psychological costs over support-seeking. Those who are less concerned with these costs, on the other hand, will place a higher value on the richness of social cues and reduced conversation control afforded by FtF interaction. We hypothesize that the perceived importance of these affordances will orient the seeker toward texting or FtF for support-seeking, and propose:

H5: Individual’s perceived value of (a) accessibility and (b) conversation control is positively associated with interest in texting for support-seeking, whereas their perceived value of (c) the availability of social cues is negatively associated with interest in texting for support-seeking.

H6: Individual’s perceived value of (a) accessibility and (b) conversation control is negatively associated with interest in FtF for support-seeking, whereas their perceived value of (c) the availability of social cues is positively associated with interest in FtF for support-seeking.

Additionally, as previously indicated, situational demands (i.e., moderate vs. severe stress) intensify their worry over the psychological costs of support-seeking, which intersects with the seeker’s attachment style. Individuals who are high in avoidance tend to avoid support-seeking and rely on themselves for solutions. This tendency might be strengthened in response to severe stress. Conversely, anxious individuals with their innate need for proximity and fear of rejection might experience stronger concerns over impression management and crave instant support, especially when facing a severely stressful event. Considering how the severity of stress can heighten one’s need for support, we expect prior hypotheses will vary depending on these situational demands. As such, it is hypothesized that:

H7: Associations hypothesized in H1-H6 is stronger for the severely stressful condition than the moderately stressful condition.

Considering all the proposed hypotheses above, it is reasonable to explore the full mediation chain. We expect that individuals with insecure attachment style are more interested in texting for support-seeking. Drawn upon the affordance-based mechanism, this increased interest in texting can be explained by the perceived value of affordances. The affordances that meet specific psychological needs of insecure individuals for support-seeking should be the reason why they prefer texting to a greater extent than their counterparts with secure attachment. Thus, the direct effect of attachment style on interest in texting (and FtF) should be mediated by affordances. This merits further investigation, and thus we ask:

RQ1: How are the relationships between attachment style and interest in texting (and FtF) for support-seeking mediated by perceived values of affordances?

Method

Participants and procedures

Participants (N = 211, 166 women, 45 men; 65% White, 18% Asian or Asian America, 11% Mixed or other, 2% Black or African American; 86% identified as heterosexual, 8% as bisexual, 6% as gay, lesbian, or other sexual orientation; M_age = 20.51) were recruited from the undergraduate research pool at a large Midwestern university and were compensated with extra credit. Only students who were currently in a romantic relationship were eligible for participation. Within this sample, the average individual’s current romantic relationship length is around 17 months (SD = 18.72). Most of this sample (57%, n = 120) had a geographically co-located relationship, whereas 43% (n = 91) had a long-distance relationship.

Participants were given an online survey through Qualtrics. After answering questions about their relationship status, participants were randomly assigned to either a moderate or severe stress condition. In each condition, participants read three hypothetical scenarios adapted from previous studies (e.g., Burleson et al., 2005; Oh & LaRose, 2016). These scenarios described three stressors related to academics, family, and friends that are closely related to a college student’s life, but the level of detail in each condition varied to induce moderate or severe stress (for verbatim scenarios used in the study, see Supplementary Information). After reading each scenario, participants were asked to indicate their interest in using texting and FtF to seek emotional support. Then, based on the stressful scenarios they read, participants reported the perceived value of affordances for support-seeking, and finally, they exited the survey with a battery of questions about their attachment style and other demographics.

Measures

Interest in FtF and texting for support-seeking

After reading each of the three scenarios, participants were asked to imagine they were in a stressful situation and they would like to “seek assurance, comfort, and/or emotional support from [their romantic partner] (auto-filled with the name of participant’s partner), who was not with [them] at the moment.” Then, participants indicated how likely they would use FtF interaction and texting respectively to initiate this support-seeking conversation on a 7-point scale (1 = Extremely unlikely, 7 = Extremely likely; Ledbetter & Herbert, 2022). Responses were solicited and aggregated for FtF interaction (M = 5.25, SD = 1.64, ω = .78) and texting (M = 5.91, SD = 1.67, ω = .75). To further examine the factor structure of these measures, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis treating the likelihood of using FtF and texting as two separate variables. The model achieved excellent fit, χ²(8) = 10.35, p = .241, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .04_{[90% CI = .000; 094]}.

Perceived value of affordances

Participants indicated the extent to which a series of affordances were important to them for seeking emotional support from their romantic partner on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Three subscales of the Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channel Scale (Fox & McEwan, 2017) were used. First, the accessibility subscale included three items (e.g., “It is important that I can access this communication channel easily.”; M = 6.28, SD = 0.85, ω = .82). For accessibility, the higher score indicated more perceived importance of easy access to support from their romantic partner without time or space constraints. Second, the availability of social cues was assessed with three items (e.g., “It is important that this communication channel allows me to express emotion.”; M = 6.33, SD = 0.90, ω = .84). The higher the score was, the more participants valued the ability to utilize a variety of social cues for support-seeking. Third, the conversation control subscale included four items (e.g., “It is important that this communication channel allows me to regulate the flow of communication with my partner.”; M = 4.90, SD = 1.36, ω = .80). The higher composited score indicated a higher significance to control this support-seeking conversation.

Attachment style

Using the short version of the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (Wei et al., 2007), participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on 12 statements regarding their relationship with the current romantic partner on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Six items were used to assess individuals’ attachment avoidance, (e.g., “I want to get close to my romantic partner, but I keep pulling back”; M = 2.24, SD = 0.95, McDonald’s ω = .80), and another six items were used to measure attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry that my romantic partner won’t care about me as much as I care about them”; M = 4.05, SD = 1.23, ω = .75). Since the distribution of participants’ avoidance score is severely skewed, we conducted log-transformation on participant’s score to combat this non-normality in the distribution. Two composite scores were created as indices for attachment style, of which higher scores indicate a higher level of avoidance or anxiety.

Covariates

Participants’ gender, age, relation type (i.e., co-located vs. long-distance relationship), and their perceived supportiveness from their current partner were included as covariates. Moreover, on a 7-point Likert scale, three items adapted from Girme et al. (2022) were administered to assess perceived supportiveness (e.g., “I can turn to [auto-filled with partner’s name] for guidance in times of stress”; M = 6.21, SD = 0.93, ω = .88).

Plausibility and manipulation checks

To examine whether hypothetical stressful scenarios are plausible, participants were asked to first report to what extent the situations they read are realistic. On a 7-point Likert scale, the average of participants’ perceived plausibility across three scenarios ranged from 5.52 to 6.05, indicating relatively high plausibility for these hypothetical scenarios. In addition, for each scenario, participants reported their perceived stress level using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) scale, a picture-oriented instrument that directly assesses stress level (Bradley & Lang, 1994). The average of participants' responses across three scenarios ranged from 7.33 to 8.22 on a 9-point Likert scale, indicating increased stress after exposure to these hypothetical scenarios. An independent samples t-test was also conducted, t(209) = 2.37, p = .019, which indicated that the severe stress condition (N = 108, M = 7.53, SD = 1.22) did induce a higher level of stress than the moderate stress condition (N = 103, M = 7.16, SD = 1.08).

Results

Descriptive analysis

Before testing our main proposed hypotheses and research question, we provided some general observations of the dataset to contextualize empirical findings later (see Table 1 for correlations among main variables). To differentiate general interest in texting and FtF for support-seeking between two stress conditions, a repeated measure ANOVA revealed significant differences between interests in texting and FtF interaction, F(1, 209) = 22.54, p < .001, η_p²= .10. While facing stressful situations, individuals were more interested in texting (M = 5.91) to seek support from their romantic partner than FtF (M = 5.25). However, no significant interaction effect was found between the severity of stress and interest in channel use for support-seeking, F(1, 209) = 1.91, p = .169, indicating that participants were interetsed in FtF and texting similarly regardless of the severity of stress.

Table 1.

Pearson Correlations among Main Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Age	—
2. Gender	−.07	—
3. Relation type	.16^*	−.10	—
4. Supportiveness	.03	.27^***	.11	—
5. Attachment anxiety	.08	.09	−.06	.15^*	—
6. Attachment avoidant	.06	−.15^*	.04	.60^***	.19^**	—
7. Accessibility	−.21^**	.01	.10	.16^**	.02	−.23^***	—
8. Availability of social cues	−.03	.11	−.04	.21^**	.09	−.27^***	.29^***	—
9. Conversation control	−.06	−.06	−.11	−.11	.10	.11	.16^*	−.00	—
10. FtF for support-seeking	.09	−.02	−.40^***	.13	.02	−.16^*	−.04	.15^*	−.05	—
11. Texting for support-seeking	.03	.21^***	.02	.23^***	.05	−.08	.27^***	.04	.14^*	−.01	—
12. Severity of stress	.05	.06	−.03	.08	.01	−.12	.05	−.03	.10	−.07	.07	—

Note: ^*p < .05 ^**p < .01, ^***p < .001. FtF = face-to-face interaction. For gender, female is coded as 1, the reference group. For relation type, being in a co-located relationship is coded as 1, the reference group. For severity of stress, the moderate stress condition is coded as 1, the reference group.

Hypotheses testing

To test our hypotheses, we first conducted a structural equation model (SEM) using the lavaan package in R studio (Rosseel, 2012). For the measurement part, participants’ interests in FtF and texting across three hypothetical scenarios were specified as two latent variables, and other variables were measured with pre-validated scales. For the structural part, these two latent variables (i.e., interests in FtF and texting for support-seeking) were used as endogenous variables, and then directly related to attachment style (i.e., avoidant and anxiety). Moreover, we specified perceived values of affordances (i.e., accessibility, the availability of social cues, and conversation control) as mediators between attachment and interests in different channels for support-seeking. Covariates (i.e., age, gender, perceived supportiveness, and relation type) were directly related to endogenous variables and correlated with exogenous variables. Using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors, our model specification fit our data well, χ²(51) = 72.54, p = .025, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05_{[90% CI = .02; 07]}. SRMR = .04. Table 2 and Figure 1 summarized the main SEM results (for a complete report, see Supplementary Information).

Table 2.

Coefficients for Main Predictions in the Structural Equation Modeling.

	β	p	95%CI
Predicting interests in channels for support-seeking
Anxiety → texting	.04	.608	[−.12, .21]
Avoidance → texting	.14	.163	[−.06, .34]
Accessibility → texting	.36	<.001	[.19, .52]
Availability of social cues → texting	−.12	.178	[−.29, .05]
Conversation control → texting	.17	.038	[.01, .32]
Anxiety → FtF	.07	.324	[−.07, .21]
Avoidance → FtF	−.12	.191	[−.29, .06]
Accessibility → FtF	−.08	.321	[−.23, .07]
Availability of social cues → FtF	.16	.036	[.01, .31]
Conversation control → FtF	.05	.447	[−.09, .19]
Predicting perceived value of media affordances
Anxiety → accessibility	.09	.180	[−.04, .22]
Avoidance → accessibility	−.20	.014	[−.36, −.04]
Anxiety → availability of social cues	.14	.033	[.01, .27]
Avoidance → availability of social cues	−.25	.002	[−.36, −.09]
Anxiety → conversation control	.09	.212	[−.05, .22]
Avoidance → conversation control	.07	.438	[−.10, .23]

Note. 95%CI = 95% confidence interval; FtF = face-to-face interaction. Coefficients and confidence intervals for all paths, including covariates, are given in Supplementary Information.

H1 and H2 considered the direct association between attachment style and interest in texting and FtF for support-seeking. Contrary to our predictions, attachment anxiety was not associated with interest in texting, β = .04, p = .608, nor interest in FtF, β = .07, p = .324. Thus, H1 was rejected. Findings did not support H2 either, where attachment avoidance was not related to interest in texting, β = .14, p = .163, nor interest in FtF, β = −.12, p = .191.

H3 and H4 examined the relationships between an individual’s attachment style and their perceived value of affordances. H3 considered the role of anxiety, proposing that higher attachment anxiety would be associated with heightened values of accessibility and conversation control, along with a diminished value of the availability of social cues. In contrast to our prediction, attachment-related anxiety was positively associated with the availability of social cues, β = .14, p = .033. It indicates individuals with high attachment anxiety tended to appreciate the richness of social cues while seeking support in a stressful situation. Additionally, attachment anxiety was not significantly associated with accessibility, β = .09, p = .180, nor conversation control, β = .09, p = .212. Taken together, H3 was rejected.

H4 then proposed that a high attachment avoidance would be associated with reduced values of accessibility and the availability of social cues, but an increased value of conversation control. In support of H4, there was a negative relationship between attachment-related avoidance and accessibility, β = −.20, p = .014. The availability of social cues was also negatively associated with attachment avoidance, β = −.25, p = .002. This suggests that, while facing stressful situations, participants who were more avoidantly attached perceived easy access to their partner as less valuable; they also considered the availability of social cues as less important. However, conversation control was not associated with attachment avoidance, β = .07, p = .438. H4 received partial support.

Next, H5 and H6 regarded the relationship between perceived values of affordances and the likelihood of using texting and FtF for support seeking. H5 predicted that a high perceived value of accessibility and conversation control in addition to a low perceived value of the availability of social cues would be associated with a strong interest in texting to seek support. Positive relationships were found between interest in texting with accessibility, β = .36, p < .001, and conversation control, β = .17, p = .038. Under a stressful situation, individuals who attached higher values to the accessibility of communication channels and the ability to control the conversation were more likely to use texting to seek support from a romantic partner. However, there was no association between the availability of social cues and texting, β = −.12, p = .191. Thus, H5 was partially supported.

H6 then hypothesized that strong interests in FtF would emerge among those who considered the availability of social cues as valuable, but the accessibility and conversation control as less important. SEM found that the interest in FtF for support-seeking was positively associated with the availability of social cues, β = .16, p = .036. It indicated that participants who valued the richness of social cues were more interested in carrying out a support-seeking conversation in person with their partner. However, the interest in FtF was not significantly associated with accessibility, β = −.08, p = .321, nor conversation control, β = .05, p = .447. Hence, H6 was also partially supported.

H7 postulated that the severity of stress will moderate associations among attachment, perceived value of affordances, and interest in FtF and texting (tested and proposed in H1-H6). Since a between-subject design was adopted, we used lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) for a multi-group analysis. Using the SEM specified above, the stress level condition was entered as a binary group factor (i.e., mild stress coded as 1, severe stress condition coded as 0). This base-line model showed good model fitness, χ²(100) = 127.82, p = .032, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05_{[90% CI = .02; 07]}. SRMR = .06. Then, we tested the constrained model with all path coefficients held equal across two conditions, which had acceptable model fitness, χ²(116) = 145.19, p = .030, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05_{[90% CI = .02; 07]}. SRMR = .07. However, in comparison to the base-line model, the model fitness of this constrained model did not decrease significantly, ^△χ²(16) = 17.62, p = .283, suggesting path coefficients were equal across two conditions (Chen, 2007). In other words, the severity of stress did not moderate path coefficients tested in H1-H6. Thus, H7 was rejected.

RQ1 then asked about whether the associations between attachment style and interest in texting and FtF are mediated by affordances. For participants with high avoidance, the ability to easily access their partner was considered unimportant, which in turn predicted less interest in texting to attain support under a stressful situation, β = −.07, p = .036, 95%CI [−.14, −.01]. These avoidant participants also perceived the richness of social cues as having less value, resulting in their lower interest in texting, β = −.08, p = .047, 95%CI [−.15, −.01]. In terms of attachment anxiety, anxious participants appreciated the availability of social cues, which was associated with their strengthened interest in FtF for support-seeking, β = .04, p = .023, 95%CI [.03, .16]. To address RQ1, avoidant individuals attached lower values to accessibility and availability of social cues, which in turn predicted their lower interest in texting for support-seeking; those with anxious attachment style valued the availability of social cues more for supportive communication, resulting in increased interest in FtF interaction.

Discussion

Supportive interaction is consequential in maintaining close relationships. This study asked what factors motivate individuals to use texting (vs. FtF) for support-seeking and why such interest emerges. With an affordance-centric approach, we proposed that this critical decision made by the support seeker is a function of attachment style, situational demands, and affordances. Results indicated that individuals with high attachment anxiety valued the availability of social cues more, which in turn was related to increased interest in FtF for support-seeking. In contrast, individuals with high attachment avoidance considered accessibility as unimportant, leading to lower interest in texting. As specified below, these findings advanced the literature on support-seeking within romantic relationships in today’s mediated world from an affordance-centric perspective.

Seeking support via texting: An affordance-based mechanism

While acquiring assistance in an intimate relationship, the seeker oftentimes experiences this tension between their needs for help and concerns over psychological costs (Lim et al., 2013). Prior research found there were both benefits and risks of seeking support in a mediated environment, especially SNS (e.g., Oh & LaRose, 2016; Liu & Wei, 2018). Here, we focused on the use of texting (vs. FtF) to seek emotional support in romantic relationships. In an absolute sense, young adults are more interested in using texting over FtF for support-seeking. When controlling their interests in FtF, the increased interest in texting was explained by the higher perceived value of accessibility and conversation control for support-seeking. Texting is first appreciated for its easy access to one’s close contact. These days, texting is widely diffused and easily accessible, allowing distressed individuals to deliver messages as they are experiencing negative emotions and in need of prompt help. In addition, conversation control is particularly valuable for controlling what distressing information to disclose, which in turn helps seekers effectively manage their self-image. In contrast, increased interest in FtF interaction for support-seeking emerged among those who consider the availability of rich social cues as critical. It suggests that FtF interaction is particularly attractive only because distressed individuals need comfort ranging from verbal assurance to nonverbal comfort.

Together, these findings corroborate our theorization that the match between affordances and psychological needs motivates the seeker to use FtF or texting for support-seeking. As suggested by the affordance-centric approach (Evans et al., 2017; Ruppel, 2015), affordance ought to be explicated as a relational construct that connects the materiality of a certain medium and the potential actions of its users. Users play an agentic role in determining how to take advantage (or avoid disadvantages) of affordances based on their psychological needs and communication goals. It is because of these material differences that the seekers are motivated to use texting or FtF for support-seeking. This affordance-based mechanism advanced the current literature on the use of CMC for support-seeking in the context of romantic relationships.

Furthermore, the modality of supportive interaction has been directly associated with the quality of support messages, where helpers are better at providing quality support via CMC than through FtF interaction (e.g., Rains et al., 2019). Based on the findings presented here, we can conclude that those interested in texting may benefit from the affordances of accessibility and conversation control to achieve their interaction goals, as well as potentially from thoughtful messages from their romantic partners. Quality emotional support, particularly from close relationships, improves the well-being of distressed individuals by mitigating the negative effects of stress (Bodie, 2011; MacGeorge et al., 2011). As a result, whether supportive interactions will result in well-being is contingent upon where the seeker initiates supportive communication. We encourage future research to consider the seeker’s mental calculations behind their use of CMC, as well as how their support-seeking messages delivered via different channels may impact the outcomes of supportive interactions.

Texting or FtF for support-seeking: Attachment and situational demands

How to seek support is also shaped by individual factors. Prior research suggested that individuals with insecure attachment styles tend to prefer CMC due to their fear of rejection or strong self-reliance (Luo, 2014; Morey et al., 2013). However, in the present study, insecure attachment style did not directly associate with interest in texting nor FtF for support-seeking. This might be due to distinctive psychological needs associated with attachment styles when acquiring assistance in romantic relationships. Our affordance-centric approach provides some insights. First, avoidant individuals desire independence and avoid reliance on their close ones. This self-reliance was found associated with less value attached to the affordance of accessibility and the availability of social cues. While facing a stressful event, those with high avoidance may not necessarily want to interact with their romantic partners and ask for aid at all. Hence, this low perceived importance of accessibility was related to less interest in texting, whereas the perceived unimportance of social cues was associated with less interest in FtF interactions.

Second, contrary to our hypothesis, those with high attachment anxiety did not necessarily value accessibility or conversation control, but they valued the availability of social cues more when in need of assistance. This preference for rich social cues was then associated with a lower interest in texting for support-seeking. It indicates that these anxiously attached individuals prefer having the presence of their romantic partner during a stressful time. This preference might be driven by both their desire for support and the fear of abandonment. Although prior research has found a strong preference for texting among anxious individuals (Luo, 2014; Morey et al., 2013), our findings indicate this preference has its boundary condition. That is, in a romantic relationship, the need for a loving and supportive response outweighs the fear of negative evaluations among anxious individuals.

It is also unexpected that individuals with anxiety did not appreciate the easy accessibility to help from their romantic counterparts. This is intriguing as attachment anxiety is characterized by a strong desire for constant care and love. Texting ought to be an effective tool to meet this heightened need, especially during demanding times. One possible explanation is that the benefits of richness in social cues triumph over the ability to access the loved one instantly. Together, it appears those with anxiety attachment prefer FtF interaction for support seeking. However, will this group benefit from supportive interaction over FtF? Although the current project cannot address this question, the richness of social cues may make anxious people more fearful of being judged negatively because they are more likely to dwell on specific cues during a FtF interaction. We encourage future research to examine the individual susceptibility to the effects of supportive interaction over FtF versus texting.

Furthermore, contrary to our prediction, the stress level did not act as a moderator. Our original hypothesis is based on the argument that psychological costs will rise as situational demands for severe stressful situations increase. One possible explanation for this lack of effect is the context of romantic relationships. Regardless of the magnitude of stress, the psychological costs of seeking support from a romantic partner can be constant. Because a romantic partner is a reliable source of support, the severity of stress does not necessarily result in increased needs for ease of access or the richness of social cues. Future research could test this hypothesis by comparing different relationship types (e.g., dating couples vs. friends) or different situations (e.g., mundane conversation vs. stressful events). Another possible explanation is that when confronted with actual severe stress, individuals who are anxious or avoidant may experience noticeable negative emotions that influence their mental calculation of media use. The use of hypothetical scenarios keeps us from ruling out this possibility. As a result, future research would benefit from observing the use of CMC (vs. FtF) in the face of real-life stressors.

Limitations and future research directions

Several limitations and unresolved questions should be recognized for future research. First, this study utilized hypothetical scenarios. Although hypothetical scenarios are commonly used for the investigation of support-seeking (e.g., Oh & LaRose, 2016), individuals’ responses might only indicate the extent to which they are motivated to seek support using FtF or texting rather than their actual choice. Future studies should utilize ecologically valid methods that record the seeker’s actual support-seeking behaviors in real life. Second, we used a sample of college students. Although dating relationships among young adults are relatively volatile, this population is likely to have different needs and goals than others in more serious relationships. Future research should replicate these findings with different ages or stages of romantic relationships to increase generalizability. Moreover, this study did not distinguish the use of texting for support-seeking between geographically co-located and distanced couples.¹ Thus, another fruitful line of research is to compare real-life support-seeking behaviors over CMC between couples in different relation types. Third, it is important to recognize that support-seeking conversations may not happen in a single medium. Rather, romantic partners might switch between several channels as they continue their conversations, a phenomenon known as modality switching (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013). Therefore, future research should examine how supportive communication unfolds across various channels. Finally, it is worth noting that our findings would be further enhanced by capturing the communicator’s specific goals. Our main theorization relies on the inference of the match between the perceived value of affordances and an individual’s communication goals. This study illustrated the use of CMC for support-seeking as a calculative decision, whereby future studies will contribute to our knowledge of this decision-making process by measuring the seeker’s specific goals.

Conclusion

Interactions between dating couples via CMC are increasingly prevalent today. This study examined to what extent individuals would like to use texting to seek support from their romantic partners. Results illustrate how college students use texting (vs. FtF) strategically as a function of affordances and their own psychological makeup (i.e., attachment style). Texting is the preferred mode for support-seeking among college students as it provides accessibility and the ability to control the conversation. At the same time, individuals with different attachment styles perceive the value of affordances differently, which transfers into various interests in texting and FtF interaction for support-seeking. As texting emerges as a ubiquitous and important tool for relationship maintenance, the affordance-based mechanism uncovered here sheds light on the mental calculations behind the use of texting for relationship maintenance in today’s mediated world.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Texting or face-to-face for support-seeking in romantic relationships: The role of affordances and attachment

Supplemental Material for Texting or face-to-face for support-seeking in romantic relationships: The role of affordances and attachment by Y Anthony Chen and Runzhi Mary Lu in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered online, yet the authors have submitted an extended abstract to the guest editors for review. Current research project is conducted based in original extended abstract and received feedback.

The data and materials used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing the correspondence author, Y. Anthony Chen (chen696@wisc.edu).

ORCID iD

Y. Anthony Chen

Supplemental material

Supplement material for this article is available in online.

Note

References

Barbee

A. P.

Gulley

M. R.

Cunningham

M. R.

(1990). Support seeking in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590074009

Barrett

L. F.

Gross

Christensen

T. C.

Benvenuto

(2001). Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition & Emotion, 15(6), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000239

Bodie

G. D.

(2011). The role of thinking in the comforting process: An empirical test of a dual-process framework. Communication Research, 40(4), 533–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211427030

Bradley

M. M.

Lang

P. J.

(1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9.

Buehler

E. M.

Crowley

J. L.

Peterson

A. M.

High

A. C.

(2019). Broadcasting for help: A typology of support-seeking strategies on Facebook. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2566–2588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819853821

Burleson

B. R.

Holmstrom

A. J.

Gilstrap

C. M.

(2005). Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 468–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500322636

Caughlin

J. P.

Sharabi

L. L.

(2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Choi

Toma

(2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026.

10.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053

11.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363

12.

Daft

R. L.

Lengel

R. H.

(1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

13.

Evans

S. K.

Pearce

K. E.

Vitak

Treem

J. W.

(2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180

14.

Faraj

Azad

(2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In Leonardi

P. M.

Nardi

Kallinikos

(Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258). Oxford University Press.

15.

Feaster

J. C.

(2010). Expanding the impression management model of communication channels: An information control scale. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01535.x

16.

Fox

McEwan

(2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418

17.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350

18.

Girme

Y. U.

Sibley

C. G.

Hadden

B. W.

Schmitt

M. T.

Hunger

J. M.

(2022). Unsupported and stigmatized? The association between relationship status and well-being is mediated by social support and social discrimination. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211030102

19.

Goldsmith

(1992). Managing conflicting goals in supportive interaction: An integrative theoretical framework. Communication Research, 19(2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019002007

20.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

21.

Ledbetter

A. M.

Herbert

C. B.

(2022). Revisiting the impression management model: The mediating role of net benefits, the moderating role of communication competence, and the importance of mutual-face concern. Information, Communication & Society, 25(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1803945

22.

Lee

(2002). The social costs of seeking help. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 38(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886302381002

23.

Lim

V. K.

Teo

T. S.

Zhao

(2013). Psychological costs of support seeking and choice of communication channel. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.518248

24.

Liu

Wei

(2018). Modeling social support on social media: Effect of publicness and the underlying mechanisms. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.006

25.

Luo

(2014). Effects of texting on satisfaction in romantic relationships: The role of attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.014

26.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2011). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317–354). Sage.

27.

Morey

J. N.

Gentzler

A. L.

Creasy

Oberhauser

A. M.

Westerman

(2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019

28.

H. J.

LaRose

(2016). Impression management concerns and support-seeking behavior on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.005.

29.

O’Sullivan

P. B.

(2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26(3), 403–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/26.3.403

30.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

(2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1496–1513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210383045

31.

Perrin

(2021, June 3rd). Mobile technology and home broadband 2021. Pew Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/06/03/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2021/.

32.

Rains

S. A.

Akers

Pavlich

C. A.

Tsetsi

Appelbaum

(2019). Examining the quality of social support messages produced face-to-face and in computer-mediated communication: The effects of hyperpersonal communication. Communication Monographs, 86(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1595076

33.

Rains

S. A.

Brunner

S. R.

Akers

Pavlich

C. A.

Tsetsi

(2016). The implications of computer-mediated communication (CMC) for social support message processing and outcomes: When and why are the effects of support messages strengthened during CMC? Human Communication Research, 42(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12087

34.

Rains

S. A.

Wright

K. B.

(2016). Social support and computer-mediated communication: A state-of-the-art review and agenda for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 175–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735260

35.

Rife

S. C.

Kerns

K. A.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2016). Seeking support in response to social and achievement stressors: A multivenue analysis. Personal Relationships, 23(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12130

36.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

37.

Ruppel

E. K.

(2015). The affordance utilization model: Communication technology use as relationships develop. Marriage & Family Review, 51(8), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2015.1061628

38.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434

39.

Taylor

S. E.

Sherman

D. K.

Kim

H. S.

Jarcho

Takagi

Dunagan

M. S.

(2004). Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.354

40.

Toma

C. L.

Choi

(2016). Mobile media matters: Media use and relationship satisfaction among geographically close dating couples. In Gergle

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 394–404). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2835204

41.

Vitak

(2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732140

42.

Walther

J. B.

Boyd

(2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In Lin

C. A.

Atkin

(Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153–188). Hampton Press.

43.

Wei

Russell

D. W.

Mallinckrodt

Vogel

D. L.

(2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-Short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041

44.

Youngvorst

L. J.

High

A. C.

(2018). Anyone free to chat?” Using technological features to elicit quality support online. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1426871

45.

Zhao

Han

Zhong

Xie

Chen

Zhi

(2021). Health information on social media helps mitigate Crohn’s disease symptoms and improves patients’ clinical course. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106588.

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.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB