COMPUTER - MEDIATED RELATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW By Taj Makki A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Media and Information Master of Arts 2015 ABSTRACT COMPUTER - MEDIATED RELATIONAL MAINTENANCE AND RELATIONSHIP QUALITY: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW By Taj Makki The purpose of the present study was to examine computer - mediated relational maintenance for its impacts on different dimensions of relationship quality. A systematic literature review was conducted to determine: (a) the extent to which findings related to computer - mediated relational maintenance behaviors and relationship quality correspond with typologies derived from offline relational maintenance behaviors, and (b) what overarching themes exist in current literature regarding the impacts of computer - med iated relational maintenance on the quality of nonplatonic relationships. Findings revealed support for six relational maintenance categories as contributing to relational maintenance via CMC: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, conflict man agement, and surveillance. Furthermore, jealousy and idealization emerged as noteworthy relationship outcomes associated with the use of CMC for relational maintenance. Overall, CMC use between nonplatonic partners was associated with more positive than ne gative relationship outcomes. Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. iii LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... vi Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 Relational Maintenance ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 Computer - Mediated Communication and Relational Outcomes ................................ ......... 4 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 The Systematic Literature Review Process ................................ ................................ .................. 7 The Planning Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7 Step one: Determining scope, identifying the review question, and writing the protocol ... 7 The Implementation Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7 Step two: Searching the literature ................................ ................................ ........................ 7 Step three: Screening titles, abstracts, and reference lists ................................ ................... 8 Step four: Obtaining papers ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 Step five: Selecting full - text papers ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 Step six: Assessing risk of bias ................................ ................................ ............................ 8 Step seven: Extracting data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 Step eight: Synthesizing and analyzing data ................................ ................................ ........ 8 The Reporting Phase ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9 Step nine: Writing up and editing ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 The Review Protocol ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 9 Evidence Gathering and Study Selection ................................ ................................ ............. 9 Evidence Gathering ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 9 Searching databases ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 Reference searches ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 Eligibility Criteria ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 10 Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 10 Outcome measures ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10 Contexts and behaviors ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 Study Quality Assessment ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 Data Extraction Strategy ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Synthesis of Extracted Data ................................ ................................ ............................... 11 Positive ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 Mixed - Positive ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 Negative ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 Mixed - Negative ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12 Neutral ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 13 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 Search Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 14 iv Description of the Evidence ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 Narrative Summaries ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 18 Thematic Findings: Relationship Outcomes ................................ ................................ ...... 19 Jealousy ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 Idealization ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 21 Thematic Findings: Relational Maintenance Behaviors ................................ .................... 21 Positivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Openness ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 24 Assurances ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Social Networks ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 25 Conflict Management ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 Surveillance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 28 Narrative Summary by Outcome Classification & Relationship Type .............................. 29 Exclusively Online Relationships (EORs) ................................ ............................. 30 Positive EOR findings ................................ ................................ ................ 30 Long Distance Relationships (LDRs) ................................ ................................ .... 30 Positive LDR findings ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Mixed - Positive LDR findings ................................ ................................ .... 33 Negative LDR findings ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Neutral LDR findings ................................ ................................ ................ 35 Unspecified Relationship Type ................................ ................................ .............. 35 Positive URT findings ................................ ................................ ................ 36 Mixed - Positive URT findings ................................ ................................ .... 39 Negative URT findings ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Mixed - Negative URT findings ................................ ................................ .. 42 Neutral URT findings ................................ ................................ ................ 44 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 44 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 45 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 45 Relational Maintenance Behaviors ................................ ................................ .................... 45 Relationship Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 47 Outcome Classifications ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 49 Other Themes ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 Summary of Contribution ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 52 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 54 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 56 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 59 APPENDIX A Database Search Strategy ................................ ................................ .................. 60 APPENDIX B Cross - Tabulation of Age Data ................................ ................................ ........... 61 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 63 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Databases Searched ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 10 T able 2 : Article Count by Study Design ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 T able 3 : Article Count by Technology Type ................................ ................................ ................. 15 T able 4 : Article Count by Relationship Type ................................ ................................ ................ 16 T able 5 : Article Count by Outcome ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 Table 6 : Article Count by Mean Age of Participants ................................ ................................ .... 17 Table 7 : Article Count by Year of Publication ................................ ................................ .............. 18 Table 8 : Outcome Variable Occurrences ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Table 9 : Behavioral Category Findings ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Table 10 : LDR Outcome Classification ................................ ................................ ......................... 31 Table 11 : URT Outcome Classification ................................ ................................ ......................... 35 Table 12 : Cross - Tabulation of Age Data ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Search Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 1 Introductio n Given the widespread adoption of technology and the integration of its tools into our daily lives, the maintenance of relationships has evolved to include various methods of communication. Computer - mediated communication (CMC), defined as communication that occurs through two or more electronic devices (Den nis, 2005), now constitutes a significant portion of our interpersonal interactions. This includes, but is not limited to, communication that takes place through instant messaging, chat rooms, email, social networking sites, text messaging, and even phone calls. As interpersonal communication partially migrates to computer - mediated environments, communication scholars are faced with a new real m of human behavior to examine. A great deal of relational maintenance research has examined the processes involved in using CMC to maintain relationships (e.g., Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993; Dainton & Stafford, 1993; Rabby, 2007; Stafford & Merolla, 2007; Sta fford, Merolla, & Castle, 2006). While many of these research efforts have (1991) typology as the basis of further inquiry (Houser, Fleuriet, & Estrada, 2012; Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigly, 2 008; Rabby, 2007; Wright, 2004), others have speculated that the examination of relational maintenance in computer - mediated enviro nments should be carried out independently of findings in offline environments (e.g., Tong & Walther , in press; Tidwell & Walther, 2002) . Specifically, Tong & Walther mediated fic respect to computer - In an attempt to guide this debate, the 2 present study examine s the extent to which offline relational maintenance strategies translate in online contexts . Furthermore, the study aims to iden tify , through the examination of extant literature, the impacts of computer - mediated relational maintenance behaviors ( CMRMB) on dimensions of relationship quality and pinpoint the potentially unique relationship outcomes associated with computer - mediated relational maintenance (CMRM) . Relational Maintenance The phenomena involved in maintaining relationships have received an abundance of scholarly attention during the past few decades. Scholars have proposed varying definitions and typologies to delineat e the behaviors involved in relational maintenance. This has led to variations in research foci within the discipline, where researchers approach the exploration of relational maintenance from different conceptual backgrounds. The literature commonly descr ibes relational maintenance in terms of four different relationship goals: (a) Maintaining stability; to keep a relationship active and avoid its termination, (b) Maintaining the status quo; to maintain the current status and structure of a relationship, ( c) Maintaining quality; to maintain satisfaction within a relationship, and (d) Repairing problems; to resolve issues or threats to a relationship (Canary & Zelley, 2003). Given the crucial role of quality in interpersonal relationships, the present study will focus on dimensions of relationship quality in examining the impacts of CMRMBs on couples. 227). The importance of quality in close relationships has been emphasized in social psychology, with relationships of high quality associated with improvements in physical and mental well - being and relationships of poor qua lity serving to undermine well - being and health (Baumeister 3 & Leary, 1995; Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt - Glaser, 1996). In efforts to assess the determinants of relational quality, relational maintenance scholars have aimed to organize and systematize the di scipline by grouping relational maintenance into different dimensions of goal - oriented behaviors. In line with these efforts, Stafford and Canary (1991) uncovered a finite set, or typology, of relational maintenance behaviors. Within this typology are fiv e dimensions of relational maintenance strategies; assurances, openness, positivity, task sharing, and social network. Assurances Openness describes disclosures that assist individuals in knowing the nature of their relationship and its status. Positivity involves behaving in an optimistic, Task sharing fairly assist his/her partner with duties that support the relationship. Finally, social network is described as the use of third - party interactions (e.g., a unified support system of friends and gories has been very popular in guiding interpersonal inquiry for past couple of decades and has been used to examine relational maintenance in both online and offline contexts. The original Stafford et al. (1991) typology has been expanded in subsequent research, leading to an updated typology with two additional RMB categories : conflict management and advice (Stafford et al., 2000) . Nonetheless, further updates and expansions may be necessary. Tong & Walther (in p ress) suggest that CMC is changing the ways we perform relational replicate in online contexts , typologies (e.g., Stafford & Canary, 1991; Stafford et al., 2000 ) may need to be updated or reconceptualized in light of new 4 computer - mediated behaviors. The refore, the present review was guided by the following research question: RQ1: To what extent do findings related to computer - mediated relational maintenance behaviors and relationship quality correspond with typologies derived from offline relational maintenance behaviors? Computer - Mediated Communication and Relational Outcomes The relational maintenance behaviors enacted through CMC have been explored in the context of different relational outcomes (Gunn & Gunn, 2000; Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, and Wigley, 2008; Johnson et al., 2008; Wright, 2004) . These efforts have focused on determining links between CMC behaviors and different dimensions of relationship quality. For instance, keeping in touch with distant loved ones through CMC has been found to boost feelings of love and closeness in relationships (Gunn & Gunn, 2000). In addition, rese arch has revealed that couples who chat using instant messaging services are more likely to share private information with one another, which is believed to assist in relational maintenance (Johnson et al., 2008). Satisfaction , which refers to the posit ive versus negative affect experienced in the has been a particularly popular measure of relationship quality, with strong links drawn between satisfaction and the integration of CMC in relational maintenance s trategies (Wright, 2004). Commitment , which includes the decision to relat have also been popular measures, Investment Model of Commi tment (Rusbult et al., 1998 5 (Miller, 1982 ) frequently used to assess nonplatonic relationship quality in CMC studies. Nonetheless, satisfaction remains the most frequently used, and relational maintenance itself is 153 ). Be cause the literature situates satisfaction as a measurable outcome variable with which researchers can assess the success and relevance of different relational maintenance behaviors, the present review focuses on satisfaction as a guiding construct in asse ssing links between CMRMBs and quality in nonplatonic relationships. However, just as it is possible that relational maintenance typologies, and their corresponding behavioral categories, might deserve reconsideration in the relatively new context of CMC also need updating. While satisfaction and other prevalent measures have earned their popularity by continuously serving as informative and reliable indicators of relationsh ip quality and longevity ( e.g., Sbarra & Law, 2009 ), it is possible that CMRM impacts interpersonal relationships in ways that traditional RM does not, and vice versa. A conclusive understanding of the impacts of CMRMBs on the quality of nonplatonic relati onships involves the consideration of many potentially influential factors. Therefore, the present study was also guided by a second research question: RQ2: What overarching themes exist in current literature regarding the impacts of computer - mediated relational maintenance on the quality of nonplatonic relationships? 6 Method signed to locate, appraise, and synthesize . .. evidence relating to a specific research question to provide informative and evidence - known for their prevalence in health care research, but are also common prerequisites for empirical research funding, and are used to inform decision making in various disciplines and professions. Because SLRs give full and impartial accounts of what has been published thus far on a given topic, they are valuable in helping practitioners and researchers evaluate the status quo of knowledge on a particular topic, contribute to the development of theory, or determine directions for future research (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). Systematic literature reviews differ from other reviews in that they involve intricately described and transparent steps for searching literature, extracting data, quality assessments, and data synthesis. The papers included in systematic reviews are referred to as primary studies, and the s ystematic literature review is considered to be a form of secondary study. Opting to conduct primary research would involve time and sample constraints, which could jeopardize the generalizability of findings. The systematic literature review allows for th e inclusion of many different study designs and populations without the concerns of conducting large - scale primary research. Furthermore, the systematic literature review methodology allows the researcher to grow familiar with many different research metho dologies through the process of reviewing many different primary studies. It also promotes insight into the limitations and strengths of published research; helping the researcher to recognize crucial elements of research quality by evaluating the works of others. It is also worth noting that a lthough the systematic literature review is often a prerequisite for meta - analysis, the two methods vary. W hile a systematic review 7 includes a protocol - based systematic search of the literature and presents the findin gs in narrative summary form, meta - analysis involves pooling data from included studies and statistically analyzing the pooled data in search of trends or patterns . This was not a goal of the present study nor was it feasible given the heterogeneity of met hods and measures across the included papers. The Systematic Literature Review Process The SLR process consists of the following steps adopted from Kitchenham & Charters (2007) and Dickson, Cherry, & Boland (2003). The steps can be divided into three phas es: planning, implementation, and reporting. The Planning Phase Step one: Determining scope, identifying the review question, and writing the protocol. This step involves scoping the background literature to assess the need for a systematic literature re view and identifying the specific focus of the study. This allows the researcher to refine the research question and identify the inclusion criteria for the primary studies to be involved in the SLR. Completing these tasks should provide the researcher wit h the insight necessary to develop the review protocol, which is a detailed plan that maps out the research process from start to finish. The Implementation Phase Step two: Searching the literature. During this stage, the researcher uses bibliographical d atabases and other sources to identify literature of potential relevance to the review question. The search process is conducted using predetermined sources based on research and scope searches. Librarians and other research experts are consulted when nece ssary. Sources primarily include electronic databases, where the reviewer uses a limited set of keywords to identify the 8 literature. Specific journals and non - electronic resources may also be referenced if necessary. This search process is documented in fu ll to ensure transparency and replicability. Step three: Screening titles, abstracts, and reference lists. This step involves reading the titles and abstracts of the literature identified in the previous step. The purpose of this is to eliminate any papers that are not relevant to the review question. This step also involves scanning the reference lists to identify more relevant references. Step four: Obtaining papers. This step involves obtaining the full - text papers identified in the previously described screening process. Step five: Selecting full - text papers. During this step, the inclusion criteria are applied to the full - text papers. All papers that do not meet t he inclusion criteria or meet the exclusion criteria are discarded. Step six: Assessing risk of bias. In this step, a quality assessment measurement tool, which includes factors to be evaluated for each paper, is developed and used to guide the quality as sessment process. All full - text documents are evaluated for their methodological quality using th ese criteria . Step seven: Extracting data. This step involves identifying the valuable and relevant information in each paper, recording it, and storing it in defined data extraction forms. Identifying relevant information involves pinpointing the sections of each paper that provide direct evidenc e of and/or answers to the review question. Step eight: Synthesizing and analyzing data. Data synthesis involves collecting, organizing, and summarizing the relevant findings and evidence presented in the primary studies. The synthesized data is analyzed to provide an answer to the review question. 9 The Reporting Phase Step nine: Writing up and editing. The final step in the systematic literature review process is the presentation of the review and its findings. These details include the theoretical back ground, methodology, results, discussion of the findings, and conclusions from the completed review. The Review Protocol The details in this section were applied to abovementioned steps in the present SLR . The review set out to answer the following review question s : RQ1: To what extent do findings related to computer - mediated relational maintenance behaviors and relationship quality correspond with typologies derived from offline relational maintenance typologies? RQ2: What overarching themes exist in current literature regarding the impacts of computer - mediated relational maintenance on the quality of nonplatonic relationships? Evidence Gat hering and Study Selection Evidence Gathering. The evidence gathering approach invol ved two components: Searching databases. In accordance with the SLR method, keywords were derived from the review questions. Then, for each keyword, the researcher referred to the literature in search of related words and synonyms. These were then compiled to create the search strings detailed in Appendix A. The databases in Table 1 below were then searched using the pre - determined strategy detailed in Appendix A. Reference searches. Bibliographies of those papers that match the eligibility criteria wer e searched to identify any further, relevant references. These references were then subject ed to the same screening process. 10 Table 1 : Database s Searched Eligibility Criteria. The following eligibility criteria were used to screen the references and select the papers to be included in the final review: Studies . All types of evaluative study designs were eligible for inclusion. Participants . All types of participants were eligible for inclusion. Outcome m easures. All dimensions related to relationship quality w ere eligible for review, including (but not limited to): satisfaction, happiness, commitment, companionship . Contexts and b ehaviors. Studies focusing on all types of computer - mediated behaviors used between nonplatonic partners w ere eligible for review, including (but not limited to): Facebook, Twitter, other social networking sites, texting, instant messaging, a nd email. Although the use of phone calls between couples is a longstanding practice and topic of research, it is nonetheless examined in the present review alongside other, less traditional forms of computer - mediated communication, such as instant messagi ng and social networking sites. Prior to more recent developments in CMC, the telephone was the only means of electronic, synchronous, non - FtF communication available, and also the most advanced in terms of media richness. Therefore, pre - CMC findings relat ed to phone use and relational maintenance may be considered outdated Subject Database Computer - Mediated Communication Communication Abstracts; Communication and Mass Media Complete; ACM Digital Library Interpersonal Relationships (Social Psychology) PsycINFO General Search ProQuest Research Library Plus; Web of Science 11 because the playing field is much different today; couples have many options to communicate with one another, phone included. Also, although they are more technologically advanced, newer forms of CMC provide variations/enhancements of telephonic affordances (synchronicity, sound/voice, non - FtF, electronic) to communication partners and serve similar purposes in couple communication. For these reasons , the use of phone calls between couple s, when examined as a form of computer - mediated communication, is also eligible for consideration in the present review. Study Quality Assessment Ideally designed to assess the quality of randomized control trials, more typical measures of quality assessm ent could not be applied to the present review due to vast differences in study design and focus across the included papers. Therefore, the researcher used peer review as a measure of quality, including only peer - review papers in the study. Data Extraction Strategy For each primary study, the researcher identified valuable and relevant information by pinpointing which sections of the paper provide d direct answers to the review question. All relevant text was highlighted electronically and exported to an electronic spreadsheet. Details of methods and results (e.g., study design, participant age range, scales, and outcomes) were also recorded. This was performed for each primary study included in the review. Synthesis of E xtracted Data used in systematic reviews focusing on a wide range of questions, not only those relating to the approach was deemed most suitable for the 12 an SLR approach where findings are summarized and explained primarily through the use of (2011) outcome result classification framework was adopted and slightly adjusted to fi t the context of the present study; as will be described below. Articles were classified based primarily on statistically significant differences in quantitative studies and author conclusions in qualitative studies. Positive. Articles were classified as positive when the communication technology of interest was associated with improvement in one or more aspects of relationship quality, with no aspects worse off. Statistically significant differences, when available, were used to assess the outcome. Otherw ise, findings were classified as positive if the authors discussed them as such. Mixed - Positive. Articles were classified as mixed positive if they presented both positive and negative links between CMC and relationship quality, with the positive outcomes outweighing the negative. Mixed - positive articles included at least one negative outcome. Additionally, a positive conclusion by the authors was required for an article to be classified as mixed - positive. Negative. Articles were classified as negative if their findings indicated negative impacts of CMC on aspects of relationship quality , with no aspects better off. Statistically significant differences, when available, were used to assess the outcome. Otherwise, findings were classified as negative if the authors discussed them as such . Mixed - Negative. Articles earned a mixed - negative rating if they reported both negative and positive links between CMC and relationship qual ity, with the negative outcomes 13 outweighing the positive , and the authors generating negative conclusions. At least one positive outcome was required for articles to be classified as mixed - negative. Neutral. Articles were classified as neutral if they did not demonstra te any relationship between usage of CMC between partners and aspects of relationship quality. 14 Results Search Results As shown in Figure 1, a total of 852 papers were identified through six database searches. Titles and abstracts of results from each database were screened to determine potential relevance, and 727 articles were removed. Of the remaining 125 papers, 46 duplicates were removed. Eligibility criteria were then applied to the remaining articles, and 44 papers were removed for ineligibility , mainly for failing to meet the non platonic /romantic relationship context criterion. A total of 35 papers were included for review. Figure 1: Search Process Records identified from databases (N = 852) Potentially relevant articles ( n = 125) Potentially relevant articles ( n = 79) Articles included for evaluation ( n = 35) Articles removed after screening abstracts and titles ( n = 727) Duplicates removed ( n = 46) Articles removed for ineligibility ( n = 44) ProQuest keyword search ( n = 506) Web of Science keyword search ( n = 84) Comm. Abstracts keyword search ( n = 15) PsycInfo keyword search ( n = 184) ACM Digital keyword search ( n = 36) Comm. & Mass Media keyword search ( n = 27) 15 Description of the E vidence Table 2 presents the distribution of articles by study design. Survey studies were most common (71.43%), followed by interview/focus group studies (14.29%), content analysis/diary studies (5.71%), cross - sectional studies (5.71%) and experimental design studies (2.86%). Table 2 : Article Count by Study Design Study Design Number of Articles (%) Survey 2 7 (7 7 . 14 ) Interview/Focus Group 5 (14.29) Content Analysis/Diary 2 (5.71) Experiment 1 (2.86) Total 35 (100.00) Table 3 presents the distribution of technology foci across the included papers . The use of social networking sites was examined in approximately one half of all papers (51.43% ) , followed by texting (34.29%), instant messaging (28.57 %), phone (25.71 %), email (17. 14%), and video (8.57% ). Seven papers (20% ) did not specify any particular form of CMC. Approximately one third of the included papers examined more than one technology type; therefore, categories are not mutually exclusive. Table 3 : Article Count by Technology Type Technology Type Number of Articles (%) Email 6 (17.14) Instant Messaging 10 (28.57) Phone 9 (25.71) 16 Table 3 Social Networking Sites 18 (51.43) Texting 12 (34.29) Unspecified form of CMC 7 (20) Video 3 (8.57) Table 4 presents the distribution of articles by relationship type. Approximately one third of all papers (twelve; 34.28%) examined long distance relationships (LDRs), and one paper examined exclusively online couples (2.86%). Of the LDR papers included, eight papers (66.67%) compared LDRs with geographically close relationships (GCRs). The remaining twenty - one papers (62.86 %) made no distinction regarding distance between partners. Table 4 : Article Count by Relationship Type Relationship Type Number of Articles (%) Long Distance 12 (34.28) Exclusively Online 1 (2.86) Unspecified 22 (62.86 ) Total 35 (100) Table 5 summarizes the distribution of articles according to the outcomes measured in each paper. The majority of studies measured more than one outcome ; therefore , categories are not mutually exclusive. Satisfaction was measured in twenty - nine papers (82.86%), followed by commitment in eight papers (22.86%), intimacy in six papers (17.14%), quality in three papers (8.57%), and stability in three papers (8.57%). 17 Table 5 : Article Count by Outcome Outcome Number of Articles (%) Commitment 8 (22.86) Intimacy 6 (17.14%) Quality 3 (8.57%) Satisfaction 29 (82.86) Stability 3 (8.57) Age data was reported inconsistently across studies. Mean age of participants was reported in twenty - nine studies , and age range was reported in twenty - two studies (some of these studies overlapped and some were mutually exclusive). Only one study did not report mean age or age range of participants. Table 6 presents the distribution of articles by mean age of participants , where age groups were adopted from United States Census Bureau research ( Howden & Meyer, 2011). A cross - tabulation of age data, including age ranges and mean values for all included papers, can be found in Appendix B . Approxi mately two - thirds (65.71%) of all studies involved participants w ith a mean age between 19 and 24 . Table 6 : Article Count by Mean Age of Participants Mean Age Number of Articles Between 18 and 2 4 2 3 Between 25 and 44 6 Total 29 18 Table 7 presents the distribution of articles by year of publication. The oldest included article was from 2004. Increases in the prevalence of CMRM research throughout the past decade are evident. Table 7 : Article Count by Year of Publication Year Number of Articles (%) 2004 1 2006 1 2007 2 2008 3 2009 1 2010 1 2011 4 2012 6 2013 8 2014 8 2015 2 Total 35 Narrative Summaries The following sections present narrative syntheses of the SLR findings, using a storytelling approach to summarize and explain the findings from included studies and provide answers to the review questions. 19 Thematic Findings: Relationship Outcomes . As shown in Table 8 , i dentifying outcome theme s in the literature involved the assessment of several different variables. For each relationship outcome, the researcher tallied the number of title features (the outcome was ), discussions (the outcome was discussed in the paper), and mentions (the outcome was mentioned in the paper) across all thirty - five papers. Outcome variables that received a count of zero for any of these criteria were deemed ineligible for thematic cons ideration and are not listed here . Table 8 : Outcome Variable Occurrences Outcome Discussions (%) Features (%) Measures (%) Mentions (%) Commitment 14 (40) 1 (2.88) 8 (22.88) 26 (74.29) Idealization 4 (11.43) 1 (2.88) 3 (8.57) 6 (17.14) Intimacy 9 (25.71) 5 (14.29) 6 (17.14) 19 (54.29) Jealousy 8 (8.57) 3 (8.57) 3 (8.57) 15 (42.86) Quality 23 (65.71) 4 (11.43) 3 (8.57) 27 (77.14) Satisfaction 35 (100) 13 (37.14) 28 (80) 35 (100) The most popular outcome measure was satisfaction . It was featured in the titles of thirteen (37.14%) papers, measured in twenty - eight (80%) papers, and discussed in all thirty - five papers. Commitment was another popular outcome measure, appearing in about three - quarters of all papers. Commitment was featu red in the title of one (2.88%) paper, measured in eight (8.57%) papers discussed in fourteen (40%) papers, and mentioned in twenty - six (74.29%) papers. Intimacy was featured in the titles of five (14.29%) papers, measured in six (17.14%) papers, discussed in nine (25.71%) papers, and mentioned in nineteen (54.29%) papers. 20 Relationship quality was mentioned in the titles of four (11.43%) papers, measured in three (8.57%) papers, discussed in twenty - three (65.71%) papers, and mentioned in twenty - seven papers (77.14%). The prevalence of the aforementioned measures in CMRM - related works is consistent with the attention they receive in the broad range of fields interested in interpersonal relationship research. Therefore, their thematic emergence here is not surprising . However, the present relationship quality: idealization and jealousy . Jealousy feelings, and actions which follow threats to self - esteem and/or threats to the existence or quality of the relationship, when those threats are generated by the perception of a real or potential , was more prevalent ; featured in the titles of three (8.57%) papers, measured in three (8.57%) papers, discussed in eight (42.86%) papers, and mentioned in fifteen (42.86%) papers. Idealization , the Brody et al., 2013, p. 323 ) , was featured in the title of one (2.88%) paper, measured in three (8.57%) papers, discussed in four (11.43%) papers, and mentioned in 6 (17.14%) papers. Because these two variables stretch the discussion of relatio nship outcomes beyond the typical foci of relationship quality (e.g., satisfaction, intimacy, commitment), their relative findings are discussed in greater detail below. Jealousy . The discussion of jealousy varied across papers. Some authors argued that C MC introduces new opportunities for jealousy and subsequent romantic conflict (Fox et al., 2014; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). For example, jealousy has been found to motivate other behaviors like partner surveillance (Billedo et al., 2015; Elpihnston & Noller, 2011) and 21 monitoring (Stewart et al., 2014), which have linked with negative and satisfaction - compromising (Elphinston & Noller, 2011) relationship outcomes such as perceived invasions of privacy (Fox et al., 2014). On the other hand, there are researchers that argue that online jealousy contributes positively to relational maintenance, particularly in long distance relationships. The idea here is that social networking sites offer long - relationship processes t Idealization . Consistent with CMC literature indicating that text - based, asynchronous environments in crease idealized perceptions of partners (Walther, 1996), the included papers point to idealization as a noteworthy perceptual outcome associated with computer - mediated relational maintenances. The literature provides varying explanations for this, with so me authors contending that it is the absence of face - to - face interactions, rather than the presence of computer - mediated interactions, that contributes to idealization (Brody, 2013; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Other researchers have found support for the be havioral idealization mechanism, - interpretation of the selective self - presentation in Crystal Jiang & Hancock , 2013, p. 572). Interestingly, in the context of video chat use between long distance romantic partners, Neustaedter & Greenberg (2012) found no support for the idealization - CMC links described in the literature. However, this does provide support for the idea that idealization increases in text - based, asynchronous environmen ts, and suggests that even simulated face - to - face interactions can disrupt this partner idealization. Thematic Findings: Relational Maintenance Behaviors . Across the thirty - five papers included for review, a vast variety of computer - mediated relationship maintenance strategies and behaviors were discussed, though not always explicitly. Behaviors that emerged in less than two 22 studies were deemed ineligible fo r thematic consideration and are not discussed here . Each eligible behavior was then assessed for its relevance to routine and strategic relational (2000) re vised relational maintenance typology, which consisted of seven RM strategies, was used to guide the classification of the behavioral strategies that emerged in the analysis of five strategies (positivity, openness, assurances, task sharing, and social networks) plus two additional strategies (advice and conflict management; Stafford et al., 2000). Findings from the included papers provided support for five of the Stafford et al. (2000) strategies only: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and conflict management. Findings did not provide support for the tasking sharing category or the advice category . An additional category, surveillance, emerged and its findings ar e also discussed. The six categories of relational maintenance behaviors that emerged in the present review are detailed in Table 9 below. Table 9 : Behavioral Category Findings RM Behavior Occurrence (%) Authors Findings Positivity 5 (14.29) Luo & Tuney (2014); Slatcher et al. (2008); Dainton (2013); Stewart et al. (2014); Sidelinger et al. (2009) Positive text messages, the use of positive emotion - related words in instant messages, Facebook positivity, and positivity in online communication promote rela tionship satisfaction. 23 Table 9 Openness 3 (8.57) Dainton (2013); Stewart et al. (2014); Sidelinger et al. (2009) Facebook openness not related to satisfaction, but openness in online communication promotes satisfaction. Assurances 3 (8.57) Dainton (2013); Stewart et al. (2014); Sidelinger et al. (2009) Facebook assurances and assurances in online communication promote satisfaction. Social Networks 7 (20) Fox et al. (2014); Fox & Warber (2012); Papp et al. (2012); Steers et al. (2015); Saslow et al. (2012); Sidelinger et al. (2009); Utz & Beukeboom (2011) The use of social networks as an RM strategy online promotes relationship satisfaction. Facebook helps couples with social integration but also poses privacy concerns. Public displays of affection promote relationship satisfaction. Conflict Management 9 (25.71) Coyne et al. (2011); Frisby & Westerman (2010); Morey et al. (2013); Perry & Werner - Wilson (2011); Schade et al. (2013); Scissors & Gergle (2013); Scissors et al. (2014); Sidelinger et al. (2009); Slatcher et al. (2008) Use of CMC for conflict management promotes satisfaction, but email is associated with less satisfaction. CMC helps with conflict de - escalation, emotion management, idea construction, and reaching a solution . Preference for CMC use during conflict varies across couples. Message content holds varying implications. 24 Table 9 (con Surveillance 7 (20) Billedo et al. (2015); Dainton (2013); Elphinston & Noller (2011); Miller - Ott & Duran (2012); Papp et al. (2012); Stewart et al. (2014); Utz & Beukeboom (2011) LDRs use more surveillance than proximal couples. Surveillance can lead to romantic conflict and dissatisfaction. Positivity . effective strategy for relationship maintenance. Luo and Tuney (2014) and Slatc her et al. (2008) examined message content between partners in text messages and instant messages, respectively. associated with relationship satisfaction. Simil arly, Slatcher et al. (2008) found that when expressed genuinely, use of positive words that express emotion in instant messages were positively associated with individual and partner satisfaction. Additionally, in the context of social networking sites, both Dainton (2013) and Stewart et al. (2014) found that positivity, when enacted through Facebook, has positive impacts on relationship satisfaction. Sidelinger et al. (2009) found similar links in the broader context of CMC, where enacting positivity thr ough online communication was found to boost relationship satisfaction. Openness . discus sed in three papers where its use as an RM behavior was only partially supported. In the context of social networking sites, both Dainton (2013) and Stewart et al. (2014) found no links 25 between the enactment of openness via Facebook and relationship satisf action. However, Stewart did find a significant positive relationship between Facebook openness and relationship certainty, and Sidelinger et al. (2009) found that openness via online communication is positively related to relationship satisfaction. Assur ances . (2013) and Stewart et al. (2014) found that Facebook assurances positively predic ted relationship satisfaction. Additionally, Stewart et al. (2014) found that Facebook assurances were positively related to relationship certainty. Furthermore, Sidelinger et al. (2009) found that online assurances positively predict relationship satisfac tion and commitment. Social Networks. papers, six of which focused on social networking sites, and one of which examined the broader context of CMC , where Sidelinger et al. (2009) found that the use of social networks as an RM strategy online positively predicted relationship satisfaction. Because social networking sites give partners the ab circles, it is not surprising that social networking sites were so popular in the discussion of this particular RMB category. In the more specific context of SNS, Fox et al. (2014) f ound that couples regard Facebook as a valuable tool for connecting with one another as well as with each that in online contexts, partners face difficulties in neg otiating their relative use of social networking sites. Specifically, coup l es reported struggling to maintain independence and privacy due to the semi - public nature of SNS and the social integration that it fosters. Therefore, although couples 26 SNS facilita tes social networks as an RMB, the sites are also associated with aversive outcomes in nonplatonic relationships. The five remaining studies examined how public displays of affection (PDA) on Facebook relate to dimensions of relationship quality. Utz & Be ukeboom (2011) looked at how public displays of affection through SNS relate to relationship quality, and found that partners that for low self - esteem individuals, need for popularity was the main predictor of relationship happiness via PDA on Facebook. The remaining four studies specifically examined the particular role of partnered profile pictures and pa rtnered relationship statuses. Papp et al. (2012) found that for both males and females displaying a partnered relationship status on Facebook was associated with higher levels of partner and individual relationship satisfaction. A dditionally , they found that for women only, disagreements over Facebook relationship statuses were associated with significantly less relationship satisfaction. Similarly, Steers et al. (2015) found a positive relationship between relationship quality and a partnered relationship status, and Saslow et al. (2012) found that displaying a dyadic profile picture positively predicted relationship satisfaction and closeness. Saslow et al. (2012) also found that partners were more likely to post relationship - relevant information on Facebook on days where they reported feeling more satisfied in their relationship. However, Fox & Warber and seriousness. The au thors suggest that such disparities in partner perceptions, particularly regarding the progression of a shared relationship, can lead to relationship dissatisfaction. 27 Therefore, SNS is a valuable tool in helping partners integrate their social networks for relational maintenance, but can also be a cause of friction between partners. Conflict Management . conflict management as a strategy of relationship maintenance. Therefore , all included p apers that assessed the use of CMC between couples in the context of conflict or problem solving are discussed here. This category received the most popularity, with nine papers examining dimensions of conflict management through CMC. Sidelinger et al. (20 09) found that in the broad context of online communication, using CMC for conflict management positively predicted relationship satisfaction. Additionally, Scissors & Gergle (2013) found that CMC assists partners in conflict de - escalation, management of e motions, and reaching a solution. Similarly, Perry & Werner - Wilson (2011) found that CMC assists in problem solving by giving partners more time for idea construction and conflict de - escalation. Nonetheless, Morey et al. (2013) found that the use of email for couple communication was associated with higher levels of couple conflict. Both Perry et al. (2011) and Frisby & Westerman (2010) found that channel choice during couple conflict has no impact on relationship satisfaction, suggesting that CMC provides an equally effective problem - solving environment. However, the literature does suggest that preferences for CMC use during conflict vary across couples. Scissors et al. (2014) found that partners who were less satisfied in their relationships preferred to communicate through CMC during conflict, as opposed to communicating face - to - face. Furthermore, Frisby & Westerman (2010) found that individuals with dominating conflict styles preferred using CMC for conflict management. 28 Other studies focused on CMC mess age content and medium during conflict. Slatcher et individual satisfacti on, partner satisfaction, and less relationship stability. Furthermore, Coyne et predicted relationship satisfaction. Schade et al. (2013) also found that it negat ively predicted partner attachment and relationship stability. Surveillance . Surveillance, which Canary et al. (1993) defined as online monitoring behavior, emerged as a category of relational maintenance strategies in the analysis of included papers. Although this category was not included as a strategic and routine relationship m aintenance behavior in either of the Stafford et al. (1991; 2000) typologies, surveillance and monitoring have received research attention as RMBs unique to and prominent in the context of social networking sites (e.g., Bryant & Marmo, 2009). Surveillance in this context refers to the networking sites . In the present review, six of the seven papers discussing surveillance - related behaviors examined them in the Facebook context, lending support to the prevalence of SNS as a platform for partner monitoring behaviors. Utz & Beukeboom (2011) found that onli ne partner monitoring is more common and couples struggle to maintain independence and privacy from their partners on Facebook, which often leads to romantic conflict, Miller - Ott & Duran (2012) found that being able to control a physical monitoring of online behavior 29 messages through his or her cellular device) was positively associated with relationship sat isfaction. More specifically, they found that couples that shared dyadic rules regarding physical online monitoring were more satisfied in their relationships (Miller - Ott & Duran, 2012). Surveillance and monitoring are frequently discussed alongside roman tic jealousy. For instance, Utz & Beukeboom (2011) found that more SNS monitoring positively predicted SNS jealousy. Similarly, Stewart et al. (2014) found that partners used more Facebook monitoring behaviors when they experienced jealousy, as well as whe n they experienced uncertainty in their relationships. Additionally, Elphinston & Noller (2011) found that surveillance behaviors and jealous cognitions, which are more common in individuals who score high on Facebook intrusion , by an excessive attachment to Facebook, which interferes with day - to - predicted relationship dissatisfaction. This could hold negative implications especially in long - distan ce relationships, where partners use social networking sites for partner surveillance more often than proximal couples and also experience more jealousy (Billedo et al., 2015). Narrative Summary by Outcome Result and Relationship Type . As a broad measure of outcome, the outcome result classification framework (Positive, Mixed - Positive, Neutral, Negative) originally employed by Buntin et al. (2011) was adopted and slightly altered to fit the context of the present study. Articles were classified primarily b ased on statistically significant differences when quantitative evidence was available, and based on author conclusions in qualitative papers. Of the thirty - five papers included for review, over one - third (37.14%) of all findings indicated positive links between the use of CMC in nonplatonic relationships and relationship quality, and over one quarter (28.57%) of all papers indicated mixed - positive links. Combined, 30 these two outcome categories account for almost two thirds (65.71%) of all included papers, indicating that the majority of relevant research points to more positive links between CMC and nonplatonic relationship quality. Of the remaining twelve papers, five were classified as negative (14.29%), five as mixed - negative (14.29%), and two as neutral (5.71%). These outcome classifications have been used to guide the synthesis and presentation of findings. The remainder of this section provides narrative summaries of the results, organized by relationship type (LDR, exclusively online, and unspecified) . Within each relationship type, the results are organized by outcome classification (positive, mixed - positive, negative, mixed - negative, neutral). Exclusively Online Relationships (EORs) . The researcher identified only one study that examined links betw een quality in exclusively - online relationships and the use of CMC between partners. Positive EOR findings . The one study that examined exclusively online romantic relationships revealed positive effects of CMC on relationship quality: Anderson & Emmers - Sommer (2006) examined couples that interact exclusively online. The authors found that partners who experienced intimacy, trust, and communication satisfaction in their online interactions were more satisfied with their relationships. Additionally, they found that the amount of communication time between partners accounted for significant positive differences in perceptions of commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and relationship satisfaction. Long - Distance Relationships (LDRs). Th e researcher identified twelve studies that assessed CMC use and aspects of relationship quality in long - distance relationships. Nine of the studies reported positive (6) or mixed - positive ( 3 ) results, two reported negative results, and one 31 study reported neutral effects on relationship quality. The distribution of outcome classifications in LDR studies is detailed in Table 10 . Table 10: LDR Outcome Classification Outcome (%) Author(s) Year Design N Platform Positive LDRs Brody 2013 Survey 592 CMC (50%) Dainton 2013 Survey 189 SNS Emmers - Sommer 2004 Survey 342 Phone Jiang, Hancock 2013 Diary 126 Phone, IM, Texting, Email, Video Sidelinger et al. 2009 Survey 123 CMC Vitak 2014 Survey 415 SNS Mixed - Positive LDRs (33.33%) Billedo et al. 2015 Survey 272 SNS Neustaedter, Greenberg 2012 Interview 14 Video Stewart et al. 2014 Survey 281 SNS Negative LDRs (20%) Elphinston, Noller 2011 Survey 342 SNS Hand et al. 2012 Survey 253 SNS Neutral LDRs (8.33%) Stafford, Merolla 2007 Survey 400 Phone, Email, Chat Positive LDR findings. Of the six papers classified as positive, three papers examined the general use of computer - mediated communication: Brody (2013) found that a high frequency of mediated communication and high length of time between face - to - face interactions between partners interact to increase both satisfaction and commitment in partners. Increased mediated communication was found to h ave a stronger impact on satisfaction than on commitment. Additionally, this study found that these effects are only apparent in the absence of face - to - face encounters; 32 partners who saw each other more frequently did not exhibit an increase in satisfaction or commitment with increased mediated communication. Crystal Jiang & Hancock (2013) tested the effects of long - distance relationship status and communication media on the intimacy process in an interaction - by - interaction diary study. The researchers found that interpersonal media can affect the strength of behavioral adaptations (strategically adapting self - responsiveness) and idealization in long - distance relationships, both of which showed a significant, positive cor relation with relationship intimacy. Sidelinger et al. (2009) used Stafford, Dainton, and H aa routine and strategic relational maintenance strategies to measure participants relational maintenance behaviors online. They found signific ant relationships between relationship satisfaction and all seven relational maintenance factors (positivity, assurances, network, task sharing, advice sharing, and conflict management). They found no difference in relationship satisfaction between long di stance and geographically close couples. They also found that assurances were positively associated with commitment in romantic relationships. Two papers focused specifically on Facebook: Dainton (2013) measured the used of positivity, assurances, and openness via Facebook, and found that the use of Facebook positivity was positively associated with relationship satisfaction, the use of Facebook assurances was only slightly associated with relatio nship satisfaction, and the use of Facebook showed no associated with relationship satisfaction. 33 Vitak (2014) used an online survey to assess the significance of Facebook as a tool for relational maintenance and found that long - distance partners and partne rs who rely on the site as their primary form of communication enact more relationship maintenance behaviors via the site. They also found that these individuals were more likely to regard the site as having a positive impact on their relationship quality. And one paper focused on voice calls: Emmers - Sommer (2004) found that length y , face - to - face encounters were most associated with relationship satisfaction , in comparison with short face - to - face interactions , short phone interactions, and long phone intera ctions . They also found that communication quality in all modes was related to relationship satisfaction, with couples deriving more satisfaction from conversations that are smooth, relaxed, and free of communication breakdown and conflict. Mixed - Positive LDR findings . Of the three LDR papers classified as mixed - positive, two papers examined social networking sites: Billedo et al. (2015) conducted a survey study where they compared SNS use for relational maintenance in long distance romantic relationships (LDRR) and geographically close romantic relationships. Results revealed that LDRR partners use Facebook more intensely and are more likely to use the site for relational maintenance behaviors. More importantly, the study also found that L D RR partners were more likely to use the site for surveillance, and experienced higher levels of SNS jealousy, both of which contribute positively to relational maintenance in LDRRs. Stewart et al. (2014) used an online survey to find links between the relational maintenan ce behaviors enacted on Facebook and relationship satisfaction, uncertainty, 34 and Facebook jealousy. Facebook positivity and Facebook assurances were both positively related to relationship satisfaction, but none of the remaining behaviors (Facebook jealous y, Facebook monitoring, or Facebook openness) were found to have any effect. The authors found that partners are more likely to use FB monitoring when they experiences lower levels of relational uncertainty, are more likely to use FB assurances and FB open ness when they experience higher levels of relationship certainty, and are more likely to use FB positivity, FB openness, FB assurances, and FB monitoring when experiencing higher levels of FB jealousy. And one study examined the use of video: Neustaedter & Greenberg (2012) conducted an interview study where they found that in allowing LDR couples to experience shared presence, video chat boosts intimacy and provides stronger feelings of connectedness between partners. However, they also found that couples struggle with the medium on contextual, technical, and personal levels (e.g., conflicting time zones, network quality, and lack of physical intimacy). Negative LDR findings. Of the two LDR papers with negative outcomes, both studies examined the use of so cial networking sites for relationship maintenance: Elphinston & Noller (2011) examined Facebook intrusion and jealousy for their impacts on romantic relationships, and found that when Facebook intrusion elicits surveillance behaviors and cognitive/romanti c jealousy, couples experiences less satisfaction in their relationships. Hand, Thomas, & Buboltz ( 2012 ) online social networks and relationship satisfaction and perceived intimacy. However, 35 they did find a nega and individual perceptions of relationship satisfaction and intimacy. Neutral LDR findings . One LDR study was classified as neutral: Stafford & Merolla (2007) measured three modes of mediated communication (phone, email, chat). The study explored how the frequency of FtF and nonFtF modes of communication effect stability and idealization in long distance and geographically close dating relationships. The y found that none of the nonFtF communication modes significantly predicted idealistic distortion, romantic love, reminiscent thinking, perceived agreement, or communication quality. However, the absence of FtF contact did significantly predict higher leve ls of all five variables. Unspecified Relationship Type (URT) . The researcher identified twenty - two studies that examined links between CMC use and aspects of relationship quality in romantic relationships of unspecified geographic circumstances. In other words, twenty of the included studies did not restrict participant eligibility to any specific relationship type (e.g., long - distance, proximal, exclusively online). As detailed below in Table 11 , thirteen of the studies reported positive ( 7 ) or mixed - pos itive (6) results, and eight of the studies reported negative (3) or mixed - negative (5) results. Table 11: URT Outcome Classification Outcome Author(s) Year Design N Platform Positive URTs Luo, Tuney 2014 Experiment 441 Texting Miller - Ott, Duran 2012 Survey 227 Phone, Texting Parker et al. 2013 Survey 86 Texting Perry, Werner - Wilson 2011 Focus Group, Interview 94 CMC 36 Positive URTs Saslow et al. 2012 Cross - sectional, Longitudinal, Diary 216 SNS Scissors, Gergle 2013 Interview 24 Steers et al. 2015 Survey 188 SNS Mixed - Positive URTs Coyne et al. 2011 Survey 1039 CMC Frisby, Westerman 2010 Survey 129 CMC McGee 2014 Survey 298 IM, Texting, Email Morey et al. 2013 Survey 280 Email, Phone, SNS, Texting Papp et al. 2012 Survey 118 SNS Utz, Beukeboom 2011 Survey 194 SNS Negative URTs Fox, Warber 2012 Survey 403 SNS Luo 2014 Survey 395 Texting Scissors, Roloff, Gergle 2014 Interview 24 IM, Texting, Email Mixed - Negative URTs Brown, College 2008 Interview 15 SNS, IM, Email Coccia, Darling 2014 Survey 534 Texting, SNS, Phone Fox et al. 2014 Focus Group 47 SNS Schade et al. 2013 Survey 276 Texting Slatcher et al. 2008 Content Analysis 68 IM Neutral URT Baym et al. 2007 Survey 496 CMC Positive URT findings . Of the seven papers classified as positive, two papers examined the use of texting: Luo & Tuney (2014) conducted a controlled experiment to test the effects of 37 impact on relati onship satisfaction. However, their further analysis revealed that it was the text messages, that was responsible for this effect. Parker et al. (2013) examined the effects of texting on relationship satisfaction and found that couples that reported texting also reported being more satisfied in their relationships. Two studies focused on social networking sites: Saslow , Muise, Impett, Dubin (2012) examined links between dyadic profile pictures and relationship satisfaction and closeness, and found that displaying a dyadic profile picture was significantly positively correlated with reported feelings of relationship satisfaction and relationship closeness. They al so found that romantically involved individuals are more likely to post relationship - relevant information on their Facebook pages on days where they report being more satisfied with their relationships. Steers, Overup, Brunson, Acitelli ( 2015) examined how relationship awareness on elationship quality. They found that individuals reporting high relationship authenticity were more likely to report higher levels of relationship quality, and that th i s relationship is mediated by relationship awareness on Facebook. One study examined mix ed modes of CMC (phone, text): Miller - Ott & Duran (2012) found that partners perceive cell phones as playing a very important role in their communication with each other, and that satisfaction with cell 38 tor of relationship satisfaction. They also found that having dyadic cell phone rules regarding Relational Issues (bringing up relational issues via text) and regarding Contact With Others (texting/calling others during together - time) were both positively correlated with cell phone satisfaction. They also found that relationship satisfaction was most strong ly predicted by rules regarding relational issues, monitoring partner u me ssages), and repetitive c ontact (do not keep calling/texting when the partner does not respond). And two studies examined the general use of CMC: Perry & Werner - Wilson ( 2011) used a focus group and interview study to explore links between the use of CMC for problem solving and sat isfaction in relationships, and found no differences in satisfaction between those who used CMC versus those who communicated face - to - face for problem solving purposes. Furthermore, they found that CMC assists in problem solving by allowing couples more ti me for idea construction and conflict de - escalation. Scissors & Gergle (2013) conducted interviews to explore patterns of channel switching from face - to - face to mediated communication (and back) between romantic partners during conflict. Participants indic ated that they used IM, texting, email, phone, SNS and video during conflict. They also indicated that their strongest motivations for switching to mediated communication included conflict de - escalation, emotion management, and the desire to reach a resolu tion; pointing to CMC as a valuable conflict resolution tool in romantic relationships. 39 Mixed - P ositive URT findings . Of the six studies revealing mixed - positive links between CMC use and romantic relationship quality, three studies examined mixed modes of CMC: Coyne et al. (2011) found that romantic partners used media to communicate for three primary purposes: to express affection, to discuss serious issues, and for apologizing. The authors also found that cell phones and texting were used most frequently for partner communication, with contact through email, social networking sites, and instant message occurring less frequently. They additionally found that expressing affection through texting was associated with positive forms of communication, which are positively correlated with relationship satisfaction. On the contrary, texting to hurt negative forms of communication and thereby less relationship satisfaction. McGee (20 14) examined the frequency of CMC (text, email, IM) usage between partners for its impacts on intimacy and relationship satisfaction, and only found a significant positive correlation between moderate email exchange between partners and relationship satisf action. They also investigated the frequency of CMC usage on sexual satisfaction and found no significant relationship. Morey , Gentzler, & Creasy, 2013). The study examined the use of electronic communication (email, SNS, and texting) in the context of rel ationship satisfaction while accounting for the role of individual attachment style. They found that overall, participants who reported more frequent communication with their partners across channels also perceived their relationships more positively. Howe ver, none of the communication channels were found to significantly predict relationship quality. Texting was only related to positive relationship qualities for highly avoidant individuals, and 40 email was linked with more conflict in highly avoidant indivi duals. Additionally, SNS use was linked with perceived intimacy and support for individuals with high attachment anxiety only. Two studies examined the use of social networking sites: Utz & Beukeboom (2011) examined the role of social networking sites and self - esteem in predicting both relationship jealousy and relationship happiness. They found ich the authors also found to be positively correlated with relationship satisfaction. Results also revealed that for low self - esteem individuals, need for popularity was the strongest predictor of both SNS relationship jealousy and happiness, while SNS gr ooming was the main predictor of both jealousy and happiness for high self - esteem individuals. Papp , Danielewicz, & Cayemberg 2012) examined Facebook profile choices (e.g., displaying partnered relationship status, displaying partnered profile picture) for their associations with relationship satisfaction, and found that males displaying a partnered status was linked with higher relationship satisfaction and partner relationship satisfaction (to a lesser extent), and females displaying a partnered profile p hoto was strongly linked with both individual and partner relationship satisfaction. Disagreements over Facebook relationship statuses were linked with relationship dissatisfaction for women only. One study examined general use of CMC: Frisby & Westerman (2010) found that communication channel choice during romantic conflict had no impact on relationship satisfaction. Instead, it was the 41 obliging styles leading to t he most relationship satisfaction. They also found that people with dominating conflict styles prefer to communicate via CMC in times of conflict with a romantic partner. Negative URT findings . Of the three studies revealing negative effects, one study ex amined the use of social networking sites: Fox & Warber (2012) found that men and women vary in the ways that they strongly reporting to believe that the status is an indicat ion of relationship exclusivity and seriousness. The research point to this disparity as a viable cause for relationship dissatisfaction because couples might often not be on the same page regarding the development and progression of their shared relations hip. One study examined the use of texting: Luo (2014) found that texting share in overall partner communications showed negative links with relationship satisfaction, such that when a greater share of overall less re lationship satisfaction. They also found that sheer texting volume accounted for minimal variation in relationship satisfaction. And o ne study examined mix ed modes of CMC: Scissors Roloff, & Gergle (2014) examined CMC and self - esteem in the context of roma ntic conflict and communication preferences and found that relationship satisfaction showed a significant positive correlation with face - to - face avoidance and a negative correlation with CMC preference. When individuals reported lower levels of relationshi p satisfaction, they were more likely to avoid face - to - face communication and 42 favor CMC, while individuals reporting higher satisfaction were more likely to prefer face - to - face communication for conflict management. Mixed - Negative URT findings . Of the five studies classified as mixed - negative, two studies examined mixed modes of CMC: Brown & College (2008) measured the use of SNS, IM, and email. The researchers conducted an interview study where interviewees reported that Internet communication tools have n o effect on the quality of their romantic relationships. indicate an effect, interviewees frequently cited negative aspects associated with the affordances of Interne t communication, such as the dilemma of being too accessible to was associated with better relationship quality and more relationship satisfaction. Coccia & Darling (2014) measured the use of text, SNS, and voice calls. The researchers examined the relationships between social interactions, personal behaviors, and satisfaction in college students, and found that those involved in romantic relationships that talk on th e phone more often are most satisfied. They also found that those who engaged in nonverbal forms of communication more frequently, such as texting and social networking, were less satisfied. One study examined social networking sites: Fox, Osborn & Warbe r (2014) conducted a focus group study to examine Facebook in the context of romantic relationships, and found that partners used Facebook supporting social integration. They also found that because of the affordances offered by 43 social networking sites, such as the semi - public nature of SNS activity, some individuals struggle to maintain privacy and independence in their relationships, which often results in romantic confl ict. One study examined texting: Schade et al., 2013) examined texting behavior in romantic relationships while accounting for variations in reported partner attachment. They found that male texting frequency negatively predicted both satisfaction and stab ility, and female texting frequency was positively associated with stability only. Texting specifically to express affection was more frequent in individuals reporting higher levels of partner attachment. ower levels of satisfaction, attachment, and stability in males only. And o ne study examined instant messaging : Slatcher , Vazire, & Rennebaker (2008) conducted a content analysis study examining daily instant messages between partners for links between wo rd use and relationship quality and stability. The authors found that for men, genuinely expressed positive emotion - related words were associated with higher levels of individual and associated with higher levels of partner and individual relationship satisfaction and more relationship vely related to - related emotion - related words, when used sarcastically, were found to negatively predict individual and partner satisfaction as well as relationship stability. 44 Neut ral URT. The one URT study with neutral findings examined Internet versus face - to - face communication: Baym et al. ( 2007) examined the association between relationship quality and the extent to which a medium (face - to - face, Internet communication) is used to communicate researchers found no significant correlation between medium use and relationship quality. Summary of Results With regards to the first review question, which asked about the extent to which offline relational maintenance typologies replicate in online contexts, mixed results were found. Some behaviors were found to be exclusive to offline relational maintenance, some behaviors were found to be exclusive to online relational maintenance, and some behaviors were found to be common between the two contexts. Specifically, task sharing and advice stood out as effective RMBs only in the context of offline maintenance, w hile surveillance emerged as a CMC - exclusive RMB. The remaining behavioral categories, positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, and conflict management were found to be effective RMBs, contributing positively to relationship quality in both offli ne and online contexts. The second review question asked what outcomes, or dimensions of relationship quality, are associated with the use of computer - mediated relational maintenance between romantic partners. Findings from included papers in the present review revealed that in addition to traditional measures of quality, such as satisfaction , commitment , and intimacy , two more variables, jealousy and idealization , are noteworthy relationship outcomes in the context of CMRM. 45 Discussion The present review aimed to identify themes in current literature regarding the impacts of computer - mediated relational maintenance behaviors on quality in nonplatonic relationships. More specifically, it aimed to synthesize existing research, pinpoint the behaviors that impact relationship quality, explore other potential relationship outcomes of CMRM, and recommend directions for future research. Findings are discussed in the context of relational maintenance behaviors, relationship outcomes, and outcome classifications. Summary of Findings R elational Maintenance Behaviors. While some authors suggest that online relational maintenance should be examined independently and without the categorical constraints of existing typologies for offline maintenance ( e.g., Tidw ell & Walther, 2002; Tong & Walther , in press ), others have frequently used offline RM typologies to guide investigation in the CMC context ( e.g., Houser et al., 2012; Rabby, 2007; Wright, 2004 ). With the goal of inform ing this debate and future research directions, the present study aimed to assess the extent to which offline typologies translate in computer - mediated environments. Behavioral findings from the included papers fell into six relational maintenance categories: positivity, assurances, social networks, conflict management, surveillance, and openness. Openness received the least support in the literature, with no support found for the use of openness as a RMB in the SNS context. Nonetheless, it was associated with positive outcomes in th e more general context of CMC use. The use of assurances, which received support in both SNS and general - CMC contexts, was only moderately supported across the findings of included papers. The use of positivity, conflict management, social networks, and surveillance were all strongly supported in the review. Positivity was associated with favorable relationship outcomes 46 in several contexts. Positive text messages, Facebook positivity, positivity in online communication, and positive emotion - related words in instant messages were all found to promote relationship satisfaction. This emphasis on message content was echoed in the discussion of conflict management as a RMB, where sending sarcastic messages and texting to were both found to negatively predict relationship satisfaction. Overall, and with the exception of email use, the use of CMC for conflict management has been found to promote satisfaction in relationships. It was particularly found to help with conflict d e - escalation, idea construction, reaching a solution, and the management of emotions. Nonetheless, preference for CMC use during conflict varies across couples. The use of social networks as a RM strategy online was also found to promote relationship satis faction. The majority of findings in this category related to public displays of affection (e.g., displaying a partnered profile picture or relationship status), which were found to positively promote relationship satisfaction, closeness, and happiness. Ho wever, findings suggest that although social networking sites facilitate social networks as a relational maintenance strategy, the social information accessible through these sites might be excessive and thereby problematic for relationships, as couples re ported struggling to maintain privacy and promoted surveillance, the final cat egory of RMBs that emerged in the review. Partner surveillance was supported as a theme of CMRMBs, particularly in the context of social networks, with varying impacts on relationship quality. Partners are more satisfied when they are able to limit each o jeopardizes individual satisfaction in relationships. However, in the context of long - distance 47 relationships, where partner surveillance was found to be more prevalent, implications vary. Authors suggest that surveillance, and the jealousy it evokes, can positively contribute to relationship maintenance by giving couples social opportunities that are otherwise absent. Relationship Outcomes. The review aimed to pinpoint the relationship out comes associated with CMRM. Consistent with interpersonal relationship research as a broad field of academic inquiry, satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, and quality were most popular as measures of relationship quality in the included papers. In addition to these standard measures, jealousy and idealization emerged as noteworthy relationship outcomes in the discussion of CMRM. Jealousy was examined predominantly in the context of social networking sites, where it was discussed as both a positive and a neg ative outcome with variations across different relationship contexts. In long distance relationships, some authors found jealousy to positively protectivenes s over the relationship, motivating one to act in a manner that affirms love for the 155 - evoking, information about one another, social networking sites give these part ners opportunities to experience relationship processes that are otherwise unavailable to them. However, in proximate relationships, jealousy is often perceived differently. Findings revealed that Facebook is often criticized in the context of romantic re lationships, where partners struggle to manage their SNS activity in light of the problems it creates, such as jealousy and partner surveillance. Studies also found that addictive behaviors, such as the compulsive use of Facebook, are most detrimental to r elationship satisfaction when they lead to romantic jealousy through excessive partner surveillance. Therefore, it is evident that the literature has not reached 48 a consensus regarding the implications of jealousy in the context of CMRM. While mixed results are not surprising due to variations in relationship type, findings within each type are still inconsistent. T herefore , it is possible that individual differences, such as self - esteem, or relationship - specific differences , such as uncertainty or even infi delity, could be responsible for variations in the perceived implications of CMC jealousy. Future research should aim to consider these and other potential moderators for a more accurate understanding of CMC jealousy. Idealization was examined only in th e context of LDRs, and was found to contribute positively to satisfaction and intimacy. However, excessive idealization during times of geographic separation in LDRs negatively predicted relationship stability upon reunion. In either case, and consistent w ith CMC literature indicating that text - based, asynchronous environments increase idealized perceptions of partners (Walther, 1996), the present review identified idealization as a noteworthy perceptual outcome associated with CMRM. The literature provides varying explanations for this, with some authors contending that it is the absence of face - to - face interactions, rather than the presence of computer - mediated interactions, that contributes to idealization (Brody, 2013; Stafford & Merolla, 2007). Other re searchers have found support for - interpretation of the selective self - Crystal Jiang & Hancock , 2013, p. 572). Interestingly, i n the context of video chat use between long distance romantic partners, Neustaedter & Greenberg (2012) found no support for the idealization - CMC links described in the literature. However, this does provide support for the idea that idealization increases in text - based, asynchronous environments, and suggests that even simulated face - to - face interactions can disrupt this partner idealization. 49 Outcome Classifications. The use of CMC between partners is associated with both negative and positive relationship outcomes. Overall, the majority of findings indicated positive (or mixed - positive) rather than negative (or mixed - negative) links between the use of CMC and relationship quality, and most CMC platforms were found to assist with relational maintenance. Soc ial networking sites, phone calls, video, texting, and email were linked with more positive than negative outcomes, thus considered to be beneficial for RM. Only the use of instant messaging between couples was associated with more negative than positive o utcomes. Interestingly, all studies that did not specify any type of CMC platform (e.g., texting, - their focus, were associated with positive results, with no negative links found between the unspecified use of CMC and relationship quality. This suggests that examining subsets of CMC behavior, rather than CMC as a whole, may allow researchers to achieve a more nuanced understanding of CMRM and its impacts on relationship quality. Participants might perceive CMC as being generally beneficial for RM, but prompting them with more specific CMC scenarios might help researchers tap into more intricate and potentially more accurate details that may indicate otherwise. Therefore, future research in the field should specify a platform of interest rather than group all CMC behavior into one large category, as this approach likely causes researchers to miss out on potentially telling data. Distance between partners was also found to account for outcome variations. Positive outcomes were particularly popular in the study of long - distance relationships, with three - quarters of all LDR studies indicating positive links between the use of CMC and relationship quality. This suggests that geotempora , in press). Outcomes in proximal relationships 50 were also predominantly positive (two - thirds), albeit with less drastic proportion. This support s the continuing distinction between long - distance and proximate relationships in the study of relational maintenance via CMC, as it suggests that CMC indeed has varying impacts on relationship quality across different relational contexts. Other Themes. S everal other noteworthy themes surfaced in the present review. Long distance relationships and social networking sites emerged as the two most common contexts of inquiry in CMRMB research. It is likely that the popularity of LDRs in CMRM research stems fro m the idea that many people rely on CMC in the absence of face - to - face contact (Stafford, 2005). In the present review, Vitak (2014) and Billedo et al. (2015) both found strong support for this idea, particularly in the context of SNS, where both studies f ound that LDR partners conduct more relational maintenance through Facebook than proximal partners. These findings, combined with the high prevalence of positive outcomes in CMC/LDR research, shed light upon the value of CMC as a relational maintenance too l in LDRs. The popularity of studies examining social networking sites also suggests that this particular form of CMC holds important implications in the context of CMRM. Partner surveillance, jealousy, and public displays of affection were the main foci in SNS research, with studies pointing to SNS as a source of both positive and negative relationship outcomes. Although PDA was most frequently linked with favorable outcomes, the use of partnered relationship statuses can sometimes cause problems between partners. For instance, men and commitment to a romantic relationship, with women believing the status to be indicative of seriousness and commitment, and men di sagreeing. Such disagreements were further linked with dissatisfaction, but only for women. These perceptual differences between partners, and the 51 conflicts that often ensue, deserve further investigation as they point to a gap between Partner - mediated environments. While the prevalence of SNS research indicates its importance, it also suggests that research examining other platforms (e.g., texting, IM applications) might be lacking . Instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp, which allow users to send and receive real - time multimedia messages, were found to instill feelings of togetherness and intimacy by facilitating 1131). However, these effects have not been examined in the context of romantic relationships specifically. Because such applications are increasing in popularity worldwide through the ubiquitous use of smart phones, with WhatsApp downloaded on more than one billion Android devices alone (Koum, 2015), their role in relational maintenance is in need of further examination. Additionally, and specifically in LDRs, the deficit of face - to - face communication was found to be a potential moderator in the relationship between CMC and relational maintenance. Studies found that CMRM was associated with more positive relationship outcomes when partners had spent longer periods of time apart. The absence of face - to - face interaction, and particularly the length between face - to - face interactions, was found to positively predict various dimensions of relationship quality, including romantic love, partner idealization, communication quality, perceived agreement, satisfaction, and commitme nt. Although it has been suggested that spending time apart makes for happier couples (Purcell, 2013) , the idea of deliberately spending time apart as an RM strategy has not yet been considered in RM research . However, given the 52 present findings, its poten tial benefits and implications for romantic relationship quality deserve further investigation. Summary of Contribution Research that explores CMRMBs can inform future research directions and practice in several disciplines. Understanding how couples deri ve quality from their communication practices can advance theory in social psychology and also help to guide practice in clinical psychology by inspiring therapy interventions aimed at optimizing relational maintenance and partner communication. Furthermor e, highlighting the ways that partners derive satisfaction from CMRMBs can inspire innovation in the development of communication technologies. Such innovation would be aimed at enhancing specific technological affordances of different communication techno logies with the goal of facilitating beneficial CMRMBs and ameliorating potential problems that couples may face in using CMRM. The fact that partners face perceptual disparities regarding the use of Facebook for PDA r elationship s tatus categories might be in need of clarification or updating. The only current options for partnered individuals include: engaged, married, in a relationship, in a civil union, in a domestic partnership, or in an open relationship. also an option, although it is unclear whether this status indicates a partnered relationship or not. Adjusting the categories to reflect the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of the relationship (e.g., dating exclusively, dating non - exclusively, committed t o, etc.) might help partners to stay on the same page, avoid uncertainty, and avoid potential dialectic tensions. Additionally, the review found that when partners shared rules regarding their respective CMC behaviors, they were more satisfied in their relationships. This reveals that although couples might face difficulties in their use of CMRM, they are nonetheless able to set boundaries 53 and limitations to the aversive interference of technology in their relationships. Couples facing issues with technology addiction or compulsive technology behaviors may benefit from therapy interventions that integrate such construc ts. Also applicable in the context of couple therapy, the review found that texting has positive impacts on relationship satisfaction and is recommended as an intervention for couples. Specifically, Parker et al. (2013) suggest that texting can help couple review found CMC to be a powerful conflict management in couples, and recommending the use of CMC during times of conflict may prove beneficial in helping couples ov ercome and solve their problems. Nonetheless, the review uncovered individual differences in the suitability of and preference for CMC use during conflict, and clinical judgment will need to be applied to assess suitability on a patient - by - patient basis. The present review yielded several scholarly contributions as well, mainly through identifying gaps and directions for future research in the context of computer - mediated relational maintenance. In assessing the extent to which offline typologies translate in online environments, findings suggest distinct differences between offline and online RMBs, but also indicate overlaps between behaviors in each context. The literature examined in the present review demonstrates that certain RMBs are exclusive to CMC (e.g., surveillance), others are exclusive to face - to - face contact (e.g., task sharing), and still others are carried out through both types of platforms (e.g., positivity, assurances, conflict management, etc.). With couples appearing to derive value and enhance their relationship quality through both mediated and unmediated RMBs , relational maintenance has become increasingly multifaceted and diverse . Conceptualizing the use of CMC for relational maintenance as a function of many different variables and possibilities associated with computer - mediated environments falls in line 54 affordances. of the world that CMC in determining relationship quality is not fixed; it depends on how each actor uses and perceives the many potential opportunities for actio n (affordances) within CMC use. With so these factors relatively interact to impact relationship quality. For example, future research initiatives might ask how a g reater share of overall communication taking place through texting or SNS (e.g., Luo, 2014), versus face - to - face or another CMC platform, influences relationship quality. Additionally, as couples have been shown to switch between different communication pl atforms (e.g., Scissors et al., 2013), it would be worth examining the role of these switches, and even possibly the direction of these switches (e.g., texting to email , email to texting) , on relational maintenance. This literature has addressed this brief ly in the context of conflict management (Scissors et al., 2013), but has not yet explored switches in light of more routine maintenance contexts. Limitations Limitations to the present review fall into two categories: limitations of included studies an d limitations of the review itself. The included studies were associated with several limitations. The majority (65.71% ) of papers included participants whose mean age fell in the range of young adults , the behaviors of which are not necessarily representa tive of all couples that use CMC for relational maintenance. Differences in digital literacy and media use across different generations suggest that examining other age groups might reveal varying links between relationship quality and CMC use in nonplaton ic relationships. Additionally, all findings relied on self - report measures, which might not provide the most accurate evaluation because reports might be 55 1991). F urthermore, approximately two - thirds ( 62.86% ) of all included studies did not control for relationship type (e.g., long - distance, proximal), a factor that appeared to account for considerable variance in the outcome classification (e.g., positive, negative, etc.) of included papers. Lastly, it is w orth noting that while findings have indicated clear associations between different types of CMRMBs and dimensions of relationship quality, the actual extent to which CMC use between couples causes changes in relationship quality is uncertain. Ideally, thi s could be corrected in future by introducing CMRM as an intervention and then comparing the ensuing relationship quality with a pre - CMC baseline, while controlling for confounding variables. However, the widespread adoption of CMC has made it difficult fo r researchers to make such comparisons because most couples have surpassed the pre - CMC stage . Additionally, simulating CMRM between couples , particularly when one partner is unaware of the simulation, has been associated with aversive outcomes (e.g., partn er suspicion) because it prompts partners to deviate from their communicative norms, which some partners might find to be alarming and even a sign of infidelity (Luo & Tuney, 2014). Perhaps future research could circumvent these obstacles by performing dya dic studies wh ere both partners are involved. Such studies could then manipulate various aspects of CMC use between couples (e.g., modality switching, frequency, tone) to determine how rather than if CMC use impacts relationship quality. The present stud y also had its own set of limitations. The quality assessment measures typical of systematic reviews, ideally designed to assess the quality of randomized control trials, could not be applied to the present review due to vast differences in study design ac ross the included papers. Therefore, the researcher used peer review as a measure of quality, including 56 only peer - review papers in the study. Although limiting the quality assessment did allow the researcher to tap into a broader range of findings, it may have allowed the inclusion of studies where methodological quality was possibly not up to par. Future research aimed at the construction of a quality measure for studies that examine interpersonal relationships could help to ameliorate this issue in future investigations. Second, although scholars have distinguished routine from strategic relational maintenance behaviors (Duck, 1988), this study did not differentiate between the two. Research indicates varying relational outcomes for each type, suggesting that enacting behaviors routinely predicts relationship satisfaction more strongly than doing so strategically (Dainton and Aylor, 2002). Future research in this context should, therefore, examine them separately for a more accurate understanding of how o nline behaviors influence relationship quality. Third, this study made no distinction between reports of partner satisfaction and individual satisfa ction. However, as Canary & Zelley (2003 ) suggest, a more telling relationship might exist between an indi studies did vary in their respective assessment of relationship outcomes, these differences were not noted or considered in the review. Future research in the field of relational maintenance as a whole would benefit from the enforcement of such distinctions as they reveal more about how Conclusion Overall, the present review found that the majority of included papers from the CMRM literature reported positive or mixed - positive results regarding links between CMC, relational maintenance, and relationship quality. Outcomes were exceptionally positive in the context of LDRs, pointing to the high value of CMRM for LDR partners. On ly the use of instant messaging 57 between couples was linked with more negative than positive outcomes, with all other platforms (SNS, phone, video, texting, email) showing predominantly positive effects on relational maintenance. In determining the extent to which offline relational maintenance typologies translate in an online environment, the review found support for six RM categories via CMC: Positivity, openness, social networks, conflict management, surveillance, and openness. Conflict management received the most support in the literature as a CMRMB, where CMC was found to assist with conflict de - escalation, management of emotions, and problem solving by giving partners more time to construct their ideas. Surveillance emerged as a relatively new category in the literature, and is the only RMB category found in the present review tha t was not included in RMB typology. Furthermore, and in addition to the more standard measures of relationship quality (e. g., satisfaction, commitment, intimacy), the review also pinpointed jealousy and idealization as two relatively unique outcomes associated with CMRM. Implications of jealousy varied in different relationship contexts, with jealousy serving as an affirmatio n of love and protectiveness in the context of LDRs , and as a nuisance and source of conflict in other contexts. I dealization was associated with more satisfaction and intimacy in couples, and was also found to be higher when individuals spent longer perio ds of time apart. LDRs and SNS were the two most popular themes, suggesting their importance in the discussion of CMRMBs but also pointing to gaps in the literature and areas for further investigation. Other relationship types, such as exclusively online couples, cohabitating couples, proximal couples, etc. deserve similar mutually exclusive attention. Other CMC platforms also 58 deserve more extensive attention, such as smartphone IM apps that continue to surge in pop ularity across the world. Findings from the present study hold value in several disciplines, particularly in couple therapy and tech innovation contexts. Although research in the CMRM field is somewhat inconsistent, clear efforts are being made by scholars to advance CMRM as an academic discipli ne, particularly in the past five years. Investigating the potential future research directions recommended here will help relational maintenance scholars to achieve a more holistic understanding of CMRM and its impacts on relationship quality. 59 APPENDICES 60 APPENDIX A Database Search Strategy Keywords: Nonplatonic relationships, computer - mediated communication, satisfaction, relational maintenance Context: Nonplatonic Relationships romantic OR nonplatonic OR non - platonic OR intimate OR dating OR couples Context: Online Communications computer - mediated communication OR mediated communication OR electronic communication OR communication technologies OR information and communication technologies OR social network sites OR Facebook OR Twitter OR email OR e - mail OR texting OR text messages OR text messaging OR SMS OR online communication OR online Outcome: Satisfaction satisfaction OR relational satisfaction OR relationship satisfact ion OR fulfillment OR happiness OR gratification OR contentment Model Search Strategy all((satisfaction OR relational satisfaction OR relationship satisfaction OR fulfillment OR happiness OR gratification OR contentment)) AND all((computer - mediated comm unication OR information and communication technologies OR texting OR social network sites OR Facebook OR Twitter OR email OR e - mail OR text messages OR text messaging OR SMS OR chatting OR online communication)) AND all((romantic OR nonplatonic OR dating OR couples OR non - platonic OR relational maintenance)) Generated 1192 results (366 full text) on Monday, March 23, 2015. 61 APPENDIX B Cross - Tabulation of Age Data Table 12 : Cross - Tabulation of Age Data Paper Age Data Author Year Age Min Age Max Mean Age Anderson, Emmers - Sommer 2006 18 62 Baym, Zhang, Kunkel 2007 20.67 Billedo, Kerkhof, Finkenauer 2015 17 52 Brody 2013 18 54 Brown, College 2008 18 22 19.93 Coccia, Darling 2014 20.8 Coyne et al. 2011 32.31 Jiang, Hancock 2013 18 34 20.97 Dainton 2013 21.36 Elphinston, Noller 2011 18 25 19.75 Emmers - Sommer 2004 18 40 21.71 Fox, Osborn, Warber 2014 18 22 Fox, Warber 2012 18 25 20.79 Frisby, Westerman 2010 18 64 26.95 Hand, Thomas, Buboltz 2012 18 57 20.82 Luo 2014 19.32 Luo, Tuney 2014 19.63 McGee 2014 24 Sidelinger et al. 2009 20.81 Miller - Ott, Duran 2012 20.33 Morey, Gentzler, Creasy 2013 18 27 20.01 Neustaedter, Greenberg 2012 19 35 Papp, Danielewicz, Cayemberg 2012 Parker et al. 2013 18 53 27.9 Perry, Werner - Wilson 2011 18 49 27.78 Saslow, Muise, Impett, Dubin 2012 18 73 36.62 Schade, Sandberg, Bean, et al. 2013 18 25 22.5 Scissors, Gergle 2013 18 30 21 Scissors, Roloff, Gergle 2014 18 64 21.9 Slatcher , Vazire, Pennebaker 2008 19.04 Stafford, Merolla 2007 17 23 19.86 62 Steers, Overup, Brunson, et al. 2015 18 53 22.12 Stewart, Dainton, Goodboy 2014 18 30 20.05 Utz, Beukeboom 2011 22 Vitak 2014 22 71 44 63 REFERENCES 64 REFERENCES Anderson, T. L., & Emmers - Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction in Online Romantic Relationships. Communication Studies , 57 (2), 153 172. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600666834 Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, a., Ledbetter, a., & Lin, M. - C. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society , 9 (5), 735 752. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080339 Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong : Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 117, 497 - 529. Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The Use of Social Networking Sites for Relationship Maintenance in Long - Distance and Geog raphically Close Romantic Relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 18 (3), 152 157. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469 Boland, A., Cherry, M.G., and Dickson, R. (2013). Guide, London: Sage. Brody, N. (2013). Absence and Mediated Communication Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Clarifying the Predictors of Satisfaction and Commitment in Long - Distance Friendships. Communication Research Reports , 30 (4), 323 332. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 08824096.2013.837388 Quality of Romantic Relationships and Face - to - Face Communication. Bryant, E. & Marmo, J., 2009 - 11 - Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 95 th Annual Convention, Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago, IL. Online . Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p366873_index.html. Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C. , & Blumenthal, D. (2011). The Benefits Of Health Information Technology: A Review Of The Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results. Health Affairs, 30(3), 464 471. http://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178 Canary, D.J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59(3), 243 - 266. Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An Inductive Analysis of Relational Maintenance Strategies: Comparisons Among Lovers, Relatives, Friends, and Others. Communication Research Reports, 10 (1), 5 - 14. 65 Canary, D. J. & Zelley, E.D. (2003). Relationship Maintenance. Inte rnational encyclopedia of marriage and family . New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Coccia, C., & Darling, C. a. (2014). Having the time of their life: College student stress, dating and satisfaction with life. Stress and Health . http://doi.org/10.1002/smi. 2575 of Individ ..., 1 7. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741 - 3729.2010.006 39.x Crystal Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication , 63 (3), 556 577. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12029 Da inton, M & Aylor, B.A. (2002). Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns, variations associated with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 69, 52 - 66. Dainton , M. (2013). Relationship maintenance on Facebook: Development of a measure, relationship to general maintenance, and relationship satisfaction. College Student Journal , 47 (1), 113 121. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1364719782?accountid =10457 Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine Maintenance Behaviors: A Comparison of Relationship Type, Partner Similarity and Sex Differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10 , 255 - 271. Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998). The feasibi lity of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and nonrandomized studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 52, 377 - 384. Duck, S. (Ed.). (1982). Personal relations 4: Dissolving personal relationships. New York: Academic Press. Duck, S. (1988). Maintaining Relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Relating to Others (pp. 84 - 101). Chicago: Dorsey Press. Elphinston, R. a., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to Face It! Facebook Intru sion and the Implications for Romantic Jealousy and Relationship Satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 14 (11), 631 635. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0318 Emmers - Sommer, T. M. (2004). The Effect of Communication Quality and Q uantity Indicators on Intimacy and Relational Satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 21 (3), 399 411. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504042839 66 Fincham, F. D., & Rogge, R. (2010). Understanding Relationship Quality: Theoretical Challenge s and New Tools for Assessment. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 2 (4), 227 242. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756 - 2589.2010.00059.x Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in ro mantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior , 35 , 527 534. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031 Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2012). Romantic Relationship Development in the Age of Facebook: An Explor Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 16 (1), 121025083321009. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0288 Frisby, B. N., & Westerman , D. (2010). Rational actors: Channel selection and rational choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 27 (7), 970 981. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378302 Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. Proceedi ngs of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Reaching through Technology - , 79 84. http://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856 Gunn, D, O., & Gunn, C. W. (2000, September). The quality of electronically maintained relationships. Pap er presented at the annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, Lawrence, KS. Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, M. (2012). Facebook and Romantic Relationships: Intimacy and Couple Satisfaction Associa ted with Online Social Network Use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 16 (1), 121026063615008. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0038 Howden, L., & Meyer, J. (2011). Age and Sex Composition: 2010. US Census Bureau, (May), 1 15. Retrieved fr om http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br - 03.pdf 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 , 1, 34 - 43. Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. A. H., Craig, E. A, & Wigley, S. (2008). College - distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer - Mediated Communication, 13, 381 - 404. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007), Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Technical Report EBSE - 2007 - 01, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University. 67 Koum, J. [jankoum]. (2015, March 11). Whatsapp crossed 1B Androd downloads. Btw our Android team is four people + Brian. Very small team, very big impact [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/jankoum?lang=en. Lee, L. (1984) . Sequences in Separation: A Framework for Investigating Endings of the Personal (Romantic) Relationship . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1 (1), 49 - 73. doi: 10.1177/0265407584011004 Luo, S. (2014). Effects of texting on satisfaction in romantic relationships: The role of attachment. Computers in Human Behavior , 33 , 145 152. http://doi.org/10.1 016/j.chb.2014.01.014 Luo, S., & Tuney, S. (2014). Computers in Human Behavior Can texting be used to improve The effects of sending positive text messages on relationship satisfaction q. Computers in Human Behavior , 49 , 670 678. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.035 Marwick A and boyd d (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society. Published online before print, 7 July. McGee, M. J. (2014). I s Texting Ruining Intimacy? Exploring Perceptions Among Sexuality Students in Higher Education. American Journal of Sexuality Education , 9 (4), 404 427. http://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2014.976353 McQuail, D. (2005). (5 th ed.). London: Sage. Metts, S., Sprecher, S. & Cupach, W. (1991). Retrospective self - reports. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 162 - 178). New York: Guilford Press. Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The a ssessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(5), 514 518. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4605_12 Miller - Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The Effects of Cell Phone Usage Rules on Satisfaction in Romantic Relationship s. Communication Quarterly , 60 (1), 17 34. http://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.642263 Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman , D. (2013). Young associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 (4), 1771 1778. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019 Neustaedter, C., & Greenberg, S. (2012). Intimacy in long - distance relationships over video chat. , 753 762. http://doi.org/doi: 10.1145/2207676.2207785 68 wi th WhatsApp. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - 1143. http://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531679 n, and Science. West Conshohoken, Pa: Templeton Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=e000xna&AN=398057&scope=site Satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 15 (2), 85 90. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0291 Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., P erry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013). Sexting as an Intervention: Relationship Satisfaction and Motivation Considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy , 41 (1), 1 12. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.635134 Perry, M. S., & Werner - Wilson, R. J. (2011). Couples and computer - mediated communication: A closer look at the affordances and use of the channel. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , 40 (2), 120 134. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552 - 3934.2011.02099.x Popay, J., R Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme with, (April 2006), 1 92. http://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.464 3 Purcell, M. (2013). The 10 Secrets of Happy Couples. Psych Central. Retrieved on July 15, 2015, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/the - 10 - secrets - of - happy - couples/ Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational Maintenance and the Influence of Commitment in Online and Offline Relationships. Communication Studies, 58 (3), 315 - 337. Measuring commitment level , satisfaction level , quality of alternatives , and investment size, 5, 357 39 1. Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, Interaction, and Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54 , 351 375. Saslow, L. R., Muise, a., Impett, E. a., & Dubin, M. (2012). Can You See How Happy We Are? Facebook Images and Re lationship Satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 4 (4), 411 418. http://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612460059 69 Sbarra, D.A., Law, R.W. (2009). Dissolution of Relationships, Coping and Aftermath. Entry in H. Reis and S. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Human Relationships, Volume 1 (pp. 440 - 445). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using Technology to Connect in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Attachment , Relationship Satisfaction, and Stability in Emerging Adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy , 12 (4), 314 338. http://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051 Scissors, L. E., & Gergle, D. (2013). Back and forth, back and forth: Channel switching in romantic couple conflict. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW , 237 247. http://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441804 - Esteem and CMC in Romantic Couple Conflict, 3953 3962. http://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557177 Sidelinger, R.J., Ayash, G., Tibbles, D. (2009). Couples go online: Relational maintenance behaviors and relational characteristics use in dating relationships. Human Communication, 11 (3), 341 - 356. Personal Relationships , 15 (4), 407 424. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475 - 6811.2008.00207.x Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining Long - Distance and Cross - Residential Relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance Strategies and Romantic Relationship Type, Gender and Relational Characteristics . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8( 2), 217. Stafford, L., & Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306 - 323. Stafford, L., & Merolla, A. J. (2007). Idealization, reunions, and stability in long - distance dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 24 , 37 - 54. Stafford, L., Merolla, A. J., & Castle, J . D. (2006). When long - distance dating partners become geographically close. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23 (6), 901 919. Steers, M. N., Øverup, C. S., Brunson, J. A., Acitelli, L. K., & Brunson, J. A. (2015). Psychology of Popular Media Awareness on Facebook Relates to. 70 Stewart, M. C., Dainton, M., & Goodboy , A. K. (2014). Maintaining Relationships on Facebook: Associations with Uncertainty, Jealousy, and Satisfaction. Communication Reports , 27 (1), 13 26. http://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2013.845675 Tidwell, L.C. & Walther, J.B. (2002). Computer - Mediated Communication Effects on Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting To Know One Another a Bit at a Time . Human Communication Research , 28 (3), 317. Tong, S. T., & Walt h er, J. B. (in press). Relational Maintenance and CMC. Computer - Medi ated Communication in Personal Relationships, 98 118. Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., and Kiecolt - Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mecha - nisms and implications for health. Psychol. Bull. 119: 488 531. Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness. Journal of Computer - Mediated Communication , 16 (4), 511 527. http:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1083 - 6101.2011.01552.x Vitak, J. (2014). Facebook Makes the Heart Grow Fonder. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - , 842 853. http://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531726 White, G.L. (1981). Jealousy and partner's perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social Psychology Quarterly , 44, 24 30. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer - mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3 43. Wright, K. B. (2004). On - Line Relational Maintenance Strategies and Perceptions of Partners within Exclusively Internet - Based and Primarily Internet - Based Relationships. Communication Studies. Wright, K. B. & Webb, L. M. (2011). Comp uter - mediated communication in personal relationships . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.