Tag: relationships

Expressions of Love and Satisfaction in Long-Distance vs. In-Person Relationships

Shadi Shans, Eleanor Moheban, Rishika Mehta, David Saidian, Monica Sargsyann

As internet relationships become more widespread in the modern world, people are relying on creative methods to display their love digitally. The objective of this study was to investigate which of the two, online or in-person couples, enjoy a stronger sense of relationship satisfaction given the means available to communicate affection. Our target group included 20 college students who were in relationships. Emojis, FaceTime calls, voice messages, as well as physical touch, and quality time are among the linguistic and communicative norms frequently used by our target audience. In general, internet communication can be useful and provide opportunities for asynchronous interaction. However, our hypothesis, which proposed that in-person communication provides a more personalized and intimate experience, leading to greater satisfaction, was confirmed.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

It is well acknowledged that effectively showing affection to one’s partner leads to increased relationship satisfaction. Online and in-person relationships both rely on different resources to communicate their love for their partner. Some findings suggest that frequent internet communication cannot accurately predict the quality of a relationship due to its limitations such as misinterpretation, and lack of meaningful conversation. Conversely, face-to-face couples predict greater satisfaction, suggesting that engaging in meaningful experiences in person fosters connection in a relationship, (Lee, 2011, pg. 378). Another study by Kaitlyn Goldsmith suggested that long-distance couples use more diverse, and frequent methods of communication on text, but geographically close relationships report greater satisfaction, due to physical proximity ensuring fulfilling interpersonal interactions, (Goldsmith, 2020, pg. 300). Individuals may now enter long-distance relationships more easily thanks to technological advancements. These online partnerships rely on internet technologies such as Facetime and texting to communicate their affection. On the other hand, physical touch and quality time are the most frequently utilized resources used to express love to one’s partner in person. Through the distribution of questionnaires and two interviews with college couples, it was discovered that most couples felt that communicating affection in person allowed them to strengthen their relationship satisfaction. Yet, it was shown that long-distance relationships can still be reasonably fulfilling, only if resources like Facetime call emojis are utilized.

Methods

We administered a survey online to 20 college students, 19 males and 1 female, aged between 18-25 years old. The students were from any local university in California, 10 being in a long-distance relationship, 10 being in an in-person one. The survey included questions about basic demographic information, relationship satisfaction measures, the methods of communication that long-distance couples used to compensate for lack of physical touch, and the most common forms of communication for in-person relationships. There were also questions about the frequency of resources such as phone calls, text messages, and Facetime. The participants in virtual relationships were asked to send optional screenshots of the text messages, to show examples of certain emojis or words used that may increase love or relationship satisfaction. The results of the participants were statistically analyzed after a week, and the survey was followed up with more concrete interviews of two of the participants, one being in a long-distance relationship, the other in an in-person one. The participants were both 19-year-old females dating their significant other for over a year. The semi-structured interview was conducted on Zoom, and lasted around 12 minutes. The interview guide was developed based on results that required further analysis from the survey. The interview guide consisted of questions asking the long-distance couples about how often they feel fulfilled in their relationships, despite the challenges of long-distance such as lack of physical closeness, shared experiences, and communication difficulties during conflict. They were also asked about the means of communication they employed to compensate for lack of quality time. The in-person relationships were asked more in-depth questions about how often they express appreciation, gratitude, and love to their partner in person, and how it impacts their relationship satisfaction.

Results and Analysis

Upon review of the results of our data sampling, where women made up 60% of the sample, 90% of subjects identified as heterosexual, while one identified as bisexual. The sample was evenly divided with 50% long-distance partners and 50% in-person couples. 37.5% of participants dated their significant other for longer than a year. Facetime emerged as the most preferred method of contact for long-distance relationships, as well as the most efficient. In-person couples found quality time to be the most effective form of expressing love to their partner. Emoji-filled text messages, voice note messages, and FaceTime calls were used in long-distance relationships to compensate for the absence of physical contact. 76.9% of face-to-face relationships reported using Facetime once a day. Contradictorily, the long-distance couples used Facetime multiple times a day. They discovered that the best way to express their affection to their partners was through Facetime and constant texting throughout the day. Long-distance relationships are, on the whole, “somewhat satisfied” with their relationships. In contrast, our findings suggest that in-person relationships are highly satisfied, as Lee anticipated in her study, owing to the capacity to engage in meaningful in-person encounters. (Lee, 2011, pg. 378). Among analysis of the interview participants, it was revealed that the long-distance couples utilized Facetime and voice notes on text messages as a way to engage in deep and meaningful interpersonal conversation, whereas the in-person couples primarily utilized Facetime, and text messages to stay informed about their partners’ activities. The long-distance partner articulated that quality of communication is more valuable than the frequency, noting that having one in-depth conversation on Facetime is more efficacious than timing multiple times a day for a short period of time. The long-distance partner reported conflict in their relationship, conveying that the lack of quality time led to a sense of longing for physical touch, leading to arguments about trivial issues. The in-person partner reported that relationship satisfaction was greatest when the couple traveled together and shared enjoyable and meaningful experiences, and explained that online methods of communication were not as correlated to relationship satisfaction. Overall, the in-person partner felt increased levels of satisfaction, as the long-distance relationship wished there were more creative ways to maintain love and connection with their partner, even from a distance.

Figure 1: Results from Question 7
Figure 2: Results from Question 8
Figure 3: Results from Question 12

Discussion and Conclusions

Our study allowed us to explore what factors, and resources predict positive, or negative relationship satisfaction in both in-person and long-distance relationships. Our study illuminates the importance of addressing these individual preferences, and suggests that physical closeness, and intimacy are key components of feeling fulfilled, and satisfied in a relationship. Overall, our results benefit platform creators, as well as mental health counselors because it allows them to be aware of the areas that long-distance couples may need accommodation and find ways to increase their satisfaction. Our results highlight how necessary it is for technology creators and mental health professionals to develop effective strategies in order to ensure long-distance couples are as satisfied as in-person couples. In an article by Ann Kegley, it was mentioned that interventions from platform creators are necessary to enhance the closeness of long-distance relationships such as online date ideas including virtual escape rooms, or even services that offer personalized gift packages, that can allow couples to feel just as connected as in-person couples, regardless of the distance, (Kegley, 2018, pg. 379-381). Additionally, our results provide insight to counselors who can create intervention methods that address the complicated obstacles that come with expressing love in a distance. Psychologists may help their clients have realistic expectations, while also enabling them to brainstorm unique methods of online communication that can promote love and bond. Goldsmith suggests in a Maintaining Long Distance Relationships study, that therapists can intervene by developing a treatment focusing specifically on conflict resolution, using the principles of emotionally focused therapy to allow clients to be aware of their attachment styles, helping long-distance couples develop activities to foster a strong sense of commitment with their partner, (Goldsmith, 2020, pg.340-346). There should be further studies that address the long-term effects of long-distance and in-person relationships, and whether or not physical closeness increases the overall duration of a relationship, while exploring these patterns across various different genders, ages, and geographical locations.

References

Goldsmith, K., & Byers, E. S. (2020). Maintaining long-distance relationships: Comparison to geographically close relationships. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 35(3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1645549https://doi-org.libdb.smc.edu/10.1080/14681994.2 018.1527027.

Kegley, J. A. (2018). Royce on self and relationships: Speaking to the digital and texting self of today. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 32(2), 285-303.

https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.32.2.0285

Lee, P. S. N., Leung, L., Lo, V., Xiong, C., & Wu, T. (2011). Internet Communication Versus Face-to-face Interaction in Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 100 (3), 375–389. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41476404

 [/expander_maker]

Love Across Cultures: A Comparative Study of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication of Affection in Text Messages Among American and East Asian College Students

Yoonhye Kim, Yuka Tanaka, Asaka Minami, Eugene Jo, Zivana Ongko

Have you ever wondered why a simple text message can be interpreted differently by people from different cultures? We were curious about how cultural differences affect communication in romantic relationships and identify the causes of miscommunication among people from different cultural backgrounds. This study compares how college students from East Asian and American cultures express love through text messages and explores the cultural factors that contribute to these differences. The study surveyed 30 college students between 18-24 years old, consisting of 15 American students and 15 East Asian international students from China, Japan, and South Korea. Participants provided demographic information, self-reported love languages, and text message screenshots, and their language was analyzed as direct or indirect speech. Results showed that American students tend to express love through more direct language, using terms of endearment and direct declarations of love, whereas East Asian students use more indirect and implicit expressions of affection. The study highlights the cultural differences in the understanding of love and expressions of affection, shaped by norms, values, individualism, and collectivism. The findings suggest that cultural factors play a significant role in shaping linguistic expressions of love and the use of nonverbal cues in text messages.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction

Love comes in many forms, and the means of communicating love vary across countries and cultures. This study aims to compare how college students from East Asian and American cultures express love through linguistic expression, specifically in text messages. The focus is on the directness of verbal expressions of affection and the contextual meaning of indirective expressions. Our research question is: “What are the differences in verbal (text) and nonverbal (emoji) communication in expressing love through text messages between college students in America and East Asian countries who have been in a romantic relationship for more than one month, and what cultural factors contribute to these differences?” We hypothesize that American students tend to express love through a more romantic language characterized by directness and expressiveness in their verbal expressions of love, whereas East Asian students may also be more hesitant to express their feelings directly (e.g., these students tend to respect cultural norms that value modesty and reserve in emotional expression). The use of nonverbal cues like emojis in text messages may be more prevalent in East Asian cultures due to their tendency to utilize an indirect style of language.

Background

Cultural differences in the understanding of love are shaped by norms, values, and expressions of love are influenced by individualism and collectivism (Kline and Zhang, 2008). American cultures are more passionate and erotic, while East Asian cultures tend to be more pragmatic. Individualistic cultures, like those found in America, tend to place a higher value on individual autonomy and self-expression, leading to a more open and expressive approach to love and relationships (Seki et al., 2002). In America, college students often use terms of endearment, pet names (e.g., sweetie, baby, babe, honey), and direct declarations of love in their text messages (e.g., “I love you,” “I miss you,” “Thinking of you,” “Can’t wait to see you,” “You mean everything to me”). In contrast, the collectivist cultures of many Asian countries prioritize interdependence and social harmony, leading to a more reserved and indirect approach. Students from East Asian countries tend to express love through a pragmatic love language, using more indirect and implicit expressions, such as indirect compliments or expressions of concern (e.g., “Did you eat,” “I will pick you up,” “How’s your day”).

East Asians tend to use emojis more frequently as a subtle way to express affection or interest, rather than relying on explicit statements. (Togans et al., 2021). Additionally, East Asians were “more careful in which emojis they used in situations, being more sensitive to show their concerns for others” (Johnson, 2021). Love is represented more directly in Western cultures which emphasize sexual communication and passion, while Eastern Asian cultures emphasize care and pragmatism. Gesselman et al. ‘s (2019) study found that emojis express complex feelings with a single symbol, enhancing successful intimate relationships. Frequent use of emojis is linked to stronger interpersonal connections and facilitates emotional expression in romantic relationships (Gesselman et al., 2019).

Methods

We aim to conduct a study on 30 college students between the ages of 18 and 24, comprising 15 American students and 15 East Asian international students from China, Japan, and South Korea. Our research will examine how these two groups differ in their use of verbal language, with regard to directness, as well as the use of emojis, in expressing affection through text messages. American students tend to express their emotions using direct language like “I love you” or “I miss you,” whereas East Asian students tend to use implicit expressions of affection like “Did you eat?” or “You must be tired today” and more emojis to convey their concern for their partner. Participants will complete a Google Form, providing demographic information and self-reported love languages used in text messages with their partners. They will have the option to submit text message screenshots and participate in a follow-up interview to give more context about their mood and situation when sending specific messages. We will inform participants that their responses will remain anonymous, and they can select the text message segments they wish to share, as well as delete or hide particular segments of their screenshots. For analysis purposes, we’ll sort the Google Form responses into two groups: American and East Asian students, then analyze their language to categorize it as direct or indirect speech. We had difficulty finding previous studies that offer clear-cut criteria for distinguishing between direct and indirect expressions of affection in verbal communication, so we developed our own. We define direct expressions of affection as those that convey affection even when the words are taken as they are, such as “I love you” or “I care about you,” while indirective expressions of affection are those that are less explicit in their phrasing yet manage to convey feelings of love through their tone or context, such as “Are you eating and sleeping well?”

Results and Analysis

Utilizing the data from our survey, we were able to generate the following figures that summarize results to key questions.

Figure 1: What do you call your partner?

As seen in Figure 1, about 72.7 % of American students tend to use direct language and terms of endearment like “baby” or “sweetie,” while 80% of East Asian students use names to refer to their partners rather than pet names. Cultural differences can be observed in the way people refer to their partners, as evident from the varying practices between American and East Asian students.

Figure 2: Verbal expressions used by American students vs. East Asian students

Using Figure 2’s data, we analyzed direct and indirect expressions of love in caring for one’s partner, and found that both groups show care and concern, albeit with different approaches. While Americans tend to use more explicit direct language, as we anticipated, such as expressing their love and thoughts toward their partners through direct compliments, Asians tend to use more indirect language, such as offering encouragement, sending morning and night greetings, and checking on their partners’ well-being daily. Interestingly, however, the expressions “I love you” and “I miss you” are frequently present in both American and Asian cultures. Additionally, Americans tend to employ more direct language, such as “looking forward to meeting you soon,” while Asians tend to use more indirect language, such as “I want the weekend to come already.” The use of different subjects in their messages also accentuates the contrast in directness. 

Figure 3: How often do you use emojis in your text message? (The chart displays the numerical values that correspond to the quantity of individuals)

Lastly, we examined the differences in emoji usage between East Asian and American students, and the results were unexpected. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, cultural background had little effect on emoji usage, while gender and personality traits had more dominant factors. Additionally, we analyzed the use of emojis by gender, and Figure 3 illustrates that females used emojis more frequently and explicitly, often with a literal heart, while males used heart emojis combined with other images, such as 😍 and 😘. Interestingly, despite their tendency to use indirect verbal language, Asian students were not hesitant to use direct emojis like ❤️or 🫶to express love.

Discussion and Conclusions

The present study sheds light on the cultural differences in the expression of romantic love between American and East Asian students. Our results confirm that American students tend to use more direct language and pet names when referring to their partners, reflecting the culture’s emphasis on individualism and direct communication. These expressions allow individuals to convey their personal feelings and affection directly. Interestingly, both groups frequently use the expressions “I love you” and “I miss you,” indicating that these phrases hold universal significance in expressing romantic love. We also found that American students tend to employ more explicit direct language, while East Asian students use more indirect language, such as offering encouragement and checking on their partners’ well-being daily. In contrast to our initial hypothesis, we found that cultural background had little effect on emoji usage, while gender and personality traits had a bigger impact on the use of emoji.

Moreover, our study highlights the seeming balance of indirectness with words and more direct emojis used by East Asian students, challenging the common stereotype of East Asians as being overly indirect in communication. While it is challenging to draw a definitive conclusion, we have proposed several possible explanations for this phenomenon based on cultural and linguistic factors. Indirectness is often considered polite in East Asian cultures, while emojis can effectively convey emotions and meanings that are difficult to express in words. Even shy individuals may use emojis to express their affection and maintain a balance of love in text conversations. Understanding the nuances of both direct and indirect expressions of affection can help bridge communication gaps in these situations. The practical implications of this research extend to education and counseling, providing strategies to support students from diverse cultural backgrounds in their relationships.

References

Caldwell-Harris, Kronrod, A., & Yang, J. (2013). Do More, Say Less: Saying “I Love You” in Chinese and American Cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0002

Gesselman, Ta, V. P., & Garcia, J. R. (2019). Worth a thousand interpersonal words: Emoji as affective signals for relationship-oriented digital communication. PLoS ONE, 14(8), e0221297–e0221297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221297

Johnson, C. (2021, November 2). New research shows that where we come from can influence our use of Emojis. Miami University. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://miamioh.edu/news/2021/11/new-research-shows-that-where-we-come-from-can-influence-our-use-of-emojis.html

Kline, Horton, B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Communicating love: Comparisons between American and East Asian university students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.006

Laursen, Furman, W., & Mooney, K. S. (2006). Predicting Interpersonal Competence and Self-Worth From Adolescent Relationships and Relationship Networks: Variable-Centered and Person-Centered Perspectives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(3), 572–600. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0030

SEDIKIDES, OLIVER, M. B., & CAMPBELL, W. K. (1994). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for women and men: Implications for exchange theory. Personal Relationships, 1(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00052.x

Seki, Matsumoto, D., & Imahori, T. T. (2002). The Conceptualization and Expression of Intimacy in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033003006

SPRECHER, & TORO-MORN, M. (2002). A study of men and women from different sides of Earth to determine if men are from Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs about love and romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 46(5-6), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019780801500

Togans, Holtgraves, T., Kwon, G., & Morales Zelaya, T. E. (2021). Digitally saving face: An experimental investigation of cross-cultural differences in the use of emoticons and emoji. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.016

Wilkins, & Gareis, E. (2006). Emotion expression and the locution “I love you”: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.003

 [/expander_maker]

The Impact of Social Media on Romantic Relationships

Chloë Chavez, Sydney Weissman, Ashley Paras, Alejandro Valdez

Interacting on social media is nothing new. We’ve all felt, or at least have heard of people in romantic relationships interacting with others on these platforms, and how it can create feelings of jealousy or uncertainty. Commenting and liking other people’s posts and direct messages could be seen as factors as to why these feelings could become relevant and cause problems in a relationship. We believe that romantic relationships showing behaviors such as these, on other people’s posts besides their partners will cause conflict and negatively affect the overall relationship. An anonymous survey was administered to UCLA students, ages 18-25, that asked whether or not communication online affected how they viewed or felt about their romantic relationships, as well as asking if arguments had ever occurred due to social media engagement. The results were interesting and said a lot about this generation’s relationship with social media.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction

At the base of this research project is the proposal of how communicative behaviors used on social media negatively impact romantic relationships. Our research is narrowly focusing on behavior patterns on social media, and how expressing attention to other people can oftentimes cause jealousy and conflict. The online portrayal of relationships is nothing new, and therefore relevant in nearly all of Gen-Z’s everyday lives. Our research question reads: do online behaviors, such as liking and commenting on others’ posts, direct messaging, and overall online engagement cause jealousy and conflict in romantic relationships? Communication via social media affects our interpersonal relationships, and we hypothesize that online behaviors can cause jealousy and conflict in romantic relationships. 

Background 

The constant pressure social media holds on individuals and relationships may predicate feelings of jealousy, comparison, low self-concept, envy, and suspicion. Prior research has indicated that social media triggers jealousy and feelings of uncertainty, even when danger is not present (Frampton, Fox, 2018). Altering linguistic norms with different people, (i.e. in a relationship) and using style-shifting is necessary not only in person but also on social media to maintain a healthy relationship.

When going into a relationship with no feelings of paranoia or doubt, social media’s presence only heightened attachment anxiety, feelings of jealousy, and misunderstanding (Sullivan, 2021). Thus, research has shown that language used within social media impacts those within a romantic relationship negatively. Comments, likes, and direct messaging are common sociolinguistic indicators that can work in favor or against relationships. 

Methods

An anonymous survey conducted a cross-sectional study at the University of California, Los Angeles. This study was completely voluntary. Participants were UCLA students in a relationship, between 18-25 years old. The study was created on Google forms and links were distributed online through social media platforms and text messages. By sending out open-ended, Likert scale, and multiple choice questions we collected data regarding behaviors shown on social media platforms. With the knowledge that indexical variables include words that change their meaning based on the context used, this study was designed to answer the wider question- how do communicative behaviors via social media (comments, likes, direct messages) impact romantic relationships? Apart from hosting the online survey, a collection of organized data based on predefined research, methodology, graphs, and qualified questions provided by researchers in the past 10 years led the new study. When wanting to discover more about the effects social media has on romantic relationships, we observed the different communicative behaviors used on social media.

Results and Analysis

Figure 1: How often do you post your significant other on social media?

This question had a point scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not frequently” and 5 being “very often.” As seen in Figure 1, participants reported that they never or rarely post their partner, with only two individuals selecting choices ‘4’ and ‘5’. Option ‘1’ and ‘2’ received an equal proportion (31.6), with the median receiving a percentage of 26.3.

Figure 2: How do you feel when your significant other posts you on social media?
Figure 3: How do you feel about your significant other commenting on other people’s posts?

Both data charts, Figures 2 and 3, are critical for our study since they disprove our hypothesis that showing affection for someone other than our significant other through social media might encourage sentiments of jealousy among couples. Figure 2 had a point scale ranging from 1-5, with one being “not happy” and five being “happy.” Figure 3 was scored on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being “uncomfortable/angry” and 5 being “don’t mind.” More than half of the participants answered a ‘4’ or a ‘5,’ demonstrating that this type of behavior (affection for others via social media) does not promote jealousy.


Figure 4: Has engagement on social media (you commenting on others’ posts, liking a post, story reactions, direct messaging) ever instigated an argument between you and your partner?

This data is also important for our hypothesis because it disproves it. Figure 4 used a point scale of 1-5, with 1 indicating “never” and 5 indicating “frequently.” More than half of those in the survey said social media had never caused an argument in their relationship.

Figure 5: What does it mean to you when your significant other likes other people’s posts on social media?

Figure 5 used a 1-5 point scale, with 1 being “not happy” and 5 being “happy.” There’s a large percentage of responses in the median range in this data. This might imply that they are indifferent to their partner’s actions on social media. In this chart, participants who chose ‘3’ remain neutral which portrays neutrality in response to their partner liking others’ posts. Participants may also perceive conversations about feelings of jealousy to be more casual than the conversation being a conflict.

Discussion

After analyzing our results from survey responses and screenshots, we found that the data did not support our overall hypothesis that behavior on social media caused conflict amongst romantic partners. Through a series of questions, the majority of participants revealed that their partners did not post about their significant other often, which correlated with the trend that most participants responded that social media engagement does not cause conflict in their relationships. This also correlates to the question regarding individuals in a relationship commenting on others’ posts or direct messaging others on social media. Most of our respondents revealed that they were unaffected and did not care about partners engaging in these behaviors. Despite social media potentially increasing jealousy and conflict based on prior research, our studies show that romantic relationships are not negatively impacted by user involvement on social media. Rather than conflict arising, feelings of anxiety were reported. Screenshots gathered from our data were exchanges of texts not demonstrating a conflict, but rather how social media instigates feelings of anxiety. Thus, comments and direct messages are elements of communication that we presumed would indicate affection toward another person that would cause arguments and jealousy.

Limitations

While our data does not support our hypothesis, there are limitations to our study that may have influenced the results gathered. Participants may have been reluctant to share the absolute truth for fear that the survey was not completely anonymous. Some partners in a relationship strive for perfection and hide all aspects of their relationship that could taint the views that people have of them. Additionally, people may not be comfortable admitting that they experience conflicts in their relations because of social media. This also ties into the idea of relationships having different perspectives toward the parameters that define conflict. There are different severities of conflict, and couples may differ on what is considered a conflict versus a simple discussion. Lastly, the struggle to gain responses on our survey may skew our results as our sample size is not large enough to make generalizations about an entire population size. While we had nineteen respondents, these may have all been couples that have sufficient communication with their partner, limiting the arguments that exist from social media. However, if the survey had more respondents, we could have conducted a more concrete generalization in response to how social media impacts romantic relations in the realms of jealousy and conflict through linguistic exchanges.

Future Studies

Future studies could expand on this topic and focus more on elements of communication that impact face-to-face communication among romantic partners. This can include factors such as the difference between masculine and feminine communication styles and how these aspects of language affect romantic relationships. Further, looking at the difference in communication between genders would be a future study that could aid in understanding more in-depth the effect communication online has on our relationships.

References

Abbasi, I. S. (2018). Social Media and committed relationships: What factors make our romantic relationship vulnerable? Social Science Computer Review, 37(3), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318770609

Arikewuyo, A. O., Lasisi, T. T., Abdulbaqi, S. S., Omoloso, A. I., & Arikewuyo, H. O. (2020). Evaluating the use of social media in escalating conflicts in romantic relationships. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2331

Beaukboom, C. & Utz, S. (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.

Frampton, & Fox, J. (2018). Social Media’s Role in Romantic Partners’ Retroactive Jealousy: Social Comparison, Uncertainty, and Information Seeking. Social Media + Society, 4(3), 205630511880031–. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118800317

Sullivan, K. T. (2021). Attachment Style and Jealousy in the Digital Age: Do Attitudes About Online Communication Matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 678542–678542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021

Appendix

Are there social media rules for relationships? 

 [/expander_maker]

You’re Just Somebody That I Used to Know

Audrey Edwards, Hung-Yi (Henry) Chen, Laksha Chhaddva, Sarah Manwani

Figure 1. A text message screenshot sent in by a Gen-Zer demonstrating breakup practices over text

Let’s face it, ghosting sucks. Some may comment on the exchange above and say no response is a response, but does that provide effective closure in breakups? Although most people feel indirect breakups are outright disrespectful, the reality is that many of us are guilty of engaging in unhealthy breakup practices. However, has the rise of the Digital Age made this problem worse than before? Our study investigates how breakup practices differ amongst the two generations, Millennials, and Gen Z. Through our exploration of dating differences between these two generations using surveys and interviews, we found that tech use is more common in romantic relationships and breakups amongst Gen Z and indirect breakups are more common amongst Millennials. Ultimately, while the fact that indirect breakups wear is different, it seems like our tendency to do so is little changed by the prevalence of digital technology, one way or the other.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

Our study intended to assess the effect of technology on relationship practices between Gen-Zers (born between 1997 and 2012, according to Dimock (2019)) and Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996, according to Dimock). We know that technology has impacted both Gen Z and Millennial romantic relationships, but the impact of tech use on romantic relationships is contested. Christenson’s (2018) study found that heavy social media users experience a severe decline in the quality of interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, Nicolas (2020) found that relationships formed on social media achieve similar self-disclosure and companionship as in-person relationships. More generally, Seemiller and Grace (2018) contended that Millennials were self-absorbed and ill-equipped to deal with meaningful relationships, while McGuire (2015) finds that Millennials still learn proper romantic expectations. The emergence of ghosting (the sudden cessation of communication over digital platforms) as a breakup method has further increased academic alarm, with LeFebvre and her colleagues (2019) finding that 96% of the college students they interviewed had been a part of ghosting interactions in some capacity. With this disagreement in scholarly assessments of technology and the younger generations in general, we feel that the healthiness of relationships experienced by these generations is worthwhile to study, with breakup methods as a good proxy. Baxter (1984) found that indirect breakups (without telling the partner directly, as in ghosting) were associated with self-centered breakups, prolonged the breakup process, and were a source of regret for breakups. Therefore, we expected that Gen-Zers were more likely than Millennials to use indirect breakup methods and to use technology in their breakups. If this hypothesis is true, then it demonstrates that tech use is likely to have a negative impact on breakup methods, since the biggest difference between Millennials and Gen-Zers is their exposure to tech use (as a consequence of their respective birth years).

Methods

To study the effects of technology on break-up methods, we sent a survey to Gen-Zers and Millennials that we knew and asked them to send it on to other Gen-Zers and Millennials that they knew as well. The survey was conducted through an anonymous Google Form to enable honest responses to sensitive questions. Ultimately, 27 Gen-Zers and 20 Millennials responded to the survey. The survey asked respondents how much they agreed with statements about the prevalence of technology use in their romantic relationships and their experience with breakups. The questions used the Likert scale, with respondents stating their agreement from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” and binary (Yes-or-No) questions concerning whether they had encountered or engaged in specific break-up strategies described in Baxter’s (1984) study.

To complement the survey, we also conducted anonymous interviews with three Gen-Zers and two Millennials that we knew. Each interview proceeded with a set of interview questions that covered the same topics as the survey, but in an open-ended way. The interviewees were encouraged to go into detail on their experiences that relate to the questions, such as by describing the break-up experience in narrative form rather than merely categorizing it. Since the survey’s responses relied on the Likert scale and binary questions, which included no way to explain the answers, we needed a way of discovering more nuance in the relationship between technology use and healthy break-up methods. The interviews, which were fewer in number but far more detailed, provided a way to get into the details.

Results

The survey results show that indirect breakup methods are less preferred by both Gen-Zers and Millennials compared with direct breakup methods.  However, Millennials are more likely to have used indirect breakup methods than Gen-Zers. 30% of Millennials report having broken up with someone indirectly, versus 15% of Gen-Zers.  The results illustrate that Gen-Zers have been broken up over text more often than Millennials, with 44% of Gen-Zers having experienced this versus 25% of Millennials. The key takeaways that we acquired from the interview questions were that both Gen-Zers and Millennials predominantly prefer direct break-ups rather than indirect breakup methods.  On the other hand, one of our Gen-Zer interviewees preferred to break up indirectly, especially if they were not in a serious relationship with their partner.  This somewhat contrasted our findings, but our interviewees still largely preferred direct over indirect breakups, and they were generally of the opinion that indirect breakups are messy and disrespectful.

Figure 2: This pie chart indicates that Generation-Z individuals most likely Strongly Disagree (9 people) or Disagree (6 people) with the statement “When terminating a relationship, you ended the relationship without ever directly stating your intention”.
Figure 3: This pie chart illustrates that Millennials disagree more than they agree with the statement “When terminating a relationship, you ended the relationship without ever directly stating your intention”.
The results illustrate that Gen-Zers have been broken up over text more often than Millennials, with 44% of Gen-Zers having experienced this versus 25% of Millennials.

Analysis

According to the results, Millennials tend to break up in person, whereas Gen-Zers break up less in person and more over text than Millennials. This confirms our hypothesis that tech use is more common among Gen-Zers for breakups. On the other hand, Gen-Zers are actually less likely than Millennials to break up indirectly, which contradicts our hypothesis. While this does not necessarily indicate that tech use leads to healthier breakup methods, it does put a wrench in the scholarly speculation that they render younger generations actively unprepared for romantic relationships.

Figure 4: This pie chart shows that a vast majority of Millennials have not been broken up with over text.
Figure 5: This pie chart shows that 44% of Gen-Zers have been broken up over text.
However, Millennials are more likely to have been broken up with in-person than Gen-Zers, with 75% of Millennials having experienced this versus 37% of Gen-Zers.
Figure 6: This pie chart indicates that Millennials are more likely than not to have been broken up with in person.
Figure 7: In the pie chart above, this chart illustrates that Generation-Z individuals are less likely than not to have been broken up with in person.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our hypothesis that Gen-Zers would engage in more indirect breakup methods than Millennials was incorrect. Contrary to our expectations, it doesn’t seem like Gen-Zers are less equipped than Millennials to deal with breakups. However, we found that technology was more extensively used in Gen-Zer breakups compared to Millennial break-ups. This verified our hypothesis that Gen-Zers use technology in romantic relationships more than Millennials and suggests that there was no correlation between being exposed to technology and the tendency to use indirect breakup methods. This is important because it suggests the rise of technology use by Generation Z doesn’t affect their relationship readiness as negatively as scholars fear. Moreover, neither of these two generations exhibited any special tendency towards indirect breakups compared with other generations. Baxter’s (1984) study found that 49% of the relationships examined were broken up through indirect means. This rate is much higher than the 30% of Millennials and the 15% of Generation Z who had engaged in at least one indirect breakup in our study. While the numbers are not fully convertible and the Baxter study involved more interviewees, one could reasonably conclude that Millennials and Generation Z are not more likely, and are quite possibly less likely, to use indirect breakup methods than Baxter’s Baby Boomer subjects. Of course, break-up methods are only a small part of the overall process of a relationship, but this finding supports the opinion of scholars who feel that the younger generations are as capable of healthy relationship practices as the older ones. 

References

Baxter, L. A. (1984). Trajectories of Relationship Disengagement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407584011003

Christensen, S. P. (2018). Social Media Use and Its Impact on Relationships and Emotions (Order No. 28107583). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2442249267). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/social-media-use-impact-on-relationships-emotions/docview/2442249267/se-2

Dimock, Michael (2019). Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins. Pew Research Organization. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/ where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

Krafchick, Julie and Yue Xu. (2020, March 10). Millennial vs. Gen Z Dating (No. S10E5) [Audio podcast episode]. Dateable. Drank Production. https://www.dateablepodcast. com/episode/s10e5-millennial-vs-gen-z-dating

LeFebvre, L. E., Allen, M., Rasner, R. D., Garstad, S., Wilms, A., & Parrish, C. (2019). Ghosting in Emerging Adults’ Romantic Relationships: The Digital Dissolution Disappearance Strategy. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236618820519

Mateo, Ashley. (2019). How to Break Up With Someone Without Hurting Them. Oprah Daily LLC. https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/relationships-love/a27865922/how-to-break-up -with-someone/

McGuire, Kate, “Millennials’ perceptions of how their capacity for romantic love developed and manifests” (2015). Masters Thesis, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/659

Nicolas, É. M. (2020). The Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Attachment Style for Generation Z (Order No. 27737202). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2348090364). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/impact-social-media-on-adolescent-attachment/docview/2348090364/se-2

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2018). Generation Z: A Century in the Making (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429442476

Further Reading and Listening

[/expander_maker]

Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Cultural Backgrounds or Personal Preferences More Heavily Affect the Way We Verbally Affirm Our Romantic Partners?

Tina Festekdjian, Krunali Mehta, Mark Keosian, Tatiana Akopyan

Do you ever wonder why people belonging to different cultures express love differently in their romantic relationships? Are they accustomed to verbal or nonverbal forms of affirmation, and does this carry on throughout generations? This study explores why and how second-generation college students living in Los Angeles who identify as Latin American, Asian American, or American verbally affirm their partners, as we were curious to see if culture may cause communicative differences in relationships. Whether words of affirmation can be attributed to the way people were raised, their cultural habits, or their personal preferences, the population we studied displayed an interesting trend: individuals are less heavily influenced by their culture, and the majority (66.7%) are more likely to follow their personal preferences when expressing love. While the minority (33.3%) displayed cultural allegiance, we generally noticed that one’s culture is not the leading contributor to how they express love – possibly due to the generational shift that embodies independence, socialization, and even Americanization. We can conclude that our target population is perhaps more open-minded, individualistic, and willing to break cultural barriers for love to embody their own preferences. Breaking barriers can make students more comfortable to approach others, adapt to new love languages, and better learn how to express love verbally.

[expander_maker id=”1″ more=”Read more” less=”Read less”]

Introduction and Background

 Do second-generation college students living in Los Angeles prefer to follow cultural guidelines or personal preferences when expressing verbal love in romantic relationships?

We hypothesize that particular people will be influenced by their culture if they abide by cultural norms, but that this most likely does not separate people – especially in a younger generation of college students who may be more willing to branch out. The motivation for our research was to explore what role culture plays in verbal affirmation in romantic relationships for second-generation college students, and whether social norms, family life, or personal feelings are the leading contributors. The problem is, based on the way we were raised, or based on our own preferences, we show love differently, which can cause miscommunication. By investigating different forms of linguistic communication among Latin American, Asian American, and American college students in Los Angeles, we can deduce how intimacy is present through verbal communication in their relationships. Some specific aspects of communication that we will look at include words of affirmation, romanticism in conversations, tone, and context of affection. For example, in a cross-cultural context, this means: the specific words people use to address their partner and whether it comes from their own language/culture, if someone is more expressive verbally or uses nonverbal communication, and in what situations they will be verbally affectionate. Virtual communication like text-messaging will also be studied to develop a deeper understanding of day-to-day interactions and what exactly is said in these relationships. Above personal experience, relevant literature tells us what we know so far. Brinton (1886) displays how many tribal and modern languages of Latin America tie the sentiments of love to verbal expression. The Nauahtl and Aztec tongue, for example, indicate higher levels of emotional strength with words of origin that hold deeper meanings and cultural values. These lexical attributes can provide evidence as to why Latin America is the home to many “romance languages”. Lindholm (2006) explores the Western (American) vs. Eastern scope of view, delineating how Western linguistic expression is often romanticized in the media and verbal expression of gratitude and admiration is common. On the other hand, Bello et. al. (2010) provides evidence for how in some Asian cultures, communicative patterns like verbal affirmation are less likely to be expressed. Allendorf (2013) provides context on how romantic relationships have evolved from arranged marriages to love marriages in many parts of Asia. Ultimately, we were able to bridge this gap by bringing generational evolution to the table. Because our population is second-generation college students, and most of our literature is broadly culturally based, we were able to understand that the evidence for our trend generally lay in the people, rather than what cultural group they belong to. Being in college in Los Angeles leads to Americanization, socialization, and the added element of independence that our literature did not address.

Methods

Through the use of a clear and straightforward 4 question questionnaire and student-submitted text message screenshots, we gathered responses from 27 second-generation college students about which form of love expression they prefer to use when expressing love to a romantic partner, along with the social and cultural norms of love expression they are familiar with. Finally, we had the students answer whether they prefer to use their chosen personal preferences or the social and cultural norms they are familiar with when expressing love and affection to a romantic partner in order to see which influences students’ communication and verbal affirmation to a greater degree. These methods allowed us to analyze the specific words and tones being used by students to express affection to a partner, along with the conversational structures and atmosphere. We compared these results with the social and cultural norms of love expression the students responded they were familiar with in order to see if their personal preferences were or were not being influenced by social or cultural norms. While a student’s personal preference for verbal affirmation or love expression and the social and cultural norms they are familiar with may overlap, this may be attributed to strong cultural roots or identity. By looking at which words, verbal affirmations, and other forms of love expression second-generation college students preferred to use when expressing love or affection to their romantic partners, we hoped to find whether culture played a significant role in the specific words, affirmations, or actions being used by these students or whether the personal preferences these students have just simply outweigh the social and cultural norms in their lives.

Results and Analysis

In regards to our results from Table 1: Culture, we collected information from 3 different cultural groups: 37% being Latin American college students, 33.3% American college students and 29.6% Asian American.  We collected a fairly good range of responses from our intended cultural groups to get a fair representation of second-generation college students.

Table 1: Cultures of Respondents

When asked about their preference on personal preferences or social/cultural norms shown in Table 2: Norms, 66.7% chose personal preferences while 33.3% chose social/cultural norms. 

Table 2: Preference for sociocultural norms or personal preferences in a relationship

These students were then asked what words/actions were their preference in romantic relationships shown in Table 3: Preferences, from choices of spending quality time together (44.4%), words of affirmation (29.6%),  physical touch (22.2%), and gifts (3.7%). 

Table 3: Preference for words/actions in romantic relationships

We were able to collect examples of text messages in Table 4: Cross Cultural Text Messages from each cultural group. We found Asian American college students to be showing love through using words like “shona” that embodies their cultural background where Latin American college students show love by saying thank you and words of appreciation. The difference we found in American college students shows love through constant repetition of words of affection and reassurance.

Table 4: Cross-Cultural Text Messages

Discussion, Conclusion, and Contributions

Through conducting our research, we concluded that our findings are truly impactful as we found that college students are more likely to use their own personal preferences during verbal affirmation in a romantic relationship rather than their known social and cultural norms. This is important to recognize because it highlights that students aren’t restricted or limited by their cultural upbringing and actually care more about their own personal preferences when expressing verbal affirmation to a romantic partner. Another finding to recognize is the bias when students are asked if they follow social norms or their own personal preferences. They might not answer truthfully or not even realize that social norms have become their personal preference overtime.  For generations to come, we may find that students have become more approachable or sociable as culture may not play as big of a role in verbal affirmation and love expression as we may thought. Ultimately, our findings could definitely benefit students who are in existing romantic relationships or are interested in finding a romantic partner as it can help break social barriers and make students more comfortable when communicating romantically and approaching those of different cultures. We were able to analyze various findings through code-switching from Hindi to English in the Asian American text message and how emotions/feelings are shown through the usage of emojis in online communication to further understand how society and cultural factors have contributed to various forms of communication.  Although some students still prefer to follow their known social and cultural norms in verbal affirmation with a partner, our findings show that students are more open minded to adapting to one another’s love languages and potentially learning how to better communicate and express love verbally, as they are not being tightly confined by social and cultural norms.

References

Allendorf, K. (2013). Schemas of Marital Change: From Arranged Marriages to Eloping for Love. Journall of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 453–469. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23440792  

Bello, Brandau-Brown, F. E., Zhang, S., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2010). Verbal and nonverbal methods for expressing appreciation in friendships and romantic relationships: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 294–302. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176710000118?via%3Dihub

Brinton, D. G. (1886). The Conception of Love in Some American Languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23(124), 546–561. http://www.jstor.org/stable/983335

Gumperz, J. J. (1962). Types of Linguistic Communities. Anthropological Linguistics, 4(1), 28–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30022343

Lindholm, C. (2006). Romantic Love and Anthropology. Etnofoor, 19(1). 5–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758107

Sergeyevna Kim. (2021). EXPRESSION OF LOVE AS LINGVOCULTURAL AND GENDER LINGUISTIC CONCEPT AND ITS REFLECTION IN DIFFERENT CULTURES. CURRENT RESEARCH JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2(5), 48–54. https://masterjournals.com/index.php/crjps/article/view/89/77

[/expander_maker]