A Comparison of interaction rules and interaction frequency in relationship to marital quality.

The purpose of this study is to compare the contributing role of two aspects of social interaction to the quality of marital relationships: the frequency of casual interaction between marital partners versus the quality of social interaction as exhibited by partners' reliance on universal rules

of social interaction. Specifically we examine the relative contribution of frequency of casual interaction and reliance on interaction rules to assessments of marital quality. Findings indicate that although each of these features is associated with trust, liking, satisfaction, and commitment, reliance on basic interaction rules plays the more important role, explaining 51% of the variance in the composite marital quality index.

**********

Over the last few years, Stafford, Canary and their colleagues have identified a number of specific relational maintenance behaviors that predict various relationship qualities (e.g., Canary & Stafford, 1992; Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002; Stafford & Canary, 1991; Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000). Shared tasks and openness, for instance, are identified as specific maintenance behaviors that predict levels of trust, commitment, love, and satisfaction in marriage. Maintenance behaviors ostensibly help preserve these features of relationship quality (Stafford, 2002). Yet the enactment of relationship maintenance behaviors is dependent upon the ongoing negotiation and co-construction of communicative understandings and activity that exist between married partners. Less work has been conducted to differentiate basic features of social interaction that enable marital relationships to function effectively.

The purpose of this study is to compare the role of two aspects of social interaction to the quality of marital relationships: the frequency of casual interaction between marital partners versus the quality of social interaction as exhibited by partners' reliance on universal rules of social interaction (Argyle, Furnham, & Graham, 1981; Argyle & Henderson, 1985a, 1985b). While these two features of social interaction are generally considered to be important to the quality of interpersonal relationships, they are still relatively understudied areas in intimate relationships, particularly in relation to assessments of relationship quality (Metts, 1997). Both the frequency with which people interact and the way people behave as they interact are offered in different types of theories (developmental theory and functional rules theory) as general mechanisms for understanding how social systems such as relationships develop to function effectively (e.g., Argyle et al.; Werner, 1957). Yet neither of these mechanisms has had lengthy, focused, or comparative treatment by marital relationship researchers. In particular, we know less what matters most, the frequency with which married partners interact or the extent to which partners conform to basic interaction rules, or universal expectations about how to communicate with one another.

Frequency of Casual Interaction

The first interaction feature that deserves further study is simply the frequency of casual interaction couples engage in with each other, and its association with perceptions of relationship quality. Sheer frequency of interaction has had a long history as an important aspect of intimate relationships, and has been considered by developmental theorists to be a critical mechanism of developmental change (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Delia & O'Keefe, 1979; Little, 1972; Werner, 1957). Duck and his colleagues (Duck, 1992; Duck, Rut*, Hurst, & Strejc, 1991), for instance, have argued that everyday casual interaction plays a powerful and significant, and yet largely ignored, role in the development of relationships. However, Duck et al. found that relational participants viewed talk within their relationship as indicative of the healthy continuation of their relationship. Similarly Kirchler (1988) found marital happiness to be positively associated with frequency of interaction, except when the interaction was conflict ridden. In addition, Barnes and Duck (1994) have found that routine casual interaction provides an opportunity to vent grumbles, escape everyday stresses and be comforted. Everyday casual interaction can provide a safe context within which more specific discussions can occur and partners can learn about one another (Duck, 1990). Routine casual conversation can allow partners to gauge each other's mood and behavior and regulate or diffuse problems before they occur (Met*s, 1997). Dainton and Stafford's (1993) efforts to explore maintenance behaviors beyond the initial maintenance strategies of Stafford and Canary (1991) indeed found that couples reported using casual interaction to maintain their relationships.

In their review of the literature on marriage Reissman, Aron, and Bergen (1993) concluded that the time couples spent engaging in leisure activities, such as talking or sharing tasks, was related to their relational satisfaction. Similarly, Vangelisti and Banski (1993) found that couples who talked at the end of the workday had higher levels of satisfaction than those who did not spend nightly time interacting with one another. Finally, Richmond (1995) found that satisfied couples engaged in more conversation across a variety of topics overall than did dissatisfied couples.

Some time ago, Crockett (1965), utilizing a domain specific model of development, argued that differences in social systems could partially be explained by a frequency of interaction effect. The frequency of interaction hypothesis argues that the duration of a person's experience in a particular domain of activity is a mechanism for developing that person's cognitive and social systems in that domain (Little, 1972). Applied to marital relationships, the frequency of interaction hypothesis implies that married individuals who interact more with their partner will develop relatively more sophisticated behaviors and perceptions than those with comparatively little experience in that domain. The experience gained from informal casual interaction may likely be the basis for overall impressions and perceptions of the relationship, which becomes translated into perceptions of marital quality. In a similar vein, Berger and Kellner (1964) have argued that marital reality is constructed through everyday conversation. Given that the benefits of marital relationships may be carried in and through interaction practices, our first hypothesis is that the frequency with which married individuals engage in casual interaction is related to their perceptions of the quality of their relationships.

Universal Rules of Social Interaction

A second feature of social interaction that has been identified as pervasive but has received scant research attention in reference to intimate relationships is the reliance upon general rules of social interaction (Argyle et al., 1981; Argyle & Henderson, 1985a, 1985b). Following Harre and Secord (1972), Argyle and his colleagues have advanced a functional theory of rules to explain patterns of behavior in social situations. Specifically, they argue that human interactive behavior is rule-governed; rules specify behaviors most people "think or believe should be performed or should not be performed" (Argyle & Henderson, 1985b, p. 63), and form a system that "makes possible a whole realm of co-operative behavior." (Argyle & Henderson, 1985a, p. 65).

Argyle and Henderson studied basic interaction rules in 4 cultures (Hong Kong, Italy, Great Britain, and Japan) across 22 types of relationships and situations, and found 5 rules to be considered important in most types of social situations (1985a, 1985b). These rules are that one should be polite, one should try to make it a pleasant encounter, one should not try to make the other feel small, one should not embarrass others, and one should be friendly (Argyle et al., 1981; Argyle & Henderson, 1985b). Argyle and Henderson speculated that these basic rules "keep up the level of rewards for others and thus keep them (the interactants) in the situation," which enables individuals to coordinate their lines of action with one another and cooperate with one another (1985b, p. 70). Hence these rules form the interactional backdrop for the deployment of more specific relational maintenance behaviors.

Several separate lines of work converge on the probability that reliance on these basic rules of social interaction rules is associated with assessments of relationship quality. For instance, several areas of research suggest that affirming the other is important in established relationships and should lead to enhanced assessments of relational quality. Such affirmation reflects the universal rules of not making the other feel small, not embarrassing, and being positive, pleasant, and friendly. Social support researchers have identified esteem support, or those expressions that validate and bolster the other's self-concept, to be an important communication practice in marriage that is tied to marital satisfaction (Acitelli, 1996; Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Cutrona & Suhr, 1992; Vaux, 1988). Jacobson, Waldron, and Moore (1980) found that wives' daily marital satisfaction was correlated with the number of positive interactive events they had with their husbands, such as showing interest in the conversation and talking about personal feelings; husbands' satisfaction was more highly correlated with social activities and pleasing affectionate behaviors. Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, and Hannon (2001) have shown that perceived partner affirmation of the individual's ideals is strongly associated with ongoing relationship stability. Complementary findings have been presented by Gottman (1994) who finds that contempt and criticizing promote marital dissatisfaction and instability; these behaviors specifically reflect the rules of not embarrassing and not making the other feel small. Orbuch, Veroff, Hassan, and Horrocks (2002) found that husbands' probability of divorcing their spouses was lower if their wives had affectively affirmed them in their daily interactions. However, among wives affective affirmation was not correlated with the probability of divorce.

These divergent areas of work converge to underscore the importance of interaction rules and their probable association with various aspects of marital quality.

Relationship Characteristics

Although numerous facets of relational quality may well be associated with self-reports of communication behaviors (see Burgoon & Hale, 1984), four have been particularly used in the study of marital relationships: satisfaction, liking, commitment, and trust. Satisfaction and similar constructs such as quality or adjustment, are likely the most commonly studied features of marriage and often thought to be the most important factors predicting long-term stability (Vangelisti, 2002). Another factor considered highly relevant for long term stability is commitment. Commitment has been proposed to be "a central macromotive in relationships" (Rusbult, Drigotas, & Verette, 1994, p. 123) and commitment has been argued by some to be more important even than satisfaction in predicting long-term stability (Rusbuh et al., 2001; Surra, Hughes & Jacquet, 1999). In this study, we define commitment as the extent to which a partner believes the relationship will continue into the future (Rusbult et al., 2001). Liking has also been considered a fundamental and universal relational characteristic (Burgoon & Hale, 1984), and Steinberg (1988) has argued it is a primary component of intimacy. Liking involves the extent to which one admires, respects, and has basic affection for one's partner (Rubin, 1970). Finally, trust defined is here as specific to the relationship and partner. Trust is considered as contributing to continued growth and satisfaction of a relationship (Holmes & Rempel, 1989) and represents the extent to which one feels comfortable with the risks of closeness in particular relationships (Holmes, 1991; Lazelere & Huston, 1980). In addition to examining each of these constructs individually, these constructs might also be considered as multiple facets of a more global construct of marital quality (Acock, 1999).

To date no one has assessed the association between relationship characteristics, such as satisfaction and commitment, with frequency of casual interaction and reliance on basic rules of social interaction. The frequency of interaction hypothesis would suggest that with increasing casual interaction married individuals are able to develop their interpersonal communication and relationship behaviors in ways that positively affect the stability and quality of their marital systems. Alternatively, functional roles theory would argue that reliance on basic interaction rules permit marital relationships to function more effectively by making cooperative communication between partners possible. Given these theoretical expectations and respective lines of work we expect that both frequency of casual interaction and reliance on social interaction rules will be associated with the relational characteristics of liking, trust, satisfaction, and commitment. Thus we advance the following hypotheses:

HI: Frequency of casual interaction is positively related to assessments of marital quality: liking, trust, commitment, and satisfaction.

H2: Reliance on social interaction rules is positively related to assessments of marital quality: liking, trust, commitment and satisfaction.

It is less clear how these interaction features might compare or interact in predicting each relationship characteristic. Besides our hypotheses, then, our inquiry will also focus on the potential role the interaction features together might have on predicting each relationship characteristic. Hence we pose the following:

RQ: What is the relative contribution of frequency of social interaction and reliance on social interaction rules in predicting levels of liking, trust, commitment and satisfaction?

METHOD

Participants

Data which had been collected as part of a previous study on relational maintenance was utilized. Participants were 396 married individuals recruited by students at a large Midwestern university. Although all of the respondents were married, we did not recruit participants who were married to each other, to guard against interdependence in the data. Each student was asked to recruit one or two individuals known to him or her to participate in the study. Potential participants were given letters explaining the research and assuring them that their responses would remain confidential. To prevent possible fabrication of responses students were told that the participants might be telephoned to verify their responses and asked to gather participants' contact numbers. The return rate of the surveys was approximately 60%.

The final sample was 41% male and 57% females (2% did not report their sex). The average age was 40 (range = 20 to 75). The average length of marriages was 15 years (range = 3 months to 52 years). The sample was relatively well educated in that the entire sample had completed high school, and approximately one-third of the sample reported completing college as their highest level of education.

Tasks and Measures

The measures utilized were self-report measures of communication behaviors and relationship characteristics administered in counterbalanced form. Demographic questions were given last.

Communication behaviors. Secondary data analyses were used to explore the communicative practices of interest. A range of items generated to explore the role of communication in relationships was administered. The 87 items came from the measure of strategic maintenance developed by Canary and Stafford (1992) as well as items developed from the maintenance categories identified by Dainton and Stafford (1993) as reported in Stafford et al. (2000). All items had been derived from open ended-questions concerning how individuals maintain their personal relationships.

Respondents were specifically asked to "indicate the extent to which each of the following statements accurately reflects the way that your partner maintains your relationship." They were reminded that "much of what you do to maintain your relationship can involve mundane or routine aspects of day-to-day life." Participants responded to these items using 1-7 Likert scales, with strongly disagree and strongly agree the anchor points of the scales.

Only a small subset of these items was of interest here. Since we were interested in exploring communication practices reflective of two specific constructs, items were chosen based upon their face validity for representing the two constructs. First, the items that referenced simply the activity of talking without reference to a relational feeling or state were selected (e.g., H/she spends time just talking to me). Then all items that directly referenced behaviors stated as one of the five universal roles were selected. So, for instance, the role of being polite corresponded to the item, "is nice, courteous and polite when we talk," being pleasant to "attempts to make our interactions enjoyable," and being friendly to "acts cheerful and positive around me" as well as "is supportive." The rule, one should not embarrass, corresponded to "tries not to say things to embarrass me," and one should not try to make the other feel small corresponded to "does not criticize me." Some of the items tapped into more than one rule; for instance, "Builds up my self-esteem including giving me compliments" is both friendly and polite. A total of 14 items were candidates for inclusion.

This pool of items was then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. Given that items were selected a priori to represent two conceptually different constructs, a two factor solution was requested. Sample size was adequate for this factor analysis, as the sample exceeded the recommended minimum of five subjects per item (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989, p. 603). All items had higher factor loadings on the hypothesized factor; however one item cross-loaded on the two factors. This item was eliminated from subsequent analyses. The remaining items were subjected to a second confirmatory factor analysis. This time each item loaded cleanly on the hypothesized factors. Thus each factor was comprised only of items that had been initially identified as conceptually representative of the constructs of interest. The two factors were correlated .46. However, tests for multicollinearity were non-significant. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was highly acceptable (.9164). In addition, factor analysis was indicated as appropriate for the correlation matrix given that Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant. The two factors then were interactionfrequency(M = 5.59, SD = 1.39, alpha = .64), and interaction rules (M = 5.72, SD = 1.02, alpha = .89). The items constituting each factor are reported in Table 1.

Relationship characteristics. Four relationship measures commonly used to study relationship quality were employed: liking, satisfaction, commitment, and trust. Respondents completed Rubin's (1970) Liking scale (M = 6.15, SD = 1.03, alpha = .86), Norton's (1983) Quality Marital Index to measure satisfaction (M = 6.17, SD = 1.29, alpha = .95), an abbreviated 3-item measure of Stafford and Canary's (1991) commitment measure based upon Rusbult's (1983) concept of commitment (M = 6.50, SD = .93, alpha = .68), and Lazelere and Huston's (1980) dyadic trust scale (M = 6.11, SD = .86, alpha = .80). In addition an overall index of marital quality was computed by summing the mean scores of the four characteristics (M = 24.86, SD = 3.80).

RESULTS

In order to assess the association between the perceived communication behaviors and the relational qualities, first order correlations between the communication behaviors and relationship qualities are reported. (1) As can been seen in Table 2, both communication indices are significantly correlated with all four of the relational characteristics. Interaction rules are highly correlated (rs ranged from .42 to .72) with the relational quality measures. Frequency of casual interaction is correlated at weak to moderate levels of magnitude (rs ranged from .14 to .40). In order to assess which interaction feature is associated more closely with the relational characteristics tests of significant differences among the correlations were computed. The correlation between interaction rules and trust was significantly greater than the correlation between interaction frequency and trust (t = 9.44, df = 393, p < .001). The same pattern held for commitment (t = 5.97, df = 393, p < .001), liking (t = 9.45, df = 389, p < .001) and satisfaction (t = 9.12, df = 392,p < .001). In each case, the correlation between interaction rules and the relational quality was of a significantly greater magnitude than the correlation between interaction frequency and the relational characteristics.

In order to more thoroughly address the research question, a series of four stepwise multiple regressions were conducted in which the two independent variables were regressed against the dependent variables of trust, liking, commitment and satisfaction. (2) As can be seen in Table 3, in each case interaction frequency is not included in the final model as it failed to account for any additional variance beyond that of interaction rules. Interaction rules accounted for 17% to 52% of the variance in the relational quality measures. A stepwise regression with interaction rules and interaction frequency as the independent variables was also conducted with the composite measure of relational quality as the dependent variable. As can been seen in Table 4, interaction rules accounted for 51% of the variance in the composite measure of relational quality.

Finally, in order to ascertain the robust nature of interaction rules, a series of multiple regressions were conducted, taking into account the intercorrelations among the dependent variables, which ranged from .53 to .81. Across the board the highest correlations were with satisfaction (.64 to .81). Thus satisfaction was completely omitted in order not to mask other relationships. (3) The intercorrelations of the remaining dependent variables ranged from .53 to .63. Thus a series of hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted in which trust, liking, and commitment were each used as the dependent variable with the other two relational characteristics forced entered into the equation on the first step. For the second step, stepwise entry was used to enter the two communication indices.

As can be seen from Table 5, reliance on interaction rules did not contribute significantly to the variance in commitment beyond that accounted for by trust or liking. However, interaction rules did add significantly to the variance accounted for in both trust and liking beyond that accounted for by commitment (6% and 15% respectively). These correlations and estimates of variance accounted for are likely to be artificially low, in part due to the relatively low reliability of the commitment measure. When reliability is low (.50 or .60), the risk of reducing the size of the relationship is high (Cohen & Cohen, 1975).

Satisfaction is the primary construct of interest in much relational research. Although the likelihood of interaction roles or interaction frequency playing a significant role after controlling for the other three relational variables was low, satisfaction was nevertheless examined in a separate analysis, controlling for the other three relational characteristics by entering them simultaneously on a first step. Even after controlling for all three other relational characteristics, an additional 2% of the variance was accounted for in satisfaction by interaction roles. Thus it appears that reliance on basic interaction rules plays a more important role in explaining marital quality than does sheer frequency of casual interaction.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this investigation was to examine two particular features of marital interaction that we expected comprise a positive interactional environment for marital relationships to thrive. Frequency of casual interaction and reliance on basic interaction rules were investigated. Each was related to the relational characteristics of commitment, satisfaction, trust and liking, but reliance on interaction rules was the stronger predictor of these relational characteristics.

Although frequency of casual interaction was positively related to the indices of marital quality, it was surprising that casual interaction frequency did not emerge as a stronger predictor of the quality indices in the regressions. Perhaps casual interaction frequency, particularly as it is operationalized here, is more useful in the early stages of a marital relationship. It may also be that the emotional valence of casual interaction is more important in predicting marital qualiW than the sheer frequency of interaction. Gottman and Levenson (2000), for instance, found that lack of positive affect demonstrated in conversations about events of the day and in conflict discussions predicted divorce 18 years later. Coupling our findings with those of others, it would be useful to document the amount of casual interaction time married partners spend with one another, and replicate the extent to which frequency of interaction plays a role in perceptions of marital quality. In addition it would be useful to document what married couples do with their casual interaction time together and whether particular response patterns are predictive of marital quality. For instance, how often and what sort of playful socializing activities do couples engage in? What speech events and topics occur in casual interaction time, what interaction patterns occur, and are any of these related to perceptions of marital quality?

The most intriguing finding of this study, we believe, is the effect of reliance on interaction roles across all the indices of marital quality. We began our study by suggesting that two features of interaction, frequency of casual interaction and reliance on interaction roles, probably contribute significantly to assessments of marital quality. While each feature is associated with trust, liking, satisfaction, and commitment, it is reliance on interaction rules that plays the most important role.

Perhaps the relationship between interaction rules and relational characteristics should have been anticipated when examined in light of the research on relational maintenance. Several of the items that loaded on the roles measure originated from Stafford and Canary's (1991) positivity scale, and positivity has consistently been a predictor of several relational features (see Stafford, 2002). Yet Canary and Stafford's "positivity" may well be comprised of several distinct components. Indeed Stafford et al. (2000) found positivity to break into two smaller subscales of general positivity and conflict management. This is not to say that the original construct of positivity lacks value. However, the operationlization of positivity contains more items than any other construct in the maintenance measure and may actually be comprised of intercorrelated components, one of which may be reliance on basic interaction rules.

It seems reasonable that interaction rules would be closely related to relational quality indices when considering the interwined nature of the rules and the constructs of facework and politeness. Following Goffman (1967), Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) have argued that interactants universally organize their communicative efforts around their need to maintain face, or the "positive social value a person effectively claims for himself" in social encounters (Goffman, 1955, p. 213). Research on facework has shown that there are at least two types of on record politeness, positive and negative (Brown & Levinson, 1978). Positive politeness particularly corresponds to Argyle and Henderson's (1985a, 1985b) rules to be pleasant and friendly. Negative politeness corresponds to the rules to be polite, to not embarrass, and to not make the other feel small. All of these rules can be seen to reflect marital partners' attention to the maintenance of basic face needs in interaction. The importance of positive politeness in intimate relationships has been already acknowledged (see Mett's discussion, 1997) and specifically shown in the context of providing social support in close relationships and relationship termination (Goldsmith, 1992, 1994; Metts, 1992). Other researchers have shown that intimates use more overall politeness with one another than non-intimates (Baxter, 1984; Leichty & Applegate, 1991; Lim & Bowers, 1991).

Some indirect evidence does show that politeness and Argyle and Henderson's general rules of being polite, pleasant and friendly in social encounters is correlated with indices of relationship quality. In their analysis of relationship rules, Jones and Gallois (1989) found that satisfied married couples were more likely to use face support in the form of not speaking hurtfully, being willing to apologize, and being positive as they managed their interpersonal conflicts. Honeycutt, Woods, and Foutenot (1993) found similar results in their sample of married couples, in that positive understanding (e.g., listening to the other, being able to say I am sorry) was the dominant factor associated with relationship satisfaction.

Despite the findings, as maintenance researchers continue to point out, such correlations and regressions do not document the direction of influence (Stafford, 2002). While there is some preliminary evidence that maintenance behaviors may precede the relational qualities, the concurrent associations between communication behaviors and relational characteristics are greater than those across time (Canary et al., 2002). Perhaps rather than considering either communication behaviors or relational qualities as predicting the other, both should be seen in a more systemic fashion as simultaneous representations of current perceptions of relational realities.

In sum, our findings show that reliance on basic interaction rules can account for a substantial amount of variance in perceptions of marital quality. Relationship maintenance, then, seems partly dependent on adhering to these general expectations for social interaction. What it means to sustain a desirable relationship is partly to engage in a manner of interaction that corresponds to the particular interaction rules of being polite, pleasant, and friendly, and not attempting to embarrass or make the other feel small. Such a view enables us to interpret relationship maintenance findings in a slightly new and different way. However, like most research in this particular line of maintenance, snowball sampling of student networks were used to collect the data, which yielded a relatively well educated population. This problem plagues much work on relational communication and concerted efforts to extend to additional populations is needed.

In addition, marital relationships have other relationship expectations, or rules, as well. Argyle and Henderson (1985a) extended their work on interaction rules to the study of rules for different types of relationships, including intimates. Exactly how relationship rules are connected to basic interaction rules has yet to be studied. Moreover, exactly how these relationship and interaction rules are related to other relational maintenance behaviors discovered by Stafford and Canary has also yet to be studied. Still, the findings here seem to suggest that relationship researchers could profit by considering the way basic social interaction rules are integrated into the communication patterns and practices of intimates. Implications for the study of relationship maintenance include closer attention to the interaction rules that may be implicitly embedded within other behaviors.

TABLE 1

Scale Items

Factor One--Interaction Rules

1. attempts to make our interactions very enjoyable (a)
2. builds up my self-esteem including giving me compliments (a)
3. is nice, courteous and polite when we talk (a)
4. acts cheerful and positive around me (a)
5. listens and tries not to judge (b)
6. complinmnts me on my achievements (b)
7. does not criticize me (a)
8. is supportive
9. tries not to say things to embarrass me

Factor Two--Interaction Frequecny

1. My partner talks about his/her day
2. I talk about my day
3. I spend time just talking to him/her
4. S/he spends time just talking to me

TABLE 2

First-order Correlations between Communication Behaviors on
Relationship Characteristics

Characteristic    Rules    Frequency

Commitment         .42        .14
Satisfaction       .72        .40
Trust              .64        .26
Liking             .72        .38
Quality Index      .71        .34

NOTE: All correlation coefficients are significant at the .01 level.

TABLE 3

Stepwise Regressions of Communication Behaviors on Relational
Characteristics

                      Independent
Dependent Variable     Variable      Beta    Mult R    Adj Rsq

Commitment             1. Rules      .42      .42        .17
Trust                  1. Rules      .63      .63        .40
Liking                 1. Rules      .72      .72        .52
Satisfaction           1. Rules      .72      .72        .52

Dependent Variable    Rsq Ch     FCh *

Commitment             .17       82.55
Trust                  .40      266.78
Liking                 .52      414.15
Satisfaction           .52      425.66

NOTE: * F-change is significant at the .001 level.

TABLE 4

Stepwise Regressions of Communications Behaviors on Composite
Quality Index

                       Beta    Mult R      Adj Rsq    Rsq Ch     FCh *

Quality    1. Rules              .71         .51       .51      408.51

NOTE: * F-change is significant at the .001 level.

TABLE 5

Regressions of Communication Behaviors on Relational
Characteristics Controlling for other Dependent Variable

   Dependent            Independent        Beta    Mult R    Adj Rsq
    Variable             Variable

Commitment (a)      1. Liking and Trust             .59        .35
Trust (a)           1. Liking and                   .67        .44
                       Commitment
                    2. Rules               .35      .78        .61
Liking (a)          1. Trust and                    .68        .46
                       Commitment
                    2. Rules               .49      .78        .61
Satisfaction (b)    1. Trust,                       .86        .75
                       Commitment,
                       and Liking
                    2. Rules                        .88        .77

   Dependent            Independent        Rsq Ch     FCh *
    Variable             Variable

Commitment (a)      1. Liking and Trust     .35      104.88
Trust (a)           1. Liking and           .45      158.93
                       Commitment
                    2. Rules                .61       47.67
Liking (a)          1. Trust and            .46      168.84
                       Commitment
                    2. Rules                .15      144.40
Satisfaction (b)    1. Trust,               .75      380.65
                       Commitment,
                       and Liking
                    2. Rules                .02       32.20

NOTE: * F-change is significant at the .001 level.

(a) For the variables of commitment, liking and trust, each of the
other two were entered into the equation on step 1.

(b) For the variable satisfaction, commitment, liking, and trust were
entered into the equation on step 1.

ENDNOTES

(1.) As some previous work has found sex differences in some of the constructions and associations of interest, sex was initially investigated. However, no main effects or interactions effects for sex were found, so our analyses did not include sex.

(2.) Given the possibility that rules might interact with frequency, the interaction term was included as a potential predictor in all models. In every instance however, like frequency, the interaction term did not contribute significantly to the variance accounted for beyond that of rules alone and was therefore excluded from the final models.

(3.) The multiple regressions were also conducted with satisfaction forced into the equation on the first step. However due to the high inter-correlation between satisfaction and liking, and satisfaction and roles, multi-collinearity became a concern. Interaction roles accounted for no more variance after the forced entry of satisfaction due to the high correlation between the two variables.

REFERENCES

Acitelli, L. K. (1996). The neglected links between marital support and marital satisfaction. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 83-104). New York: Plenum Press.

Acock, A. C. (1999). Quantitative methodology for studying families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 263-209). New York: Plenum Press.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Hold, Rinehart, & Winston.

Argyle, M., Furnham, A., & Graham, J. A. (1981). Social situations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985a). The anatomy of relationships. Heinemann: London.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985b). The rules of relationships. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 63-84). London: Sage.

Barnes, M. K., & Duck, S. (1994). Everyday communicative contexts for social support. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 175-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456.

Berger, C., & Kellner, K. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality: An exercise in the microsociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 1-24.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the associations between maintenance strategies and relational characteristics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 395-406.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavior sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cognitive complexity and impression formation. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 2, pp. 47-90). New York: Academic.

Cunningham, M. R., & Barbee, A. P. (2000). Social support. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A source book (pp. 272-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154-174.

Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity, and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relation ships, 10, 255-272.

Delia, J. G., & O'Keefe, B. J. (1979). Constructivism and communicative development. In E. Wartella (Ed.), Children communicating: Media and development of thought, speech, understanding (pp. 157-185). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Duck, S. W. (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the fire and into the 1990's. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5-28.

Duck, S. W. (1992). Human relationships. London: Sage.

Duck, S. (1994). Steady as (S)he goes: Relational maintenance as a shared meaning system (pp. 45-60). In D. J. Canary and L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp.115-139.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Duck, S. W., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about everyday conversation: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-67.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-31.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior New York: Pantheon Books.

Goldsmith, D. J. (1992). Managing conflicting goals in supportive interaction--an integrative theoretical framework. Communication Research, 19, 264-86.

Goldsmith, D. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), The communication of social support: messages, interactions, relationships, and communication (pp. 29-49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between processes and martial outcomes. Hillsdale, NO.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R.W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737-45.

Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H. Hones, & D. Perhnan (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: A research annual, (Vol 2, pp. 57-104). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Harre, R. & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behavior. Oxford: Blackwell. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Trust in close relationship (pp. 187-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Honeycutt, J. M., Woods, B. L., & Fotenot, K. (1993). The endorsement of communication conflict rules as a function of engagement, marriage, and marital ideology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 285-304.

Jacobson, N. S., Waldron, H., & Moore, D. (1980). Toward a behavioral profile of marital distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, 696 703.

Jones, E., & Gallois, C. (1989). Spouses' impressions of rules for communicating in public and private marital conflicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 957-967.

Kirchler, E. (1988). Marital happiness and interaction in everyday surroundings: A time-sample diary approach for couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 375-382.

Lazelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 595-604.

Leichty, G., & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17, 451-484.

Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 1 7, 415-450.

Little, B. R. (1972). Psychological man as scientist, humanist, and specialist. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 95-118.

Metts, S. (1992). The language of disengagement: A face-management perspective. In T. L. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: Theoretical approaches (pp. 111-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Metts, S. (1997). Face and facework: Implications for the study of personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2na ed., pp. 373-390). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 63-69.

Orbuch, T. L., Veroff, J., Hassan, H., & Horrocks, J. (2002). Who will divorce: A 14-year study of black couples with white couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 179-202.

Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243-454.

Richmond, V. P. (1995). Amount of communication in marital dyads as a function of dyad and individual marital satisfaction. Communication Reports, 13, 152-159.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In D. J. Canary and L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp.115-139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., &Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. H. Harvey and A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships (pp. 87-114). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stafford, L. (2002). A summary of one program of relational maintenance research. In Canary, D. J. & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242.

Stafford, L., Dainton, L., & Haas, S. M. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 3, 306-323.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 119-138). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Surra, C. A. Hughes, D. K., & Jacquet, S. E. (1999). The development of commitment to marriage: A phenomenological approach. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 125-148). New York: Academic Press.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (Rev. ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

Vangelisti, A. L. & Banski, M. (1993). Couples' debriefing conversations: The impact of gender, occupation, and demographic characteristics. Family Relations, 42, 149-157.

Vangelisti, A. L. (2002). Interpersonal processes in romantic relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.). Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 643-680). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research, and intervention. New York: Praeger.

Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development(pp. 107-130). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Susan L. Kline (Ph. D. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1985) and Laura Stafford, (Ph. D. University of Texas, Austin, 1985) are Associate Professors in the School of Journalism and Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to the first author, kline.48@osu.edu.