Article summary of The Presence of Cell Phones in Romantic Partner Face-to-Face Interactions: An Expectancy Violation Theory Approach by Miller-Ott & Kelly - Chapter

What is this article about?

Cell phones have become so integrated in our lives, that American couples negotiate over when to use them, and when to not use them. A lot of couples are annoyed and upset when their partners use mobile phones during their time together. Connected presence refers to how cell phones enable us to keep connections with others intact. This also comes with constant availability. The expectations that the people in one’s social network have, namely that the person is available for them, may clash with the expectancy that a romantic partner has.

In the current study, the researchers looked at how partners deal with the presence of cell phones during their time spent together.

What is the Expectation Violation Theory (EVT)?

This theory is developed to understand how people react to personal space violations, and includes all types of behavioral and communicative violations across various contexts. The three main components are expectancies, violation valence, and communicator reward value. For an explanation of these terms, I refer to the article of Burgoon (2015).

How are Cell Phone Expectations related to the EVT?

People expect from their partners to be moderately involved in an interaction. They expect interest and immediacy in interactions. However, cell phones and the attached constant availability can impact the partners abilities to give each other full attention. Researchers found that when partners have no rules about talking to other people while they were together, were more satisfied with the use of cell phones in their relationship, and also with their relationship as a whole. So, partners become unhappy when they set up rules to inhibit contact through cell phone with others when they are together.

When couples are unable to create mutually satisfying cell phone behaviors and expectations of one another, experience more conflict and dissatisfaction.

The mere presence of cell phones can also impact quality of interactions and perceptions of the relational partner. Researchers found that when people place a smartphone on the table in a café, the quality of the conversation was rated lower compared with conversations that had no cell phones on the table. In the former case, participants reported lower empathetic concern from their partner, and this effect was stronger when participants had a close relationship. Other researchers found that the presence of a cell phone interfered with closeness, connection, and relationship quality between conversational partners who were trying to get to know each other.

People commonly expect to turn off cellphones when they are in public areas (church, concert hall), but do not have the same expectations for private time with relational partners.

The conclusion is that we expect that partners are attentive to us during our time together, but we also expect them to maintain contact with others. We feel dissatisfied when we feel like our partner inhibits us from maintaining this contact.

The researchers looked at two research questions:

1. What expectancies do romantic partners have regarding cell phone use in the first-date context and how do they respond to and manage violations?
2. What expectancies do romantic partners have regarding cell phone use in established relationships and how do they respond to and manage violations?

What can be concluded?

The results show that expectations regarding cell phone use was not related to the stage of the relationship (early, established). However, in particular romantic contexts, higher levels of attentiveness is expected compared to other contexts.

Expected undivided attention

When people go on dates, they expect that their partners should not use their cell phone. In these contexts, they find it rude and annoying when the partners violate this expectation. This is also true for intimate time at home. During formal dates, some cell phone usage was acceptable for the partners. This includes responding to quick texts or calls, and when partners explain why they need to use the phone. Playing games on a phone is seen as a negative violation, but the results were unclear about whether social media usage or texting is a negative violation.

Partners on a first date stated that, when their expectations were violated, they would react indirectly. For example, they could start using their own phone. They could also make indirect comments. Some participants felt like, if they would react directly to the other’s behavior, they would come across like ‘a needy girl’.

When relationships are more established, participants react more directly.

Expected and Accepted Divided Attention

When partners in an established relationship are hanging out informally, cell phone usage is more accepted compared to when they are on formal dates, or during intimate time. However, in the latter case, excessive usage is still not acceptable for them. When their expectations are violated, they use more direct communication to deal with these violations.

Concluding remarks

In contexts in which people expect undivided attention (during formal dates, or during intimate time), perceptions of appropriate cell phone usage differ compared to more informal situations (hanging out).

When people hang out informally, they often have an established relationship, and do not expect undivided attention. When people expect undivided attention, they do not want their partner to use their cell phone. However, if a call comes in from an important figure (mother, boss), cell phone usage is accepted, if the call is quick, and if the partner tells that he or she will be taking the call. If people do not expect undivided attention, such as during informal hanging out, then they do not have any rules. However, excessive phone usage is still not accepted.

In new relationships such as first dates, indirect responses such as nonverbal behaviors or doing nothing at all, was more common as a response to violation. In established relationships, participants reported using more direct communication in response to expectancy violations.