Family Communication Patterns and Relational Maintenance Behavior: Direct and Mediated Associations with Friendship Closeness

Transcription

1 HUMAN COMMUNICATION research Human Communication Research ISSN ORIGINAL ARTICLE Family Communication Patterns and Relational Maintenance Behavior: Direct and Mediated Associations with Friendship Closeness Andrew M. Ledbetter School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, Athens, OH In this study, both face-to-face and online relational maintenance behaviors were tested as mediators of family communication patterns and closeness with a same-sex friend. Participants included 417 young adults recruited from communication courses at a large university in the Midwestern United States. The obtained structural model demonstrated that family communication patterns are associated with friendship closeness though face-to-face and online maintenance behaviors fully mediate this association. Specifically, young adults from high conversation-orientation families engage in more face-to-face maintenance behaviors, which are positively associated with friendship closeness. These findings inform understanding of how family communication patterns influence extrafamilial relationships, suggesting that parents cognitions and communication behaviors are associated with children s social well-being. doi: /j x Scholars operating from several theoretical perspectives recognize the importance of the family as a fundamental source for learning basic interpersonal communication skills and rules (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a, 2002b; Kunkel, Hummert, & Dennis, 2006; Whitchurch & Dickson, 1999). Implicit in such theories is the claim that parent child communication socializes children into the skills and cognitive orientations necessary for future social relationships (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). Given a tradition of research identifying such family communication patterns (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b) and a separate research tradition identifying relational maintenance behaviors (Stafford & Canary, 1991) that upkeep friendships, the communication discipline seems uniquely positioned to address how family communication processes influence friendship maintenance and strength. That healthy friendships contribute to several positive psychosocial outcomes (Rawlins, 1992) only underscores the need to understand this connection. Informed by both Koerner and Corresponding author: Andrew M. Ledbetter; ledbette@ohio.edu 130 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

2 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance Fitzpatrick s (2002a) general theory of family communication schemas and Bandura s (1977, 2001) social cognitive theory, this study examines the associations among family communication patterns, relational maintenance, and friendship closeness. Specifically, the chief purpose of this investigation was to test whether relational maintenance behavior mediates the association between family communication patterns and friendship closeness in local and long-distance same-sex friendships. Theoretical background One particularly useful theory for conceptualizing family communication processes is Koerner and Fitzpatrick s (2002a, 2002b) general theory of family communication schemas. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002a) ground their theory of family communication in Baldwin s (1992) outline of relational schema components. Fletcher and Thomas (1996) expand Baldwin s work to a three-level hierarchical model of relational knowledge. The highest and most abstract hierarchical level contains generalized social knowledge that applies across all relationship types. The middle level includes relationship-type schemas with knowledge specific to the different types of relationships one is likely to have (e.g., family; p. 76). The lowest level of abstraction holds information about relationships with specific individuals. Grounded in this model of relationship-oriented cognitions, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002a) conceptualize family communication patterns as a relationshiptype schema of family functioning. Two dimensions chiefly compose this schematic representation of family knowledge. First, conversation orientation references the degree to which families create a climate in which all family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interaction about a wide array of topics (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p. 54). Families high in conversation orientation discuss details of family members daily lives, share thoughts and emotions, and openly discuss controversial topics. Second, conformity orientation describes the degree to which family communication stresses a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p. 55). In families with high conformity orientations, parents develop rules for their children and enforce them, and children cannot freely diverge from the family s beliefs, values, and norms. Though these orientations arise from the communication behavior of all family members, extant research has almost entirely focused on parental contributions to family communication patterns, as it is during these intergenerational exchanges that parents socialize their children and define the very concept of family communication (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b, p. 42). Despite the parsimonious appeal of Koerner and Fitzpatrick s (2002a) model and its location within a broader cognitive system of relationship knowledge, it is worth questioning the theory s claim that a relationship-specific schema develops almost solely from communication within that relationship type (e.g., Because relationship type schemas are formed based on repeated experiences in the same type of relationship, family relationship schemas are based on repeated experiences with family Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 131

3 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter members that are formed in interactions involving most or all family members ; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a, p. 88). Following this line of argumentation, schemas for other types of relationships, such as friendships, also develop chiefly via direct communication with such relational partners. However, I contend that this approach does not account for how social knowledge learned in family contexts influences cognitions and behaviors attached to other relationship types. Indeed, much empirical evidence suggests that family communication influences the experience and health of friendships. Some studies examine the associations between family communication patterns and constructs logically related to friendship quality, such as communication competence (Koesten, 2004), communication apprehension (Elwood & Schrader, 1998), and self-esteem (Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007). A handful of other studies demonstrate that children from families with high conversation orientations experience better social adjustment in peer relationships (Fitzpatrick, Marshall, Leutwiler, & Krcmar, 1996; Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001; Youngblade & Belsky, 1995). As Fitzpatrick and Caughlin (2002) note, the family is where most of us learn to communicate and, even more important, where most of us learn how to think about communication (p. 726). If the family serves as the earliest source of social knowledge for most individuals, then family communication schemas may influence comprehension of all personal relationships, whether familial or otherwise. In light of this theoretical background and empirical evidence suggesting a link between family communication schemas and friendship outcomes, I argue that family communication behavior does not only influence the formation of schemas specific to the family context. Rather, communication behavior modeled in family contexts may also form an individual s schema for generalized social knowledge and other relationship-specific schemas, thus influencing communication behavior in a variety of relationship types. Thus, one might expect that a child raised in a family with high conversation orientation might learn skills in conflict management, social support, self-disclosure, and other prosocial communication behaviors. Enacting these behaviors in friendship contexts may enhance the child s ability to build and maintain friendship closeness. Though the link between conformity orientation and friendship closeness is less clear, it is possible that learning inflexible adherence to a system of rules may leave a child unequipped to handle the constant changes that are an inherent part of many ongoing friendships (Ledbetter, Griffin, & Sparks, 2007; Rawlins, 1992). This suggests a hypothesis and a research question: H1: Conversation orientation is positively associated with friendship closeness. RQ1: Is conformity orientation significantly associated with friendship closeness? Consonant with this conceptualization of the family as an environment for learning communication rules and skills is Bandura s (2001) social cognitive theory (previously social learning theory; Bandura, 1977). This theory suggests that people obtain knowledge about the social world by attending to the behavior of others, modeling that behavior, and actively choosing to adopt that behavior in the future. 132 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

4 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance Kunkel et al. (2006) argue that social cognitive theory profoundly informs understanding of the intergenerational transmission of several communication behaviors, including supportive communication skill, age-based stereotypes, and health communication behaviors. Likewise, it follows that family communication patterns may influence the extent to which children learn communication behaviors that facilitate friendship maintenance and strength. Specifically, social cognitive theory suggests that the association between family communication schemas and friendship closeness is not direct. Rather, family communication environments influence friendship closeness via specific learned communicative skills. Schrodt and his colleagues (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt et al., 2007) advance a similar line of reasoning, contending that specific family communication behaviors mediate the association between family communication patterns and child wellbeing. Following this evidence and social cognitive theory, one might suspect that such schemas also influence friendship maintenance behaviors and, in turn, subsequent relational outcomes. Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior Over the past two decades, communication scholars have exerted considerable effort in typologizing and examining specific communication behaviors that maintain close relationships (e.g., Dindia & Baxter, 1987). Stafford and Canary s (1991) 5-factor model is the most widely accepted typology of relational maintenance, establishing five interrelated relational maintenance behaviors: (a) positivity, (b) openness, (c) assurances, (d) shared social networks, and (e) sharing tasks. Though Canary, Stafford, Hause, and Wallace (1993) demonstrate that friends enact these behaviors, few studies have examined relational outcomes associated with friendship relational maintenance. Nevertheless, one might intuitively suspect that relational maintenance behaviors are associated with positive relational outcomes, including psychological closeness; Johnson s (2001) diary study assumes such a positive association but does not report the strength of this association in her published report. Thus, this study predicts: H2: Relational maintenance behavior is positively associated with friendship closeness. The potentially significant contribution of maintenance behavior to friendship closeness highlights the importance of understanding antecedents to relational maintenance behavior (Stafford, 2003). Generalized cognitive orientations toward interpersonal communication, learned in family contexts (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b), might serve as one antecedent to an individual s likelihood of engaging in relational maintenance behavior with a friend. This conjecture receives some empirical support from studies demonstrating associations between family communication patterns and interpersonal communication skill (Elwood & Schrader, 1998; Koesten, 2004). As such studies generally suggest that conversation orientation produces social skill, whereas conformity orientation inhibits skill development, this study advances the following hypotheses: Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 133

5 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter H3: Conversation orientation is positively associated with frequency of relational maintenance behavior in friendship. H4: Conformity orientation is inversely associated with frequency of relational maintenance behavior in friendship. The chief goals of this study were not only to investigate the associations hypothesized thus far but also to test whether relational maintenance behavior mediates the association between family communication patterns and friendship closeness. In other words, if family communication patterns influence the formation of schemas for other relationship types, then one might expect that family communication patterns are associated with communication behaviors that contribute to relational strength (such as relational maintenance behavior; Johnson, 2001). Informed by Bandura s (2001) social cognitive theory, this study aims to extend Koerner and Fitzpatrick s (2002a) general model of family communication schemas by demonstrating that family communication patterns do not directly influence friendship closeness but, rather, are indirectly associated with friendship closeness via friendship relational maintenance behavior. The fifth hypothesis concerns this mediational model (see Figure 1): H5: Relational maintenance behavior mediates the association between family communication patterns and friendship closeness. Method Participants The sample consisted of 417 participants recruited from communication studies courses at a large public university in the Midwestern United States. Participants Figure 1 Structural model with maintenance behaviors as mediators; all hypothesized paths included. **p, Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

6 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance included 185 men and 232 women, with age ranging from 18 to 45 years (M = 20.41, SD = 2.76). Most participants self-reported a Caucasian ethnic identity (87.5%). Procedures Most participants (n = 315) completed an online questionnaire available via surveymonkey.com, with the remaining participants (n = 102) completing an equivalent paper-based questionnaire. To test whether data differed between the online and the paper-based surveys in this study, a series of t tests probed for differences in means and standard deviations on all study variables. These tests revealed no significant differences, suggesting that the data collection method did not bias study results. Measures Family communication patterns The Revised Family Communication Patterns instrument (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b) assessed participants perception of family communication patterns in their family of origin. Of the 26 Likert-type items on the instrument, 15 items measure perception of conversation orientation (e.g., My parents and I often have long, relaxed conversations about nothing in particular ; My parents often ask my opinion when the family is talking about something ) and 11 items measure perception of conformity orientation (e.g., In our home, my parents usually have the last word ; When I am at home, I am expected to obey my parents rules ). For each scale item, participants responded on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Cronbach s alpha revealed good reliability for both conversation orientation (a =.91) and conformity orientation (a =.84). Friend information The questionnaire instructed participants to choose a specific same-sex friend and complete study measures with this friend in mind. As one might expect that patterns of relational maintenance differ between local and long-distance friends (Rohlfing, 1995), participants were asked to indicate whether they considered their friendship local (n = 255) or long distance (n = 162). Participants also reported whether the friend was a best friend (n = 197, 47.2%), a close friend (n = 184, 44.1%), or a casual friend (n = 36, 8.6%). Relational maintenance A modified version of Canary and Stafford s (1992) relational maintenance scale assessed the extent to which participants performed relational maintenance with the chosen friend on five dimensions: (a) positivity (e.g., Attempt to make our interactions very enjoyable ), (b) openness (e.g., Disclose what I need or want from our relationship ), (c) assurances (e.g., Stress my commitment to him/her ), (d) shared social networks (e.g., Like to spend time with our same friends ), and (e) sharing tasks (e.g., Share in the joint responsibilities that face us ; Canary & Stafford, 1992, pp ). Responses were obtained using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 135

7 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. As Stafford (2003) notes, most current studies of relational maintenance do not consider the medium used to enact maintenance behaviors, instead presuming that most meaningful maintenance behaviors occur when relational partners are face-to-face. Nevertheless, one might suspect that longdistance friends often perform relational maintenance using distance-transcending media (Johnson, 2001; Ledbetter, 2008), with some evidence suggesting that such media are important avenues for relational maintenance in local relationships as well (Baym, Zhang, & Lin, 2004). In light of such theory and research, this study separately measured each item when communicating (a) face-to-face and (b) online. In other words, the modified questionnaire assessed each of the five relational maintenance behaviors across both media, with Cronbach s alpha ranging from.72 to.89 for faceto-face maintenance and from.82 to.95 for online maintenance. Though Canary and Stafford have validated the five subscales of relational maintenance as separate yet interrelated dimensions, the frequently high intercorrelations between the five subscales suggest that each subscale is a reliable and valid manifest indicator of the overall level of maintenance behavior performed in the relationship. Following Weigel and Ballard-Reisch (1999), this study modeled all five subscales as manifest indicators of a single latent relational maintenance construct separately for each medium, resulting in one construct assessing face-to-face relational maintenance (a =.90)and one construct assessing online relational maintenance (a =.95). Friendship closeness Vangelisti and Caughlin s (1997) unidimensional Relational Closeness Scale assessed participant perception of the degree of psychological closeness with the chosen friend, with responses solicited using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) not at all to (7) very much. Originally designed to assess closeness in a variety of relationship types (including friends, co-workers/classmates, and acquaintances), the scale assesses global perception of psychological closeness with a target person (e.g., How satisfied are you with your relationship with your [relation]? ; How close are you to your [relation]? ); in this study, the specified relation was friend. The scale exhibited good internal reliability (a =.93). Data analysis All hypotheses were tested via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) or structural equation modeling (SEM) using LISREL 8.80, a set of flexible data analytic tools that permit global analyses of covariances and regression relationships between latent constructs. The SAS statistical package s expectation maximization algorithm (PROC MI) imputed the small amount of missing values (0.20%) in the data set (Kline, 2005). After missing value imputation, this investigation followed standard two-step modeling procedures by performing a CFA of the measurement model before conducting regression analysis in the hypothesized structural model (see Figure 1; Kline, 2005). For all confirmatory and structural models, four common fit indices assessed model fit: (a) model chi-square, (b) the nonnormed fit index 136 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

8 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance (NNFI), (c) the comparative fit index (CFI), and (d) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Kline, 2005). The measurement model included five latent constructs: (a) conversation orientation, (b) conformity orientation, (c) face-to-face relational maintenance, (d) online relational maintenance, and (e) friendship closeness. With the exception of the relational maintenance constructs, each construct was modeled by creating three parcels or aggregate-level [indicators] comprised of the sum (or average) of two or more items, responses, or behaviors (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002, p. 152). As the constructs are conceptualized as unidimensional, parcels were created by thirds (e.g., assigning Items 1, 4, and 7 to Parcel 1; Items 2, 5, and 8 to Parcel 2; see Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007). Each of the five dimensions of relational maintenance served as a separate manifest indicator for the relational maintenance constructs. Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson product moment correlations associated with the manifest indicators of each study variable. Measurement models Establishing a measurement model via CFA is a necessary step prior to any structural equation analysis (Kline, 2005). Here, CFA procedures adopt even greater importance, permitting investigation of whether local and long-distance friendships might differ vis-à-vis the associations among family communication patterns, relational maintenance behavior, and friendship closeness. Accordingly, the procedures described by Little (1997) tested metric invariance between these groups. Sequential model tests demonstrated that metric invariance between local and long-distance friendship groups is tenable, as is homogeneity in the pattern of associations among latent constructs (contact author for detailed results of these tests). Thus, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the differences apparent in the two groups correlation matrices (Table 1) are due merely to chance variation. Without warrant for analyzing each group in separate structural models, combining the two groups into a single confirmatory model produced acceptable model fit after freeing two correlated residuals, x 2 (135, N = 417) = , p,.01, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = (90% CI: ). Table 2 presents the loading, intercept, and residual for each indicator. Family communication patterns, relational maintenance behavior, and friendship closeness H1 predicted a positive association between conversation orientation and friendship closeness. Relatedly, RQ1 addressed whether friendship closeness is associated with conformity orientation. Inspection of the correlation matrix between latent constructs revealed that friendship closeness is positively associated with conversation Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 137

9 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter Table 1 Correlations Among Manifest Indicators in Combined, Local, and Long-Distance Groups Constructs M a SD a FCP conversation 4.82/4.81/ /0.98/ **/2.18*.42**/.27**.20**/.15.26**/.22** 2. FCP conformity 3.70/3.70/ /1.04/ ** /2.21**.07/ / FtF maintenance 5.58/5.63/ /0.90/ ** 2.10* **/.55**.60**/.62** 4. Online maintenance 4.70/4.54/ /1.57/ **.05.46** **/.32** 5. Closeness 5.82/5.86/ /1.00/ ** **.32** 1.00 a For the means and standard deviations of each variable, the first number represents the value in the combined group (N = 417), the second number represents the value in the local friendship group (n = 255), and the third number represents the value in the long-distance friendship group (n = 162). *p,.05. **p,.01. Note: Coefficients above the diagonal are for the local (before the slash) and long-distance (after the slash) groups. Coefficients below the diagonal are from both groups. FCP = family communication patterns; FtF = face-to-face. 138 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

10 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance Table 2 Loading and Intercept Values, Residuals, and R 2 Values for Each Indicator Indicator LISREL Estimates a Standardized Loading (SE) Intercept (SE) Loading b Theta b R 2 Conversation orientation Parcel (0.04) 4.67 (0.05) Parcel (0.04) 4.81 (0.05) Parcel (0.04) 4.96 (0.05) Conformity orientation Parcel (0.05) 3.69 (0.06) Parcel (0.05) 3.41 (0.06) Parcel (0.05) 4.08 (0.06) Face-to-face maintenance Positivity 0.79 (0.04) 5.91 (0.05) Openness 1.04 (0.05) 4.96 (0.06) Assurances 1.05 (0.05) 5.42 (0.06) Network 0.79 (0.04) 5.76 (0.05) Task 0.94 (0.04) 5.66 (0.06) Online maintenance Positivity 1.47 (0.06) 5.13 (0.08) Openness 1.33 (0.06) 4.11 (0.08) Assurances 1.52 (0.06) 4.68 (0.08) Network 1.34 (0.06) 4.62 (0.08) Task 1.54 (0.06) 4.65 (0.08) Friendship closeness Parcel (0.04) 5.96 (0.05) Parcel (0.04) 5.81 (0.05) Parcel (0.05) 5.61 (0.06) a Model identified by fixing latent variance to 1.0. b Completely standardized solution. orientation (r =.28, p,.01) yet inversely associated with conformity orientation (r = 2.12, p,.05). These results support H1 and answer RQ1 affirmatively. Following numerous studies of relational maintenance behavior, H2 predicted a positive association between relational maintenance behavior and friendship closeness. This hypothesis was confirmed, as friendship closeness was positively associated with both face-to-face (r =.68, p,.01) and online (r =.34, p,.01) maintenance behaviors. H3 predicted that family conversation orientation would be positively associated with relational maintenance behavior, and H4 predicted an inverse association between family conformity orientation and relational maintenance behavior. The latent construct correlations obtained in the final measurement model revealed significant and positive associations between conversation orientation and maintenance behaviors conducted face-to-face (r =.39, p,.01) and online (r =.19, Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 139

11 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter p,.01). Though conformity orientation was not significantly associated with online relational maintenance (r =.04, p..05), a significant inverse association with faceto-face relational maintenance (r = 2.13, p,.05) did emerge in the zero-order correlation matrix between latent constructs. Thus, H3 received full support, and H4 received partial support. Structural model testing mediation of maintenance behaviors H5 predicted that relational maintenance behavior mediates the association between family communication patterns and friendship closeness. A structural equation model tested this hypothesis, guided by Baron and Kenny s (1986) four criteria for establishing mediation: (a) that the predictor variables are significantly associated with the outcome variable, (b) that the predictor variables are significantly associated with the hypothesized mediators, (c) that the hypothesized mediators are significantly associated with the outcome variable, and (d) that including the hypothesized mediators in a regression model reduces or eliminates the significant association between the predictor and the outcome variable. The first five hypotheses established the first three of Baron and Kenny s criteria (with the exception of the nonsignificant association between conformity orientation and online maintenance behavior), leaving only the fourth criterion for consideration in SEM analyses. The initial structural model tested whether including relational maintenance behavior constructs as mediators would eliminate the significant association between family communication patterns and relational closeness. This model included direct paths from family communication patterns to friendship closeness in addition to indirect paths through face-to-face and online relational maintenance. This saturated model (i.e., including all regression paths; see Figure 1) demonstrated acceptable model fit, x 2 (135, N = 417) = , p,.01, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = (90% CI: ) but also revealed the presence of several nonsignificant regression paths. Consistent with standard procedures for model trimming and simplification (Kline, 2005), nonsignificant paths were iteratively removed until only significant paths remained. This trimmed model (see Figure 2) also demonstrated good model fit, x 2 (139, N = 417) = , p,.01, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = (90% CI: ), with a chi-square difference test revealing no significant change in fit relative to the saturated model, Dx 2 (4) = 1.54, p..05. The final structural model contained no direct path from either conversation or conformity orientation to friendship closeness. Rather, conversation orientation indirectly predicted friendship closeness through face-to-face maintenance behavior (b =.39, z = 7.35, p,.01), which then strongly predicted friendship closeness (b =.68, z = 11.86, p,.01) and accounted for 46% of the construct s variance. Thus, in this model, face-to-face maintenance behavior fully mediated the association between conversation orientation and friendship closeness. Though online maintenance behavior is predicted by both conversation orientation (b =.22, z = 4.11, p,.01) and conformity orientation (b =.11, z = 2.35, p,.05), online maintenance behavior did not subsequently predict friendship closeness. Instead, online 140 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

12 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance Figure 2 Structural model with maintenance behaviors as mediators; nonsignificant paths sequentially removed. *p,.05. ** p,.01. maintenance behavior positively and significantly covaried with face-to-face maintenance behavior (c =.41, z = 10.80, p,.01) in the trimmed model. To further probe the nature of statistical mediation, the model s indirect pathways from family communication patterns to friendship closeness were tested using the procedure established by Sobel (1982; specifically, using the formula established by Baron & Kenny, 1986, as implemented by Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003). Rather than using the beta weights obtained in the initial structural model, a series of four separate structural models isolated the relevant regression paths among the variables of interest. These Sobel tests revealed that face-to-face maintenance significantly mediated the relationship between closeness and both conversation (z = 6.18, p,.01) and conformity (z = 22.03, p,.05) orientations. Online maintenance mediated the association between closeness and conversation orientation (z = 3.17, p,.01) but not conformity orientation (z = 0.05, p..05). Discussion The principal goal of this research was to test a theoretical model of relational maintenance behavior as a mediator of the association between family communication patterns and relational closeness in same-sex friendships. The results indicate that face-to-face and online relational maintenance behaviors fully mediate the association between conversation orientation and friendship closeness. Taken as a whole, the evidence obtained in this investigation is consistent with the expectation, derived from Bandura s (1977, p. 141) social cognitive theory, that communication behavior modeled in family environments may influence communication behavior in a variety of social relationships. As such, this model suggests extending Koerner and Fitzpatrick s Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 141

13 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter (2002a) general theory of family communication schemas to address the extent to which such schemas influence nonfamilial, nonromantic relationships. The first hypothesis and the research question anticipated associations between family communication patterns and friendship closeness, such that conversation orientation would positively predict friendship closeness and conformity orientation might inversely predict friendship closeness. Both these associations were supported by the data and are thus consistent with the theoretical expectation that families with communication environments characterized by open discussion may produce young adult children who are more likely to experience close friendships. In contrast, families that model inflexible family rules may tend to reduce their children s friendship closeness in young adulthood. Consistent with Orrego and Rodriguez s (2001) observation that children from high conformity-orientation families experience a more challenging adjustment to college life, perhaps children from such families have not learned the flexibility necessary to healthily adapt to changing social situations in college, and may have trouble with similar adaptations further along the life course (Rawlins, 1992; Rohlfing, 1995). The second hypothesis predicted a positive association between relational maintenance behavior and friendship closeness. This prediction received support for both face-to-face and online maintenance. Of perhaps greater importance is the support for the third and fourth hypotheses, as analysis related to these hypotheses demonstrated a significant association between family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior. Specifically, conversation orientation was positively associated with both face-to-face and online relational maintenance, and conformity orientation was inversely associated with face-to-face maintenance. In addition to providing some initial support for the hypothesized mediational model, it is intriguing that conformity orientation is associated with reduced propensity to engage in face-to-face maintenance behavior. Perhaps high conformity-orientation families model careful adherence to family norms, and thus, young adult children are less likely to learn the flexibility and spontaneity necessary for the effective formation of relationally sensitive messages (Koesten, 2004). Face-to-face contact especially demands such spontaneity, and thus, high conformity orientation might hinder construction of relational maintenance messages when face-to-face. In contrast, conformity orientation may not inhibit online relational maintenance, as several forms of online communication permit an extended period of time to create and edit a message (Walther, 1996). Indeed, that conformity orientation positively predicted online maintenance in the final structural model was an unexpected finding, and the association between conformity orientation and flexibility of message production/reception is one possible explanation. Regardless of the mechanism underlying these associations, findings related to the third and fourth hypotheses lend support to a growing body of literature demonstrating that family communication patterns are associated with both psychological outcomes and specific communication behaviors in extrafamilial relationships (Koesten, 2004; Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt et al., 2007). 142 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

14 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance It is worth noting that results pertaining to the first four hypotheses and the research question obtained only small to moderate effect sizes. As most participants were young adults living apart from their families of origin and the study measured specific friendships rather than global perceptions of social networks, such effect sizes are arguably quite meaningful. In other words, when considering these contours of the research design, one might contend that it is remarkable that family-of-origin communication patterns account for 16% of the variance (see Figure 2) in a person s face-to-face maintenance behavior with a specific friend. The ultimate goal of this study was to test a structural equation model whereby relational maintenance behavior mediates the association between family communication patterns and friendship closeness. After establishing measurement invariance and homogeneity of covariances between local and long-distance friendship groups, a series of structural models demonstrated that face-to-face relational maintenance behavior fully mediates the association between conversation orientation and friendship closeness. Furthermore, additional Sobel tests not only confirmed the mediational role of face-to-face maintenance but also suggested that online maintenance mediates the association between conversation orientation and closeness. The mediational role of online maintenance did not appear in the overall structural model and was likely obscured by controlling for the considerable shared variance between online and face-to-face maintenance. Taken as a whole, these results are consonant with social cognitive theory s (Bandura, 1977) expectation that family communication patterns facilitate young adult children s friendship closeness by equipping them with specific relational communication skills (see Koesten, 2004). One might suspect that children from families that model open and frequent discussion learn relational maintenance skill, which then could influence their ability to maintain a high level of friendship closeness. The Sobel tests suggest that such skill may be manifested by a proclivity to enact relational maintenance behavior both when face-to-face and online, which, in turn, may strengthen friendship closeness. Overall, the final structural model accounted for almost half of the variance in friendship closeness, highlighting the importance of relational maintenance behaviors and their antecedents (Stafford, 2003). Theoretically, these results extend both Koerner and Fitzpatrick s (2002a) general theory of family communication and Stafford and Canary s (1991) typology of relational maintenance behavior via three implications highlighted here. First, these results suggest that communication behavior modeled in family environments may influence the development of a person s schema for general social knowledge and, perhaps, schemas for extrafamilial relationship types. Bandura s (2001) social cognitive theory is one useful approach for expanding Koerner and Fitzpatrick s (2002a) theory, as Bandura s (2001) agentic and transactional view is highly compatible with dominant ontologies of family communication within the field (Kunkel et al., 2006). Second, the measurement and structural models suggest that communication scholars can measure relational maintenance behaviors separately across different medium conditions. Though previous research has done this to some extent (e.g., Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 143

15 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter Rabby, 2007; Wright, 2004), this study provides additional empirical warrant for doing so. Though these results suggest that face-to-face maintenance may influence friendship closeness more potently than online maintenance, they also suggest that online maintenance, and especially that which is significantly associated with face-toface maintenance, positively contributes to friendship closeness. Finally, this project joins a growing body of literature reporting that family communication patterns influence psychosocial outcomes via specific communication behaviors (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt et al., 2007). Though a host of previous studies have investigated the direct association between family communication schemas and beneficial outcomes (for a review, see Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b), studies such as the current one emphasize that scholars and practitioners cannot fully understand such processes without considering relevant mediating variables. These results advance the work of others by suggesting that these mediators are not limited to family communication behaviors alone but, rather, extend to communication behaviors enacted in extrafamilial relationships. This opens a theoretical space for further probing the messages parents send to their children about the degree of importance attached to extrafamilial relationships and methods for maintaining them. Despite the value of these contributions, any study must be interpreted within the limitations associated with the nature of the sample and research design. Relationship scholars note that the processes and outcomes of friendship vary during the life course (e.g., Hartup & Stevens, 1997), and thus, a key limitation of this study is the cross-sectional nature of the data. To the extent that young adulthood emphasizes both the importance of close friendships with peers and a tension between separation and identification with the family of origin (Rawlins, 1992), college students may be an ideal starting point for investigating how family communication patterns influence friendship processes and outcomes. Relatedly, though the relatively stable nature of family communication patterns (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a) may imply that such patterns exert causal influence on subsequent friendship closeness, such a causal claim cannot be proved via cross-sectional research alone. Only longitudinal research can address how these associations might change across time and more conclusively address causation. Similarly, the use of self-report methods and the homogeneous sample (e.g., predominantly White and educated) is a limitation when generalizing these results. Nevertheless, the results provide important evidence suggesting that family communication patterns serve as antecedents to relational maintenance behaviors. As friendships are inherently dyadic entities, further research is needed to discover the relative contributions of both dyad members family communication patterns to their subsequent use and perception of relational maintenance behavior. Such dyadic studies and longitudinal research hold promise for further identifying cognitions and communication behaviors that facilitate healthy friendship functioning. To the extent that friendship contributes to overall well-being, such knowledge may help families foster environments where young adult children can experience healthy social development. 144 Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association

16 A. M. Ledbetter Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance References Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic view. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., & Lin, M.-C. (2004). Social interactions across media: Interpersonal communication on the Internet, telephone, and face-to-face. New Media & Society, 6, Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10, Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998). Family communication patterns and communication apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). Interpersonal communication in family relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, M. A., Marshall, L. J., Leutwiler, T. J., & Krcmar, M. (1996). The effect of family communication environments on children s social behavior during middle childhood. Communication Research, 23, Fletcher, G. J. O., & Thomas, G. (1996). Close relationship lay theories: Their structure and function. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J Fitness. (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 3 24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121, Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences between geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication Quarterly, 49, Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Yearbook, 26, Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association 145

17 Family Communication and Friendship Maintenance A. M. Ledbetter Koesten, J. (2004). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and communication competence. Communication Monographs, 71, Kunkel, A., Hummert, M. L., & Dennis, M. R. (2006). Social learning theory: Modeling and communication in the family context. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ledbetter, A. M. (2008). Media use and relational closeness in long-term friendships: Interpreting patterns of multimodality. New Media & Society, 10, Ledbetter, A. M., Griffin, E., & Sparks, G. G. (2007). Forecasting friends forever : A longitudinal investigation of sustained closeness between college best friends. Personal Relationships, 14, Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, Orrego, V. O., & Rodriguez, J. (2001). Family communication patterns and college adjustment: The effects of communication and conflictual independence on college students. Journal of Family Communication, 1, Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58, Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn t anybody stay in one place anymore? : An exploration of the under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2007). Communication processes that mediate family communication patterns and mental well-being: A mean and covariance structures analysis of young adults from divorced and non-divorced families. Human Communication Research, 33, Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 7, Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stafford, L. (2003). Maintaining romantic relationships: Summary and analysis of one research program. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp ). Mahwah, 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, Human Communication Research 35 (2009) ª 2009 International Communication Association