Portfolio

Senior Portfolio in Communications Studies
Senior Transition
Dr. Clara L. Popa
Lauren Mathis

Academic Assignments
Literature Review: Communication Privacy Management Theory
Research Methods Project: Trust and Communication in Romantic Relationships
Rhetorical Criticism: Titanic
Ethical Issues: Healthcare Quality and Availability
Senior Seminar: Stranger Things
Public Speaking: Later School Start Times for Teens
Literature Review: Communication Privacy Management Theory

This assignment was completed in Communication Theory. During this class
topics were learned to completely understand the underlying theories that go into the
study of Communication. For this paper, the topic of Communication Privacy
Management Theory was given to me. The point of the assignment was to research
how this topic was created and how it has been applied in the Communication world.
The paper explains the theory is full and how related literature related to the idea of
close relationships. This paper helped me learn how in depth our major can go, and how
the topics we learn can go into many different aspects of understanding.
Lauren Mathis
May 11, 2015
Communication Theory
Final Paper
Introduction
Communication Privacy Management theory was created by Sandra Petronio. The main
ideas how it came about are explained in A First Look At Communication Theory (Griffin,
2012). This article will explain the theory in more detail and use related literature on the theory
itself and how it relates to the idea of close relationships. When analyzing the communication
privacy management theory, Griffin (2012) states, “ People believe they own and have a right to
control their private information” (p. 169). This hold true for almost every relationship you will
encounter throughout your life, this article will discuss the ideas behind this statement.
Theory
Nodulman (2011) states that the Communication Privacy Management Theory explains
how and why individuals manage their private disclosures (p. 218). Using Communication
Privacy Management theory allows for identifying process issues underling the disclosing or
protecting of information that is considered private (Petronio, Helft, Child, 2013. p. 175).
Communication privacy management holds strong that there are five factors that contribute to
how we create our privacy rules; culture, gender, motivation, context and risk/benefit ratios
(Griffin, 2012. p. 170). These five factors help to contribute to how we choose to share
information. This then relates to the idea of the Law of Reciprocity, which helps contribute ideas

to Communication Privacy Management. The Law of Reciprocity talks about the idea of
information sharing. Griffin (2012) states that it is important to “Equate self-disclosure with
relational closeness. It can lead to intimacy, but a person may reveal private information merely
to express oneself, to release tension, or to gain relational control” (p. 122). In a way its a reward
system, whereas one person shares something and in return they get information just as personal
back from another. (Griffin, 2012, p. 117). Along with disclosing all of this information, the one
receiving this information has the option to keep the information to themselves or to share the
information with others, which related to Petronio’s idea of “Mutual Privacy Boundaries”
(Griffin, p.173). Privacy boundaries are something that individuals get to have control over, and
what you choose to share is your choice. These ideas of the Communication Privacy
Management Theory can relate directly to many topics in communications, such as romantic
relationships in adults and adolescences.
How Is the Theory Used in Communication
When analyzing the communication privacy management theory, Griffin (2012) states, “
People believe they own and have a right to control their private information” (p. 169). CPM can
be used in many different fields of communication related work. In an article by Sylvia (2005),
they discuss the ideas of internet monitoring and the laws and regulations related to internet
privacy in the workplace. “In every electronic communication, an Internet user gives away some
form of personal information (Sylvia 2005 p. 226).” The findings in this article shows insight
behind internet privacy in the workplace. Privacy has to due with “the systematic investigation or
monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more persons (Sylvia 2005 p. 228).” E-
Mail and device monitoring has been used for surveillance of workers, and those found guilty of
misuse of work e-mails or devices have been terminated from their positions (Sylvia 2005

p.229). Legal frameworks and regulations have been put in place when it comes to internet
privacy to prevent crime and for national security reasons(Sylvia 2005 p.230), this is helpful for
big company problems. In another article by Zuo and Jiang (2013), they explain and evaluate the
privacy regulations on internet usage put forth by foreign countries. “The Internet has three main
features: openness, identity concealment and information timeliness (Zuo and Jiag, 2013, p 32).”
There is a split view on how different countries view the internet, and what each countries thinks
should be restricted to improve internet usage. Communication Privacy Management helps
understand these ideas. The findings in this article shows the different Internet privacy protection
policies different countries use. The United states allows internet users to “post information and
adopt methods provided by Internet technology,” which in turn can cause internet users to have
questions about how secure their internet privacy is (Zuo and Jiag, 2013 p. 33). The European
Union, has had to make a bunch of generalized/common regulations to help reduce hassle and
improve efficiency for their internet users (Zuo and Jiag, 2013 p. 33). The country of South
Korea requires all internet users to use correct personal information, and also is similar to the
European Union’s practice, except for the fact that the European Union only deals with problems
with internet privacy after they have happened, and South Korea creates regulations before
problems happen (Zuo and Jiag, 2013 p. 33). Japan’s privacy is a combination of the European
Union’s and the United States regulations. Japan is more lenient about what people choose to
share on the internet, but has laws set in place for action if needed (Zuo and Jiag, 2013 p.34).
Finally, China does not have a set Internet privacy protection, and their laws that have already
been set in place are too generalized, giving no set restrictions. The Communication Privacy
Management theory is applicable in many aspects of the communications field, and can be used
to explain many different types of findings.

Importance/Gap in Knowledge
In the journal articles used in this paper, the only thing that they are really missing is the
discussion of “Mutual Privacy Boundaries” (Griffin, p.173). Daddis (2010), only talks about the
idea of sharing information between adolescents and their parents, and doesn’t touch on the idea
of parents keeping that information to themselves. Not establishing privacy boundaries can
create extreme conflict between the two parties, and by not addressing any of the problems, it
can lead to bitterness between the two. Goldsmith (2008) puts it simply “The only way to
appropriately handle conflict is to actually deal with it” (p. 20). Another scholar Susan Thomas
(2011), states in her article, Relationship Conflict and Difficult Conversations: “Conflict is
inevitable. Each of us has our own perceptions, biases, values, and life experiences that shape
who we are. What we see, think, feel, and assume about every situation will differ from that of
others” (p. 8). Therefore establishing Mutual Privacy Boundaries, a lot of this conflict could be
avoided.
Conclusion/Future Directions and Implications
In conclusion, the Communication Privacy Management theory serves as a set of
guidelines, or rules that one can follow to justify not sharing or sharing information with another
party. This relates to different topics such as romantic relationships, to adolescents and parental
figures. Sandra Petronio’s theory gives insight to a major topic in the Communication Studies
field, and helps relate to many different things. The core principles of this theory and it’s ideas
help to explain why this theory is relevant in everyday life. This paper explains the importance of
the Communication Privacy Management theory, and how it makes sense to apply to different
types of relationships, on and off the internet.

Works Cited
Daddis, Christopher. (2010). Dating and disclosure: Adolescent management of information
regarding
romantic involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 33(2), 309-320.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.
2009.05.002
Goldsmith, B. (2008). Difficult conversations. Cost Engineering, 50(9), 20.
Griffin, Emory A., (Special Consultants: Andrew Ledbetter, and Glenn Grayson Sparks.) A First
Look
at Communication Theory (8th Edition) New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012. Print.
Nodulman, J. A. (2011). The Secret Life of Your Classmates: Understanding Communication
Privacy
Management. Communication Teacher, 25(4), 218-221.
doi:10.1080/17404622.2011.601723
Sylvia (2005) Privacy in electronic communication: Watch Your E-Mail: Your Boss is Snooping!
doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2005.04.008
Thomas, S. (2011). Relationship conflict and difficult conversations. Canadian Journal of
Medical
Laboratory Science, 73(2), 8-9.
Zuo and Jiag (2013) Studies in Sociology of Science 4.4: Internet Privacy 32-35
Research Methods Project: Trust and Communication in Romantic Relationships
This assignment was to take the topic of Trust and Communication and create a
full research project from start to finish on your topic. The topic I chose was Romantic
Relationships. I researched the topic is great detail and created a focus group along
with surveys to gather more information on the topic. I used past studies and Theme
analysis as well to gather information that was used to help support my hypothesis. The
final paper shows my entire research process from start to finish. This paper and project
as entirety helped me learn how many different aspects can go into our major. This
project also helped me learn time management.

Trust and Communication in RR 1
Running head: TRUST AND COMMUNICATION IN RR
Trust and Communication in Romantic Relationships
Lauren Mathis
Communication Studies Research Methods Section 1, Fall 2015. Dr. Clara Popa
Rowan University

Introduction
Trust and Communication in romantic relationships is a widely studied topic.
Many studies have been conducted on relational interdependence (Umphrey &
Sherblom, 2009), Mutuality and the commitment in romantic relationships (Weigel,
2008), and things such as online and mobile relationships. The topics that will be
discussed in this analysis will give a deeper look into the way trust and communication
are measured and why they are important to romantic relationships.
These studies show how important trust and communication are to people that
are involved in romantic relationships. As discussed by Umphrey and Sherblom (2008)
shows that individuals that are in a serious relationship will show higher relational
interdependence than those that are not in a serious relationship. This study and those
alike are important because it shows how much emotional investment one puts forth in
their romantic relationship. The importance of trust and communication depends on the
emotional investment of both partners involved. These studies show in depth analysis’
about how different factors play into the development of those in relationships.
In this paper I will review studies on relational interdependence (Umphrey &
Sherblom, 2009) and the emotional investments in romantic relationships. I will discuss
the ideas behind mistrust and the act of “snooping” when it comes to romantic
relationships. I will continue by next reviewing studies on commitment in relationships,
and how the amount of commitment in these types of relationships effects the amount of
trust placed on the other individual involved. Following that I will review studies on the
mobile and cyber world of dating. In this section I will discuss the ideas behind mobile
dating and internet dating, and how they are different from regular relationships. This
section will discuss the trust and communication problems of online and mobile dating
and how they contribute or hurt the relationship. There are many theories that will be
discussed in this literature review, and how these theories came about. I will also review

the methodology behind some of these theories and discuss why the methodology is
important to the study. Finally, I will review communication patterns and romantic
attachment (Givertz & Safford, 2011) and how they contribute to the satisfaction of
romantic relationships. The studies that will be reviewed will give a better understanding
on how important trust and communication are to both parties involved.

Review of Literature
Trust and communication play major roles in the development of romantic
relationships. Over the years, many studies and articles have been published on the
ideas of the two main factors mentioned; trust and communication along with romantic
relationships. In this paper I will discuss these ideas. Some of the mentioned studies
measure through qualitative research, giving multiple outcomes to the study, but a great
deal of the studies discussed are measured using quantitative research, resulting in a
limited amount of outcome to the posed questions. Since most of these studies are
quantitative, specific types of research was done to get the results, i.e. surveys and
questionnaires. Each of these studies were conducted within the last 10 years, ranging
from 2006-2015, so they are all still very relevant to today’s ideas of trust and
communication. Many theories are discussed through out those studies. Theories
include, but are not limited to, Attachment Theory (Givertz & Safford, 2011),
Interpersonal Communication Theory (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006),
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Derby, Knox & Easterling, 2012), Uncertainty
Management Theory (Romo, 2015), and finally Interdependence Theory (Umphrey &
Sherblom, 2009). Each study used a different way to study the ideas of trust and
communication. One study, the only study that is used in this paper that does not agree
with the interpretive approach, used the Likert- Scale to measure the two factors. Likert
Scales are the most common way of studying social sciences. These scales help
identify a person’s belief or ideas about a specific thing. The other studies all used
interviews or questionnaires/surveys to determine the information needed. Each study
tried to use different ideas to get their information, and a wide variety of outcomes were
produced.

Definitions of Terms
Trust is an important part of any relationship. Whether it’s a friendship or a
committed marriage, trust plays a big factor in the way that relationship starts and
develops. Mistrust is mentioned by Derby, Knox and Easterling stating that “perceived
disclosure (ones view that their partner is hiding something) was negatively associated
with intrusive behavior (snooping; looking at your partners phone or things alike) at
lower levels of trust in one’s partner, but nor at higher levels (p. 333). This simply
translated means that when someone believes that their partner is doing something
behind their back that trust decreases, and the amount of “snooping” increases, but
what does that mean for the development of relationships?
In these studies, trust is shown in different ways. In the case of Borae Jin & Jorge F.
Peña (2010), trust is needed more when a relationship is taking place over the internet
or through a mobile device. “ Greater use of mobile phones including voice calls and
text messaging is associated with higher levels of love and commitment among
respondents involved in romantic relationships” (Peña, 2010). This is basically stating
that in order for mobile devices to be used in romantic relationships, the more trust that
needs to be there, resulting in greater commitment by the parties involved. In a study
done by Laura R. Umphrey and John C. Sherblom, trust was measured with the idea of
the interdependence theory. They stated that “relational trust requires predictability,
dependability, and faith (Umphrey and Sherblom, p.326). The results of this study
showed that there are “ significant differences for both trust and composure between the
serious relationship and casual dating groups” (p. 331). This roughly talks about how
there are different levels of trust that go into relationships and it depends which stage of
the relationship you are currently at. Trust is important in any type of relationship and it
can be expressed in many different ways.

Commitment is a large factor that goes into the idea of a relationship. The idea of
commitment is used a good amount in these studies. To be able to be in a committed
relationship such as a romantic one, levels of commitment start out small and begin to
grow as you learn to trust and communicate better with the other party involved. Terms
like this help defined many of the things included in these studies.
Methodology
In these studies, an interpretive approach was taken to collect the information. In
Daniel Weigel’s (2008) study, he used a questionnaires. The questionnaires asked
about the level of commitment the participants were involved in with their current
relationships, and the emotions they felt about it. Weigel gave the sample involved a
questionnaires that were used to father information. The sample that was involved were
all undergraduate students enrolled in specific courses. ”Students were instructed to
only take the study if they were involved in a romantic relationship for over a month.
Another study was done by Kelly Derby, David Knox and Beth Easterling (2012) about
the ideas of “Snooping in Romantic Relationships.” This study focuses a lot on the idea
of trusting your partner in your romantic relationship. The study was completed by
college students that were majority female. The study was an interpretive study and
involved a questionnaire. The results of this study showed that “Almost 2/3 of the
respondents admitted to snooping on a romantic partner. Respondents reported having
snooped a mean of approximately 3 times” (p. 335). Trust is a main factor in the idea of
a romantic relationship, and this study proved that a lot of people are insecure in their
relationship and feel the need to check up on and snoop on their significant other. This
study relates to another study that was conducted by Borae Jin & Jorge F. Peña (2010).
This study was focused on the topic of mobile communication in romantic relationships.
A survey was done by “Two hundred students in communication classes at a large
Southwestern university received extra credit for their participation in an online survey.
All of the participants possessed a mobile phone” (Jin & Peña, p.43). The survey was

taken online by the participants and it asked “participants to estimate the amount of time
they spent using voice calls and text messaging, respectively, with their romantic
partners via mobile phones in a day. This variable was recorded in minutes. Participants
also reported the numerical estimates of the frequency of making and receiving voice
calls and text messages with their romantic partners in a day” (Jin & Peña, p. 43).
Results of this study showed that “love and commitment were positively associated with
voice call time and frequency. Participants reporting greater use of mobile voice calls
with their romantic partners reported more love and commitment in their relationships”
(Jin and Peña, p. 45). Other studies were conducted that talked about the previous

Trust and Communication is RR 6
things, as well as a few others.
There were two studies that I found that used the social scientific method to
research. The study done by Umphrey and Sherblom (2009) discussed the ideas of how
positive thinking and communication helps contribute to the ideas of trust and
communication in a romantic relationship. Participants completed survey and were
measured on the Likert-Scale on how they viewed communication with their partners. A
Likert-Scale is used to examine a persons attitudes or feelings towards someone or
something. Likert-Scales are usually measured from 1-7 (7 points), but some can be
higher or lower. The Likert- Scale use was 8-points and included questions such as, “ I
want our relationship to last for a very long time” and “I would not feel very upset if our
relationship were to end in the near future” (Umphrey and Sherblom, 2009). Participants
were asked to Another social scientific study was completed by Johnathon J. Mohr
(2013). Quantitative surveys were given to same sex couples to determine relationship
quality and the satisfaction and commitment. Results showed that anxiety and
avoidance causes these factors to be influenced. Both social scientific and interpretive
ways to study this type of research give good insight onto information about trust and
communication.
Theories
Some of the theories discussed in these studies are widely known studies that
are used by many researchers. A major theory that is used is the interdependence
theory. This theory was used by Umphry and Sherblom (2009). The independence
theory is associated with the simple idea of cost and rewards in a relationship. Stated
more simply, if someone is not happy in their relationship, they will do something to
change that, or they will stop the relationship and vice versus. Another major theory
discussed is the attachment theory. This theory was used by Johnathon J. Mohr (2013).

The attachment theory is associated with ideas that relate to how individuals to help
relate the ideas of relationships between humans. The attachment involves function of
long-term relationships and how the individuals relate. Attachment theory is also used
by Rachel Dominique (2009) in her study about attachment styles. The uncertainty
reduction theory is used by Derby, Knox and Easterling in their study about snooping. If
couples were to not snoop on one another there would be

Trust and Communication is RR 7
reduction in mistrust between both parties involved, hence why this theory was used.
Since one party believed that the other was doing something behind their partners back,
it led to mistrust and “snooping”. These major theories are important to the research that
each of the authors conducted and give more explanation to their study.
Conclusion
The findings in these studies help to contribute to the ideas of trust and
communication in romantic relationships. Results from these studies concluded that
mobile communication is affected by how much commitment one is willing to put forth in
the relationship (Jin & Peña). The more a person is committed to the other party, the
more they are willing to trust and communicate more with the other involved (Jin &
Peña). Results also conclude that the more that someone does not trust the other
person involved in the relationship, the more they are willing to snoop on one another,
due to lack of trust (Derby, Knox & Easterling). Finally the research shows that the more
attached the couple is, the better the communication there will be between the two. In
order to have good communication though, there must be trust in the said relationship.
The stronger the trust, the better the communication (Umphrey & Sherblom). These
studies show how important trust and communication are to romantic relationships, and
how without them, the relationship would not exist. The importance of these two things
grow throughout the relationship, but without the study behind them, we would not
understand the concept of romantic relationships.
Trust and Communication in Romantic Relationships References

Anderson, T., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in
online romantic
relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.
10.1080/10510970600666834
Derby, K., Knox, D., & Easterling, B. (2012). Snooping in romantic relationships.
College Student Journal, 46(2), 333-343.
Domingue, R. (2009). Attachment and conflict communication in adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 26(5), 678-696
Givertz, M., & Safford, S. (2011). Longitudinal impact of communication patterns on
romantic attachment and
symptoms of depression. Current Psychology, 30(2), 148-172.10.1007/s12144-
011-9106-1
Jin, B. & Peña, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships.
Communication Reports, 23(1).
39-51. 10.1080/08934211003598742
Johnson-George, C. (1982). Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction
and Validation of a Scale to Assess Trust in
a Specific Other. Journal of Personalty and Social Psychology. 43(6). 1306-1317.
10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1306
Mohr, J. (2013). Romantic attachment and relationship functioning in same-sex couples.
Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 60(1), 72-82. 10.1037/a0030994
Romo, L. (2015). An examination of how people in romantic relationships use
communication to manage financial uncertainty. Journal of Applied
Communication Research. 43(3). 313-
335. 10.1080/00909882.2015.1052831
Umphrey, R. & Sherblom, J. (2009). The role of relational interdependence, relationship
thinking and relational communication in
romantic relationships. Communication Research Reports 18(4). 324-333.
10.1080/08824090109384813

Weigel, D. (2008). Mutuality and the communication of commitment in romantic
relationships. Southern
Communication Journal. 73(1) 21-41. 10.1080/10417940701815618
Trust and Communication in Romantic Relationships Works Cited
Borae Jin & Jorge F. Peña. “Mobile Communication In Romantic Relationships.”
Communication Studies. 23.1 (2010):
39-51. Web. 10 Sept 2015.
Cynthia Johnson-George. “Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction
a Specific Other” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43.6 (1982):
1306-1317. Web. 11 Nov 2015.
Daniel J. Weigel. Mutuality and the Communication of Commitment in Romantic
Relationships. Southern
Communication Journal, 73.1 (2008): 24-41. Web 10 Sept 2015
Johnathon J. Mohr. “ Romantic Attachment and Relationship Functioning in Same-Sex
Couples.” Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 60.1 (2013): 72-82. Web 10 Sept 2015.
Kelly Derby, David Knox, and Beth Easterling. "Snooping In Romantic Relationships.”
College Student Journal 46.2 (2012):
333-43. Web. 2 Sep. 2015.
Lynsey K. Romo. "An Examination of How People in Romantic Relationships Use
Communication to Manage Financial
Uncertainty." Journal of Applied Communication Research. 43.3 (2015). 313-335.
Web. 02 Sept. 2015.
Laura R. Umphrey & John C. Sherblom. “The Role of Relational Interdependence,
Relationship Thinking, and Relational
Communication in Romantic Relationships.” Communication Research Reports.

18.4 (2009) 324-33. .
Web. 02 Sept 2015.
Michelle Givertz and Scott Safford. “Longitudinal Impact of Communication Patterns on
Romantic Attachment
and Symptoms of Depression.” Current Psychology. 30.2 (2011): 148-172.
Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
Rachel Dominique. “ Attachment and Conflict Communication in Adult Romantic
Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 26-5 (2009): 678-
696. Web. 02 Sept, 2015.
Traci Anderson and Tara Emmers-Sommer. "Predictors Of Relationship Satisfaction In
Online Romantic
Relationships." Communication Studies 57.2 (2006): 153-172. Communication &
Mass Media
Complete. Web. 10 Sept. 20
Quantitative Hypotheses and Research Questions
From the current research that has been conducted, what is missing from the
research is proof that mobile phone use effects the amount of trust that lies within the
relationship.Mentioned in the previous research, in today’s concept of romantic
relationships, mobile communication plays a major role, but there is no way to prove
that there is a direct connection with mobile phone use and the level of love and
commitment between partners (Jin & Peña, 2010). In studies about mobile relationships
it is hard to see which data is valid and what is not, because the participants had to
recall and remember what they had done with their mobile devices, making the
information not 100 percent accurate. There should be “tighter methodological controls
in future research (experiments, panel studies) to establish the direction of causality
between mobile phone use, and love and commitment” (Jin & Peña, p. 49). When

mobile use is a major part in a romantic relationship, the idea of “snooping” comes into
consideration, especially when there is mistrust within the relationship. In the study done
by Derby, Knox and Easterling (2012), it is stated that “Snooping typically has negative
consequences in that it is associated with increased conflict, decreased trust, and strain
interaction” (p. 333). The act of “snooping” tends to be more prevalent in those
relationships in which trust lacks.
Hypotheses:
H1: The longer people are in a relationship, the more likely they are to have trust.
H2: There is a difference in trust between those who got caught “snooping” and those
who did not get caught.
Research Questions:
RQ1: Do couples who lack commitment also lack trust in their relationship?
RQ2: Is there a difference between couples who snoop and those who don’t in their
level of trust?
It is important to study trust and communication bot quantitatively and
qualitatively. The quantitative studies give basic ideas as to why certain people lack
trust and communication while in romantic relationships. Once the qualitative study is
introduced, we can see that there are many different reasons and motives as to why
people lack trust and tend to “snoop” on their partner. In the case of Borae Jin & Jorge
F. Peña (2010), trust is needed more when a relationship is taking place over the
internet or through a mobile device. “ Greater use of mobile phones including voice calls
and text messaging is associated with higher levels of love and commitment among
respondents involved in romantic relationships” (Jin & Jorge, 2010). It is important to
study this topic in a qualitative way because it gives a deeper insight to the topic. When
trust and communication is studied qualitatively, we can see how people view these

ideals. Studying “snooping” using qualitative research tends to produce multiple
outcomes. The study about “snooping” by Derby, Knox and Easterling (2012) shows
that people “snoop” on their partner for many reasons, and asking why they do results in
different answers, because each participant has a different view than the others.
Qualitative:
RQ1: How does trust and communication change in Romantic Relationships when
mobile phone use is increased?
Thematic Analysis
Building Trust Through Communication
Qualitative Research Question: How does trust and communication change in Romantic
Relationships when mobile phone use is increased?
Themes and Sub Themes:
• Trust:
⁃ Must have trust
⁃ levels of trust
⁃ trust in relationships
⁃ trust = stronger relationship
⁃ trust means satisfaction
⁃ satisfied when trusting
⁃ no more trust
⁃ trust diminishes
⁃ hard finding trust
⁃ different trust levels
⁃ Nosy Conversations
• Comfortable Communication:
⁃ Trust and communication
⁃ must feel comfortable

⁃ comfortable
⁃ open communication
⁃ communicate
• Honesty and Loyalty:
⁃ honest and loyal
⁃ Snooping
⁃ trust behind back
⁃ there for you
⁃ keeping secrets
⁃ loyal relationship happiness
• Respect and Appreciation:
⁃ Different respect levels
⁃ mutual respect
⁃ mutual appreciation
⁃ affection alters attraction
⁃
Themes Interpretation:
• Trust:
⁃ Trust seemed to be a main focus when it came to romantic relationships. This
is a major factor that has been studied by researchers when it comes to
the idea of romantic relationships. Trust is needed to make any type of
relationship work, and to feel like you are valued in the relationship.
⁃ “You have to be able to trust them and feel safe around them.”
⁃ “… if you feel comfortable with that friend you know, you could trust
them, and they don’t give you a reason not to trust them, like right
now how I don’t trust my quote on quote, “ best friend.”
• Comfortable Communication
⁃ Communication is important when in any type of relationship. If communication
is misunderstood or uncomfortable, they that in turn makes the
relationship uneasy. When in a romantic relationship, it is important to
keep communication open because poor communication leads to mistrust.
⁃ “…just being honest and just following up with me and like uh, opening
up and me opening up and them, i don’t know.”
⁃ “uhm, I mean I have to feel comfortable around them and then therefore
I can open up to them and then that leads to trusting them more
and communicating with them more but other than that I just have
to feel comfortable.”
• Honest and Loyalty
⁃ Just like with communication it is important to be open and honest within a
relationship. Being honest and loyal in a relationship helps keep trust
higher and strengthens the relationship. When loyalty and honesty are
lacking, then it is likely that there is mistrust within the relationship.
⁃ “i think some of the similarities that everyone else has said, respect and
honesty and loyalty.”
⁃ “When it comes to like loyalty you have to trust that person you’re in a
relationship with to know they’re not going to go behind your back

and start talking to someone else.”
• Respect and Appreciation
⁃ When it comes to respect and appreciation in romantic relationships, it is
important to remember that how you treat someone else is probably how
they will treat you back. If you appreciate someone, then they will show
their appreciation back towards you. It is important to remember that
respect goes both ways, and there should be the same level of respect
shared within the relationship.
⁃ “A significant similarity between two would be the level of respect you
guys have for each other whether it be friendships or relationship, it
all has to do with respect.”
⁃ “ I mean theres some i’d say similarities but the level of respect i’d say
appreciated can differ, but overall mutual significant appreciation.”
From the themes that were found in this focus group it shows that trust, honest and
loyalty are very important to those in Romantic Relationships. “ You have to be able to
trust them and feel safe around them” was said by one of the participants in the focus
group, showing that these are important to keep a relationship functioning. That being
said there are other things that some of the people involved in the focus group found to
be important. These themes show that there is a lot of effort and thought that goes into
making a relationship function, and that it isn’t easy to do.
The fact that trust is very important to the participants that took part in this study,
it goes to show that snooping could play a major role in relationships. “ Yeah, just
because I’m nosy and I like to read conversations” was said by one participants.
Following this the participants were asked if it made them trust their significant other
more or less after snooping, and the participant responded “more.” This shows that
some in romantic relationships don’t fully trust their significant other, and feel the need
to snoop on their partner.
Those that were asked to take this questionnaire were students that attend Rowan
University in Glassboro, New Jersey. For nothing in exchange, 30 students responded
to the questionnaire. The sample had a breakdown of males (43.3%) and females
(56.7%), with no one who reported that they didn’t want to specify. The age of the
respondents ranges from 19-26 with the majority of the respondents (80.1%) being
between the ages of 20-22. Of the total respondents, the majority (90%) said that they
are or have been in a romantic relationship, leaving only a small amount (10%) that
have never been in a romantic relationship. For those who said they had been in a
romantic relationship, 1 (3.3%) said that their relationship lasted less than 6 months, 4
(13.3% ) said that theirs lasted around a year, and 25 (83.3%) said that their

relationship lasted between 1 and 5 years.
When it came to trust in their significant others, the majority (63.3%) said that
their significant other has at some point given them a reason not to trust them, leaving
the other (36.7%) who said that they have never been given a reason not to trust their
significant other. For those that said they have even had distrust in their partner, there
were those who said yes (73.3%) to “snooping” on their partner, and then there were
those that said no (26.7%) to “snooping.” From those that have done the act of
“snooping” on their significant other, there was a larger amount who said yes (70.0%) to
if they have ever gotten caught “ snooping” and then those who said no (30.0%) said
that they have never been caught “snooping” on their significant other. There were
some who said that the act of “snooping” made them trust their significant other more
(13.3%), some who said it made them trust less (20.0%) and then the remainder said
that their level of trust did not change after “snooping” (66.7%).
Scale: Trust in Romantic Relationships
Case Processing Summary
Cases Valid
Excludeda
Total
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Instruments:
Hypothesis of Relationships: The longer people are in a relationship, the more
likely they are to have trust.

- All of the respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire while thinking about
their current and or past romantic relationship experiences.
For the first Quantitative hypothesis, the variables were determined as trust and
length in a romantic relationship. These variables were both measured in different ways.
For the First variable, trust was measured using the scale in the questionnaire. Trust in
this case was measured as an interval variable. In the scale used in the questionnaire,
respondents were to answer questions on a scale form 1-5, 1 meaning strongly
disagree and 5 meaning strongly agree, while thinking about their past or current
romantic relationship. Some of the examples used in the scale include “I would expect
my partner to play fair” and “I could expect my partner to tell me the truth.” For the
second variable, length in a romantic relationship was measured originally by asking a
question about how long the respondent had been in a romantic relationship, making
the measurement a ratio measurement. Of the respondents that took the questionnaire,
the majority (90%) said that they are or have been in a romantic relationship, leaving
only a small amount (10%) that have never been in a romantic relationship.
Hypotheses of Differences:There is a difference in trust between those who got
caught “snooping” and those who did not get caught.
- All of the respondents were asked to answer the questionnaire while thinking about
their current and or past romantic relationship experiences.
For the second quantitative hypothesis, the variables were determined as trust
and “snooping.” Trust was measured in the same way as previously mentioned. For the
variable of “snooping,” which was measured nominally, was measured by asking
respondents if they have ever done the act of “snooping” when it comes to their
significant other. This variable could have been interpreted in many ways, and it was up
to the respondent to determine that, and then answer the question based on what they
considered to be “snooping.” These hypothesis seem to not be supported by the
information asked and measured in the questionnaire. When you look at the Cronbach’s
alpha reliability in this study it is .208 which is far below what an acceptable reliability is.
To make these hypotheses valid, they would have to be far more supported by the

information collected.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis of Relationships: The longer people are in a relationship, the more likely
they are to have trust.
How long did your relationship last?
How long did your relationship last?Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
TrustMean Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Hypotheses one predicted that couples who lack commitment, lack trust in their
relationship. The relationship was tested using a Pearson bivariate correlation and was
not supported. Although the results showed that there was a positive correlation
between the two variables, that association was not statistical significant, r(28), p = .110
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis of Differences: There is a difference in trust between those who got caught
“snooping” and those who did not get caught.
TrustMeanEqual variances assumed
Equal variances not assumed

Hypothesis two predicted that the longer people are in a relationship, the more they are
to have trust in their partner. This hypothesis was tested using a crosstab with a t-test
and was not supported. According to the results, there was on average, less trust when
those have been in a relationship for a longer period of time ( SD = .066) over those that
show more trust when been in a relationship for a longer period of time (SD= .34).
t(.638), p < .05.
Appendix 1: Articles Summaries
Umphrey, R. & Sherblom, J. (2009). The role of relational interdependence, relationship
thinking and relational communication in
romantic relationships. Communication Research Reports. 18(4). 324-333.
10.1080/08824090109384813
Laura R. Umphrey & John C. Sherblom. “The Role of Relational Interdependence,
Relationship Thinking, and Relational
Communication in Romantic Relationships.” Communication Research Reports.
18.4 (2009) 324-33. .
Web. 02 Sept 2015.

1.) Context/Area of Focus: Relational Interdependence, Relationship Thinking and
Relationship
Communication in Romantic Relationships.
2.) Concepts used in logic: Relational interdependence, relationship thinking, and
relational communication
3.) Theories used in logic: interdependence theory
4.) Claims/Research Questions/Hypotheses:
“HI: Relational Interdependence. Individuals in serious relationships will express greater
relational interdependence than individuals in exclusive dating relationships who, in turn,
will express greater relational interdependence than those in casual dating relationships,
as evidenced in the perception of (a) fewer alternatives, (b) more satisfaction, (c)
greater relational investment, and (d) more commitment to the relationship.
H2: Relationship Thinking.Individuals in serious relationships will engage in more posi-
tive relational thinking than individuals in exclusive dating relationships who, in turn, will
engage in more positive relational thinking than those in casual dating relationships, as
expressed through (a) greater positive affect thinking and (b) less partner thinking.
H3: Relational Communication. Individuals in serious relationships will engage in more
relational communication than individuals in exclusive dating relationships who, in turn,
will engage in more relational communication than those in casual dating relationships,
as measured in the expression of greater (a) intimacy, (b) trust, (c) composure” (p.
329).
5.) Methodology: social scientific/quantitative, critical.
5a. Sample: “One hundred sixty-one participants completed the survey. Four of these
participants indicated that they were engaged to be married and 2 were married.
Because of the small sample size in these two categories, these 6 responses were
discarded and these categories dropped from analysis, leaving 155participants in three
categories. Fifty-two respondents were dating casually, 37 were dating exclusively, and
66 were in serious relationships. The sample included 62 males and 93 females” (p.
327-329).
5b. Procedure: Participants filled out a questionnaire.
5c. Method : survey, quantitative
5d. Instruments:
“Relational interdependence was assessed using Rusbult et al.'s (1998) measure of
investment with indices for alternatives, satisfaction, investment, and commitment.
Following Rusbult et al., an initial set of 4 items was used to enhance respondent
comprehension of each construct. Rusbult et al. argue that participants find it difficult to
respond to global measures of alternatives, satisfaction, investment, and commitment.
Therefore, they designed items to provide specific, concrete examples of each construct
that would activate participants' thoughts about it prior to measurement.
Relationship thinking was measured using the Cate et al. (1995) relationship thinking
scale. Items used to assess positive affect thinking included: "I think about the

memories I have of our relationship" and "I think about all of the fun my partner and I
have together." Partner thinking was assessed with items such as: "I reflect on how my
partner feels about our relationship" and "I wonder about how close my partner feels
toward me." Network thinking items included: "I wonder about how well/poorly my
partner and my family do/ would get along" and "I wonder about how well/poorly I do/will
get along with my partner's friends."
Relational communication topoi dimensions of intimacy, trust, and composure, were
measured using a sub-set of the 37-item, 7-point Likert-scale relational communication
instrument designed to tap the multiple dimensions of how a participant perceives
communication with his or her partner (Burgoon & Hale, 1987). Intimacy was measured
with 8 items, trust with 4 items, and composure with 5 items “(p.328-329).
6.) Finding/Conclusion:
“Hypothesis 1: Relational Interdependence results indicate that individuals in
serious relationships perceive fewer alternatives, report greater satisfaction, are more
invested, and have greater commitment to their relationships than individuals in
exclusive dating relationships, who, in turn, perceive fewer alternatives, report greater
satisfaction, are more invested, and have greater commitment to their relationships than
individuals in casual dating relationships. These findings support hypothesis one.
Hypothesis 2: Relationship Thinking. A post hoc Tukey test of positive affect
thinking reveals significant differences between the serious relationship group and the
exclusive dating and casual dating groups; but a non-significant difference between
the exclusive dating and casual dating groups. Individuals in serious relationships
engage in more positive affect thinking than participants in the exclusive and casual
dating groups. A post hoc Tukey test of partner thinking shows a significant difference
between the serious relationships and casual dating groups. Non-significant differences
occur between the serious relationship and the exclusive dating groups, and between
the exclusive dating and casual dating groups. Taken together, these findings provide
some support for hypothesis two.
Hypothesis 3: Relational Communication: Post hoc Tukey tests reveal significant
differences for both trust and composure between the serious relationship and the
casual dating groups; but non-significant differences, on both measures, between the
serious relationship and exclusive dating groups, and between the exclusive dating and
casual dating groups. These findings provide some limited support for hypothesis three”
(p.329-331).
Weigel, D. (2008). Mutuality and the communication of commitment in romantic
relationships. Southern
Communication Journal. 73(1) 21-41. 10.1080/10417940701815618
Daniel J. Weigel. Mutuality and the Communication of Commitment in Romantic
Relationships. Southern
Communication Journal, 73.1 (2008): 24-41. Web 10 Sept 2015

1.) Context/Area of Focus: Mutuality and the Commitment in Romantic
Relationships.
2.) Concepts used in logic: Mutuality
3.) Theories used in logic: Mutuality and Communication Theory
“H1: Perceived mutuality of commitment will be positively associated with the
use of commitment indicators. (p. 28)
RQ1: Will people who see themselves as more committed, less committed, or
equally committed differ in how they communicate their commitment to
their partners?
H2: The experience of the commitment-related emotions will be positively
associated with the use of commitment indicators.
RQ2: Will people who see themselves as more committed, less committed, or
equally committed differ in their reports of the commitment-related
emotions?
H3: The association of mutuality of commitment with the use of commitment
indicators will at least partially be accounted for by the commitment-related
emotions” (p. 28-29).
5.) Methodology: interviews/ qualitative
5a. sample “ Respondents were 206 female and 113 male students enrolled in
undergraduate and graduate communication, human development, and sociology
courses. Students included in this study reported current involvement in dating or
married relationships” (p. 29).
5b. procedure “Students at a university in a western state completed questionnaires in
classes. The questionnaires were designed to gather respondents’ views of their
relationships. The questionnaires took approximately 10 minutes to complete and
participants received no compensation or extra credit for their participation. In addition,
students were offered extra credit to recruit additional participants. Students were
instructed that potential respondents should be in a romantic relationship for at least one
month. A special plea was made to recruit married participants. Participants were given
directions for completing their questionnaires; the completed surveys were returned to
the researcher in sealed envelopes. No personal identifying information was gathered
on the questionnaire but participants were asked to sign their names on the outside of
the envelope so as to deter fabrication” (p.30).
5c. method: survey
5d. instruments: The Emotions in Commitment: “Will they experience different
emotions based on their perceptions of mutual commitment (i.e., the degree to which
they perceive that their own and their partner's levels of commitment are equal), and, if
so, will those emotions be associated with how they communicate commitment?” (p.24).
H1:R1:The results indicated that the greater the perceived degree of mutuality of
commitment, the more likely respondents were to report using all 10 of the commitment
indicators in communicating their commitment to their partners

H2R2:the results of Pearson correlation analyses revealed that the greater the
perceived degrees of positive emotion, negative emotion, and constraint emotion, the
more likely respondents were to report using all 10 of the commitment indicators. In
general, the strongest correlations were for the experience of positive emotion (
H3:The first-order results indicated that the data met the preconditions
for assessing mediation (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986) in that (a) mutuality of
commitment was associated with the commitment indicators; (b) mutuality of
commitment was associated with positive emotion, negative emotion, and constraint
emotion; and (c) the commitment indicators were associated with positive emotion,
negative emotion, and constraint emotion (p. 31-34).
Romo, L. (2015). An examination of how people in romantic relationships use
communication to manage financial uncertainty. Journal of Applied
Communication Research. 43(3). 313-
335. 10.1080/00909882.2015.1052831
Lynsey K. Romo. "An Examination of How People in Romantic Relationships Use
Communication to Manage Financial
Uncertainty." Journal of Applied Communication Research. 43.3 (2015). 313-335.
Web. 02 Sept. 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Communication and Financial Uncertainty in Romantic
Relationships.
2.) Concepts used in logic: Uncertainty Management
3.) Theories used in logic: Uncertainty Management Theory
4.) Claims/Research Questions/Hypotheses: this study relies on interviews of
individuals in married or cohabiting relationships and the lens of Uncertainty
Management Theory (UMT; Brashers,2001) to provide insight into how people are
(un)able to negotiate financial uncertainty and to offer practical strategies to help
couples communicate (or more effectively communicate) about money (p.317).
5.) Methodology: Interviews, qualitative.
5a. sample “Forty married or cohabitating adults were interviewed. Participants were
diverse with respect to age, sex (60% female); race (67.5% classified themselves as
Caucasian or White); education (highest schooling ranged from some high school to
doctorate); employment status and occupation (ranging from unemployed to working full
time; factory worker to attorney); as well as reported income, savings, and debt (ranging
from $0-24,999 to more than $200,000). Household income ranged from $0-49,999 to
over $300,000. Ninety-five percent (n=38) of the sample was heterosexual and of these
participants, approximately 84% (n=32) were married” (p.318).
5b. procedure “The author began the interviews with questions about the participants’
relational status, their and their partner’s employment situation and perceived economic

status, and how they and their partner viewed and handled money. The interview then
segued into questions about financial communication. While participants were asked
about the economy, as well as periods of hardship and sources of financial worry, the
interview schedule did not include specific questions related to uncertainty” (p.319).
5c. method qualitative, interpretive.
5d. instruments Relying on information
Active information seeking.
Passive-information seeking.
Experiential-information use
Strategically communicating
Tailoring communication
Communal coping
Designating clear financial roles
Devising a financial plan
(p. 320-324)
“This investigation found participants managed financial uncertainty by reducing,
maintaining, and adapting to it in a variety of ways. While some strategies involved
participants managing uncertainty individually, in the vast majority of cases, participants
reported collectively negotiating uncertainty with their partner” (p.320).
Mohr, J. (2013). Romantic attachment and relationship functioning in same-sex couples.
Journal of Counseling
Psychology. 60(1), 72-82. 10.1037/a0030994
Johnathon J. Mohr. “ Romantic Attachment and Relationship Functioning in Same-Sex
Couples.” Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 60.1 (2013): 72-82. Web 10 Sept 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Attachment and function in same sex couples.
2.) Concepts used in logic: Attachment and function
3.) Theories used in logic: Attachment Theory
4.) Claims/Research Questions/Hypotheses: Measure adult attachment and
Marital communication in same sex couples.
5.) Methodology: Surveys, quantitative
5a. sample “Participants were 582 (58.4%) women and 415 (41.6%) men who were in
same-sex romantic relationships at the time of the study. The sample included 274
female couples, 188 male couples, 34 women whose female partners did not
participate, and 39 men whose male partners did not participate” (p.74).

5b. procedure: Social Scientific
5c. method: “Participants were instructed to complete the survey in a setting separate
from their romantic partner and to seal the survey in the mailing envelope immediately
afterward. Surveys were received from 1,004 individuals (49% of the surveys mailed),
but seven of these surveys were not included in the present study because they were
minimally completed. Data from these participants have been published elsewhere
(citation withheld for masked review), but none of the main results of the present study
overlap with what has appeared in previous articles” (p.74).
5d. instruments
Adult Attachment Scale
The Commitment Scale
Marital Communication Inventory
Lesbian and Gay Identity Scale
6.) Finding/Conclusion: “. Consistent with research on heterosexuals, results from a
large community sample of same-sex couples indicated that attachment anxiety and
avoidance in both partners are linked with less positive relationship evaluations and
experiences” (p. 79).
Derby, K., Knox, D., & Easterling, B. (2012). Snooping in romantic relationships.
College Student Journal, 46(2), 333-343.
Kelly Derby, David Knox, and Beth Easterling. "Snooping In Romantic Relationships.”
College Student Journal 46.2 (2012):
333-43. Web. 2 Sep. 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Snooping in Romantic Relationships
2.) Concepts used in logic: Uncertainty and Snooping.
3.) Theories used in logic: Uncertainty Reduction Theory.
“1. By what means do college students snoop in romantic relationships?
2. When do college students in romantic relationships snoop?
3. Are there gender differences in snooping behavior?” (p.334).
5.) Methodology: questionnaire, quanitative.
5a. sample “A total of 268 respondents completed this survey. The majority of
respondents were female, white and heterosexual” (p.334).

5b. procedure “A 42 item questionnaire on snooping was posted on the internet from
March 15 to April 15, 2011” (p.334).
5c. method Questionnaires asked questions to find out why people cheat in romantic
relationships.
5d. instruments Questionnaires.
6.) Finding/Conclusion: “Almost 2/3 of the respondents admitted to snooping on a
romantic partner. Respondents reported having snooped a mean of approximately 3
times reported they had a friend who told them they had snooped on a romantic
partner.” (p. 335).
Jin, B. & Peña, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships.
Communication Reports, 23(1).
39-51. 10.1080/08934211003598742
Borae Jin & Jorge F. Peña. “Mobile Communication In Romantic Relationships.”
Communication Studies. 23.1 (2010):
39-51. Web. 10 Sept 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Mobile communication in Romantic Relationships
2.) Concepts used in logic:Uncertainty and Attachment
3.) Theories used in logic: Attachment Styles; Mobile Communication; Relational
Uncertianty
“H1: Greater use of mobile phones including (a) voice calls and (b) text messaging is
associated with lower levels of relational uncertainty in dimensions including self
uncertainty, partner uncertainty, and relationship uncertainty among respondents
involved in romantic relationships.
H2: Greater use of mobile phones including (a) voice calls and (b) text messaging is
associated with higher levels of love and commitment among respondents involved in
romantic relationships.
H3: Greater use of mobile phones including (a) voice calls and (b) text messaging
is associated with lower avoidance scores among respondents involved in
romantic relationships.
H4: Greater use of mobile phones including (a) voice calls and (b) text messaging
is associated with lower anxiety scores among respondents involved in
romantic relationships” (p.41-43).
5.) Methodology: quanitative
5a. sample “Two hundred students in communication classes at a large Southwestern
university received extra credit for their participation in an online survey. All of the

participants possessed a mobile phone” (p.43).
5b. procedure “The online survey asked participants to estimate the amount of time
they spent using voice calls and text messaging, respectively, with their romantic
partners via mobile phones in a day. This variable was recorded in minutes. Participants
also reported the numerical estimates of the frequency of making and receiving voice
calls and text messages with their romantic partners in a day” (p. 43)
5c. method Survey
5d. instruments
Relational uncertainty:
“For example, frequent or longer voice calls over mobile phones were linked to lower
relational uncertainty among respondents involved in romantic relationships (H1).
Participants who used voice calls more with their partner tended to show fewer doubts
about their own and their partner's involvement in the relationship, as well as uncertainty
in the relationship itself. This is consistent with uncertainty reduction theory (Berger &
Calabrese, 1975), which predicts that higher amount of interactions is associated with
reducing relational uncertainty. This finding also resonates with Walther's (1992)
suggestion that repeated encounters and extended interactions foster relational
development among people interacting through communication technology” (p.47).
Love and commitment:
“The results also indicate that the more voice call use by individuals in romantic
relationships, the stronger the love and commitment with their partners (H2). The
nontethered feature of mobile phones may allow people in romantic relationships to
communicate with their partners whenever and wherever they want, thus satisfying the
need and the desire to communicate with each other.”
“Therefore, it seems that more frequent voice calls help partners in romantic
relationships coordinate their daily activities and thus achieve interdependent outcomes
(e.g., meeting for dinner, going to the movies, etc.). This, in turn, may lead to increased
feelings of love and commitment. Given that frequent interconnection is necessary to
form a close relationship (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), mobile communication seems to fulfill
people's need for connectedness and help with attaining shared outcomes in the
context of close relationships. This process of becoming interdependent may result in
greater levels of love and commitment, as suggested by the present findings” (p.47).
Attachment styles:
“Participants’ attachment styles were significantly associated with voice call use.
Specifically, participants with more avoidance reported fewer amounts of voice calls
within their romantic relationships than those with less avoidance (H3). Avoidant
individuals are characterized by feeling uncomfortable with closeness, trust, and
dependency (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). It is possible that highly avoidant individuals feel
uneasy about being reachable at any time by their partner and, therefore, may use
mobile phones less than those who feel more comfortable with close and trusting
relationships” (p.48).
“H1a predicted that greater voice call use would be associated with less relational
uncertainty including self, partner, and relationship dimensions. This hypothesis was

supported. Voice call time was negatively related to self uncertainty, partner uncertainty,
and relationship uncertainty. Also, voice call frequency was negatively
associated with self, partner, and relationship uncertainties. These results imply that the
more frequently or the longer the participants placed voice calls via mobile phones with
their partner, the less relational uncertainty they felt. However, H1b about the
relationship between text messaging use and relational uncertainty was not supported.
Text messaging time and frequency were not significantly correlated with self, partner,
or relationship uncertainties.
The second set of hypotheses dealt with the relationship between mobile phone use
and love and commitment. As predicted, love and commitment were positively
associated with voice call time and frequency. Participants reporting greater use of
mobile voice calls with their romantic partners reported more love and commitment in
their relationships. Thus, H2a was supported. Same as in the analysis above, text
messaging time and frequency were not correlated with love and commitment, thus
disconfirming H2b.
H3 and H4 investigated the relationship between mobile phone use and attachment
styles. H3 posited that respondents with higher avoidance scores would use mobile
phones less. Participants’ scores on the avoidance scale were negatively associated
with voice call time and frequency; however, there was no significant relationship found
between avoidance and text messaging. Thus, H3a was supported, whereas H3b was
not. Finally, there was no support for H4a and H4b, which expected that participants
with higher anxiety scores would show lower levels of mobile phone use including voice
calls and text messaging. Anxiety scores were not significantly correlated with any
variable of mobile phone use” (p.45).
Anderson, T., & Emmers-Sommer, T. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in
online romantic
relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153-172.
10.1080/10510970600666834
Traci Anderson, and Tara Emmers-Sommer. "Predictors Of Relationship Satisfaction In
Online Romantic
Relationships." Communication Studies 57.2 (2006): 153-172. Communication &
Mass Media
Complete. Web. 10 Sept. 20
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Relationship Satisfaction in online romantic
relationships.
2.) Concepts used in logic: Interpersonal relationship development
3.) Theories used in logic: Hyperpersonal communication theory.
“RQ1: To what degree do similarity, commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional

confidence, and communication satisfaction predict relationship satisfaction for
individuals in online romantic relationships?
RQ2: For individuals in online romantic relationships do perceptions of similarity,
commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction
differ depending on relationship length?
RQ3: For individuals in online romantic relationships do perceptions of similarity,
commitment, intimacy, trust, attributional confidence, and communication satisfaction
differ depending on amount of communication” (p.159)?
5.) Methodology: Quantitative
5a. sample “One hundred-fourteen voluntary participants who were in exclusively
online-based romantic relationships completed a Web-based survey. Participants had
not met their romantic partner in person nor had spoken to them on the telephone. To
solicit participants, a researcher entered online chat rooms that focus on online
friendships, relationships, and long-distance relationships to request volunteers.
Additionally, the researcher posted messages asking for volunteers in Usenet romance-
related men’s and women’s newsgroups” (p.160)
5b. procedure: participants were asked to answer questions based on their
relationship satisfaction.
5c. method Survey
5d. instruments
Similarity: “The Measure of Perceived Homophily (McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975)
was used to assess the degree to which participants perceive they are similar to their
respective online relational partners. The eight item, seven-point semantic differential
scale assesses two dimensions, attitude and background homophily, and has been
shown to be reliable in past research (e.g., Elliot, 1979). The current study yielded
Cronbach’s alphas ¼.79 for both attitude and background dimensions” (p.160).
Commitment: “Perception of both online and off-line relational alternatives was
conceptualized as the degree to which one possesses alternatives (other relational
partners, either on-or off-line) to the current relationship. Relational commitment was
measured using eight seven-point, Likert-type scale items adapted from Rusbult’s
(1980) tests of her investment model. The scale assesses one’s dedication to the
relationship and one’s perceived relational alternatives, which are fundamental to the
notion of commitment. Previous research for this measure has demonstrated a reliability
of .90 (Cloven & Roloff, 1993). Cronbach’s alpha ¼.92 in the current study” (p.160).
Intimacy: “Feelings of intimacy were assessed using Miller’s Social Intimacy scale
(MSIS) (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982). Baxter (1988) reported that this scale yielded high
reliability scores 160 T. L. Anderson & T. M. Emmers-Sommer and in the current study
the scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha ¼.90. The measure contains 17 items measured
on a 10-point Likert-type scale that assess degree and frequency of perceived
closeness as achieved through behaviors and communication interactions. The MSIS
taps into the dimension of psychological intimacy only, which is most appropriate for this
study given that participants are not geographically close to partners. (p. 160-161)
Trust: “The Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) was used to measure the
participants’ degree of trust for their respective partners. The measure contains eight,

seven-point Likert-type items. Larzalere and Huston reported an alpha reliability of .93,
and Baxter (1988) has argued that, based on evidence from prior studies, the Dyadic
Trust Scale has greater construct validity and internal reliability than other trust
measures. Cronbach’s alpha ¼.90 in the current study” (p.161).
Attributional Confidence: “The short version of the Attributional Confidence Scale (CL7)
(Clatterbuck, 1979) was used to assess participants’ perceived level of certainty about
their online relationships. Specific to this investigation, the CL7 was utilized to measure
the degree to which individuals could make attributions with confidence (i.e., with
certainty)
about occurrences in their online relationships. Certainty is measured on a 0 to
100scale. This short, proactive version of the scale which focuses on one’s confidence
in making attributions before events occur instead of retroactively making
attributions—is preferred over the longer version of the scale (CL65) due to ease of
administration. Prior research has yielded reliabilities of .76 to .97 (e.g., Clatterbuck,
1979). Cronbach’s alpha ¼.89 in the current study” (p.161).
Communication Satisfaction: “Interpersonal communication satisfaction was
conceptualized as ‘‘the emotional reaction to communication which is both successful
and expectation fulfilling’’ (Hecht, 1984, p. 201). This predictor variable was assessed
using a shortened version of Hecht’s (1978) seven-point Likert-type measure of
communication satisfaction. This eight-item abridged version has been factor analyzed
and shown to be reliable (a ¼.93) in previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
(VanLear, 1988, 1991) and had an alpha of .96 in the current study” (p.161).
Relationship Satisfaction: “Relationship satisfaction is the degree to which an individual
is content with his or her current relationship. To assess relationship satisfaction the
researchers used a
version of Norton’s (1983) Quality Marriage Index (QMI) adapted for persons in
(nonmarital) online romantic relationships. The QMI is a six-item Likert-type scale.
Online Relationship Satisfaction Norton’s measure is considered by many to be an
improvement on early measures of relationship satisfaction and has yielded Cronbach
alpha scores ranging from .88 to .96 (e.g., Baxter, 1988; VanLear, 1991). Additionally,
the measure has remained
reliable in previous studies when adapted for nonmarried persons (VanLear, 1991).
Cronbach’s alpha ¼.95 in the current study” (p.161).
Relationship Length: “Relationship length was measured by asking participants to report
how many weeks they had been involved with their current online romantic partner.
Length ranged from 3 to 53 weeks with an average of 27.17 weeks” (p.162).
Amount of Online Communication: :The time spent communicating online was
measured by asking participants how
many hours per week, in general, they communicated online with their partners
including all forms of communication (e.g., sending and reading e-mail, interacting in a
MUD). Communication time ranged from 1 to 40 hours a week with an average
17.64 hours (SD¼14.20). ‘‘Amount’’ was operationalized not in terms of ‘‘how often’’;
rather, it was operationalized as ‘‘how much’’(p. 162).
“Results indicate that levels of perceived attitude similarity differed significantly between

those persons whose relationship length was average and those persons who were in a
lengthy online relationship. For perceived intimacy, levels differed significantly between
people in long relationships and average-length relationships, and between people in
average-length relationships and short relationships. Specifically, those who had been
in their online relationships a greater amount of time reported greater levels of intimacy.
For trust, there were significant differences between those who had been together the
longest and those who were together an average length of time. There were also
differences in trust levels between those who had the longest and shortest relationships.
Finally, regarding attributional confidence, means differed significantly between those
persons who had been in their online relationships the shortest length of time and those
who had been involved the longest” (p. 163)
Johnson-George, C. (1982). Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction
a Specific Other. Journal of Personalty and Social Psychology. 43(6). 1306-1317.
10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1306
Cynthia Johnson-George. “Measurement of Specific Interpersonal Trust: Construction
a Specific Other” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43.6 (1982):
1306-1317. Web. 11 Nov 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: Trust Scale
2.) Concepts used in logic: Interpersonal Trust
3.) Theories used in logic: Interpersonal Trust
4.) Claims/Research Questions/Hypotheses: “Systematic investigation of
specific interpersonal trust and its relationship to other variables such as love, liking and
self-disclosure has been hampered by the lack of a valid interment of measurement” (p.
1307).
5.) Methodology: Survey, Likert-Scale
5a. sample “ A total of 180 male and 255 female undergraduates in introductory
psychology courses at Tufts University completed inventory during class time” (p.1308).
5b. procedure: “ Subjects were instructed to think of a specific other person the same
secs of themselves in whom they has a great deal of trust (as defined by the subject).
Responses on 9-point scales anchored by ‘sternly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree,’ were
subjected to principal-components factor analysis” (p. 1308).
5c. method: Interpretive
5d. instruments : Trust, Likert-Scale, questionnaires.
6.) Finding/Conclusion: Males were found to trust more than Females in all aspects.

Domingue, R. (2009). Attachment and conflict communication in adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 26(5), 678-696
Rachel Dominique. “ Attachment and Conflict Communication in Adult Romantic
Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 26-5 (2009): 678-
696. Web. 02 Sept, 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: “the connections between adult attachment styles (i.e.,
secure, preoccupied, fearful-avoidant, dismissing) and communication patterns during
conflict (i.e., mutual constructive, demand-withdraw, mutual avoidance, and with-
holding)” (p.678).
2.) Concepts used in logic: “self-reported conflict communication patterns” (p.678).
3.) Theories used in logic: Attachment Theory
“H1: Participants in the secure-secure couples group will report greater
mutual constructive conflict communication than participants in the secure-
insecure group who, in turn, will report greater mutual constructive com-
munication than participants in the insecure-insecure couples group.
H2: Participants in the insecure-insecure couples group will report greater
demand-withdraw communication than participants in the secure-insecure
group who, in turn, will report greater demand-withdraw communication
than participants in the secure-secure couples group.
H3: Participants in the insecure-insecure couples group will report greater
mutual avoidance and withholding communication than participants in the
secure-insecure couples who, in turn, will report greater mutual avoidance
and withholding communication than participants in the secure-secure
couples.
H4: Couples in which at least one partner is dismissing will report greater
demand-withdraw communication than all other couple types.
H5: Participants in the dismissing-dismissing couples group will report
greater mutual avoidance and withholding communication than all other
couple types” (p. 683-684).
5.) Methodology: “The different-sex couple group was recruited from community
parent groups,
a local university, and local places of worship of diverse denominations. The
same-sex couple group was recruited from a large gay and lesbian church
and a community center that serves the gay and lesbian population. Snowball
sampling was used to ensure that the maximum number of couples would
participate, which resulted in the participation of some couples living in
other states” (p. 684).

5a. sample “The sample consisted of couples who had been together for at least two
years, which means they were either in a dating, cohabitating, engaged, or
married relationship. Participants included 43 different-sex couples and 10
same-sex couples, who either lived in a large metropolitan area in a south-
western state or in other states” (p. 684).
5b. procedure: Questionnaires, Surveys
5d. instruments
Demographic Questionnaires
ECR- Revised
Communication Pattern Questionnaire
“The pattern of results provides partial support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, participants in the secure-secure couple group
did report greater mutual constructive communication than participants
in both the secure-insecure and insecure-insecure couple groups. Unlike
previous studies (Pietromonaco et al., 2004), however, participants in the
secure-insecure and insecure-insecure couple groups did not differ in mutual
constructive communication.
Analyses for Hypotheses 2 and 3 show that participants in the secure-
secure couple group reported less demand-withdraw and mutual avoidance
and withholding communication than participants in both secure-insecure
and insecure-insecure couple groups, however, the latter two groups did not
differ from one-another. The insecure-insecure couple group did not report
higher amounts of these negative communication patterns than the secure-
insecure group, but did report more negative communication than the
secure-secure couple group as predicted. These results should be considered
tentative, because they were not significant in the Roy-Bargmann step-
down analysis. Since these two negative communication subscales measure
specific negative communication behaviors, the three conflict communica-
tion dependent variables were strongly intercorrelated. Therefore, after
controlling for the effects of one dimension, there was not enough varia-
tion left in the remaining two to achieve statistical significance.
An unexpected finding was that different-sex couples reported higher
levels of mutual avoidance and withholding communication than did same-
sex couples. Although this finding has not been found in previous research
(Julien et al., 2003), it is possible that adults in same-sex relationships have
similar communication styles due to their similar gender socialization and
therefore would be less likely to shut down or withdraw out of frustration
and misunderstanding. No differences between participants in the different-
sex couples and same-sex couples group were observed for mutual construc-
tive and demand-withdraw communication. All of these findings are tentative
and should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of same-
sex couples in the sample” (p. 690).
Givertz, M., & Safford, S. (2011). Longitudinal impact of communication patterns on

romantic attachment and
symptoms of depression. Current Psychology, 30(2), 148-172.10.1007/s12144-
011-9106-1
Michelle Givertz and Scott Safford. “Longitudinal Impact of Communication Patterns on
Romantic Attachment
and Symptoms of Depression.” Current Psychology. 30.2 (2011): 148-172.
Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
1.) Context/Area of Focus: “Communication patterns, romantic attachment,
symptoms of depression, and perceptions of relationship quality are related concurrently
and prospectively within monogamous dating relationships”(p. 148).
2.) Concepts used in logic: Hierarchical regression
3.) Theories used in logic: Attachment theory
5.) Methodology: “Participants were invited to complete a web-survey, and were also
asked to
provide contact information via email so that they could be contacted to participate
in a six-month follow-up assessment” (p. 152).
5a. sample”A total of 248 subjects (136 females, 112 males) completed the web-
survey, generating a sample of 112 couples eligible for participation in the six-month
follow-up. Data for the remaining 24 individuals was excluded because only one
member of the couple completed the web-survey” (p.152).
“A total of 171 subjects (99 females, 72 males) completed the web-survey six months
after their initial participation, reflecting a response rate of 76%. Data for 33 (27 females,
6 males) individuals was discarded due to the fact that only one member of the couple
completed the second assessment” (p. 152).
5b. procedure
“Once dating couples had been identified for participation in the study, they were
contacted via email individually, provided a unique user name and password, and a link
to the web-survey. When participants accessed the web-survey, they were presented
with a consent form and instructions on how to complete the survey. Participants were
instructed to complete the web-survey independently from their partner. Six months
after their initial participation, participants were contacted individually via email and
invited to complete the web-survey again. Once again they were provided with the

unique name and password they received at the time of initial participation, and were
instructed to respond based on the relationship they reported on in the first assessment,
regardless of whether or not that relationship was ongoing. Responses were identifiable
only by code numbers for the purpose of awarding extra credit at Time 1 and monetary
compensation at Time 2. This process yielded data for 63 couples, 16 of which were no
longer dating at the time of the second assessment” (p.153).
5d. instruments
Romantic Attachment
Symptoms of Depression
Communication Patterns
Perceptions of Relationship Quality
“The results of this study support the notion that communication reinforces attachment
style and that communication acts as both a cause and a consequence of attachment
(Guerrero 2008). In this study, the demand-withdraw communication pattern was
particularly effective at predicting change over time in attachment and symptoms of
depression for males. An examination of which couples broke up over the course of the
study revealed that insecure attachment and symptoms of depression, along with
negative perceptions of relationship quality, differentiated those individuals whose
relationships terminated over the course of the study from those whose did not. This is
consistent with previous research, suggesting that insecurely attached individuals
experience less satisfaction and stability in their romantic relationships than do
securely attached individuals (Mikulincer et al.2002). Finally, there was evidence of a
pattern of earned-security over the course of the study. Females whose relationships
remained intact demonstrated significant
decreases in both attachment avoidance and anxiety between assessment intervals.
Collectively, these results suggest that although attachment style may predispose
particular patterns of communication, these behaviors are not set in stone. One’s
attachment style may be fairly stable over the lifespan, however, these results suggest
that attachment style can change over time within relationships” (p. 169-170).
Appendix 2: Focus Group

Focus Group Protocol
How does trust and communication change in Romantic Relationships when
mobile phone use is increased?
Sample: 3-5 Students in Communication Studies Research Class
Opening Comments: Welcome Everybody! I will be conducting a focus group on the
topic of Trust and communication in romantic relationships. Please answer the
questions are thoroughly as you wish, as long as your point is made clearly.
Purpose of the Study: Thank you all for taking part in this study about trust and
communication. This study is to determine the level of trust in romantic relationships
when cell phone/mobile use is increased.
Focus Group Procedures: Let me tell you a little bit about what we will be doing here
today. My name is Lauren Mathis and I am the moderator of the discussion. I will be
asking you 8-10 questions about trust and communication and how you use them in
romantic and everyday relationships. I’d like everyone to answer, so we will go in circle
and take turns answering each question. If someone has something to add at any point,
please feel free to jump in. I will just make sure that everybody has a chance to answer
and keep the discussion going. We will talk for approximately half an hour.
Ethical Issues: What we are discussing today is how you are feeling about things.
There could be as many different opinions as there are people in this room. Every
opinion is correct, there are no wrong answers. Remember, we aren’t here to convince
anyone of something in particular or to change anyone’s mind. We are here to discuss
things and hear what each and every one of you has to say. Sometimes, you will find
that many people in the room have your opinion, and other times, you will be the only
one with that opinion. But it is important for me to learn about all the opinions, because
even if you are the only one in this room who holds that opinion, there may be hundreds
or thousands of other people in our community who feel just as you do. Most
importantly, every opinion counts, so please feel free to share your thoughts. I do ask
you to be considerate when participating and state your point of view without attacking
others. My role as the moderator is to ask questions, make sure everybody has a

chance to answer, and keep the discussion professional, yet truthful. Your answers will
be confidential. They will be used solely for the purpose of this study. No names will be
used when your comments are used in my research project. Also, I ask you to respect
the privacy of the other group members by not discussing anything that anyone else
says. Is everybody still willing to go forward?
Introductory Questions:
1. Have you ever been in a committed romantic relationship?
2. How long did that relationship last?
- less than 6 months?
- about a year
- 1-5 years
- more than 5 years?
Transition Questions:
3. Have you ever snooped on your significant other? (cell phone)
Follow up- what was the reason?
4. if yes, did that make you trust your significant other more or less?
Key Questions:
5. How do you know there is trust in your non romantic relationships?
6. What do you see are the similarities with trusting in non romantic/friendship
relationships and romantic relationships?
7. What are the differences in trusting with non romantic/friendship relationships and
romantic relationships?
Ending Questions:
8. Does trust in your relationship contribute to your relationship satisfaction and
relationship quality?
9. Has there been an experience in your relationship where your significant other broke
the trust in your relationship? (be as specific or as general as you need, as long as you
get the point across)
Follow up- How did this experience shape your future romantic relationships, or how you
now view relationships.

Focus Group Transcription and Description of Qualitative Method of Focus Group
How does trust and communication change in Romantic Relationships when mobile
phone use is increased?
Focus Group Transcription
Question asked:
1. Have you ever been in a committed romantic relationship?
- yes
- no
- yes
- yes
2. How long did that relationship last?
- less than 6 months? - one
- about a year - one
- 1-5 years - two
- more than 5 years?
3. Have you ever snooped on your significant other? (cell phone) yes or
no
Follow up- what was the reason?
- no
- no
- no
- yeah, just because I’m nosy and i like to read conversations
4. if yes, did that make you trust your significant other more or less?
- uhm more.
5. How do you measure trust in your non romantic relationships?
- uhm, i mean i have feel comfortable around them and then therefore i can open up to
them and then that leads to trusting them more and communicating with them more but

other than that i just have to feel comfortable.
-id say uh, it’s how well we get along and if i like, piggy backing off of her if you feel
comfortable with that friend you know you could trust them. and they don’t give you a
reason not to trust them. like right now how i don’t trust my quote on quote, “best friend”.
- thats all based on hum each others actions and the level of reciprocity there is
between both parties and having them deliver it all the way through.
-uhm, uhm trust is my non romantic relationships is i would say uh, just being honest
and just following up with me and like uh, opening up and me opening up and them, i
don’t know.
6. What do you see are the similarities with trusting in non
romantic/friendship relationships and romantic relationships?
- uhm i definitely… i think some of the similarities that everyone else has said, respect
and honestly and loyalty. you have to be able to trust them and feel safe around them,
yeah.
- a significant similarity between the two would be the level of respect you guys have for
each other whether it be friendships or relationship it all has to do with the respect.
- i mean theres some id say similarities but the level of respect id say appreciated can
differ but overall mututal significance appreciation
-I think there are a lot of differences and similarities in both relationships a main
similarity would definitely be respect and appreciation.
7. What are the differences in trusting with non romantic/friendship
relationships and romantic relationships?
- I think affection is definitely a big one or attraction to someone and that alters how you
act around them, but yeah.
- I feel like in romantic relationships you have to have a level of trust when it comes to
uhm, uh whats the word i’m trying to think of, when it comes to like loyalty you have to
trust that person you’re in the relationship with to know there not going to go behind
your back and start talking to someone else uhm, when it comes to friendships i think
trust just has to do with the fact that you know that person is always there for you and
you can trust them to keep your secrets and stuff.
- Uhm i think the difference is the level of expectancy you have for non romantic
relationships and romantic relationships not only that but the level of intimacy and
affection between both.
- I agree with that and uh definitely loyalty, and its so quiet, haha, and uhm yeah.

8. Does trust in your relationship contribute to your relationship
satisfaction and relationship quality?
- 100% if I don’t trust them and they don’t trust me then our relationship won’t work
because we won’t be able to communicate and get passed things that have happened.
- uh she basically said what I would have said its definitely one of the most important
things to uh trust each other and the more trust you have the stronger your relationship
will be.
- uh yes i believe trust plays a major role in satisfaction and providing a high level or
quality in a relationship.
- uh definitely agree with that i find myself being more satisfied when i trust them and i
believe what they are saying when there is loyalty in the relationship i’m happier and i
think were both happier.
9. Has there been an experience in your relationship where your
significant other broke the trust in your relationship? (be as specific or as
general as you need, as long as you get the point across)
- well hacking someones Facebook without telling them is not, is definitely a quality as
to why you shouldn’t trust them anymore.
- pass
- yes. lets see, i believe. i strongly believe in privacy you know an individual has the right
to their own privacy and when someone violates those rights it pretty much diminishes
the level of trust and yeah.
- uhm, yes i was, i’ve been cheated on a few times in high school and it was naive and i
was young but i got cheated on and i found that out.
Follow up- How did this experience shape your future romantic
relationships, or how you now view relationships.
- i definitely don’t open up as easily and it takes a while to find trust in other people
before I start dating them again or start talking to them again.
- I’ve never been in a relationship so i feel like itv it were to happen I’m just gonna go off
of past experience of talking to people so uhm, I’ve had guys give me a reason not to
trust anyone so all guys all the same so that has set my uhm, my whole thought process
on guys.
-uhm i believe that everyones different and that everyone has a different level of trust
depending on your experiences with that person and so uhm from my previous
experiences with relationships i’ve taken as learning experience to benefit my future

relationships in order for it to grow and be better than the last one.
- i have viewed relationships differently uhm, from my past experiences but i have
realized that you definitely grow and learn from them and not every guy is the same so
you gotta move passed it and definitely uh, and uh timing is everything and maturity and
age and stuff.
Qualitative Method: Focus Group
Data Collection
Data for this study were collected using a single focus group during an hour and fifteen
minute college lecture period. The data were collected using a recording device on an
Apple IPhone.
Site
The research site for this data collection took place at Rowan University. The classroom
that was used was located in Bozorth hall, one of the main College of Communication
and Arts buildings. This is relevant because of the topic of Trust and Communication.
Method
All participants sat in a circle and were instructed to clearly answer the questions that
the facilitator read aloud. One at a time they answered each question presented.
Participants
-Four college aged students in the class that may or may not have been in a previous
romantic relationship. The group consisted of 3 Females and 1 Male. Ages ranged from
20-22.
Goal of Focus Group
- To get insight on how many people aged 18-25 snoop on their romantic partners, and

how they feel that affected there trust and communication in there relationship. Each
individual had different views on romantic relationships and the idea of snooping on their
significant other
Appendix 3: Consent Form and Questionnaire
Consent Form and Questionnaire
CMS 04350: Communication Studies Research Methods
Consent to Participate in a Research Project
Principle Investigator(s): Lauren Mathis
Supervising Professor: Dr. Clara L. Popa

Purpose of the Project
As part of the requirements for Communication Studies Research Methods, all students
are required to complete a research project. To help the principle investigator complete
her requirements, we are asking you to complete the following questions while thinking
about yourself in a romantic relationship. The purpose of this project is to build
understanding of trust and communication in romantic relationships, and how “snooping”
on ones significant other may increase or decrease the level of trust in ones relationship.
The project involves no physical discomfort and minimal risk to any participant. Steps
will be taken to ensure that all information gathered will be held in strictest confidence.
(See description of procedures for this below in “Confidentiality of Records.”)
Investigators
The principal investigator in this project is Lauren Mathis. She is supervised by Dr.
Clara L. Popa in the Department of Communication Studies at Rowan University. Should
you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation this project, please
contact Dr Popa by phone at 856-256-4245 or by e-mail at popa@rowan.edu.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this project is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your
consent and discontinue participation in the project at any time without penalty.
You are free not to answer any questions that you do not wish to answer.
Confidentiality of Records
In order to ensure the confidentiality of records, no identifying information will be
requested of you. This consent form will be stored in a secure location separate from
your responses. Your responses will be treated in strict confidentiality and will not be
reported to anyone outside of the course for which this project is required.
Participant’s Rights Information
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject, you may contact

the Office of Research at Rowan University by phone at 856-256-5150.
Participant’s Consent
The project has been described to me and I understand that my participation is voluntary
and that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue my participation in the project
at any time without penalty. I also understand that, if I experience discomfort or distress
during the course of the project because of any sensitive issues that are raised, I am
encouraged to call the Counseling & Psychological Services Center at Rowan
University by phone at 856-256-4222 or visit them in their office on the top floor of
Savitz Hall.
I have read and understand the above information and I consent to participate in this project by
signing below. Further, by signing below, I attest that I am over 18 years of age (You may
not participate if you are not over 18).
Signature: __________________________________Date: _____________
Signature of the Investigator:___________________________________________
Hypotheses:
Quantitative:
H1: Couples who lack commitment, lack trust in their relationship.
H2: There is a difference in trust between those who got caught “snooping” and those
who did not get caught.
Demographics:
• 1. What is your sex?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Prefer not to answer
d, Other (specify)

• 2. How old are you?
• 3. Have you ever been in a Romantic Relationship?
a. yes
b. no
• 4. How long did your relationship last?
a. Less than 6 months
b. Around a year
c. 1-5 years
d. More than 5 years?
• 5. Has your significant other ever given you a reason not to trust them?
a. yes
b. no
• 6. Have you ever “snooped” on your significant other?
a. yes
b. no
• 7. Did you get caught “snooping”?
a. yes
b. no
• 8. Did this make you trust your significant other more or less?
a. more
b. less
c. the same
• 9. Explain how your trust changed if it did?
Scales:
• Think of your significant other while answering the following questions;
on a scale from 1- strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree.
1. If my partner gave me a compliment I would question if he or she really meant what
was said.
1 2 3 4 5
2. If we decided to meet somewhere for lunch, I would be certain he or she would be
there.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I would go hiking with my partner in unfamiliar territory if he or she assured me he/she
knew the area.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I wouldn't want to buy a piece of used furniture from my partner because I wouldn't
believe his/her estimate of its worth.
1 2 3 4 5

Portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Portfolio

Similar to Portfolio (19)

Portfolio