importance of hypothesis in communication research

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit?
• About Human Communication Research
• About International Communication Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

“what theory are you using”, theory is ubiquitous in published communication scholarship, what is theory anyway, is theory really necessary, the chicken or the egg: theory or data first, will any theory do, what is a theoretical contribution, theoretical bandwidth, what are the benefits of theory, the current state of communication theory, looking forward, data availability, conflicts of interest.

• < Previous

The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Timothy R Levine, David M Markowitz, The role of theory in researching and understanding human communication, Human Communication Research , Volume 50, Issue 2, April 2024, Pages 154–161, https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad037

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Communication is a theory-driven discipline, but does it always need to be? This article raises questions related to the role of theory in communication science, with the goal of providing a thoughtful discussion about what theory is, why theory is (or is not) important, the role of exploration in theory development, what constitutes a theoretical contribution, and the current state of theory in the field. We describe communication researchers’ interest with theory by assessing the number of articles in the past decade of research that mention theory (nearly 80% of papers have attended to theory in some way). This article concludes with a forward-looking view of how scholars might think about theory in their work, why exploratory research should be valued more and not considered as conflicting with theory, and how conceptual clarity related to theoretical interests and contributions are imperative for human communication research.

Theory looms large in the practice of human communication scholarship. College-level textbooks on various communication topics describe relevant theories to students enrolled in communication classes. In thesis and dissertation defenses, students are often asked, “What theory are you using?,” implying that they must apply at least one theory to ground their research and contribute to the field. In the peer-review process of academic journals, a perceived failure to be sufficiently theoretical can be grounds for rejection. Few, if any, modern communication scholars would embrace the labels of being “dust-bowl” or atheoretical. Surely, no serious communication scholar is genuinely and categorically against theory. Theory is undeniably a desirable “warm-fuzzy good thing” in modern academic culture ( Mook, 1983 ). Without it, the bedrock of communication and other social sciences is shaky and uncertain. No academic discipline could be built from a purely empirical foundation. Having theory—understanding the value it provides, what we gain by building and extending theory, and the contributions that a scholar can make to theory—is more complicated and nuanced, however. We interrogate these complications in this article.

This article addresses a broad set of questions about the past, present, and future role of theory in communication scholarship: What is theory? Do all scholarly contributions require theory? What does it mean to make a theoretical contribution? What does theory do for us? And, if we continue to accept theory as a scholarly imperative, what is the current state of theory in the field and where might communication theory go in the future? To address these questions, we follow and draw on important commentaries such as those of Chaffee and Berger (1987) , Slater and Gleason (2012) , and DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) , but we provide our own perspective. Unlike similar essays on communication theory, our goal is not to be prescriptive about how to do theory (e.g., how to create or even define theory), nor are we attempting to be pollyannish about the many accepted virtues of theory. Instead, a conversation about communication theory is advanced by asking questions that are hard to answer, interrogating some often-implicit presumptions about the role of theory in communication science, and raising some less obvious implications of theory. This article will succeed if it prompts deeper thought and discussion on the topic of communication theory across many areas of the field. We envision this being useful for early career communication scholars who are uncertain about what theory really is and why it matters, and a thoughtful commentary for seasoned communication researchers who may wrestle with theory development as they move forward in their established research programs.

In our experience, graduate students (and undergrads, junior faculty, visiting scholars, etc.) are frequently asked “what theory are you using?” when trying to position one’s work within communication science at large. This question raises many meta-theoretical issues relevant to this article. First, the question implies that theory is a prerequisite for scholarship. Later in this article, we will argue that this perspective is unfortunately limiting, and that there is a need for exploratory and pre-theoretical inquiry and data. Further, a relevant theory is not always available for each research interest. A better initial question, in our opinion, asks if there is a relevant theory to be tested, extended, or used. When no relevant theory exists, the lack of a theory should not preclude research nor publication. Advancing theory is undeniably valuable. Not all scholarly contributions, however, explicitly advance theory in ways that are recognized at the time they are written.

When a relevant theory or theories are available, follow-up questions might address how the theory is being engaged (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Is the theory being directly tested in a way that is informative about the merits of the theory? How is the theory being advanced? Is a boundary condition being explored or the scope being extended? Merely using a theory to inform a topic can provide valuable direction and insights, but using theory is less likely to push the theory and its related propositions forward. Making a theoretical contribution involves actually advancing the theory itself ( Slater & Gleason, 2012 ).

We opened by opining that communication scholarship is consumed with theory and that contributing to theory is a priority of the discipline. To descriptively demonstrate this extent of this interest, we evaluated over 10,000 full text communication articles across 26 journals that were published in the last decade (see Markowitz et al., 2021 ), in search of how often they focus on five key theory-related terms ( theory , theories , theoretical , theoretical contribution , theoretical contributions ). The top panel of Figure 1 represents the percentage of papers within each year that mentioned at least one of the five terms related to theory. On average, 79.1% (8,320 of 10,517) of articles mentioned one theory-related term, with a relatively stable distribution over time (see the bottom panel of Figure 1 for a breakdown by journal). Of the 60,727 times that one of the five theory-related terms appeared in the sample, over half were related to the word theory alone (55.1%; 33,462/60,727). A thematic review of these cases revealed that theory is used in a variety of ways by communication researchers. The word is attached to specific social scientific theories (e.g., Construal Level Theory, Social Identity Theory), the term is used abstractly to feign the appearance of theory (e.g., “message processing theory,” “organizational communication theory”), the word theory serves as sign-posts in academic papers (e.g., “in the theory section above”), and finally, the term attempts to mark one’s contributions (e.g., “has several implications for theory and research on selective exposure”). 1 Together, the ubiquity of theory and theory-related terms, we believe, stems from and reflects expectations for publishing norms that value theory in the field of communication.

The rate of mentioning theory in communication science articles.

Our findings align with those of Slater and Gleason (2012) who examined articles in three elite communication journals in 2008–2009. They report that a sizable number of articles advanced theories in at least one of several ways. They reported, for example, that 54% of the articles they examined in Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , and Communication Research addressed boundary conditions, 40% expanded a theories range of application, 22% advanced a mechanism, and 12% revised a theory. Alternatively, theoretical contributions, such as creating a new theory, comparing theories, and synthesizing across theories, were less common occurring in only 8% of articles combined.

We note, however, that mentioning at least one theory-related term does not mean that the work counts as contributing to theory. Of course, deeply theoretical work mentions theory, but so too do articles that engage in a practice that might be called theoretical name dropping . Our concern is that if work must invoke theory to pass the peer-review process, then exploratory and pre-theoretical work might mention a theory or otherwise invoke theory-related words to appear theoretical and thereby get published. In line with this concern, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) found that the use of words in articles specifically related to theory evaluation were infrequent. In a sample of articles from four top journals between 2013 and 2015 ( Journal of Communication , Human Communication Research , Communication Research , Communication Monographs ), just less than one-third of them included at least one theory evaluation word, and at least half of those were evaluating method rather than theory.

Deciding what is truly theory and what is not requires defining theory. This is where our conversation becomes more complex.

Despite the ubiquity of researchers’ focus on theory in published communication scholarship ( Figure 1 ), any thoughtful discussion of theory is fraught from the start due to unavoidable definitional ambiguity. There is no one definition of communication theory, nor can there be, nor should there be. As Miller and Nicholson (1976) rightfully suggested, definitions are not by their nature things that are correct or incorrect. Although undeniably circular, words mean what people mean by them, and people use words differently. This is especially true of theory. No one scholar, nor do a collection of scholars, become the definitive authority or arbitrator on what theory is and what it is not.

Definitional diversity in conceptually constituting theory is intellectually rich. In modern intellectual thought, different specialties and perspectives are welcomed and valued. The alternatives to diversity in theory definitions are hegemony and the demise of academic freedom. Treasured intellectual diversity, however, comes at the cost of potential misunderstanding stemming from people using the same word to mean so many different things (e.g., see Bem, 2003 ). Valuing intellectual diversity also requires us to abandon rigidity in prescribing fixed rules of doing communication theory and research.

Although there can be no one universal definition of theory, we agree with DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) that regardless of approaches, scholars should strive for greater clarity in what they mean by theory and their theoretical contribution. Diversity in definitions should be expected, but clarity and the thoughtful explication of one’s approach to theory should also be expected in any social science.

The lack of a shared definition for theory puts communication scholars in a Catch-22. Communication scholars value theory and appreciate approaching theory with rigor and clarity. Communication scholars also value intellectual diversity, and valuing diverse perspectives and approaches prevents scholars from imposing their own views of theory on other scholars. We find that an “anything goes” approach to theory intellectually troubling, but we are equally disturbed by imposing views and perspectives on other scholars. While we do not see an easy way out of this conundrum, we see much value in acknowledging that it exists and being thoughtful about how we balance conflicting values.

When scholars define theory, perhaps the most notable dimension of variability for the word theory is narrowness-breadth. At the wide end of this continuum, theory is synonymous with being minimally conceptional. Explicating a construct with a conceptual definition could constitute theory under some of the more expansive uses of the term (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Similarly, at the broad end of the continuum, theory can be synonymous with explanation. Efforts to answer “why” can count as theory. Sometimes, although we personally think this goes too far, simply adding the word theory to a topic or phenomenon (e.g., media theory, aggression theory, language theory) can pass as theory or at least provide the appearance of theory.

We prefer a much narrower use of the term, where theory can be considered a set of logically coherent and inter-related propositions or conjectures that (a) provide a unifying explanatory mechanism and (b) can be used to derive testable and falsifiable predictions . In this relatively narrow view, thinking conceptually or just explaining is not enough. Specifying a path model or set of mediated links might or might not count as theory. We note that some scholars may use the word theory even more restrictively, desiring to limit the term to formal axiomatic theories, and considering work to count as theoretical only if it conforms to a strict hypothetico-deductive depiction (or caricature) of science. Slater and Gleason (2012) provide a definition similar to ours. They see “the primary role of theory in communication science as the provision of explanation, of proposing causal processes, the explanation of ‘how’ and ‘under what circumstances’ in ways that result in empirically testable and falsifiable predictions” (p. 216).

The point here, however, is not to advocate for particular definition of theory but instead to argue that the efforts to impose a universal definition of theory is fundamentally misguided. Appreciation of theory requires recognition of the diversity of approaches to theory and a willingness to be respectful of approaches other than one’s own. The topic of theory needs to be approached with a cognizance of its diversity. Arguments about whose definition of theory is best will often be counterproductive. More constructive arguments will provide cogent reasons why an approach to defining theory is best for the intellectual endeavor to which it is applied.

Now that we have embraced the ambiguity inherent in defining theory, we next contemplate the necessity of theory. If we cannot provide a consensus definition of theory, then how can we demand or test it? Do (or would) we even know theory when we see it?

In our view, the necessity of theory varies according to the breadth of the term’s use. Being minimally conceptual is probably a prerequisite for making a scholarly contribution. After all, understanding what one is studying is typically either a prerequisite for, or a desired outcome of, advancing knowledge. If scholarly activities — such as concept explication, creating a new measure, description, observation, and hypothesis generation — indeed count (see Slater & Gleason, 2012 ), then requiring theory seems constructive.

One can imagine empirically documenting an effect or phenomenon whose explanation is not yet understood. While this might not count as a theoretical advancement under most uses of the term, it might nevertheless make a valuable contribution to knowledge. If nothing else, we typically need to know what needs explaining before we go about explaining it ( Rozin, 2001 ). Thus, disregarding the contribution of scholarship that is not “full-on” theory in some narrow sense is counterproductive to the advancement of knowledge.

Park et al. (2005) provide an instructive example. Their first study simply documents the existence of a strong finding. Unlike in the United States, Korean spam emails often contain an apology. What follows are five experiments testing various explanations before settling on a normative account. The work is not grounded in a specific theory, but it is clearly a systematic effort to document and explain a communication phenomenon. What if, however, they had packaged their studies as a series of articles rather than in one. Would this make the work any more or less theoretical?

One of the more controversial, meta-scientific questions in communication science is: Must we have theory? We answer “yes” in the broadest sense, as it helps to clarify our thinking about a topic. We also answer “no” in a narrower sense of theory. In explaining why not, we acknowledge that it would also always be better if we had at least one good theory than if we did not. Nevertheless, a well-articulated and relevant theory is not currently available for every conceivable topic or hypothesis worthy of investigation. It is not hard to imagine useful and enlightening scholarship that is neither formally engaged in theory building nor explicitly testing an existing theory. Simply put, if one is interested in a question or phenomenon where suitable theory is currently lacking, this ought not preclude research. Consequently, it follows that not all valuable scholarship requires theory in the narrow sense.

Which comes first, theory or data? The answer is it can be either, or the two can work together in an iterative, interactive, and abductive process ( Rozeboom, 2016 ). Different disciplines and specialties put a different emphasis on the primacy of theory in empirical research. Communication, on the one hand, sometimes views a strict hypothetico-deductive dogma as the ideal for formal theory testing, presupposing an existing formal theory from which to derive hypotheses. Computer science, on the other hand, is typically less strict in its placement or appreciation of theory in the research process. Quite often, computer scientists will obtain data, analyze them, and then identify the theory or theories that fit the findings as a final step. A communication scholar may scoff at this research process, though norms are powerful drivers of behavior ( Cialdini, 2006 ), and conventions related to theory are to be appreciated and scrutinized within the context of a discipline, specialty and even sub-specialty.

Building theory can be a purely logical process, but we are likely to develop more and better communication research if relevant data from exploratory research is available. Exploratory research, we contend, is not synonymous with being atheoretical. We tentatively define exploratory research as research guided by curiosity and seeking to document a finding or set of findings rather engaging in hypothetico-deductive hypothesis testing or focusing on explanation . We further note that not all hypothesis tests are theoretical. The logic behind hypotheses often takes the form of “others have found this, therefore we will too.” Such research falls in between more purely exploratory work and explicit theory testing where hypotheses follow from theory.

We contend that exploration is symbiotic with and often contributes to theory because it can highlight relationships that were unanticipated by theory, offering new hypotheses for future research. Even purely descriptive research can provide an understanding of the phenomena of interest, thereby providing a solid empirical foundation for conceptual construction. The placement of theory in the research process is not specifically a statement about the work’s value or rigor; it likely emphasizes the goals and norms of a particular research community. Consistent with our views on defining theory, we encourage our colleagues to be ecumenical in approaching theory-data time ordering.

An even more difficult question asks if all theories are equal. If some theories are indeed better than others, then what makes them so? Are there instances when no applicable theory is preferred to a misapplied or unreliable theory?

At the risk of diverting from our previous, more ecumenical perspective, we will tentatively take the position that some theories are indeed preferable to other theories—at least for certain applications—and along certain criteria of evaluation. For example, DeAndrea and Holbert (2017) expanded on Chaffee and Berger’s (1987) list of criteria for evaluating theory. Their refined list includes explanatory power, predictive power, parsimony, falsifiability, logical consistency, heuristic value, and organizing power. Building on this work, we further cautiously propose that theory can do more harm than good when it is misapplied, used haphazardly, or thrown at data to see if it sticks. If the goal of scholarship is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, it seems possible that certain frames, stances, models, and understandings might be counterproductive or misguided.

From our perspective, a first consideration regarding the utility of theory is one of relevance. Does the sphere of application fall within the boundary conditions of the theory, or does the application involve interrogating the boundary conditions of the theory? If the answer to both questions is no, then the application is probably ill-advised on the grounds of relevance. Irrelevant theory distracts from empirical contributions. This is the theoretical equivalent of a red herring argument.

The second test is more difficult and involves a cost–benefit analysis of gains and losses in knowledge, insight, and understanding. Consistent with commentators such as Levine and McCornack (2014) , we envision evaluative dimensions, such as clarity, coherence, and verisimilitude, in assessing the scholarly value added by a theory. The more that a theory clarifies rather than clouds our understanding, the more valuable it is. Theory can bring order to otherwise unruly facts, findings, and ideas, or it can lead to logical inconsistencies, the latter obviously being less desirable. The insights offered by theories can align with known facts and findings or it can be contradicted by data and evidence ( Levine & McCornack, 2014 ).

In practice, assessing the alignment of theory with data is an especially thorny issue in quantitative, social scientific communication research. Not all scholarship strives to be empirical nor scientific, and theory-data alignment might not be the point in many scholarly endeavors. But when it is, theory-data alignment quickly becomes deeply problematic in the actual practice of communication scholarship, particularly when inferential statistics, and especially p -values, are involved ( Denworth, 2019 ).

One issue concerns “undead theories” ( Ferguson & Heene, 2012 ). It is not unusual in the social sciences for theoretical predictions to be soundly falsified, yet, nevertheless, applied despite their documented empirical deficiencies. Such theories are functionally sets of counterfactual conjectures that are passed off as good science. We anticipate that the reader will have their favorite undead theory, but we also anticipate that one scholar’s undead theory is another’s source of wisdom. Both can be true, which we appreciate, and will explain.

While the replication crisis in the social sciences has become an increasingly recognized issue ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ), it has also long been recognized that modern social science practices ensure that almost any hypothesis will receive mixed support regardless of its validity or verisimilitude ( Meehl, 1978 ). Essentially, the fact that the nil-null hypothesis is never literally true regardless of the soundness of the theory (Meehl’s crud factor), sub-optimal statistical power, questionable research practices such as p -hacking, and publication bias all combine to make the empirical merit of any claim murky at best ( Dienlin et al., 2021 ; Lewis, 2020 ; Markowitz et al., 2021 ). Accumulating more data over time often further muddies the water as mixed findings pile up and multiple citations can legitimately be provided in support of incompatible empirical claims. Not even meta-analysis is immune. As prior work shows ( Levine & Weber, 2020 ), regardless of the topic, findings in communication are heterogeneous, and the heterogeneity is seldom resolved by moderator analysis. In this way, meta-analytic results often document rather than resolve conclusions of mixed support for theoretical predictions. The net result is that a theory’s supporters and critics can both provide plenty of citations for why the theory is well supported and clearly falsified.

A common concern in academic research publishing is to articulate how one’s work makes a substantial theorical contribution ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ; Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Articles in flagship, high-impact communication journals are often rejected if theoretical contributions are not substantial and clearly expressed. For example, the Journal of Communication suggests “Submissions are expected to present arguments that are theoretically sophisticated, conceptually meaningful, and methodologically sound” ( Journal of Communication, 2022 ). The words sophisticated and meaningful in their instructions for authors are subjective and elusive. Considering the subjective aspect of such appraisal, what does it mean to make a theoretical contribution?

Given that we have argued so far that defining theory is misguided, that formal theory is not necessary for all research endeavors, and that unequivocally establishing the empirical merit of theory is nearly impossible, one might expect an argument dismissing the very idea of theoretical contribution. A close read of what preceded, however, conveys several ways to make a theoretical contribution (cf. Slater & Gleason, 2012 ). Clarifying a conceptualization, providing an explanation, making or testing a prediction, testing theoretical boundary conditions, articulating a unifying framework integrating two or more seemly unrelated facts, and identifying a moderator that resolves previously unexplained heterogeneity can all count as theoretical contributions if done in a way to be conceptually coherent. One can seek to create new theory, pit existing theories against each other, or reconcile apparently conflicting theories. In our view, all such outcomes can offer new knowledge that conceptually builds on an existing foundation of empirical findings.

Critically, a theoretical contribution is different from discovering a new, statistically significant finding. Moving from empirical findings to theoretical contribution involves answering questions related to the mechanism underlying the finding. How does the finding fit within the larger nomological network of findings in the domain ( Cronbach & Meehl, 1955 )? What are the limits of the finding? How robust is it? How far can it be generalized? What are its moderators and antecedents? These questions, among many others, may help to position a finding better as a theoretical contribution instead of an empirical one-off result.

The most basic types of theoretical contributions are conceptualizing or explicating a new construct, reconceptualizing an existing construct, or providing a new explanation for an empirically documented effect. These types of contributions might be considered theoretical building blocks for subsequent theoretical development. Although these types of contributions may also be seen as just minimally theoretical, they are nevertheless important because other types of theoretical contributions require well explicated components and explanations. Coherent conceptual structures can lead to testable and falsifiable hypotheses about human communication and logically coherent networks of hypotheses can lead to formal theory.

A second approach to theoretical contribution involves variations on theory creation. Arguments for the desirability of a new theory will often take one of three forms. The first notes the absence of a relevant theory for a given topic or purpose. If no relevant theory exists and if theory is desired, then it follows that theory creation is needed. The second type of argument rests on making the case that existing, relevant theory is deficient, and the deficiencies are both sufficiently severe and intractable to justify a new theory as a rival. Third, prior theory can be accepted, but arguments are made that the new perspective offers additional insights that would not otherwise be gained.

Once a theory exists in the literature, it is often the goal of communication research to test, extend, modify, or apply a theory to improve our understanding of human communication. Each of these (testing, extending, modifying, or applying) moves communication theory forward. We note, however, that at least for scientific research, testing should typically precede the other forms of contribution to ensure theoretical adequacy prior to extension or application.

Many discussions of theoretical contributions will involve value judgments regarding theoretical bandwidth. Discussions of theoretical bandwidth, in turn, may deal with two qualitatively different issues. The first relates to how theory is defined. One might think of explicating a construct as a narrower contribution than explaining the relationship between two explicated constructs. Explaining how a well-understood effect fits with a network of documented effects is broader still.

Second, communication theories vary widely in their topical scope and boundary conditions. Communication theories might focus on a particular topic or phenomenon, others on a broader domain or function, and others still might be general theories of communication. Further, regardless of topical breadth, boundary conditions can vary. Communication theories, for example, might be limited to a particular age group, point in time, media, or culture.

It is likely tempting to equate theoretical bandwidth and theoretical contribution under the likely tacit presumption that more is better. While surely there are knowledge-gain advantages to breadth, any firm link between breadth and contribution is qualified by all other things being equal. Surely contribution is more closely tied to how well a theoretical goal is accomplished than to how ambitious the goal is (cf., DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ).

Rather than reviewing the extensive literature on the value of theory, we focus here on two benefits of theory that we believe are highlighted less frequently but are no less important.

Generality and external validity

Perhaps the most underappreciated benefit of theory is that it can provide satisfying answers to questions of generality in ways that data simply cannot. Theory is a better approach to achieving external validity than research design.

We have all seen data collected on college students and wondered if the findings might apply to working adults. We all likely agree that for most topics, a nationally representative sample is preferable to a sample of college students (though, see Coppock et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, we might still wonder that if the data were collected at a different point in time, or if the questions were worded a bit differently, or perhaps presented in a different order, would the findings be the same? These sorts of questions cannot be answered with data because we can never sample everyone everywhere over all times in all possible ways. No matter how much data we have, data are finite, and representative sampling and inferential statistics do not change this uncomfortable truth.

Fortunately, theory provides an elegant solution. Theoretical claims specify what is expected under what conditions. Theory, and more precisely its boundary conditions, provide us with statements of the extent of generality. As described by Mook (1983) , we specify generality theoretically, then we test and validate claims of generality with data. Rather than fretting over the sampling of participants, multiple message instantiations, multiple situations, and a host of other study-specific idiosyncrasies, we use theory to make generalizations and data to test those generalizations ( Ewoldsen, 2022 ). We could ask if a theory applies to non-WEIRD cultures, and then test core claims with a non-WEIRD culture ( Henrich et al., 2010 ; Many Labs 2, 2018 ).

Theory as agenda setting

A second underappreciated function of theory is research agenda setting. Just as the media might tell us which news topics and frames are important, so too does theory tell us what we need to study, how to study it, and what to expect. It is not unusual for new researchers to struggle with topic selection. Theory provides a straight-forward way to come up with a hypothesis and an approach to testing it. This topic selection approach can also be flipped. We can ask, what if a theory was wrong? How might we show that? A research design should flow from these questions.

Theory offers an even more important agenda setting function. As Berlo (1960) famously identified when defining communication as process, a wide variety of forces can affect how communication unfolds. Regardless of the specific topic or focus, the potentially important considerations are numerous. Theory tells us what is most important and what is less important. In other words, theory tells us what to prioritize.

We are more pleased than not with the current state of communication theory as its progress is undeniable. There was a time when the lack of communication theory was bemoaned and when most theories were taken from other disciplines (see Berger, 1991 ). Our perception of the current literature, formed by our lived experience across decades of publishing and reading communication scholarship, is that the number of communication theories and theoretical ideas have grown, and the communication trade deposit with related fields has diminished. The latter point, of course, deserves a strict empirical evaluation to test how communication and other social sciences share ideas and theories.

As the reader has surely noticed, we have approached this article from a particular perspective. The present authors have a quantitative and social scientific approach to communication scholarship. A consequence of originating from this scholarly tradition is that our commentary is better targeted for research publishing in outlets such as Human Communication Research than outlets like Communication, Culture, & Critique . Both are worthy outlets, but they have different orientations and conventions.

Like most communication scholars, we are theory advocates. We use, have written our own, and made contributions to theory on a range of topics relevant to human communication. While we ascribe to the idea that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” ( Lewin, 1951 ,  p. 169), blind allegiance to theory is ill-advised. Theories, we believe, must have testable and falsifiable components to them. We encourage our fellow communication scholars to “follow the data.” Moving science forward requires theoretical predictions that hold up to data over time.

Replications play an increasingly important role in theory testing, but also add a final set of complications to address. Theory and evidence can misalign for several reasons, and it is usually unclear why a test failed. Perhaps some critical aspect of the research setting was different, producing an unexpected result. A moderating variable may have impacted the results, such that the findings do not invalidate the theory, but instead provides a nuanced understanding of the conditions that led to a particular effect and those that did not (or led to the opposite effect). Theory should be a guidepost for empirical research, not gospel, upon considering the results. Of course, theory and data can also misalign because the theory is mis-specified. In practice, it can be difficult to discern valid support from false positives and mis-specified predictions from a methodological artifact or undetected moderators. Nevertheless, we envision a future where replication is both more prevalent and more valued.

Communication is an eclectic discipline, and science is not the only method for understanding communication. Further, we as a field draw on and adopt ideas from different fields, authors publish in journals outside of communication research, and there is no singular approach to the same research question. We encourage authors to continue this tolerance and flexibility with exploratory and “pre-theory” work as well. As mentioned, there are times when a good theory simply does not fit one’s phenomenon of interest. Communication scholars should not be faced with a “square peg, round hole” problem just to satisfy reviewers who demand more theory. One can try to fit a square peg into a round hole with enough force, but it will not fit well and there may be important consequences because of this exercise (e.g., theory–data misalignment). Exploratory work should be considered and applauded when we simply do not know how concepts will relate to each other. Proposing a research question instead of hypotheses derived from theory is not an admission of a research study being atheoretical, but instead, an admission of one’s curiosity and uncertainty. Thus, we envision a future where exploratory and descriptive work is more prevalent and more appreciated.

It is also important for authors to think about and explicitly communicate the role of theory in their research. This article has noted the many functions that theory can serve; yet, these functions are often assumed or implied in a manuscript when they could be made explicit. Being forthcoming about the role of theory in one’s research will lead to conceptual and contribution-related clarity. This will lead to less superficial applications of theory (e.g., theoretical name dropping ) and toward more conceptual richness. If communication research is to value theory—and we undoubtedly think it should—then theory should be used appropriately. Theories are built on a foundation of empirical evidence, collected over time allowing researchers to draw nuanced conclusions and make subsequent predictions about human communication. Using the term theory to sound more scientific, rigorous, or grounded is gratuitous and should be avoided. Consequently, we envision a future where communication theory, in form and function, is used more thoughtfully and transparently.

Finally, we are encouraged that all major communication research journals have a large focus on theory in their articles (e.g., at least 50% of articles in each journal mention theory in some manner; Figure 1 ). However, the degree to which the published communication literature is advancing theory in consequential ways or settings is unclear ( DeAndrea & Holbert, 2017 ). We encourage scholars to be flexible with their assumptions about a theory, testing it in ways that might be unconventional and creative in the pursuit of new knowledge. To this end, null effects are still informative ( Francis, 2012 ; Levine, 2013 ), especially if a study is adequately powered. For example, understanding what leads to null effects might be helpful for the development of boundary conditions of theory. Null effects are difficult to publish, but communication research can lead in their normalization in the pursuit of greater theoretical precision and explication. Thus, we envision a future where researchers are more frank about empirical support, and more precise with predictions.

Data related to Figure 1 can be retrieved from Markowitz et al. (2021) or by contacting David M. Markowitz.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors also report no conflicts of interest with the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

A systematic, qualitative review of how theory terms were used across the entire sample is beyond the scope of this commentary. We used these data to descriptively demonstrate how theory is prevalent in communication research, and used as a means to achieve different ends.

Bem D. ( 2003 ). Writing the empirical journal article. In Darley J. M. , Zanna M. P. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (2nd ed.). (pp. 185–219). American Psychological Association .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Berger C. R. ( 1991 ). Communication theories and other curios . Communication Monographs , 58 ( 1 ), 101 – 113 . https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376216

Berlo D. K. ( 1960 ). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice . Holt, Rinehart and Winston .

Chaffee S. H. , Berger C. R. ( 1987 ). What communication scientists do. In Berger C. R. , Chaffee S. H. (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 99 – 122 ). Sage .

Cialdini R. B. ( 2006 ). Influence: The psychology of persuasion . Harper Business .

Coppock A. , Leeper T. J. , Mullinix K. J. ( 2018 ). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 ( 49 ), 12441 – 12446 . https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115

Cronbach L. J. , Meehl P. E. ( 1955 ). Construct validity in psychological tests . Psychological Bulletin , 52 ( 4 ), 281 – 302 . https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

Denworth L. ( 2019 ). The significant problem of p-values . Scientific American . https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62

DeAndrea D. C. , Holbert L. R. ( 2017 ) Increasing clarity where it is needed most: Articulating and evaluating theoretical contributions . Annals of the International Communication Association , 41 ( 2 ), 168 – 180 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1304163

Dienlin T. , Johannes N. , Bowman N. D. , Masur P. K. , Engesser S. , Kümpel A. S. , Lukito J. , Bier L. M. , Zhang R. , Johnson B. K. , Huskey R. , Schneider F. M. , Breuer J. , Parry D. A. , Vermeulen I. , Fisher J. T. , Banks J. , Weber R. , Ellis D. A. , de Vreese C. ( 2021 ). An agenda for open science in communication . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 1 ), 1 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.1093/JOC/JQZ052

Ewoldsen D. R. ( 2022 ). A discussion of falsifiability and evaluating research: Issues of variance accounted for and external validity . Asian Communication Research , 19 ( 2 ), 5 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.20879/acr.2022.19.2.5

Ferguson C. J. , Heene M. ( 2012 ). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null . Perspectives on Psychological Science , 7 ( 6 ), 555 – 561 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059

Francis G. ( 2012 ). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 19 ( 6 ), 975 – 991 . https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0322-y

Henrich J. , Heine S. J. , Norenzayan A. ( 2010 ). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 33 ( 2–3 ), 61 – 83 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Journal of Communication . ( 2022 ). Author instructions . Oxford Academic . https://academic.oup.com/joc/pages/General_Instructions

Levine T. R. ( 2013 ). A defense of publishing nonsignificant (ns) results . Communication Research Reports , 30 ( 3 ), 270 – 274 . https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2013.806261

Levine T. R. , McCornack S. A. ( 2014 ). Theorizing about deception . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 33 ( 4 ), 431 – 440 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x14536397

Levine T. R. , Weber R. ( 2020 ). Unresolved heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Combined construct invalidity, confounding, and other challenges to understanding mean effect sizes . Human Communication Research , 46 ( 2–3 ), 343 – 354 . https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz019

Lewin K. ( 1951 ). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . Harper & Brothers . https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-06769-000

Lewis N. A. ( 2020 ). Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how . Communication Methods and Measures , 14 ( 2 ), 71 – 82 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660

Many Labs 2 . ( 2018 ). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings . Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science , 1 ( 4 ), 443 – 490 . https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810

Markowitz D. M. , Song H. , Taylor S. H. ( 2021 ). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research . Journal of Communication , 71 ( 5 ), 739 – 763 . https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030

Meehl P. E. ( 1978 ). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 46 ( 4 ), 806 – 834 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Miller G. R. , Nicholson H. E. ( 1976 ). Communication inquiry: A perspective on a process . Addison-Wesley Pub. Co .

Mook D. G. ( 1983 ). In defense of external invalidity . American Psychologist , 38 ( 4 ), 379 – 387 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379

Park H. S. , Lee H. E. , Song J. A. ( 2005 ). “ I am sorry to send you spam” Cross-cultural difference in email advertising in Korea and the US . Human Communication Research , 31 ( 3 ), 365 – 398 , https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00876.x

Open Science Collaboration . ( 2015 ). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science , 349 ( 6251 ), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Rozeboom W. W. ( 2016 ). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In Harlow L. L. , Mulaik S. A. , Steiger J. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Routledge .

Rozin P. ( 2001 ). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 ( 1 ), 2 – 14 . https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_1

Slater M. D. , Gleason L. S. ( 2012 ). Contributing to theory and knowledge in quantitative communication science . Communication Methods and Measures , 6 ( 4 ), 215 – 236 . https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.732626

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-2958
• Copyright © 2024 International Communication Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Research Hypothesis: Role and Construction

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Phyllis G. Supino EdD 3  

6014 Accesses

A hypothesis is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator’s thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. There are three primary modes of inference by which hypotheses are developed: deduction (reasoning from a general propositions to specific instances), induction (reasoning from specific instances to a general proposition), and abduction (formulation/acceptance on probation of a hypothesis to explain a surprising observation).

A research hypothesis should reflect an inference about variables; be stated as a grammatically complete, declarative sentence; be expressed simply and unambiguously; provide an adequate answer to the research problem; and be testable. Hypotheses can be classified as conceptual versus operational, single versus bi- or multivariable, causal or not causal, mechanistic versus nonmechanistic, and null or alternative. Hypotheses most commonly entail statements about “variables” which, in turn, can be classified according to their level of measurement (scaling characteristics) or according to their role in the hypothesis (independent, dependent, moderator, control, or intervening).

A hypothesis is rendered operational when its broadly (conceptually) stated variables are replaced by operational definitions of those variables. Hypotheses stated in this manner are called operational hypotheses, specific hypotheses, or predictions and facilitate testing.

Wrong hypotheses, rightly worked from, have produced more results than unguided observation

—Augustus De Morgan, 1872[ 1 ]—

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

De Morgan A, De Morgan S. A budget of paradoxes. London: Longmans Green; 1872.

Google Scholar  

Leedy Paul D. Practical research. Planning and design. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1960.

Bernard C. Introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Dover; 1957.

Erren TC. The quest for questions—on the logical force of science. Med Hypotheses. 2004;62:635–40.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 7. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1966.

Aristotle. The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford Translation. In: Barnes J, editor. vol. 2. Princeton/New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1984.

Polit D, Beck CT. Conceptualizing a study to generate evidence for nursing. In: Polit D, Beck CT, editors. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. Chapter 4.

Jenicek M, Hitchcock DL. Evidence-based practice. Logic and critical thinking in medicine. Chicago: AMA Press; 2005.

Bacon F. The novum organon or a true guide to the interpretation of nature. A new translation by the Rev G.W. Kitchin. Oxford: The University Press; 1855.

Popper KR. Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach (revised edition). New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

Morgan AJ, Parker S. Translational mini-review series on vaccines: the Edward Jenner Museum and the history of vaccination. Clin Exp Immunol. 2007;147:389–94.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pead PJ. Benjamin Jesty: new light in the dawn of vaccination. Lancet. 2003;362:2104–9.

Lee JA. The scientific endeavor: a primer on scientific principles and practice. San Francisco: Addison-Wesley Longman; 2000.

Allchin D. Lawson’s shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated, ‘X’? Science and Education. 2003;12:315–29.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lawson AE. What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? J Res Sci Teach. 2005;42:716–40.

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1965.

Bonfantini MA, Proni G. To guess or not to guess? In: Eco U, Sebeok T, editors. The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1983. Chapter 5.

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1965.

Flach PA, Kakas AC. Abductive and inductive reasoning: background issues. In: Flach PA, Kakas AC, ­editors. Abduction and induction. Essays on their relation and integration. The Netherlands: Klewer; 2000. Chapter 1.

Murray JF. Voltaire, Walpole and Pasteur: variations on the theme of discovery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:423–6.

Danemark B, Ekstrom M, Jakobsen L, Karlsson JC. Methodological implications, generalization, scientific inference, models (Part II) In: explaining society. Critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2002.

Pasteur L. Inaugural lecture as professor and dean of the faculty of sciences. In: Peterson H, editor. A treasury of the world’s greatest speeches. Douai, France: University of Lille 7 Dec 1954.

Swineburne R. Simplicity as evidence for truth. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press; 1997.

Sakar S, editor. Logical empiricism at its peak: Schlick, Carnap and Neurath. New York: Garland; 1996.

Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books; 1959. 1934, trans. 1959.

Caws P. The philosophy of science. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company; 1965.

Popper K. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. 4th ed. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul; 1972.

Feyerabend PK. Against method, outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London, UK: Verso; 1978.

Smith PG. Popper: conjectures and refutations (Chapter IV). In: Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2003.

Blystone RV, Blodgett K. WWW: the scientific method. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2006;5:7–11.

Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiological research. Principles and quantitative methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1982.

Fortune AE, Reid WJ. Research in social work. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press; 1999.

Kerlinger FN. Foundations of behavioral research. 1st ed. New York: Hold, Reinhart and Winston; 1970.

Hoskins CN, Mariano C. Research in nursing and health. Understanding and using quantitative and qualitative methods. New York: Springer; 2004.

Tuckman BW. Conducting educational research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich; 1972.

Wang C, Chiari PC, Weihrauch D, Krolikowski JG, Warltier DC, Kersten JR, Pratt Jr PF, Pagel PS. Gender-specificity of delayed preconditioning by isoflurane in rabbits: potential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:274–80.

Beyer ME, Slesak G, Nerz S, Kazmaier S, Hoffmeister HM. Effects of endothelin-1 and IRL 1620 on myocardial contractility and myocardial energy metabolism. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1995;26(Suppl 3):S150–2.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stone J, Sharpe M. Amnesia for childhood in patients with unexplained neurological symptoms. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72:416–7.

Naughton BJ, Moran M, Ghaly Y, Michalakes C. Computer tomography scanning and delirium in elder patients. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:1107–10.

Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–72.

Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.

Stevens SS. On the theory of scales and measurement. Science. 1946;103:677–80.

Knapp TR. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: an attempt to resolve the controversy. Nurs Res. 1990;39:121–3.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Open Learning Material. www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod14-3.htm . Accessed 12 Oct 2009.

MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening ­variables. Psychol Rev. 1948;55:95–107.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: ­conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.

Williamson GM, Schultz R. Activity restriction mediates the association between pain and depressed affect: a study of younger and older adult cancer patients. Psychol Aging. 1995;10:369–78.

Song M, Lee EO. Development of a functional capacity model for the elderly. Res Nurs Health. 1998;21:189–98.

MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge; 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, 1199, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA

Phyllis G. Supino EdD

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phyllis G. Supino EdD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Cardiovascular Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Clarkson Avenue, box 1199 450, Brooklyn, 11203, USA

Phyllis G. Supino

, Cardiovascualr Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Clarkson Avenue 450, Brooklyn, 11203, USA

Jeffrey S. Borer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Supino, P.G. (2012). The Research Hypothesis: Role and Construction. In: Supino, P., Borer, J. (eds) Principles of Research Methodology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3360-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3360-6_3

Published : 18 April 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3359-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3360-6

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.2: Doing Communication Research

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 42877

• Scott T. Paynton & Laura K. Hahn with Humboldt State University Students
• Humboldt State University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Students often believe that researchers are well organized, meticulous, and academic as they pursue their research projects. The reality of research is that much of it is a hit-and-miss endeavor. Albert Einstein provided wonderful insight to the messy nature of research when he said, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” Because a great deal of Communication research is still exploratory, we are continually developing new and more sophisticated methods to better understand how and why we communicate. Think about all of the advances in communication technologies (snapchat, instagram, etc.) and how quickly they come and go. Communication research can barely keep up with the ongoing changes to human communication.

Researching something as complex as human communication can be an exercise in creativity, patience, and failure. Communication research, while relatively new in many respects, should follow several basic principles to be effective. Similar to other types of research, Communication research should be systematic, rational, self­-correcting, self-­reflexive, and creative to be of use (Babbie; Bronowski; Buddenbaum; Novak; Copi; Peirce; Reichenbach; Smith; Hughes & Hayhoe).

Seven Basic Steps of Research

While research can be messy, there are steps we can follow to avoid some of the pitfalls inherent with any research project. Research doesn’t always work out right, but we do use the following guidelines as a way to keep research focused, as well as detailing our methods so other can replicate them. Let’s look at seven basic steps that help us conduct effective research.

• Identify a focus of research . To conduct research, the first thing you must do is identify what aspect of human communication interests you and make that the focus of inquiry. Most Communication researchers examine things that interest them; such as communication phenomena that they have questions about and want answered. For example, you may be interested in studying conflict between romantic partners. When using a deductive approach to research, one begins by identifying a focus of research and then examining theories and previous research to begin developing and narrowing down a research question.
• Develop a research question(s) . Simply having a focus of study is still too broad to conduct research, and would ultimately end up being an endless process of trial and error. Thus, it is essential to develop very specific research questions. Using our example above, what specific things would you want to know about conflict in romantic relationships? If you simply said you wanted to study conflict in romantic relationships, you would not have a solid focus and would spend a long time conducting your research with no results. However, you could ask, “Do couples use different types of conflict management strategies when they are first dating versus after being in a relationship for a while? It is essential to develop specific questions that guide what you research. It is also important to decide if an answer to your research question already exists somewhere in the plethora of research already conducted. A review of the literature available at your local library may help you decide if others have already asked and answered a similar question. Another convenient resource will be your university’s online database. This database will most likely provide you with resources of previous research through academic journal articles, books, catalogs, and various kinds of other literature and media.
• Define key terms . Using our example, how would you define the terms conflict, romantic relationship, dating, and long­-term relationship? While these terms may seem like common sense, you would be surprised how many ways people can interpret the same terms and how particular definitions shape the research. Take the term long­-term relationship, for example, what are all of the ways this can be defined? People married for 10 or more years? People living together for five or more years? Those who identify as being monogamous? It is important to consider populations who would be included and excluded from your study based on a particular definition and the resulting generalizability of your findings. Therefore, it is important to identify and set the parameters of what it is you are researching by defining what the key terms mean to you and your research. A research project must be fully operationalized , specifically describing how variables will be observed and measured. This will allow other researchers an opportunity to repeat the process in an attempt to replicate the results. Though more importantly, it will provide additional understanding and credibility to your research.

Communication Research Then

Wilber schramm – the modern father of communication.

Although many aspects of the Communication discipline can be dated to the era of the ancient Greeks, and more specifically to individuals such as Aristotle or Plato, Communication Research really began to develop in the 20th century. James W. Tankard Jr. (1988) states in the article, Wilbur Schramm: Definer of a Field that, “Wilbur Schramm (1907-1987) probably did more to define and establish the field of Communication research and theory than any other person” (p. 1). In 1947 Wilbur Schramm went to the University of Illinois where he founded the first Institute of Communication Research. The Institute’s purpose was, “to apply the methods and disciplines of the social sciences (supported, where necessary, by the fine arts and natural sciences) to the basic problems of press, radio and pictures; to supply verifiable information in those areas of communications where the hunch, the tradition, the theory and thumb have too often ruled; and by so doing to contribute to the better understanding of communications and the maximum use of communications for the public good” (p. 2).

• Select an appropriate research methodology . A methodology is the actual step-by-step process of conducting research. There are various methodologies available for researching communication. Some tend to work better than others for examining particular types of communication phenomena. In our example, would you interview couples, give them a survey, observe them, or conduct some type of experiment? Depending on what you wish to study, you will have to pick a process, or methodology, in order to study it. We’ll discuss examples of methodologies later in this chapter.
• Establish a sample population or data set . It is important to decide who and what you want to study. One criticism of current Communication research is that it often relies on college students enrolled in Communication classes as the sample population. This is an example of convenience sampling. Charles Teddlie and Fen Yu write, “Convenience sampling involves drawing samples that are both easily accessible and willing to participate in a study” (78). One joke in our field is that we know more about college students than anyone else. In all seriousness, it is important that you pick samples that are truly representative of what and who you want to research. If you are concerned about how long-term romantic couples engage in conflict, (remember what we said about definitions) college students may not be the best sample population. Instead, college students might be a good population for examining how romantic couples engage in conflict in the early stages of dating.
• Gather and analyze data . Once you have a research focus, research question(s), key terms, a method, and a sample population, you are ready to gather the actual data that will show you what it is you want to answer in your research question(s). If you have ever filled out a survey in one of your classes, you have helped a researcher gather data to be analyzed in order to answer research questions. The actual “doing” of your methodology will allow you to collect the data you need to know about how romantic couples engage in conflict. For example, one approach to using a survey to collect data is to consider adapting a questionnaire that is already developed. Communication Research Measures II: A Sourcebook is a good resource to find valid instruments for measuring many different aspects of human communication (Rubin et al.).

Communication Research Now

Communicating climate change through creativity.

Communicating climate change has been an increasingly important topic for the past number of years. Today we hear more about the issue in the media than ever. However, “the challenge of climate change communication is thought to require systematic evidence about public attitudes, sophisticated models of behaviour change and the rigorous application of social scientific research” (Buirski). In South Africa, schools, social workers, and psychologist have found ways to change the way young people and children learn about about the issue. Through creatively, “climate change is rendered real through everyday stories, performances, and simple yet authentic ideas through children and school teachers to create a positive social norm” (Buirski). By engaging children’s minds rather than bombarding them with information, we can capture their attention (Buirski).

• Interpret and share results . Simply collecting data does not mean that your research project is complete. Remember, our research leads us to develop and refine theories so we have more sophisticated representations about how our world works. Thus, researchers must interpret the data to see if it tells us anything of significance about how we communicate. If so, we share our research findings to further the body of knowledge we have about human communication. Imagine you completed your study about conflict and romantic couples. Others who are interested in this topic would probably want to see what you discovered in order to help them in their research. Likewise, couples might want to know what you have found in order to help themselves deal with conflict better.

Although these seven steps seem pretty clear on paper, research is rarely that simple. For example, a master’s student conducted research for their Master’s thesis on issues of privacy, ownership and free speech as it relates to using email at work. The last step before obtaining their Master’s degree was to share the results with a committee of professors. The professors began debating the merits of the research findings. Two of the three professors felt that the research had not actually answered the research questions and suggested that the master’s candidate re­write their two chapters of conclusions. The third professor argued that the author HAD actually answered the research questions, and suggested that an alternative to completely re­writing two chapters would be to re­write the research questions to more accurately reflect the original intention of the study. This real example demonstrates the reality that, despite trying to account for everything by following the basic steps of research, research is always open to change and modification, even toward the end of the process.

Communication Research and You

Because we have been using the example of conflict between romantic couples, here is an example of communication in action by Thomas Bradbury, Ph.D regarding the study of conflict between romantic partners. What stands out to you? What would you do differently?

Which Conflicts Consume Couples the Most http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/blogs/which-­conflicts-­consume-­couples­-most

Contributions and Affiliations

• Survey of Communication Study. Authored by : Scott T Paynton and Linda K Hahn. Provided by : Humboldt State University. Located at : en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Survey_of_Communication_Study/Preface. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Guide to Communication Research Methodologies: Quantitative, Qualitative and Rhetorical Research

Overview of Communication

Communication research methods, quantitative research, qualitative research, rhetorical research, mixed methodology.

Students interested in earning a graduate degree in communication should have at least some interest in understanding communication theories and/or conducting communication research. As students advance from undergraduate to graduate programs, an interesting change takes place — the student is no longer just a repository for knowledge. Rather, the student is expected to learn while also creating knowledge. This new knowledge is largely generated through the development and completion of research in communication studies. Before exploring the different methodologies used to conduct communication research, it is important to have a foundational understanding of the field of communication.

Defining communication is much harder than it sounds. Indeed, scholars have argued about the topic for years, typically differing on the following topics:

• Breadth : How many behaviors and actions should or should not be considered communication.
• Intentionality : Whether the definition includes an intention to communicate.
• Success : Whether someone was able to effectively communicate a message, or merely attempted to without it being received or understood.

However, most definitions discuss five main components, which include: sender, receiver, context/environment, medium, and message. Broadly speaking, communication research examines these components, asking questions about each of them and seeking to answer those questions.

As students seek to answer their own questions, they follow an approach similar to most other researchers. This approach proceeds in five steps: conceptualize, plan and design, implement a methodology, analyze and interpret, reconceptualize.

• Conceptualize : In the conceptualization process, students develop their area of interest and determine if their specific questions and hypotheses are worth investigating. If the research has already been completed, or there is no practical reason to research the topic, students may need to find a different research topic.
• Plan and Design : During planning and design students will select their methods of evaluation and decide how they plan to define their variables in a measurable way.
• Implement a Methodology : When implementing a methodology, students collect the data and information they require. They may, for example, have decided to conduct a survey study. This is the step when they would use their survey to collect data. If students chose to conduct a rhetorical criticism, this is when they would analyze their text.
• Analyze and Interpret : As students analyze and interpret their data or evidence, they transform the raw findings into meaningful insights. If they chose to conduct interviews, this would be the point in the process where they would evaluate the results of the interviews to find meaning as it relates to the communication phenomena of interest.
• Reconceptualize : During reconceptualization, students ask how their findings speak to a larger body of research — studies related to theirs that have already been completed and research they should execute in the future to continue answering new questions.

This final step is crucial, and speaks to an important tenet of communication research: All research contributes to a better overall understanding of communication and moves the field forward by enabling the development of new theories.

In the field of communication, there are three main research methodologies: quantitative, qualitative, and rhetorical. As communication students progress in their careers, they will likely find themselves using one of these far more often than the others.

Quantitative research seeks to establish knowledge through the use of numbers and measurement. Within the overarching area of quantitative research, there are a variety of different methodologies. The most commonly used methodologies are experiments, surveys, content analysis, and meta-analysis. To better understand these research methods, you can explore the following examples:

Experiments : Experiments are an empirical form of research that enable the researcher to study communication in a controlled environment. For example, a researcher might know that there are typical responses people use when they are interrupted during a conversation. However, it might be unknown as to how frequency of interruption provokes those different responses (e.g., do communicators use different responses when interrupted once every 10 minutes versus once per minute?). An experiment would allow a researcher to create these two environments to test a hypothesis or answer a specific research question. As you can imagine, it would be very time consuming — and probably impossible — to view this and measure it in the real world. For that reason, an experiment would be perfect for this research inquiry.

Surveys : Surveys are often used to collect information from large groups of people using scales that have been tested for validity and reliability. A researcher might be curious about how a supervisor sharing personal information with his or her subordinate affects way the subordinate perceives his or her supervisor. The researcher could create a survey where respondents answer questions about a) the information their supervisors self-disclose and b) their perceptions of their supervisors. The data collected about these two variables could offer interesting insights about this communication. As you would guess, an experiment would not work in this case because the researcher needs to assess a real relationship and they need insight into the mind of the respondent.

Content Analysis : Content analysis is used to count the number of occurrences of a phenomenon within a source of media (e.g., books, magazines, commercials, movies, etc.). For example, a researcher might be interested in finding out if people of certain races are underrepresented on television. They might explore this area of research by counting the number of times people of different races appear in prime time television and comparing that to the actual proportions in society.

Meta-Analysis : In this technique, a researcher takes a collection of quantitative studies and analyzes the data as a whole to get a better understanding of a communication phenomenon. For example, a researcher might be curious about how video games affect aggression. This researcher might find that many studies have been done on the topic, sometimes with conflicting results. In their meta-analysis, they could analyze the existing statistics as a whole to get a better understanding of the relationship between the two variables.

Qualitative research is interested in exploring subjects’ perceptions and understandings as they relate to communication. Imagine two researchers who want to understand student perceptions of the basic communication course at a university. The first researcher, a quantitative researcher, might measure absences to understand student perception. The second researcher, a qualitative researcher, might interview students to find out what they like and dislike about a course. The former is based on hard numbers, while the latter is based on human experience and perception.

Qualitative researchers employ a variety of different methodologies. Some of the most popular are interviews, focus groups, and participant observation. To better understand these research methods, you can explore the following examples:

Interviews : This typically consists of a researcher having a discussion with a participant based on questions developed by the researcher. For example, a researcher might be interested in how parents exert power over the lives of their children while the children are away at college. The researcher could spend time having conversations with college students about this topic, transcribe the conversations and then seek to find themes across the different discussions.

Focus Groups : A researcher using this method gathers a group of people with intimate knowledge of a communication phenomenon. For example, if a researcher wanted to understand the experience of couples who are childless by choice, he or she might choose to run a series of focus groups. This format is helpful because it allows participants to build on one another’s experiences, remembering information they may otherwise have forgotten. Focus groups also tend to produce useful information at a higher rate than interviews. That said, some issues are too sensitive for focus groups and lend themselves better to interviews.

Participant Observation : As the name indicates, this method involves the researcher watching participants in their natural environment. In some cases, the participants may not know they are being studied, as the researcher fully immerses his or herself as a member of the environment. To illustrate participant observation, imagine a researcher curious about how humor is used in healthcare. This researcher might immerse his or herself in a long-term care facility to observe how humor is used by healthcare workers interacting with patients.

Rhetorical research (or rhetorical criticism) is a form of textual analysis wherein the researcher systematically analyzes, interprets, and critiques the persuasive power of messages within a text. This takes on many forms, but all of them involve similar steps: selecting a text, choosing a rhetorical method, analyzing the text, and writing the criticism.

To illustrate, a researcher could be interested in how mass media portrays “good degrees” to prospective college students. To understand this communication, a rhetorical researcher could take 30 articles on the topic from the last year and write a rhetorical essay about the criteria used and the core message argued by the media.

Likewise, a researcher could be interested in how women in management roles are portrayed in television. They could select a group of popular shows and analyze that as the text. This might result in a rhetorical essay about the behaviors displayed by these women and what the text says about women in management roles.

As a final example, one might be interested in how persuasion is used by the president during the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. A researcher could select several recent presidents and write a rhetorical essay about their speeches and how they employed persuasion during their delivery.

Taking a mixed methods approach results in a research study that uses two or more techniques discussed above. Often, researchers will pair two methods together in the same study examining the same phenomenon. Other times, researchers will use qualitative methods to develop quantitative research, such as a researcher who uses a focus group to discuss the validity of a survey before it is finalized.

The benefit of mixed methods is that it offers a richer picture of a communication phenomenon by gathering data and information in multiple ways. If we explore some of the earlier examples, we can see how mixed methods might result in a better understanding of the communication being studied.

Example 1 : In surveys, we discussed a researcher interested in understanding how a supervisor sharing personal information with his or her subordinate affects the way the subordinate perceives his or her supervisor. While a survey could give us some insight into this communication, we could also add interviews with subordinates. Exploring their experiences intimately could give us a better understanding of how they navigate self-disclosure in a relationship based on power differences.

Example 2 : In content analysis, we discussed measuring representation of different races during prime time television. While we can count the appearances of members of different races and compare that to the composition of the general population, that doesn’t tell us anything about their portrayal. Adding rhetorical criticism, we could talk about how underrepresented groups are portrayed in either a positive or negative light, supporting or defying commonly held stereotypes.

Example 3 : In interviews, we saw a researcher who explored how power could be exerted by parents over their college-age children who are away at school. After determining the tactics used by parents, this interview study could have a phase two. In this phase, the researcher could develop scales to measure each tactic and then use those scales to understand how the tactics affect other communication constructs. One could argue, for example, that student anxiety would increase as a parent exerts greater power over that student. A researcher could conduct a hierarchical regression to see how each power tactic effects the levels of stress experienced by a student.

As you can see, each methodology has its own merits, and they often work well together. As students advance in their study of communication, it is worthwhile to learn various research methods. This allows them to study their interests in greater depth and breadth. Ultimately, they will be able to assemble stronger research studies and answer their questions about communication more effectively.

Note : For more information about research in the field of communication, check out our Guide to Communication Research and Scholarship .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Communication, the Heart of a Relationship: Examining Capitalization, Accommodation, and Self-Construal on Relationship Satisfaction

Priscilla maria de netto.

1 Department of Psychology, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

Kia Fatt Quek

2 Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

Karen Jennifer Golden

Associated data.

The raw data of this research will be made available by the corresponding authors upon request. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

The study of processes that enrich positive relationships has been an under-researched area within positive psychology practice. The way an individual responds during couple conflicts (accommodation response) and toward the disclosure of good news of a partner (capitalization response) has been linked to relationship quality. Although the accommodation and capitalization communication processes are part and parcel of our everyday lives, the two processes have been examined separately and dominated by the Western perspectives in past research. Prior work has suggested that Western and Asian cultures differ in expressing and perceiving beneficial communication behaviors. Yet, it is still unclear which accommodation and capitalization responses matter the most from an Asian lens. To date, there is no research examining these interconnected variables simultaneously in Asia, specifically in Malaysia. In this study, two forms of communication processes, namely, (1) accommodation and (2) capitalization, were explored concurrently to disentangle the unique associations and influence on relationship satisfaction. This study also sought to understand the moderating effects of culture in terms of interdependent self-construal on the link between these two communication processes and relationship satisfaction. Responses of 139 Malaysians in dating relationships between the age of 18 and 30 years ( M age = 23.15) were collected through online surveys. An active and constructive reaction was captured as the most favorable response through both the capitalization and accommodation processes. Prominently, an active-constructive capitalization response bore the strongest influence on relationship satisfaction above and beyond other responses. A passive and constructive response was revealed only fruitful for disclosures of positive news and not during conflicts. Conversely, in the destructive paradigm, passive-destructive responses were the most detrimental factor in relationships compared to other destructive responses. The results also uncovered that interdependent self-construal did not moderate the two forms of communication processes. However, the findings discovered unexpected individual and cultural variations. This pioneering study is a noteworthy addition to the positive psychology literature from an Asian standpoint. It highlights the significance of not only protecting relationships through better conflict management but also enriching relationships by capitalizing on the positive aspects across the lives of the couple, ultimately providing a greater holistic insight into cultivating flourishing lives.

Introduction

“ Man is by nature a social animal … Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god .” –Aristotle

The long-asserted avowal of Aristotle is not an unfamiliar statement to society. As social beings, we are wired to connect (Lieberman, 2013 ), and our relationships are the essence of a happy and flourishing life (Valliant, 2002 , 2012 ). Lieberman ( 2013 ) unmasked that our need to connect is as fundamental as our need for food, water, and shelter. Neuroscientists discovered that our brain responds to social pain and pleasure in the same powerful way as to physical pain and pleasure (Eisenberger, 2012 ; Hsu et al., 2015 ). The fact that we are wired as such means that our physical, emotional, and mental well-being depends on the positive interpersonal relationships in our everyday lives (Fishbane, 2007 ; Luong et al., 2011 ). In particular, our romantic relationships, which are seen as a near-universal need across cultures and various ages, have a powerful influence on our well-being (Jankowiak and Fisher, 1992 ; Kansky, 2018 ; Fletcher et al., 2019 ).

Evidence also recognizes that the impact of the relationship of an individual on well-being is contingent on the cultural values, orientation, and norms of a person germane to the social and interaction context in which the relationship exists (Kim et al., 2008 ). In general, positive psychology research studies around the world have been largely based on Caucasian samples, and more research is recommended to explore diversity in the science of positive psychology (Rao and Donaldson, 2015 ). Yet, the influence of culture on specific patterns of positive interactions regarding the realm of dating relationships in Malaysia and throughout Asia is relatively untapped. Notably, there has been a gap with limited positive psychology research and practice in Malaysia (Hashim, 2013 ; Hendriks et al., 2019 ).

The way an individual responds during couple conflicts (accommodation response) (i.e., Rusbult et al., 1991 ; Crowley, 2006 ) and toward disclosure of good news by a partner (capitalization response) (i.e., Gable et al., 2004 , 2006 ) has been linked to relationship satisfaction and stability. More specifically, constructive accommodation and capitalization responses through couple conflicts and triumphs are associated with greater relationship well-being (Gable et al., 2004 ). Although the accommodation and capitalization communication processes are part and parcel of our everyday lives, these two processes have been examined separately and dominated by the Western perspectives in past research. Prior work has suggested that Western and Asian cultures differ in expressing and perceiving beneficial communication behaviors (e.g., Wang et al., 2010 ; Choi et al., 2019 ). Of concern, it is still unclear which accommodation and capitalization responses matter the most from an Asian lens thus far. To date, there is no research examining these interconnected variables simultaneously in Malaysia and across Asia. In this exploratory study, two forms of communication processes, accommodation, and capitalization were explored to disentangle the unique associations with relationship satisfaction, contributing to positive psychology insights for enriching relationships in an Asian context, specifically in Malaysia. Since Malaysia is a country with a melting pot of ethnicities and unique historical influences (Nagaraj et al., 2015 ; Park, 2015 ; The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation Management Planning Unit, 2016 ), this study may offer a different and novel positive psychology perspective to the constructs understudied. This study also sought to understand the moderating influence of culture in terms of self-construal on the link between these two communication processes and relationship satisfaction.

Literature Review

Romantic relationships, satisfaction, and communication.

There has been a great deal of literature examining overall relationship satisfaction and its consequences due to the considerable impact of romantic relationships on well-being (Karney and Bradbury, 1995 ; Bradbury et al., 2000 ; Dush and Amato, 2005 ; Fincham and Beach, 2010 ; Gomez-Lopez et al., 2019 ). When relationships are satisfying and fulfilling, couples are happier and healthier (Proulx et al., 2007 ), but when thwarted, other pillars of well-being can be jeopardized, such as mortality (Robles et al., 2014 ) and mental health, for example, increase in depression and anxiety symptoms (Snyder et al., 2005 ). Notably, the most prominent research on relationship satisfaction has been The Harvard University Adult Study of Development, the lengthiest longitudinal study in the positive psychology literature of the world with more than 80 years of research. This research called to the attention of audiences widespread regarding the importance of relationship satisfaction for flourishing lives as they found individuals in more satisfying marriages at age 50 had greater mental, emotional, and physical health at age 80 (Valliant, 2002 , 2012 ; Waldinger and Schulz, 2010 ; Waldinger et al., 2014 ). Hence, not surprisingly, couple satisfaction has been viewed as the gold standard for assessing interventions to alleviate relationship distress and sustain thriving relationships (Fincham et al., 2018 ).

Relationship satisfaction has often been referred to as the global relationship measure (Tam et al., 2011a ) and tends to be used interchangeably in the literature with terms such as relationship success, well-being, happiness, adjustment, and quality of a relationship (e.g., Vangelisti, 2004 ; Fincham and Rogge, 2010 ; Fincham et al., 2018 ). A satisfying relationship has been identified as a significant predictor of relationship well-being and longevity (Barnes et al., 2007 ; Ruffieux et al., 2014 ), yet it can feel like an unsolvable riddle to many couples. Given the strong predictive connection between relationship satisfaction and important life implications, it is critical to explore why some relationships lead to satisfaction and some fail? Why does a once loving and promising relationship break down over time? Interestingly, longitudinal (Karney and Bradbury, 1995 ; Gottman and Silver, 1999 ; Byers, 2005 ) and cross-sectional (Woodin, 2011 ) studies have unearthed that communication is pivotal in solving this riddle.

Communication has been found to be the bedrock or the “heart” in supporting and promoting relationship satisfaction (Gottman and Krokoff, 1989 ; Gottman and DeClaire, 2002 ; Markman et al., 2010 ; Hiew et al., 2016 ; Ogolsky et al., 2017 ), with recent findings linking satisfaction with constructive responses in conflicts (accommodation) and sharing of personal triumphs (capitalization). Within the Malaysian context, good communication has been reported as a core contributing factor to harnessing a happy and satisfying marriage (Abidin, 2019 ; Noor et al., 2019 ), thereby making a lack of effective communication and misunderstandings being one of the main reasons for relationship dissolutions (National Population Family Development Board Malaysia., 2016 ). On top of that, marital research experts have suggested that it is not the sheer frequency of positive to negative communication behaviors that influences the satisfaction of a couple, but the ratio of positive behaviors outweighing negative behaviors, 5:1, that leads to satisfaction (Gottman and Levenson, 1992 ; Gottman and Gottman, 2017 ). However, what is viewed as positive communication and rewarding in Western cultures may look different in Asian cultures.

Researchers over the years have argued that Western and Asian cultures differ in how they express and perceive beneficial communication behaviors (e.g., Wang et al., 2010 ; Williamson et al., 2012 ; Yum et al., 2015 ; Wang and Lau, 2018 ; Rajaei et al., 2019 ). Further, Finkle et al. ( 2017 ) have also surmised that favorable responses need to be tailored to the unique situational context of the couple and that responsiveness (i.e., showing understanding, care, and validation) would not be entirely universal to all circumstances. Thus, the maintenance of a satisfying relationship cannot be fully understood and appreciated without sufficient knowledge of the cultural underpinnings of communication in romantic relationships and specific situational contexts. While a few studies have examined certain variables and couple satisfaction in Malaysia (e.g., Hoesni et al., 2016 ; Abdullah et al., 2017 ; Abidin et al., 2018 ), knowledge about the psychology of positive communication processes through conflicts and triumphs and how culture impacts these interactional processes are rather oblique.

Communication and Self-Construal

An underlying assumption of this current research was that individuals who vary in culture in terms of self-construal also differ in the way they perceive beneficial responses of their partner. Culture influences the behavior of an individual indirectly through molding personality dispositions such as self-construal (Yum, 2004 ), and research has shown that the variations in communicative behaviors could be explained by considering self-construal (Markus and Kitayama, 1991 ). Self-construal signifies the culturally contingent beliefs, feelings, and actions of an individual related to the understanding of the self as associated to others, in terms of members of in-groups (interdependence; InterSC) or separate from others (independence; IndSc) (Markus and Kitayama, 1991 ; Cross et al., 2011 ). The dominant self-construal of an individual is fundamentally driven by an individualism-collectivism cultural environment (Triandis, 1995 ). Generally, Western cultures adopt individualistic values while Eastern cultures are described to hold collectivistic values (Hofstede, 2001 ). In individualistic societies, people lean toward developing an independent self (IndSc) and value unique feelings and ideas, where asserting personal desires, goals, and emotions are favorable (Markus and Kitayama, 1991 ). Contrarily, people in collectivistic societies tend to view the self as interdependent with values of relational harmony and are socialized to accommodate groups and subordination of personal desires (Morling et al., 2002 ).

While verbal expression and direct communication is common practice in IndSc dominant cultures (Kim and Markus, 2002 ), indirect and less expressive communication is preferred by InterSc cultures as verbalizing internal states may be seen as disruptive to group harmony (Kim and Sherman, 2007 ; Ma-Kellams and Blascovich, 2012 ). Therefore, people in Malaysia who are traditionally in a collectivist society (Hofstede, 2001 ; Ting and Ying, 2013 ) would presumably hold a more dominant InterSC and may use and prefer different communicative behaviors compared to individualistic societies. Evidently, Yum et al. ( 2015 ) found that Malaysians use less direct communication and self-disclosure to express their commitment and affection compared to Americans. Moreover, Malaysians place great weight on the collective well-being (Kennedy, 2002 ) and tend to practice caution and indirectness in daily communication (Bakar et al., 2007 , 2014 ). Thus, the Malaysian culture inhibits assertiveness and confrontational behaviors to maintain harmony within relationships (Kennedy, 2002 ). This knowledge suggests that the culture of an individual with respect to the dominant self-construal may impact the type of approach and how efficacious communication behaviors are anticipated to be. Thus, the positive association between active communication behaviors (e.g., positive verbal expression) and the negative association between passive communication behaviors (e.g., withdrawal from the conversation), with relationship satisfaction in Western societies, may not be universal to Asian societies, particularly in the Malaysian cultural atmosphere.

Communication Through Conflicts: Accommodation, Self-Construal, and Satisfaction

Unraveling the mystery surrounding the riddle of achieving satisfying relationships is even more perplexing when communicative behaviors may operate differently in a different context. A growing body of literature has examined communicative processes within conflictual contexts, namely, accommodative behaviors, which is described as inhibiting natural reflexes of reacting negatively to the transgressions of a partner and instead respond positively (Rusbult et al., 1991 ; Overall and Sibley, 2008 ; Overall et al., 2010 ). Irrespective of how compatible partners are in a relationship, conflict is inevitable (Rusbult et al., 1991 ), and all partners will occasionally behave in an unpleasant manner such as yelling or saying hurtful remarks (Yovetich and Rusbult, 1994 ; Kilpatrick et al., 2002 ; Crowley, 2006 ). To protect the quality of the romantic relationship in the long run, couples must override the urge to act destructively during conflicts, hence the term accommodation (Campbell and Staton, 2013 ). The accommodation model is measured along two dimensions and is differentiated into four types of responses: active-constructive (discussing problems and attempts to resolve the problem), passive-constructive (silently forgives and waits for things to improve), active-destructive (criticizing and threatening to leave the partner), and passive-destructive (ignoring the partner and problem) (Rusbult et al., 1982 , 1991 ; Overall et al., 2010 ).

Consider this example scenario in daily life where Liam raises his voice toward Camelia in a conversation after a long day at work. Camelia “bites the bullet” and reacts active-constructively or passive-constructively by either asking him whether he needs to talk about his day or calmly shrugging it off. Constructive responses, like that of Camelia, have been linked to better couple functioning in prior work (Rusbult et al., 1982 , 1991 ). To elaborate more, the pioneer study by Rusbult et al. ( 1991 ) revealed that responding in both an active or passive constructive manner during conflicts and toward the transgressions of a partner preserves relationship satisfaction and stability. However, a later study discovered that only active-constructive responses were associated to elevated feelings of closeness, value, relationship stability, and satisfaction (Overall et al., 2010 ). Conversely, passive-constructive responses did not produce the same benefits, were less noticed, and results were parallel to harmful implications of destructive responses (Overall et al., 2010 ). Such counterintuitive findings carry doubts and uncertainty surrounding the passive-constructive communication in conflicts within Western society. There is even greater ambiguity regarding these communicative behaviors in Asian society, whereupon the accommodation research is rather scarce.

When discussing problems, those with InterSc (i.e., Asian societies) have been typically associated with an indirect communication style (Gudykunst and Matsumoto, 1996 ), where the listener is expected to deduce the unexpressed meaning of the speaker through non-verbal cues (Ting-Toomey, 1999 ). In contrast, those with IndSc (i.e., Western societies) tend to disclose thoughts and feelings more explicitly (Ting-Toomey, 1999 ). Other empirical support exists in the view that members from Asian cultures deter from expressing distress as it may threaten relationship ties due to the possibility of burdening others or conflicts (Wang et al., 2010 ), which prompts them to oblige to others more (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003 ). Of the few studies regarding accommodation in Asia, the only exception in the literature examining self-construal in accommodative dilemmas is by Yum ( 2004 ) on 397 individuals from the United States, Hawaii, and Korea. Yum ( 2004 ) found that both IndSC and InterSC were inclined to respond in an active-constructive and passive-constructive manner in dating relationships, suggesting that accommodation may be a culturally universal behavior in dating relationships. However, those with InterSC enacted more passive-constructive communicative behaviors. Interestingly, Yum ( 2004 ) also found that some participants were bicultural (high in both InterSC and IndSC) and marginal (low in both InterSC and IndSC), with biculturals being better communicators compared to those with high InterSC. Yum ( 2004 ) explained that the disparities and new findings may be due to modernization, implying that behaviors of people are influenced by the degree of democratization, industrialization, and westernization within the environmental culture they live in. While a few studies in Malaysia have investigated couple communication tactics in conflicts (e.g., Tam et al., 2011b ; Abdullah et al., 2017 ), there is no literature focused directly on accommodation processes. It is also not yet known to what extent dating partners in Malaysia may perceive beneficial responses in managing conflicts. Henceforth, based on the findings and reasoning above, Malaysians may find both active and passive constructive accommodation responses as favorable reactions during conflicts, which would positively relate to their relationship satisfaction.

Communication Through the Good Times: Capitalization, Self-Construal, and Relationship Satisfaction

Similar desirable relationship outcomes exist for positive relational communication. A wealth of research has focused on negative relational processes such as conflict, problem solving, and criticism (e.g., Rusbult et al., 1991 ; Gottman, 1998 ; Johnson et al., 2005 ), while the positive relational processes have often been left to lie fallow. Recent work has finally stressed the advantages of the positive side of relationships (Gable et al., 2004 , 2006 ; Lambert et al., 2012 ; Pagani et al., 2020 ), providing a fresh positive psychology perspective of not only minimizing threat or lasting harm to satisfaction (i.e., conflict management) but also integrating relationship enhancement processes (i.e., positive communication, and responsiveness) (Ogolsky et al., 2017 ; Warren et al., 2017 ). In particular, the process of capitalization, which is a practice of communicating personal positive events to others (Langston, 1994 ; Gable et al., 2004 ), has begun to gain much attention and is a focus of this current study. This gap is noteworthy as past studies have established that individuals share more positive events with others daily, with an estimation of 60 to 80% more compared to negative events. Hence, showing that capitalization opportunities and positive events occur more often than negative events and conflicts in everyday life (Gable et al., 2004 ; Gable and Haidt, 2005 ; Gable and Reis, 2010 ). In fact, responses toward positive events were a better predictor for relationship well-being than responses toward negative events (Gable et al., 2006 ).

Happy events (e.g., a promotion, a great cup of coffee, and compliments from others) usually motivates social retelling of those positive circumstances (Peters et al., 2018 ). For example, when Camelia receives a promotion at work, she would be motivated to share this news with her partner Liam. Provided that the reaction of Liam to the good news of Camelia was responsive, the capitalization process can be contagious, benefiting both parties and would promote future capitalization attempts, positive responses, and lasting relationship well-being (Peters et al., 2018 ). Among the various ways of responding to positive events, Gable et al. ( 2004 ) adapted the accommodation model to four types of capitalization responses. Hence, constructive capitalization responses can either be active (showing interest and enthusiasm) or passive (understating the event), whereas destructive capitalization responses may be either active (criticizing and invalidating event) or passive (showing disinterest and ignoring the event) (Gable et al., 2004 , 2006 ). To provide more context, the first investigation of capitalization in dating couples found that only an active-constructive response of a partner had a positive correlation with relationship satisfaction while active-destructive, passive-destructive, and passive-constructive responses showed an opposite effect for relationship satisfaction (Gable et al., 2004 ). Other studies have also found an association between relationship satisfaction and enthusiastic responses to the triumphs of a partner (e.g., Logan and Cobb, 2013 , 2016 ; Woods et al., 2015 ), but are all skewed to the Western perspectives.

Of note, a favorable response in one culture may not look the same in another as cultural differences could facilitate or impede capitalization processes (Choi et al., 2019 ). Wang et al. ( 2010 ) documented that Asian-Americans utilized support and perceived support for positive events as less helpful than their European-American counterparts. This result may be due to East Asian cultures viewing humility as prosocial, whereas capitalization can be seen as an individual “showing off,” being boastful, and threatening harmony (Markus and Kitayama, 1991 ; Yamagishi, 2011 ; Choi et al., 2019 ). Nevertheless, considering that being understood and validated by other people is considered the quintessence of the interdependent self (Markus and Kitayama, 1994 ), supportive and constructive responses may still carry weight for East Asians (Choi et al., 2019 ). A less emotionally expressive response, such as a passive-constructive response, could allow people from a collective culture to capitalize and experience appropriate emotional support without being overzealous, which might make them feel uncomfortable (Taylor et al., 2007 ). Accordingly, research by Kim ( 2015 ) on cultural distinctions in capitalization responses between Asian-Americans (AAs) and European-Americans (EAs) revealed that there were no differences in InterSC and only marginal significant differences in IndSC between cultural groups. For a satisfying relationship, both cultural groups favored active-constructive responses the most, implying the global advantages of active-constructive responses. Moreover, AAs did not respond adversely to passive-constructive responses, presumably indicating that a passive-constructive response may not be a detrimental response for AAs. Currently, it is unclear if replicable findings will be seen for individuals who are in dating relationships in Malaysia. To our knowledge, there is no research identified examining capitalization and romantic relationships in Asia, but there was one research that utilized a Chinese translated capitalization scale within father-child relationships of college students in China (Guo et al., 2018 ). Guo et al. ( 2018 ) reported both active and passive responses of fathers were positively linked to the intrapersonal health and well-being of their children, whereas the reverse impact was found for the two destructive responses. Thus, based on prior empirical and theoretical work, it is fair to say that there could be possible differences between perceived favorable responses for capitalization processes in romantic relationships between the Western and Asian cultures.

Current Study

Taken together, these lines of studies suggest that relationship satisfaction is not governed by the simple occurrence of conflict or positive events in the lives of a couple but by the capability of the couple to communicate about those events effectively. As evident from prior literature, the communication processes of both accommodation and capitalization responses may vary across cultures. Each form of communication process provides an important piece to move closer to understanding the relationship satisfaction enigma. However, both accommodation and capitalization have been researched independently and dominated in Western countries, which creates a drawback in comprehending the full picture of relationship functioning in Asian countries. Correspondingly, self-construal is also seen to be a moderating influence on both accommodation and capitalization processes. To the best knowledge of the researchers, to date, there is no identified research investigating these variables simultaneously, and the only study found in peer-reviewed publications was by Gable et al. ( 2004 ). On the one hand, the researchers discovered that only responding in an active-constructive manner toward the capitalization attempts of a partner correlated positively with satisfaction, while the other three responses yielded opposite effects. On the other hand, Gable et al. ( 2004 ) uncovered that both active and passive constructive accommodation responses during conflicts were positively linked to satisfaction with good agreement to the initial findings of Rusbult et al. ( 1991 ). Thus, results suggest that these communicative behaviors may not be parallel to each other and may depend on the situational context.

However, Gable et al. ( 2004 ) did not examine any cultural aspects, and their results were weighted toward the Western perspective. Thus, this current study would be the first not merely in Malaysia but the overall literature to further deepen the results of Gable et al. ( 2004 ) on “good relationship behavior.” Herewith, this present study conducted both correlations and hierarchical analyses. At first, accommodation and capitalization responses were analyzed separately to examine how each response uniquely predicted satisfaction. Subsequently, both accommodation and capitalization were examined simultaneously in the regression model to ascertain which responses are better predictors of satisfaction. Using these methods would allow a better understanding of the unique effects of each accommodation and capitalization response on relationship satisfaction with the complements of culture. It is also the hope of this exploratory study to shed light on how the distinct culture of Malaysian young dating individuals influences their communication behaviors to augment thriving relationships, withal providing an Asian comparative data. Furthermore, most studies have researched on the self-evaluation of an individual to their own communication; though often, one is a very poor judge of one's own communicative behavior (Rusbult et al., 1991 ). Therefore, this present study would investigate how one perceives the accommodation and capitalization responses of their partner and how these perceptions relate to their overall relationship satisfaction.

With the limitations and dearth of literature, the present study aimed to bridge the gaps by exploring the relationship between the two communication processes, (1) accommodation and (2) capitalization, on relationship satisfaction in Malaysian young adults. This study also aimed to examine whether interdependent self-construal moderates and explains the differences in perceived communication behaviors, which in turn effects the level of relationship satisfaction. In broader terms, this research anticipated that active and passive constructive responses would positively predict satisfaction, whereas active and passive destructive responses would negatively predict satisfaction for both accommodation and capitalization processes. With greater depth, the following research questions and hypotheses are postulated:

• Research Question 1
• Hypothesis 1a (H1a) : Perceived active-constructive accommodation responses will positively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1b (H1b) : Perceived passive-constructive accommodation responses will positively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1c (H1c) : Perceived active-destructive accommodation responses will negatively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1d (H1d) : Perceived passive-destructive accommodation responses will negatively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1e (H1e) : Perceived active-constructive capitalization responses will positively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1f (H1f) : Perceived passive-constructive capitalization responses will positively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1g (H1g) : Perceived active-destructive capitalization responses will negatively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 1h (H1h) : Perceived passive-destructive capitalization responses will negatively predict relationship satisfaction.
• Research Question 2
• Hypothesis 2a (H2a) : As an exploratory hypothesis, interdependent self-construal will moderate the relationship between the four perceived accommodation responses and relationship satisfaction.
• Hypothesis 2b (H2b) : As an exploratory hypothesis, interdependent self-construal will moderate the relationship between the four perceived capitalization responses and relationship satisfaction.

Participants

Participants were 139 individuals (46 males, 93 females) recruited on a voluntary basis with online advertisements. A priori power analysis and F-test, linear multiple regression with a fixed model, and R 2 deviation from zero was calculated through the G * Power 3.1 software. The results demonstrated that the sample size was sufficient to detect a significant effect size with 80% power ( f 2 = 0.15, α = 0.05, two-tailed) (Faul et al., 2007 ). Eligibility criteria included the criteria for participants to be Malaysian, above 18 years old, fluent in English and in a romantic relationship for a minimum of 3 months. Initially, there were 179 participants, however, 40 participants were excluded as they did not meet the required criteria for the survey (e.g., minimum 3 months of relationship length) and possibly due to the length of the survey and lack of compensation and token of appreciation. Participants ranged from 18 to 30 years of age ( M = 23.15, SD = 2.42) and age of partners ranged from 18 to 35 years old ( M = 23.93, SD = 3.39). The average romantic relationship length of participants was 2.73 years ( SD = 2.34). Other demographic information of participants is summarized in Table 1 .

Participant demographics ( N = 139).

Subsequent to approval of the study from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the university (MUHREC, Project Number 10606), the study was advertised online through voluntary and snowballing, non-probability sampling methods from December 2017 to January 2018. Numerous organizations and online mediums such as forums, discussion groups, non-governmental organizations, and health and education professionals were approached to advertise the research widely and recruit participants to promote sample diversity. Efforts were also made to foster inclusivity in several manners, for instance, by recruiting participants of different genders, relationship lengths, sexualities, and ethnicities. Additionally, participants were recruited on a voluntary basis instead of providing compensation for taking part in the study to minimize biases.

Participants were given an explanatory statement comprising the aim of the research, confidentiality and the anonymity of information collected. The explanatory statement also stated the rights of participants to withdraw from the study at any time before submitting their responses anonymously. Participants who voluntarily agreed to participate with consent implied, completed the research survey online through the Qualtrics site of the university. The research survey encompassed demographic background, relationship satisfaction, capitalization, accommodation, and self-construal questions. The duration time to complete the survey was ~30 min. Data of each participant was then merged into one data file and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 software.

Exploratory cross-sectional research was conducted as an observation of variables at a single point of time. There were:

• Active-constructive accommodation
• Passive-constructive accommodation
• Active-destructive accommodation
• Passive-destructive accommodation
• Active-constructive capitalization
• Passive-constructive capitalization
• Active-destructive capitalization
• Passive-destructive capitalization
• Interdependent self-construal
• Relationship satisfaction

Assessment Tools

Relationship satisfaction measure.

The Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI-16) has 16 items and measures the level of relationship satisfaction of an individual (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). The CSI-16 has a variety of questions, all with a 5-point Likert-type scale (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). The scores are calculated by tallying up the total points of the items, which can range between 0 and 81 (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). Scores below 51.5 suggest distress in the relationship (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). The CSI-16 showed high reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.94 for both genders in European, Asian, and American cultures (Graham et al., 2011 ; Lee, 2013 ). It also showed strong convergent, construct validity, and greater power in recognizing different levels of satisfaction compared to other measures (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). The Cronbach alpha for the overall scale in this present study was 0.95.

Capitalization Measure

The perceived responses to capitalization attempts (PRCA) scale consists of 12-items measuring the perceptions of the responses of a partner when shared with a positive event (Gable et al., 2004 ). The scale consists of three questions of each response type and are computed by tallying up each subscale, namely, active-constructive (3 items; e.g., “ My partner usually reacts to my good fortune enthusiastically .”), passive-constructive (3 items; e.g., “ My partner tries not to make a big deal out of it, but is happy for me .”), active-destructive (3 items; e.g., “ My partner often finds a problem with it .”), and passive-destructive (3 items; e.g., “ My partner doesn't pay much attention to me .”) responses (Gable et al., 2006 ). Participants rate each item using the line, “When I tell my partner about something good that has happened to me...”, using a 7-point scale from 1 ( not at all true ) to 7 ( very true ). PRCA demonstrated good reliability with men (α = 0.84) and women (α = 0.81) (Gable et al., 2006 ). Reliability analyses for this present study revealed an acceptable coefficient for the items devised to measure active-constructive (α = 0.61), passive-constructive (α = 0.65), active-destructive (α = 0.72), and passive destructive (α = 0.82), respectively.

Accommodation Measure

The accommodation scale is a 16-item measure that evaluates four perceived responses of a partner for each category: active-constructive (e.g., “ When I am rude to my partner, he/she tries to resolve the situation and improve conditions .”), passive-constructive (e.g., “ When I do something thoughtless, my partner patiently waits for things to improve .”), active-destructive (e.g., “ When I say something really mean, my partner threatens to leave me .”), and passive-destructive (e.g., “ When I do something thoughtless, my partner avoids dealing with the situation .”) to an individual's own adverse behavior (Rusbult et al., 1991 ). Items are scored on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 ( never does this ) to 9 ( constantly does this ). Total scores are calculated by totaling the four items of each subscale to gain the totals of each active-constructive, passive-constructive, active-destructive, and passive destructive responses (Gable et al., 2004 ). High reliability was shown with Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.83) (Crowley, 2006 ). Reliability for each item for this present study was also acceptable with active-constructive (α = 0.88), passive-constructive (α = 0.78), active-destructive (α = 0.73) and passive-destructive (α = 0.61), respectively.

Self-Construal Measure

The Singelis Self-Construal Scale (SCS) assesses the interdependent and independent self-construal of an individual (Singelis, 1994 ). The 30-item SCS has 15 interdependent and 15 independent items each. These 30 items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Responses on each subscale are averaged to obtain interdependent and independent scores separately with greater scores signifying greater self-construal (Hardin et al., 2004 ). A range of 0.60–0.73 Cronbach alpha reliabilities were found in Malaysia (Miramontes, 2011 ). Reliability coefficients in this present study were high for interdependent and independent self-construal with 0.83 and 0.76, respectively.

Data Analysis

All data collected were analyzed descriptively through SPSS. Data cleaning was performed to check for outliers and missing values. Hierarchical multiple regression and moderation were conducted following discussion with statistical consultants knowledgeable about cross-cultural social psychology research. The assumptions for hierarchical multiple regression and moderation were assessed. After preliminary correlations were conducted, hierarchical multiple regressions were run to examine how capitalization and accommodation responses explain the variances in the relationship satisfaction score. Lastly, moderation analyses were run to assess whether interdependent self-construal moderates the relationship between the capitalization and accommodation responses and relationship satisfaction.

Given the theoretical and exploratory nature of this research, formal sensitivity analyses were not conducted as there was limited comparative data and models to compare the results. In preliminary analyses, the researchers have explored the results by entering only significant accommodation and capitalization responses from the correlations to the hierarchical regression and found little change in the R 2 compared to the current findings with all eight responses in the model. These results may be due to the additional responses not indicating a substantial predictive value, in which the rationales have been explained in the discussion section. Additionally, the researchers have inspected the results by changing the order of the input stages for the hierarchical regression, and similar results were demonstrated.

Assumption tests were run prior to inferential analysis. Missing values analysis found missing data and these participants were omitted from further analysis. A 22.3% rate of non-participation was discovered due to participants not meeting the requirements of the research survey. Two univariate outliers were identified for passive-destructive capitalization based on the criteria of z-score ± 3.29 and were winsorized (Field, 2013 ). Normality analysis revealed that multiple variables violated normality; however, based on the central limit theorem, the sample size was deemed adequately large to assume normality (Field, 2013 ). Assumptions of multicollinearity and singularity were assumed to be met, established upon the criteria of Tolerance not lower than 2 and VIF not >10 (Field, 2013 ). Lastly, visual inspections of residual scatter plots showed that data were both linearly distributed and homoscedastic.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the full sample ( N = 139). Despite targeted efforts to include both genders, it is also important to note that this sample had a higher percentage of female to male participants (66.9–33.1%). Additionally, the cut-off score for relationship satisfaction is 51.5 whereby anything below this score suggests notable relationship dissatisfaction (Funk and Rogge, 2007 ). 73.4% of participants were above this cut-off score signifying that most participants in this sample are in relatively satisfied relationships.

Descriptive statistics of all main variables.

The Relationship Between Perceived Accommodation and Capitalization Responses on Relationship Satisfaction

Bivariate correlations were conducted for the accommodation and capitalization variables with relationship satisfaction, shown in Table 3 . The examination of correlation between perceived accommodative responses and relationship satisfaction showed that there was a positive correlation between Active-constructive accommodation responses and relationship satisfaction ( r = 0.39, p < 0.001). The Passive-constructive accommodation responses had a r = 0.14, p = 0.056. Both Active-destructive ( r = −0.36, p < 0.001) and Passive-destructive ( r = −0.40, p < 0.001) accommodation responses had a negative correlation with relationship satisfaction. Thus, in this preliminary analysis, out of the four accommodation responses, only three responses (active-constructive, active-destructive, and passive-destructive) appeared to have a significant association with satisfaction.

Correlations for accommodation and capitalization responses with relationship satisfaction.

Correlations for perceived capitalization responses and relationship satisfaction revealed that only two responses, Active-constructive and Passive-destructive capitalization responses indicated a significant link to satisfaction. Active-constructive responses ( r = 0.44, p < 0.001) and Passive-constructive responses ( r = 0.02, p = 0.429) had a positive correlation with relationship satisfaction. Both passive-destructive responses ( r = −0.39, p < 0.001) and active-destructive responses ( r = −0.13, p = 0.060) had an inverse association with relationship satisfaction. Moreover, correlations between accommodation and capitalization were assessed and revealed the strength of association ranging from 0.01 to 0.52.

Addressing research question and hypotheses 1, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to further investigate the directionality of the eight accommodation and capitalization communicative responses and determine which of those communication variables uniquely contributed to the prediction of relationship satisfaction. At first, accommodation and capitalization responses were analyzed separately to examine how each response uniquely predicted satisfaction. Subsequently, both accommodation and capitalization were examined simultaneously in the regression model to ascertain which responses were better predictors of satisfaction. In order to accurately examine their unique influence of relationship satisfaction, demographic variables of age, gender, and relationship length which may have effects on relationship satisfaction were controlled by entering them first in stage one of all the hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Gender was held constant because the ratio of female to male participants was larger.

The first hierarchical regression executed was on the four accommodation responses as predictors and relationship satisfaction as the outcome variable (see Table 4 ). As aforementioned, in stage 1, gender, age, and relationship length were entered and did not contribute significantly to relationship satisfaction, F (3,127) = 1.67, p = 0.176, only accounting for a difference of 0–3.8% in the variability of relationship satisfaction. Next, Active-constructive accommodation, Passive-constructive accommodation, Active-destructive accommodation, and Passive-destructive accommodation were entered in stage 2, which suggested an increase in predictive capacity of relationship satisfaction by 26.3%, F (4,123) = 7.56, p < 0.001. A large effect size, Cohen's f 2 = 0.38 was demonstrated between the set of predictors in stage 1 and stage 2 (Cohen, 1988 ). Among the four accommodation responses, only two responses, Active-constructive and Passive-destructive accommodation, emerged as unique predictors of satisfaction, with Active-constructive accommodation [β = 0.34, 95% CI (0.19, 0.87), p < 0.05] recording a stronger relationship with satisfaction compared to Passive-destructive accommodation [β = −0.24, 95% CI (−0.87, −0.09), p < 0.05]. In contrast, Passive-constructive accommodation [β = −0.05, 95% CI (−0.42, 0.25), p = 0.617] and Active-destructive accommodation [β = −0.15, 95% CI (−0.65, 0.07), p = 0.118] revealed to have less predictive value toward relationship satisfaction.

Accommodation responses as predictors of relationship satisfaction.

The second hierarchical regression model explored the unique association of the four capitalization responses on relationship satisfaction (see Table 5 ). Similarly, age, gender, and relationship satisfaction were entered in stage 1 [ R 2 = 0.03, F (3,135) = 1.44, p = 0.234]. Introducing the Active-constructive capitalization, Passive-constructive capitalization, Active-destructive capitalization, and Passive-destructive capitalization responses to stage 2 explained an additional 24.3% of variability of relationship satisfaction, significantly increasing the predictive capacity of relationship satisfaction, F (4, 131) = 7.05, p < 0.001. A Cohen f 2 = 0.33 value was found, signifying a moderate effect size between the set of predictors in stage 1 and stage 2 (Cohen, 1988 ). Both constructive responses showed contributing value in predicting relationship satisfaction, with Active-constructive capitalization [β = 0.33, 95% CI (0.52, 1.65), p < 0.001] demonstrating a stronger relationship than Passive-constructive capitalization [β = 0.17, 95% CI (0.00, 0.92), p < 0.05]. For the two destructive responses, Active-destructive capitalization [β = −0.04, 95% CI (−0.66, 0.41), p = 0.648] displayed low predictive capacity for satisfaction, while Passive-destructive capitalization [β = −0.25, 95% CI (−1.42, −0.16), p < 0.05] indicated strong predictive value toward relationship satisfaction.

Capitalization responses as predictors of relationship satisfaction.

Independently, accommodation and capitalization demonstrated to contribute to relationship satisfaction. However, the next part of the analysis was to explore all eight accommodation and capitalization responses simultaneously. Analogous to the two previous regression models, gender, age, and relationship length were entered in stage 1 and appeared non-significant with R 2 = 0.3, F (3,127) = 1.67, p = 0.176. Introducing the four accommodation responses to stage 2 explained an additional 26.3% of variation in satisfaction, F (4,123) = 7.55, p < 0.001, and a large effect size of Cohen f 2 = 0.38 was found between stage 1 and stage 2 (Cohen, 1988 ). Finally, adding the four capitalization responses to the regression model explained an additional 5.6% of variation in satisfaction and this change in R 2 was also significant with F (4,119) = 6.01, p < 0.001. The effect size between the set of predictors of stage 2 and stage 3 was small, Cohen f 2 = 0.09 (Cohen, 1988 ). It can be seen in Table 6 that when all eight accommodation and capitalization responses were measured simultaneously as predictors of relationship satisfaction in stage 3, merely an active-constructive capitalization response was found as a strong incremental predictor to relationship satisfaction with β = 0.25, 95% CI (0.18, 1.4), p < 0.05. A marginal positive predictive value was found for the active-constructive accommodation β = 0.22, 95% CI (−0.00, 0.71), p = 0.054. The rest of the accommodation and capitalization responses were found to provide minimal contribution, suggesting less predictive value for satisfaction.

Accommodation and capitalization responses as predictors of relationship satisfaction.

The communication responses were entered in this order given that accommodation is a more well-known process as a contributor to relationship satisfaction than capitalization, which is a rather new concept in research. However, the researchers did extra analyses to confirm the results with changing the order of the stages and entering the capitalization responses in stage 2 and accommodation responses in stage 3 and found the same results where Active-constructive capitalization was revealed as the strongest predictor of relationship satisfaction, indicating that this response is the most important predictor of satisfaction.

The Moderating Effects of Self-Construal on the Relationship Between Perceived Accommodation and Capitalization Responses and Relationship Satisfaction

To test research questions and hypotheses 2, moderation analyses were performed. Firstly, moderation analyses of interdependent self-construal as a moderator for both accommodation and capitalization communicative responses on relationship satisfaction were conducted. As shown in Table 7 , the interaction effects between each of the accommodation responses and interdependent self-construal were Active-constructive accommodation [β = −0.06, 95% CI (−0.39, 0.27), t = −0.38, p = 0.704], Passive-constructive accommodation [β = 0.01, 95% CI (−0.33, 0.36), t = 0.08, p = 0.938], Active-destructive accommodation [β = 0.21, 95% CI (−0.21, 0.63), t = 1.00, p = 0.319], and Passive-destructive accommodation [β = 0.05, 95% CI (−0.39, 0.49), t = 0.24, p = 0.812]. These findings suggested that the relationships between accommodation and relationship satisfaction were not moderated by interdependent self-construal.

Moderation of interdependent self-construal for accommodation and capitalization reponses and relationship satisfaction.

Similar results were revealed for the capitalization responses. Active-constructive capitalization [β = 0.26, 95% CI (−0.41, 0.94), t = 0.77, p = 0.444], Passive-constructive capitalization [β = −0.04, 95% CI (−0.68, 0.61), t = −0.11, p = 0.912], Active-destructive capitalization [β = 0.49, 95% CI (−0.13, 1.11), t = 1.57, p = 0.119], and Passive-destructive capitalization [β = 0.49, 95% CI (−0.03, 1.10), t = 0.1.89, p = 0.62] responses showed that interdependent self-construal did not moderate and explain the relationship between these communication responses and relationship satisfaction.

Although not initially planned in the hypotheses, further exploratory moderation analyses were conducted to broaden the understanding of this current sample and results. Intriguingly, in contrast, independent self-construal appeared to moderate the relationship between active-destructive capitalization [β = 0.64, 95% CI (−0.04, 1.24), t = 2.12, p < 0.05] and passive-destructive capitalization [β = 0.71, 95% CI (−0.19, 1.29), t = 2.68, p < 0.05] responses with relationship satisfaction. The rest of the accommodation and capitalization responses on relationship satisfaction indicated no moderating effects by independent self-construal (see Table 8 ).

Moderation of independent self-construal for accommodation and capitalization reponses and relationship satisfaction.

Hence, the interaction effect of both perceived accommodation and capitalization responses with interdependent self-construal did not moderate and predict relationship satisfaction. The only interacting moderation effects found were between independent self-construal and Active-destructive capitalization and Passive-destructive capitalization responses, which were beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the possibilities of these results will be considered in the discussion section.

Negative communicative behaviors in romantic relationships, such as accommodation in conflicts, have received ample attention in past studies. On the flip side, positive communicative behaviors such as capitalization exchanges toward positive events have been largely overlooked and have not received as much vigor as negative interactional research (Gable et al., 2004 , 2012 ; Smith and Reis, 2012 ). This current study proposed that it is essential to understand the contemporaneous associations of both negative (accommodation) and positive (capitalization) communicative behaviors to unearth the riddle in predicting positive relationship satisfaction. Prior work has highlighted that couple communication takes diverse forms germane to the cultural context whereupon it occurs and have argued that Western and Asian cultures differ in how they express and perceive beneficial communication behaviors (e.g., Wang et al., 2010 ; Williamson et al., 2012 ; Yum et al., 2015 ; Wang and Lau, 2018 ). However, positive psychology research studies around the world have been largely based on Caucasian samples and greater diversity is needed in the science of positive psychology (Rao and Donaldson, 2015 ). Since previous studies were dominated by a Western perspective, exploring both capitalization and accommodation processes may give us a better holistic insight into which communication behaviors are perceived as responsive and fruitful in promoting relationship satisfaction from an Asian viewpoint. In fact, no identified research examining accommodation and capitalization processes has been done in tandem within an Asian context, especially in Malaysia. Therefore, this present study examined the relationship between the two communication processes, (1) accommodation and (2) capitalization, on romantic relationship satisfaction in Malaysian young adults. This study also explored whether interdependent self-construal moderates and explains the differences in communication behaviors, which in turn affects the level of relationship satisfaction.

Do the Eight Types of Perceived Communication Behaviors in Terms of Accommodation (4 Types) and Capitalization (4 Types) Responses Predict Relationship Satisfaction?

The more well-known piece that literature has appraised in solving the conundrum of relationship satisfaction is accommodation in conflicts. This present study hypothesized that Active-constructive (H1a) and Passive-constructive (H1b) accommodation responses toward the transgressions of a partner in conflicts would positively predict relationship satisfaction, whilst Active-destructive (H1c) and Passive-destructive (H1d) responses would negatively predict relationship satisfaction. Findings revealed that responding in an Active-constructive manner such as discussing problems and altering problematic behavior during conflicts positively predicted relationship satisfaction, supporting H1a. These results align with research done by Rusbult et al. ( 1991 ) and Crowley ( 2006 ) who established that the willingness to accommodate to the misbehavior of a partner with Active-constructive responses boosts relationship functioning and satisfaction. This indicates that Active-constructive reciprocity will foster satisfaction as it directly engages one partner to be more aware of the maintenance efforts of the other partner in the relationship, which in turn rejuvenates closeness and perceived regard (Overall et al., 2010 ).

Regarding H1b, it was hypothesized that Passive-constructive accommodation responses during conflicts would positively predict relationship satisfaction; however, the findings did not support H1b. Rather than a significant positive prediction of relationship satisfaction, a slightly negative non-significant result emerged. It was forecasted in this current study that Asians would find forgiving and forgetting the bad behavior of a partner and hoping for things to improve (Passive-constructive) through conflictual circumstances just as beneficial as talking through issues (Active-constructive). This expectation was due to prior work establishing Malaysians and collectivist societies tend to use more indirect and less expressive communication to maintain harmony with others (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 1999 ; Kennedy, 2002 ; Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003 ; Yum, 2004 ; Bakar et al., 2007 , 2014 ; Wang et al., 2010 ; Ma-Kellams and Blascovich, 2012 ). Previous research in Western societies has found unclear and inconsistent results regarding the Passive-constructive accommodation response, making it hard to decipher whether this response is threatening or securing relationship functioning. In their seminal work, Rusbult et al. ( 1991 ) and Gable et al. ( 2004 ) found the Passive-constructive accommodation response desirable, but later studies by Overall et al. ( 2010 ) found the opposite effect. Although not significant, the findings of this current study seem to be more toward the discovery of Overall et al. ( 2010 ) because a Passive-constructive accommodation response may be less salient than an Active-constructive response and lead an individual to feel ignored and unappreciated, which could diminish relationship satisfaction. However, further research should continue to investigate the differences of past work as the results in this current study leaned toward a possible negative direction but were indicative of non-significance.

Furthermore, this study found both active and passive destructive accommodation responses detrimental to the relationship satisfaction of an individual. A Passive-destructive response was unmasked as the stronger negative response in predicting satisfaction within this sample in line with H1d. On the contrary, an Active-destructive response appeared to show lower predictive capacity in reducing relationship satisfaction. The rationales of the strength of Passive-destructive accommodation responses are deferred toward the end of the discussion after the capitalization processes are considered as similar results were replicated for capitalization. Despite this, findings still leaned toward the expected direction of both H1c and H1d, exhibiting near to typical findings of the two destructive responses. These results are congruent with past studies that found active and passive destructive reciprocity to the bad behavior of a partner are unaccommodating and lead to dissatisfaction (Rusbult et al., 1991 ; Crowley, 2006 ). These findings also denote that not inhibiting destructive impulses would further exacerbate issues, hinder movement toward resolving issues, and lead to distressing relationships (Rusbult et al., 1991 ; Overall et al., 2010 ). In short, Active-constructive accommodation responses during conflicts seem to be the most favorable response and allowed dating partners to feel understood, cared for, and validated, which enriched relationship satisfaction. Conversely, Active-destructive, and Passive-destructive accommodation responses seemed unrewarding for dating relationships of Malaysian young adults. The Passive-constructive accommodation responses were the only accommodation results that were not supportive of the hypothesis of this research.

Another complementary yet an understudied communication process in deciphering the relationship satisfaction riddle is capitalization on positive events. Mirroring the hypotheses for accommodation, this study expected that Active-constructive (H1e) and Passive-constructive (H1f) responses to capitalization attempts would positively predict relationship satisfaction whereas Active-destructive (H1g) and Passive-destructive (H1h) responses would negatively predict relationship satisfaction. Consistent with H1e and H1f, results uncovered that providing both enthusiastic support (Active-constructive) and acknowledgment, but an understated support (Passive-constructive) toward the positive events of the partner predicted relationship satisfaction. However, Active-constructiveness had a rather more robust response for satisfying relationships. The findings suggested that the Passive-constructive response stood in contrast to previous research in Western societies as only an Active-constructive response conveyed responsiveness and was associated with higher personal and relationship well-being from the Western lens (Gable et al., 2004 , 2006 ; Pagani et al., 2020 ). Gable et al. ( 2006 ) noted that an Active-constructive response solely highlights the triumphs of the partner and communicates personal significance of the positive event to the discloser. On the other hand, a Passive-constructive response does not convey the same message, which reduces relationship well-being (Gable et al., 2006 ). Albeit the passive-constructive capitalization responses in this current Malaysian study yielded borderline significance in positively predicting satisfaction, the preliminary correlation demonstrated that this capitalization response had a weak but non-significant relationship to satisfaction. Hence, the results of the passive-constructive capitalization responses should be approached with caution.

Having said that, the results in this current study still appeared to encapsulate the aspect that a Passive-constructive capitalization response such as providing a warm smile and just expressing “ That's nice dear ” toward good news of a partner also tends to be supportive and positive from an Asian perspective. Thus, this finding appears to dovetail nicely with the results of Guo et al. ( 2018 ), the only research found in Asia using the perceived capitalization attempts scale of Gable et al. ( 2004 ) thus far. They studied familial relationships and demonstrated that both constructive responses of fathers were advantageous for the intrapersonal health and well-being of their children. Therefore, this present research seemed to capture some differences between preferable responses toward personal triumphs of dating couples in Western and Asian countries, echoing the notion that a less overzealous response could still be appropriate and desirable in collectivist cultures (Taylor et al., 2007 ). According to Choi et al. ( 2019 ), Asians also have greater worries about possible repercussions of disclosing personal positive events as it has higher stakes in threatening relational harmony and negative reputations because sharing good news can seem boastful. However, as aforementioned, the findings for the passive-constructive response in this current study narrowly achieved significance. Thus, future research should broaden the sample size and examine other cultural aspects (i.e., harmony values) to better capture the cultural differences for the capitalization process.

Regarding the destructive capitalization reactions, a Passive-destructive response, which is showing disinterest and changing the topic of discussion indicated the strongest predictive value in lowering relationship satisfaction, in tandem with H1h. The same, albeit non-significant trend, was displayed for the active-destructive response (i.e., criticizing and invalidating the partner's good news) leaning toward the anticipated direction of H1g. It can thus be suggested that both destructive responses undermine relationship health as they reject the attempt to develop self-confidence, bids for connection, and engagement of the discloser, which leads to dampening of positive feelings about the event and the relationship (Gable et al., 2004 ). Repeated destructive responses could also deter the discloser from making capitalization attempts in the future, which may impact the relationship well-being drastically in the long run (Peters et al., 2018 ).

Furthermore, examining both accommodation and capitalization processes simultaneously provided striking but not surprising results as the most impactful positive response to satisfaction was the Active-constructive capitalization response. This indicates that perceiving that a partner validates the strengths and accomplishments of the discloser in an enthusiastic and encouraging fashion has benefits above and beyond other responses and the accommodation process. These results conform with prior findings that documented support toward positive events was a better predictor of relationship quality than discussions about other circumstances such as adverse events (i.e., Gable et al., 2006 , 2012 ). Thus, as Gable et al. ( 2006 ) asserted, “ To put it colloquially, they seem to offer a lot more bang for the buck ” (p. 914). Gable et al. ( 2006 ) also found some preliminary evidence that positive event discussions had a greater predictive capacity of couples breaking up at a later point in time. Pertaining to the accommodation process, it can be fairly said that the Active-constructive reaction was also the best response for enriching relationship satisfaction but not as strong as the Active-constructive capitalization response, which seems to be the most salubrious response for dating relationships in Malaysia.

Summary and Rationale of Results

Considering the results as a whole, the notion that Asians perceive Active-constructive responses as unbeneficial, uncomfortable, and distressing (Taylor et al., 2007 ; Wang et al., 2010 ) is not vouched by this study as this response was found as the most ameliorative reaction for flourishing dating relationships in Malaysia. Therefore, this result supports the universal advantage of Active-constructive responses in both, accommodation, and capitalization processes for relationship maintenance and enhancement.

However, when comparing the two communication processes, there were varying outcomes for the passive-constructive response. This type of communicative behavior seems to have contradicting findings across the literature, and its impact is still not completely clear. While responding in a passive-constructive fashion during capitalization processes was suggestive of beneficial relationship outcomes, accommodating in this manner during conflicts seemed to trend toward being unfruitful for relationship satisfaction in this present research. Even so, due care should be exercised with interpreting these findings. Although the results leaned toward these directions, some results did not appear significant. Be that as it may, it could be argued that the capitalization and accommodation processes are not mutually exclusive, and an effective response depends on the situational context, especially when it comes to Passive-constructive responses. Analogously, a passive-constructive capitalization response to good news of a partner emerged to predict satisfaction positively in this Malaysian sample. In contrast, prior researchers have found that Westerners do not benefit from this type of communication behavior (Gable et al., 2004 , 2006 ; Lambert et al., 2012 ; Pagani et al., 2020 ). In light of this, to some extent, this present research unmasked a potential difference in the consequences of the perceived passive-constructive response between Asian and Western countries. On a similar note, scholars have also suggested that perceived responses usually involve a “reality component” (Reis et al., 2004 ), where researchers should also consider other relationship “realities” such as the expectations of the partner, need for approval, and reasons for disengagement toward the discloser (Gable et al., 2004 ). Thus, future research should closely inspect these individual differences and motivation to provide a constructive response to understand the complexity of effective communicative behaviors further.

Moreover, concurring with prior research, destructive responses in accommodation and capitalization communication processes were found harmful, regardless of culture. However, one noticeable difference is that the Passive-destructive response in both accommodation and capitalization processes had a greater predictive magnitude in the deterioration of relationship satisfaction when the two processes were examined independently. Active-destructive responses were in the anticipated negative direction but were revealed to be non-significant in predicting relationship satisfaction. On the one hand, it could be that partners of the participants in this study interact in a more vague and evasive destructive way, laying more truth to Asians communicating passively (Guo et al., 2018 ). On the other hand, the results may indicate that Passive-destructive responses are more detrimental to the receiver than Active-destructive responses (Gottman and Krokoff, 1989 ). These findings may be because Passive-destructive responses inhibit the ability of a couple to resolve conflicts by “bottling up” emotions, prolonging problems, and causing petty disagreements to escalate out of control, which may cause more long-term problems (Gottman and Krokoff, 1989 ; Gottman and Levenson, 1992 ).

Another possible explanation for these results is the stage and status of the relationship of participants in this current study. 73.4% of the sample were in relatively satisfied and happy relationships. Hence, it could be assumed that partners are not reacting in an Active-destructive way, such as showing anger and hostility in conflicts or demeaning and criticizing good news frequently for them to be unsatisfied in their relationships. Besides that, the unintended self-selected bias cannot be ruled out and should be taken into consideration in future research. The results may differ if there was a proportionated balance of participants in the sample who were in satisfying and dissatisfying relationships, which upcoming research needs to obtain and explore.

This research also consists of only dating individuals with an average of 2 years of relationship length. These participants may still be in the “honeymoon” stage of their relationship where trust and intimacy may still be developing, during which they utilize distinctive nature of behaviors such as being more Passive-destructive and more forgiving than couples who have been married for a longer period (Williams, 2012 ). Passive-destructive responses are possibly more apparent, unnerving, and threatening to premarital or dating couples because partners showing disregard and disinterest may make them feel that their partners are not committed. This relates to a relatively frequent phenomenon in modern dating and a new term called “ghosting,” which shares an overlap with the Passive-destructive response as if an individual “ghosts” another person, they withdraw and avoid the partner entirely (LeFebvre et al., 2019 ). In other words, when one partner ghosts the other, the immediate consequence is simply an indirect and ambiguous lack of communication (LeFebvre, 2017 ). As this seems to be a common phenomenon in the current dating atmosphere, it might be another reason why this way of communication had a greater prevalence and strength in declining satisfaction of romantic relationships for this sample. Future research could compare the different phases of relationships and communication behaviors between dating and married couples to understand these results more comprehensively. Despite these rationales, this study suggests a recognition that passive-destructiveness is an unfavorable act to Malaysian dating relationships, maybe more so than active-destructiveness. Further illustrations of the cultural facets, in terms of self-construal and communication are discussed in the subsequent section.

To What Extend Does Interdependent Self-Construal Moderate the Relationship Between Perceived Capitalization and Accommodation Communication Behaviors on Relationship Satisfaction?

As noted earlier, the present study anticipated Malaysia to be a collectivist country with individuals generally having a dominant interdependent self-construal based on prior studies and was treated as such in hypotheses 2 (Hardin et al., 2004 ; Amir, 2009 ; Ting and Ying, 2013 ). Nevertheless, these current findings did not bear the resemblance of previous discoveries as the interdependence self-construal seemingly did not moderate and explain the differences in both accommodation and capitalization communication behaviors with relationship satisfaction. Thus, these results did not endorse H2a and H2b, suggesting other important factors are at play.

Consequently, given the equivocal findings, further exploratory analyses were conducted though not tested in the hypotheses of this study. It was discovered that independent self-construal instead seemed to moderate the relationships between both perceived active and passive destructive capitalization responses and relationship satisfaction. However, no other significant results were found for accommodation responses. Hence, self-construal appeared to affect the expectations and preferences of perceived responsiveness of sharing good news, just not in the expected direction for Malaysians in this study. The sample in this study also obtained relatively higher mean scores for interdependent and independent self-construal compared to Asian samples in America. These results concur with the findings of Yum ( 2004 ) that other self-construal types exist and may explain behavioral variations with greater consistency than the bipolar interdependent-independent self-construal model. One of which is the bicultural self-construal, that is individuals who are high in both interdependent and independent self-construal and are products of modernization and multicultural societies (Kim et al., 1996 ; Yum, 2004 ). Given that Malaysia is a melting pot of races, ethnicities, and cultures with unique historical influences (Nagaraj et al., 2015 ; Park, 2015 ; The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation Management Planning Unit, 2016 ), one could speculate that some of the participants in this study could be bicultural. Prior work has asserted that bicultural individuals have rather complex and adaptable identities and are less culturally typical than other self-construal types (Kim et al., 1996 ; Yum, 2004 ). They are more flexible and capable of adapting to interactional demands by responding effectively not only to protect their own needs but also the needs of their partner better than other self-construal types. However, this is beyond the scope of this research; thus, future studies could investigate other types of self-construal and whether they moderate the relationship between accommodation and capitalization processes and satisfaction.

Another plausible explanation would be the “modernization hypothesis,” which infers that the behavior of an individual in personal relationships is influenced by the degree of industrialization, westernization, and democratization of the country (Goodwin, 1999 ). It is also imperative to emphasize that Malaysia was formerly colonized by Western powers such as Britain and, inherently, the Malaysian regime adopted some of the British laws and educational practices which would influence Malaysia's culture (Aziz, 2009 ; Lee and Low, 2014 ). Therefore, Malaysians may be affected by social change, modern capitalism and globalization and hold values that are assumed with moving toward individualism, which could explain why the moderating effects of independent self-construal instead of interdependent self-construal were shown in this current study (Goodwin, 1999 ; Park, 2015 ). Further, the behavior of an individual could also be influenced by regional subcultures. This current study presumed the national culture of Malaysians to be collectivistic and are governed by interdependent self-construal. However, according to Schmitz ( 2012 ), regional sublevels within a country influences the difference in cultural characteristics of various states. This may explain the inconsistency in results of the interdependent and independent self-construals affecting the communication behaviors as participants originated from different states in Malaysia.

Moreover, other scholars have argued that individualist-collectivist stereotypes are becoming meaningless due to other confounding variables such as degree of industrialization, education, and occupation, especially for the younger generations (Kagitçibaşi, 1996 ; Goodwin, 1999 ; Matsumoto, 2002 ; Park, 2015 ). The sample in this present study represents people of the younger generation who live in urban areas and have relatively high education and economic status. According to Fung ( 2013 ), older individuals have a higher tendency to internalize their cultural values compared to younger individuals. Thus, since the participants in this study are of relatively younger ages, there may be a possibility that they have yet to internalize their cultural values (Ho, 2021 ), explaining the disparities of the interdependent-independent self-construal types. Additionally, Yum et al. ( 2015 ) have discovered that although countries are geographically close and in Asia, it does not necessarily mean they have similar values. For instance, Singaporeans were found to adopt traditional and preindustrial beliefs. Conversely, Malaysians reported to hold greater self-expressive and liberal post-industrial beliefs similar to people living in the United States (Yum et al., 2015 ). Hence, further studies would need to scrutinize the impact of other cultural aspects (e.g., harmony values, and self-expressive values) and widen the range of ages, education, and economic status of participants to truly capture the cultural evolution and communication processes in this modern era.

Research Implications

Taken together, this current research has highlighted some important implications of romantic relationship communication behaviors, particularly in the realm of dating relationships. This work is the first step toward enhancing our understanding of the accommodation and capitalization processes by looking through an Asian cultural lens. In the overall literature and Malaysian context, there are no identified peer-reviewed studies found investigating the accommodation and capitalization processes and relationship satisfaction simultaneously. Integrating the 2 everyday life communication processes into research provides a better holistic view of how romantic relationships unfold. An active and constructive response was captured as the most salubrious response through capitalization and accommodation processes from a Malaysian standpoint. Prominently, an Active-constructive capitalization response bore the strongest influence on relationship satisfaction above and beyond other responses. A passive and constructive response was suggestive of a positive direction for disclosures of good news but not during conflicts. In contrast, destructive responses in both instances displayed a negative pattern which could steer couples in a downward spiral, irrespective of culture.

The findings of this pioneering study would be a noteworthy addition to literature while contributing to positive psychology theory. This research investigated not only which communication behaviors were beneficial but for whom they are effective for. This study would provide a good comparative data of an Asian country since most studies are conducted and dominated by Western cultures and were subdue to low population and ecological validity as well as pitfalls of research methods. Furthermore, the results could also be a guideline in counseling practices to enhance the “good relationship behavior” and relationship satisfaction of couples by training and cultivating better communication behaviors (Gable et al., 2004 ), tailored to the preferences and culture of an individual. This knowledge and understanding of human interactional behaviors could be beneficial in designing pre-marital and marriage interventions in Malaysia and other Asian countries. Possible target therapeutic interventions and positive education are fostering constructive communication behaviors, not only to protect relationships with better conflict management but to also enrich romantic relationships by capitalizing on the positive aspects of their lives. Additionally, the findings could serve as a means to educate and create awareness among the general population about good communication practices of which would hope to reduce divorce rates, strengthen relationships and families, and improve the well-being of the society at large, ultimately building flourishing lives.

Caveats and Future Directions

While this study has made novel contributions to the romantic relationship science literature and goes beyond previous researchers in important ways, future studies should interpret the findings with caution as there were limitations notwithstanding. Firstly, although most of the results were in the expected directions, some of the results appeared non-significant, possibly due to various factors beyond the scope of this research. This study also used self-report data which may induce social-desirability bias; for instance, over-reporting good behavior and higher relationship satisfaction and underreporting undesirable behaviors to be viewed favorably. Moreover, this study focused on the perception of an individual to the response of the partner without directly observing the interaction or investigating how both the discloser and responder feel about the same reactions. Future studies should compare perspectives of both partners and use triangulating methods such as observation in natural settings, in-depth field studies, open-ended surveys, and interviews. Granting all this, it should be noted that responsiveness not only mirrors actual behavior but also the eye of the beholder; therefore, it should be approached with prudence (Reis et al., 2004 ).

Additionally, women are more attuned to behaviors of partners in daily interactions (Overall et al., 2010 ). The sample was predominantly female, with 66.9% of females and 33.1% males, making it difficult to accurately compare gender differences. Therefore, future research should assess the complexities of accommodation and capitalization processes in more depth, while examining gender differences. Furthermore, the sample consisted of participants who were relatively young and in dating relationships, of which 73.4% were in satisfying relationships. These participants may also still be in the “honeymoon” relationship phase, during which they utilize and intently focus on different nature of behaviors (Williams, 2012 ). Responses and perceptions in accommodation and capitalization processes may reveal different patterns in an alternative milieu of long-term, long-distance, distressed, marital, and clinical populations. Future research is recommended to obtain a larger sample size, especially accounting for non-completion of online surveys, to gain a better understanding and generalizability of results.

Lastly, this research was susceptible to ecological fallacy because it assumed that all individuals from a specific culture behave similarly (Freedman, 1999 ). Thus, some Malaysians may hold bicultural self-construal or more independent than interdependent self-construal. These findings suggest opportunities for future research to investigate other types of self-construal as well as various values that may impact communicative behaviors, namely self-expressive and harmony values. Observing other aspects could valuably aid in capturing the cultural evolution and communication processes in this modern age.

Conclusively, our need to connect romantically can be ever so fulfilling and enrich our life experiences but can also be arduous and complicated. The contemporaneous associations of both accommodation and capitalization communication processes aids in understanding the complexities of romantic flourishing relationships. This current research has unearthed that attaining relationship satisfaction lies at the heart of responding constructively in romantic relationships as it shows the partner cares and appreciates us. The advantages of active-constructive responses in both relationship processes were more salient and consistent compared to passive-constructive responses. Conversely, in the destructive paradigm, passive-destructive responses emerged as the most unfavorable act in dating relationships in comparison with other destructive responses. This current research has also found that interdependent self-construal did not moderate the communication behaviors. However, captivatingly, unexpected individual and cultural variations were discovered. In the light of these findings, this area of research is essential and further work is necessary to identify additional mediators and effects of these constructs. Regardless, this present research has endowed society one step closer to solving the riddle of achieving relationship satisfaction, and ultimately flourishing romantic relationships. Herein, this study can also serve as a backbone to the knowledge of accommodation and capitalization processes of psychologists and society in Asia and positive psychology literature. Thus, truly strengthening the view of Virginia Satir that “ Communication is to relationships what breath is to life ” (Loeschen, 2017 , p. 89).

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC, Project Number 10606). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our deep sense of thanks and sincere gratitude to our participants, who were instrumental in the completion of this research. We would also wish to extend our heartfelt appreciation to our family and friends who supported us throughout this research process. This research could not have been completed without all of them.

• Abdullah N. H., Hassan N. A., Harun A. S. A., Nayan L. M., Ahmad R., Rosli M. M. (2017). Conflict management among Malay married couples: an analysis on their strategies and tactics . Asian Soc. Sci. 13 , 95–103. 10.5539/ass.v13n10p95 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abidin R. Z. (2019). Exploring married Malay couples' conceptions of a satisfying marriage: some implications for the education of family counsellors . IIUM J. Educ. Stud. 7 , 73–89. 10.31436/ijes.v7i2.264 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Abidin R. Z., Ismail K., Hassan S. S. S., Sudan S. A. (2018). Marital satisfaction, communication and coping strategy among Malaysian married couples: factors predictions and model testing . Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7 , 408–414. 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.21.17202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amir S. (2009). The influence of national culture on communication practices: a case study on Malaysian organisation (Master's Thesis). Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia. Available online at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/30321/1/Sabrina_Amir_Thesis.pdf (accessed August 24, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Aziz S. A. (2009). The Malaysian legal system: the roots, the influence and the future . Malaysian Law J. Articles , 3 , 1–9. Available online at: http://irep.iium.edu.my/id/eprint/8320 (accessed August 28, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakar A. H., Mohamad B. B., Mustafa C. S. (2007). Superior–subordinate communication dimensions and working relationship: gender preferences in a Malaysian organization . J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 36 , 51–69. 10.1080/17475750701265282 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakar A. H., Walters T., Halim H. (2014). Measuring communication styles in the Malaysian workplace: Instrument development and validation . J. Intercult. Commun. Res. 43 , 87–112. 10.1080/17475759.2014.899508 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes S., Brown K. W., Krusemark E., Campbell W. K., Rogge R. D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress . J. Marital Fam. Ther. 33 , 482–500. 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury T. N., Fincham F. D., Beach S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: a decade in review . J. Marriage Fam. 62 , 964–980. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byers E. S. (2005). Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: a longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships . J. Sex Res. 42 , 113–118. 10.1080/00224490509552264 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell L., Staton S. C. E. (2013). Handling conflicts positively , in: Positive Psychology of Love , eds Hojjat M., Cramer D. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 134–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi H., Oishi S., Shin J., Shu E. M. (2019). Do happy events love company? Cultural variations in sharing positive events with others . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45 , 528–540. 10.1177/0146167218789071 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. E. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross S. E., Hardin E. E., Gercek-Swing B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 15 , 142–179. 10.1177/1088868310373752 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowley A. K. (2006). The relationship of adult attachment style and interactive conflict styles to marital satisfaction (Master's dissertation). Texas AandM University, Houston, TX, United States. Available online at http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-1763/CROWLEY-DISSERTATION.pdf (accessed August 3, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Dush C. M. K., Amato P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 22 , 607–627. 10.1177/0265407505056438 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger N. I. (2012). The neural bases of social pain: evidence of shared representations with physical pain . Psychos. Med. 74 , 126–135. 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182464dd1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., Buchner A. (2007). G * Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences . Behav. Res. Methods. 39 , 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Field A. P. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th Edn . London: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham F., Rogge R., Beach S. (2018). Relationship satisfaction , in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , eds Vangelisti A. L., Pearlman D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ), 422–436. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham F. D., Beach S. R. H. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: a decade in review . J. Marriage Fam. 72 , 630–649. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham F. D., Rogge R. (2010). Understanding relationship quality: theoretical challenges and new tools for assessment . J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2 , 227–242. 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00059.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finkle E. J., Simpson J. A., Eastwick P. W. (2017). The psychology of close relationships: fourteen core principles . Ann. Rev. Psychol. 68 , 383–411 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044038 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fishbane M. D. (2007). Wired to connect: neuroscience, relationships, and therapy . Fam. Proc. 46 , 395–412. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00219.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher G., Simpson J. A., Campbell L., Overall N. C. (2019). The Science of Intimate Relationships, 2nd Edn . Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781119519416 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freedman D. A. (1999). Ecological Inference and the Ecological Fallacy (Technical Report No. 549) . Available online at: http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed260/freedman549.pdf (accessed August 3, 2021).
• Fung H. H. (2013). Aging in culture . Gerontologist. 53 , 369–377. 10.1093/geront/gnt024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funk J. L., Rogge R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couple's satisfaction index . J. Fam. Psychol. 21 , 572–583. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S., Haidt J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 9 , 103–110. 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S. L., Gonzaga G. C., Strachman A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 904–917. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S. L., Gosnell C. L., Maisel N. C., Strachman A. S. (2012). Safely testing the alarm: close others' responses to personal positive events . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103 , 963–981. 10.1037/a0029488 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S. L., Impett E. A., Reis H. T., Asher E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87 , 228–245. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gable S. L., Reis H. T. (2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context , in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 42 , eds Zanna M. (San Diego, CA: Elsevier Press; ), 198–257. 10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42004-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomez-Lopez M., Viejo C., Ortego-Ruiz R. (2019). Well-being and romantic relationships: a systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood . Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16 , 1–31. 10.3390/ijerph16132415 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodwin R. (1999). Personal Relationships Across Cultures . London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203434161 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J., Gottman J. (2017). The natural principles of love . J. Fam. Theory Rev. 9 , 7–26. 10.1111/jftr.12182 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J., Silver N. (1999). The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work . New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M. (1998). Psychology and the study of marital process . Ann. Rev. Psychol. 49 , 169–197. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.169 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M., DeClaire J. (2002). The Relationship Cure: A Five-Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships . New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M., Krokoff L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: a longitudinal view . J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 57 , 47–52. 10.1037/0022-006X.57.1.47 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman J. M., Levenson R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63 , 221–233. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham J. M., Diebels K. J., Barnow Z. B. (2011). The reliability of relationship satisfaction: a reliability generalization meta-analysis . J. Fam. Psychol. 25 , 39–48. 10.1037/a0022441 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gudykunst W. B., Matsumoto Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of communication in personal relationships , in Communication in Personal Relationships Across Cultures , eds Gudykunst W. B., Ting-Toomey S., Nishida T. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ), 19–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo W., Lin Z., Cheng N., Liu X. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Chinese perceived responses to capitalization attempts scale . Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J . 46 , 1801–1814. 10.2224/sbp.7234 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardin E. E., Leong F. T. L., Bhagwat A. A. (2004). Factor structure of the self-construal scale revisited: implications for the multidimensionality of self-construal . J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 35 , 327–345. 10.1177/0022022104264125 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hashim I. H. M. (2013). Advancing positive psychology in South East Asia: the importance of culture . J. Educ. Health Commun. Psychol , 2 , 68–74. Available online at: https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/24701-EN-advancing-positive-psychology-in-south-east-asia-the-importance-of-culture.pdf (accessed August 2, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendriks T., Warren M. A., Schotanus-Dijkstra M., Hassankhan A., Graafsma T., Ernst Bohlmeijer E., et al.. (2019). How WEIRD are positive psychology interventions? A bibliometric analysis of randomized controlled trials on the science of well-being . J. Posit. Psychol. 14 , 489–501. 10.1080/17439760.2018.1484941 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hiew D. N., Halford W. K., van de Vijver F. J. R., Liu S. (2016). Communication and relationship satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and intercultural Chinese–Western couples . J. Fam. Psychol. 30 , 193–202. 10.1037/fam0000144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ho J. (2021). Cross-cultural differences in perceived responses to capitalization attempts and relationship satisfaction (Degree's thesis). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. Available online at: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/169388/xtho.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed September 29, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoesni S. M., Kadir N. A., Wan S. W. S., Hafidz S. W. M. (2016). Love and marital satisfaction among urban Malays: comparing three groups length of marriage . Malays. J. Psychol. 30 , 32–41. Available online at: http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10094/1/226-884-1-PB.pdf (accessed September 28, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstede G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nation. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsu D. T., Sanford B. J., Meyers K. K., Love T. M., Hazlett K. E., Walker S. J., et al.. (2015). It still hurts: altered opioid activity in the brain during social rejection and acceptance in major depressive disorder . Mol. Psychiatry . 20 , 193–200. 10.1038/mp.2014.185 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jankowiak W. R., Fisher E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love . Ethnology. 21 , 149–155. 10.2307/3773618 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson M. D., Cohan C. L., Davila J., Lawrence E., Rogge R. D., Karney B. R., et al.. (2005). Problem-solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction . J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 73 , 15–27. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kagitçibaşi C. (1996). Family and Human Development Across Cultures: A View from the Other Side . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kansky J. (2018). What's love got to do with it? Romantic relationships and well-being , in Handbook of Well-Being , eds Diener E., Oishi S., Tay L. (Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers; ), 1–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karney B. R., Bradbury T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: a review of theory, method, and research . Psychol. Bull. 118 , 3–34. 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy J. C. (2002). Leadership in Malaysia: traditional values, international outlook . Acad. Manag. Execut. 16 , 15–26. 10.5465/ame.2002.8540292 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilpatrick S. D., Bissonnette V. L., Rusbult C. E. (2002). Empathic accuracy and accommodative behavior among newly married couples . Pers. Relat. 9 , 369–393. 10.1111/1475-6811.09402 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim D. (2015). The effects of cultural differences on constructive capitalization responses on interpersonal and intrapersonal outcome variables (Bachelor's thesis). Haverford College, Pennsylvania, United States. Available online at: https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/16649/2015KimD.pd~f?sequence=1andisAllowed=y (accessed August 17, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim H. S., Markus H. R. (2002). Freedom of speech and freedom of silence: an analysis of talking as a cultural practice , in Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies , eds Shweder R. A., Minow M., Markus H. R. (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; ), 432–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim H. S., Sherman D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: culture and the effect of self-expression on choice . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 , 1–11. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim H. S., Sherman D. K., Taylor S. E. (2008). Culture and social support . Am. Psychol. 63 , 518–526. 10.1037/0003-066X [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim M-S., Hunter J. E., Miyahara A., Horvath A. M., Bresnahan M., Yoon H. J. (1996). Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: effects of preferred conversational styles . Commun. Monogr . 63 , 29–49. 10.1080/03637759609376373 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert N. M., Gwinn A. M., Baumeister R. F., Strachman A., Washburn I. J., Gable S. L., et al.. (2012). A boost of positive affect: the perks of sharing positive experiences . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 30 , 24–43. 10.1177/0265407512449400 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Langston C. A. (1994). Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: expressive responses to positive events . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67 , 1112–1125. 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1112 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee L. W., Low H. M. (2014). The evolution of special education in Malaysia . Br. J. Special Educ. 41 , 42–58. 10.1111/1467-8578.12048 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S. (2013). Comparing marital status satisfaction, acculturation, and personality across Asian-mixed couples and Asian couples in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Texas AandM University-Corpus Christi, Houston, TX, Unites States. Available online at: https://tamucc-ir.tdl.org/tamucc-ir/bitstream/handle/1969.6/503/Dissertation%20ShinHwa%20Lee%20.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed August 28, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• LeFebvre L. E. (2017). Phantom lovers: ghosting as a relationship dissolution strategy in the technological age , in Swipe Right for Love: The Impact of Social Media in Modern Romantic Relationships , eds Punyanunt-Carter N., Wrench J. S. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; ), 219–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• LeFebvre L. E., Allen M., Rasner R. D., Garstad S., Wilms A., Parrish C. (2019). Ghosting in emerging adults' romantic relationships: the digital dissolution disappearance strategy . Imagin. Cogn. Pers. 39 , 125–150. 10.1177/0276236618820519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman M. D. (2013). Social. New York, NY: Crown. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loeschen S. (2017). The Secrets of Satir: Collected sayings of Virginia Satir . Available online at: https://hektips.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/thesecretsofsatir.pdf (accessed August 17, 2021).
• Logan J. M., Cobb R. J. (2013). Trajectories of relationship satisfaction: independent contributions of capitalization and support perceptions . Pers. Relat. 20 , 277–293. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01408.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan J. M., Cobb R. J. (2016). Benefits of capitalization in newlyweds: predicting marital satisfaction and depression symptoms . J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 35 , 87–106. 10.1521/jscp.2016.35.2.87 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luong G., Charles S. T., Fingerman K. L. (2011). Better with age: social relationships across adulthood . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 28 , 9–23. 10.1177/0265407510391362 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ma-Kellams C., Blascovich J. (2012). Inferring the emotions of friends versus strangers: the role of culture and self-construal . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 , 933–945. 10.1177/0146167212440291 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markman H. J., Rhoades G. K., Whitton S. W., Stanley S. M., Ragan E. P. (2010). The premarital communication roots of marital distress and divorce: the first five years of marriage . J. Fam. Psychol. 24 , 289–298. 10.1037/a0019481 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H. R., Kitayama S. (1991). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation . Psychol. Rev. 98 , 224–253. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markus H. R., Kitayama S. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: implications for social behavior , in Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence , eds Kitayama S., Markus H. R. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 89–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matsumoto D. (2002). The New Japan: Debunking Seven Cultural Stereotypes . Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miramontes L. G. (2011). The structure and measurement of self-construals: A cross-cultural study of the self-construal scale (Doctoral dissertation). Washington State University, Washington, United States. Available online at: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/3019/Miramontes_wsu_0251E_10205.pdf?sequence=1c (accessed August 3, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Morling B., Kitayama S., Miyamoto Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the U.S. and adjustment in Japan . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28 , 311–323. 10.1177/0146167202286003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagaraj S., Nai-Peng T., Chiu-Wan N., Kiong-Hock L., Pala J. (2015). Counting ethnicity in Malaysia: the complexity of measuring diversity , in Social Statistics and Ethnic Diversity , eds Simon P., Piche V., Gagnon A. A. (Berlin: Springer; ), 143–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Population Family Development Board Malaysia. (2016). Marriage and Marital Stability in Malaysia . Available online at: http://familyrepository.lppkn.gov.my/606x/ (accessed September 27, 2021).
• Noor M. N., Mahdzir A. M., Nor A. M., Abdullah R. (2019). Marital wellbeing indicators amongst Malay Muslim couple in Malaysia: a preliminary study . Malays. J. Med. Health Sci. 15 , 114–119. Available online at: https://medic.upm.edu.my/upload/dokumen/2019042916004217_0314(Final)17.pdf (accessed September 11, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Oetzel J. G., Ting-Toomey S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: a cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory . Commun. Res. 30 , 599–624. 10.1177/0093650203257841 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogolsky B. G., Monk J. K., Rice T. M., Theisen J. C., Maniotes C. R. (2017). Relationship maintenance: a review of research on romantic relationships . J. Fam. Theory Rev. 9 , 275–306. 10.1111/jftr.12205 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Overall N. C., Sibley C. G. (2008). When accommodation matters: situational dependency within daily interactions with romantic partners . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 , 238–249. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Overall N. C., Sibley C. G., Travaglia L. K. (2010). Loyal but ignored: the benefits and costs of constructive communication behavior . Pers. Relat. 17 , 127–148. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01257.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pagani A., Parise M., Danato S., Gable S. L., Schoebi D. (2020). If you shared my happiness, you are part of me: capitalization and the experience of couple identity . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull . 46 , 1–12. 10.1177/0146167219854449 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park M. S. (2015). Changing family perceptions across cultures: the Malaysian context , in Culture and Cognition: A Collection of Critical Essays , eds Haque S., Sheppard E. (Bern: Peter Lang; ), 197–210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters B., Reis H., Gable S. (2018). Making the good even better: a review and theoretical model of interpersonal capitalization . Soc. Pers. Psychol. Comp. 12 :e12407. 10.1111/spc3.12407 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proulx C. M., Helms H. M., Buehler C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: a meta-analysis . J. Marriage Fam. 69 , 576–593. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rajaei A., Daneshpour M., Robertson J. (2019). The effectiveness of couples therapy based on the Gottman method among Iranian couples with conflicts: a quasi-experimental study . J. Couple Relat. Ther. 18 , 223–240. 10.1080/15332691.2019.1567174 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao M. A., Donaldson S. I. (2015). Expanding opportunities for diversity in positive psychology: an examination of gender, race, and ethnicity . Can. Psychol. 56 , 271–282. 10.1037/cap0000036 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reis H. T., Clark M. S., Holmes J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness , in Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy , eds Mashek D. J., Aron A. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; ), 201–225. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robles T. F., Slatcher R. B., Trombello J. M., McGinn M. M. (2014). Marital quality and health: a meta-analytic review . Psychol. Bull. 140 , 2–80. 10.1037/a0031859 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruffieux M., Nussbeck F. W., Bodenmann G. (2014). Long-term prediction of relationship satisfaction and stability by stress, coping, communication, and well-being . J. Divorce Remarriage 55 , 485–501. 10.1080/10502556.2014.931767 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C., Verette J., Whitney G. A., Slovik L. F., Lipkus I. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: theory and preliminary empirical evidence . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 , 53–78. 10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E., Zembrodt I. M., Gunn L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 43 , 1230–1242. 10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1230 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitz A. (2012). Leading With Cultural Intelligence . Available online at: https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/cultural-intelligence-for-leaders.pdf (accessed August 17, 2021).
• Singelis T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20 , 580–591. 10.1177/0146167294205014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith S. M., Reis H. T. (2012). Perceived responses to capitalization attempts are influenced by self-esteem and relationship threat . Pers. Relatsh. 19 , 367–385. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01367.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder D. K., Heyman R. E., Haynes S. N. (2005). Evidence-based approaches to assessing couple distress . Psychol. Assess. 17 , 288–307. 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.288 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam C. L., Lee T. H., Foo Y. C., Lim Y. M. (2011b). Communication skills, conflict tactics and mental health: a study of married and cohabitating couples in Malaysia . Asian Soc. Sci. 7 , 79–87. 10.5539/ass.v7n6p79 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam C. L., Lee T. H., Har W. M., Chua S. I. (2011a). Dyadic consensus and satisfaction of married and dating couples in Malaysia . Asian Soc. Sci. 7 , 65–72. 10.5539/ass.v7n9p65 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S. E., Welch W. T., Kim H. S., Sherman D. K. (2007). Cultural differences in the impact of social support on psychological and biological stress responses . Psychol. Sci. 18 , 831–837. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01987.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation Management Planning Unit (2016). Demography of Population . Available online at: https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/30114 (accessed September 28, 2021).
• Ting S. K. T., Ying C. Y. (2013). Culture dimensions comparison: a study of Malaysia and South Korea . Rev. Integ. Business Econ. Res. 2 , 535–543. Available online at: http://sibresearch.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/2799227/riber_k13-189_535-543.pdf (accessed August 27, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Ting-Toomey S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures . New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Triandis H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism . Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valliant G. E. (2002). Aging Well: Surprising Guideposts to a Happier Life From a Landmark Study of Adult Development . New York, NY: Hachette Book Group. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valliant G. E. (2012). Triumphs of Experience: The Men of the Harvard Grant Study . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vangelisti A. L. (2004). Handbook of Family Communication . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Incorporations Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldinger R., Schulz M. S. (2010). What's love got to do with it? Social functioning, perceived health, and daily happiness in married octogenarians . Psychol Aging. 25 422–431. 10.1037/a0019087 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waldinger R. J., Cohen S., Schulz M. S., Crowell J. A. (2014). Security of attachment to spouses in late life: concurrent and prospective links with cognitive and emotional well-being . Clin. Psychol. Sci. 3 , 516–529. 10.1177/2167702614541261 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang S. W., Lau A. S. (2018). Ethnicity moderates the benefits of perceived support and emotional expressivity on stress reactivity for Asian Americans and Euro Americans . Cult. Diver. Ethnic Minority Psychol . 24 , 363–373. 10.1037/cdp0000197 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang S. W., Shih J. H., Hu A. W., Louie J. Y., Lau A. S. (2010). Cultural differences in daily support experiences . Cult. Diver. Ethnic Minority Psychol. 16 , 413–420. 10.1037/a0019885 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren M. A., Donaldson S. I., Lee J. Y. (2017). Applying positive psychology to advance relationship science , in Towards a Positive Psychology of Relationships: New Directions in Theory and Research , eds Warren M. A., Donaldson S. I. (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC; ), 14–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams M. L. (2012). Romantic love communication: Examination of equity and effects on relational, sexual, and communication satisfaction (Doctorate's dissertation). Kent State University, OH, United States. Available online at: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=kent1332191567 (accessed August 24, 2021). [ Google Scholar ]
• Williamson H. C., Bradbury T. N., Karney B. R., Ju X., Fang X., Liu X. (2012). Communication behavior and relationship satisfaction among American and Chinese newlywed couples . J. Fam. Psychol. 26 , 308–315. 10.1037/a0027752 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodin E. M. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: meta-analytic findings . J. Fam. Psychol. 25 , 325–335. 10.1037/a0023791 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woods S., Lambert N., Brown P., Fincham F., May R. (2015). “I'm so excited for you!” How an enthusiastic responding intervention enhances close relationships . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 32 , 24–40. 10.1177/0265407514523545 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yamagishi T. (2011). Micro–macro dynamics of the cultural construction of reality: a niche construction approach to culture , in Advances in Culture and Psychology, Vol. 1 , eds Gefland M. J., Chiu C., Hong Y. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 5–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yovetich N. A., Rusbult C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close relationships: exploring transformation of motivation . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30 , 138–164. 10.1006/jesp.1994.1007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yum Y., Canary D. J., Baptist J. (2015). The roles of culture and fairness in maintaining relationships: a comparison of romantic partners from Malaysia, Singapore, and the United States . Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 44 , 100–112. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.12.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yum Y. O. (2004). Culture and self-construal as predictors of responses to accommodative dilemmas in dating relationships . J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 21 , 817–835. 10.1177/0265407504047839 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Speaking, writing and reading are integral to everyday life, where language is the primary tool for expression and communication. Studying how people use language – what words and phrases they unconsciously choose and combine – can help us better understand ourselves and why we behave the way we do.

Linguistics scholars seek to determine what is unique and universal about the language we use, how it is acquired and the ways it changes over time. They consider language as a cultural, social and psychological phenomenon.

“Understanding why and how languages differ tells about the range of what is human,” said Dan Jurafsky , the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor in Humanities and chair of the Department of Linguistics in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford . “Discovering what’s universal about languages can help us understand the core of our humanity.”

The stories below represent some of the ways linguists have investigated many aspects of language, including its semantics and syntax, phonetics and phonology, and its social, psychological and computational aspects.

Understanding stereotypes

Stanford linguists and psychologists study how language is interpreted by people. Even the slightest differences in language use can correspond with biased beliefs of the speakers, according to research.

One study showed that a relatively harmless sentence, such as “girls are as good as boys at math,” can subtly perpetuate sexist stereotypes. Because of the statement’s grammatical structure, it implies that being good at math is more common or natural for boys than girls, the researchers said.

Language can play a big role in how we and others perceive the world, and linguists work to discover what words and phrases can influence us, unknowingly.

How well-meaning statements can spread stereotypes unintentionally

New Stanford research shows that sentences that frame one gender as the standard for the other can unintentionally perpetuate biases.

Algorithms reveal changes in stereotypes

New Stanford research shows that, over the past century, linguistic changes in gender and ethnic stereotypes correlated with major social movements and demographic changes in the U.S. Census data.

Exploring what an interruption is in conversation

Stanford doctoral candidate Katherine Hilton found that people perceive interruptions in conversation differently, and those perceptions differ depending on the listener’s own conversational style as well as gender.

Cops speak less respectfully to black community members

Professors Jennifer Eberhardt and Dan Jurafsky, along with other Stanford researchers, detected racial disparities in police officers’ speech after analyzing more than 100 hours of body camera footage from Oakland Police.

How other languages inform our own

People speak roughly 7,000 languages worldwide. Although there is a lot in common among languages, each one is unique, both in its structure and in the way it reflects the culture of the people who speak it.

Jurafsky said it’s important to study languages other than our own and how they develop over time because it can help scholars understand what lies at the foundation of humans’ unique way of communicating with one another.

“All this research can help us discover what it means to be human,” Jurafsky said.

Stanford PhD student documents indigenous language of Papua New Guinea

Fifth-year PhD student Kate Lindsey recently returned to the United States after a year of documenting an obscure language indigenous to the South Pacific nation.

Students explore Esperanto across Europe

In a research project spanning eight countries, two Stanford students search for Esperanto, a constructed language, against the backdrop of European populism.

Chris Manning: How computers are learning to understand language​

A computer scientist discusses the evolution of computational linguistics and where it’s headed next.

Stanford research explores novel perspectives on the evolution of Spanish

Using digital tools and literature to explore the evolution of the Spanish language, Stanford researcher Cuauhtémoc García-García reveals a new historical perspective on linguistic changes in Latin America and Spain.

Language as a lens into behavior

Linguists analyze how certain speech patterns correspond to particular behaviors, including how language can impact people’s buying decisions or influence their social media use.

For example, in one research paper, a group of Stanford researchers examined the differences in how Republicans and Democrats express themselves online to better understand how a polarization of beliefs can occur on social media.

“We live in a very polarized time,” Jurafsky said. “Understanding what different groups of people say and why is the first step in determining how we can help bring people together.”

Analyzing the tweets of Republicans and Democrats

New research by Dora Demszky and colleagues examined how Republicans and Democrats express themselves online in an attempt to understand how polarization of beliefs occurs on social media.

Examining bilingual behavior of children at Texas preschool

A Stanford senior studied a group of bilingual children at a Spanish immersion preschool in Texas to understand how they distinguished between their two languages.

Predicting sales of online products from advertising language

Stanford linguist Dan Jurafsky and colleagues have found that products in Japan sell better if their advertising includes polite language and words that invoke cultural traditions or authority.

Language can help the elderly cope with the challenges of aging, says Stanford professor

By examining conversations of elderly Japanese women, linguist Yoshiko Matsumoto uncovers language techniques that help people move past traumatic events and regain a sense of normalcy.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Americans’ Changing Relationship With Local News

As news consumption habits become more digital, U.S. adults continue to see value in local outlets

Table of contents.

• 1. Attention to local news
• 2. Local news topics
• Americans’ changing local news providers
• How people feel about their local news media’s performance
• Most Americans think local journalists are in touch with their communities
• Interactions with local journalists
• 5. Americans’ views on the financial health of local news
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

The Pew-Knight Initiative supports new research on how Americans absorb civic information, form beliefs and identities, and engage in their communities.

Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. Knight Foundation is a social investor committed to supporting informed and engaged communities. Learn more >

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the local news habits and attitudes of U.S. adults. It is a follow-up to a similar study conducted in 2018 .

The survey of 5,146 U.S. adults was conducted from Jan. 22 to 28, 2024. Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Refer to the topline for the questions used for this survey , along with responses, and to the methodology for more details.

This is a Pew Research Center report from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Find related reports online at https://www.pewresearch.org/pew-knight/ .

The local news landscape in America is going through profound changes as both news consumers and producers continue to adapt to a more digital news environment. We recently asked U.S. adults about the ways they access local news, as well as their attitudes toward local journalism, finding that:

• A growing share of Americans prefer to get local news online, while fewer are getting news on TV or in print. And newspapers are no longer primarily consumed as a print product – the majority of readers of local daily newspapers now access them digitally.
• The share of U.S. adults who say they are paying close attention to local news has dropped since our last major survey of attitudes toward local news in 2018, mirroring declining attention to national news.
• Americans still see value in local news and local journalists. A large majority say local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community. Most people also say local journalists are in touch with their communities and that their local news media perform well at several aspects of their jobs, such as reporting the news accurately.
• At the same time, a relatively small share of Americans (15%) say they have paid for local news in the last year. And many seem unaware of the major financial challenges facing local news: A 63% majority (albeit a smaller majority than in 2018) say they think their local news outlets are doing very or somewhat well financially.
• Majorities of both major parties say local media in their area are doing their jobs well. While Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are slightly less positive than Democrats and Democratic leaners in their opinions of local media, views of local news don’t have the same stark political divides that exist within Americans’ opinions about national media .
• Most Americans say local journalists should remain neutral on issues in their community, but a substantial minority say local journalists should take a more active role. About three-in-ten say local journalists should advocate for change in their communities, a view that’s especially common among Democrats and younger adults.

These are some of the key findings from a new Pew Research Center survey of about 5,000 U.S. adults conducted in January 2024. This is the first in a series of Pew Research Center reports on local news from the Pew-Knight Initiative, a research program funded jointly by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Americans largely hold positive views of local news organizations

At a time when many local news outlets are struggling and Americans’ trust in the news media has waned, the vast majority of U.S. adults (85%) say local news outlets are at least somewhat important to the well-being of their local community. This includes 44% who say local journalism is extremely or very important to their community

About seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say that local journalists in their area are mostly in touch with their community, up from 63% who said this in 2018. And most Americans also say their local news organizations are doing well at four key roles:

• Reporting news accurately (71%)
• Covering the most important stories (68%)
• Being transparent (63%)
• Keeping an eye on local political leaders (61%).

These are relatively positive views compared with how Americans see news organizations more broadly. For instance, a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that fewer than half of U.S. adults say that news organizations in general do a very or somewhat good job of covering the most important stories, reporting the news accurately and serving as a watchdog over elected leaders.

What’s more, views toward local news are not as politically polarized as Americans’ opinions about the news media overall. While Republicans and GOP-leaning independents are not quite as positive as Democrats and Democratic leaners in some of their assessments of local journalists, most Republicans still say the local media in their area are doing their jobs well.

For example, roughly three-quarters of Democrats (78%) say their local media do well at reporting news accurately, compared with about two-thirds of Republicans (66%).

By comparison, the 2022 survey found that 51% of Democrats and just 17% of Republicans say that news organizations in general do a very or somewhat good job of reporting the news accurately.

Jump to more information on views toward local news organizations.

Fewer Americans are closely following local news – and other types of news

Despite these positive views toward local news organizations, there are signs that Americans are engaging less with local journalism than they used to.

The share of Americans who say they follow local news very closely has fallen by 15 percentage points since 2016 (from 37% to 22%). Most U.S. adults still say they follow local news at least somewhat closely (66%), but this figure also has dropped in recent years.

This trend is not unique to local news – Americans’ attention to national and international news also has declined.

The local news landscape is becoming more digital

The ways in which Americans access local news are changing, reflecting an increasingly digital landscape – and matching patterns in overall news consumption habits .

Preferred pathways to local news

• Fewer people now say they prefer to get local news through a television set (32%, down from 41% who said the same in 2018).
• Americans are now more likely to say they prefer to get local news online, either through news websites (26%) or social media (23%). Both of these numbers have increased in recent years.
• Smaller shares prefer getting their local news from a print newspaper or on the radio (9% each).

Specific sources for local news

The types of sources (e.g., outlets or organizations) Americans are turning to are changing as well:

• While local television stations are still the most common source of local news beyond friends, family and neighbors, the share who often or sometimes get news there has declined from 70% to 64% in recent years.
• Online forums, such as Facebook groups or the Nextdoor app, have become a more common destination for local news: 52% of U.S. adults say they at least sometimes get local news from these types of forums, up 14 percentage points from 2018. This is on par with the percentage who get local news at least sometimes from local radio stations.
• Meanwhile, a third of Americans say they at least sometimes get local news from a daily newspaper, regardless of whether it is accessed via print, online or through a social media website – down 10 points from 2018. The share of Americans who get local news from newspapers is now roughly on par with the share who get local news from local government agencies (35%) or local newsletters or Listservs (31%).

Not only are fewer Americans getting local news from newspapers, but local daily newspapers are now more likely to be accessed online than in print.

• 31% of those who get news from daily newspapers do so via print, while far more (66%) do so digitally, whether through websites, apps, emails or social media posts that include content from the paper.
• In 2018, just over half of those who got news from local daily newspapers (54%) did so from print, and 43% did so via a website, app, email or social media site.

There is a similar move toward digital access for local TV stations, though local TV news is still mostly consumed through a TV set.

• In 2024, 62% of those getting news from local TV stations do so through a television, compared with 37% who do so through one of the digital pathways.
• An even bigger majority of local TV news consumers (76%) got that news through a TV set in 2018.

Jump to more information on how people access local news.

The financial state of local news

The turmoil for the local news industry in recent years has come with major financial challenges. Circulation and advertising revenue for newspapers have seen sharp declines in the last decade, according to our analysis of industry data , and other researchers have documented that thousands of newspapers have stopped publishing in the last two decades. There also is evidence of audience decline for local TV news stations, although advertising revenue on local TV has been more stable.

When asked about the financial state of the news outlets in their community, a majority of Americans (63%) say they think their local news outlets are doing very or somewhat well, with a third saying that they’re not doing too well or not doing well at all. This is a slightly more pessimistic view than in 2018, when 71% said their local outlets were doing well, though it is still a relatively positive assessment of the financial state of the industry.

Just 15% of Americans say they have paid or given money to any local news source in the past year – a number that has not changed much since 2018. The survey also asked Americans who did not pay for news in the past year the main reason why not. The most common explanation is that people don’t pay because they can find plenty of free local news, although young adults are more inclined to say they just aren’t interested enough in local news to pay for it.

Jump to more information on how people view the financial state of local news.

Other key findings in this report

Americans get local news about a wide variety of topics. Two-thirds or more of U.S. adults at least sometimes get news about local weather, crime, government and politics, and traffic and transportation, while smaller shares (but still at least half) say they get local news about arts and culture, the economy, schools, and sports.

Relatively few Americans are highly satisfied with the coverage they see of many topics. The survey also asked respondents who at least sometimes get each type of local news how satisfied they are with the news they get. With the exception of weather, fewer than half say they are extremely or very satisfied with the quality of the news they get about each topic. For example, about a quarter of those who consume news about their local economy (26%) say they are extremely or very satisfied with this news. Read more about different local news topics in Chapter 2.

When asked whether local journalists should remain neutral on community issues or advocate for change in the community, a majority of Americans (69%) say journalists should remain neutral, reflecting more traditional journalistic norms. However, 29% say that local journalists should be advocating for change in their communities. Younger adults are the most likely to favor advocacy by journalists: 39% of those ages 18 to 29 say that local journalists should push for change, as do 34% of those 30 to 49. Read more about Americans’ views of the role of local journalists in Chapter 4.

Americans who feel a strong sense of connection to their community are more likely to engage with local news, say that local news outlets are important to the community, and rate local media more highly overall. For example, 66% of those who say they are very attached to their community say local news outlets are extremely or very important to the well-being of their local community, compared with 46% of those who are somewhat attached and 31% of those who are not very or not at all attached to their community.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Digital News Landscape
• Journalists
• Trust in Media

Introducing the Pew-Knight Initiative

8 facts about black americans and the news, audiences are declining for traditional news media in the u.s. – with some exceptions, how black americans engage with local news, local tv news fact sheet, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center