Qin Zhang
Fairfield University
Suggested Citation:
Zhang, Q. (2026). WeChatting conflict: Media use and satisfaction in interpersonal conflict in china. Utah Journal of Communication, 4(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.20741645
Abstract
This study represents an exploratory examination of media use in interpersonal conflict within geographically co-located close relationships in China. Altogether 248 college students from mainland China participated in the study, and three major findings are reported. First, while face to face (FtF) communication is preferred in managing conflict in China, media is also widely used, with WeChat being as the most commonly used media. Second, five distinct categories are generated regarding the preference of media over FtF in conflict situations in China. Third, conflict parties report the same level of satisfaction when they manage conflict through media or FtF, so conflict channels do not seem to affect conflict satisfaction in China.
Keywords: Media Use; WeChat; Interpersonal Conflict; Conflict Satisfaction; China
Emerging communication technologies have bridged the traditional interpersonal and mass communication divide and embraced converging masspersonal communication (O’Sullivan & Carr, 2018). Human communication, which was once limited to predominantly face-to-face (FtF) conversations, has been rapidly complemented with a wide assortment of mobile or Internet based digital interactions (Flanagin, 2017). With interpersonal communication being increasingly mediatized and media being interpersonalized, media has penetrated all walks of life (Park, 2017). Media use has become an inherent, pervasive, and inevitable element of interpersonal interactions.
Undoubtedly, the rapid evolution of digital media has expanded communicative affordances and will continue to broaden the boundaries and possibilities of communication practices and dynamics (Anderson & Rainie, 2018). As a result, the implications of technology-mediated communication for social connections have attracted unprecedented scholarly attention within the field of communication (Walther & Valkenburg, 2017).
Conflict can be broadly defined as an interaction of interdependent parties who perceive incompatibilities in goals and resources and interferences from others in achieving the goals (Putnam & Poole, 1987; Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Although conflict has been a focal point in communication research (Zhang, Ting-Toomey, & Oetzel, 2014; Zhang, Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, & Zhang, 2019), surprisingly, interpersonal conflict research in our media-saturated world is still largely limited to traditional FtF interactions and only a handful of studies have examined the role of new communication technologies in interpersonal conflict processes (Caughlin, Basinger, & Sharabi, 2017). Moreover, these few studies were conducted exclusively in the U.S., and little is known about the media use in interpersonal conflict management in other cultures, especially the non-Western cultures. Thus, this study aims to expand the line of research. It represents an exploratory attempt to investigate the media use, particularly WeChat, in interpersonal conflict in China.
The study focuses on the media use, specifically the WeChat, in conflict management in China mainly for two reasons. First, with 817 million active mobile internet users, China has the most internet users in the world, accounting for 21% of the world’s total internet users (Shu & Liao, 2019). Second, while Chinese mobile internet users might be as active and as fervent as their U.S. counterparts, the social media landscape in China has its unique platforms and technological ecosystems different from these in the U.S. Most of the popular social media platforms in the U.S., such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube, are blocked in China, and Chinese users overwhelmingly use a narrow set of government-sanctioned platforms, such as WeChat, QQ, and Weibo (Qiao & Shih, 2018). Developed by Chinese tech giant Tencent in 2011, WeChat is the most popular social messaging super-app in China with over one billion monthly active users worldwide, making it also the largest social network on the planet (Brennan, 2018).
Theoretical Foundation: The Mass-Interpersonal Convergence
The ever-advancing communication technologies afford a web of intertwined media options at our disposal, which enable constant, perpetual, and ubiquitous availability, connectivity, and contact, thus helping us accomplish our communication goals (Ling & Lai, 2016; Toma, 2018). The rapid convergence of mass and interpersonal communication in our life has prompted scholarly endeavors to reconceptualize the traditional mass-interpersonal dichotomy and theorize new frameworks for their interpenetration (Flanagin, 2017; O’Sullivan & Carr, 2018). Four types of mass-interpersonal convergence have been identified: concurrence, integration, transformation, and evolution (Walther & Valkenburg, 2017).
The research on mixed media use in converged mass-interpersonal interactions roughly draws on three frameworks (Parks, 2017): channel complementarity (Dutta-Bergman, 2004a, 2004b), media multiplexity (Haythornthwaite, 2005), and modality switching (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007; Ramirez, Sumner, Fleuriet, & Cole, 2015). Despite their differences in foci and assumptions, these frameworks amplify the interpenetration of mass-interpersonal communication, the mediatization of interpersonal interactions, and the interpersonalization of media (Parks, 2017).
Media Use in Interpersonal Conflict in China
Traditionally the study of media use in interpersonal interactions has understandably focused on long-distance or online relationships, but the past decade has witnessed a dramatic surge in the use of mobile media by geographically collocated couples in maintaining relationships and building closeness and intimacy (Baym, 2015; Toma, 2018). Media use was found to play a relatively small role in geographically collocated couples’ interactions back in 2007 (Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Lin, & Ledbetter, 2007), but it has been growing exponentially ever since, and in 2016 over 98% of geographically close young couples reported that they use media to connect with their dating partners throughout the day (Toma & Choi, 2016).
Dyadic media, especially texting, has also been found to be extensively used in addressing relational conflict (Caughlin et al., 2017; Frisby & Westerman, 2010). While FtF communication remains the most widely used venue for managing conflict, media offers apparent advantages in facilitating conflict communication (Toma, 2018). The asynchronicity, editability, and recordability of media afford users opportunities to optimize self-presentation, time to construct desired messages, and control over what, when, and how to communicate, hence conducive to generating potentially positive hyperpersonal effects (Walther, 1996, 2007). More importantly, media enables emotional control, allowing conflict parties to cool down, focus more on the conflict per se rather than emotion, and distance themselves from the anger, awkwardness, uncomfortableness, or negativity arising from the conflict, which likely helps prevent the conflict from getting worse (Caughlin et al., 2017; Toma, 2018).
The advantages notwithstanding, media also entails inherent disadvantages to effective conflict management (Toma, 2018). The reduction of nonverbal cues (e.g., eye contact or facial expressions) in the absence of embodied FtF interactions makes it difficult for people to emotionally connect with each other and understand how they really feel about the conflict. Also, the sometimes purposefully prolonged response latencies due to the lack of synchronicity could aggravate anger and anxiety and provoke stonewalling or distancing behavior, potentially escalating conflict and magnifying dissatisfaction (Toma, 2018). Moreover, the media use itself can be a source of conflict (Toma, 2018). The media affordance of connected presence could heighten the dialectical tension between perpetual connection or contact and the personal need for autonomy, privacy, and independence (Duran, Kelly, & Rotaru, 2011). The panoptic presence, omniscient visibility, and the capability to surveil partners’ activities might elicit jealousy and fuel discord among partners (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015). Partner phubbing, a portmanteau of phone and snubbing, could make the phubbee feel ignored, excluded, and left out (Roberts & David, 2016).
The existing research on interpersonal conflict in China has also predominantly focused on FtF interactions (Zhang, 2007, 2015; Zhang, Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Zhang, 2015), and scholars have yet to examine media use in interpersonal conflict processes in China. The main social media platforms in China include WeChat, QQ, and Weibo (Qiao & Shih, 2018). Both developed by Tencent, WeChat and QQ are the two big giants dominating social messaging in China. QQ was the biggest social media platform in China until 2017 when WeChat surpassed it to take the crown. Launched by Sina in 2009, Weibo offers a microblogging service, seemingly combining the features of Twitter, Pinterest, and Tumblr.
WeChat is now the most popular and powerful messaging app in China with over one billion monthly active users worldwide, making it the largest social network in the world (Brennan, 2018). WeChat is actually a fully-fledged super-app literally for everything, integrating and centralizing functions in messaging, social media (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Skype etc.), gaming, mobile payment, and more mini-programs or apps into a single platform (Qiao & Shih, 2018). It is a one-stop portal where people can text, call, video chat, share photos or videos, shop, hail cabs, order food, pay bills, or transfer money etc. WeChat has become a way of life and a cultural force, which has infiltrated all corners of Chinese society on an unparalleled scale (McLauchlin, 2017). But one of WeChat’s core functions is still messaging, which helps people to connect with others, and develop and maintain relationships (Gan, 2017). In spite of its incomparable popularity in China, it is still unclear if WeChat is commonly used to manage interpersonal conflict. The study attempts to find out whether Chinese people are more likely to use WeChat than any other media, such as QQ, Weibo, texting, phone calls, video chat, or email, to address conflict. Thus, we propose:
RQ1: Is WeChat the most commonly used media in conflict in China?
New communication technologies afford people a variety of mediated channels, along with traditional FtF interactions, in managing conflict. The masspersonal convergence allows people to reinforce relationships and strengthen bonds through multiple platforms (Haythornthwaite, 2005), and shift modalities in interactions (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007). Given that both media and FtF simultaneously offer respective advantages and disadvantages, people need to consider carefully the most appropriate and effective medium for handling conflict, and to make thoughtful choices whether to address conflict through FtF, media, or the combination of both (Toma, 2018). While FtF communication remains the most preferred venue for managing conflict, sometimes people strategically select to use media for convenience and benefits (Frisby & Westerman, 2010), such as to generate desired messages and to distance themselves from the uncomfortable conflict situation (Caughlin et al., 2017). But it is not clear whether these content-focused, self-centered findings from the largely individualistic U.S. culture would apply to the primarily relationship-oriented collectivistic Chinese culture. This study attempts to explore if and when Chinese would favor media over FtF during conflict. Thus, we propose:
RQ2: When do Chinese people use media to avoid FtF interactions during conflict?
Media Use and Conflict Satisfaction in China
Conflict satisfaction involves a sense of contentment with conflict interactions, management styles, resolution, or outcome (Zhang, 2015). While a robust relationship between conflict behavior and satisfaction is established in FtF interactions across cultures (Zhang, 2007, 2015), the link between conflict channels (i.e., media use vs FtF) and satisfaction seems to be ambivalent or inconsistent. Burge and Tatar (2009) found that the couples addressing conflict via media (i.e., phone or IM) experience lower mood states than those communicating FtF, but Perry and Werner-Wilson (2011) noted that couples report similar levels of satisfaction in media and FtF conditions. Other studies suggested that the relationship between communication channels (i.e., media or FtF) and satisfaction is moderated by other factors, such as self-esteem (Scissors & Gergle; 2016). Toma (2018) argued that, despite the benefits of media for conflict management, by and large, the couples using media addressing conflict appeared to be less satisfied with conflict communication and resolution than those communicating FtF. It is unknown if the use of conflict channels (i.e., FtF or media) would make a difference to conflict satisfaction in China. Given the inconsistent findings generated in the U.S., we offer:
RQ3: Do conflict channels (i.e., media vs. FtF) affect conflict satisfaction in China?
Method
Participants
Altogether 248 students (57 male, 188 female, and 3 unidentified) from a large university in central mainland China participated in the study. The average age of the participants was 20.97 (SD = 2.52). Most of the participants were ethnically Han. College students were used in the study because of their high media use, as well as convenience and accessibility.
Procedure
The questionnaire was administered in Chinese to students during class. Participants were recruited through introductory English classes. Participation was anonymous, and no extra credit was granted for participation. The questionnaire took about 15 minutes to complete.
Participants were first asked to think about a current geographically collocated close relationship, such as with a close friend, boyfriend/girlfriend, or a family member, in which they sometimes have conflict. We particularly emphasized that it should NOT be a long-distance or online relationship. They were asked to describe who the counterpart was (i.e., close friend, boyfriend/girlfriend, or family member), how often they had conflict, and how close they were. Altogether 37% of the participants described a conflict with a close friend, 31% with boyfriend/girlfriend, and 32% with a family member. The average frequency of them having conflict was 2.32 (SD = .84), and the average closeness was 4.23 (SD = .85).
Participants were asked to indicate how often they address conflict with the counterpart through FtF and/or media channels. They were later asked to recall a recent conflict or intense disagreement with the counterpart and if FtF and/or any media channel was used to address this recalled conflict. They were also asked to respond to Likert-type questions measuring their conflict satisfaction. Demographic questions were included at the end of the questionnaire.
Instruments
Media use frequency. Media channels assessed in the study included texting, WeChat, phone calls, QQ, Weibo, emails, and video chats. The frequency was measured with one five-point Likert-type item (5 = always, 1 = never), “please indicate how often you use the following media channels to address conflict with the counterpart.”
Conflict satisfaction. Conflict satisfaction was assessed with four five-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly agree, 1 = strongly disagree) based on Carson and Cupach’s (2000) Conflict Outcome Satisfaction Scale. Sample items include: “I was happy with our conflict solution” and “I was satisfied with our way of handling the conflict.” The scale was found to have good reliability for Chinese sample (Zhang, 2015). The reliability for this study was .94.
Results
RQ1 inquired about whether WeChat is the most commonly used media during conflict in China. The average use of the seven media channels to address conflict was as follows (from the highest to the lowest): WeChat (M = 3.13, SD = 1.47), phone calls (M = 2.84, SD = 1.38), QQ (M = 2.53, SD = 1.52), video chat (M = 2.20, SD = 1.44), texting (M = 1.56, SD = .86), Weibo (M = 1.25, SD = .73), and emails (M = 1.15, SD = .57). In addition, the average FtF communication to address conflict was 3.51 (SD = 1.31).
Paired t-tests were used to test if the differences between the means were significant. FtF scored significantly higher than WeChat, t (231) = 2.94, p < .005; WeChat higher than phone calls, t (231) = 2.42, p < .05; phone calls higher than QQ, t (225) = 2.88, p < .005; QQ higher than video chat, t (225) = 2.25, p < .05; video chat higher than texting, t (223) = 5.91, p < .001; texting higher than Weibo, t (223) = 5.03, p < .001; and the mean difference between Weibo and emails was not significant, t (225) = 1.64, p = .10. While FtF was most preferred in conflict communication in China, WeChat was the most commonly used media in interpersonal conflict, followed by phone calls, QQ, video chat, and texting respectively. Weibo and emails were the least commonly used media.
RQ2 inquired about when people use media to avoid FtF interactions during conflict in China. The method of constant comparison (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) was employed to code participants’ qualitative responses to the open-ended question regarding when and why they use media into exhaustive and exclusive categories. The coding process involved two steps: open coding and axial coding. Open coding refers to “the initial and unrestricted coding of data” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 219). The goal was to open up the inquiry, and naturally it involved coding as many categories as we could from the data. All the responses were examined sentence by sentence to identify all the possible themes and ideas, which were identified and labeled. The unit of analysis was the themes emerging from the data, which were later compared, sorted, and generated into unique and exclusive themes.
The second step of coding was axial coding, which involved linking the themes together and integrating them into broader categories. Categories were collapsed since, through the constant method of comparison, they were pushed to higher levels of abstraction, which could span several initial categories (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). All the items were reread, compared, refined, adjusted, and integrated constantly into broader categories until they reached the saturation point when no new data added any meaningful variation. As a result, five distint categories were generated regarding the preference of media use over FtF during conflict.
First, media was preferred over FtF when emotions were high (n = 65). Media could help people control their emotion, especially anger, and cool down so that the conflict would not escalate. For example, participants wrote: “I would communicate via media when we are very angry because FtF talk could make us angrier and aggravate the conflict, but media could hide our emotion and anger, allowing us to be more rational in analyzing and resolving the conflict;” and “Media could buffer our anger, make us cool down, communicate calmly, and avoid the awkwardness and discomfort of talking FtF.”
Second, media was preferred over FtF when it was easier or more convenient to communicate through media than FtF (n = 54). Media is convenient when people are not physically together, when they are busy and have no time to meet FtF, or when it is difficult to talk FtF. For example, some participants wrote: “It is so convenient to use cell phone, anytime and anywhere, and it saves us time and money;” and “I would use media when it is very hard and awkward to talk FtF, and I don’t even know how to communicate FtF sometimes.”
Third, our participants would use media instead of FtF because media allows them to construct appropriate and desirable messages (n = 38). One of the main advantages of media over FtF is that it can be asynchronous and editable (Toma, 2018), which gives people time to think and formulate what they want to say or do. Some participants wrote: “Media allows us to better organize our messages and say things we would not say FtF;” and “We might misspeak and say things we regret when we talk FtF, but media allows us to think before we communicate.”
Fourth, some participants would choose media over FtF because it helps them save face (n =22). Conflict is a essentially face-negotiation process whereby people experience face loss and enact facework (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005). Conflict can be face-threatening; thus, people sometimes use media to save face for each other. As participants wrote: “I want to apologize and ask for forgiveness, but it is awkward to do so FtF;” and “When the conflict is very serious and ugly, FtF could rip open faces, which is something embarrassing, shameful, and disgraceful.”
Last, some participants would use media over FtF to protect their relationship from becoming worse (n = 17). Media could help them remove themselves from the intense situation and keep them from further hurting the relationship. For example, participants wrote: “When we are too emotional, FtF contact can damage our relationship;” and “Communicating over media could ease the tension in the relationship.”
RQ3 inquired about if conflict channels (i.e., media vs. FtF) affect conflict satisfaction in China. Among the 237 participants who reported their use of conflict channels and satisfaction in the recalled conflict, about 50% of the participants (n = 118) reported that they used media to address the recalled conflict, and another 50% (n = 119) reported they did not. Results of independent samples t-test indicated that, although media use (M = 3.36, SD = 1.00) generated slightly lower conflict satisfaction than FtF (M = 3.41, SD = 1.17), the mean difference between them was not significant, t (235) = -.35, p = .43. The participants seemed to experience the same level of satisfaction when they addressed conflict through media or FtF. Thus, conflict channels (i.e., media vs. FtF) do not appear to affect conflict satisfaction in China.
In addition, among the 237 participants, 70% (n = 165) reported that they communicated the conflict FtF, 55% (n = 130) used WeChat, 45% (n = 97) phone calls, 46% (n = 67) QQ, 34% (n = 56) video chat, 32% (n = 48) texting, and the number of people using Weibo (n = 5) and email (n = 3) was negligible. Among them, 36% (n = 85) of them used both FtF and media. Clearly, FtF was preferred over media, although many of them used both FtF and media in addressing the recalled conflict, with WeChat being the most commonly used media.
Discussion
This study represents an exploratory attempt to investigate the media use in interpersonal conflict in geographically collocated close relationships in China. Three major findings are reported. First, while face to face (FtF) communication is most preferred in conflict processes in China, media is widely used during conflict, with WeChat being the most commonly used media. Second, five distinct categories are generated regarding the preference of media over FtF during conflict in China. Third, conflict parties report the same level of satisfaction when they manage conflict through media or FtF, so conflict channels do not seem to affect conflict satisfaction in China.
The findings make important contributions to existing interpersonal conflict research. First, they provide robust empirical support to the masspersonal convergence, channel complementarity, modality switching, and media multiplexity in conflict situations (Dutta-Bergman, 2004a, 2004b; Haythornthwaite, 2005; O’Sullivan & Carr, 2018; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007), as well as the mediatization of interpersonal communication and the interpersonalization of mass communication (Parks, 2017) in Chinese context. Results indicate that, while FtF communication is preferred, media is widely used and people use both FtF and media during in China. Traditional FtF interactions to manage conflict appears to have been complemented with a great variety of mobile-based digital interactions, which present conflict parties desirable opportunities to select the most appropriate and effective conflict channels to best address conflict and accomplish their conflict goals. The finding is also consistent with prior studies in the U.S. suggesting the prevalence of media use in relational conflict and the overall preference of FtF over media in conflict (Caughlin et al., 2017; Frisby & Westerman, 2010; Toma, 2018). Thus, the masspersonal convergence in handling interpersonal conflict seems to be a global trend, at least applying across the U.S. and China.
Second, this study reveals a unique media ecology and usage patterns in China, different from the findings generated from the U.S. indicating the predominance of texting in conflict management (Frisby & Westerman, 2010). WeChat is the most commonly used media during conflict, which makes complete sense in light of its unparalleled popularity, multimodal all-in-one function allowing users to text, call, video chat, and share photos or videos, and affordances that support face-saving, indirect, and relationship-oriented interaction in Chinese culture. In spite of the differences, the minimal use of emails to address conflict seems to be consistent across the two cultures (Frisby & Westerman, 2010).
Third, this study generates five distinct categories of situations when Chinese people prefer media over FtF during conflict: 1) when emotions are high; 2) when it is easier or more convenient to communicate through media than FtF; 3) when people need time to construct appropriate and desired messages; 4) when they want to save face; and 5) when they want to protect their relationship from becoming worse. This finding echoes the content-focused, self-centered instrumental goals of media use in managing conflict identified in the U.S., such as the asynchronicity and editability of media which allow users to formulate appropriate messages for hyperpersonal effects (Toma, 2018; Walther, 2007), the convenience and accessibility of media which saves time and increases efficiency (Caughlin et al., 2017; Frisby & Westerman, 2010), and the affordance of emotional control which allows people to distance themselves from the anger and negativity of the conflict (Caughlin et al., 2017; Toma, 2018).
More importantly, in addition to the primarily content-centered themes uncovered in the U.S., the Chinese categorization adds identity and relational dimensions, such as saving face and protecting relationships. Face is extremely important in Chinese culture, which often relates to reputation, dignity, and prestige, and plays a central role in relationships (Zhang et al., 2014). This finding can be more explicitly understood through face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005), which conceptualizes conflict as a face-negotiation process whereby people experience face threat and enact facework to save face and relationships. This difference in the categorization might be traceable to the divergent cultural values between the U.S. and China. The predominantly content-focused American categorization might align more with its largely task-oriented individualistic culture, whereas the face-accented, relationship-focused, and content-included Chinese categorization might reflect more its mostly identity/relationship-oriented collectivistic and holistic culture (Zhang & Oetzel, 2006).
Last, this study also reveals that conflict channels (i.e., media vs. FtF) do not seem to affect conflict satisfaction in China since conflict parties report the same level of satisfaction when they manage conflict through media or FtF. This result is consistent with Perry and Werner-Wilson’s (2011) finding in the U.S. that couples experience similar levels of satisfaction in media and FtF conditions. One plausible explanation might be that people thoughtfully select the most appropriate and effective channels (i.e., media or FtF) to manage their conflict to achieve satisfactory outcome. Conflict satisfaction might be mediated through conflict effectiveness and appropriateness, which aligns with the competence-based model of conflict (Zhang, 2015). Thus, people are equally satisfied with either FtF or using media as long as the channels are the most appropriate and effective. Another possible explanation might be that conflict satisfaction may depend more on other factors (e.g., whether the conflict is resolved or whether their goals are achieved) than on the specific channels used.
This study extends the line of research regarding media use during conflict from U.S. culture to Chinese culture, and the results suggest an important implication for digital conflict communication research. While some media use patterns in conflict engendered in China resemble these identified in the U.S., unique cultural behaviors are also uncovered. Importantly, it also demonstrates cultural variations in the conceptualization of digital conflict communication. Media use during conflict appears to be culturally loaded and constructed. It is primarily content-focused in the U.S., whereas in China it seems to be more holistic: content-focused, relationship-oriented, and face-accented. In China it appears to be not only about message content, but also about face concerns and relationships. Thus, digital conflict research needs to consider specific cultural contexts. In light of cultural and media pluralicity and locality, it is important for us to decipher emic or indigenous media use patterns to expand and enrich our understanding of media use in conflict across cultures. More effort should be made to search for the diverse patterns to reflect our multicultural and pluralistic society, which should be the ultimate goal to strive after.
Two limitations need to be addressed about the study. First, it relies on self-report responses to collect data rather than using observational or behavioral data. Students’ self-reports might be inaccurate and unreliable due to some intentional or unintentional perceptual bias and distortion. The lack of observational or behavioral data might be a threat to the reliability and validity of the study. Second, the study uses a convenience sample of college students with a disproportionate ratio of male and female participants. Considering that young people tend to be the most active group consuming mobile media (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Toma, 2018), college students may not well represent the overall population, which might limit the generalizability of the findings. Relatedly, this study primarily focuses on WeChat, but each media platform might attract distinct demographic groups, so WeChat users might not be representative of overall population, and the platform-specific bias might also undermine the validity of the findings. Thus, the findings need to be interpreted with caution.
The study opens up interesting directions for future conflict research. Since prior conflict research largely focuses on FtF interactions, more research is needed to examine the role of media use in conflict processes in our media-saturated society. Given scholars’ seminal effort to reconceptualize and theorize the masspersonal convergence (Flanagin, 2017; O’Sullivan & Carr, 2018), empirical investigations would help to validate the innovative theoretical endeavors. The newly-developed frameworks and paradigms derived from the Western culture can be tested cross-culturally, especially in non-Western cultures, to determine whether they are etic and potentially applicable to other cultures.
Future research could also employ multi-method approaches, including observational and behavioral data, to reduce self-report bias and enhance validity. Additionally, studies could use more diverse and representative samples beyond college students, with balanced demographics, to improve generalizability. Last, future research could also consider examining various contextual, personal, emotional, or cultural factors that might mediate or moderate the effects of media use on conflict outcomes, a fertile area which is currently underexplored.
In conclusion, this study extends the understanding of media use in interpersonal conflict in geographically close relationships in China. The findings provide some solid empirical support for the masspersonal convergence in conflict management in our increasingly digitalized society. Hopefully, this study helps to generate more research exploring the integration of media and technology in interpersonal conflict processes to better understand the complicated conflict dynamics in more diverse cultures.
References
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2018). The future of well-being in a tech-saturated world. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/04/17/the-future-of-well-being-in-a-tech-saturated-world/
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Baym, N., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A. D., Lin, M.-C., & Ledbetter, A. (2007). Relational quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 9(5), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080339
Brennan, M. (2018, March 8). One billion users and counting: What is behind WeChat’s success? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/outofasia/2018/03/08/one-billion-users-and-counting-whats-behind-wechats-success/
Burge, J., & Tatar, D. (2009). Affect and dyads: Conflict across different technological media. In S. Harrison (Ed.), Media space: 20+ years of mediated life (pp. 123–144). Springer.
Caughlin, J. P., Basinger, E. D., & Sharabi, L. L. (2017). The connections between communication technologies and relational conflict: A multiple goals and communication interdependence perspective. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities (pp. 57–72). Routledge.
Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). The communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.541336
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004a). Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 41–60.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004b). Interpersonal communication after 9/11 via telephone and internet: A theory of channel complementarity. New Media & Society, 6(5), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144804047086
Flanagin, A. J. (2017). Online social influence and the convergence of mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 450–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12116
Frisby, B. N., & Westerman, D. (2010). Rational actors: Channel selection and rational choices in romantic conflict episodes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 970–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378302
Gan, C. (2017). Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.002
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
Ling, R., & Lai, C.-H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication, 66(5), 834–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12251
McLauchlin, H. (2017). We(Chat) the people: Technology and social control in China. Harvard Political Review. https://harvardpolitics.com/world/wechat-the-people-technology-and-social-control-in-china/
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns and facework during conflict: A test of the face-negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257841
O’Sullivan, P. B., & Carr, C. T. (2018). Masspersonal communication: A model bridging the mass-interpersonal divide. New Media & Society, 20(3), 1161–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686104
Parks, M. R. (2017). Embracing the challenges and opportunities of mixed-media relationships. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12125
Perry, M. S., & Werner-Wilson, R. J. (2011). Couples and computer-mediated communication: A closer look at the affordances and use of the channel. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02099.x
Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 549–599). Sage.
Qiao, H., & Shih, P. C. (2018). Use of social media for academic purpose in China. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of Chinese CHI (pp. 84–94). Association for Computing Machinery.
Ramirez, A., Jr., Sumner, E. M., Fleuriet, C., & Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12101
Ramirez, A., Jr., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701543493
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058
Shu, C., & Liao, R. (2019, June 12). Mary Meeker’s 2019 internet trends report highlights China’s short-form videos and super apps. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/12/mary-meekers-2019-internet-trends-report-highlights-chinas-short-form-videos-and-super-apps/
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Sage.
Toma, C. L. (2018). Connection, conflict, and communication technologies: How romantic couples use media for relationship management. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and love (pp. 62–85). Routledge.
Toma, C. L., & Choi, M. (2016). Mobile media matters: Media use and relationship satisfaction among geographically close dating couples. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 394–404). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2835204
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0479
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538–2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
Walther, J. B., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). Merging mass and interpersonal communication via interactive communication technology: A symposium. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12120
Wilmot, W., & Hocker, J. (2011). Interpersonal conflict (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parent-child relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600998681
Zhang, Q. (2015). A U.S.-China investigation of the effects of perceived partner conflict styles on outcome satisfaction: The mediating role of perceived partner conflict competence. Communication Quarterly, 63(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.949383
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). A cross-cultural test of immediacy-learning models in Chinese classrooms. Communication Education, 55(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748599
Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Zhang, J. (2019). Making up or getting even? The effects of face concerns, self-construal, and apology on forgiveness, reconciliation, and revenge in the U.S. and China. Communication Research, 46(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215607959
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking emotion to the conflict face-negotiation theory: A U.S.-China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion, and guilt in interpersonal conflict. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12029
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Zhang, J. (2015). The emotional side of forgiveness: A cross-cultural investigation of the role of anger, compassion, and face threat in interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 8(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2015.1087094