Typicality and volition as fundamental features of everyday relational communication

Abstract

Drawing from communicate bond belong theory, two dimensions of routine social interactions (i.e., volition, typicality) are examined in the context of everyday talk to advance theory on relationship maintenance. Adults' (N = 127) social interactions (n = 2537) were collected using experience sampling. Testing preregistered hypotheses, multilevel modeling results suggest that in more typical interactions individuals reported more connection and well‐being and less social energy expenditure. The more volitional (i.e., engaged in by choice) the interaction, the more the connection and well‐being and the more the social energy expended. Day‐over‐day analyses (n = 793) suggest that participants maintained their relationships more easily when they had more choice in their interactions each day but a more stable routine of interaction across the week.

Social Bandwidth: When and Why Are Social Interactions Energy Intensive?

“…When attaining desirable outcomes is contingent on the interaction going well, individuals invest energy in the form of self-presentational effort, attention and focus, and conversational management (Dominguez et al, 2020). When individuals choose to interact, because they want to talk with the partner or have the conversation, they are more likely to invest energy (Hall et al, 2021). Engaging, interesting, intense, and important conversations are higher in social energy expense because attaining a desired outcome rests on the success of the interaction.…”

“…For example, the obligation to interact, whether due to a relationship, the expectations of the conversation, or demands of the workplace or family, was an energy draining experience in the present investigation. A lack of volition is explainable under the CBB framework (Hall et al, 2021), but how exactly energy is drained through obligation is unclear. Participants particularly reported feeling energy drain when they were obliged to have conversations but felt disconnected from others.…”

“…Participants rated the factors from 1 ( not at all important ) to 100 ( very important ). Items were written to reflect factors identified in past literature as plausible sources of energy expense (Finkel et al, 2006; Hall & Davis, 2017; Hall, 2018; Hall et al, 2021; Leary, 2012). See Table 1 for exact item wording.…”

“…Each survey asked participants’ connection and disconnection using two items from Hall et al (2021): “At this moment, how close and connected do you feel to other people? (1 = No connection , 4 = A moderate amount , 7 = A great deal of connection ; M = 4.22, SD = 1.73), and “At this moment, how lonely do you feel?” (1 = Not lonely at all , 4 = Somewhat lonely , 7 = Very lonely ; M = 2.50, SD = 1.53).…”

Social dynamics and affect: Investigating within-person associations in daily life using experience sampling and mobile sensing

“…Volition can be considered a precondition for a match between social contact status and momentary social desire and is therefore related to the social dynamics analyzed in this study. Higher volition of social interaction status has consistently been linked to higher well-being (Hall et al, 2021;Hall & Merolla, 2020;Uziel & Schmidt-Barad, 2022).…”