{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "id": "couple-conflict-channel-boundary-2026",
  "canonical_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/couple-conflict-channel-boundary-2026/",
  "json_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/couple-conflict-channel-boundary-2026/index.json",
  "decision": "challenge-existing",
  "decision_label": "Challenge existing claim",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-08-26",
  "reviewed_by": "Brali Evidence Reviewer",
  "source": {
    "title": "A systematic review of technology-mediated conflict management in couples",
    "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075261420989",
    "type": "systematic-review",
    "doi": "10.1177/02654075261420989",
    "citation_text": "Daspe ME, Métellus S, Emond M, et al. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2026;43(6):1836-1861.",
    "study_design": "Systematic review of 15 quantitative studies that directly compared technology-mediated and face-to-face conflict management in couples; eight were experimental studies and seven were surveys.",
    "population": "Couples in studies published from 2007 through 2024, mostly in the United States. Samples were generally convenience samples of relationally satisfied participants with low levels of negative conflict outcomes.",
    "intervention_or_exposure": "Technology-mediated conflict communication, including text, phone and video channels, compared with face-to-face conflict communication.",
    "outcomes": [
      "Conflict behaviors",
      "Emotional responses",
      "Perceived conflict resolution",
      "Perceived communication quality",
      "Relationship satisfaction"
    ]
  },
  "supported_claim": "For romantic-couple conflict, current evidence does not justify a universal channel rule. Across the 15 reviewed studies, technology-mediated and face-to-face conflict often produced similar outcomes, with mixed results and preliminary evidence that person and relationship characteristics may moderate effects. A Brali voice-switch protocol therefore needs an explicit close-relationship boundary instead of extending the broader spoken-disagreement finding as a universal rule.",
  "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [
    "Texting is generally worse than face-to-face conflict discussion for couples.",
    "Face-to-face or voice conflict is universally better for couples.",
    "One communication channel reliably improves relationship satisfaction.",
    "Attachment style or self-esteem can currently be used as validated rules for selecting a conflict channel.",
    "The review establishes guidance for distressed, violent or otherwise high-risk couples.",
    "Older findings transfer unchanged to current messaging platforms and norms."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "Only 15 quantitative studies met inclusion criteria.",
    "Seven of the 15 studies were grey literature.",
    "Several experimental studies had very small samples, including samples around two dozen participants.",
    "The studies were heterogeneous in design, communication channel and outcome measures.",
    "Convenience samples tended to be relationally satisfied and low-conflict.",
    "Laboratory technology-mediated interactions may be more synchronous and controlled than everyday messaging.",
    "The evidence spans technologies and norms from 2007 to 2024, limiting temporal uniformity."
  ],
  "target_hack_ids": [
    "move-disagreement-to-voice"
  ],
  "target_protocol_ids": [
    "brali:move-disagreement-to-voice"
  ],
  "risk_flags": [],
  "notes": "Editorial boundary: if Brali implements a spoken-over-written disagreement protocol, label it as a tactic for manageable disagreements where mutual understanding is the goal, not a default rule for couples. Relationship conflict should preserve choice of asynchronous text when it supports reflection, safety, accessibility or documentation."
}