As we highlighted in Chapter 1, technology affords us both conveniences as well as challenges. Whether a certain aspect of technology and new media is positive or negative is influenced by where an individual is in their own lifespan, and at what point a couple, family, or relational system is at in its life cycle. One thing seems to be clear; technology is changing individuals and relationships (Lanigan, Bold, & Chenoweth (2009). How technology both changes and is influenced by relational systems across their developmental life cycle, however, remains considerably less explored in both research and practice. For example, the accessibility one has to online pornography may be either innocuous or deeply problematic depending on the time or circumstance it has introduced into one’s lifespan. If introduced in a stage where the individual is a single adult, it may be innocuous. If, however, access to online pornography is introduced during early childhood, the results could be troublesome. If introduced while someone is partnered/in romantic relationships, the consequences could be benign, damaging, or anywhere on a continuum depending on the developmental stage and rules of the relationship.
The determination as to whether technology is an issue in a particular context is a confluence of where people are in their individual life cycle development and their relational life cycle. Successful development outcomes includes differentiating perception and response, controlling and directing one’s own behavior, and coping effectively. The main tasks are: (a) differentiated perception and response; (b) directing and controlling one’s own behavior; (c) coping successfully under stress; (d) acquiring knowledge and skill; (e) establishing and maintaining mutually rewarding relationships; and (f) modifying and constructing one’s own physical, social, and symbolic environment (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Today I (KH) was taking a photo of myself and my 2 ½-year-old niece. The minute I turned the camera onto the two of us and she could see herself on my phone’s screen, she exclaimed in her little baby voice: “We’re taking a selfie!” The room erupted in laughter upon hearing such a little voice say such a non-child statement, but the truth was undeniable: even at such a young age, she already knew the vernacular related to technology and new media. In any culture, children seem to be the demographic that understands the cultural changes faster than the generations before them, to the point where their parents are often surprised by their adoptions and nuanced understanding of new technologies. In the US, most children quickly become familiar with a variety of technologies ranging from smartphones to digital streaming devices to computers to laptops to tablets to gaming devices to video calling with friends and family. Children as young as age 2 are interested in technologies like computers (Watt & White, 1999).
The relationship with technology remains constant throughout the development of relational systems; however, the types of technology and the way such media is managed at each point differ based on the point in development, the diversity of the members in the relationships, and the larger social web with whom the members are technologically connected. According to Nikken and Schols (2015):
In accordance with Vygotsky’s (1986) theory on child development, parental mediation is seen as a key strategy in developing children’s skills to use and interpret the media, foster positive outcomes and prevent negative effects of the media on children. Physical, emotional and social experiences, such as media use, and social interactions related to these activities with parents and siblings, provide a scaffold for the child’s development, especially when they occur within the child’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1986). With regard to young children’s media use, this means that when the child is engaged in specific media activities, the parent should apply a form of mediation that is developmentally appropriate (Clark, 2011).
(p. 3424)
Clearly, as gatekeepers, parents and care providers shoulder a signifi-cant burden of the responsibility for assisting youth with navigating the responsible use of technology. In fact the exposure of young kids to smartphones has more to do with parents/care providers than the kids (Kim, Shin, & Jo, 2016).
Children are attracted to the Internet for specific reasons. In many ways, the Internet and new media provide ways for children to continue to meet their developmental psychosocial tasks and objectives laid out by Erikson (1982). Adolescence is the stage when youth try on different identities to form their own idea about whom they are (Steinberg, 2008). If this stage is successfully resolved, the adolescent will have a sense of identity. If the stage is not successfully resolved, the adolescent will experience identity foreclosure. Current technology now plays a key part in this developmental stage. Teens use technologies as a way to try on different identities, as a way to gain autonomy, and as a way to connect with their peers (Borca, Bina, Keller, Gilbert, & Begotti, 2015).
Adolescents also make use of technologies for a variety of reasons including gaming, social networking, and optimization of educational homework opportunities, to name a few (Hur, 2006). As a child moves into adolescence, once again boundaries, roles, and rules within the family system need be renegotiated (McGoldrick & Carter, 2001), including those around the role of technology. In addition, the myriad ecological influences around technology in the couple’s, family’s, and children’s lives need to be reconsidered. Frequently the development tasks that couples need to consider in adolescence revolve around the negotiating of privacy, autonomy, and independence versus the degree to which one needs to retain parental and family control (Bacigalupe & Lambe, 2011). These same tasks are often central issues of teen-technology and parental/care provider–technology interactions (Bacigalupe & Lambe, 2011).
According to Choi and Lim (2016):
First, examination of the effects of SNS use in young people is particularly important, as they are at a critical stage in the development of social skills. During adolescence, people need social skills, particularly those related to self-dependence, career orientation, and relationship maintenance, more than ever (Arnett, 2000). Because adolescence is the stage at which the initial step toward long-term well-being, identity formation, and the development and maintenance of friendships and family relationships is taken, SNS use is most important during this period (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000; Montgomery, 2005).
(p. 246)
In other words, the ability for the Internet and new media to assist in this developmental stage makes it fertile ground for adolescents to try this task in a relatively non-threatening environment. For example, one can connect with a certain peer group, clique, or even ask someone out on a date via a text channel without necessarily letting anyone else know that they are connected with this group or were rejected from the date as these activities would take place without potential rejection occurring face-to-face. Another consideration is the nature of the individual. As Hou et al. (2017) noted, psychological resilience mitigates negative effects of social media use. In their study, college students who were more psychologically resilient were less likely to experience stress from the problems associated with social networking sites.
Another area of development to consider is that of cognition. To date, the research on the cognitive impact of technology on teens is not totally clear. On the negative side, researchers have discovered that those adolescents who are more connected to the Internet than other teens are less likely to find solutions when solutions are in front of them (Mills, 2016). When teens know that they can find information later, they tend to remember how to find the information rather than the information itself (Sparrow, Liu, & Wegner, 2011). The results, however, are conflicting when evaluating whether access to the Internet contributes to self-confidence (Ferguson, McLean, & Risko, 2015).
In young adulthood, the primary tasks include differentiation from one’s family-of-origin, establishing an independent value set, and using the information one has about what they learned in the identity-formation stage to make decisions about career, relationships, and personal life. It is during this phase that young people search for their identity. Technology has a key place in this stage of development (Cyr, Berman, & Smith, 2015). Social media affords young people the opportunity to enact an identity and evolve it (Livingstone, 2008). In enacting an identity, adolescents may use stickers, colors, photos, and detailed descriptions in the Facebook profile questions; in fact, the lack of using these descriptives and details is also an enacted identity. The decision to display themselves as a certain type of identity is a function of first the norms of their peer group and second what interfaces are available on the social media platform (Livingstone, 2008).
A key task in young adulthood is the development of self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Initially described by Kegan (1994) as a process by which someone’s meaning-making shifts from external to internal, self-authorship is defined as “the capacity to author, or invent, one’s own beliefs, values, sense of self, and relationships with others” (p. 3). It is the development of one’s own perspective through balancing external pressures and beliefs with one’s internally generated beliefs, with consideration of one’s personal goals (Baxter Magolda, 2001).
The process of becoming self-authored follows a lengthy and intense period of reflection on how one knows one’s beliefs because they are internally generated rather than influenced by others. It is the difference between following dreams and following footsteps. For example, one may decide to become a music major rather than taking over the family business. To accomplish this, one considers their beliefs, values, ideals, interpersonal loyalties, and related cognitions and begins to see them as separate from themselves as opposed to extensions of themselves. They carefully consider which elements truly represent them and which represent loyalties to others of the external world incongruent with whom they feel they are. Once the individual identifies which values, beliefs, ideals, and views they want to move forward, they emerge with a new and congruent identity—one that is congruent in both their personality and behavior. It is this new identity that is acted upon, is expressed, and coordinates action on behalf of the new self-authored individual.
Self-authorship does not mean, however, that the individual relies solely on their voice and ignores any other points of view. As with Bowen’s (1978) concept of differentiation, self-authored individuals strike a healthy balance between the external world and their internal voices. In either condition (self-authorship or differentiation), to be on the end of the continuum one way or another actually reflects lower levels of differentiation. One is able to articulate their beliefs, goals, and choices after full consideration of others’ (external) perspectives. Rather than managing relationships and external voices through separation, one is able to manage them through engagement, reflection, and decision-making without defensiveness or feeling threatened because they are grounded in knowing whom they are and authenticity (Kegan, 1994). It is also similar to Williamson’s (1991) description of achieving personal authority in the family system.
Self-authorship has three components: trusting one’s internal voice, building an internal foundation, and securing internal commitments. Trusting one’s internal voice is characterized by understanding the difference between real-world events and one’s reaction to those events, and acknowledgment that you could not change the event, but that you do have control over your response to the event, and that the meaning-making of that event is up to you (Baxter Magolda, 2001). Building internal commitments follows trusting one’s internal voice and is exemplified by one developing a framework, model, or set of standards by which they will live their lives to be consistent with their internal voice. In this stage, one is both making decisions and actively living their new framework while making adjustments to follow their internal foundation with increasing consistency. The final stage, securing commitments, is evidenced by a greater sense of freedom as one becomes increasingly confident that they will be able to control the elements of a situation in a way that reflects their internal voice and internal foundation. It is a process where one strengthens their internal foundation and is able to feel more secure about how events will unfold (Baxter Magolda, 2001).
Self-authorship typically emerges in one’s mid-20s. This is the stage when narratives describe conflict between one’s internal voices and external voices (Baxter Magolda, 2001). As individuals move into their 30s, their narratives instead reflect a resolution to the dilemma present in their 20s and are characterized by trusting their internal voices and making sure that they organize their life in such a way that their internal voices can still be heard (Baxter Magolda, 2001). The process of achieving self-authorship is completed when an individual has the knowledge about their internal state, wishes, values, and desires, and can establish the necessary resources to be able to live their identity in an authentic way.
At its core, self-authorship is a process toward meaning-making. As such, certain assumptions must be present as one seeks to achieve self-authorship. First, it is assumed that constructed knowledge is based on evidence. Second, the person on the self-authorship journey needs to make a decision on what to believe. Finally, it is assumed that each person has the capacity to make decisions. These assumptions are significantly compromised in the age of the Internet, thus making the process of self-authorship more challenging. As discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of extelligence means that we derive knowledge from a collection of other sources and, likewise, offer information back into that same pot to assist others in their understanding of a concept. Therefore, the first stage of developing self-authorship is about getting information and making decisions about what to believe; the Internet, or our setting through which we receive information (largely external and involving many opinions), is the environment in which we collect this evidence. Nichols (2014) calls this the death of expertise—the fact that people who have a voice are being given as much credence as resident experts in that field simply because the Internet now provides them with this microphone. The fact that the evidence collected may be rooted in extelligence can affect one’s ability to develop their set of evidence through which to form their opinions, the second step in self-authorship. Finally, the capacity of decision-making my again be challenged in the age of the Internet because of the ease through which one may establish personal accounts or access information. Those deemed too young to make decisions (teens and young adults) or are incapable are heavy Internet users, with an estimated 39% of young adults (aged 18–29 years) online almost constantly (Perrin & Jiang, 2018). Approximately 45% of teens between the ages of 13 and 17 are online on a near-constant basis (Perrin & Jiang, 2018). Yet youth may mistakenly believe information provided online is evidence. This combined with the norm that youth are active online, and the displaying of the actions (or descriptions of actions) of their peers online, may convince youth they have the capacity for such decision-making.
To recall, the three key ingredients to self-authorship are trusting your internal voice, building your internal foundation, and securing commitments to be able to live in your world. Like the phases of self-authorship, these ingredients are also slightly altered in the age of technology. Trusting one’s internal voice can be compromised when we live in a highly visible world. With 2.789 billion social media users and nearly 80% of the US population with social media accounts, one’s internal voice, if posted, may be challenged by others who disagree (and who are vocal about it). In other words, one needs to be self-authored enough to post in the first place without allowing people’s reactions to the post to affect them.
Rymarczuk and Derksen (2014) argue that social media sites such as Facebook can be considered heterotopic environments. Heterotopic environments, described by Foucault, are those that have a dual quality of both existing in space and not existing in a physical space simultaneously. This is accomplished by breaking down boundaries between spaces (Foucault, 1986, as cited in Rymarczuk & Derksen, 2014). Online spaces and social media in particular, due to their heterotopic nature, have some unique challenges that could also affect the development of self-authorship. Part of why cyberspace and Facebook in particular are considered hetero-tropic environments is because even when you leave (close, exit, etc.), you don’t really leave. For example, you can log out of Facebook, but you are still “there.” Someone can see your page, send a message, write a comment, etc. (Rymarczuk & Derksen, 2014). This ambivalent presence can be challenging in the development of self-authorship. One’s ability to manage their identity is victim to previous comments, posts, and information that has been posted online, which may come back to haunt them. In many ways the Internet compromises our ability to see people as having evolved and changed over time because we have evidence of them at earlier stages in their emotional and intellectual development. As Rymarczuk and Derksen (2014) note, “A message once sent, a remark once made or a picture once posted could be fed back into the present at any time” (n.p.).
While not the first scholar to describe the impact of environments on systems, Bronfenbrenner (1979) outlined how each system connects to and interacts with each other. Bronfenbrenner’s model consisted of five different systems, each embedded within another. Development, therefore, is the result of the interaction of personal characteristics and one’s context (Tudge et al., 2016). In the center is the individual. The individual is surrounded by the microsystem, which includes the networks in which the individual is embedded. In other words, the content and structure of the microsystem are the direct socializing/developmental influences on the individual. These include one’s workplace, neighborhood, school system, peer group, and family. The microsystem is defined by one’s roles in society, the patterns they exhibit, and the relationships in face-to-face settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The content and structure of the microsystem dictates how we maintain development. The mesosystem is the interaction of microsystems that contains the developing person. For example, it is the system that is created when peers of the developing individual interact with the school system such as at a school event, when the family interacts with their religious faith by attending church, or when a family system interacts with the workplace such as at a holiday party. The mesosystem is embedded within the next level known as the exosystem.
The exosystem describes the connections and interactions between other systems, at least one of which does not directly involve the developing individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). For example, studies have consistently shown that the workplace of the parents of the developing individual, the social network of the family, and the context of the neighborhood have an impact on one’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Beyond the exosystem exists the macrosystem. This system is the patterns in which micro-, meso-, and exosystems engage that reflect a set of beliefs, values, lifestyles, and customs. Finally, all of these systems are embedded in a certain era, age, or place in time. People’s patterns, lifestyles, relationships with family, interactions with school, etc. are affected by the era in which one lives. This final layer is known as the chronosystem.
Probably the easiest place where technology’s effects can be observed (and perhaps the most logical placement) is in the chronosystem. The advent of technology has shifted the way we think about this era as evidenced by phrases such as “age of technology,” “digital age,” “new media age,” “computer age,” “information age,” and “Digital Revolution.” We are certainly living in a digital culture that has established many new rules, customs, lifestyles, etc. related to computers/computation, information storage, and information transmission. A new vernacular has even emerged alongside the technological developments, including words like “noob,” “bitcoin,” “netocracy,” “firewall,” “bluetooth,” and “avatar,” to name just a very few. Words that were recently (2017) added to Webster’s dictionary are words such as net neutrality, abandonware, botnet, ghost (verb), and binge-watch.
At the same time, the Internet’s accessibility and one’s daily (perhaps better described as intimate) contact with devices suggest the effect of the Internet might also be addressed among some of the intimate levels in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model because they involve more than just general trends and overarching cultural shifts. For example, one study found that mass media has an impact on parent involvement with junior high students as well as the attitudes of the teachers toward Taiwanese youth regarding English language achievement (Kung & Lee, 2016). In addition, Lee, Ho, and Lwin (2017) suggest that expanding theoretical directions for problematic social networking use in teens can be achieved through further exploration of Bronfenbrenner’s model. At the microsystem level, parenting style (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and rejecting-neglecting) is linked to self-regulation, which may in turn influence a teen’s motivation for using social networking sites (SNSs). In addition, the support that parents offer may also influence whether their child looks for that support online. In short, the more support a parent offers, it is hypothesized that their teens will be less likely to rely on SNSs in problematic ways to ascertain that support (Lee et al., 2017).
The placement of technology in our lives transcends each of these layers and, consequently, affects development for both individuals and families. Johnson (2010) presented an initial version of this construct in an ecological techno-subsystem. In this construct, Johnson (2010) describes Bronfenbrenner’s systems in a different way. Johnson (2010) proposes a technological subsystem that is embedded within the microsystem. This techno subsystem includes portable devices, e-books, cellphones, computers, etc. This level branches out into the microsystem, which is described as the immediate environment. These effects spill out into the mesosystem, or the element that is the connection between systems. The mesosystem influences the exosystem, referred to by Johnson (2010) as the external system.
We agree with this conceptualization but wish to add one piece. The way in which Johnson and Puplampu (2008) depict it, the techno subsystem influences the microsystem layer, which in turn influences the mesosystem layer, then influencing the exosystem layer, and then onto the macro. In our experience, the Internet and media transcend each of the layers. In other words, it is possible that the individual usage directly affects systems above the microsystem. One’s statement on Facebook, for example, may have direct implications on larger systems (i.e., employers and larger systems responding to one another) without having to go through the chain of systems outlined by Johnson (2010).
Another key piece of the microsystem is peer relationships. It is also the case that young people, in their identity development, compare themselves to their peers (Appel, Gerlach, & Crusius, 2016). The social comparisons we make are also attributable to more than adolescents; they are human nature. Human beings are and have always been oriented to compare themselves to one another. There are several tenets to the theory of social comparison, and each of these tenets has implications for group formation and social interaction (Festinger, 1954). First, humans have a natural drive to appraise their opinions and abilities. This helps us to understand whether we are even in the ballpark with our opinions or whether there needs to be a change in our opinions and abilities. Social media is the perfect place for this. When people are able to share photographs, updates, and events, it is an automatic database for comparison. Second, people have a tendency to appraise such opinions and abilities by comparing them with other people. In other words, we are looking for whether we are the statistical norm. In the case of social media, this becomes a dual edged sword. While the population and database are there for the comparison, the question as to whether the events posted as a way to make that comparison are accurate is a different story.
A third hypothesis posed by Festinger (1954) is that we are less likely to compare ourselves with another person as we gather information corroborating our opinions and abilities. So, for example, the more information that I receive that confirms that I am on track, the less likely thatI will feel the need to seek out other people to corroborate it. This is particularly true when we obtain the abilities and opinions of others who are our peers. Because social media has an area for search terms, we can self-select the groups who agree with our skills, opinions, and abilities. Then, once we join those groups, we can begin to make those comparisons. It is an absolutely filtered way to select a peer group.
The fourth part of the theory of social comparison explains the divergence between opinions and abilities. For example, we expect in terms of ability that we always have to work toward doing something better, and that doing better would be more desirable and closer to the norm. In terms of opinions, however, there is not any intrinsic value for preferring one opinion over others: it is merely a subjective feeling one gets that one’s opinion is based on fact and correct.
The fifth tenet of social comparison theory says that there may be things about the environment, our world, or the person themselves, that prevent us from improving our ability at a certain point; opinions, however, do not function with that same issue. There are very few things that prohibit someone from sharing their opinion.
The sixth hypothesis according to Festinger (1954) is that we stop comparing ourselves with others when the comparisons we are seeking result in negative consequences. This wildly abounds online, where people may receive that negative feedback swiftly and loudly. The seventh factor of social comparison theory states that any group that sets itself up to be a standard comparison group for an opinion or an ability will make sure that everybody who’s part of that group is on the same page with regard to that opinion or ability. This exhibits itself most directly online in the form of groups, such as those groups formed on Facebook. To be a member of the group, the group administrator can identify certain criteria and screen for inclusion into the group. If comments are made that do not jibe with the group’s philosophy, the user who made the offending comments is removed from the group. The eighth hypothesis is that when people think they are very similar to each other, they will try to establish differences between each other. Social media, then, exists as a perfect platform to attempt to refine, distinguish, and alter one’s attitudes, beliefs, and values to promote some level of divergence in a group that appears homogeneous. The ninth hypothesis under social comparison theory states when there is a variety of opinions or abilities in a group, the strength of the pressure toward being the same is going to be more intense for people closer to the middle and surrounding the mean than for people who are on the outside of that bell curve (Festinger, 1954).
In application to online behavior, to substantiate one’s experiences one may watch others online to gauge norms and make comparisons. At times these comparisons may be beneficial and allow one to experience positive affect, in that that comparison is favorably downward (i.e., one’s performance is better than someone else’s). When that comparison is unfavorably upward, however, there is a tendency to be associated with negative affect (Fuhr, Hautzinger, & Meyer, 2015). Technology provides a prime stage through which these comparisons can be made. Such consequences of unfavorable upward comparisons include envy, negative impact on self-esteem, increases in depression, etc. (Pera, 2018). To date, the literature suggests that negative information contributes to discomfort, particularly when there is a strong connection to the information. In other words, the less confident one is and the more negative the content they explore on Facebook, the more likely they will be negatively impacted by what they see on Facebook and the more negative they will feel about themselves after they make social comparisons (Pera, 2018) and the more jealous they will feel (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Further, Facebook has some pretty negative consequences on the development of friendships for young people (Wang, Jackson, Gaskin, & Wang, 2014).
Nearly 30 years after Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, Taylor (2008) posed another model describing how we interact with the world around us. Taylor’s model builds on the work of Baxter Magolda (2001), Kegan (1994), and Bronfenbrenner (1994), offering a more in-depth look at psychological and sociological factors surrounding development in college-aged youth. Taylor expounded on the levels (with the exception of the chronosystem) identified by Bronfenbrenner (1994). Taylor classified the variables as occurring in one of two dimensions: individual variables and environmental variables. Individual variables include socially constructed identities, histories (defined as education, family histories, awareness, and experience of major events), attributes (tendency to internalize, self-confidence, persistence, and resilience), and one’s style of knowing (either doubting or accepting new ideas).
These individual variables also need special consideration or a revision in our Internet-dominated society. For example, socially constructed identities are everywhere one looks. That is, in fact, the point of any posts on social media. Social media allows users to post information about themselves—as Chapter 2 mentions, in an edited, careful, and protective way. Histories are also critical in the digital age. Taylor (2008) includes the description of awareness and experience of major life events as part of one’s history. As more information about traumatic events becomes available online, we adopt these histories (and traumatic events) as our own. Findings regarding the impact of viewing traumatic events via media has consistently been found to contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Propper, Stickgold, Keeley, & Christman, 2007), though media viewing has not been shown to manifest in help-seeking for anxiety in a hospital setting (Claassen, Kashner, Kashner, Xuan, & Larkin, 2011). In addition, Propper et al.’s (2007) design was within group, meaning that the changes in one’s dreams and visions could be directly tied to viewing the attacks. For children, print media more so than television broadcasting was more likely to be associated with enduring PTSD of events in which they were not involved (Pfefferbaum et al., 2003). The Internet, of course, is primarily print media. This means that the more kids read, the more likely PTSD is not too far behind.
Taylor also further describes the social context around the first four levels of Bronfenbrenner’s model specific to the learning environment for young adults. Examples of microsystems in this context include friends and family. The microsystem is the dominating context for young adults, especially in a digital world. Today, the mere activity of going to get a coffee and noting it on Facebook alerts everyone in the microsystem to one’s activities. In addition to the unfavorable upward comparisons, there are judgments and evaluations made via a comment section. This is one way in which social systems are embedded in social media. Further, the context in which things are posted (photos with other individuals, geographic regions, etc.) also expresses the larger system in which we are embedded.
Mesosystems refer to areas where a person’s personal life and academic/employment life interact with one another. This level has exploded in the age of the Internet because of what may be posted about the company (Smith & Kidder, 2010), because of the individual’s personal postings independent of comments regarding their employers, and because the Internet can provide information about job applicants that might be used in determining whether one should be hired. Choosing to search an applicant on Facebook or Google can provide a great deal of information about a candidate—but there is a difference in what could be used versus what should be used in making decisions about hiring (Smith & Kidder, 2010). Employers need to consider the ethical responsibility they have to respect one’s privacy (Lusk, 2014) as well as adhere to Face-book’s policy that this information not be used for hiring or in making decisions about how much searching an employer does about a given candidate, despite the data indicating that 64% of employers do engage in this practice (Volz, 2013). In addition, in many cases, employers have retained the right to terminate employees based on their postings in social media (Supra, 2016).
Finally, Taylor’s concept of exosystem examples are curriculum, university rules and administration, and policies. Macrosystem examples include cultural events that affect one’s training, cultural beliefs important to success, etc. In a digital world, there is a substantial intersection between major policies and the individual. One key example is that of net neutrality. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers are to enable access to all sites and content without being able to control to what consumers have access. The repeal of Net Neutrality will dictate the content and sites that can be accessed. This limiting policy in the macrosystem will have a direct effect on the microsystem level. Likewise, the individual keystrokes and search terms are collected by Internet search engines as a way to develop themes and advertise to the user at a later time. The individual (microsystem) is affecting the macrosystem.
After one becomes a new parent/care provider there is a shift in what they use the Internet for to accommodate bringing a new person into the world, and it is not just through social media. Mothers use blogging as a way to connect with others, to develop a level of intellectual engagement and mental stimulation, to help others, to feel validated, and to enhance skills and abilities (both technologically and in terms of personal growth) (Pettigrew, Archer, & Harrigan, 2016). But, again, as with anything on the Internet, the effects are not unilaterally positive. Facebook is often described as a means for gaining social capital, or resources gained via relationships with others (Coleman, 1988). The processes to achieve social capital include bonding and bridging (Putnam, 2000). SNSs such as Facebook provide the opportunity for bridging through establishing a network of connections and suggestions of others you may know.
There are several publications related to family life cycle development. Families tend to go through life in predictable stages. A new couple forms and makes a decision about having children. For those who have children, parents typically move through predictable processes. These processes include challenges to their formerly held relational and household roles, as well as decisions about how to negotiate rules for the family and who will be the executor of those rules. Couples who decide not to (or cannot) have children have a slightly different trajectory than those who do not have children (Pelton & Hertlein, 2011). This may include addressing societal challenges related to this experience, visiting decisions multiple times across a lifespan and relationship, and managing the voices and pressures of family and peers. Technology now has an active role in managing the shifts from stage-to-stage for any of these family forms.
The prevalence of anxiety and depression changes based on the study you read. At least two studies combat the notion that the prevalence of anxiety and depression has substantially increased over the last few decades (Baxter et al., 2014). The increases of anxiety and depression globally have gone from 3.6% to 4.0% and 4.0% to 4.4% respectively (Baxter et al., 2014), but this is consistent with population changes. The prevalence of self-reported psychological distress, however, has significantly increased over time, most notably for women (Baxter et al., 2014). Further, between 1992 and 2001, hospitalizations for mental illness increased approximately 2% (Larkin, Claassen, Emond, Pelletier, & Camargo, 2005).
Anxiety plays a role in decisions about behavior, including decisions around cellphone usage. In one study exploring anxiety and phone usage, US teens were asked how often they used their phones for messaging, social interaction, and participation on SNSs (Pierce, 2009). Results suggested a positive relationship between social anxiety and interacting with others online. These findings for adolescents mirror those of adults (Prizant-Passal, Shechner, & Aderka, 2016). Women specifically were more likely than men to report that they feel more anxious talking to others in person and more comfortable talking to others online (Pierce, 2009). The explanation for the positive relationship between social anxiety and more comfort in online interactions is that there is a greater perception of control in online interactions, thus an ability to leave a situation more easily if one experiences unfavorable judgments (Lee & Stapinski, 2012). Finally, the avoidance becomes self-reinforcing and contributes to more avoidance of offline interactions as time goes on (Prizant-Passal, Shechner, & Aderka, 2016).
The literature on addiction might have you believe that we are just that— “addicted.” Stories in the media highlight unique situations in which one might succumb to a problematic condition because of spending too much time online. Adolescents have demonstrated that they feel uncomfortable if they spend increasing time offline (López, Gutierrez, & Jiménez, 2015). This may be a result of our use of technology actually changing how our brain processes information (Rosen, 2012). In fact, early research has found when Internet use is problematic, it is associated with a decrease in the brain’s grey matter (Altbäcker et al., 2016). The processes of the brain are also altered. Those who engage in “addictive” online gaming experience reactivity, impulsivity, and other patterns consistent with gambling disorders (Fauth-Bühler & Mann, 2017). In fact, because of the way in which contemporary technology is designed, the brain’s pathways are being remapped and rerouted.
While primarily anecdotal, there may be something to these claims. Recent evidence points to the fact that the Internet is in fact rewiring our brains. Internet use disorder, while not yet classified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychiatric Association in its own right, has been observed to have some similarities in brain structure as with those who suffer from substance use disorder. Internet use disorder has been tied to impairment in several cortexes in the brain—primarily the ones involved in reward processing, memory, motivation, and cognitive control (Parks, Han, & Roh, 2017). This is different both physiologically and psychologically from substance use disorders. As Park, Han, and Roh (2017) put it:
Early neurobiological research results in this area indicated that Internet use disorder shares many similarities with substance use disorders, including, to a certain extent, a shared pathophysiology. However, recent studies suggest that differences in biological and psychological markers exist between Internet use disorder and substance use disorders.
(p. 467)
Now we have two areas of evidence that anxiety, dependence, and changes to the brain are occurring connected to our technology usage.
Let us say that again:
Anxiety.
Dependence.
Changes in the brain.
This sounds suspiciously similar to another highly popular construct in psychological and therapeutic literature: attachment.
Attachment is a highly popular construct in psychotherapy. It is our experience of being able to rely on others when we are in a time of need (Mikulincer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002). It is described as a sense of security around others’ reliability and responsiveness in times of need (Mikulincer et al., 2002). It is a critical variable in how one manages their emotions, develops schemas about relationships, and interacts with others in close relationships.
Harry Harlow, famed biologist, provided the evidence needed for Bowlby to make his claims about attachment having a biological basis (Suomi, van der Horst, & van der Veer, 2008). In conducting a study using rhesus monkeys, Harlow noticed monkeys had a strong emotional reaction when separated from soiled garments in their cage (Harlow, 1958). This finding led Harlow to engineer another study, where he further discovered monkeys displaying an attachment to cloth-and-wire versions of a mother (Harlow, 1961).
Two manifestations indicating one’s attachment style are the presence of avoidance and anxiety (Mikulincer et al., 2002). Avoidance is when people disengage or are distant from others as a consequence of a belief that the world is full of people who are unsafe and do not operate out of good will; anxiety, on the other hand, stems from fear that one will not be able to access a confidant or safe person in times of stress. For example, research has found those high in relationship avoidance but low in relationship anxiety are those who are more likely to use technology to communicate in relationships (Cyr et al., 2015). In general, the more anxious and avoidant one is, the less they think of themselves and the less sensitive they are to a partner’s needs (Mikulincer et al., 2002).
While most literature has talked about attachment as it pertains to attachment between people and not a cloth-and-wire object, we want to revisit the concept introduced by Harlow that mammals can develop attachments to objects, not only sentient beings. We certainly know that attachment styles may dictate how technology is used in interpersonal relationships. As evidence of this, Nitzburg and Farber (2013) found individuals with disorganized attachment styles were more likely to use social networking for communication over face-to-face. This was also true when controlling for age, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES). Further, the more attachment anxiety one has, the more they feel closer to others while using social networking (Nitzburg & Farber, 2013). It is our contention that smartphones and the Internet function as if they were individual members in our family system (Blumer & Hertlein, 2015; Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). In fact, we encourage families to consider that technology occupies a place in their system via a pictorial depiction or genogram.
Harlow’s groundbreaking research demonstrated that we as primates can develop attachments to inanimate objects, particularly when we perceive that inanimate object provides support (Keefer, Landau, & Sullivan, 2014). To date, literature has singularly focused on how new media, the Internet, and cellphones allow for the development of deep attachments to our romantic partners. For example, Chopik and Peterson (2014) clearly tie the decrease of anxious attachment over the last ten years to the emergence of cellphones. Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, and Westerman (2013) would agree, as their research found those who communicate less online exhibit more attachment-avoidance, where more communication online is associated with higher levels of self-reported intimacy and support (Morey et al., 2013). We can also develop attachments to others online outside of our romantic partners or family members (Levine & Stekel, 2016; Lewis, Weber, & Bowman, 2008), in part again because of the accessibility (and responsiveness) that technology provides. In short, attachment is about connecting to people who support and respond to us. Like a human, today’s technology responds to us and anticipates our needs. Alexa and Google listen to us. We can order things. It asks us if we want to repeat our last order. It knows us.
Attachment is not the same thing as “addiction” (see, for example, Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). Harlow’s monkeys were not described as being addicted to their cloth-and-wire mother: the word used was “attachment.” It is true that both addiction and attachment processes are represented in the brain (Park et al., 2017), but these processes do not necessarily lead to the same conclusions. Some evidence that we are beginning to develop attachment to our actual devices again comes from the constructs discussed earlier—anxiety and avoidance with regard to our phones. Anxiety when we are separated from our phones is a real event (Seunghee, Joon, & Hyun, 2017), and is characterized by two dimensions— refuge (defined as feeling safe with one’s phone and uncomfortable with being distant from one’s phone) and burden (where one experiences relief when away from one’s phone) (Trub & Barbot, 2016).
Our conceptualization is there are four types of attachment we can hold to technology (Hertlein & Twist, 2018a, b) (see Table 3.1). For those who are securely attached to their phones, they will exhibit a pattern of low avoidance and low anxiety when separated. Those with preoccupied types of attachments with their phones will exhibit low levels of avoidance and high levels of anxiety when separated. One who is highly anxious about being separated from their phone and also highly avoidant in their phone usage and not anxious about checking their phone would have a dismissive style of attachment. Finally, those with a high level or complicated avoidance and high level of anxiety (those who have difficulty regulating their phone usage) are considered having a disorganized type of attachment with technology (see Table 3.1).
Technology use across the individual lifespan can be thought of from a variety of theoretical perspectives—including Erikson’s (1982) developmental theory as it applies to children, adolescents, and young adults, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (1979), Festinger’s social model (1954), and Taylor’s model for the development of young people (2008). Attachment is also a theoretical backdrop that cannot be ignored when it comes to understanding how our relationship with technology is influenced by and further affects our level of attachment. As our relationship with technology continues to evolve, these models can serve to illuminate what we might expect in terms of how the changing technologies will affect our individual psychosocial and relational development.
Table 3.1 Types of Attachment to Technology
| Type of Attachment | Definition and Characteristics | Example |
|
|
||
| Secure | Appropriate use of technology; characterized by low avoidance and low anxiety regarding phone or Internet usage. | Does not avoid their phone, but also does not feel compelled to pick it up, check it, or otherwise interact with the phone when there is no distinct purpose. |
| Dismissive | High avoidance and low anxiety; not interested in checking the phone even when there could be some useful gains. | Refuses to interact with technology across multiple contexts (smartphones, tablets, etc). |
| Preoccupied | Low avoidance and high anxiety; constant checking of the phone even when there is no particular purpose nor apparent useful gains. | No ability to delay gratification in interacting with the phone; may be considered a nomophobe (King et al., 2014). |
| Unresolved-Disorganized | Complicated avoidance and high anxiety, but in an unpredictable and unpatterned way; technology represents a trauma; technology represents people who have traumatized them. | Experience with cyberbullying; trolling; electronic visibility management; intimate partner stalking, which contributes to a distancing from technology/phone usage. |
Altbäcker, A., Plózer, E., Darnai, G., Perlaki, G., Horváth, R., Orsi, G.,… Janszky, J. (2016). Problematic Internet use is associated with structural alterations in the brain reward system in females. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10 (4), 953–959. doi:10.1007/s11682-015-9454-9
Appel, H., Gerlach, A. L., & Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 44–49. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.006
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. The American Psychologist, 55 (5), 469–480. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10842426
Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtualizing intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50 (1), 12–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.x.Baxter
Magolda, M. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. New York: Stylus Publishing.
Baxter, A. J., Scott, K. M., Ferrari, A. J., Norman, R. E., Vos, T., & Whiteford, H. A. (2014). Challenging the myth of an “epidemic” of common mental disorders: Trends in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression between 1990 and 2010. Depression and Anxiety, 31 (6), 506–516. doi:10.1002/da.22230
Blumer, M., & Hertlein, K. M. (2015). The technological genogram: Tool for exploring intergenerational communication patterns around technology use. In C. Breuss (Ed.), Family communication in the digital age (pp. 471–490). New York: Peter Lang International Publishers.
Borca, G., Bina, M., Keller, P., Gilbert, L., & Begotti, T. (2015). Internet use and developmental tasks: Adolescents’ point of view. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.029
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. The International Encyclopedia of Education, 3 (2), 1643–1647. Retrieved from www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/Psych130F2010/Readings/Bronfenbrenner1994.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101 (4), 568–586. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.101.4.568
Choi, S. B., & Lim, M. S. (2016). Effects of social and technology overload on psychological well-being in young South Korean adults: The mediatory role of social network service addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 245–254. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.032
Chopik, W., & Peterson, C. (2014). Changes in technology use and adult attachment orientation from 2002 to 2012. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 208–212. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.031
Claassen, C., Kashner, T. M., Kashner, T. K., Xuan, L., & Larkin, G. L. (2011). Psychiatric emergency “surge capacity” following acts of terrorism and mass violence with high media impact: What is required? General Hospital Psychiatry, 33 (3), 287–293. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2011.01.015
Clark, L. (2011). Parental mediation theory for the digital age. Communication Theory, 21 (4), 323–343.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/2780243
Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71 (5), 1395–1408.
Cyr, B., Berman, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (2015). The role of communication technology in adolescent relationships and identity development. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44 (1), 79–92. doi:10.1007/s10566-014-9271-0
Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.
Fauth-Bühler, M., & Mann, K. (2017). Neurobiological correlates of Internet gaming disorder: Similarities to pathological gambling. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 349–356. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.004
Ferguson, A. M., McLean, D., & Risko, E. F. (2015). Answers at your fingertips: Access to the Internet influences willingness to answer questions. Consciousness and Cognition, 37, 91–102. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.08.008
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Foucault, M. (1986) [1967]. Of other spaces, heterotopias, trans. J. Miskowiec, Diacritics, 16, 22–27.
Fuhr, K., Hautzinger, M., & Meyer, T. D. (2015). Are social comparisons detrimental for the mood and self-esteem of individuals with an affective disorder? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39 (3), 279–291. doi:10.1007/s10608-014-9656-2
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13 (12), 673–685. doi:10.1037/h0047884
Harlow, H. F. (1961). The development of affectional patterns in infant monkeys. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour I (pp. 75–97). London/New York, NY: Methuen/Wiley.
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hertlein, K. M., & Twist, M. L. C. (2018a). Attachment to technology: The missing link. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical Educational Interventions, 17 (1), 2–6.
Hertlein, K. M., & Twist, M. L. C. (2018b). Me, myself, and I(phone): Attachment revisited. Family Therapy Magazine, 33–35.
Hou, X., Wang, H., Guo, C., Gaskin, J., Rost, D. H., & Wang, J. (2017). Psychological resilience can help combat the effect of stress on problematic social networking site usage. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.048
Hur, M. H. (2006). Demographic, habitual, socioeconomic determinants of Internet addiction disorder: An empirical study of Korean teenagers. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (5), 514–525. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.514
Johnson, G. M. (2010). Internet use and child development: Validation of the ecological techno-subsystem. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1), 176–185. doi:10.21432/t2cp4t
Johnson, G. M., & Puplampu, P. (2008). A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of the Internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34, 19–28. doi:10.21432/t2cp4t
Keefer, L. A., Landau, M. J., & Sullivan, D. (2014). Non-human support: Broadening the scope of attachment theory: Non-human support. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8 (9), 524–535. doi:10.1111/spc3.12129
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kim, S. J., Shin, Y., & Jo, W. D. (2016). Analysis factors that influence smart-phone exposure and use from ages 3 to 5 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55 (10), S204. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2016. 09.511
King, A., Valença, A., Silva, A., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., & Nardi, A. (2014). “Nomophobia”: Impact of cell phone use interfering with symptoms and emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with a control group. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health: CP & EMH, 10 (1), 28–35. doi: 10.2174/1745017901410010028
Kung, H., & Lee, C. (2016). Factors influencing junior high school students’ English language achievement in Taiwan: A Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system approach. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 29 (1), 35–66.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction—A review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8 (9), 3528–3552. doi:10.3390/ijerph8093528
Larkin, G. L., Claassen, C. A., Emond, J. A., Pelletier, A. J., & Camargo, C. A. (2005). Trends in US emergency department visits for mental health conditions, 1992 to 2001. Psychiatric Services, 56 (6), 671–677. doi:10.1176/appi. ps.56.6.671
Lee, E., Ho, S., & Lwin, M. (2017). Explicating problematic social network sites use: A review of concepts, theoretical frameworks, and future directions for communication theorizing. New Media & Society, 19 (2), 308–326. doi:10.1177/1461444816671891
Lee, B., & Stapinski, L. (2012). Seeking safety on the internet: Relationship between social anxiety and problematic internet use. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26 (1), 197–205. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.001
Levine, D. T., & Stekel, D. J. (2016). So why have you added me? Adolescent girls’ technology-mediated attachments and relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.011
Lewis, M., Weber, R., & Bowman, N. (2008). “They may be pixels, but they’re MY pixels”: Developing a metric of character attachment in role-playing video games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11 (4), 515–518. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0137
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10 (3), 393–411. doi:10.1177/1461444808089415
López de Ayala López, M., Sendín Gutierrez, J., & García Jiménez, A. (2015). Problematic Internet use among Spanish adolescents: The predictive role of Internet preference and family relationships. European Journal of Communication, 30 (4), 470–485. doi:10.1177/0267323115586725
Lusk, R. (2014). Facebook’s newest friend—Employers: Use of social networking in hiring challenges U.S. privacy constructs. Capital University Law Review, 42 (3), 709–762.
McGoldrick, M., & Carter, B. (2001). Advances in coaching: Family therapy with one person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27 (3), 281–300. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb00325.x
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment security in couple relationships: A systemic model and its implications for family dynamics. Family Process, 41 (3), 405–434. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41309.x
Mills, K. (2016). Possible effects of Internet use on cognitive development in adolescence. Media and Communication, 4 (3), 4–12. doi:10.17645/mac.v4i3.516
Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: An early adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20 (3), 346–374. doi: 10.1177/0743558404273118
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1771–1778. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263
Nichols, T. (2014). The death of expertise. The Federalist. Retrieved January 2, 2018, from http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/
Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (11), 3423–3435. doi: 10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4.
Nitzburg, G. C., & Farber, B. A. (2013). Putting up emotional (Facebook) walls? Attachment status and emerging adults’ experiences of social networking sites. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69 (11), 1183–1190. doi:10.1002/jclp.22045
Park, B., Han, D. H., & Roh, S. (2017). Neurobiological findings related to Internet use disorders. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 71 (7), 467–478. doi:10.1111/pcn.12422
Pelton, S., & Hertlein, K. (2011). A proposed life cycle for voluntary childfree couples. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23 (1), 39–53. doi: 10.1080/08952833. 2011.548703
Pera, A. (2018). Psychopathological processes involved in social comparison, depression, and envy on Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 22. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00022
Perrin, P., & Jiang, J. (2018). About a quarter of U.S. adults say they are “almost constantly” online. Retrieved December 8, 2018, from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/14/about-a-quarter-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/
Pettigrew, S., Archer, C., & Harrigan, P. (2016). A thematic analysis of mothers’ motivations for blogging. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20 (5), 1025–1031. doi:10.1007/s10995-015-1887-7
Pfefferbaum, B., Seale, T., Brandt, E., Pfefferbaum, R., Doughty, D., & Rainwater, S. (2003). Media exposure in children one hundred miles from a terrorist bombing. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 15 (1), 1–8. doi:10.3109/10401230309085664
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (6), 1367–1372. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003
Prizant-Passal, S., Shechner, T., & Aderka, I. M. (2016). Social anxiety and internet use –A meta-analysis: What do we know? What are we missing? Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 221–229. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.003
Propper, R., Stickgold, R., Keeley, R., & Christman, S. (2007). Is television traumatic? Dreams, stress, and media exposure in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 18 (4), 334–340. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01900.x
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rosen, L. (2012). iDisorder: Understanding our dependency on technology and overcoming our addiction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rymarczuk, R., & Derksen, M. (2014). Different spaces: Exploring Facebook as heterotopia. First Monday, 19 (6). Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5006
Seunghee, H., Joon, K. K., & Hyun, K. J. (2017). Understanding Nomophobia: Structural equation modeling and semantic network analysis of smartphone separation anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20 (7), 419–427. doi:10.1089/cyber.2017.0113
Smith, W. P., & Kidder, D. L. (2010). You’ve been tagged! (Then again, maybe not): Employers and Facebook. Business Horizons, 53 (5), 491–499. doi:10.1016/j. bushor.2010.04.004
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333 (6043), 776–778. doi:10.1126/science.1207745
Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Suomi, S. J., van der Horst, F. C., & van der Veer, R. (2008). Rigorous experiments on monkey love: An account of Harry F. Harlow’s role in the history of attachment theory. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42 (4), 354–370. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9072-9
Supra, J. D. (2016). Employer not responsible for employee defaming customer on Facebook. Retrieved June 2, 2018, from http://scholar.aci.info/view/1464ec3df006b730146/15357aaafa900140003
Taylor, K. (2008). Mapping the intricacies of young adults’ developmental journey from socially prescribed to internally defined identities, relationships, and beliefs. Journal of College Student Development, 49 (3), 215–234. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0005
Trub, L., & Barbot, B. (2016). The paradox of phone attachment: Development and validation of the young adult attachment to phone scale (YAPS). Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 663–672. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.050
Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8 (4), 427–445. doi:10.1111/jftr.12165
Volz, D. (2013, November 26). Facebook helps employers discriminate. Can we avoid it? National Journal Daily AM (USA). Retrieved from http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/14A5A7682F76B9F0?p=AWNB
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L. A., Gaskin, J., & Wang, H.-Z. (2014). The effects of Social Networking Site (SNS) use on college students’ friendship and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 229–236. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.051
Watt, D., & White, J. M. (1999). Computers and the family life: A family development perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30 (1), 1–15. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-10027-001
Williamson, D. (1991). The intimacy paradox: Personal authority in the family system. Guilford Family Therapy Series. New York, NY: Guilford Press.