If you believe everything in the news, technology, phones, and Facebook are generally regarded as significant threats to partnered relationships. The popular media is replete with stories about online infidelity, text messaging to partners who are not your own, and the development of secrecy. Current technology and new media reintroduce couples to ageold issues in relationship formation and maintenance as well as introduce new issues into couple relationships. Issues emerging in relationships related to technology and new media include but are not limited to: how the couple has organized to spend time with one another, how power is experienced in the relationship, and how couples handle the idiosyncrasies around each partner’s usage of technology and new media. Each of these issues (shared time, sexual technology or digisexuality, cybersex, online infidelity/non-consensual non-monogamy, and online gaming) introduces challenges into relationships.
Technology, relationships, and our personal emotions have gotten a fair bit of attention historically and recently in the media. In an article entitled “Thought-Reading Machines and the Death of Love,” Jason Pontin (2018) explores the all-too-near future we have coming. As we write this, Facebook engineers are working to develop the ability to have one’s THOUGHT transcribed into text format. We realize this sounds far-fetched; but we recall a time not long ago when our kids’ age (11 years old) and video calling were also impossible. And Facebook is not the only company, according to Pontin (2018), that is working to decode and see the brain’s process. The theory behind this type of work is that if the brain has a process, it can be measured. And if the brain’s process can be measured, we can identify the patterns and make meaning of those patterns by pairing those patterns with other contexts (cognitions, actions, self-report). Pontin’s (2018) question is a simple yet significant one: what happens when our thoughts are no longer private?
Attention to the differences between computer-based conversation and face-to-face communication has led to a discussion of the valuation of this mode of communication on relationships. Specifically, the involvement of technology in relationships has created controversy about whether technology is good or bad for relationships (Hertlein & Webster, 2008). Both anecdotal and empirical evidence from couples in treatment highlights the issue in relationships associated with technology usage, including a redefining of what it means to be unfaithful (Hertlein & Piercy, 2012). The truth is technology may be both good and bad for relationships: the ways in which technology can strengthen a relationship may also be ways in which it interferes with a relationship (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013).
The determination as to whether technology interferes with relationships or supports them is largely dependent on the couple and how each individual and the couple use technology. Abbasi and Alghamdi (2017) cite the chicken and the egg conundrum in social media and infidelity: did issues in the couple relationship precede infidelity, or did infidelity create problems in the relationship? From a cognitive perspective, we certainly have a problem with technology in our lives. Study after study confirms the same thing: the multi-tasking involved in phone usage and the presence of a phone take our attention away from other things (Wilmer, Sherman, & Chein, 2017). In fact, just having a phone present is enough to impair cognitive performance (Thornton, Faires, Robbins, & Rollins, 2014). Given that we are all at home with our phones right next to us suggests that there is a level of impairment constantly in our homes—that means in our relationships.
The presence of a phone can have some effect on relationships, either positive or negative. Duran, Kelly, and Rotaru (2011) examined the dialectic between autonomy and connectedness provided by cellphones. Phones can be used to feel connected to one another; at the same time, we can choose to be autonomous by ignoring incoming text or calls, or turning off the phone altogether and shutting off the ability for others in the outside world to reach out. Couple relationships are a balance between autonomy and independence—too much independence can result in disengagement, and too little can look like enmeshment or fusion. The notion of “perpetual contact” with our romantic partners, as can be the case with cellphones (Katz & Aakhus, 2002, p. 2), can encroach on the feeling of independence and create a set of unreachable expectations in terms of couple support (Duran et al., 2011).
Cellphones are both a source of conflict in couple relationships, as well as an area where couples report they need to establish rules. People who were more controlling over their partner’s phone usage were the ones who were less satisfied in their relationships, less satisfied with how phones were used in their relationships, and less satisfied with the time spent together (Duran et al., 2011).
There is some direct evidence pointing to the benefit of technology in relationships. For example, technology allows us to be available to our romantic partners when a personal emergency arises, when we need emotional soothing and support, and when we need human contact (Parker, Blackburn, Perry, & Hawks, 2012). In a study specifically looking at how couples used technology, Pettigrew (2009) found that specific use of text messaging was reported by couples to be a key tool that allowed them to communicate and stay connected all day long. Part of the reason that couples identified this as something that increased their intimacy and connection to one another was because the text messages go directly to a person instead of a place where multiple people could overhear the information. These results were corroborated in another study looking at married heterosexual couples and their use of technology, where married couples acknowledged using technology more frequently during the day than those who are dating (Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011). Texting is also used to express affection of married couples in highly satisfying relationships. Those who were less satisfied in their relationship, however, tended to use texting for confrontation with their partner and problem solving (Coyne et al., 2011).
Hertlein and Ancheta (2014) conducted a survey of over 400 young people and inquired about the positives and challenges technology introduced into their relationships. As far as the positives go, there were quite a few. Technology permits couples to meet in new ways. This was particularly true when people wanted to develop relationships with others who had similar beliefs and habits, or even hobbies. Another piece that the participants discussed was the ability to pace getting to know someone. The participants in this study reported having some level of control over the relationships as they progressed, and that was something that was more comfortable for a lot of people. In this way, the use of the Internet in developing relationships might be mediating some of what might be natural anxiety around the developmental processes. Another thing that the participants talked about was the level of emotional support that could be gained in text-based relationships. Instead of being able to contact one person and have a conversation while other people are around, the Internet and texting pretty much give us direct and private access to whomever we want all the time.
Participants also discussed the educational nature of technology. That is, it was easier to identify resources for relationships online as opposed to going to a library or looking up support in physical form. Finally, they acknowledged that the Internet could be used to find ways to address conflict in the relationship. While in previous responses the participants talked about being in constant communication and having that be in some ways a relationship accelerator, in other ways it gives people the ability to slow down and really consider their responses before committing them to a text or email, or memorializing them in some written fashion (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014).
Another advantage noted in the same study was the ability to participate in long-distance relationships in ways that were previously not possible. In some ways, this might mean a demonstration of commitment to one another. To be able to participate in that relationship at a distance means that there is some level of commitment to organize time together to be able to do video calls or to talk. By the same token, the commitment one feels in a relationship can be shared publicly through the sharing of photos, changing relationship statuses, and other demonstrations of relationship status (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). There is also a significant degree of flexibility in the way that technology can be used in a relationship. Participants in the same study talked about flexibility from a perspective of being able to expand on one’s fantasy life and being able to fulfill partners sexually through the presentation of seductive pictures or engagement in other sexually explicit strategies to be able to augment and supplement one’s relationship. On the other hand, some people noted that technology communication methods such as texting or email are rather impersonal. In other words, it allows for people to be able to respond at a distance without having to take ownership in terms of managing or moderating or even experiencing the other person’s emotions. One participant even characterized sexting as dehumanizing, and it takes away a lot of the physical factors that become really important in communication. How many times have you been with someone and in the middle of what you think is a dinner or a conversation, they simply pick up and check their phones? In Hertlein and Ancheta’s (2014) study, this type of behavior was also identified as problematic. A partner might want to spend time with a partner, and this partner is staring at their phone. That contributes to feeling ignored and not important in the relationship, and may raise questions about what exactly is so important on the phone, thus creating jealousy. One of the things that also came up in the survey study was that there may be opportunities for impaired trust (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). One of the things that we will discuss later in this book is the surveillance that can occur in relationships more frequently now than ever. Historically, any conversations that came from a house were conducted on a phone, which was generally centrally located. Now, people can connect with anybody directly, discreetly, and privately, which introduces a level of distrust in relationships that has not been previously present.
Another finding from the Hertlein and Ancheta (2014) study was the challenges around ambiguity in text-based messages. Quite often, because messages were not accompanied by any other nonverbals, it was really challenging for some couples to try to interpret what their partner was saying and how they were saying it. Because one cannot see their partner face-to-face things might be out of context and they might not have an awareness that their partner is upset because they cannot see all the nonverbals, and consequently, the partner might hide that they are upset because they have the ability to do so. In a study of individuals in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) partnered relationships by Twist, Belous, Maier, and Bergdall (2017) they found the same kind of expressed ambiguity in text-based communications between the partners in that there were reportedly more arguments, miscommunications, and misunderstandings via texting than other offline and online ways of communicating. Each of these creates challenges for a relationship.
Hertlein and Ancheta’s (2014) work was supported by earlier work conducted by Pettigrew (2009). In lengthy interviews with 19 couples, they agreed that texting gave them permission to stay connected all day long. They also agreed that when they were texting with one another, that constant connection and the ability to disclose information were things that helped them feel close and connected to one another. This is especially helpful in long-distance or geographically distant relationships, as those couples use social media with more intensity and more frequency than couples who are geographically close (Billedo, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer, 2015).
Individuals move together across the course of their couplehood. In many cases, relationships develop through common interests, experiences, and activities. There are two current views on shared couple time. First, couples are now, more than ever, experiencing disruptions in their daily lives that interfere with time they can spend together. At the same time, there is an increased importance placed upon shared time in relationships (Hickman-Evans, Higgins, Aller, Chavez, & Piercy, 2018; Voorpostel, Lippe, & Gershuny, 2009). Newlyweds, for example, place a great importance on time spent together (Hickman-Evans et al., 2018).
Shared time together for couples has also changed over the years. Between 1965 and 2003, individuals reported spending more minutes on leisure activities, from 171 to 179 minutes for women and men, respectively, to 206 and 230 minutes (an increase of 20% for men and 28% for women). Men generally reported the proportion of time they spent with a partner seemed to be about 68%, a percentage that stayed fairly constant over the 38 years of data; women, on the other hand, increased the proportion of time spent with the presence of a partner, from 53% in 1965 to 65% in 2003 (Voorpostel et al., 2009). That being said, one of the important aspects of time spent together is the quality of the experience over the time spent in the leisure experience (Ward, Barney, Lundberg, & Zabriskie, 2014). Partners who spend time together participating in shared activities report higher levels of relational satisfaction and more stability as compared to time where couples engage in individual pursuits (Hill, 1988; Holman & Jacquart, 1988; Johnson and Anderson, 2013; Johnson, Zabriskie, & Hill, 2006; Rogers & Amato, 1997). They report more opportunities for communication (Sharaievska, Kim, & Stodolska, 2013) as well as learning more about their partner (Hickman-Evans et al., 2018).
On the other hand, relationships where partners actively spend more time together are also associated with feelings of the time as not being enough. This can result in one feeling upset the time spent did not meet their expectations and they were somehow disillusioned (Daly, 2001). Further, when couples participate in individual activities, wives in heterosexual relationships are more likely than husbands to report relationship dissatisfaction specifically in those cases where the extracurricular activity is disliked by the wife (Crawford, Houts, Huston, & George, 2002).
In some cases, the selection of the shared activity may depend on each partner’s value system (Kalmijn & Bernasco, 2001). For example, some couples may discover participating in a shared religious ideology or particular traditions might enhance the meaning of these activities and enjoyment each receives within the relationship. In other cases, however, there is an inherent risk to moving to a place of greater leisure time in the couple relationship. In a study on fathers and leisure time negotiation, it was found that fathers are most often the people in the relationship initiating the adoption of leisure time. Most often, this is intended as a way to relieve the partner of her responsibilities. Yet, even with the invitation, the female partner has difficulty giving up the role because of the power associated with being the person who runs the household schedule (Dyck & Daly, 2006). It is also possible a resistance to engage in leisure time may emerge from a fear (real or imagined) that bad things will happen should the person who is in charge leave that position to participate in leisure time without assisting with household duties.
Researchers have sought to understand the circumstances under which couples fare better with regard to separate versus shared activities. One longitudinal study (Crawford et al., 2002) demonstrated that the dissatisfaction in relationships where each member of a couple participates in different activities is more problematic for the wife and relationship when husbands participate in activities disliked by wives. In addition, the dissatisfaction experienced by the wives contributed positively to the participation of their spouse in continuing to participate in that particular activity. In another study (Johnson, Zabriskie, & Hill, 2006), couples were asked to complete a survey composed of a number of questionnaires, including the Marital Activity Profile, the Satisfaction of Married Life Scale, and demographic information. “Overall, couples in this study indicated it was not the level or amount of couple leisure involvement or the satisfaction with the amount of time spent together, but the satisfaction with couple.” (Johnson et al., 2006). There also seem to be differences in how individuals in different couple types (dual-earner versus one-earner, versus both unemployed) spend time together and the impact on their relationship. Men in dual-earner couples indicated they spend less time with their partners, whereas for women the opposite was true. When both members of a couple, however, were unemployed, women were less likely than men to spend their leisure time in the presence of their partner (Voorpostel et al., 2009). Lower levels of relational satisfaction are particularly true in the case of video gaming, where only one of the two partners plays massively multiplayer online role-playing games (Ahlstrom, Lundberg, Zabriskie, Eggett, & Lindsay, 2012).
The extent to which one in an intimate relationship participates in individually based electronic activities has much validity in an electronic age. In most cases, participation in online activities occurs at one computer or device, most likely because these machines are too small to afford space for multiple users. Individual/separate leisure activities may sometimes be a source of contention in cases where one partner participates in online activities and the other partner is not interested or included. Further, the leisure time that we do spend may be in front of a computer—where we are at increased risk for obesity and other outcomes of a sedentary lifestyle (Vandelanotte, Sugiyama, Gardiner, & Owen, 2009), which may in turn have relational consequences. The fact the couples now multitask may also be an impediment to couple relationships, with 62% of respondents in a recent study indicating that there was at least one interruption per day (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). In fact, the more interference via technology in a couple’s life, the less satisfaction, more depression, and lower global life satisfaction (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016).
Of course, the computer and new media present other ways to share time. A common way is through video gaming (Bergstrom, 2009). In positive ways, couples who game together were able to use this as a continued point of connection and as shared leisure time. Also reported by these same couples, which negatively impacted their marital satisfaction, were one person neglecting the household tasks or child-rearing, disagreements, and disparate bed times (Ahlstrom et al., 2012). In the virtual world, couples also had lower levels of satisfaction if they were both in a guild (while online gaming) and one person did not perform their roles well enough to make progress on a task. At the same time, if the person who games more often can have the opportunity to teach their partner how to navigate the game, this leads to more positive interactions/leisure time, and therefore increases satisfaction (Ahlstrom et al., 2012).
Shirley Glass, in her book Not Just Friends (2002), described the slippery slope that occurs as people are becoming acquainted and developing intimate relationships with one another. As discussed in Chapter 2, emotional intimacy is driven significantly by the type of disclosures that are made between individuals online. Dr. Glass notes that as people are making the self-disclosures and increasing their level of emotional intimacy with one another, they remain relatively unaware of where they are headed. She describes people’s level of reciprocal and progressive disclosures as this slippery slope. She posits that by the time people realize where they are in the couple relationship, they are already too far into emotional connection to be able to disengage.
This process of moving quickly into a romantic relationship when that was not the intention is also described by Abbasi and Alghamdi (2017) and Cravens and Whiting (2013). It has also fueled the development of emotional affairs and confuses couples as to what exactly is infidelity. Sexual infidelity is pretty easy to understand: it refers to physical, sexual contact with another person outside of the primary relationship. (Guitar et al., 2017). One of the primary issues in addressing online infidelity is trying to understand the definition. Historically the definition of infidelity was rather straightforward: it was about genital contact with another person. That is not the case anymore. As a society, we have moved to understand and provide value to emotional affairs. Emotional infidelity refers to the type that is developed where the self-disclosures are made to one another to the exclusion of the primary relationships (Valenzuela, Halpern, & Katz, 2014). These types of affairs are common online, as much of the communication occurs with one self-disclosing in great detail to another without the benefit of context and nonverbal accompaniments, and out of ear shot of one’s primary partner.
Cyber affairs can have components of both emotional and physical affairs. They may have originated as traditional friendships, where there are disclosures that are made that are reciprocal. In these friendships, the disclosures really communicate a level of commitment and depth of knowing somebody perhaps more deeply than you know others, or perhaps being more intimately familiar with someone than their friends or peer group is. On the other hand, there may be cyber affairs that are sexually based only. Under the cloak of anonymity, you can say anything to anybody and see if there is some response. If the response is not favorable, you can move on without ever having exposed yourself or taking a significant risk. If the risk pays off, you might be able to become sexually gratified with someone whom you perhaps do not even know.
In some ways, the ability to make disclosures to others would be really beneficial for relationships trying to get off the ground. Today, people are quite busy with work and other engagements, and it can be really difficult to carve out time to spend and get to know someone else. The Internet and new technologies, as accessible as they are, enable people to connect in ways without having a particular time carved out. But the slippery slope is also very seductive. Yes, disclosures are very powerful and do progress a relationship into high levels of commitment and high levels of intimacy over a short period of time because of the level of disclosure. In fact, one-third of divorces cite Facebook (and one spouse’s inappropriate communications with other users) as a primary cause (Moscaritolo, 2012). This finding was corroborated in a research study of people across the lifespan (aged 18–82) conducted by Clayton, Nagurney, and Smith (2013), where those who used Facebook more frequently were the same people who were saddled with more negative relationship outcomes— including cheating (both emotional and physical affairs) or terminating the relationship. This finding was true for those who had been in relationships a relatively short duration of time—less than three years.
On the other hand, we must remember that a lot of the research tells us that not all of our disclosures are honest. We may tell people certain things in order to look a certain way or appear a certain way to receive a positive valuation or to be regarded positively, and this lack of authenticity may compromise relationships. It’s not about the fact that social media exists at all and that couples use it: it’s about the fact that the way in which we use it may create or compromise existent couple relationships, which can subsequently lead to separation, disillusionment, and divorce (Valenzuela et al., 2014). In fact, Valenzuela et al. (2014) just found a correlation between having a Facebook profile and people who have problems in their relationship and get divorced.
It is not just Facebook or the use of it; it is what is done with it. This includes sending messages to your exes, sending private messages to other people, and perhaps making notes, likes, or commenting on other people’s pictures, and in some cases the relationship rules of the primary relationship do not allow for that. Research on jealousy and cheating suggests that the more ambiguous behaviors are the ones that create suspicion in partnerships (Buss, 2002). Flirting may be a prime example of this. Abbasi and Alghamdi (2017) noted it is often difficult to tell the difference between when somebody is chatting with somebody else and when they are flirting. The way in which this is defined now is when there is a romantic signal that is sent from one person to somebody else outside the relationship. The problem with this is in a technological world, that happens daily. We are texting people and communicating on some level in private messaging, direct chats, and public posts with people outside of the relationship. Further, because of the ambiguity that surrounds these messages, it is easy to over interpret those communications as romantic symbols, or perhaps even under interpret. In many ways, just the simple act of talking to someone else might be in one person’s relationship acceptable, and considered inappropriately romantic to somebody else. The effect on a relationship also has something to do with one’s gender, sexual orientation, relational orientation, and whether the behavior was emotional or sexual in nature. Specifically, scenarios where someone was described as having sex or falling in love with someone other than their partner online evoke feelings of betrayal, anger, and jealousy; scenarios where someone develops an emotional connection with another online evokes a threat type of jealousy (Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2013). Women were also more likely to report more jealousy than men when faced with a potential cheating scenario online. Finally, those in similar-gender relationships reported feeling less jealousy than those in heterosexual relationships with regard to scenarios describing one partner’s engagement in extradyadic sex (Dijkstra et al., 2013). And partners in consensually non-monogamous relationships often report feeling the opposite of jealousy, what has been termed “compersion” (Furchgott, 1985), when their partner(s) start developing a new affectional relationship offline or online in the context of there being consent already agreed upon within the relationship to do so.
Gerson (2011) identified three unique elements of betrayal in an online world. Gerson (2011) argued that online betrayal is sudden when it is discovered. In other words, when one aspect of an online affair is discovered, it is akin to the pull of a thread unraveling an entire sweater. One email expressing some level of betrayal may lead to a literally virtual treasure trove of betrayal as it connects to a chain of other emails, photos, or other recorded proof of an affair. The second unique characteristic, privacy, refers to the betrayal associated with the fact that the behaviors were often conducted in privacy while actively engaged in the relationship—that is, while the participating partner was still in the home, perhaps right next to the primary partner. The last component— permanence—refers to the quality where the record of the behavior is archived, saved, and cannot be extinguished or removed from servers or the web.
There is also data suggesting that newer relationships may be more prone to Facebook affecting their relationship than relationships of a longer duration. One of the other things that happens with infidelity is that the perception of online infidelity versus offline infidelity is about the same. In two different studies, online behaviors are considered infidelity, and online behaviors have emotional or sexual components, and still constitute the same level of betrayal in relationships (Parker & Wampler, 2003). The consequences of online infidelity are about the same as offline. Partners get hurt. They do not believe they can trust one another. And in some cases, the relationship ends. The other challenge in Internet infidelity is that it is perceived as having more of an emotional component than sexual, because of the ability to be able to seek out someone and exchange specific and private messages.
In a key study by Cravens and Whiting (2014), over 600 students were given a story completion test where they were asked to write what happens next. Participants were given one of two versions of a story. In Version A, a female realizes after reading her male partner’s private messages that he’s developed a relationship with someone else. In Version B, the male makes the discovery that his female partner has sent private messages to somebody else. Approximately half of the participants interpreted this as some act of infidelity. In fact, only 3% stated it was not infidelity, and the remainder, 46%, did not indicate whether it was infidelity or not. Further, approximately 25% of the people in the study felt that the privacy of the individual who wrote the message in the first place was violated, particularly women. When asked about the end of the relationship or what came after, two-thirds of the participants said the relationship would have ended, with half of them saying the reason it ended was because the person read the message and broke up with the person who wrote the message. A very small percentage, under 10% of those who thought the relationship ended, said it would have ended because the other person felt that their privacy was violated. These findings supported the work of Schneider, Weiss, and Samenow (2012), who found infidelity committed online had some of the same negative impacts as offline infidelity, including lack of trust and feeling traumatized.
As sexual technologies (sextech) develop past “swiping right,” toward second wave digisexualities such as virtual reality sex, and robot sex (McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2018) what will constitute cheating or non-consensual non-monogamy then? In the present age of first-wave digisexualities people already do not always agree on a definition of online cheating because of ecological elements experienced in one’s relationship with each other and one’s technology like ambiguity around said definition, differences in acceptability in engagement in certain technology-related behaviors, and the degree to which the sextech approximates actual offline sex (McArthur & Twist, 2017). For example, in a study by Thompson and O’Sullivan (2016) of 810 predominantly heterosexual partnered adults, 50% of the participants reported that they saw the viewing of online pornography as cheating, and the other half did not— this seems to be a clear example of ambiguity.
Ambiguity around what constitutes non-consensual non-monogamy will remain and perhaps intensify in this emerging second-wave of digisexualities, because there will be an ongoing debate over what kind of sextech is acceptable to use in (and out) of partnered relationships, and because these technologies will approximate offline sex in ways not ever possible before (McArthur & Twist, 2017). For instance, despite the fact that at the time of the writing of this book, realistic sex robots (sexbots) do not yet exist (note: sex dolls do exist), people are already expressing ambiguity over whether or not having sex with a sexbot while in a monogamous relationship constitutes cheating (McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2018). Responses from a recent YouGov (2013) poll show that 42% of respondents said “yes” when asked, “If it were possible for humans to have sex with robots, do you think that a person in an exclusive relationship who had sex with a robot would be cheating?” Twenty-six percent reported being “not sure,” and the remaining third (31%) said “no.”
With the advancement of second-wave digisexualities the likelihood of more people forgoing human partnered relationships altogether increases. People who do and will forgo human connection in favor of technology-based connection may be said to have a sextech orientation of being a digisexual (McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2018). If one is a digisexual will they even have a human partner to debate whether sex with a robot is cheating or will they be asking their robot partner(s) if sex with a human is cheating? We just do not yet know.
Romantic relationships and social media are big business. Social media is heavily involved in the phases of couple relationship development, maintenance, and dissolution (Brody, LeFebvre, & Blackburn, 2016). Use of social media, however, has also been tied to lower marital quality and satisfaction in the US (Valenzuela et al., 2014). For example, as couples share more about one another and their lives online, there is less tolerance for independent activities, and that can create issues for autonomy while in a relationship and increase conflict in one’s relationship (Fox, Osborn, & Warber, 2014).
Social media has a predominant role in couples’ relationships. Relationships where members post more description and give more cues have higher levels of relationship satisfaction than couples whose postings are more ambiguous (Goodman-Deane, Mieczakowski, Johnson, Gold-haber, & Clarkson, 2016). Toma and Choi (2015) discovered that the couples who make it a point to post on each other’s walls and to connect with each other on Facebook are actually the couples whose relationship deteriorates and ends more often than not. While this does not necessarily make sense from the data earlier on how social media assists with establishing connection and reducing some isolation, it may fit better when one considers the information presented in Chapter 3 about narcissism, authenticity, and people’s self-presentation. It could be argued that one is trying to present themselves in a particular way that is not accurate to the relationship, but that makes them feel better about where things are at in the relationship. Instagram does not seem to be any better. When people post selfies on Instagram, their body image satisfaction goes up, which increases conflict in their relationship related to Instagram, which then, in turn, is associated with a negative relational outcome (Ridgway & Clayton, 2016).
Social media displays may become very important in the couple’s life and have significant consequences for the relationship (Papp, Danielewicz, & Cayemberg, 2012). In some cases, the social media displays are our way to present and throw off those using social media and some of the problems in our relationships; other times, the displays may promote some level of conflict. The connection to one another that sites like Face-book give us also introduces stress into our relationship (Fox & Moreland, 2015). One of the facets of social media that becomes important in relationships is the similarity in Facebook presentations. What might explain some of the issues related to Instagram is that one person is taking selfies and posting and the other is not. Dissimilarities in presentation might in fact underlie the relational conflict rather than the post itself. When people’s method of posting and process around posting are more similar, they tend to do better in their relationship. There do seem to be gender differences. For example, when both men and women post their status and include of their partner in the profile picture, that’s linked to greater relationship satisfaction. At the same time, there may be differences in how men and women value other things posted on Facebook and the meaning that they make from those posts (Papp et al., 2012).
Blair (2017) adopted the position that couples who overshare on social media are insecure. To this point, we agree. Think again about the literature on sharing on social media, the exhibition and narcissism qualities that are involved in the “society of the spectacle” (Lasch, 1979). People do not act unless they are getting a benefit or some payback from that activity. So what would be the payback? In a society of the spectacle, the payback is reward from those who comment, like, share, and otherwise endorse the post. Blair’s argument is that when someone feels secure, they do not need the applause from others as they are already content in their relationships. It is this insecurity online that may prompt members of a relationship to use social media to engage in mate-retention actions. Brem, Spiller, and Vandehey (2015) explored how people use mate-retention strategies via Facebook in a sample of about 200 college students. Their results revealed four types of mate-guarding and retention fostered in Facebook: expressions of care and affection, surveillance, punishment, and threats of infidelity. Specifically, one partner may feel jealous, which fuels their drive to spy and surveil, which they are doing when they are often feeling angry and aggressive toward their partner offline.
Texting is a highly popular activity for both individuals and people communicating in couple relationships. It is defined as a quick message sent between one mobile phone and another. Texting is now the backbone of communication in our interpersonal relationships. These text messages allow people to feel a greater sense of being connected to one another and a greater sense of emotional closeness (Hwang & Lombard, 2006).
To date, there are some mixed to positive findings about the use of technology and texting in particular and interpersonal relationships. For example, one study found that texting specifically in romantic relationships was associated with negative outcomes (Luo, 2014). On the other hand, another study found no relationship between texting and relationship outcomes at all (Jin & Peña, 2010). These findings seem to support the bilateral findings related to positives and negatives of technology in relationships (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014) discussed in the previous section. Sexting and being able to text allow for enhanced communication and support of long-distance relationships, which would speak to positive outcomes: they also provide fertile ground for the development of trust issues, and ambiguity in terms of communication, thus potentially complicating the relationship. Case in point: in a study examining the sending of positive messages to relational partners, there were no statistically significant positive associations between sending these positive messages and overall happiness and relational satisfaction (Luo & Tuney, 2015). The explanation the authors provided was that because the positive messages were scripted, they did not mimic what was typical in the couple’s relationship and therefore may have created some level of confusion.
Other research has looked specifically at the association between texting and attachment style. In this case, attachment might be the moderator or the missing piece between the actual texting behavior and relationship satisfaction. Said differently, is there a particular attachment style that predicts texting, and therefore, is somehow tied to satisfaction in the relationship? Jin and Peña (2010) looked at attachment and mobile phone use and did not see avoidance or anxiety increasing the use of texting. Another study found that avoidance and anxiety actually negatively predicted sharing emotions over text (Luo, 2014). Luo (2014) also demonstrated that technology supports long-distance relationships in that people share more texts and disclose more, which helps support their relationship development. There is also a different way to think about technology and couple relationships. Halpern and Katz (2017), for example, discuss how using texting while in an offline couple interaction can be damaging. It communicates a sense of not caring and disengagement with the partner, and that leads to some negative relational outcomes.
In an earlier chapter, we discussed surveillance between parents/care providers and children. We also discussed privacy issues for individuals generally or rather will discuss it more completely in Chapter 6 when we talk about risk. But, surveillance is a different story, and in the case of surveil-lance between parents and children, there is a natural hierarchy. There is some expectation that surveillance is present in parent-child relationships because of the inherent dynamic: parents have a responsibility and a role to monitor and protect children. As annoying as this is for adolescents, adolescents somehow are aware of this and are becoming increasingly accepting of surveillance as generations evolve with technology as a part of their day-to-day lives (Fulton & Kibby, 2017).
The case of couples can make the meaning of surveillance very different. Surveillance in couples often stems from hurt, betrayal, or suspicions, and is also predicted by uncertainty in the relationships (Fox & Warber, 2013), though one study disputes this (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). The more time that one spends on Facebook, the more surveil-lance, which reciprocally contributes to higher levels of jealousy, which likewise results in more surveillance (Muise et al., 2009). Surveillance methods used by couples are a point of confusion in the law as to what is considered a violation of privacy (Calman, 2005). The anonymity and the privacy that are a function of and built into the technology can be a hotbed for deceitful behaviors (Hertlein, Dulley, Cloud, Leon, & Chang, 2017). The way technology is designed is that it inadvertently facilitates secrecy. These messages to one another can be private and can be deleted, and there are any number of apps that permit private texting where that text itself ends up being destroyed. Further, technology also makes it easier to surveil. Just as there are apps that ensure private texting, there are also apps that assist one with surveillance and monitoring their partner’s behaviors, keystrokes, and phone calls. This behavior is similar to the concept of “mate guarding.” In Abbasi and Alghamdi’s (2017) description of it, mate-guarding is associated with surveillance and monitoring of a partner, but mate-guarding may also be another mechanism to claim someone as your own in a very public forum.
Engaging in surveillance strategies online is fairly commonplace (Park, Shin, & Ju, 2015). It is present in jealous individuals as well as loving individuals (Marshall, Bejanyan, Castro, & Lee, 2013). Helsper and Whitty (2010) note that approximately one-third of couples have had at least one partner who is engaged in surveillance. Finally, surveillance is connected in some ways to a couple’s power dynamic. There is a lot of research that talks about how egalitarian relationships, at least in Western culture, have higher levels of relationship and sexual satisfaction. The presence of surveillance alters that power dynamic and sets a relationship on its proverbial head. There are also different ways we can monitor others online, anywhere on a continuum from passive strategies such as watching from a distance to soliciting information about the target from mutual friends or acquaintances (Fox & Warber, 2013).
There are four characteristics of social networking sites (SNSs) that contribute to what Tokunaga (2011) terms “interpersonal electronic surveillance.” Accessibility, as mentioned earlier in Chapter 1 and described in greater detail in Chapter 7, is the first key factor. As Hertlein and Blumer (2013) stated, the Internet and new media introduce people you know into your relationship as well as people you do not. We are accessible to others, and others are accessible to us—making everyone their very own private eye. And it is not just that we are accessible—it is that so much of our lives is accessible via the data that is posted and shared, including photos, conversations with others, location tags, etc. This can be particularly problematic as photos might be rather ambiguous and can lead the viewer to make inaccurate interpretations or interpret the photos broadly. Another characteristic about social media is that the information is archived—which makes it searchable. There is a history of activities, interactions, and statements that is (1) permanent and (2) searchable. As a prime example, news journalist Joy Reid lost the Straight for Equality in Media award after a search of her social media accounts revealed her previous posts reflecting a prejudicial stance on LGB individuals (CBS News, 2018). Finally, the person who is being searched is unaware that they are being searched and/or surveilled. In one case, a client we had in treatment was shaken up after being alerted by someone she once knew that they had created a fake Facebook account to be able to watch her on hers because she had blocked their account. This type of surveillance might answer questions in relationships, but also might create new ones (Fox & Warber, 2013).
Another factor driving social media behaviors and how information online is interpreted is one’s attachment style. Individuals with an anxious or preoccupied attachment style (and with lower levels of relationship satisfaction) are more likely to become jealous over their partner’s Face-book activity and, consequently, engage in surveillance on social media (Tokunaga, 2015). For those who are anxiously attached, the reason that they surveil more is because they trust their partners less (Marshall et al., 2013), but also feel more intimate while using social media (Nitzburg & Farber, 2013). Those who are insecurely attached also have a tendency to post pictures of them and their partner as a profile picture rather than themselves (Shu, Hu, Zhang, Ma, & Chen, 2017) and use surveillance to mitigate their anxiety (Wang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2017). Unfortunately, anxiety attachment was also associated with increased likelihood of infidelity behavior (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). In a large study exploring attachment style, perception of emotion, and Facebook posts, Fleuriet, Cole, and Guerrero (2014) assessed attachment style of over 800 undergraduate students and randomly assigned them to one of many Facebook post conditions emphasizing differences in use of photos, emoticons, capitalization, and punctuation. They found that the use of a face-wink emoticon was associated with a negative emotional response; that those who tended to post more attractive photos online were those who were looking for connections with those who were gender-attractive to them; that women were more likely to be upset by posts of perceived rivals; and that those with a dismissive attachment style actually had low levels of negative emotion with a troublesome Facebook post, likely because they dismissed information generally. This may be similar to the findings of those who suffer from attachment-avoidance and avoid their partner’s Facebook pages (Marshall et al., 2013), and consistent with other findings that suggest that those who are avoidant do not engage in methods of communication that would produce immediate contact (Wardecker, Chopik, Boyer, & Edelstein, 2016).
One final challenge in the development of relationships and online activities is the development of trust (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). There are several key criteria that make up the development of trust in relationships. Building trust is a reciprocal process (Bartle, 1996). The expectation is that neither will harm the other. Part of this might have to do with temperament; some people are more trusting than others (Zentner & Shiner, 2012). One of the keys to building trust, however, is the first impression. If it is positive, there is a potential for the relationship to grow and develop. If, on the other hand, the initial meeting is not good, trust does not follow (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn & Eichenlaub, 2010). Other important ingredients include similarity and familiarity (Bekmeier-Feuerhahn & Eichenlaub, 2010). This can be particularly tricky in an online world where someone might easily be able to tell another how similar they are, but in reality be dissimilar and instead be portraying that they are similar because there are no reality checks (more on this in Chapter 7). The process of being able to conduct those reality checks is considered a warranting procedure, and was mentioned earlier in this text. In other words, when people present information online about themselves, observers will often look for information on their own to corroborate or dispute what is presented (Walther, Van Der Heide, Hamel, & Shulman, 2009). Any information that is discovered by the observer inconsistent with the self-presentation could negatively impact the development of trust, or destroy it completely.
Online infidelity, digisexual activities, digital miscommunications and misunderstandings, partner surveillance and privacy, and the challenges of developing trust via online environments are important risk factors introduced by present day technologies. Just as technology provides opportunities for introducing these risks, however, it also can provide several avenues for relationship enrichment and enhancement if used properly.
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017). When flirting turns into infidelity: The Facebook dilemma. American Journal of Family Therapy, 45 (1), 1–14. doi:10. 1080/01926187.2016.1277804
Ahlstrom, M., Lundberg, N. R., Zabriskie, R., Eggett, D., & Lindsay, G. B. (2012). Me, my spouse, and my avatar: The relationship between marital satisfaction and playing Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). Journal of Leisure Research, 44 (1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/00222216.2012.11950252
Bartle, S. (1996). Family of origin and interpersonal contributions to the interdependence of dating partners’ trust. Personal Relationships, 3 (2), 197–209. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00112.x
Bekmeier-Feuerhahn, S., & Eichenlaub, A. (2010). What makes for trusting relationships in online communication? Journal of Communication Management, 14 (4), 337–355. doi:10.1108/13632541011090446
Bergstrom, K. (2009). Adventuring together exploring how romantic couples use MMOs as part of their shared leisure time. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (3), 152–157. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0469
Blair, O. (2017). There’s a very good reason not to envy those gushing couples on Facebook. Retrieved from www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/couples-social-media-oversharing-facebook-instagram-twitter-relationship-insecurities-experts-nikki-a7530911.html
Brem, M. J., Spiller, L. C., & Vandehey, M. A. (2015). Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (16), 2831–2850. doi:10.1177/0886260514554286
Brody, N., LeFebvre, L. E., & Blackburn, K. G. (2016). Social networking site behaviors across the relational lifespan: Measurement and association with relationship escalation and de-escalation. Social Media + Society, 2 (4) doi:10. 1177/2056305116680004
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23 (4), 23–29.
Calman, C. (2005). Spy vs. spouse: Regulating surveillance software on shared marital computers. Columbia Law Review, 105 (7), 2097–2134.
CBS News. (2018). LGBT advocacy group rescinds award to Joy Reid. Retrieved May 4, 2018, from www.cbsnews.com/news/lgbt-advocacy-group-rescinds-award-to-joy-reid/
Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16 (10), 717–720. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0424
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60 (2), 150–162. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00639.x
Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Clinical implications of Internet infidelity: Where Facebook fits in. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42 (4), 325–339. doi:10.1080/01926187.2013.874211
Crawford, D. W., Houts, R. M., Huston, T. L., & George, L. J. (2002). Compatibility, leisure, and satisfaction in marital relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (2), 433–449. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00433.x
Daly, K. J. (2001). Deconstructing family time: From ideology to lived experience. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (2), 283–294. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737. 2001.00283.x
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., & Groothof, H. A. K. (2013). Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: The role of sex and sexual orientation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54 (4), 328–336. doi:10.1111/sjop.12055
Duran, R., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59 (1), 19–36. doi:10.1080/01463373.2011.541336
Dyck, V., & Daly, K. (2006). Rising to the challenge: Fathers’ role in the negotiation of couple time. Leisure Studies, 25 (2), 201–217. doi:10.1080/02614 360500418589
Fleuriet, C., Cole, M., & Guerrero, L. K. (2014). Exploring Facebook: Attachment style and nonverbal message characteristics as predictors of anticipated emotional reactions to Facebook postings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38 (4), 429–450. doi:10.1007/s10919-014-0189-x
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 17 (1), 3–7. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0667
Fulton, J. M., & Kibby, M. D. (2017). Millennials and the normalization of surveillance on Facebook. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 31 (2), 189–199. doi:10.1080/10304312.2016.1265094
Furchgott, E. (1985). Glossary of Keristan English (abridged). Scientific Utopianism and the Humanities, 1 (4). Retrieved from http://kerista.com/kerdocs/glossary.html
Gerson, M. (2011). Cyberspace betrayal: Attachment in an era of virtual connection. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 22 (2), 148–156. doi:10.1080/0897535 3.2011.578039
Glass, S. P. (2002). Not “just friends”. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Goodman-Deane, J., Mieczakowski, A., Johnson, D., Goldhaber, T., & Clarkson, P. J. (2016). The impact of communication technologies on life and relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 219–229. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2015.11.053
Guitar, A. E., Geher, G., Kruger, D. J., Garcia, J. R., Fisher, M. L., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2016). Defining and distinguishing sexual and emotional infidelity. Current Psychology, 36 (3), 434–446. doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4
Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2017). Texting’s consequences for romantic relationships: A cross-lagged analysis highlights its risks. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 386–394. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.051
Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (5), 916–926. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02. 006
Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Advantages and disadvantages of technology in relationships: Findings from an open-ended survey. The Qualitative Report, 19 (article 22), 1–11. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss11/2
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. (2013). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. New York, NY: Routledge
Hertlein, K. M., Dulley, C., Cloud, R., Leon, D., & Chang, J. (2017). Does absence of evidence mean evidence of absence? Managing the issue of partner surveillance in infidelity treatment. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3–4), 323–333. doi:10.1080/14681994.2017.1397952
Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2012). Essential elements of Internet infidelity treatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00275.x
Hertlein, K. M., & Webster, M. (2008). Technology, relationships, and problems: A research synthesis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34 (4), 445–460. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00087.x
Hickman-Evans, C., Higgins, J. P., Aller, T. B., Chavez, J., & Piercy, K. W. (2018). Newlywed couple leisure: Couple identity formation through leisure time. Marriage & Family Review, 54 (2), 105–127. doi:10.1080/01494929.2017.1297756
Hill, M. S. (1988). Marital stability and spouses’ shared leisure time: A multidisciplinary hypothesis. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 427–451. doi:10.1177/019251388009004001
Holman, T. B., & Jacquart, M. (1988). Leisure-activity patterns and marital satisfaction: A further test. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 69–77. doi:10. 2307/352428
Hwang, H. S., & Lombard, M. (2006). Understanding instant messaging: Gratifications and social presence. Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30 (5), 350–361. doi:10.1177/0270467610380009
Jin, B., & Peña, J. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23 (1), 39–51. doi:10.1080/08934211003598742
Johnson, H. A., Zabriskie, R. B., & Hill, B. (2006). The contribution of couple leisure involvement, leisure time, and leisure satisfaction to marital satisfaction. Marriage & Family Review, 40 (1), 69–91. doi:10.1300/J002v40n01_05
Johnson, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). The longitudinal association of marital confidence, time spent together, and marital satisfaction. Family Process, 52, 244–256. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01417.x
Kalmijn, M., & Bernasco, W. (2001). Joint and separated lifestyles in couple relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 639–654. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00639.x
Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (2002). Introduction: Framing the issues. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminished expectations. New York, NY: Norton.
Luo, S. (2014). Effects of texting on satisfaction in romantic relationships: The role of attachment. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 145–152.
Luo, S., & Tuney, S. (2015). Can texting be used to improve romantic relationships? The effects of sending positive text messages on relationship satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 670–678. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.035
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 20 (1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x
McArthur, N., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3/4), 334–344.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5 (1), 85–98. doi:10.1037/ppm0000065
McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. D. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031
Moscaritolo, A. (2012). Facebook cited in third of U.K. divorces. PC Magazine, 1.
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 (4), 441–444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263
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
Papp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., & Cayemberg, C. (2012). “Are we Facebook official?” Implications of dating partners’ Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (2), 85–90. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0291
Park, M., Shin, J., & Ju, Y. (2015). A taxonomy of social networking site users: Social surveillance and self-surveillance perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 32 (6), 601–610. doi:10.1002/mar.20803
Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2012). Sexting as an intervention: Relationship satisfaction and motivation considerations. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 41 (1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/01926187.20 11.635134
Parker, T. S., & Wampler, K. S. (2003). How bad is it? Perceptions of the relationship impact of Internet sexual activities. Contemporary Family Therapy, 25, 415–429. doi:10.1023/A:1027360703099
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text Messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 45 (6–8), 697–716. doi:10.1080/01494920903224269
Pontin, J. (2018, April 16). TED 2018: Thought-reading machines and the death of love. Retrieved from www.wired.com/story/ideas-jason-pontin-openwater/
Ridgway, J. L., & Clayton, R. B. (2016). Instagram unfiltered: Exploring associations of body image satisfaction, instagram# selfie posting, and negative romantic relationship outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 2–7. 10.1089/cyber.2015.0433
Rogers, S., & Amato, P. (1997). Is marital quality declining? The evidence from two generations. Social Forces, 75 (3), 1089–1100. doi:10.2307/2580532
Schneider, J. P., Weiss, R., & Samenow, C. (2012). Is it really cheating? Understanding the emotional reactions and clinical treatment of spouses and partners affected by cybersex infidelity. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 19 (1–2), 123–139. doi:10.1080/10720162.2012.658344
Sharaievska, I., Kim, J., & Stodolska, M. (2013). Leisure and marital satisfaction in intercultural marriages. Journal of Leisure Research, 45 (4), 445. doi:10.18666/jlr-2013-v45-i4-3894
Shu, C., Hu, N., Zhang, X., Ma, Y. X., & Chen, X. (2017). Adult attachment and profile images on Chinese social networking sites: A comparative analysis of sina weibo and WeChat. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 266–273. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.014
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). I can but you can’t: Inconsistencies in judgments of and experiences with infidelity. Journal of Relationships Research, 7, e3. doi:10.1017/jrr.2016.1
Thornton, B., Faires, A., Robbins, M., & Rollins, E. (2014). The mere presence of a cellphone may be distracting implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology, 45, 479–488. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (2), 705–713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010. 08.014
Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Interpersonal surveillance over social network sites: Applying a theory of negative relational maintenance and the investment model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33 (2), 171–190. doi:10.1177/0265 407514568749
Toma, C. L., & Choi, M. (2015). The couple who facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18 (7), 367–372.
Twist, M. L. C. (2018, June). Digisexuality: What the tech is it? Invited Lecture, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, London, England, United Kingdom.
Twist, M. L. C., Belous, C. K., Maier, C. A., & Bergdall, M. K. (2017). Considering technology-based ecological elements in lesbian, gay, and bisexual partnered relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3/4), 291–308.
Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. C omputers in Human Behavior, 36, 94–101. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034
Vandelanotte, C., Sugiyama, T., Gardiner, P., & Owen, N. (2009). Associations of leisure-time Internet and computer use with overweight and obesity, physical activity and sedentary behaviors: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11 (3), E28. doi:10.2196/jmir.1084
Voorpostel, M., Van der Lippe, T., & Gershuny, J. (2009). Trends in free time with a partner: A transformation of intimacy? Social Indicators Research, 93 (1), 165–169. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9383-8
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36 (2), 229–253. doi:10.1177/0093650208330251
Wang, K. X., Zhou, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Can insecurely attached dating couples get compensated on social network sites? The effect of surveillance. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 303–310. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.046
Ward, P. J., Barney, K. W., Lundberg, N. R., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2014). A critical examination of couple leisure and the application of the core and balance model. Journal of Leisure Research, 46 (5), 593–611. doi:10.1080/00222216. 2014.11950344
Wardecker, B. M., Chopik, W. J., Boyer, M. P., & Edelstein, R. S. (2016). Individual differences in attachment are associated with usage and perceived intimacy of different communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.029
Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
YouGov. (2013, February 23). Omnibus poll. Retrieved from http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplinesbrobots.pdf
Zentner, M., & Shiner, R. (2012). Handbook of temperament. New York, NY: Guilford Press.