The Internet Family

Theoretical Frameworks

There are several other frameworks that attempt to explain the interaction between the technology user and the computer (e.g., the technology acceptance model, TAM; Davis, 1989; uses and gratifications theory, UGT; Blumler & Katz, 1974; and sociotechnological model; Lanigan et al., 2009). Yet these models fail to articulate specific ways in which families interact with technology and how relationship processes are affected by technology. As such, the CFT framework represents one of the most comprehensive treatment approaches grounded in theory and empirical findings. The CFT framework (Hertlein, 2012) is grounded in the theories mentioned earlier as well as three prominent theories in family studies: Family Ecology Theory (Granic, Dishion, & Hollenstein, 2003), Structural Functionalism Theory (Johnson, 1971), and Interaction-Constructionist Theory (Berger & Kellner, 1970). The family-ecology perspective posits that factors in the external environment affect people. In the CFT framework, we operationalize such factors as the “ecological elements,” or the seven elements specific to computers and new media that have transformative effects on relationships. The structural-functionalist perspective (Johnson, 1971) posits how one organizes themselves and how aspects in one’s life influence one’s organization.

As conceptualized within the CFT framework, ecological elements drive changes to how families organize and how they function. In many cases, changes to structure encourage positive and adaptive changes in family function; in other cases, structural changes can be detrimental. As discussed by Hertlein and Blumer (2013), “The determination as to whether technology and new media provides distance or closeness is best expressed as a function of (a) the type of activity (whether it is physical, psychological, or both), and (b) the target of the behavior (i.e., is it another person or an object?)” (p. 108). The third and final perspective laying groundwork for the CFT framework is the interaction-constructionist perspective (Berger & Kellner, 1970), which states our communication with others is composed of rituals, behaviors, and gestures, which are interpreted by others. To understand how these theories contribute to the CFT framework, see Figure 7.1 later in the chapter.

The Flexibility of the CFT Framework

The interaction of ecological elements, structure, and process is certainly a complicated one. It will also vary for each relational system depending on the unique elements and dynamics within the relationship. One of the advantages to the CFT framework is that it is succinct enough to be able to accurately describe the process for couples and families, but broad enough to be able to account for a host of issues. It functions as a meta-perspective to already existing theories. In other words, therapists working with couples from this perspective can continue to use the theories that best fit them, but do so underneath the umbrella of the CFT approach. It is a way to conceptualize how technology affects couple (and family) life rather than being prescriptive with regard to theoretical orientation.

Part of its flexibility rests on the fact that, as a way to think about cases, the CFT framework is broad enough to be adapted to couples of varied cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Every couple has differences in their values, rules, and the way that they define their relationship. For example, Sergi and Nadia, a heterosexual, white couple, both originally from Siberia, but now residing in the US, stated the computer is accessible and allows for affordable interaction, which leads them to feel more connected and supported in their relationship with family members in their country of origin; yet that same accessibility and affordability is concerning for others, like more rural couples. For instance, Johona and Lynxton, a couple of mixed gender identities (Johona identifies as a woman, and Lynxton identifies as two-spirit) and of First Nations backgrounds, live in a remote area in the desert Southwest of the US. They tend to view the accessibility that technology brings into their home with more suspicion and have developed more stringent rules with regard to its usage in the relationship.

Key Characteristics of Technology That Affect Relationships

There are several characteristics about technology and new media that affect relationships, offered to us by a host of scholars and researchers over the years. They include: acceptability (King, 1999); accessibility, affordability; anonymity (Cooper, 2002); approximation (Ross & Kauth, 2002); accommodation; ambiguity (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010); and accountability (this text). See Table 7.2 for a list of the benefits and risks each of these areas introduces into relationships.

Table 7.2 Benefits and Challenges of Internet Characteristics

Ecological Element	Benefits to Relationship	Challenges to Relationship

Acceptability	• Acceptable way to meet and maintain a relationship.	• The acceptable nature of communicating with others online introduces more risk.
Anonymity	• Test the waters prior to becoming vulnerable in the early stages of relationship development.	• Greater potential to hide behind the computer and edit one's authentic self.
		• May lengthen the time that it takes to feel vulnerable with partner.
	• Can monitor and edit reactions prior to reacting in ways that might be hurtful.
Accessibility	• Routine access to partner.	• Increased ability and potentially interest to monitor partner.
	• More opportunity to develop greater levels of intimacy.
Affordability	• Long-distance relationships can thrive.	• May be easier to develop relationships with others that are virtually undetectable to primary partner.
Accommodation	• Can help one to test pilot things one wants to be online with perceived safety.	• Can create further divide between online and offline personas, resulting in some level of inauthenticity.
Approximation	• Create unique and creative opportunities to “date” one another.	• Relationship may be unrealistic in the offline world and only function because of the unrealistic online behaviors.
Ambiguity	• Can create opportunities to practice assumption of good intent.	• May contribute to discord and disagreement between couples on expectations and relational rules.
Accountability	• Many ways to take accountability—does not have to be face-to-face, which may be more difficult.	• Contribute to people divorcing themselves from their own behavior and actions.

“Everybody’s Doing It”: Acceptability

The Internet, engagement in new media, and ownership of more advanced technological gadgets are becoming more acceptable, within both our work and personal lives. For example, it is not uncommon for people in a place of employment to attend work meetings with a writing instrument, pad of paper, and smartphone or other portable electronic device. The placement of mobile phone numbers on business cards in addition to the office number is another example of how acceptable technologies are becoming in one’s work life. “More people will become connected because device manufacturers will make it far easier and acceptable to purchase and use these devices” (quote from a participant; Raine & Anders, 2017, p. 5). The use of applications (apps) for medical management (termed “mHealth”) is also very commonplace, for a wealth of medical conditions, not the least of which is management of Hepatitis C (Levine et al., 2015), tracking cervical cancer (Irwin, Nordstrom, & Pyra, 2012), early detection of prostate cancer (Sundberg, Langius, Blomberg, Isaksson, & Wengström, 2013), uncomplicated malaria (Otieno et al., 2014), and other conditions. The acceptability of use for psychological conditions rivals the medical applications, including acceptability for using apps to detect symptoms of schizophrenia (Apple-gate et al., 2014) and self-harm (Grist, Porter, & Stallard, 2018).

Other aspects of new media that are becoming acceptable include the presence of an account on Facebook, Twitter, and other sites that provide opportunity for social engagement. The sheer number and penetration of Internet usage discussed in Chapter 1 are one indicator of the acceptance of these technologies in our lives. People may be part of support groups online or chat rooms where they are dedicated to dealing with a particular topic and issue. For example, participation in online dating is increasing as an acceptable practice across a wide variety of demographic and social groups (Conway, Noë, Stulp, & Pollet, 2015; Moscaritolo, 2013). Using the Internet to pursue sexual interests is also becoming more acceptable (Albright, 2008). For instance, in terms of digisexuality, at one time using an online avatar within an interactive cybersexual environment was not necessarily an acceptable activity, but now it is more common and more acceptable (McArthur & Twist, 2017), and may even lead to sexual activity with robots.

As acceptability of using technology in one’s life increases, people also gravitate toward what is acceptable in their peer group. At times, this can raise serious issues for relationships. Take the case of infidelity in couples, for example. Because the communication with a third party was carried out via Facebook, couples might try to solve the problem by eliminating Facebook completely, and may even be advised (wrongly) by therapists to do so (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008). Facebook is not the problem; it is an acceptable way to engage with the Internet, and as a consequence, perhaps infidelity is becoming more acceptable.

Acceptability refers to both the practice of using the Internet and web-based services for a variety of functions but also the extent to which the new relationships formed from an online interaction are becoming more acceptable themselves. Regardless of the application or form of new media, Madden and Lenhart (2006) were among the first of many authors who have written specifically about how common the Internet is becoming for the initiation and development of romantic relationships. The initiation of such relationships can occur within SNSs, but is certainly not limited to these sites. Implicit in the practice of forming relationships online is the acceptable nature of participating in an intimate relationship maintained primarily online. Because couples are able to interact virtually, there may be fewer instances where they actually get a sense of each other in day to day life. One of the things evading couples is the sense of “everydayness” present in face-to-face relationships. This has resulted in an alternative model of couple development where the couple spends time feeling each other out, going on a trip as their first physical encounter or meeting up for the weekend, and making a decision whether to proceed with the relationship. In some cases, this might make sense for a wide variety of couple relationships.

The acceptability of online relating has also increased the acceptability of being in a long-distance relationship and living away from extended family. Additionally, with the advent of video phoning and other similar capabilities, it is becoming more acceptable to move away from one’s birthplace and central hub. As Bacigalupe and Lambe (2011) note: “Technology is used first to maintain preexisting relationships (e.g., children moving away from their parents, who remain in the home region) and then to build on their existing relationship despite the lack of a common place” (p. 17). The acceptability of incorporating these issues in a couple’s life also requires some negotiation. For which families is it more acceptable to participate in online interactions? Are there some families that actually require or value significantly more highly the physical face-to-face time instead of face-to-face time conducted over the Internet?

Likewise, there are also certain other expectations within families affecting the couple with regard to Internet time. For example, a family’s participation in online gaming may be an important point of sharing and family connection that they experience. Many people participate in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), games facilitated by SNSs that they can play with their friends, and similar games on their cellphones. This provides an opportunity to interact with extended family and friends in a way that maintains the connection but that does not necessarily entail sending individual messages or emails to them. In short, it is a way of being connected while being disconnected. The acceptable nature of such gaming within one’s social life often has direct and indirect implications for couple life. A direct implication relates to whom the interaction is with; the other implication is what is said and communicated within these games. For example, one partner may feel conflicted about their partner’s daily contact with a former partner through these games—on the one hand, the partner is communicating little in the way of emotion and personal thought through playing games. On the other hand, there are many people with whom the game could be played—why choose one person who is a former partner?

The acceptability of these gadgets also has implications for boundaries and acceptable behavior within relationships. With regard to infidelity, heterosexual women are more likely to cheat when they are in the same social group as other like identity women who have cheated (Atwater, 1979; Buunk, 1980). With regard to application to families and children, it is more becoming the norm that teens and kids have their own cell-phones (Campbell & Ling, 2009). Though this research was conducted in the late 70s and early 80s, it begs the question as to whether the same thing occurs for men, or for gay, lesbian, or bisexual-identifying (LGB) persons, or people of transgender experiences/identities. While we do not necessarily have this data, there is some scholarly information that shows that for many LGB persons in partnered relationships they do not believe it is acceptable for their partner(s) to participate in an online romantic relationship with someone outside of their partnership(s), nor to have online sex with someone other than them, because they believe it to be physically and emotionally damaging to their relationship(s) (Twist, Belous, Maier, & Bergdall, 2017).

One result of the notion that people who know others who cheat online and accept infidelity behavior is it may create hyper vigilance for a partner in the relationship. Part and parcel with this hyper vigilance is an increased sense of justification with regard to hacking a partner’s account. In a world that is getting exponentially more technological, it is becoming more acceptable to tap into your partner’s personal account should you become suspicious of their activities. For example, Molly and Desmond are of mixed-class and racial backgrounds who both live in London. They met through an online dating portal. After a month of exchanging emails and texting, they began meeting up for dates—first, group dates with friends and, later, dates with just one other. Within eight months of their first online encounter, they decided Desmond would move into Molly’s apartment. Shortly after moving in, Desmond demanded that Molly provide him with her passwords for her email and social networking accounts and, likewise, provided her with his account information. While Molly was not interested in logging into his accounts, she began to notice periodically that he would log into her accounts and monitor the activity and behavior with her friends and colleagues.

Another element of acceptability is the fact that some websites are geared toward and create an acceptable environment for couples to participate in hurtful or damaging behavior. For example, some sites have been created to advertise that someone is a poor partner. Other sites advertise they are a site that develops acceptability around the practice of cheating on one’s partner. Certainly, the people using these sites do not have to be married or even in a relationship; however, the idea that there are sites that create a context of acceptability for either cheating or potentially slandering one’s partner certainly does not necessarily contribute to the health of a relationship or the individuals within it.

“Who Are You?”: Anonymity Online

Anonymity means computer and Internet users can present themselves in any way they desire to the recipient on the other end of an electronic communication (Cooper, 2002). Using the Internet and other forms of new media presents one with the ability to present particular aspects about themselves to others without being challenged by the other people online with whom they are communicating or interacting. Because of this, the person who is anonymous has a higher degree of control in their self-presentation:

Those engaging in online relationships can choose to present a detached attachment or absent presence characterized by features of oppositionality: distance/immediacy; anonymity/disclosure; deception/sincerity… in one line of text, an individual can transmit confessional self-disclosure while remaining anonymous.

(Hertlein & Sendak, 2007, p. 2)

Retaining anonymity in Internet relationships can take many forms. Some people might choose to conceal their relationship status, their physical characteristics, or their immediate responses within interactions. In some cases, one may choose to omit or embellish physical characteristics of themselves, particularly if a face-to-face meeting does not appear to be on the horizon for a great deal of time. Further, if photos are exchanged, it is worth noting these photos may be edited by someone with a computer program as to appear perfect. This allows people developing relationships to be able to test the waters and gain acceptance prior to becoming completely vulnerable in a relationship. This is critical in relationship initiation, where often the physical characteristics block the development of any type of relationship from the start (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002).

In addition to one’s ability to hide personal attributes from others, anonymity also refers to when users can be anonymous with their exchanges and interactions. Unlike face-to-face interactions, communication via a keyboard allows the person typing to edit their responses as they interact with others. Nonverbal reactions of a receiver are not automatically communicated to the sender as they are in face-to-face interactions (Cooper, 2002). Instead, any communication or reaction by the receiver that is communicated back to the original sender can be carefully crafted as to hide any reactions that may not be viewed favorably by the other party. The ability for online interactions to provide users with a way to edit, delete, backspace, and think about messages before hitting “send” provides a cloak of anonymity with regard to their emotions, reactions, and, in some ways, authentic self. Anonymity may already present a problem in current relationships and will most likely continue to do so in the future. For instance, in the present we are not only deceived by humans online, we are also deceived by robots (via software), and in the future this will continue, but this kind of deception will not be contained to online technology-based realities; instead it will also come in the form of offline realities with technology like robots (McArthur & Twist, 2017).

The use of anonymity and limited disclosure of authentic reactions as a protective mechanism in relationships may assist a relationship in getting off the ground in the early stages, until such a time when the relationship is safe enough to handle how each person honestly feels about certain issues. Part of this may be due to the fact that as each person is getting to know the other, messages eliciting a negative reaction by the reader may be given the benefit of the doubt that the sender was not aware of how the message came across. For example, Anna and Sonja, a similar-gender Asian American couple in a committed relationship living on the West Coast of the US, came to treatment to manage Anna’s recent anger outburst. When the therapist asked about their use of technology, Anna stated that Sonja’s communications with her over email were short, abrupt, and read rather harshly. Anna, however, decided to look past the tone of the messages because she believed that Sonja was unaware of how the tone in the messages came across. After several months, however, Anna indicated the tone was becoming hurtful to her and that Sonja now needed to construct her messages differently and with a soft, supportive tone. Sonja expressed confusion at the new rules—if Anna was not upset before at her tone, why was she upset now? Clearly, if editing reactions continues beyond a certain point in a relationship, the couple may discover they do not have the level of intimacy or safety in the relationship they previously believed they had.

Anonymity has been tied directly to online infidelity. In research within an Internet chat room examining the key elements that contribute to affairs, Mileham (2007) found three: behavioral rationalization, effortless avoidance, and anonymous sexual interactionism. “Anonymous sexual interactionism” is the term used to describe the experience of treating the chat room as if it was a movie, watching things go by and, consequently, detaching oneself from one’s behavior in the process. When one becomes detached from their own behavior, the result may be a “slippery slope,” or progressively moving toward increasingly risky, problematic, and/or hurtful behavior. The same situation occurs more broadly within online news articles with a comments section following the article. Consider a recent article that you read in an online news source with a comments section after the article. It is likely that it did not take long for the comments to turn negative and personally attacking (perhaps three to four comments). The concept of anonymity in this paradigm is no different from the paradigm offered in the Milgram experiments of the 1960s. Along with the demand characteristics of the experts instructing the research subjects to complete their tasks, the separation of the individual from the person to whom they were administering the shocks and the inherent anonymity within that structure contributed to the likelihood of administering the shocks (Badhwar, 2009). Anonymity has a rather prominent place in the decisions one makes about engaging in a particular behavior. Anonymity has a rather prominent place in the decisions one makes about engaging in a particular behavior, and it can differ based on an individual or a couple’s cultural background. For instance, people of LGB backgrounds will sometimes decide to not be “out” about their sexual orientation in offline (otherwise known as visibility management) and/or online (also known as electronic visibility management) environments out of a need for safety from bullying and violence (Blumenfeld & Cooper, 2010; Lasser & Tharinger, 2003; Twist, Belous et al., 2017; Twist, Bergdall, Belous, & Maier, 2017).

Me and My Shadow: Accessibility

One of the most common effects of the Internet is the experience of connection (Raine & Anderson, 2017). Accessibility means that we literally have the world in the palm of our hands. Recently, my (KH) husband was at a local car dealership waiting for a repair. In the waiting room with our 4-year-old son, he was joined by another man and his young child, approximately 2 ½ years old. The man pulled out a tablet computer and put it in front of his son to occupy him while the man began to work on his laptop. The boy turned to look at my son, and my son in turn turned to look at the boy. My son told my husband, “That boy is looking at me,” and my husband went over to my son and saw what was on the tablet— Japanese anime pornography. The father of the other young boy noticed my son looking at the tablet and said to my husband: “Oh, he can watch that too if he wants.” My husband politely declined and told my son to come with him. The other man peered out from his laptop screen and looked at the tablet. Upon realizing what was on it, he exclaimed “Oh my gosh! What are you watching?!?” and proceeded to change what was being portrayed on the computer. This scenario exemplifies the concept of accessibility—just about anybody can access the Internet and anything on it if given the proper connection and tools.

Cooper (2002) described accessibility as the characteristic of the Internet allowing for individuals to be able to access a wide variety of material. Specifically, he described accessibility as related to sexual material online in his book Sex and the Internet, and this description still applies today and will in the future. For instance, digisexual engagement (like accessing online pornography) while possible from virtually anywhere (particularly via smartphones)—workplaces, planes, schools, hospitals, etc. (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017)—does not mean that accessing it is socially and/or legally allowed in such public settings, which most likely will not change even as digisexuality grows in the future (McArthur & Twist, 2017). In addition, accessibility can and does refer to a wide variety of electronic material, not just material of a sexual nature (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). One, for example, is the increased accessibility to our partners through emails, instant messaging, and other mechanisms (Cooper, 2002). Researchers have found that LGB individuals in partnered relationships report being very accessible to each other via technology (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017). Because of this accessibility, almost all couples now have to negotiate the presence of media in their lives. Other elements of the Internet that have to be negotiated include access to others via SNSs, blogs, chat rooms, and websites. Internet-based search engines exponentially increase our accessibility in their ability to find any number of people through posted addresses, phone records, and related contact information.

The flipside of this increased accessibility is greater vulnerability (Raine & Anderson, 2017). The Internet allows us to be accessible to other people and entities. In other words, the Internet introduces people who are known to us and unknown to us into our couple and family relationships. These meetings can have some pretty challenging consequences. As Rymarczuk and Derksen (2014) state: “Facebook isolates at the same time as it exposes: it liberates the user from the constraints of distance yet confines him to a screen.” Not only are people accessible to others at any given time, they are also available in any given place. A married, heterosexual, white, middle-class couple in their late 20s living on the West Coast of the US called for therapy related to his infidelity in their relationship. His wife discovered a trail of phone calls and text messages to other women demonstrating a clear emotional connection. He indicated this behavior had gone on for years, but had become more pronounced, and he had begun relationships with multiple women in the last year. After the first session, the couple seemed committed to making the relationship work. I (KH) felt pretty good about the case and was fairly hopeful they would be able to resolve these issues. The next week, the couple came in for their regularly scheduled session, and I asked about their assignment over the week. It was clear there was some tension in the room. When I asked what happened, the wife said they had argued in the car ride home from the last session. The wife disclosed while she was driving on the way home from the therapy session, she discovered her husband in the seat next to her was texting his girlfriend messages about how much he loved her. I looked at him seated on the couch and said “Dude—I’m trying to help you here.” He just gave me a sheepish grin, looked down, and said “I know.” This example introduces one of the most problematic elements for couples related to access. Not only is the access itself problematic in the cases where it constitutes betrayal because of who is accessed, but the access to another in front of the primary partner generates a more complicated and secondary betrayal—activities conducted in secret, yet right out in the open. Regarding the couple discussed in the preceding paragraph, the male partner was able to conduct his extramarital interactions outside of his partner’s awareness while seated near her without drawing attention to himself.

This is especially problematic because one of the core components of infidelity is secrecy, and may very well be one of the first barriers couples need to navigate in their healing—processing the betrayal of the events in such a way that allows them to move forward without being suspicious of every action. In other words, accessibility may also be problematic for couples when one partner clearly does NOT have access to certain elements of their partner’s life, a phenomenon common with each person having an individual cellphone, logins, and email addresses. Applications (apps) have even been developed to permit the saving of photos and messages in hidden locations on one’s cellphone, detectable to no one but the owner of the phone. As a result, increased accessibility becomes synonymous with increased opportunities, a key variable in likelihood to engage in infidelity (Treas & Giesen, 2000).

We also believe the definition of accessibility should be broadened (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). Cooper’s (2002) definition of accessibility refers to the access that one in a relationship has to the outside world and its inhabitants. Accessibility can also refer to the fact that people in a relationship are accessible to others, not just that those in the relationship can access others. In other words, the Internet and other similar forms of new media introduce both people who are known to you and people who are not known to you in your relationship.

Recent updates in cellular technology have the capability to pinpoint one’s location. This can have positive or negative implications for a couple. On one hand, it can be used to promote the development of trust in an already-struggling relationship. Trez and Caitlin, a Black American, heterosexual, upper-class couple in their 30s living in the Southeastern US, came to treatment to address Trez’s constant infidelity throughout the duration of the relationship. One of the challenges to the couple’s recovery process was that Trez’s cheating happened while he was at work. Part of his job required that he travel to people’s homes to conduct interviews. It was during these errands that he would also stop off to have sex with someone. The couple had to develop a solution to enable her to trust him enough so that he could still work and so that she could feel more trusting. The couple worked out an arrangement where when Caitlin needed him to respond to her or to check in, Trez would take a photo of where he was and respond immediately to her.

The Ultimate Cheap Date: Affordability

To carry on relationships via technology online is very affordable in the present (Cooper, 2002). For instance, in a study of LGB individuals, participants reported that their technologies were very affordable, with cellphones reported as the most affordable, followed by Internet services, and then computer maintenance (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017). However, more sophisticated technologies are still fairly costly—like virtual reality, 3D printers, and digisexual equipment like sex dolls (McArthur & Twist, 2017). The direct cost for high-end sex dolls like RealDolls is currently between US$4,000 and US$15,000 (RealDoll, 2017). Presently, we cannot predict the cost of a digisexual companion, and currently these more sophisticated technologies are not affordable to average-income earning people (McArthur & Twist, 2017).

To carry on relationships online is very affordable (Cooper, 2002). The ease with which one can communicate, the multiple methods, and the fact that it is acceptable to have a way through which to communicate can all create problems. It was not uncommon in couple relationships plagued by infidelity to be discovered by a receipt, a charge on a hotel, or a bill from a gift. One couple, I (KH) worked with, Heath and Jess, a mixed-race couple in their 40s, divulged early in the course of couples therapy that even though they had an open relationship, Jess believed that Heath had violated their rules around the open nature of their relationship. She believed that he had “hooked up” with someone else and not told her. He denied hooking up with someone else and kept reminding her that if he had he would have told her. Every several weeks, we would make progress on the couple’s communication patterns, their access to their feelings, and they would grow closer. Shortly after, Jess would once again begin to think about what she believed to be the discovery of an affair that was outside of their agreed upon relational parameters—this discovery was a charge from an upscale restaurant that her husband clearly went to with someone other than her.

Affordability also relates to some of the programs developed to organize romantic relationships with others, including partners other than ourselves. Many apps such as the ones described earlier that allow you to hide photos and messages from others on your phone can be downloaded for free. The same is true for opening virtually any email account—all you need is a password and a username. The cost, however, of participating in relationships that are affordable financially may not be affordable for relational health in the long run for certain couples. Recall the couple mentioned earlier in the chapter (Trez and Caitlin) who had a relationship characterized by online interactions separately and then vacations together. Certainly, while it is financially feasible to carry on a long-distance relationship, the end result may be that one loses a sense of reality within the relationship. That being said, there are just as many couples, if not more, for whom financial affordability allows them to have relationships that they would not otherwise be able to have because of being separated by distance or circumstance. Marco and Brian, a white, similar-gender, gay, middle-class couple, for example, began their relationship in the same town, but an academic opportunity opened up for Brian in another state. The affordability provided by the Internet and the ability to send each other daily journal entries complete with photos went a long way to sustaining the relationship and making it possible for them to develop a deeper level of commitment to one another, resulting in them deciding to live together and eventually marry upon Brian’s return from out of state.

A World of Sims: Approximation

Approximation refers to the quality of the Internet that approximates real-world situations (Tikkanen & Ross, 2003). As graphics and computer technologies improve, the graphics and video projections become more lifelike and therefore more seductive. There are a number of online mechanisms by which people replicate their offline lives. An article in Time World, for example, cites an incident where one woman filed for divorce after the revelation that her husband was having virtual sex with another avatar within the game Second Life (Adams, 2008). In this way, one’s engagement in certain sexual interactions across a medium approximating the offline world can result in a blurring of the lines between fantasy and action (Ross, 2005).

To date, the main group that has been examined with regard to the approximation phenomenon is men who seek similar-gender partners online (Cooper, Galbreath, & Becker, 2004). The rationale provided by the participants in the study was that they were engaging in that behavior as a way to manage their stress or anxiety. The more they engaged in this practice, the more it became a self-reinforcing strategy. The researchers concluded people perform these behaviors online because they do not feel it is the appropriate behavior in which to participate in their offline lives, yet it is perceived as “safe” when it is online because it provides a way of having an authentic and realistic experience without specific unwanted consequences. For example, one can engage in digisexual activities with someone without risk of becoming pregnant, or infected with viruses like the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or any other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To a lesser extent, LGB individuals in partnered relationships have also been the focus of research on approximation. For instance, Twist, Belous et al. (2017) found that participants believed that email was the most approximating online expression of themselves in comparison to their offline expression of themselves. Furthermore, the participants did note there was a difference between online sex and offline sex—so they did not see online sex as a true approximation of sex offline (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017).

Approximation is a very powerful element of computer and web-based technologies that introduces a different dimension into coupled relationships affecting both emotional and physical intimacy between partners. Participating in real-time conversations over instant messaging or text provides members of a relationship with timely information about a partner’s current emotions, motivations, thought processes, and feelings in a way that only phone calls could accomplish. Further, the ability to visually see one’s partner (or others) through real-time Internet channels has important implications for couples. Particular programs currently advertised have the ability to provide some level of sexual gratification through their ability to provide real-time visual and tactile stimuli. For example, one can purchase devices with the ability to connect to computers or tablet computers with a USB that are designed to physically stimulate one’s genitalia. Upon connection, users visit a website to download or view short movies that are developed to move in sync with the device. Other developments to this same technology include a device for a partner to operate at their own computer to stimulate a partner remotely.

In some cases, approximation can interfere with a relationship because the interactions with others online can be highly realistic. As mentioned earlier, the ability to have one see another in a real-time sexual situation can be appealing. When a physical partner cannot be found, options on pornographic websites such as live cameras can fill in the gap. For example, Whitty’s (2005) research found approximation played a part in the experience of betrayal in online infidelity. Because communications on the Internet approximated real-world situations, the experience of online betrayal mimicked offline betrayal.

The quality of approximation contributes to our understanding of different types of motivations of computer users, particularly with regard to sex. Three types of cybersex users have been identified: recreational users, sexually compulsive users, and at-risk users (Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000). Recreational users are those who utilize the Internet as a way to entertain themselves or because they are curious about different aspects of sexual behavior. These cases are most often not brought to therapy as a presenting problem, nor are they addressed in treatment when this behavior is revealed. The category of compulsive users includes those who participate in what some consider to be unhealthy and out-of-control sexual expressions, and the Internet is just one manner in which this is accomplished. The third group represents a vulnerable portion of the population—a group of people that, without the Internet, would not have a problem with what some consider to be at-risk sexual expressions. Yet, the Internet’s accessibility creates opportunities for the at-risk user to participate in usage to gratify sexual needs. Individuals in this group are vulnerable to developing sexual compulsions when they are using the Internet to gratify themselves sexually in times of isolation (Delmonico, 1997).

Accommodation

Accommodation refers to the opportunity for a person to act a certain way offline, but have a different persona when it comes to their behaviors and activities online (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). As mentioned earlier, research conducted by Cooper et al. (2004) found the Internet is used to satisfy one’s wants and needs when they do not believe they can get those needs met offline as in some research citing men seeking sexual connection with people of a similar-gender online, which may be an example of and related to using the Internet to approximate real-world situations. Such an activity, however, may be evidence of the concept of accommodation in that it is likely these men feel constrained to participate in these sexual activities in their offline lives.

This was similar to the findings of an earlier study on men who have sex with men, where the Internet was found to provide a way to experiment with having sex with someone of a similar-gender without having to identify as gay (Tikkanen & Ross, 2003). This desire to act in a certain way and the inability to do so create a conflict between one’s ideal and real self (Higgins, 1987), leading to the exhibiting of incongruous behavior (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). According to Hertlein and Stevenson (2010): “Many people feel the need for a secret life because they perceive their lives as rule-driven, confined, or constrained. Further, there are many who have the ability to risk or desire to seek out sensations that are now living routine (and by their report, ‘boring’ lives). The Internet provides greater opportunity for one to act a certain way in ‘real time’ but have a different persona when it comes to online behavior and activities, especially when there are no outward or obvious signs of this other, seemingly contradictory persona” (n.p.).

The crux of accommodation (in comparison to the previously mentioned ecological elements) is the distinction between one’s “real” versus “ought” self as identified by Higgins (1987). Terrance and N’ysha, a Black American, mixed gender and sexual orientation couple in their 30s, came to treatment to improve the communication in their relationship. Over time, it became apparent that one of the issues in the relationship was N’ysha’s report that they did not receive the same consideration from Terrance that he used to interact with his previous partner. N’ysha indicated that they felt that Terrance was “two different people”—with his previous partner he was compassionate, respectful, and complimentary, which N’ysha could see from his past social media posts, for instance. With themselves, however, he was short, business-like, and somehow detached, which N’ysha both experienced in his offline communication exchanges and saw in his displays of their relationship on social media. This difference in interaction left them feeling as if they were “second place,” a feeling that they wanted to resolve. The concept that people can construct their communication in ways consistent with a view of themselves they prefer rather than whom they really are is defined as accommodation (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010) and essentially refers to the Internet being another way in which people can portray themselves to be one way while really being another way.

Accommodation may not be a vulnerability for all relationships. The extent to which it enhances or detracts from a couple’s relationship is largely dependent on the extent to which each individual has a discrepancy between their real self and their ought self (Higgins, 1987; see Table 7.3). For example, in relationships where there is not observed discrepancy in real versus ought self, the implication is that the relationship would be enhanced by electronic technologies. Couples would find more opportunities for interactions that are based on building emotional connections as well as building closeness through more frequent interactions. These couples learn to trust and be vulnerable to one another in any context, both online and offline. In other words, what you see is what you get with each partner in the relationship. In a study of LGB individuals in partnered relationships a high degree of congruity between one’s online and offline self was reported. When the participants were asked if their online self was similar to their real-world self the majority reported that it was to a somewhat or high degree, and that their partners and non-partners were mostly aware of their online self (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017).

Table 7.3 Implications for Levels of Accommodation

		Fartner B
	Match Between Real and Ideal Self	Discrepancy	Similarity

Partner A	Discrepancy	• Significant challenges to emotional intimacy and relating.	• Partner B may experience difficulty trusting Partner A's behavior, depending on the level of discrepancy.
		• Online communication may create confusion since both individuals are different online than they are offline.	• Preference in communication (online or offline) may depend on circumstances.
	Similarity	• Partner A may experience difficulty trusting Partner B's behavior, depending on the level of discrepancy.	• Couple will experience satisfying relationship both online and offline.
			• Intimacy levels will grow more quickly and deeply than in the other couple forms because online communication
		• Preference in communication (online or offline) may depend on circumstances.	is used as an adjunct to the relationship and a way to continue to experience one another.
			• Self-disclosure online supports relationship development offline

Alternatively, a relationship in which partners experience a discrepancy between their real and ought self is on the opposite end of the accommodation continuum and is more complex. One element of the complexity deals with the manner in which the computer is used to express oneself. In most circumstances, it is the case where people who use the computer find it is a suitable mechanism through which they can express their true selves when they feel constrained in their day-to-day offline lives. One partner in a relationship may feel more security in their ability to express themselves in ways that they would not normally. Examples of this can be found in virtually every news story or posting online that allows space for people to post opinions and feedback; comments tend to turn to personal attacks on others very quickly. One of these might occur under the concept of anonymity discussed earlier as it is easier to comment negatively on something when that feedback cannot directly be associated with you. Part of this, however, is also reflective of the concept of accommodation—there are things that people really feel but that are not appropriate to express in their day-to-day offline lives.

A final type of relationship is one where a partner experiences the discrepancy with their online and offline lives and another partner is more similar and therefore relatively consistent. This dynamic in a couple can cause conflict because of difficulty in understanding another’s perspective and the damage to the perception of trust in the relationship. The case of Reid and Toni, a mixed-race, middle-class, mixed sexual orientation, differing-gender couple from the Midwestern US, exemplifies this. Reid and Toni came to treatment indicating Toni had discovered Reid’s online communications with a woman in another country. Most of the emails were characterized by graphic sexual content, description of particular sexual activities (such as including other men in sexual interactions), and other behaviors that Toni had never known were of interest to Reid. Toni was sad and angry that Reid positioned himself to be one way to others online and acted differently with her offline. In short, the computer allowed him to express what Toni came to believe as his true desires, while he acted in a way that was socially prescribed in his day-to-day life with her. In addition to the breakdown of trust in the couple relationship, Toni’s individual psyche was also damaged. She came to see herself as someone whose decisions could not be trusted and found herself waiting for the other shoe to drop with Reid. The end result was impairment to her self-esteem and a pronounced amount of shame, which prevented her from seeking the social support to get through the relationship problems she would have otherwise used.

“I Didn’t Technically Touch Them So It Doesn’t Count”: Ambiguity

Relational Ambiguity

Ambiguity is another element related to technology and new media creating specific issues in couple relationships. This concept refers to one of two types: relational ambiguity and technological ambiguity (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). Relational ambiguity is any ambiguity around the evaluation of one’s online behavior in regards to one’s relationship. In many cases, members of a couple disagree on the valence of a behavior—that is, whether specific behavior occurring in the relationship related to the usage of Internet technologies is helpful, harmful, or neutral to the relationship. It is often the case that a partner participating in the behavior views it as neutral or positive, while another partner evaluating it from a distance views it as neutral or harmful. The greater the degree to which a behavior is defined ambiguously in the couple’s relationship, the greater the degree of harm and the greater the potential for a disruption to the couple’s intimacy processes.

One of the things most striking about the notion of relational ambiguity is exactly how many behaviors are ambiguous in the couple’s contract. In days prior to new media’s insertion in everyday life, couples were pretty clear on what, for example, constituted infidelity: intimate physical contact with a person other than one’s primary partner (Thompson, 1984). Emily Brown (1991), a renowned scholar on infidelity, was among the first to acknowledge the potential of emotional infidelity to soon emerge in relationships. In fact, the emotional component of infidelity (either online or offline) is recognized by couple and relationship scholars (see, for example, Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). The advancements in technology, however, have increased the number of behaviors whose valence is quite ambiguous. We now have to make more decisions about what behaviors constitute appropriate behavior in the relationship and what behaviors cross the line. Despite the increasing amount of ambiguous online behavior, couples meeting today seem to fare no better at organizing conversations to either acknowledge or resolve the ambiguity prior to establishing a commitment with one another than couples who have committed together decades ago. For example, Ericka and Duane, of working-class Southeastern US backgrounds, both in their late 20s and heterosexual, sought premarital therapy five months prior to their wedding. The couple met through mutual friends and had spent approximately three years prior to becoming engaged, living together for the last two years. The conversations that emerged over the course of their pre-marital therapy revealed no areas where the couple seemed to have any problematic differences in opinion that would warrant further treatment or attention. Yet when the therapist introduced the area of infidelity and the definition as it relates to appropriate online behavior and boundaries in the relationship, the couple looked perplexed at one another and indicated they had not even thought about what those behaviors might entail. As the conversation unfolded, it became clear each had their own idea about how Internet infidelity would be conceptualized. The therapist assigned the couple to discuss the contract with one another over the week and return with some agreement on this element of their relationship contract.

It is not only the couples who have a recent commitment that are not establishing the definitions for appropriate online behavior in their relationship. Those who have had established relationships for some time generally do not revisit the original contracts they had with one another prior to the explosion of electronically based communication. In fact, many couples only revisit what would constitute appropriate behavior after there is some disagreement about the valuation of a particular behavior.

There are likely several reasons why couples, regardless of duration in their relationship, experience challenges with regard to establishing clarity with their relational contract. The relational contract is defined “as a set of implicit expectations that partners have concerning how they will define the relationship and interact with one another” (Birchler, Doumas, & Fals-Stewart, 1999, p. 256). First, the rapid development of software, systems, websites, and ways to communicate through electronic channels make it difficult to plan for every possible contingency within a relationship. For example, one cannot predict the amount of ways in which one might be contacted through the Internet by phone by others and what forms of interaction initiated by others will enter the couple’s life. Second, this is further compounded by the fact that evidence seems to indicate that couples do not seem to address contracts within their relationships (Birchler et al., 1999). The inattention to the relational contract can result in differences in expectations and discord.

The most common issues related to relational ambiguity revolve around elements of infidelity: namely, what are the electronic behaviors that constitute infidelity in a relationship? Some couples define infidelity solely as physical contact with another person outside of the primary relationship. When both partners hold this definition, the problems of whether or not someone cheated are relatively clear, and any discord in couples seems to revolve around the betrayed partner claiming their partner participated in physical activity with another person outside the boundary of the relationship and the partner accused of such an activity denying there was any physical contact. Sal and Heather, a heterosexual, Latin American couple from the central region of the US, presented in treatment as a classic example of this phenomenon. Heather had discovered used condoms in their bedroom upon her return from a business trip. When she confronted Sal about her findings, he denied any involvement with someone else and claimed that he did not know how they got there.

In today’s relationships, however, the clarity of the definition of infidelity behavior becomes murky when couples have to consider and agree upon the behaviors constituting infidelity. For instance, in the context of the current wave of digisexuailty there is a good deal of relational ambiguity around what constitutes cheating (McArthur & Twist, 2017). Researchers have found that half of partnered heterosexual adults report that they believe watching online pornography counted as cheating, while the other half did not (Thompson & O’Sullivan, 2016). With more potential problematic behaviors, the likelihood each partner will agree on each behavior is reduced. The potential for such an increase in problematic behaviors may only increase going into this next wave of digisexualities. When respondents in a YouGov (2013) poll answered whether they thought a person in a committed relationship having sex with a robot would constitute cheating, a little less than half believed that it would, about a quarter were unsure, and almost a third believed it would not constitute cheating. This demonstrates an ongoing issue of relational ambiguity for couples on what constitutes infidelity in the context of experiences with technology.

With more potential problematic behaviors, the likelihood each partner will agree on each behavior is reduced. In these cases, the discord in couples can revolve around a partner accusing another of a behavior and the other denying, both partners agreeing that the behavior occurred but disagreeing about whether it constituted infidelity, or situations where both are true. For example, Gracia made an appointment for her and her husband, David (both white, heterosexual, middle-class, Midwestern, and in their 50s), to treat his infidelity. Gracia viewed his interactions with other women online as a breach in their relational contract. David confirmed he did talk to other women online, but indicated these were friends from high school with whom he did not have nor did he ever have any romantic interest or history. David viewed Gracia as having changed the rules in the contract and was angry that she did not trust him. In this case, the couple’s discord was less around the denial of events and more about the ambiguity around what constitutes stepping out of the relationship. In some cases, the definition of infidelity can include the viewing of pornography by one partner. While pornography has been around for a long time, in the past people viewing pornographic magazines did not seem to be classified as cheating to the extent that viewing pornography online is viewed today. First, pornography online has the ability to be interactive, where magazines or movies did not have that same quality. Advances in technologies such as live webcams may make the pornography more real and, therefore, more of a threat.

Another striking characteristic of relational ambiguity with regard to technology and behavior in couple relationships is that ambiguity of the valuation of online behavior seems to occur with approximately the same frequency in online relationships as in offline relationships. Kara and Mike, both in their 40s, biracial, middle-class, and heterosexual, each had a pattern of participating in serially monogamous relationships for years that eventually fizzled out. They were both ready to find a person with whom to spend the rest of their life. They met each other online through a dating website and participated in a long-distance relationship for approximately a year and a half. The relationship started relatively slowly, but once clarification was made to be exclusively involved with one another, the couple developed rules around the frequency of their online contact with one another. They did not, however, include a discussion of rules around permissible online behavior. When Mike observed certain activity on Kara’s Facebook account from another, he categorized such behavior as a breach of the relationship contract; Kara, on the other hand, held the position that rules around this behavior were never part of the contract, and had she known about it, she would have done more to be clear with her friends about how to appropriately interact with her online.

This begs the question as to why couples whose relationships are conducted primarily online do not discuss the rules of the relationship with regard to online behavior, despite the fact this is their primary mode of interaction with one another. One reason could be the tentative nature of communication facilitated online. In the case of Kara and Mike, a disagreement about rules with regard to online behavior could have three potential negative consequences. One might be that either Kara or Mike might agree there are rules around the behavior but operate independent of those rules outside of the awareness of the other. Second, it might lead to the development of an argument between Kara and Mike, a couple who very much wants the relationship to be long lasting, but is also physically distant from one another. In this setting, Kara may fear that it is easier for Mike to end communication with her by walking away from the computer or ignoring texts/phone calls about the issue, a task more difficult to do when couples live in the same space. If she is not willing to take that risk, she may not be willing to start the conversation in the first place. A third consequence might be the development of a discussion lacking authenticity on the part of each partner. As described earlier in this chapter, one of the characteristics of online communication is that the user can type, write, backspace, and essentially alter their appearance. The sense of everydayness and spontaneity is lost as people think and organize what they want to say rather than being themselves and letting their expression show. In either case, the conversation may be avoided because of the lack of power one partner may feel by being connected only by a keyboard.

Technological Ambiguity

Another way ambiguity plays out in a relationship is with regard to the knowledge base of electronically based communication. Emoticons and abbreviations have certain meanings that are generally understood by users of these technologies to have particular meanings. It is also the case, however, many users might not be clear on what symbols, emoticons, or abbreviations stand for what. This ambiguity creates interesting scenarios for couple relationships as well. When I (KH) began sending instant messages, I began using this emoticon: “: x.” I was under the impression that it was someone making a sick face, meaning “yuk.” I used this fairly often in my communication with others online, men and women both, when something being discussed was not pleasant, such as a poor work schedule, difficulties within relationships, or other routine complaints. After about one and a half years, my husband texted me using that emoticon. Because we were not discussing anything unpleasant at the time, his “yuk” face seemed out of context. I asked him why he inserted a “yuk” face. He replied “That’s not a yuk face. That means a kiss.” I was shocked. I confessed I had been using it as a “yuk” face for nearly two years with my texting companions, both men and women. He laughed and said, “Well, now you know.” While my husband was very calm and trusted that I was genuine in my lack of information about usage of symbols, there are many couples for whom the ambiguity around the use of symbols is dismissed as one partner clearly wanting to start up relationships with other people or can even count as evidence of cheating. In these cases, the couple has to rely on the trust that has already been built in the relationship as a way to determine whether there is a need for further exploration or whether the lack of clarity in using symbols is just one more example of one’s lack of commitment to the relationship.

Technological ambiguity may also be characterized by lack of knowledge about the capabilities of technology and new media. For example, there may be software or phone applications used by one person to discreetly conceal one’s activities. One’s partner may be less familiar with such applications and therefore not be able to appropriately appraise a situation as problematic. Finally, technological ambiguity also frequently occurs in the context of text-based exchanges, as it can be difficult to decipher the tone and content of such messages as one still often lacks the ability to see the clear physicality of the intentions and emotions behind the messages. Such technological ambiguity often leads to more mis-communications and arguments via such media like texting than occurs offline, regardless of the gender or sexual orientations of the persons involved in the partnered relationship (Twist, Bergdall et al., 2017).

Accountability

One of the primary issues associated with technology in intimate relationships is the issue of accountability. This issue is one of the few that transcends various topical areas but may still be a major player in interactions. Accountability is a key issue in relationship maintenance. As couples struggle to navigate the use of power within the relationship, each individual has to take accountability for their own behavior. Though little has been written about accountability in clinical literature, accountability has been identified as critical in infidelity treatment (Bird, Butler, & Fife, 2007).

To some degree, accountability relies on one being aware of their own online behavior. Researchers to date have only focused on awareness of technology usage in adolescents (Hundley & Shyles, 2010). Hundley and Shyles (2010) found teens experienced a high degree of temporal displacement while using technological devices—meaning that they were frequently not aware of the amount of time spent with their technology. In its application to technology in couples, accountability is an issue on two main levels. First, each member of the couple is accountable for their own behavior related to using electronically based communication to interact with others outside of their relationship. This includes regulation of whom each partner is contacting via outgoing messages as well as managing incoming contacts. Second, accountability also applies to people’s online behavior regarding interactions with their partner. According to Postmes, Spears, and Lea (1998), “The notion that [computer-mediated communication] gives people a strategic freedom to express themselves because they are unaccountable has been identified as the cause of an ostensible increase in antinormative behavior in [computer-mediated communication] compared to face-to-face conditions” (p. 694). In other words, the amount of people you can communicate with relates to the sense of limited accountability.

A mixed-class, mixed-race, mixed-age, heterosexual couple, Hayden (42 years old) and Lucille (27 years old), were in couples therapy mainly because Hayden was angry at her for some of the conversations she had with a third party online. During the course of the conversation, it emerged that he had logged onto her email without her knowledge or permission, a clear violation of their relational contract. Such behavior complicates a case because those who place themselves in the position of monitoring their partner often assert the end justifies the means. Further, in cases where infidelity is discovered, both the couple and therapist experience the dilemma of knowing the partner logging into accounts did breach the trust, but are forced to attend to the more egregious issue of the sense of betrayal emerging from the problematic behavior. Take, for example, Margaret and Dan, a working-class, white, heterosexual couple who came to therapy because Margaret was distressed by her husband’s participation in flirtatious chats with a co-worker and began monitoring his email communications. A conversation about accountability in violating the relationship contract goes by the wayside in order to manage the fidelity issue. Another dimension of the accountability problem is the decision around the degree to which a partner is required to report their behavior to a partner. It is not unusual for couples to have inconsistencies with regard to what rules around password usage they should implement in their relationships.

The accountability of one’s behavior shifts, however, when there has been a breach of the relationship contract. A partner may feel the need to monitor another partner’s interactions, which can have pronounced implications for the couple. In many ways, the desire to observe and monitor one’s behavior while placing the accountability for such action on another party is adaptive and protective. Typically, this dynamic emerges in a relationship where one party has been hurt or betrayed by another’s online activities and believes their partner’s behavior warrants monitoring. For example, Angie and Zenn, a genderqueer, lesbian, mixed-race, middle-class, Northeastern US couple, presented to therapy, because Angie had logged onto Zenn’s Facebook account to ensure they were not maintaining communication with a woman for whom they had previously expressed a strong level of attraction, despite their assurances that all communication had stopped. In other cases, this adaptive behavior may also be central to creating more issues for couples. In Angie’s case, she and her partner had a very clear agreement about the nature through which Zenn would share their online activities with her—and her logging onto their accounts without their knowledge was not one of them. The pair had agreed to be forthcoming with specific and potentially contentious issues and to have the flexibility in their relationship to pose questions to one another appropriately. While Angie knew that her secretly logging into accounts would result in the termination of the relationship per her partner, her fear about their online activities, its consequences, and what meaning they gave it prevented her from adhering to her relationship agreement. The bottom line is that inattention to accountability may create an environment ripe for the development of a problematic power struggle in the couple’s relationship, which can further contribute to relational discord. In short, just because you can do something does not necessarily mean you should.

References

Albright, J. (2008). Sex in America online: An exploration of sex, marital status, and sexual identity in Internet sex seeking and its impacts. Journal of Sex Research, 45 (2), 175–186. doi:10.1080/00224490801987481

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford, UK: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Applegate, E., Palmier-Claus, J., Machin, M., Sanders, C., Ainsworth, J., & Lewis, S. (2014). Poster #T10 acceptability and feasibility of extended use of mobile phone technology to assess psychotic symptoms in DSM-IV schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia Research, 153, S292.

Atwater, L. (1979). Getting involved: Women’s first transition to extramarital sex. Alternative Lifestyles, 2, 33–68. doi:10.1007/bf01083662

Bacigalupe, G., & Lambe, S. (2011). Virtual intimacy: Information communication technologies and transnational families in therapy. Family Process, 50 (1) 12–26. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01343.

Badhwar, N. K. (2009). The Milgram experiments, learned helplessness, and character traits. The Journal of Ethics: An International Philosophical Review, 13, 257–289. doi:10.1007/s10892-009-9052-4

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Domestication running wild. From the moral economy of the household to the mores of culture. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technologies (pp. 62–79). Maiden-head: Open University Press.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the Internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. (1970). Marriage and the construction of reality. In H. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent Sociology, No. 2. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Birchler, G. R., Doumas, D. M., & Fals-Stewart, W. S. (1999). The seven Cs: A behavioral systems framework for evaluating marital distress. The Family Journal, 7, 253–264. doi:10.1177/1066480799073009

Bird, M. H., Butler, M. H., & Fife, S. T. (2007). The process of couple healing following infidelity: A qualitative study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 6 (4), 1–25. doi:10.1300/J398v06n04_01

Black, K. A., Moyer, A. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). From face-to-face to Face-book: The role of technology and social media in adoptive family relationships with birth family members. Adoption Quarterly, 19 (4), 307–332. doi:10.1080/10926755.2016.1217575

Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. M. (2010). LGBT and allied youth responses to cyberbullying: Policy implications. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3 (1), 114–133.

Blumler, J. G., & Katz, E. (Eds.). (1974). The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brody, N., Lefebvre, L., & Blackburn, K. (2016). Social networking site behaviors across the relational lifespan: Measurement and association with relationship escalation and de-escalation. Social Media Society, 2 (4), 1–16. doi:0.1177/2056305116680004

Brown, E. M. (1991). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Granic, I., Dishion, T., J., & Hollenstein, T. (2003). The family ecology of adolescence: A dynamic systems perspective on normative development. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of adolescence (pp. 60–91). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.

Grist, R., Porter, J., & Stallard, P. (2018). Acceptability, use, and safety of a mobile phone app (blueice) for young people who self-harm: Qualitative study of service users’ experience. JMIR Mental Health, 5 (1), e16. doi:10.2196/mental.8779

Higgins, E. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Hundley, H. L., & Shyles, L. (2010). US teenagers’ perceptions and awareness of digital technology: A focus group approach. New Media & Society, 12 (3), 417–433. doi:10.1177/1461444809342558

Hynes, D., & Rommes, E. (2005). ‘Fitting the Internet into our lives’: IT courses for disadvantaged users. In T. Berker, Y. Punie, & M. Hartmann (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology. Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

Irwin, T., Nordstrom, S., & Pyra, M. (2012). O326 acceptability of mobile phone technology for tracking cervical cancer in rural Guatemala. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 119, S375–S376.

Johnson, H. (1971). The structural-functional theory of family and kinship. Journal of Comparative Studies, 2, 133–144. doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(12)60756-5

King, S. A. (1999). Internet gambling and pornography: Illustrative examples of psychological consequences of communication anarchy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2, 175–193.

King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43 (6), 740–755. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003

McArthur, N., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3/4), 334–344.

McKenna, K.Y, Green, A., & Gleason, M. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31. doi:10.1234/12345678

Mileham, B. L. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: An ethnographic exploration. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), 11–31. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.5829

Moscaritolo, A. (2013, October 21). Online dating now more socially acceptable. PCmag.com.

Norton, A. M., Baptist, J., & Hogan, B. (2018). Computer-mediated communication in intimate relationships: Associations of boundary crossing, intrusion, relationship satisfaction, and partner responsiveness. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44 (1), 165–182. doi:10.1111/jmft.12246

Otieno, G., Githinji, S., Jones, C., Snow, R. W., Talisuna, A., & Zurovac, D. (2014). The feasibility, patterns of use and acceptability of using mobile phone text-messaging to improve treatment adherence and post-treatment review of children with uncomplicated malaria in western Kenya. Malaria Journal, 13 (1), 44. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-13-44

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689–715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006

Rabby, M., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication impacts on relationship formation and maintenance. In D. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 141–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ross, M. W. (2005). Typing, doing and being: Sexuality and the Internet. Journal of Sex Research, 42, 342–352. doi:10.1080/00224490509552290

Ross, M. & Kauth, M. (2002). Men who have sex with men, and the Internet: Emerging clinical issues and their management. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the internet: A guidebook for clinicians, 162. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Class	Theory and Authors	Main Tenet	Limitations	Potential Applications for Relationships

Communication aspects	Media richness Daft and Lengel (1984)	Different types of media have varying implications for task completion, speed, and clarity.	Scope is limited to individual user characteristics and some application with intimacy, but there are not many studies on other applications; little consideration of other contextual factors that may be operating.	Couples who use Skype or other video-conference technologies to communicate would have an advantage over couples and families that use text-based communication methods; mediums that are rich in presentation may be augmented quite well in text-based media in the initial relationship development phase.
	Hyperpersonal CMC	Users can construct what they want to represent through text based-media, thereby increasing perceived intimacy.
	Rabby and Walther (2002)
Social aspects	Social penetration	Sharing both depth and breadth of experiences with another facilitates intimacy.	Social presence and its contribution to other processes in relationships (i.e., more than intimacy) are not considered.	Couples may have different perceptions of the circumstances in which depth would be more important to couple development than breadth; social presence may be a useful concept to discuss with couples who are concerned about their partner's online presence.
	Altman and Taylor (1973)
	Social presence is experienced through speed and interactions characterized by intimacy.
	Short, Christie, and Williams (1976)
Developmental aspects	Developmental model	Computers introduced changes in the way that we work, play, and interact with one another. The manifestation of the changes depends on the stage in the life cycle and other demographic information.	Limited attention to specific couple dynamics; do not include some of the information related to intimacy development in CMC relationships; heavy focus on computers and more focus needed on other forms of new media	The integration of computers and new media in relationships is, at best, a complex interaction. This perspective enables more opportunities for couples to experience challenges or opportunities for relationship enhancement.
	Watt and White (1999)
	Domestication theory	Computers and other forms of new media influence family operations and, in so doing, change the way a family interacts with technology.
	Silverstone, Hirsch, and Morley (1992)

Seven
What About the Internet Changes Our Relationships?

A Social Solution to a Social Problem

The Couple and Family Technology Framework