Introduction
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the Internet and new media change many things about our relationships. The characteristics of acceptability, affordability, accessibility, anonymity, approximation, accommodation, ambiguity, and accountability affect both the structure and processes of relationships. In this view, structure of relationships is defined as the roles, the rules, and the boundaries of relationships (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). The accessibility, affordability, and acceptability of the pervasiveness of the Internet have led to a new term—the Internet of Things. The Internet of Things can make both positive and negative changes to the roles, rules, and boundaries of relationships.
So not only will the trend toward greater connectivity of people and objects continue, it will continue to change boundaries and dynamics of all sorts—personal, social, moral, political…. The [Internet of Things] reality represents both huge opportunity and huge vulnerability. They go hand in hand.
(Raine & Anderson, 2017, pp. 5–6)
The Internet of Things has evolved into an Internet of entities. In other words, as the reach of the Internet has expanded, so have the devices that touch our day-to-day life. The Internet shapes, for example, what rules we have in terms of interacting with each other and interacting with parties outside of our primary relationships. Some of this was already in the chapter on couples, where couples indicate that they need rules in their relationship, particularly on phone usage, but do not believe that they are willing to implement the rules in their own relationship. So what really does happen with the Internet and roles, rules, and boundaries? And how do we use what is good about the Internet to create a structure for couples and families that is going to be growth producing instead of hampering or pathological?
Roles
There are a few ways that the structure of relationships has shifted and been altered in the Internet of Things (see Figure 8.1). The structure affects both couple relationships as well as those between parent, child, or even extended family, and other relational systems. One of the things that dictates structure are the roles that we each hold. For example, in many couples, there may be prescribed gender roles that influence behavior. An example is when men may feel they have to initiate interactions. That is a gender-linked situation. Similarly, the role of a parent has implied certain tasks, activities, and set of rules. These rules might include ensuring that their children attend school, ensuring that they are physically present for their children, and ensuring that they care physically and emotionally for the young people in their charge.
Figure 8.1
Relational Structure Areas Affected by Technology
When it comes to technology and the roles in couples and families, there is some debate as to who holds the position at the top of the hierarchy. As it pertains to couples, the previous chapter details how technological ambiguity contributes to a member of a relationship being in a higher position of power. The more one can navigate technology, the more they can engage in activities outside of their partner’s awareness—either on their behalf or to track their partner. In one sense, the traditional roles of parent and child suggest that the parent is hierarchically higher than the child. This implies that they will be able to operate from a position of being the person who establishes the rules, because they know more. In the case of technology, however, at times these roles are reversed. Younger people may be more technologically competent as a consequence of their natural integration with technology at a young age, and therefore hold more power and have an ability to better dictate the rules related to phone usage—or more commonly find ways around the rules that have been put in place for their protection.
Rules
Rules in Couples
Relationships are defined and bounded by rules (Blevins, 1993). Rules in systems such as couples and families are manifested in the patterns of behaviors exhibited by members of a family and tend to give structure to how tasks are accomplished and emotions and values are expressed (Blevins, 1993). Rules dictate what behaviors are allowed, forbidden, and expected based on the context and roles (Caughlin, 2003). There are various types of rules in couple relationship typologies: two main types of rules include implicit and explicit rules (see Table 8.1). Implicit rules refer to rules where a couple makes, well, an inference about how to behave in a given context or situation (Minuchin, 1974). Implicit rules in couples develop out of spending time together and developing an understanding of each person’s individual patterned behavior as well as the patterned behavior adopted as a couple (Meng et al., 2013). Explicit rules are those that are discussed by couples and agreed upon in an overt fashion (Steuber & Mclaren, 2015). Relationships function better when implicit rules are made explicit, as it gives the couple a better sense of boundaries and expectations (Petronio, 2002). Rules, however, may evolve with or without explicit acknowledgment. Nearly 80% of intimate couples agreed on rules for disclosure, yet only 25% discussed these rules. Further, when rules are broken, the result is reduced relationship satisfaction (Hosking, 2013), particularly if the rules that are broken are obligatory rules (or rules both members of the couple share agreement on) (Roggensack & Sil-lars, 2014). In addition, couples who understand rules but do not agree experience more conflict than those couples who agree to obligatory rules (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014).
In addition to the explicit and implicit typology of rules, there are also constitutive and regulative rules (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014). Constitutive rules refer to the definitions of certain acts. Regulative rules are those that govern behavior, expectations, and actions. In the case of the Internet, most of the ambiguity surrounds what constitutes problematic behavior, For example, is posting a selfie without anyone else in the photo considered a breach of the relationship contract? In some couples, it is; in others, it is not. Is communicating with an attractive person online outside of one’s relationship a breach or not? In many cases, implicit constitutive rules are developed from one’s history (such as pathological jealousy from a previous relationship and poor modeling).
Table 8.1 Technology Examples of Types of Rules
| Implicit Rules | Explicit Rules | |
|
|
||
| Constitutive Rules (conceptual) | One member of the couple has a specific idea of what constitutes online infidelity. They do not, however, share their idea and operate under the belief that their definition is somehow universal and, therefore, their partner would agree with them without overtly agreeing on this. | Parents express to a child/adolescent that they are not to “be inappropriate” online, but provide no clear guidance on what actions constitute appropriateness. |
| Regulative Rules (action-oriented) | One member of the couple has specific behaviors that constitute online infidelity. They evaluate their partner's actions one action at a time and may be oriented that those behaviors constitute infidelity, despite that those behaviors may be ambiguous or benign. These include both online (such as talking to someone of the romantic interest gender) and offline behaviors (not leaving the phone out in public areas in the house). | One member of a couple constantly checks their partner's account and becomes angry when they discover that their partner was messaging someone from their work. While the messages are benign, the claim is that they should have not withheld the conversation from their partner. |
One of the more common issues in clinical settings is that the computer and new media influence how people respond to and uphold their relationship rules. A classic example is Internet infidelity. Due to the acceptability of using the Internet to foster relationships with many people in wide-ranging geographic locations and from varied backgrounds, there are more complexities introduced into the already-established relationship rules. To date, researchers have identified the presence of several rules specifically regarding cellphone usage. Duran, Kelly, and Rotaru (2011) investigated whether the rules of cellphones in relationships were associated with separation or merging. Although many participants indicated the rules for communicating via cellphone were not necessary within their relationships, other participants reported conflict regarding cellphone usage in their relationships. One reason for this conflict was related to a need to be autonomous and, therefore, having to separate oneself from a situation in order to achieve autonomy through the methods available through the structure of a cellphone (i.e., turning off the phone or ignoring the call). A second source of conflict was a need to merge with one’s partner but with no means to access the other. In each case, one partner in the relationship had their own expectations of the rules regarding cellphone usage; conflict emerged when another partner did not share that expectation.
Miller-Ott, Kelly, and Duran (2012) found couples that enact certain cellphone rules experience increased relationship satisfaction. One group of rules for couples and phones are rules for managing responsiveness to a partner’s texts or phone calls. For example, some couples may have rules around the length of time one waits prior to initiating a second contact. Further, individuals who rated themselves as having higher levels of satisfaction had some rules, but not a specific set of rules governing how to respond to a phone call (Miller-Ott et al., 2012). This is also consistent with research on texting and messaging norms, indicating that people believe that there is a norm dictating a response when one receives a message via cellphone (Laursen, 2005). Relationship satisfaction is also higher for couples who have rules for when and in what way to introduce emotionally charged content; in other words, couples fare better when there is a specific rule preventing partners from beginning arguments over the phone. Finally, couples experience greater satisfaction with fewer rules monitoring their usage of their cellphone placed upon them by their partner (Miller-Ott et al., 2012). Most couples, however, are not explicit about the rules applied in their relationship—a statement particularly true about couples having specific expectations around the sharing of information, but not sharing those expectations (Steuber & Mclaren, 2015).
Alongside negotiation of frequency and content of general interactions in a couple’s relationship, the negotiation of rules in a relationship also occurs specifically with regard to emotional expression (Strzyzewski, Buller, & Aune, 1996). Partners in relationships more deeply developed tend to have worked out idiosyncratic rules in their communication that permit the expression of negative emotions such as hurt and pain, whereas individuals in the early stages of a relationship generally rely on cultural rules to determine how to express positive emotions while withholding negative emotions (Strzyzewski et al., 1996). This rule development becomes more confusing with increased usage of computers in one’s life. According to Strzyzewski et al. (1996), “Emotion expressions may be considered highly personal information and too risky to share completely with new relational partners. Partners may also avoid positive emotions because they do not feel confident enough of the future relational trajectory” (p. 128). The same holds true for online relationships: the individual keeps negative emotions inside when there is fear that revealing the emotion might somehow jeopardize the relationship (Baker, 2007).
Interactions between people who communicate primarily via the Internet are best described as positive and open when emotions are expressed (Baker, 2007). In fact, partners may reveal more online more quickly than in offline relationships, having negotiated the rules around the expression of emotions early in the relational trajectory. Successful online couples appropriately use self-presentation, timing, setting, and selection of obstacles to resolve issues that would have otherwise prevented them from progressing as a couple (Baker, 2002).
With regard to social media, there are five groups of rules that couples generally observe: rules regarding communication channels, deception and control, relational maintenance, negative self-consequences, and negative friend consequences (Bryant & Marmo, 2012). The most common rules (both implicit and explicit) in couple relationships are around what to post and with whom to share information. In some couples, sharing information with ex-partners (or one ex in particular) is prohibited. Unfortunately, this is not usually discovered until one partner posts and the other becomes angry about the posting. Another type of rule group— rules around deception—is not often discussed in couples but is among the most important set of rules that a couple can discuss (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014). Most couples do not like when their partner tells them what to do. It upsets the power dynamic, and one may experience problems in perceived lack of control/threat in their own relationships, thus contributing to greater levels of conflict (Sanford, 2010). Here, the Internet characteristics of ambiguity, approximation, accommodation, and accountability play a significant part. Ambiguity is a key issue with the Internet, deception, and infidelity. When a couple has any ambiguity between each other regarding the agreement on what should be shared with whom or what behaviors, encounters, and messages should be disclosed, relationship discord cannot be far behind. In many cases, the presence of ambiguity and the meanings behind relationships stem from the perception of approximation. For example, many couples seek treatment for Internet infidelity. But what happens online is that we are ambiguous about the definition and therefore have different ideas about meaning and outcome based on how much we believe that behavior approximates real-world situations, thereby creating more conflict (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014). Ambiguity around what constitutes deception and infidelity is common (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014) and may mean that one person may inadvertently cross the line because of the ambiguity. In cases where there is a higher value placed on Internet behavior as approximating or mimicking offline behavior, the interactions online will be far more damaging than in cases where couples do not consider that behavior to be like offline behavior. In other words, the more one believes that online behavior mimics offline behavior, the more deceptive online behavior will appear to be.
Once online behavior deemed problematic is discovered, interpreting the meaning of the behavior/deception happens next. For example, when one discovers their partner has been communicating with someone else online, they may fear that their partner prefers the other individual and, by default, does not enjoy their current partnership. This meaning-making is in part the accommodation process whereby the partner offline may make some meaning that the person online is using the Internet to accommodate what they really wish to do in life but cannot because of the restrictions in their offline relationship. In other words, the betrayed partner makes meaning that they are holding back the online partner from what they would really like to be doing (and with whom they would like to be doing it). Another common example is the meaning-making around pornography usage. Many people report that when they discover their partner is viewing pornography online without involving them, they feel as if their partner is making comparisons to what they see online versus their offline relationship. Women in particular may also be fearful that their partner will see how they do not match up to the pornography actors (Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011). Finally, when relationship rules are broken, the likelihood of revenge or retaliation increases (Boon, Deveau, & Alibhai, 2009), potentially altering the relationship dynamic.
Rules in Families and Relational Systems
Families are organizations defined and bounded by rules (Blevins, 1993). Family rules are manifested in the patterns of behavior exhibited by members of a relational system and tend to give structure to how tasks are accomplished and emotions and values are expressed (Blevins, 1993). With regard to the key characteristics of the Internet described in Chapter 7, the affordability of the Internet (for one) makes it easier for families to find ways to demonstrate their affection and values, and accomplish tasks. The Internet’s approximation to real-world situations can set up a mock environment to test how youth are able to follow rules set up by parents and care providers and respect boundaries.
As a way to win the battle between roles and rules, parents have elected to identify content rules and access rules and manage their children’s Internet usage through these rules. When parents are able to appropriately give some power to their children in decision-making, they help to foster their children’s sense of competence (Brown & Mann, 1990). In one-parent families, for example, adolescents may be empowered to make more decisions, potentially as a way to compensate for not having another parent in their home (Brown & Mann, 1990). From Minuchin’s (1974) structural perspective, this may mean that adolescents are shifted into a higher position in the family—combined with the notion that adolescents are more technologically advanced than their parents, it may mean that they adopt a higher role in the family in terms of the hierarchy. The role of a technology expert in the family has significant implications for the content rules in the family and how those rules are managed (Fletcher & Blair, 2016).
Another rule commonly established in families related to the Internet is time spent online. As noted in Chapter 1, there are several negative health effects related to the amount of time one spends online, including issues with dry eyes and declining eyesight, cervical problems, skin problems (particularly for women), wrist pain, hair loss, weight gain, and changes in the life cycle of a cell in the human body (Meena, Verma, Kohli, & Ingle, 2016). Research conducted by Cingel and Hargittai (2018) found that rules set up for health reasons have a positive impact on youth in terms of their grades in college; rules set up to limit computer time because it detracted from homework time, however, were inversely associated with good grades.
Surveillance of technology use among family members is becoming a huge endeavor and a common technique by which parents reinforce the rules established. Parental monitoring of youth technology use is a common activity (Martins, Matthews, & Ratan, 2017). Parents who have higher degrees of involvement with their children may, however inadvertently, end up with more negative outcomes as children feel that they are not able to be trusted (Martins et al., 2017). In addition, we have the issue of coveillance that is emerging in relationships. Coveillance refers to the fact that we are being observed by our community around us, and that this information can get back to our relationships without us intending for the information to get back. In some cases, parents and caregivers opt less for surveillance and more for coveillance and ask their online networked community to monitor their children’s behavior.
If parents do not or cannot monitor their teens’ technological use through the establishment of rules, it is still essential that they find some ways to help them manage their vulnerability to online perpetrators both known and unknown to them (Landau, 2008). This can include: (a) having bedrooms that are media-free zones, (b) encouraging comprehensive, informational, and positive media-education in the home and school environments, (c) supporting other forms of socializing and activities (e.g., athletics, reading, hobbies, traveling, writing, painting, playing musical instruments, etc.), and (d) modeling appropriate online behaviors and communications (Villani, Olson, & Jellinek, 2005). In terms of role modeling it is essential that caregivers select media and limit the time engaged with media to reasonable amounts (Villani et al., 2005). This includes modeling appropriate behaviors like following the rules of online communities. Modeling reduced Internet usage can be difficult for parents as they may not be willing to alter their own behavior (Johnson, 2017). Another challenge in the establishment of rules regarding technology usage is that parents and caregivers may need to follow them—and they often do not wish to do so. To not monitor parent use of technology, however, is detrimental to children, because the negative consequences of technology usage for parents and caregivers translate into negative consequences for their children (Hefner, Knop, Schmitt, & Vorderer, 2018).
Boundaries
The Internet and new media make us accessible to everyone—and also invite others into our world. Boundaries about sharing information with outsiders that were previously well established in the relationship may change when there are multiple channels for sharing information (Ward, 2006). In some cases, partners become more overprotective when they believe a boundary has been crossed; in other cases, users may feel smothered by their partner’s behavior toward them, even though this may not be the partner’s intent.
Problems can emerge in relationships because the Internet and new media introduce people who are both known and unknown to you into your relationship (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). Two types of boundaries have been discussed in the literature with regard to technology and users: self-boundaries and dyadic boundaries (Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & Schofield, 2010). Self-boundaries refer to those surrounding the individual affected by self-disclosures (Taylor & Altman, 1975, as cited by Joinson et al., 2010). Dyadic boundaries have historically related to the boundaries around how information is received by someone outside of the system. Those in relationships need to be aware of and attend to both types of boundaries. When couples are clear on both the self- and dyadic boundaries (what information is shared outside of the couple), problems are minimized. When partners only attend to one of the two, however, problems emerge. Parents and caregivers may experience discord with one another when one may be actively—and constantly—connected, via social media and other ways, to their family-of-origin. At the same time, the accessibility and affordability of the Internet make it easier to connect but also create more diffusion in the boundary between the relationship and the outside world.
Bakardjieva (2005) noted:
the boundaries between the world beyond the doorstep and the “private” life of the household were ceaselessly cracking and shifting. People were bringing in work from their offices and schools, friends and relatives were coming and staying, giving remote input and advice, demanding time and attention. The physical household was in actuality only a node in a much larger network of significant others, which, to a large extent, determined the nature and rhythms of its preoccupations…. Objects such as computers and moderns were flowing across the public-private divide and along the interpersonal networks reaching far beyond the doorstep so that it was difficult to say exactly which object belonged to the particular household.
(p. 66)
The same process is true for the Couple and Family Technology (CFT) framework. Shifts in rules, roles, and boundaries can affect each other as well as the processes of relationship (to be discussed in Chapter 9). Boundary development is hard enough without the inception of the Internet—people have long struggled with making sure that they are able to maintain appropriate distance from people who are not healthy and will push their boundaries.