The Internet Family

Relationship Maintenance

Development Across the Couple Lifespan

Social media usage has also been applied to Knapp’s couple development life cycle (Brody, LeFebvre, & Blackburn, 2016). Knapp’s stages include: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and bonding. Technology, Facebook, and social media are critical in these stages (Bergdall et al., 2012). Initiating is easy online as there is the perception among Internet users that it is less of a risk since it would not be a face-to-face rejection, if rejection at all. Experimenting is facilitated by social media through the ability to reach out to more people than just one. The escalation of a relationship can be accomplished by the self-disclosure that occurs on social media, where relationships intensify more quickly than in offline relationships because of the emphasis on self-disclosure (Brody et al., 2016; Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). Finally, integrating and bonding are when a couple makes decisions to solidify their relationship through the expression of their status online or in other ways. For example, interdependence is created through being able to access one’s partner through multiple devices and formats (Brody et al., 2016).

Technology’s Contribution to Relationship Satisfaction

Despite the prevalent notion that technology destroys relationships, research also shows that many people who use email and spend time on the computer do not experience a loss of time with family and friends. In fact, they may spend even more time with family and friends, despite initially experiencing depression and loneliness at the outset of the computer entering their lives (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). From a relational communication perspective, the evidence would also seem to support that integration of technology in our lives may make the communication with others more desirable. This is especially the case in relationships that occur at a distance, which may increase as the possibility for greater distance and technological connectivity becomes more of a reality for humans, as when traveling or living in space (Peterson & Twist, 2017).

Technology also can help us have better sex (Macapagal et al., 2016). For example, people may use technology to look up information about improving their sex lives. This can include looking up date night ideas, findings articles that will spice up one’s sex life, and looking up information on different sexual positions (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). Couples can also view online pornography together, send erotic pictures to one another, have a sexual relationship via webcam, and/or exchange erotic text messages. Phone apps also can be used to fulfill unmet sexual needs between partners (Macapagal et al., 2016). Consensually non-monogamous partners have greater ease in finding extra-sexual and relational partners through dating apps like OkCupid and Feeld. And partners with an erotic orientation (Twist, 2018) that is more kinky can use online social networking sites (SNSs) like FetLife to find partners to play with, and can learn more about kink/BDSM (bondage/discipline-dominance/submission-sadomasochism) techniques and activities via reputable educational web-sites like kinkacademy.com.

As we progress into more complex sexual technologies (sextech) more people will identify this way along a sextech orientation continuum (McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2018). A digisexual is one who prefers sexual experiences and relating via immersive technologies and who does not need (nor necessarily want) a human partner (McArthur & Twist, 2017). For digisexuals, technology does not mediate sex with human partners; the technology itself is the sexual partner. The implications of this are hard to predict at this early stage of theoretical and practical development. What may emerge are people who have transcended sexuality based on gender (after all what is the gender of a robot) and even based on being human, which might be considered a form of posthumanism or transhumanism (Belk, 2014; Ferrando, 2014; Ray, 2016). Posthumanism decenters humans through one’s disappearance into networks and informational patterns (Hayles, 1999; Wolfe, 2010), and from this, transhumanism, or the point where humans have evolved beyond our current physical and mental limitations through such sophisticated technologies, may emerge (Huxley, 1968).

Some of the research relates to the role of computers and new media technologies on relationship satisfaction. Women, for example, experience greater relationship satisfaction with online dating than in face-to-face relationships (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). Satisfaction in relationships is also related to problem-solving strategies used by couples. For example, couples indicate that they can resolve their conflict more effectively if they can utilize asynchronous communication methods such as email because of its flexibility (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). On the other hand, the emergence of smartphones into relationships is associated with decreased marital satisfaction and with wives’ desire for their male counterparts to be more emotionally present (Czechowsky, 2008).

Another issue related to relationship satisfaction is the duration of technology-based communication. With such communication options, there are more frequent and often shorter communications (primarily through email) occurring any time of day (Wilding, 2006). This altering of the tempo has to also be negotiated by couples. For example, Mark and Shannon, a middle-class couple, came to treatment to improve their communication. Mark indicated Shannon was unresponsive to him during the day. Mark stated that the times he did call, Shannon answered abruptly and it was clear she did not want to speak to him. Shannon stated there was no reason for long conversations since Mark called frequently throughout the day. Mark, however, reported if the conversations were longer, he would not feel the need to call repeatedly.

The advent of technology in relationships also carries implications for sexual satisfaction. Research demonstrates that those who engage in outof-control online sexual behavior run the risk of experiencing a reduction in their sex drive and desirability, have less offline sex, and subsequently feel less satisfaction than those who do not participate in out-of-control online sexual behaviors (Bridges, Bergner, & Hesson-McInnis, 2003). Couples who view online pornography together experience increased sexual satisfaction and a greater frequency of sex than those couples with partners who watch it independently. In addition, researchers have found that women who watch mainstream pornography by themselves develop uncertainty with regard to their own body, and tend to compare themselves to what they see in the videos, both physically and in terms of performance (Grov, Gillespie, Royce, & Lever, 2011). Men also report that they have sex less frequently when watching porn alone, but they also use it as a way to stimulate arousal (Grov et al., 2011).

Intimacy Development in Relationships With and Without Technology

In computer-mediated relationships the development and level of intimacy depend on how much the partners rely on self-disclosure. In some computer-mediated relationships, self-disclosure is used as a strategy to determine whether a person on the other end of the keyboard can be trusted with such information and vulnerability. Internet users have a tendency to engage in more self-disclosing behaviors than those in face-to-face relationships (Joinson, 2001).

One of the most significant points of debate regarding technology in everyday life is intimacy. What is technology’s effect on intimacy—good? Bad? Or indifferent? There is some evidence to support the notion that computer-mediated relationships may augment the intimacy development process. The mere presence of more (and easier) ways to communicate with others may allow for greater levels of intimacy to be developed with others (Bargh & McKenna, 2004). In one study, three-quarters depended on mobile phones to interact with partners during the day (Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray, & Krause, 2008). One area of investigation related to technology and relationships has centered around the role of electronic communication in social and familial relationships (Lanigan, Bold, & Chenoweth, 2009). Lanigan et al. (2009) conducted a survey study involving 103 participants including parents of children under 12, parents of children 12 and up, post-parenting families, and child-free couples. Their study explored family adaptability and cohesion, alternative use of technology time, and perceived impact of technology on family relationships. The majority of the participants (n = 79, 89%) reported that technology had impacted their family relationships (Lanigan et al., 2009). Further, just under half (n = 36, 45%) indicated computers had a mostly positive impact on their family life, whereas less than one-quarter (n = 16, 20%) reported a negative impact. The remaining participants indicated computers had both negative and positive impacts on family relationships (n = 19, 25%).

This is not the whole story. At least three studies conducted early in the days of mobile phones and email contradict this finding. One study found every email sent was responsible for 1 minute of lost family time (Nie, Hillygus, & Erbring, 2002). Another study found that the time spent together as a couple was negatively impacted once a smartphone arrived into the home (Czechowsky, 2008). Lanigan et al. (2009) also found that time spent on the Internet and computers was previously spent with family members. Finally, the ability to work from home may introduce challenges in attempting to balance work life and home life (Yao, Tan, & Ilies, 2017).

An argument, however, can be made in the opposite direction—that the use of the Internet, smartphones, and computers improves family communication and enhances intimacy. Technology can serve as a shared activity, function as a way to make family vacations and trips much easier and quicker to enable spending time with one another, and may facilitate household management and increased efficiency, resulting in more free family time (Lanigan et al., 2009). For example, when parents and children collaborate on technological activities together it can actually improve their communication (Mesch, 2006). Parents can now work from home, which would inherently create more time together and suggests a more supportive work environment (Fiksenbaum, 2014). Participation in social networking can also build intimacy for couples and family members. It provides a greater sense of connection, which can inspire offline interactions and meetings (Xie, 2007). In other words, it is not the devices themselves that may take time away from our relationships—it is the way in which they are used.

Studies over time have provided consistent evidence of this. In the early digital age, one study of undergraduate students involved meeting the same person offline as they met online—unbeknownst to the participant. The researchers found when the participants met the individual online, they liked that person better (McKenna et al., 2002). The more opportunity for communication, the greater the likelihood intimacy will develop (Henline & Harris, 2006). When studying family technology usage, Hodge and his colleagues found that there was a negative correlation between media use and family functioning, particularly when mobile phone usage was mediated by the parents (Hodge et al., 2012).

Another way these devices build intimacy is by providing the ability to share knowledge of the everydayness and intimate details of one’s life. Mobile phones have the ability to “rat” you out—giving up your location, activities, and other individuals involved in those activities or at that location so that one can have more detailed information as to a partner’s location and potentially activities (Ling & Campbell, 2009), in ways that are very affordable and anonymous to whoever might be watching (or tracking). For example, the dating app Tinder allows people to locate potential dating partners based on their physical location (Blackwell, Birnholtz, & Abbott, 2015). This type of knowledge about someone facilitated by mobile phones is termed “mobile intimacy” (Hjorth, 2013).

In addition to building intimacy, social media builds our networks (Manago, Taylor, Greenfield, Eccles, & Subrahmanyam, 2012). Networks can be geographically expansive and include key features of self-disclosure (and, consequently, intimacy development). In fact, those with larger networks on social media also report a greater degree of emotional support from their Facebook contacts and generally higher levels of satisfaction with their lives (Manago et al., 2012).

Building Intimacy Through Self-Disclosure

Many will agree that talking to others online is a welcome change in their lives, in part because of the ease and increased frequency of communication with partners. Unless conducted by video camera, however, the receiver has to interpret the sender’s emotions, meaning, and motivation without observing any nonverbal cues accompanying the message. In relationships initiated offline, partners develop intimacy with one another through self-disclosure (sharing details of their lives and their personality) paired with observations in real-world (and unobtrusive) settings (Tidwell & Walther, 2000), where in computer-mediated relationships, intimacy is fostered through reliance on self-disclosure (Whitty, 2008).

Self-disclosure in relationships often follows a process where partners trust one another (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977, as cited by McKenna et al., 2002). The quantity and quality of self-disclosure in a relationship carry significant implications for the health of the relationship. More frequent disclosures are associated with greater emotional involvement in dating and greater levels of marital satisfaction (Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1980, as cited by Yum & Hara, 2006). Research shows that relationships headed toward termination by one or both parties are characterized by fewer instances of self-disclosure. Further, when self-disclosure in relationships headed toward termination does occur, it is generally about superficial topics rather than topics related to emotions and relational content (Baxter, 1979).

Some have discovered that higher levels of self-disclosure to another online are associated with increased liking of that person along with matching communication styles and higher levels of commitment (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). Part of how people transition into formal relationships is based on the level of disclosure occurring online. As mentioned in Chapter 5, disclosure is a primary method by which people maintain their relationship, both those primarily offline and those online (Thelwall & Vis, 2017). There are also elements of self-disclosure that can affect one’s perception of the quality of the relationship. Specifically, the greater the depth of the self-disclosure and the more emotional the disclosure (i.e., the usage of stronger emotional words as opposed to weaker emotional words), the more positive one rates an online counterpart (Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, & Felt, 2008). Self-disclosure in relationships, however, can be a double-edged sword. As much as it can draw people together, it can also pull them apart. According to Schwab, Scalise, Ginter, and Whipple (1998), while self-disclosure inherently provides an opportunity to achieve intimacy, it is not free of risks because disclosure also carries with it the possibility of one being manipulated, embarrassed, exploited, or rejected. And since lonely individuals frequently suffer from a lack of social skills, the possibility of such adverse outcomes is genuine (Ginter, 1982) (p. 1264).

In a study on loneliness and self-disclosure, people who rated themselves as being lonely were indeed less likely to engage in self-disclosure across many settings, whether with strangers or friends (Schwab et al., 1998). This contradicts some of the conventional wisdom about computer users, which suggests people who use computers do so as a way of interacting with others without taking significant risks or becoming vulnerable in the same ways that might occur in face-to-face interactions.

In relationships mediated by the Internet and new media, self-disclosure may also occur as a means to an end; that is, to determine whether the person on the other end of the keyboard is trustworthy, one engages in a systematic process of self-disclosure. The development of intimacy also depends on what exactly is being disclosed. Intimacy develops more deeply in cases where individuals choose to disclose information of a personal and emotional nature as opposed to limited emotional content (Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2008). Much research has shown that computer users tend to engage in more self-disclosing behaviors than those in face-to-face relationships (Joinson, 2001). Further, it is likely self-disclosure is responsible for the heightened level of commitment experienced by partners in computer-mediated relationships (Yum & Hara, 2006).

The process of self-disclosure in online relationships is further aided by some of the ecological elements—not the least of which is anonymity (McKenna et al., 2002). The fact that the Internet provides anonymity may also contribute to the development of self-disclosure online. Research regarding self-disclosure and gender is generally mixed: some research contends that men are more likely to participate in self-disclosure than women; other research says that men are less likely to reciprocate high levels of self-disclosure; and finally, some says there is no difference (Klinger-Vartabedian & O’Flaherty, 1989). Despite the contradictions in likelihood of disclosure, there do not appear to be differences between men and women in terms of the depth of the disclosure (Join-son, 2001). Further, the status of individuals engaged in self-disclosing also bears some weight on how self-disclosure is perceived. Men as well as those in higher status positions are provided more latitude with self-disclosure and are viewed more positively. As a consequence, when those in positions of higher power disclose to those of lower status, those in the higher position are viewed as more attractive by those in lower positions because the disclosure is “viewed as a ‘gift’ which is offered to reduce power differentials” (Klinger-Vartabedian & O’Flaherty, 1989, p. 161). This also appears to be the case for disclosure in psychotherapy and clinical supervision (Barnett, 2011). In other cases, however, the timing of self-disclosure may impede a relationship. In investigating physician self-disclosure, for example, McDaniel et al. (2007) found that at times when physicians disclosed too early in a relationship, there was no evidence of a positive effect, and, in some cases, the disclosure appeared disruptive. For example, personal advertisements placed online tend to be longer than ads placed in a newspaper, presumably because of the reduced cost per word (Hatala, Milewski, & Baack, 1999). In fact, there is a negative correlation between one’s level of self-disclosure on Facebook and one’s age, with younger individuals disclosing more than older ones (Nosko, Wood, & Molema, 2010). For younger adults this level of self-disclosure may be dependent upon personality and culture (Chen & Marcus, 2012). Researchers have found that those young adults who disclose the least online are those from collectivistic cultures who are low in extroversion (Chen & Marcus, 2012). With the Internet, the anonymity of the person with whom one is communicating may provide an equalizing function for the nature of self-disclosure: one’s social status and, in some cases, gender may be unobserved and unable to be assessed by the individual with whom one is communicating, thus creating an equal playing field where people initially meet. It is only after they are already invested in the relationship that some of these discoveries are made.

Empirical evidence demonstrates that anonymity via the computer can be beneficial to the development of trust and intimacy, even when theory suggests otherwise. Sztompka (1999, as cited in Henderson & Gilding, 2004) contends three elements contribute to trust-building in a relationship: accountability of the person with whom one is interacting, pre-commitment (a surrendering of one’s own freedom as a demonstration of commitment), and the environment or situation in which the interaction occurs. Though the Internet can provide a setting through which one can feel connected, there are few channels through which the Internet provides an appropriate amount of accountability or pre-commitment. Because interactions may be anonymous, there is no way of accounting for the veracity of statements offered by individuals online, particularly as they relate to current emotional states, thus inhibiting accountability. Further, the structure of the Internet and new media creates a context where individuals can interact and build relationships with more than one person at a time, thus interfering with the emergence of pre-commitment in trust-building. The findings of Henderson and Gilding’s (2004) investigation did reveal that accountability seemed to be one barrier in developing trust, but there was also evidence that computer users had found other ways to assess pre-commitment and their respective willingness to take risks in their relationships. One way that the computer can improve accountability is through the very nature of the Internet: online, one can find searchable, detailed information about other people, whether it is information specific to the individual or information about how that person behaves in a group (McKenna, 2008).

Another element of online self-disclosure is that there is a difference between directed and non-directed disclosures. Non-directed self-disclosure refers to the type of self-disclosure that reveals information of a personal nature, but not to any one person specifically. One example of this can be seen in blogging (Jang & Stefanone, 2011). Non-directed self-disclosures may also occur within the context of social media, such as in Facebook postings and profiles, or media such as Twitter. Although information is not directed at one person specifically in these formats, information of an intimate nature is nonetheless disclosed and can strengthen the ties to the individuals within the user’s network. The frequency of the communication and the ability for other users to comment (an opportunity for some level of reciprocation, albeit limited) on a posting further contribute to the development of intimacy online (Jang & Stefanone, 2011).

Reciprocity in relationships is critical to the development of a trusting and intimate relationship, both online and offline, particularly if the reciprocity is in relation to self-disclosure (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). The Internet and new media both provide a forum for reciprocity. Equity theory asserts that as individuals in a relationship build trust, the development of that trust is predicated on the notion that each person in the relationship will make an equitable contribution to disclosing personal information in the relationship (Jang & Stefanone, 2011). Because of its accessibility at any time (both synchronous and asynchronous) and in many forums, the Internet provides many opportunities and greater degrees of reciprocation. This reciprocity, as explained by Yum and Hara (2006), is also evidence of social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), briefly discussed in Chapter 1.

Another way in which technology and new media assist in developing intimacy is people have a tendency to be more forthright in online interactions, especially when conducted over a web-camera program (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). One likely reason may be that the physical barrier of a digital screen prevents one from having to experience all of the consequences of personal online activities. Examples of this uninhibited behavior can be observed in daily postings and comments to online news stories or other material. This phenomenon is supported by research showing that computer users are more likely to engage in more aggressive and potentially conflict-causing communication than those who rely primarily on face-to-face methods (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna, 1991).

References

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

Ansari, A., & Klinenberg, E. (2016). Modern romance. London, England, UK: Penguin Books.

Bargh, J., & McKenna, K. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (1), 573–590. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922

Barnett, J. E. (2011). Utilizing technological innovations to enhance psychotherapy supervision, training, and outcomes. Psychotherapy, 48 (2), 103–108. doi:10.1037/a0023381

Baxter, L. A. (1979). Self-disclosure as a relationship disengagement strategy: An exploratory investigation. Human Communication Research, 5 (3), 215–222. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00635.x

Belk, R. (2014). If you prick us do we not bleed? Humanoid robots and cyborgs as consuming subjects and consumed objects. In E. M. González & T. M. Lowrey (Eds.), Latin American advances in consumer research (Vol. 3, pp. 3–6). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Bergdall, A. R., Kraft, J. M., Andes, K., Carter, M., Hatfield-Timajchy, K., & Hock-Long, L. (2012). Love and hooking up in the new millennium: Communication technology and relationships among urban African American and Puerto Rican young adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 49 (6), 570–582.

Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen: Co-situ ation and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New Media & Society, 17 (7), 1117–1136. doi:10.1177/1461444814521595

Borca, G., Bina, M., Keller, P., Gilbert, L., & Begotti, T. (2015). Internet use and developmental tasks: Adolescents’ point of view. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 49–58. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.029

Borrajo, E., Gámez Guadix, M., & Calvete Zumalde, E. (2015). Justification beliefs of violence, myths about love and cyber dating abuse. Psicothema, 27 (4), 327–333. doi:10.7334/psicothema2015.59

Bridges, A., Bergner, R., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003). Romantic partners’ use of pornography: Its significance for women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 29 (1), 1–14.

Brody, N., LeFebvre, L. E., & Blackburn, K. G. (2016). Social networking site behaviors across the relational lifespan: Measurement and association with relationship escalation and de-escalation. Social Media + Society, 2 (4) doi:10.1177/2056305116680004

Cali, B. E., Coleman, J. M., & Campbell, C. (2013). Stranger danger? Women’s self-protection intent and the continuing stigma of online dating. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16 (12), 853–857. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0512

Chow, C. M., Buhrmester, D., & Tan, C. C. (2014). Interpersonal coping styles and couple relationship quality: Similarity versus complementarity hypotheses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44 (2), 175–186. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2000

Davis, E., & Fingerman, K. (2016). Digital dating: Online profile content of older and younger adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71 (6), 959–967.

Ling, R., & Campbell, S. (2009). The reconstruction of space and time through mobile communication practices. New York, NY: Routledge

Lukacs, V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: New scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 18 (5), 492–508. doi:10.1080/13691 18X.2015.1008540

Macapagal, K., Coventry, R., Puckett, J. A., Phillips, G., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Geosocial networking app use among men who have sex with men in serious romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45 (6), 1513–1524. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0698-2

Manago, A., Taylor, T., Greenfield, P., Eccles, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48 (2), 369–380. doi:10.1037/a0026338

Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with post-breakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 15 (10), 521–526. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0125

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114–133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313

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

McDaniel, S. H., Beckman, H. B., Morse, D. S., Silberman, J., Seaburn, D. B., & Epstein, R. M. (2007). Physician self-disclosure in primary care visits enough about you, what about me? Archives of Internal Medicine, 167 (12), 1321–1326. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.12.1321

McKenna, K. Y. A. (2008). Influences on the nature and functioning of online groups. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 228–242). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58 (1), 9–31. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00246

Mesch, G. (2006). Family characteristics and intergenerational conflicts over the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9 (4), 473–495.

Nie, N. H., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations, and sociability. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 215–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/978047077429

Nosko, A., Wood, E., & Molema, S. (2010). All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (3), 406–418, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.012

Stewart, I., & Cohen, J. (1997). Figments of reality: Molecules, minds, and multi-cultures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thelwall, M., & Vis, T. (2017). Gender and image sharing on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and WhatsApp in the UK: Hobbying alone or filtering for friends? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69 (6), 702–720. doi:10.1108/AJIM-04-2017-0098

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2000). Getting to know one another a bit at a time: Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations. Human Communication Research, 28 (3), 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x

Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208318067

Tong, S. T. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: Uncertainty reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16 (11), 788–793. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0549

Tong, S. T., Hancock, J., & Slatcher, R. (2016). Online dating system design and relational decision making: Choice, algorithms, and control. Personal Relationships, 23 (4), 645–662. doi:10.1111/pere.12158

Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from technology. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Twist, M. L. C. (2018, June). Digisexuality: What the tech is it? Invited Lecture, College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists, London, England, United Kingdom.

Twist, M. L. C., Bergdall, M. K., Belous, C. K., & Maier, C. A. (2017). Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical Educational Interventions, 16 (4), 271–285.

Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (1), 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01595.x

Vandeweerd, C., Myers, J., Coulter, M., Yalcin, A., & Corvin, J. (2016). Positives and negatives of online dating according to women 50+. Journal of Women & Aging, 28 (3), 259–270. doi:10.1080/08952841.2015.1137435

Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the “real” me, searching for the “actual” you: Presentations of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (4), 1707–1723. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002

Wilding, R. (2006). “Virtual” intimacies? Families communicating across transnational contexts. Global Networks, 6 (2), 125–142. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006. 00137.x

Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism?. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Nine
Improving Relationship Launches, Runtime, and Crashes

Relational Intelligence in a Digital World

Relationship Formation

“To Swipe or Not to Swipe”

Being Facebook Official

First Comes Love, Then Comes Meeting

Relationship Maintenance

Development Across the Couple Lifespan

Technology’s Contribution to Relationship Satisfaction

Intimacy Development in Relationships With and Without Technology

Building Intimacy Through Self-Disclosure

Relationship Termination

To Block or Not to Block

“I Always Feel Like Somebody’s Watching Me”

“I Can’t Forget You, Baby”

Conclusion

References