Abstract
This introduction to a special Technology and Relationships issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships introduces the collection of articles. It describes the editorial development of the issue, identifies how the articles are organized into three clusters reflecting the developmental arc of relationships, provides a precis of each article, and ends with reflections on a question (is technology beneficial or detrimental?) and two noteworthy aspects of the collection (theory and methodology).
Keywords
The development and use of communication technologies have increased rapidly over the past decade. Communication modalities include social media (e.g., email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat), video forms of computer-mediated communication (e.g., Zoom and Skype), and virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life)—all of which can be used easily on a computer with a Wi-Fi connection, a smartphone, or on other electronic devices. Communication technologies are used to form relationships, maintain relationships, and sometimes end relationships. They are also used in family systems and larger social networks.
In the recent past, the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (JSPR) has published several articles on diverse topics related to communication technologies, including, most recently, impression formation on online dating sites (Van der Zanden et al., 2020), strategies for initiating relationships online (Sharabi & Dykstra-DeVette, 2019), including Tinder (LeFebvre, 2018), online dating preferences (Tsunokai et al., 2019), attraction in video-mediated communication (Croes et al., 2019), problematic use of social technologies (Coduto et al., 2020), Internet-related conflicts in the family (Festl & Gniewosz, 2019), online surveillance in romantic relationships (Tokunaga, 2016), smartphones as a distraction from quality parenting (Kushlev & Dunn, 2019), how in-person interaction versus digital communication has changed over time among adolescents (Twenge et al., 2019), effects of different types of communication with a chatbot (artificial intelligence) in a support-seeking context (Rains et al., 2020), and cyber dating abuse (Lara, 2020). However, at the time we proposed our special issue, neither in JSPR nor in the sister journal, Personal Relationships, had there been a special issue with a focus on this theme. We believed that this topic was timely for a special issue. A special issue devoted to this topic would allow for cutting-edge research by the interdisciplinary and international field of close relationships to be featured in one issue, which likely would become a resource for years to come. We hoped to have an issue that could showcase the extensive work being done on the role of communication technologies in our relationships.
The first Editor (Sprecher) has worked on various IARR committees with Dan Perlman over the years and approached him in early 2020 about the idea of doing this special issue. Both have had a keen interest in communication technologies and relationships. We then rounded out our team of editors with Michelle Drouin, who has studied many topics related to social media and communication technologies. We had an open call for submissions that was circulated widely in late spring and summer of 2020. We requested an initial submission of a 500-word abstract and received almost 60 abstracts. The quality and topics of the abstract submissions were superb, leading us to invite a greater number of full submissions than originally expected. All manuscripts, once they were submitted, were then reviewed thoroughly (usually by three reviewers), and if reviewed favorably by the reviewers, were revised by the authors and then reviewed a second time. The Editors have a great deal of respect for the peer review process and witnessed how the manuscripts improved over time with the assistance of thoughtful and smart reviewers. We thank the approximately 75 reviewers who were involved in reviewing manuscripts for the special issue.
The quality of the submissions, as determined by the reviewers, determined the final set of 16 papers that were included in the special issue. The final set of manuscripts involve 50 authors from diverse locations (United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Germany). The authors represent several disciplines, including Communication, Psychology, Family Studies, Sociology, Information Science, Marketing, Counseling, and Management.
Articles in the special issue
Here we provide a brief summary of the articles to pique your interest in reading each of them. When we initially solicited contributors, we left open to authors the possibility of submitting a broad range of papers on the general topic of technology and relationships. As if opening a box of various chocolates, we were not totally sure of what we would get. In organizing the table of contents, we recognized and followed a developmental arc, dividing the articles into three clusters. The first cluster includes two papers, the first of which focuses on the trajectory of text messaging in newly formed romantic relationships. The second paper examines factors that undermine Australian youth effectively forming friendships. The second cluster includes five papers concerned with aspects of ongoing relationships. They look at seeking help as well as how properties of relationships are associated with what can be considered outcomes: Instagram messaging, relationship satisfaction, and well-being. The third cluster has nine articles dealing with problematic aspects of relationships and relationship dissolution. Seven articles concern potentially detrimental aspects of relationships including phubbing, problematic internet use (e.g., pornography use and gambling), conflict, being sensitive to rejection, infidelity, revenge, and abuse. The penultimate article spotlights self-presentational aspects of breaking up and the last contribution illuminates the communication patterns employed by divorced parents.
Establishing relationships: Trajectories and challenges
• In their article, “Using Technology to Unobtrusively Observe Relationship Development,” Miriam Brinberg, Rachel Reymann Vanderbilt, Denise Haunani Solomon, David Brinberg, and Nilam Ram analyzed over one million text messages exchanged by 41 couples during their first year of dating. The researchers traced key characteristics (e.g., daily frequency, time to respond, and message length) of partners’ communication. They illuminate (a) how communication changed during partners’ transitioning to thinking of themselves as a couple, (b) pros (e.g., after the fact you can have a record of the relationship back to before dating began) and cons of this technique, and (c) other opportunities for studying communication processes using texting logs. They found partners exchanged a lot of messages (over 160, on average, each day they did text) and saw some similarity between the text patterns and the patterns of different rates of courtship development Surra (1985) identified using a retrospective relationship history mapping technique. Overall, this study leads the way in showing how unobtrusively obtained measures of mobile app texting can be useful in the studying relationships. • Riley A. Scott, Jaimee Stuart, and Bonnie L. Barber, in “Contemporary Friendships and Social Vulnerability among Youth: Understanding the Role of Online and Offline Contexts of Interaction in Friendship Quality,” examine, with a sample from Australia, the friendships of young adults as they occur online as compared to offline or in mixed-mode (both online and offline). The friendships included those that were completely offline, those initiated offline but extended to online contexts, those that were initiated online but extended to offline, and those that were exclusively online. Of these different types, the friendships that had the highest friendship quality were those that were initiated offline but extended to online interaction. The young adults’ characteristics that reflect social vulnerability (e.g., social anxiety and loneliness) were found to be negatively associated with friendship quality and interaction frequency for friendships in offline contexts but not in online contexts. The study contributes to our understanding of how communication technologies enhance our understanding of friendship development and maintenance, and may be particularly important for adolescents and young adults who are more socially vulnerable.
Ongoing relationships
• Charlotte Entwistle, Andrea B. Horn, Tabea Meier, and Ryan L. Boyd use requests (N = 184,631) for help with relationship problems posted on a Reddit discussion forum in their article entitled “Dirty Laundry: The Nature and Substance of Seeking Relationship Help from Strangers.” The authors highlight potential advantages of being able to anonymously seek online help. They analyze demographic characteristics of who seeks help via Reddit (e.g., more males than females) and the problems for which they seek help. Using Chung and Pennebaker’s (2008) Meaning Extraction Method of linguistic analysis, the authors detected that men used more secure attachment words and women used more preoccupied language. This paper is valuable in being a trailblazer into the use of big data for the in situ study of online help seeking and ways anonymously seeking help online may differ from seeking help from professionals. • Anabel Quan-Haase, Molly-Gloria Harper, and Barry Wellman, in “The Role of Communication Technology Across the Life Course: A Field Guide to Social Support in East York,” examine the intersection of four factors. Namely, these are the types of support exchanged (e.g., companionship, emotional, and financial), the type of communication technologies used (e.g., social media, video chats, and texting), the partners in the exchange (e.g., different family members, friends, and work-mates), and the life stage of the individuals involved in the exchange. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 101 participants living in Toronto as part of the fourth (2013–2014) wave of the East York study, begun in 1968. The types of support people provide have mostly remained similar over time, while the technologies used have increased. The type of technologies used varied by the partners with whom support was exchanged. Life stage differences were also observed (e.g., older adults were distinctive in giving more than they received). This study underscores that multiple factors impact our giving and receiving support. • In their article, entitled “Picture Perfect?: Examining Associations Between Relationship Quality, Attention to Alternatives, and Couples’ Activities on Instagram,” Liesel L. Sharabi and Annamariah Hopkins use the Investment Model to frame their predictions about couples’ involvement on Instagram, more specifically the number of couple photos posted and the degree of likes and comments the partners provide each other. One hundred and seventy-eight couples allowed the researchers to have access to their Instagram pages for coding and also completed a survey that included measures of the Investment Model variables. Many of the Investment Model variables (e.g., commitment and satisfaction) were associated with more engagement with the relationship on Instagram (e.g., more couple photos posted), for the Instagram followers. The research also examined the effects of the pursuit of alternative partners on Instagram, underscoring that social media can also be damaging to relationships by highlighting attractive alternatives from one’s social networks. • In their paper, “Long-distance Texting: Text Messaging is Linked with Higher Relationship Satisfaction in Long-Distance Relationships,” Susan Holtzman, Kostadin Kushlev, Alisha Wozny, and Rebecca Godard examine communication methods in long-distance relationships (LDRs) and geographically close relationships (GCRs) through an online study of 647 emerging adults in Canada. In their work, Holtzman and colleagues explored the different ways those in LDRs and GCRs use remote communication (i.e., video calls, voice calls, and texting) and how frequency of use and responsiveness predicted relationship satisfaction. For texting and voice calls, those in LRDs and GCRs reported some differences in both frequency of use and perceived responsiveness from their partner. As an example, although texting frequency and responsiveness related to greater relationship satisfaction in LDRs, it does not do so in GCRs. Holtzman and colleagues use this evidence to encourage further research in this area. As more methods of remote communication become available for use, it is important to examine how individuals might use these different types of communication mediums to build and maintain romantic relationships. • For their article, “Daily Social Interactions and Well-Being in Older Adults: The Role of Interaction Modality,” Birthe Macdonald, Minxia Luo, and Gizem Hülür conducted a 21-day daily event sampling study with 116 older Swiss adults. The authors examined the association between (a) three social contact modalities (personal, phone, and digital) and (b) 21-day averaged between-person and within-person daily fluctuations in measures of well-being. Their findings suggest that personal contacts are especially important for older adults’ persisting and daily well-being.
The dark side and decline of relationships
• Meredith E. David and James A. Roberts took an innovative approach at examining romantic partner phubbing in “Investigating the Impact of Partner Phubbing on Romantic Jealousy and Relationship Satisfaction: The Moderating Role of Attachment Anxiety,” which was a three-part study involving adults recruited from Amazon’s MTurk. In their experimental manipulation in study 1, they found that phubbing predicts romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. They take this inquiry one step further in their study two experiment, where they find that attachment anxiety and phubbing affect jealousy, which then predicts relationship satisfaction. A survey study rounds out their work, showing that there are negative effects of this phubbing. Specifically, it is related to both stress and depression. Considering these negative effects and the continual rise in mobile technology use, Roberts and colleagues suggest that it is imperative to continue to examine partner phubbing and its effects on couple relationships. This study offers a framework for a methodologically rich way of doing so. • In “Domestic Bliss, or Technological Diss? Problematic Media Use, Partner Responsiveness, and Relationship Outcomes,” McCall A. Booth, Sarah M. Coyne, Jeremy B. Yorgason, and Jeffrey P. Dew examine three types of problematic media use as reported by both partners of couples in two waves of a large representative sample of U.S. couples. All of the following types of (potential) problematic use were measured: technoference (forms of technology interrupting the quality of face-to-face interactions), Internet gaming disorder, and pornography use. Both husbands and wives in the sample reported relatively low levels of problematic media use, with wives reporting higher technoference than husbands and husbands reporting higher Internet gaming disorder and pornography use than wives. With the longitudinal data, the researchers examined the effects (Actor and Partner) of problematic media use for relationship outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) as mediated by responsiveness. In cross-sectional analyses, problematic media use predicted relationship outcomes mediated by partner responsiveness. Less evidence was found that problematic media use impacts relationship outcomes over time (mediated by partner responsiveness). Overall, the research highlights the importance of healthy media habits for relationship functioning. • In the article “Effects of Mediated Communication on Conflict Behavior, Resolution, and Affect in Romantic Dyads,” Erin Ruppel, Maura Cherney, Samantha Quinn, and Riley Richards describe a study in which a sample of romantic dyads engaged in an interaction about a conflict in their relationship, either face-to-face or through a text-based messaging system from separate rooms. It was hypothesized that couples who discussed their conflict face-to-face would report more positive affect and behaviors and less negative affect and behaviors and have greater progress toward conflict resolution, relative to the couples who discussed their conflict through text messages. Many of these predicted differences were not found, although couples in the text-based condition reported engaging in fewer positive conflict behaviors than did couples in the face-to-face condition. • In “Rejection Sensitivity and Interaction Quality in Everyday Life,” Joseph B. Bayer, Penny Triěu, Nicole Ellison, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Emily Falk conducted a 2-week experience sampling study with a sample of undergraduate students from the Midwest U.S. The major purpose of the study was to examine how trait rejection sensitivity is associated with how interactions in both close ties and distal ties (and conducted face-to-face or over mediated communication) were rated on a number of dimensions (enjoyment, supportiveness). The participants who were high in rejection sensitivity, like their less sensitive counterparts, rated face-to-face interactions higher in quality than mediated interactions; however, the difference was not as great for those who were sensitive to rejection. In particular, high rejection-sensitive individuals found close tie interactions to be higher quality in mediated channels than did low rejection-sensitive individuals. • In “Justify My Love: Cognitive Dissonance Reduction among Perpetrators of Online and Offline Infidelity,” Cassandra Alexopoulos examines how perpetrators of infidelity potentially reduce cognitive dissonance and justify their behavior through strategies such as trivializing the behavior, denying responsibility, and self-concept change; and how use of these cognitive dissonance-reducing strategies depend on a number of factors including whether the infidelity was online versus offline. The sample consisted of male users of Ashley Madison (an online site geared to married people who are seeking to engage in infidelity). Some of the strategies (e.g., self-concept change) were negatively related to psychological discomfort for both online and offline infidelity. The use of the strategies had differential effectiveness based on communication media. • In their study of Canadian adults, “Revenge via Social Media and Relationship Contexts: Prevalence and Measurement,” Mélanie Paulin and Susan D. Boon examine the much-understudied area of social media revenge. Although much of the focus in this area of Internet dynamics has focused on revenge porn, Paulin and Boon establish that a wide range of social media revenge behaviors (e.g., control and monitoring and direct aggression) exist on social media, are more often observed than experienced, and may vary by relationship context. This novel study has great heuristic value, as it calls for researchers to examine the ways in which individuals may utilize the Internet of Things (IoT) to enact revenge. • In the article “In-Person and Cyber Dating Abuse: A Longitudinal Investigation,” Yu Lu, Joris Van Ouystel, and Jeff Temple analyzed three waves of a larger longitudinal study that has followed a group of high school students into young adulthood. In Waves 4, 5, and 6 of the larger study, the adolescents/young adults were asked to complete dating abuse questions, including both cyber dating abuse and in-person dating abuse. This study filled an important gap in the literature (based mostly on cross-sectional studies) by examining the longitudinal associations between cyber dating abuse and physical and psychological forms of in-person dating abuse. The findings indicated that cyber dating abuse perpetration predicted later in-person dating abuse perpetration and victimization, but little evidence was found for the reverse causal direction. Overall, the findings suggest that cyber dating abuse can be a risk for subsequent in-person dating abuse. • For the article “Romantic Relationship Dissolution on Social Networking Sites: Self-Presentation and Public Accounts of Breakups on Facebook” Jesse Fox, Jessica Frampton, Elizabeth Jones, and Kathryn Lookadoo collected three sources of data: over 3500 Facebook posts from one week before and two weeks after a breakup event, semi-structured interviews about participants’ use of Facebook and their posts surrounding their breakup, and a questionnaire that included three scales (e.g., an Emotional Distress measure). The authors used these data to address such questions as: What account of their breakups do participants post on Facebook? How do those accounts align with Duck’s model (Duck, 1982; Rollie & Duck, 2006)? How do the affordances of Facebook influence those accounts? How congruent are public and private accounts? How do network members respond to the accounts? An important implication of this study is that, in a big data era, the meaning of social media posts benefits from users’ elaborations. • In the article entitled “Communication Technology Use in Post-divorce Coparenting Relationships: A Typology and Associations with Post-divorce Adjustment” Luke T. Russell, Jonathon J. Beckmeyer, Melinda Stafford Markham, Renée E. Wilkins-Clark, and McKenzie L. Zimmermann studied 491 U.S. divorced parents. They identified four categories of technology users: multi-method communicators, phone-facilitated communicators, text and email communicators, and limited communication texters. Participants in the multi-method and phone-facilitated groups generally reported more positive relationships with their former partners and more successful adaptation to post-divorce family life, and, in Ahrons’ typology, were more likely to see themselves as Perfect Pals or Cooperative Colleagues. The text and email communicators and limited communication texters appear to have more distant relationships with their spouses, with limited texters likely to see themselves as Fiery Foes or Dissolved Duos. This study illuminates the significant role communication technologies have in post-marital family functioning.
Final reflections and a conclusion
Three reflections
As you embark on the articles in this collection, we wish to share a few final reflections. We will address a question and two noteworthy aspects of the collection (theory and methodology).
Considering the table of contents, one might ask: is use of technology detrimental or beneficial to relationships? We classified a majority of the articles as dealing with the dark side of relationships. We are cautious, however, in accepting an answer to the detrimental or beneficial question based on a simple box score. On the beneficial side, for example, results reported in this collection showed that frequent mediated communication is associated with greater relationship satisfaction (Holtzman et al., 2021) and less loneliness (Macdonald et al., 2021). Some of the articles are framed in terms of factors that undermine relationships (e.g., rejection sensitivity; Bayer et al., 2021) but could be framed in terms of how the opposite end of such dimensions (e.g., inclusion) possibly have salutary effects. Furthermore, many of the articles in this collection also identify what technology allows relationship partners to do (e.g., affordances) to achieve their relationship goals. For example, (Entwistle et al., 2021) mention that in seeking help online, Reddit provides help-seekers, who can remain anonymous, free insights from a large number of diverse individuals. These benefits are particularly valuable when coping with intimate or stigmatized topics that may be hard to share with family and friends. In a similar vein, Sharabi and Hopkins discuss how the editability and asynchronicity of text-based social network sites (SNS) give people control over their self-presentation while visual SNS channels (e.g., Instagram) offer similar affordances coupled with offering users greater increased presence than text-based apps. Our conclusion is that technology can be both detrimental and beneficial. We advocate continuing efforts to pinpoint under what conditions each type of outcome occurs.
A first noteworthy aspect of the collection is the authors’ use of theory. All but one has at least briefly considered a theoretical perspective or concepts in reporting on their research. Some of the theoretical views referenced are prominent perspectives such as: attachment theory (David & Roberts, 2021; Entwistle et al., 2021), social learning theory (Poulin & Boon), the relational turbulence model (Brinberg et al., 2021), media multiplexity theory (Macdonald et al., 2021; Russell et al., 2021), and socio-emotional selectivity theory (Macdonald et al., 2021). Other authors use less prominent or more narrowly focused theories such as electronic propinquity theory (Holtzman et al., 2021). The frequent use of conceptual perspectives is, in our opinion, indicative that research on technology and relationships is no longer in its infancy but is a maturing area of scholarship.
Three articles are especially centered around theories or theoretical concepts: Sharabi and Hopkins’ (2021) investment model analysis of Instagram posts, Alexopoulos’ (2021) study of infidelity in terms of dissonance, and Fox et al.’s (2021) study of breakups. Sharabi and Hopkins’ as well as Alexopoulos’ studies illustrate how well-established viewpoints can be extended to contribute to our understanding of additional phenomena. Fox et al. (2021), using Facebook posts, survey, and interview data, considered the applicability of Duck’s model of relationship dissolution (Duck, 1982; Rollie & Duck, 2006). The resulting picture is a rich one. Duck’s model did provide a framework for the analysis and the results supported some of Duck’s specific ideas (e.g., dissolution processes often co-occur rather than happen in a linear fashion). The analysis also showed that there was little public mention of what are traditionally early intrapsychic and dyadic processes of breakups and that the affordances of Facebook played a role in the public narrative.
A second noteworthy aspect of the articles in this special issue is the variety of methodologies authors employed and the exciting cutting-edge approaches of some studies. In terms of variety there are: experiments (David & Roberts, 2021; Ruppel et al., 2021), qualitative studies (Quan-Haase et al., 2021), a large scale representative survey (Booth et al., 2021), other surveys or questionnaire studies (Russell et al., 2021; Scott et al., 2021), event sampling diary studies (Bayer et al., 2021; Macdonald et al., 2021), analyses of messages (Brinberg et al., 2021; Entwistle et al., 2021; Sharabi & Hopkins, 2021), mixed quantitative and qualitative methods (Fox et al., 2021; Paulin & Boon, 2021), and longitudinal studies (Alexopoulos, 2021; Holtzman et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021). The diversity of methods may reflect that research on technology and relationships is an area where IARR’s value of multidisciplinarity is thriving. Also such diversity likely is associated with the topic being approached from multiple angles, ideally leading to a more rounded and stronger body of knowledge.
Three articles illustrate tantalizing, cutting-edge methodological approaches. First, Brinberg et al. (2021) were able to retrospectively recreate partners’ dating histories by collecting over one million text messages exchanged by 41 dating couples after they had been in a relationship for a year. This eliminated the need imposed by traditional prospective research of starting the project at the baseline point in time. Second, Entwistle et al. (2021) collected close to 185,000 requests posted on Reddit for help with relationship problems. These authors used Chung and Pennebaker’s (2008) Meaning Extraction Method of linguistic analysis to determine the attachment states of the posters’ attachment states. Both Brinberg et al. (2021) and Entwistle et al.’s (2021) studies demonstrate how close relationship researchers can engage in big data investigations. Third, in their study of breakups, as noted above, Fox et al. (2021) conducted content analysis of Facebook messages, a survey, and an interview. By comparing data from all three sources, they were able to obtain participants’ public presentations and their more private thoughts. Comparison of public and more private thoughts revealed discrepancies and allowed a fuller picture to emerge.
Conclusions
The United Nations (n.d.) claims: “Digital technologies have advanced more rapidly than any innovation in our history – reaching around 50 per cent of the developing world’s population in only two decades and transforming societies.” Our experience editing this special issue of the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships compliments this observation. We believe research on technology and relationships has been a fast-growing, major thrust of relationship research to date in the 21st century. We had a plethora of good initial submissions on technology and relationships from which to select. We have gathered only a small fraction of the work being done, not even the breadth of what a handbook might cover. What we hope we have done in this introduction is inform you about the articles and whet your appetite to dig deeper. In the last analysis, academic work involves a relationship between producers and their audiences. We thank our authors and we thank you for checking out our introduction of the contents. Now what counts most is your engaged reading and future use of the material.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.