The Elephant in the Room: Technoference
Susan Todd-Raque – Communications between people have without a doubt changed with the advent of the cell phone. It has been over 20 years since the cell phone became more affordable with WiFi capabilities, with its popularity spreading worldwide. However, from the beginning the voices of experts in many fields began to express reservations about how it was changing our personal lives. According to the conclusions of recent scientific and psychological research studies, there are correlations between the use of the cell phone and the biological, sociological and psychological well-being of its users.
Links have been made between maladaptive cell phone usage, negative changes in thinking, and behaviors. Time spent online as well as the emotional connection to the cell phone has been examined in regards to problematic changes in behavior (1). Concerns about maladaptive use, instead of face-to-face communication, and the subsequent blurring of traditional relationship boundaries have been detailed in valid research studies (2). Exclusion of the other partner due to online activities have been correlated with relationship dissatisfactions (3). The bottom line is our human relationships are changing, especially intimate, committed ones.
Why have our traditional rules and guidelines about committed relationships have been altered with the capabilities of the new digital technology? Initially cell phones were promoted as an asset for better communication but inevitably, this would change the intimate lives of people (4). Over time, long established means of meeting and connecting face-to-face transformed into maladaptive texting and social media habits, leading many researchers to explore the reasoning behind the depth of the changes (5). Furthermore, the greatest concern appears to be for “digital natives,” people born after 1990, whose social lives have always been involved in digital technology and how it affects their cognitions due to the notifications, usage, and excessive exposure to the digital lights (6). The implications for personal relationships of “digital natives” as they rely on text messaging and social media as forms of communications rather than face-to-face is a major concern. Their personal and business lives overlap as they may seek social acceptance by creating online who they think they are, their “true self,” even if their actions risk changing their intimate lives (7).
Usage and participation by people of all ages in one the most popular social media platforms, Facebook, has been studied in regards to maladaptive behaviors and cognitions, finding increases in negative relational communications and well-being as a result of higher levels of participation (8). What drives people to use Facebook and keeps them checking in can also lead to mood disorders, loneliness, changed communication skills, depression, stress, and lowered self esteem (9). In the search for answers as to what kind of people have excessive cell phone usage habits, particular personality traits like narcissism and self-centeredness have been correlated with heightened cell phone usage to access social media (10). Alternately, some research has aligned social media participation with mood management and noted when particular age groups, young and old alike, had increased mood disorders after they adapted to the cell phone and social media usage (11).
The term, “technoference,” has been applied to the phenomena of digital technology as an impedance in human relationships (12). The ramifications of “technoference” and how it can disrupt intimate communications are being correlated with maladaptive behaviors and cognitions. One partner in a committed relationship can develop an emotional connection to their cell phone and seek acceptance by going online to social media contacts, excluding the other real life partner who experiences loneliness, emotional distance, and decreased satisfaction in the relationship (13). The most vulnerable are those dyadic relationships of less than 10 years in which “technoference” may result in greater emotional distance and a breakdown of the trust bond due to digital interference (14).
Additionally, examining how each partner handles digital technology and possible extra-dyadic activities may also depend upon personality traits and/or attachment issues (15). Due to the cell phone’s text messaging system and ease of Internet accessibility, for example, infidelity, has become an online spectrum of activities (16). Certainly, infidelity is always a possibility in any committed relationship but it is more likely to happen when the trust bond is weakened through online activities. The ease of access, secrecy, anonymity, tendency to be more disclosing, or intimate online has allowed infidelity to become what is now called cyberinfidelity (17). These factors combined with pre-existing relationship issues, attachment style differences, certain demographics, gender roles, and personal histories may contribute to the development of online infidelity, contrary to any positive intimacy and commitment in a dyadic relationship (18).
Being aware of the influence of technoference in any personal relationship is essential. Strategies to reduce this influence and help couples keep boundaries in today’s fast moving technological world are necessary. Re-establishing the focus and foundation of the relationship help the intimate, committed relationship to thrive through positive thinking and behaviors.
1) Turkle, 2015; 2) McDaniel & Coyne, 2014; Roberts & David, 2016; 3) McDaniel & Coyne, 2014; Roberts & David, 2016; 4) Wellman, 2001; McKenna & Bargh, 2000;
5) Rosenfeld, 2017; Shensa, et al., 2016; Murray & Campbell, 2015; 6) Evans, 2008; Bijleveld & Knufinke, 2018; Bernadini, 2018; 7) Yang & Brown, 2015; Westaby, et al., 2014; Russett & Waldron, 2017; 8) Twenge, 2017; Twenge, et al, 2018; Meier, et al., 2016; 9) Lapierre, 2019; McDaniel & Coyne, 2014; Seidman, et al., 2019; 10) Burwell, 2018; Brailovskaia & Margarf, 2017; 11) Twenge, et al., 2019; Twenge, et al., 2018; Anderson & Perrin, 2017; 12) Helsper & Whitty, 2006; McDaniel & Coyne, 2014; 13) Knausenberger, et al., 2015; Shensa, et al., 2016; Prokop, et al., 2016;
14) Frampton & Fox, 2018; Haim, et al., 2018; Valenzuela, et al., 2014; 15) Murray & Campbell, 2015; Dunkley, et al., 2010; 16) Cravens, et al., 2012; 17) Carter, 2018; Nelson & Salawu, 2017; Murray & Campbell, 2015; Martins, et al., 2015; 18) McDaniel, et al., 2017; Martins, et al., 2015; Dunkley, et al., 2016.
