Content uploaded by The Late Pieter Rossouw
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by The Late Pieter Rossouw on Oct 29, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
44
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
research
The ImpacT of Technology Use
on coUple RelaTIonshIps:
a neURopsychologIcal peRspecTIve
Christina Leggett1 & Pieter J Rossouw2
1. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland
2. School of Psychology, School of Social Work and Human Services, The University of Queensland; Director,
Mediros, Clinical Solutions; Director, Institute of Neuropsychotherapy
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Pieter Rossouw, Director Mediros Clinical
Solutions, PO Box 6460, St Lucia, Australia 4067. pieter@mediros.com.au
Leggett, C., & Rossouw, P. J. (2014). The impact of technology use on couple relationships: A neu-
ropsychological perspective. International Journal of Neuropsychotherapy, 2(1), 44–99. doi: 10.12744/
ijnpt.2014.0044-0099
Abstract
We are in the midst of an Internet revolution and entering an era of enhanced digital connectivity (Homan,
Novak, & Venkatesh, 2004). e increasing use and accessibility of technology today allows humans to engage
and disconnect continuously during face-to-face interactions. Technology is not only used in workspaces but
in everyday social relationships as well. e impact of technology use on couple relationships from a neuropsy-
chological perspective has not yet been explored, however. is study investigated the use of television (TV),
mobile phones, computers, and laptops in a sample of 21 couples to assess how this impacts on an individual’s
sense of safety, control, and attachment. It was found that using a laptop while in the presence of a partner, but
without engaging/interacting with them, was associated with a couple’s negative perception of the relationship,
but this eect was not found in relation to mobile, computer, or TV use. Conversely, it was found that couples
using technology together while engaging/interacting was linked to positive perceptions about their relation-
ship. is was found most specically in TV use. It was concluded that technology may enhance or hinder
couple relationships depending on the couple’s ability to manage, monitor, and reect on its use.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
45
The Impact of Technology Use
on Couple Relationships:
A Neuropsychological Perspective
From the moment we are born, we as humans are
surrounded by an external environment that consists
of other beings. is may include a community or
caregiver/s who play a part to increase our chances of
survival in the world. Cozolino (2006) observed there
is safety in numbers and larger social groups. Our
brains are also developed in such a way that we are
able to form social relations, respond to social cues,
and integrate with our surroundings (Grawe, 2007).
is process can be seen in the expansion of the cortex
in primate brains, which allows us to respond to a large
variety of challenges across diverse environments (Co-
zolino, 2006). Regardless of the context of our exter-
nal environment, human beings strive to connect with
others in order to survive, develop and thrive within
the social world (Siegel, 2010). is requires the de-
velopment of intricate connections within the brain,
which consists of billions of neurons (Grawe, 2007).
Neurons are, by nature, social: ey shun isolation
and depend on their neighbors for survival (Cozolino,
2006). Neurons interconnect and build pathways in
our brains. In response to one’s individual experienc-
es, this leads to the development of neuronal pathways
that determine our feelings and behaviors. Not only
does this occur within our individual brains, but—like
a wireless network—our neurons have a way to con-
nect with other brains as well. is network, known
as the mirror neuron system, was originally discov-
ered in macaque monkeys when researchers observed
neurons ring in the prefrontal cortex of a monkey’s
brain when it performed a particular action, and ob-
served the same process occurring in the same region
when the monkey watched the same action in another
monkey (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996).
Subsequent research has also demonstrated the same
system in the human brain (Kilner, Friston, & Firth,
2007; Yuan & Ho, 2008).
e more we feel connected to another, the more
likely it is that our neurons re together, leading to rep-
etition of behaviors and the strengthening of neuronal
pathways. Although we cherish our individuality, we
live in constant relationships with others who partici-
pate in stimulating neuronal pathways and regulating
or dis-regulating our emotions, thoughts, intentions,
and behavior (Cozolino, 2006). Advances in technolo-
gy, and the increase in its use in everyday life, not only
in the oce, but socially and in the home environment
(Hertlein, 2012), suggests a need for social connection
and attachment; however, the impact of the frequent
use of technology between couples within their rela-
tionship is not yet known (Hertlein, 2012). According
to Hertlein, increasing technology use may create dif-
culties for couples attempting to inhibit problematic
phone usage and set clear boundaries. Further, some
partners may feel more comfortable expressing cer-
tain aspects of their personality (e.g., vulnerabilities)
only via social media or online forums, thus creating a
greater divide between couples (Cooper, Galbreath, &
Becker, 2004). For example, Cooper et al. (2004) indi-
cated that men have been shown to use the Internet to
express behaviors (e.g., sexual chatting) that they feel
they cannot express in their face-to-face relationships.
e Internet has the potential to blur the boundaries
between online social relationships and face-to-face
relationships; recent research has also explored the
blurred boundaries between work and couple/fam-
ily relationships (Campbell & Ling, 2009. Some re-
searchers have proposed that blurred boundaries due
to the overuse of technology have a negative impact
on social relationships (Galinsky, Kim, & Bond, 2001;
Weil & Rosen, 1997). Others have found that negative
work issues extended via technology use into family
life is related to increased distress and decreased fam-
ily satisfaction (Chesley, 2005). Contrasting research
has shown, however, that technology use can provide
exibility regarding working arrangements, which re-
duces relationship conict (e.g., Hill, Hawkins, Ferris,
& Weitzman, 2001; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). In addi-
tion, Campbell and Ling (2009) found that frequent
mobile phone use contributes to intimacy, and that
frequent connection via the mobile phone allows for
the sharing of a person’s activities and whereabouts to
their partner, which enhances connections between
couples. us far, therefore, research has suggest-
ed both that problematic phone use leads to blurred
boundaries within relationships, and that it can en-
hance connections between couples. e impact of
technology on satisfaction, feelings, and perceptions
of the relationship has not yet been explored.
Developing a Connection
Human infants, unlike some animals, are born in
complete dependency on their primary caregivers.
During this time, developing a bond and connection
with caregivers allows the infant’s brain to grow, adapt
and be shaped by specic experiences, and survive.
Infants have the ability to detect and explore their
caregivers from their smell, taste, feel, and facial ex-
pressions. In this way they experience the caregiver’s
presence, which becomes synonymous with safety.
rough discovering their caregivers, a connection
is formed, and the infant then survives, based on the
46
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
abilities of the caretaker to detect the needs and inten-
tions of those around them (Cozolino, 2006). For hu-
mans and other primates, successful relationships are
an indication that we have adequate food, shelter, and
protection, and our basic needs will be met. Striving
to meet our basic needs requires a process of consis-
tency regulation (Grawe, 2007). is process contin-
ues into adult relationships throughout the lifespan.
Consistency Regulation and Congruence
Grawe (2007) regards consistency as a core prin-
ciple of mental functioning. Humans strive for con-
sistency and congruence to full basic human needs.
Consequently, if the condition of striving for consis-
tency is compromised, or even violated, individuals
are unable to satisfy their basic needs, thus leading to
patterns of protection for survival. Ongoing avoidant
patterns of protection result in mental un-wellness
(psychopathology). From a neuropsychological point
of view, such patterns are the result of the survival re-
sponse (Grawe, 2007). e survival response is a pro-
tective system that ensures safety (Rossouw, 2013).
Ongoing activation of the survival response leads to
robust neural activation in the primitive neural areas
(i.e., the limbic system), which, in psychotherapeutic
terms, is referred to as a pattern of avoidance. Patterns
of approach, on the other hand, are activated when
individuals are surrounded by an enriched environ-
ment (Cozolino, 2006; Kandel, 1998). Enriched envi-
ronments enhance safety, which encourages cortical
blood ow to the frontal parts of the brain. When
blood ow moves away from the limbic system and
into the frontal parts of the brain, individuals are able
to function as a whole—meaning that they can think,
problem solve and communicate, rather than staying
focused in the primitive neural areas (ght or ight
for survival). Individuals in an enriched environment
are more likely to develop patterns of approach than
patterns of avoidance.
Striving for consistency is a way in which humans
can safely maintain their goals and full important
needs. Once individuals have learned one way of be-
ing, they are more likely to repeat it as the process
becomes predictable and safe. On the other hand, a
situation that becomes unpredictable and inconsistent
with our expectations leads to cognitive dissonance,
a process whereby emotional distress arises (Grawe,
2007). Inconsistency as described by Grawe is a state
that humans strive to avoid, and the human mental
system has developed many mechanisms to avoid or
remove it. How this relates to couple relationships is
that conict can occur when there is inconsistency
tension. If one partner strives for consistency to have
their needs met in one way, for instance, and the oth-
er partner strives to meet their own needs in another
way, there is inconsistency and incongruence in the
relationship. e couple’s needs become compro-
mised, or even violated, leading to distress and the
development of avoidant patterns.
Approach and Avoid Patterns
e basis for developing approach and avoidance
patterns occurs as an individual strives to meet basic
needs. From birth, the limbic structures (the emotion-
al center) of infant brains constantly scan the environ-
ment for cues to danger, discomfort, and risk. In order
to feel safe, therefore, and for the stress response in
our brains to be regulated, infants look toward their
primary caregivers to provide them with a safe and
enriched environment to full their basic needs (Ros-
souw, 2011); but if these needs are compromised or
violated, avoidant patterns are developed as a way to
protect the self. Grawe (2007) suggests that avoidance
goals (i.e., striving to avoid an unpleasant event) re-
quire constant control and focused attention—in oth-
er words, a person is unable to relax and is constantly
scanning the environment for danger or inconsisten-
cy. Conversely, when approach patterns are developed,
individuals are more likely to approach their goals
without a sense of anxious tension. Avoidance goals
do not permit ecient goal pursuit or real goal attain-
ment. Feinberg (2009) further suggested that neural
responses of protection and avoidance may form as a
result of trauma (the violation of a basic need), where-
as approach patterns and growth are likely to occur
due to positive experiences.
Basic Human Needs
Mental wellness requires healthy neuronal devel-
opment in a safe and secure environment so that ap-
proach patterns rather than avoidance patterns can
develop, which in turn facilitates healthy adult rela-
tionships. In order to achieve this, humans display
four basic needs that must be fullled from the time
of their birth (Grawe, 2007). ese are
• the need for secure attachment;
• the need for orientation and control;
• the need for self-esteem enhancement and
self-esteem protection; and
• the need for pleasure maximization and dis-
tress avoidance.
According to Grawe, violations of these needs lead
to dysfunctions in brain development and social in-
teractions. For the purpose of this study, the needs for
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
47
attachment and control are the focal point, as these are
the most prominent of the four basic needs. Although
individuals have a need for self-esteem enhancement
and pleasure maximization, these needs cannot be
met without rst meeting the need for attachment and
control.
e need for secure attachment. e need for
attachment can be regarded as the empirically most
substantiated basic need, especially with regard to its
neurological foundation (Grawe, 2007). Attachment
describes our unique human need to form and main-
tain lasting relationships, not only with our caregivers
but also relationships throughout our lifespan (Har-
rison, 2003). e theory of attachment, developed by
John Bowlby in the 1960s, indicates that the quality of
the attachment relationship forms the basis for emo-
tional development (Colmer, Rutherford, & Murphy,
2011). e core postulates of attachment theory are set
out in Bowlby (1973) as follows:
1. When an individual trusts that an attachment
gure will be available when needed, then this
individual will be less likely to experience in-
tensive or chronic anxiety than a person who
does not have this trust.
2. Trust in the availability of an attachment g-
ure, or the lack thereof, develops prior to adult-
hood, little by little, during infancy, childhood,
and adolescence, and whatever expectancies
develop during these years tend to remain rela-
tively unchanged for the rest of life.
3. Expectancies that the primary caregiver will be
available reect actual experiences.
When the attachment need is violated or not met,
children and adults tend to develop insecure and
avoidant attachment styles within relationships. One
of the side eects of an insecure attachment is poor
emotional regulation because the infant did not learn
eective emotional regulation with his/her own pri-
mary caregiver. Following Bowlby’s attachment theo-
ry, a classic lab procedure, the Strange Situation, was
devised by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s. e Strange
Situation Test was the rst standardized observation-
al procedure designed to explore attachment patterns
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Using
this method, children between the ages of 11 and 20
months were observed in situations where they were
rst separated for a few minutes and then reunited
with their mothers. eir reactions to the separa-
tion and being united were observed, and from this
Ainsworth identied four attachment patterns termed
secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-ambivalent, and
insecure-disorganized, described below.
Secure attachment. Children were observed to re-
act with distress to separation from their mothers and
immediately sought proximity upon her return. In-
fants were soothed by their mothers when they were
reunited.
Insecure and avoidant attachment. ese children
avoided proximity aer being separated from their
mothers and showed no signs of distress upon sepa-
ration. Rather than seeking proximity, these children
remain distant without exposing themselves to the
possibility of further harm. Although this is a protec-
tive mechanism to survive, ongoing avoidant patterns
lead to poor positive satisfaction of the attachment
need (Grawe, 2007).
Insecure and ambivalent attachment. ese chil-
dren displayed anxious behaviors when separated
from their mothers. ey became preoccupied with
the relationship aer the separation and did not pur-
sue other activities in the room. Upon the return of
their mothers they would uctuate between seeking
proximity and an aggressive rejection of contact.
Children in this category learn to associate closeness
with worries of losing the attachment gure, leading
to fears of being alone.
Insecure and disorganized/disorientated attach-
ment. is attachment style is less common than the
previous three. In this condition, children respond
to separation from and return of their caregiver with
bizarre behaviors. ese reactions are the result of se-
vere violations of the attachment need due either to
abuse by the primary caregiver, or their absence.
Regardless of the attachment style one develops
from early childhood and into adulthood, the under-
lying drive is to full the need to feel safely attached
to another. If our attachment and emotional develop-
ment is compromised, our thoughts, state of mind,
emotions, and immunological functioning become
inconsistent with well-being and healthy long-term
survival (Cozolino, 2006). Emotional development
continues throughout the lifespan but is rooted in the
earliest experiences of attachment with caregiver/s.
According to Cozolino (2006), children engage in a
pattern of insecure attachment if their carer abuses,
neglects, or abandons them. ese actions send a
message to the child that the world is unsafe and dan-
gerous, and the child’s brain consequently becomes
shaped in a way that protects itself, leading to patterns
of avoidance rather than approach. On the other hand,
infants surrounded by an enriched environment in
close proximity to their primary caregivers encour-
48
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
ages neural proliferation and enhanced cortical blood
ow to the pre-frontal cortex (Grawe, 2007), leading to
the development of approach patterns in the brain. Ef-
fective neural connections in open ring patterns are
essential for eective neural development, enhanced
memory systems, and a sense of well-being (Rossouw,
2012a). A study by Luby and colleagues (Luby et al.,
2012) explored the link between children in enriched
environments (maternal nurturance) and hippo-
campal volumes. e hippocampus is the structure
in the brain that most closely aligns to memory for-
mation—large hippocampal volume suggest healthy
memory systems, whereas hippocampal atrophy can
be linked to depression (Sheline, Mittler, & Mintun,
2002). In this study, Luby et al. measured the brains of
92 early school aged children and found that maternal
support (i.e., an enriched environment) was strongly
predictive of larger hippocampal volume compared
to children who were not raised in an enriched envi-
ronment. ey also found that hippocampal volume
was greater in children who were not depressed than
it was in children who were depressed.
e inuence of the external environment on
brain development and behavior has been studied in
non-human primates. Disturbances in attachment
relationships in rhesus monkeys were investigated
in a study by Stephen Suomi (1999) who found that
when the monkeys were reared without the presence
of their mothers, they tended to be retarded in their
play and social contact behavior and responded more
sensitively to being socially isolated, both in terms of
their behavior and in terms of their stress hormone
and noradrenergic neurotransmitter release. ese re-
sponses were present over the long term, into adoles-
cence and adulthood.
Similar ndings extend to studies on humans. A
study conducted by Chugani et al. (2001) explored
brain dysfunction and social decits in children be-
tween the ages of 7 and 11 years who had been ad-
opted out from Romanian orphanages. Many of these
children were placed in an orphanage within the rst
month of life. As the carers in these facilities were few,
at a ratio of 10:1, the infants spent 20 hours a day in
their cribs isolated from others. As childhood social
deprivation on brain function in humans had been
largely unexamined, Chugani and colleagues aimed
to examine the neurological eects of such isolation
on children. To do this, they scanned the brains of ten
children adopted out of the Romanian orphanages
using positron emission tomography (PET). e neu-
ropsychological assessment of these orphans revealed
mild neurocognitive impairment, impulsivity, and at-
tention and social decits. In terms of survival, a lack
of social interaction in orphanages has been shown to
lead to alarming death rates, and it was not until the
children were held, rocked, and allowed contact with
one another that their survival rate improved (Blum,
2002). Another study conducted by Zeanah, Smyke,
Koga, and Carlson (2005) examined children who
were raised with little social interaction in another Ro-
manian orphanage. Ratings from caregivers’ reports
and the Strange Situation Test revealed that children
raised in these circumstances were at a high risk of
severe disturbances in attachment and related social
and behavioral problems. ese studies shed light on
the importance of secure attachment and how the ex-
ternal environment can shape the way these needs are
met, impacting and altering brain development.
e need for orientation and control. According
to Epstein (1990), the need for orientation and control
is the most fundamental of human needs. Our need
for control is satised when a maximum number of
options are available to us. Conversely, this need is vi-
olated when our options are no longer available—if
we experience a severe ood, for example, our options
decrease and control over our environment is com-
promised. Although we are still able to survive, if our
need for control is violated, this reduces our sense
of orientation. In early childhood, control is linked
to attachment and the relationship with the primary
caregiver. Further, when an individual is introduced
to a safe and enriched environment, their options and
sense of orientation increase, leading to an increased
sense of control and mental wellness.
Control involves the processes of controllable and
uncontrollable incongruence (Grawe, 2007). Incon-
gruence refers to the interaction between the individ-
ual and his/her environment. In adult relationships,
incongruence may occur in a long-distance relation-
ship, for example, when the number of options the
couple has to feel or be attached to one another is de-
creased, which leads to a decreased sense of control.
is is known as uncontrollable incongruence. If the
couple have plans to reunite and have the means to
connect via technology consistently, thereby maxi-
mizing their options, their sense of control over the
situation would increase. is is known as controlla-
ble incongruence. In another example, if a couple were
sitting together in the same room and one person is
consistently using technology without engaging with
the other, this may compromise that person’s sense of
attachment and safety. As one person is striving to feel
attached while the other person engages with technol-
ogy, uncontrollable incongruence is enhanced, lead-
ing to distress within the relationship.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
49
Technology Use and Couple Relationships
Homan, Novak, and Venkatesh (2004) stated that
we are in the midst of an Internet revolution and en-
tering an era of enhanced digital connectivity. e
consequent increase in the use of social media and
technology can either enhance or hinder our need for
attachment and control. Computers, mobile phones,
and the Internet have an enormous inuence, not
only on how we function at work but also on how we
communicate and interact outside the oce (Kraut,
Brynin, & Kiesler, 2006). According to the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2009), in 2009, 74% of Aus-
tralians aged 15 years and over accessed the Internet
at least once in the previous 12 months. By 2013 this
gure had increased to 84% (ABS, 2013). e main
social sites used are Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Not only is social media and technology used for so-
cial connection, technology is increasingly used for
education and the sharing of information, which
globally aims to make the world more accessible than
previously (Selwyn, 2013). With the increasing use of
technology to achieve social connection, questions
arise as to what the implications are for face-to-face
interactions within couple relationships. Hertlein and
Blumer (2013) posited that a technological revolution
has intruded into couple life in subtle ways, where
couples are not always aware of the changes that have
emerged in their relationships. ey began their book
e Couple and Family Technology Framework: Inti-
mate Relationships in a Digital Age with the following
account:
I (K. H.) was having dinner at a local restau-
rant with a colleague. As we sat and talked, I
could not help but notice a couple sitting togeth-
er at a table just behind my companion. ey
appeared very much in love: ey spent some
time holding hands, facing each other gazing in
each other’s eyes, and smiling at one another a
good proportion of the time. en, as the din-
ner continued, I noticed the emergence of their
mobile phones. At rst, the involvement of the
phones seemed rather innocuous: One person
brought out a phone to show his partner some-
thing, and the phone was quickly put away. As
I continued to observe them, new media made
an increasing presence in the date. Aer taking
photos of the meal and making it most of the
way through dinner, one of the phones made an-
other appearance at the dinner table. One part-
ner oered the phone to the other to view some-
thing on the screen. is continued for several
minutes. By the end of the meal, their phones
had made another appearance, but in a dierent
way. e couple stopped talking to one anoth-
er; one partner was sitting at the table, and the
other was positioned with her body away from
the table and, consequently, her partner. Each
had a cell phone in hand, and they were seem-
ingly not engaged with one another. ey both
appeared to be scrolling through options and
reading things on their independent screens.
is continued for several minutes, and they ap-
peared so disconnected to me that I wondered
if I had missed an argument and they were no
longer speaking. Aer the check was paid, how-
ever, they put away their phones, smiled at one
another, and le the restaurant quietly, hand in
hand. (p. 1)
is observation illustrates the need for connec-
tion—not just while being in the presence of another
but also being present with that person. According to
Siegel (2010), presence is a process whereby we re-
main open and focused on the other without external
or internal distraction. When we are present with an-
other, that person feels connected and safe. Questions
arise as to whether, in a relationship, presence should
or should not be maintained at all times. Neverthe-
less, if presence is not maintained due to technologi-
cal distraction, how long can couples remain satised
in their relationships without feeling heard or con-
nected? Individuals can develop strong relationships
with mobile phones, which combine communication,
computing abilities, and personalized applications
(Lang & Jarvenpaa, 2005), and the advancement of
technology, particularly with the mobile phone, has
introduced a process of distraction and separation in
couple relationships (Hertlein, 2012). Lang and Jarv-
enpaa described an engaging/disengaging paradox in
relation to mobile phone use, where the mobile phone
provides a means to disengage regularly from face-to-
face interactions with increasing SMS, email, and so-
cial media technology. Mobile phone users frequently
disengage from meetings, face-to-face conversations,
parties, and family in order to engage with their de-
vices. On the other hand, technology has been shown
to positively impact relationships, as the increased ac-
cessibility means an increase in connection, especially
when couples are apart. What happens, then, when
a couple are face-to-face and using technology sepa-
rately? Hertlein and Blumer (2013) noted that it is dif-
cult for researchers to access a current and coherent
view of the research literature on couple relationships
and technology use, though the limited research in
50
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
this area has brought light to this current study. e
purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore the im-
pact of technology use on couple relationships and, in
so doing, to investigate how technology may impact
on an individual’s sense of attachment and control
within the relationship. Links between couple satis-
faction and current technology use are explored spe-
cically.
e study investigated three hypotheses. First, it is
hypothesized that using technology in the presence of
a partner without engagement/interaction will nega-
tively impact on relationship satisfaction. Second, it is
further hypothesized that if a couple uses technology
together while interacting with each other, this will
have a positive impact on relationship satisfaction. Fi-
nally, it is hypothesized that the mobile phone may be
the mode of technology that has the greatest impact
on relationship satisfaction compared to other modes.
Method
A questionnaire was designed to obtain informa-
tion about couple satisfaction and current technology
use. e questionnaire was administered via online
and social media where volunteers were invited to
participate in the study. Data were collated and t-tests
were performed. No signicant dierences were found
between the variables, therefore bivariate correlations
were used to explore any existing relationships be-
tween couples and technology use.
Participants
Fiy-nine individuals volunteered to participate
and completed the 10- to 15-minute questionnaire. Of
these 59 volunteers only 42 participants (21 couples)
were included in the analysis. e remaining partic-
ipants were excluded because they did not provide a
matching code name, or because their partners did
not complete the questionnaire. Participants were ap-
proached online via social and professional media—
Facebook and email, as well as by word of mouth
through acquaintances. Of the 42 participants, there
were 21 males and 21 females in heterosexual rela-
tionships with ages ranging from 21 to 46 years (M =
30.81, SD = 4.78).
Procedure
e survey questions were devised and powered
through Qualtrics online survey soware. e rst
section of the questionnaire contained questions re-
lating to individual demographics such as year of
birth, gender, work status, and relationship status. e
second section included questions regarding “agree-
ment” within the relationship on a 7-point Likert-type
scale, for example, “inking about your relationship
with your partner, how oen do you agree or disagree
on the amount of time spent together?” e following
questions about the nature of the relationship, feelings
about the relationship, and relationship satisfaction
were on a 5-point Likert scale. e third section tar-
geted personal technology use as well as perceptions
of partner usage, for example, “Which of the follow-
ing does your partner use?” e nal section of the
questionnaire included questions relating to technol-
ogy use while in the presence of one another, such as,
“When using technology together such as watching
television, how oen do you interact and engage with
your partner at the same time?”
A Facebook page with the name “Couple Rela-
tionships and Technology Use” was created to pro-
vide information about the study, where volunteers
were invited to complete the survey (see https://www.
facebook.com/CoupleRelationshipsAndTechnolo-
gyUse). Once they agreed to participate in the study,
participants were sent a URL link to their individual
email accounts. e URL was linked directly to the
questionnaire, which consisted of 36 items (not in-
cluding subsections). Individuals completed the ques-
tionnaire via two separate links to ensure that both
partners participated. e survey was completed on-
line in the participants’ own time. Respondents were
de-identied by entering a code name that replicated
their partner’s code name, being any number from 1
to 99 followed by any letter in the alphabet. To avoid
double-ups in code names, two other questions were
asked in order to link the couples. ese questions
were, “What is the date that you celebrate or acknowl-
edge as your anniversary?” and “How long have you
been with your partner?”
Aer completion of the questionnaire, partici-
pants were sent a debrieng sheet containing a note
of thanks, information about the study, and a list of
support services.
Design
Bivariate correlations were used in the data anal-
ysis to report the relationship between technology
use and couple relationships. e fourteen dependent
measures were Relationship Agreement, Relationship
Perception, Engage/Interact while using technolo-
gy (Engage/Interact TV, MOB, COMP, LAP), using
technology separately while being physically togeth-
er with partner (UseTogSep TV, MOB, COMP, LAP),
and Feeling Close with partner while using technolo-
gy (Feel Close TV, MOB, COMP, LAP).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
51
Results
Frequencies
Length of relationship. Couples reported being in their relationship for a number of years ranging from
1 to 11 years (M = 6.29, SD = 3.03). A majority of participants (23%) had been in their relationship for 2 to 3
years at the time of completing the questionnaire, and a minimum of participants (2%) had been in a relation-
ship for 4 to 5 years.
Technology use. Figure 1 compares indi-
viduals’ frequency of technology use and their
perception of their partner’s use of technology.
As the gure shows, the participants’ reports
of individual TV usage coincided closely with
how their partner perceived their TV usage.
On the other hand, individual computer use
and their partner’s perception of their use of
computers diered considerably; the dier-
ences for mobile phones and laptops between
individual use and perceptions of use were not
as great. Participants reported mobile phones
as their main modality of technology com-
pared to TV, computer, or laptop usage.
Correlational Analysis
Correlational analysis was used in this
study. Prior to conducting the correlations, the
data were screened for outliers and normality by visually inspecting z-scores and conducting a Shipiro–Wilk
Test of normality. e normality assumption was met (see Appendix C).
Descriptive. Data revealed that 72 individuals began the questionnaire and 59 completed all the questions.
If an individual completed the questionnaire but their partner did not, their data were excluded due to the
need for a complete data set from both partners in this study. In the end, a sample of 42 participants (N = 42)
was retained for analysis. Table 1 depicts the means and standard deviations for the variables used in the study.
Tabl e 1
Descriptive Table for Variables: Means and Standard Deviations
Relationship nMean S.D. Skewness Kurtosis
Partner agreement 42 5.95 .533 -.49 .64
Relationship Perception 42 4.17 .35 -.31 -.66
Engage/Interact TV 41 3.68 .72 -.27 .08
Engage/Interact MOB 41 3.12 .87 -.01 .00
Engage/Interact COMP 40 2.98 1.09 -.19 -.32
Engage/Interact LAP 40 3.03 .95 -.24 .31
UseSepTog TV 41 2.34 .94 .39 .28
UseSepTog MOB 42 2.71 .74 -.60 .46
UseSepTog COMP 41 1.95 .95 .66 -.51
UseSepTog LAP 41 2.24 .86 .24 -.49
Feel close TV 41 3.98 .69 -.45 .68
Feel close MOB 41 2.76 .99 .68 .12
Feel close COMP 39 2.56 1.07 .43 -.22
Feel close LAP 39 2.82 1.05 .52 -.43
S.D. = Standard Deviation
Figure 1. Frequency of technology use, comparing individuals’ frequen-
cy of use of television (TV), mobile (MOB), computer (COMP) and laptop
(LAPTOP) and perceptions of their partner’s use. (See Frequency Table,
Appendix C, for validated percentage data.)
52
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Reliability analysis. A reliability analysis was conducted to determine whether items t together (capturing
the essence of measured construct) within each variable. Table 2 illustrates the reliability values.
Tabl e 2
Reliability Values (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Subscale n Cronbach’s Alpha
Coecient
Relationship Agreement 42 .813
Relationship Satisfaction 42 .715
Relationship Feelings 42 .777
Relationship Perception 42 .781
For the variable Relationship Agreement, Cronbach’s alpha analysis revealed a high reliability score (α =
.813). For the Relationship Satisfaction variable, the rst item (conde in partner) was removed due to its im-
pact on the alpha score. Removing item one increased the alpha level (α = .715). For the Relationship Feelings
variable, reverse scoring was required for one question (“How oen do you feel challenged negatively by your
partner?”). With nine items, reliability was low (α = .578); however, the alpha level was increased when two
questions were removed (nancially dependent on partner, and vulnerable with your partner) as outcomes of
these items were ambiguous in interpretation. Removing these items increased reliability (α = .777).
e Relationship Perception variable was created when Relationship Feelings and Relationship Satisfaction
were merged. Merging these variables yielded high reliability (α = .781).
Although Relationship Agreement yielded high reliability, items with Relationship Feelings and Relation-
ship Satisfaction were not combined as the scales diered.
e correlations demonstrated in Table 3 revealed signicant correlations between technology use and cou-
ple relationships.
Tabl e 3
Correlations for Technology Use and Couple Relationships
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Partner agreement -
2. Relationship
Perception .560** -
3. UseSepTog TV -.117 .137 -
4. UseSepTog MOB -.205 .106 .435** -
5. UseSepTog COMP -.021 -.017 .300 .397*-
6. UseSepTog LAP -.137 -.394*.429** .463** .415** -
7. Engage/Interact TV .366*.633** .245 .143 .075 -.196 -
8. Engage/Interact
MOB .331*.360*.038 .020 .014 -.103 .429** -
9. Engage/Interact
COMP .302 .498** .187 .022 .263 -.189 .437** .536** -
10. Engage/Interact LAP .342*.426** .085 -.071 -.057 -.036 .353*.828** .665** -
11. Feel Close TV .430** .515** .237 -.008 .233 -.147 .336*.203 .429** .193 -
12. Feel Close MOB .289 .357*-.205 -.155 -.114 -.242 .088 .583** .403*.560** .420** -
13. Feel Close COMP .376*.370*-.215 -.273 .197 -.265 .066 .250 .536** .406*.507** .727** -
14. Feel Close LAP .341*.308 -.038 -.311 -.141 -.258 .127 .413** .281 .526** .464** .716** .597** -
** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)
* Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
53
UseSepTog variable. A moderate negative rela-
tionship between UseSepTog LAP with Relationship
Perception was signicant, r (41) = -.39, p < .05. is
suggests that using the laptop separately while in the
presence of a partner is associated with a negative per-
ception of the relationship. Conversely, a moderate
positive relationship between Feel Close LAP and Re-
lationship Agreement was signicant, r (40) = .34, p =
.05. is suggests that couples tend to feel close with
their partners during laptop usage when there are also
agreements within the relationship.
Engage/Interact variable. ere were several pos-
itive correlations between technology use while en-
gaging and interacting between couples and percep-
tion of their relationship. A moderate-strong positive
relationship between Engage/Interact TV with Rela-
tionship Perception was signicant, r (41) = .63, p <
.01. is suggests that engaging and interacting with
a partner while watching TV is positively associated
with one’s perception of the relationship.
Feel Close variable. Several positive correlations
were found between feeling close in the relationship
and perception of the relationship. A moderate-strong
positive relationship between Feel Close TV and Re-
lationship Perception was signicant, r (41) = .52, p <
.01. is suggests that couples feel close to their part-
ners while watching TV, which impacts on their posi-
tive perception of the relationship.
Discussion
e aim of this study was to examine the impact of
technology use on couple relationships. It was hypoth-
esized that using technology without engaging/inter-
acting with a partner negatively impacts relationship
satisfaction. Results from this study found that laptop
use while in the presence of a partner without engag-
ing/interacting is linked to negative perceptions of
the relationship. e negative impact was not demon-
strated for computer, TV, or mobile phone use. From
a neuropsychological view, individuals experience a
decrease in their sense of control when their partner
uses a laptop in their presence without interaction.
e decrease in the sense of control up-regulates the
limbic system (emotional area of the brain) which de-
tects potential compromise or violation of the individ-
ual’s safety and need for attachment and control. e
up-regulation of the limbic system leads to activation
of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system (HPA),
which facilitates the production and release of the
stress hormone cortisol (Rossouw, 2012b). Cortisol
triggers a feedback loop to the hypothalamus, which
then down-regulates the stress response. However,
continual cortisol release leads to hypercortisolemia,
a process involving the destruction of glia and neu-
rons (Rossouw, 2012b). Damage to neural areas can
lead to a variety of chronic conditions such as depres-
sion and anxiety, which in turn could lead to conict
within relationships triggered by technology use. If
one partner in a relationship disengages from a face-
to-face interaction while engaging in technology (i.e.,
the laptop), the other partner may experience a sense
of threat to their need to feel attached and in control
in that relationship. erefore couple satisfaction and
positive perceptions about the relationship may be
compromised, leading to uncontrollable incongru-
ence. Although it was postulated that a decrease in
one’s sense of control would be apparent in mobile
phone use, this phenomenon was found in laptops
rather than mobile phones. Possible explanations for
the dierence of impact between laptop use and mo-
bile phone use is yet to be explored.
Research has suggested that problematic phone
use leads to blurred boundaries within relationships.
However, the results from this study do not provide
support for a negative impact of mobile phone use on
couple relationships. Contrary to this result, Kross et
al. (2013) found that mobile phone use, particularly
for accessing Facebook social media, leads to a de-
cline in life satisfaction. Further research to explore
these alternative ndings in the area of mobile phone
and laptop use and couple satisfaction could be con-
ducted in the future by using a larger sample size than
was used in this study. It may be that a mobile phone
is quickly accessible and therefore is used frequently
but in shorter time periods, whereas a laptop may be
used for individual purposes infrequently but in lon-
ger time periods. e computer or TV are also larg-
er devices that tend to involve and ll a shared space
(i.e., lounge room). erefore the likelihood of cou-
ples engaging/interacting with each other while using
these modalities is greater than while using a laptop
or mobile phone.
It was also hypothesized that if a couple uses tech-
nology together while interacting with each other,
there will be a positive impact on relationship satis-
faction. e current study found that using all forms
of technology while engaging and interacting with
one another is related to positive perceptions of the
relationship. is was found most particularly for TV.
Watching TV together with a partner while engaging
and interacting was linked to positive perceptions of
the relationship. However, watching TV separately
from a partner was not linked to either positive or
negative perceptions of the relationship. Lang and
54
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Jarvenpaa (2005) indicated that individuals develop
their own coping strategies to manage conict situ-
ations caused by technology. us, individuals are
constantly altering, accommodating, and adjusting
social relations in response to the increasing use of
technology. is nding coincides with the neuropsy-
chological view of controllable versus uncontrollable
incongruence. If couples are managing technology
use together, they are enhancing a sense of control
within their relationship leading to controllable in-
congruence. If a sense of control is not achieved (i.e.,
partners are not managing or agreeing on the type
or frequency of technology use) we may see conict
within a relationship, which results from uncontrolla-
ble incongruence. It seems that TV is the main mode
of technology shared between couples. Even though
couples use this form of technology apart from each
other as well as together, this does not seem to impact
on the relationship. is study found that engaging/
interacting while watching TV enhances a sense of
safety in couples. From a neuropsychological per-
spective, an individual’s attachment need is being met
when couples engage with one another while watch-
ing TV. In this case, the limbic areas in the brain are
not activated, hence not producing the stress hor-
mone cortisol, leading to a sense of safety, well-being,
and eective neural sprouting (Rossouw, 2012b). is
leads to the development of positive neural pathways
that enhance approach patterns related to well-being.
e results from this study have demonstrated that
couples are more likely to develop helpful neuronal
patterns while watching TV together and interacting
than when using laptops together and not interacting.
Moreover, watching TV together while interacting is
more likely to lead to approach patterns rather than
avoid patterns in brain development. It appears that
TV is the mode of technology that supports controlla-
ble incongruence between couples, whereas laptop use
seems to be associated with creating distance between
couples, leading to uncontrollable incongruence.
Finally, it was hypothesized that mobile phone us-
age may be the mode of technology that has the most
impact on relationship satisfaction compared to other
modes of technology. Unlike computers or laptops,
the mobile phone is rarely separated from its owner
(Lang & Jarvenpaa, 2005). One study from Finland,
carried out in 2001, found that mobile phone use was
extensive in a sample of 3,485 adolescents, aged 14 to
16 years (Leena, Tomi, & Arja, 2004). e researchers
found that 89% of respondents used mobile phones
with 13% using them for at least one hour daily. ey
compared mobile phone use with health/lifestyle vari-
ables, such as smoking and alcohol use, to explore the
association between mobile phone use and well-be-
ing, and found that the intensity of mobile phone use
was positively associated with health-compromising
behaviors. In contrast to this nding by Leena et al.,
while the participants in this current study reported
that mobile phone use was their main modality of
technology use (71%), this study did not nd a neg-
ative connection between mobile phone use and re-
lationship perception. In fact, when a mobile phone
was used while engaging and interacting with a part-
ner, there was a positive link with relationship percep-
tion. erefore, if a couple has a positive perception
of their relationship, they are also likely to engage/
interact positively with their partner while using mo-
bile phones. Previously, Hertlein (2012) indicated that
technology introduces a process of separation and
distraction. Although the ndings from this study do
not support this view, Hertlein and Blumer (2013) ex-
plained that couples are not always aware of the subtle
changes in their relationship due to technology use.
Future studies might aim to use a larger sample size to
examine this phenomenon and measure participants
in a longitudinal study in order to explore changes
within the relationship in the context of mobile phone
use.
Couples’ reports of personal TV use matched
closely to their partner’s perception of their TV use.
On the other hand, their reports of computer use did
not match closely to their partner’s perception of their
computer use. It may be that computer use has de-
clined with the increasing accessibility of laptops or
mobile phones leading to individuals not being aware
of the actual frequency of use. Other possibilities for
dierences in reporting may be that couples do not
tend to use computers together as oen as TV. e
gap between personal and partner computer use may
suggest that computers create a divide between cou-
ples compared to other forms of technology. If lap-
tops were not available, we could see an increase in
reports regarding computer use in the home environ-
ment, possibly leading to a more accurate measure of
personal use and perception of partner computer use.
On the other hand, the similarity of couples’ reports
of individual and partner TV use suggests that cou-
ples are more aware of each other’s use. Based on these
ndings, TV is the mode of technology that speci-
cally seems to enhance couple connection rather than
create a divide.
Verbal feedback from participants was voluntarily
provided aer the completion of the questionnaires.
Various participants reported that they acknowledged
the intensity of technology use in their external en-
vironment, especially in their relationships. One par-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
55
ticipant disclosed that the questionnaire generated
thought and discussion between her and her partner
regarding the quality of their relationship. Another
participant explained that she and her partner have
rules surrounding technology use, such as a “tech-
nology-free” bedroom space. Interestingly, another
participant acknowledged that she only realized aer
completing the questionnaire that there had been an
issue regarding mobile phone use in the relationship.
As a result, she did not relay this in her responses in
the questionnaire. is feedback suggests there is ac-
knowledgment of technology having the potential to
create separation and disconnection between cou-
ples. It also indicates that couples are nding ways
to manage the increasing use of technology in their
lives. From a neuropsychological point of view, cou-
ples working together to manage their technology use
enhances a sense of safety, attachment, and control-
lable incongruence in their relationship. Technology
use within a relationship without engaging or con-
necting, on the other hand, particularly with laptop
use, may create uncontrollable incongruence, where
a sense of control over the external environment is
compromised. In order to enhance a sense of control
leading to controllable incongruence, couples nd
ways together to manage their use of technology, such
as watching programs separately on TV in their own
times, or creating technology-free zones within their
physical space.
Relevance of the study
e increasing accessibility and use of technology
implies greater choice and control over social connec-
tions than previously (Spears & Lea, 1994). However,
the sense of safety and control can be compromised
if the use of technology is not successfully managed
within couple relationships. Couples faced with con-
ict due to the use of technology could benet from
support and intervention that encourages controlla-
ble incongruence. e brain is a dynamic and plastic
entity that continues to grow, develop, and change in
response to the external environment. erefore, the
development of avoid patterns can be altered, re-di-
rected, and changed towards approach patterns in the
brain. Conict within relationships due to compro-
mises in safety, attachment, and control can be altered
by couples reecting on the use of technology and its
impact on their relationships. If couples are aware of
their current technology use and the impact it has on
their relationship, then they can consciously make
changes, and manage and monitor their use to en-
hance the sense of controllable incongruence.
Couples can also participate in modes of technolo-
gy that enhance connections between partners—using
technology together rather than apart, for example—
and using forms of technology that provide entertain-
ment or interaction, such as TV or interactive virtual
games. Technology may be used to enhance the qual-
ity of life for couples, as it can provide closer connec-
tion while couples are apart and also provide a means
to organizing and managing daily life (Campbell &
Ling, 2009). Future studies relating to technology use
and couple relationships could encourage self-reec-
tion in relationships in order to establish change if
necessary. Hertlein (2012) indicated that the subtle
inuences of technology use could go undetected by
couples. erefore, intervention involving psychoed-
ucation and programs assisting individuals to moni-
tor and reect on their technology use could provide
a sense of safety, control, and attachment within their
relationships.
Limitations of the study and future
recommendations
Future research could benet from exploring how
couples manage technology use within their relation-
ship and provide further insight into how individuals
can enhance control and attain controllable incon-
gruence. Longitudinal studies using large sample siz-
es could assist researchers to explore subtle changes
in relationships due to technology use. is current
study only provided data for heterosexual relation-
ships and did not focus on factors relating to culture,
gender, or socioeconomic status. Future studies could
aim to explore cultural dierences, gender dierenc-
es, and same-sex relationships in the general popula-
tion. Questions remain as to how separate laptop use
is connected with negative perceptions of the relation-
ship whereas TV, computer, and mobile phone use
shows diering results. Contrary to some researcher
suggestions, mobile phone use was not linked to neg-
ative or positive perceptions of a relationship when
used in the presence of a partner without engage-
ment. It is possible that the sample size used within
this study did not allow for adequate exploration of
mobile phone use and couple relationships in the
general population. e variables used in this study
(relationship agreement and relationship perception)
could not be combined due to diering scale sizes: one
variable being on a 7-point Likert-type scale and the
other on a 5-point Likert scale. Using the same scales
across variables may provide a more robust measure
of couple satisfaction and hence decrease the chance
of biased/leading questioning within surveys. Future
research could also explore the specic characteris-
tics of dierent forms of technology (i.e., TV, mobile,
56
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
computer and laptop) and how they t into the exter-
nal environment in ways that enhance or hinder cou-
ple relationships. Future research might also include
neurobiological markers as a variable using saliva to
measure cortisol levels. is could provide neurobi-
ological information on the impact of technology use
on stress levels within couple relationships.
References
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall,
S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Household
use of information technology, Australia, 2008-
09 (ABS Catalogue No. 8146.0). Retrieved from
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/sub-
scriber.nsf/0/9B44779BD8AF6A9CCA25768D002
1EEC3/$File/81460_2008-09.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Household
use of information technology, Australia, 2012-
13 (ABS Catalogue No. 8146.0). Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/
Lookup/8146.0Chapter32012-13
Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow
and the science of aection. New York, NY: Basic
Books. Perseus Publishing.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety and anger: At-
tachment and Loss Volume 2. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Campbell, S. W., & Ling, R. (2009). Eects of mobile
communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.),
Media eects: Advances in theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 592–606). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries: Linking
technology use, spillover, individual distress, and
family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Fam-
ily, 67, 1237–1248.
Chugani, H. T, Behen, M. E, Muzik, O., Juhász, C.,
Nagy, F., & Chugani, D. C. (2001). Local brain
functional activity following early deprivation: A
study of postinstitutionalized Romanian orphans.
NeuroImage, 14, 1290–1301.
Colmer, K., Rutherford, L., & Murphy, P. (2011). At-
tachment theory and primary caregiving. Austral-
asian Journal of Early Childhood, 36, 16–20.
Cooper, A., Galbreath, N., & Becker, M. A. (2004).
Sex on the Internet: Furthering our understand-
ing of men with online sexual problems. Psychol-
ogy of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 223–230.
Cozolino, L. (2006). The neuroscience of human re-
lationships: Attachment and the developing social
brain. New York, NY: Norton.
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive-experiential self-theo-
ry. In L. A. Previn (Ed.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research (pp. 165–192). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Feinberg, T. E. (2009). From axons to identity: Neuro-
logical explorations of the nature of the self. New
York, NY: Norton.
Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Bond, J. T. (2001). Feeling
Overworked: when work becomes too much. New
York, NY: Families and Work Institute.
Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How neu-
rosciences inform eective psychotherapy. New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Harrison, L. (2003). Attachment: Building secure re-
lationships in early childhood. Research in Prac-
tice Series, 10, 1–18.
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology
in couple and family relationships. Family Rela-
tions, 61, 374–387.
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). The cou-
ple and the family technology framework: Intimate
relationships in a digital age. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M.
(2001). Finding an extra day a week: The positive
inuence of perceived job exibility on work and
family balance. Family Relations, 50, 49–58.
Homan, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Venkatesh, A.
(2004). Has the Internet become indispensa-
ble? Communications of the ACM, 47, 37–42.
doi:10.1145/1005817.1005818
Kandel, E. R. (1998). A new intellectual framework
for psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
155, 457–469.
Kilner, J. M., Friston, K.J., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Pre-
dictive coding: An account of the mirror neuron
system. Cognitive Processing, 8, 159–166.
Kraut, R., Brynin, M., & Kiesler, S. (Eds.) (2006).
Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticat-
ing information technology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee,
D. S., Lin, N., . . . Ybarra O. Facebook use pre-
dicts declines in subjective well-being in young
adults. PloS One, 8, e69841. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0069841
Lang, K. R., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2005). Managing the
paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Sys-
tems Management, 22, 7–23.
Leena, K., Tomi, L., & Arja, R. R. (2005). Intensity
of mobile phone use and health compromising
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
57
behaviors: How is information and communica-
tion technology connected to health-related life-
style in adolescence? Journal of Adolescence, 28,
35–47.
Leggett, C. (2013, June 16). Couple relationships and
technology use [Facebook page]. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/CoupleRelationship-
sAndTechnologyUse
Luby, J. L., Barch, D. M., Belden, A., Garey, M. S.,
Tillman, R., Babb, C., . . . Botteron, K. N. (2012).
Maternal support in early childhood predicts
larger hippocampal volumes at school age. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109,
2854–2859.
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L.
(1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of
motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–41
Rossouw, P. J., (2012a, March). Neuroscience, learn-
ing and memory: From sea slugs to mental
health. Neuropsychotherapy News, 13, 2–5. Re-
trieved from http://mediros.com.au/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/NPTIG-Newsletter-13.pdf
Rossouw, P. J. (2012b, July/August). Neurobiologi-
cal markers of childhood trauma: Implications for
therapeutic interventions. Neuropsychotherapy in
Australia, 16, 3–8. Retrieved from http://mediros.
com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/NPTIG-e-
journal-16.pdf
Rossouw, P. J. (2013, November/December). The
neuroscience of talking therapies: Implications
for therapeutic practice. Neuropsychotherapy in
Australia, 24, 3–13. Retrieved from http://www.
mediros.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/E-
Journal-Neuropsychotherapy-in-Australia-Edi-
tion-24.pdf
Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a digital world: Global
perspectives on technology and education. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sheline, Y. I., Mittler, B. L., & Mintun, M. A. (2002).
The hippocampus and depression [Supplemental
material]. European Psychiatry, 17, 300–305.
Siegel, D. J. (2010). The mindful therapist: A clini-
cian’s guide to mindsight and neural integration.
New York, NY: Norton.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopti-
con? The hidden power in computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research, 21,
427–459.
Suomi, S. J. (1999). Attachment in rhesus monkeys.
In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applica-
tions (pp. 181–197). New York, NY: Guilford.
Valcour, P. M., & Hunter, L. W. (2005). Technology,
organizations, and work-life integration. In E. E.
Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life in-
tegration: Organizational, cultural and individual
perspectives (pp. 61–84). Mahwah, NJ: L a w -
rence Erlbaum.
Weil, M. M., & Rosen, L. D. (1998). TechnoStress:
Coping with technology @work @home @play.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Yuan, T-F., & Ho, R. (2008). Mirror neuron system
based therapy for emotional disorders. Medical
Hypotheses, 71, 722–726.
Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., & Carlson, E.
(2005). Attachment in institutionalized and com-
munity children in Romania. Child Development,
76, 1015–1028.
58
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Appendix A
Questionnaire
WELCOME TO THE COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS AND TECHNOLOGY QUESTIONNAIRE
Both you AND your partner will need to participate in this questionnaire in order for data to be collated.
You can complete the questionnaire at a dierent time or dayto your partner. Simply click on the link when
either one of you is ready to begin the questionnaire.
e questionnaire will take approximately 10-15 mins to complete.
ank you for your participation in this study ‘Couple Relationships and Technology Use’
Before Completing this survey, please choose a number between 1 -100 and a single letter of the alphabet
(e.g. 26J). is will be your anonymous ‘couple code’ that both you and your partner will need to specify.
CODE NAME (your code name will be the same as your partners):
What is your Gender?
cMale (1)
cFemale (2)
cInter-sex (3)
What year were you born?
How long have you been with your partner?
cClick to write Choice 1 (1)
cClick to write Choice 2 (2)
cClick to write Choice 3 (3)
cClick to write Choice 4 (4)
cClick to write Choice 5 (5)
cClick to write Choice 6 (6)
cClick to write Choice 7 (7)
cClick to write Choice 8 (8)
cClick to write Choice 9 (9)
cClick to write Choice 10 (10)
What is your occupation?
Do you work with your partner?
cYes (1)
cNo (2)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
59
In terms of your relationship, how oen would you agree on:
Always
disagree
(1)
Almost
always
disagree
(2)
Frequently
disagree (3)
Occasionally
disagree (4)
Almost
always
agree (5)
Always
agree (6)
Amount of me
spent together (1)
Maers of
recreaon (2)
Handling family/
relaonship
nances (3)
Aims, goals, and
things believed to
be important (4)
Making minor
decisions (5)
Making major
decision (6)
Household tasks
(7)
Leisure me
interest and
acvies (8)
Career decisions
(9)
Amount of me
being inmate
together (10)
How oen do you:
Never (1) Rarely (2) Occasionally
(3)
More oen
than not (4)
Most of the
me (5)
All the me
(6)
Conde in
your partner
(1)
Have a
quarrel with
your partner
(2)
Show
aecon to
your partner
(3)
Compliment
your partner
(4)
Listen to
your partner
(5)
Share ideas
(6)
Laugh
together (7)
Work on
a project
together (8)
Feel too
red for sex
(9)
60
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Do you feel:
Never (1) Rarely (2) Occasionally
(3)
More oen
than not
(4)
Most of
the me
(5)
All the
me (6)
Respected by your partner
(1)
Aracve to your partner (2)
Aracted to your partner (3)
Supported by your partner
(4)
You are in a ‘team’ with your
partner (5)
Challenged by your partner
(6)
Angry or frustrated with your
partner (7)
You want your relaonship to
improve (8)
Sased with your sex life (9)
Sased with the amount of
me spent together (10)
Sased with the
communicaon between you
and your partner (11)
Your partner aends to you
when you need (12)
Your partner focuses on you
when you are speaking (13)
Listened and heard by your
partner (14)
Relaxed and calm with
partner (15)
Vulnerable with your partner
(16)
Sased with your
relaonship overall (17)
e next section outlines your use of technology and how you perceive your partner’s use of technology
Do you use technology everyday?
cYes (1)
cNo (2)
What do you mainly use the Internet for?
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
61
Which of the following doYOU use?
Very Seldom
(1)
Rarely (2) Some mes
(3)
Oen (4) Very Oen (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
When using your smart phone/mobile phone, on an average day how much time wouldYOU spend:
0 - 30
mins (1)
30 mins -
1 hr (2)
1 hr - 2
hrs (3)
2 hrs - 3
hrs (4)
3 hrs - 4
hrs (5)
4 hrs- 5
hrs (6)
5 hrs -
and over
(7)
Talking (1)
Tex-ng
(2)
Browsing
the
Internet
(3)
Being on
face-book
(4)
Other
(please
specify)
(5)
In general, how quickly do you respond to your phone?
cImmediately (1)
cAs soon as possible (2)
cAt dedicated times (3)
cEvery few days (4)
cHardly ever (5)
In general, how quickly do you respond to your emails?
cImmediately (1)
cAs soon as possible (2)
cAt dedicated times (3)
cEvery few days (4)
cHardly ever (5)
62
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?
Very Seldom
(1)
Rarely (2) Some mes
(3)
Oen (4) Very Oen (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
specify) (5)
When using a smart phone/mobile phone, on an average day how much timedo youbelieve YOUR
PARTNER spends:
0 - 30
mins (1)
30 mins -
1 hr (2)
1 hr - 2
hrs (3)
2 hrs - 3
hrs (4)
3 hrs - 4
hrs (5)
4 hrs- 5
hrs (6)
5 hrs -
and over
(7)
Talking (1)
Tex-ng
(2)
Browsing
the
Internet
(3)
Being on
face-book
(4)
Other
(please
specify)
(5)
In general, how quickly do you believe YOUR PARTNER responds totheir phone?
cImmediately (1)
cAs soon as possible (2)
cAt dedicated times (3)
cEvery few days (4)
cHardly ever (5)
In general, how quickly do you believe YOUR PARTNER responds totheir emails?
cImmediately (1)
cAs soon as possible (2)
cAt dedicated times (3)
cEvery few days (4)
cHardly ever (5)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
63
On an average day, how many hours would you spend usingthe followingFOR WORK purposes?
0-30 mins
(1)
30 mins - 1
hr (2)
1 - 2 hrs (3) 2-3 hrs (4) 3 -4 hrs (5) 5 hrs - and
over (6)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (please
specify) (5)
On an average day, how many hours would you spend using the following NOT FOR WORK purposes?
0 - 30 mins
(1)
30 mins - 1
hr (2)
1 - 2 hrs (3) 2 -3 hrs (4) 3 - 4 hrs (5) 5 hrs - and
over (6)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
specify) (5)
On an average day, how many hours do younotice YOUR PARTNER using the following FOR WORK
purposes?
0 - 30 mins
(1)
30 mins - 1
hr (2)
1 - 2 hrs (3) 2 - 3 hrs (4) 3 - 4 hrs (5) 5 hrs - and
over (6)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
On an average day, how many hours do you notice YOUR PARTNER using the following NOT FOR
WORK purposes?
0 - 30 mins
(1)
30 mins - 1
hr (2)
1 - 2 hrs (3) 2 - 3 hrs (4) 3 -4 hrs (5) 5 hrs - and
over (6)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
64
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
What is it like for you using technology while being in the presence of your partner?
I tend to be
uncomfortable
(1)
I am
somewhat
uncomfortable
with it (2)
I am okay
with it (3)
I am
somewhat
comfortable
with it (4)
I tend to be
comfortable
with it (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
What is it like for you when YOUR PARTNER uses technology while in your presence?
I tend to be
uncomfortable
(1)
I am
somewhat
uncomfortable
with it (2)
I am okay
with it (3)
I am
somewhat
comfortable
with it (4)
I tend to be
comfortable
with it (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
How oen do you use technology WITH your partner (e.g. watching television together, reading emails
together etc)?
Never (1) Not usually (2) Somemes (3) Most of the
me (4)
Always (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
When using technology together such as watching television, do you interact and engage with your
partner?
Never (1) Not usually (2) Somemes (3) Most of the
me (4)
Always (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
65
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while engaging in technology (e.g. watching television
while holding hands, sitting close, sharing an idea, and/or showing aection)?
I never feel
close (1)
I don’t usually
feel close (2)
I somemes
feel close (3)
I feel close (4) I feel very
close (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
How oen do you use technology separately from your partner while being physically together with
your partner (e.g. reading text messages while eating dinner, watching television while in the middle of a
discussion)?
Never (1) Not usually (2) Somemes (3) Most of the
me (4)
Always (5)
Television (1)
Smart phone/
mobile phone
(2)
Computer (3)
Laptop (4)
Other (Please
Specify) (5)
Appendix B
Debrief and Information Sheet
School of Psychology
ank you for your Participation
ank you for your participation in this study. Your participation in this study is valuable in exploring the
dynamics within current couple relationships. Information from this study can assist with helping individuals
to explore and improve on their relationships with their partners. Your input also assists the researcher to fur-
ther explore how technology use can enhance or hinder the quality of relationships
If you are interested in the nal research ndings, you can contact the researcher Christina Nguyen at Chris-
tina.nguyen@uq.net.au.
Should there be any concerns, discomfort, or questions arising from the completion of this questionnaire,
please contact the researcher, or refer to the list of support services. You are encouraged to access any of the
services if there is a raised concern that you wish to address.
Relationships Australia: www.relationships.org.au
Headspace: www.headspace.org.au
Lifeline: www.lifeline.org.au 13 11 14
66
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
UQ counselling support: ss@uq.edu.au (07) 3365 1702 (Only available if you are a student at UQ)
Kids Helpline: www.kidshelp.com.au 1800 55 1800
Parentline: www.parentline.com.au 1300 30 1300
Many thanks for your participation in this study
Christina Nguyen
UQ student researcher
Appendix C
SPSS Syntax and Outputs
SYNTAX
* Frequencies for length of relationship and technology use of self and partner.
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1.
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=length_relationship tech_typeU_tv tech_typeU_mob tech_typeU_comp
tech_typeU_lap tech_typeP_tv tech_typeP_mob tech_typeP_comp tech_typeP_lap
/NTILES=4
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM SEMEAN MEAN MEDIAN
MODE SUM SKEWNESS SESKEW
KURTOSIS SEKURT
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
* Test for Normality
EXAMINE VARIABLES=PartnerAgree RelationPercept Use_interact_tv Use_interact_mob Use_interact_
comp
Use_interact_lap feel_close_tv feel_close_mob feel_close_comp feel_close_lap use_sep_tog_tv
use_sep_tog_mob use_sep_tog_comp use_sep_tog_lap
/PLOT BOXPLOT NPPLOT
/COMPARE GROUPS
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/CINTERVAL 95
/MISSING LISTWISE
/NOTOTAL.
*Descriptives/Frequencies for all 14 variables
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
67
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=length_relationship tech_typeU_tv tech_typeU_mob tech_typeU_comp
tech_typeU_lap tech_typeP_tv tech_typeP_mob tech_typeP_comp tech_typeP_lap
/NTILES=4
/STATISTICS=STDDEV VARIANCE RANGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM SEMEAN MEAN MEDIAN
MODE SUM SKEWNESS SESKEW
KURTOSIS SEKURT
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
*Correlations for all 14 variables
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=PartnerAgree RelationPercept Use_interact_tv Use_interact_mob Use_interact_comp
Use_interact_lap feel_close_tv feel_close_mob feel_close_comp feel_close_lap use_sep_tog_tv
use_sep_tog_mob use_sep_tog_comp use_sep_tog_lap
/PRINT=TWOTAIL NOSIG
/STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
/MISSING=PAIRWISE.
OUTPUTS
Frequencies
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Stina\Desktop\Psychology\esis\Results and Stats\thesis working db v5.sav
Statistics
How
long have
you been
with your
partner?
Which of the
following do
YOU use?-
Television
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Smart
phone/
mobile
phone
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Computer
Which of the
following do
YOU use?-
Laptop/tablet
Which of the
following
does YOUR
PARTNER
use?-
Television
Which of the
following
does YOUR
PARTNER
use?-Smart
phone/mobile
phone
Which of the
following
does YOUR
PARTNER
use?-
Computer
Which of the
following
does YOUR
PARTNER
use?-Laptop/
tablet
NValid 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 6.29 3.36 4.69 3.79 3.90 3.14 4.43 3.38 3.69
Std. Error of
Mean .469 .198 .080 .203 .159 .203 .133 .196 .182
Median 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.50 4.00
Mode 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 3a5
Std.
Deviation 3.039 1.284 .517 1.317 1.031 1.317 .859 1.268 1.179
Variance 9.233 1.650 .268 1.733 1.064 1.735 .739 1.607 1.390
Skewness .059 -.573 -1.398 -.728 -1.202 -.410 -1.462 -.473 -.576
Std. Error of
Skewness .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365
Kurtosis -1.201 -.574 1.078 -.661 1.507 -.868 1.391 -.620 -.510
Std. Error of
Kurtosis .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717
Range 10 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 4
Minimum 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1
Maximum 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Sum 264 141 197 159 164 132 186 142 155
25 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.75 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
50 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.50 4.00
75 9.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
a. Multiple modes exist. e smallest value is shown
68
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Frequency Table
How long have you been with your partner?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0-1 years 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
2-3 years 10 23.8 23.8 28.6
3-4 years 4 9.5 9.5 38.1
4-5 years 1 2.4 2.4 40.5
5-6 years 5 11.9 11.9 52.4
6-7 years 2 4.8 4.8 57.1
7-8 years 7 16.7 16.7 73.8
8-9 years 5 11.9 11.9 85.7
10 years or more 6 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Television
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 6 14.3 14.3 14.3
Rarely 3 7.1 7.1 21.4
Some times 11 26.2 26.2 47.6
Often 14 33.3 33.3 81.0
Very Often 8 19.0 19.0 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Smart phone/mobile phone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Some times 1 2.4 2.4 2.4
Often 11 26.2 26.2 28.6
Very Often 30 71.4 71.4 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Computer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 3 7.1 7.1 7.1
Rarely 5 11.9 11.9 19.0
Some times 8 19.0 19.0 38.1
Often 8 19.0 19.0 57.1
Very Often 18 42.9 42.9 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Laptop/tablet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Rarely 2 4.8 4.8 9.5
Some times 6 14.3 14.3 23.8
Often 20 47.6 47.6 71.4
Very Often 12 28.6 28.6 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Television
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 8 19.0 19.0 19.0
Rarely 3 7.1 7.1 26.2
Some times 12 28.6 28.6 54.8
Often 13 31.0 31.0 85.7
Very Often 6 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Smart phone/mobile phone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Rarely 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Some times 4 9.5 9.5 14.3
Often 10 23.8 23.8 38.1
Very Often 26 61.9 61.9 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
69
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Computer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 5 11.9 11.9 11.9
Rarely 4 9.5 9.5 21.4
Some times 12 28.6 28.6 50.0
Often 12 28.6 28.6 78.6
Very Often 9 21.4 21.4 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Laptop/tablet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Rarely 5 11.9 11.9 16.7
Some times 10 23.8 23.8 40.5
Often 12 28.6 28.6 69.0
Very Often 13 31.0 31.0 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Explore
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Stina\Desktop\Psychology\esis\Results and Stats\thesis working db v5.sav
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Extent of agreement with
partner (average of 10
“agreement” questions)
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
Perception of relationship
(mean of 16 relationship
feel andrelationship sat
questions)
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Television
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Computer
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Laptop/tablet
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Television
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
70
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Smart
phone/mobile phone
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Computer
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Laptop/
tablet
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Television
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Computer
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Laptop/tablet
35 83.3% 7 16.7% 42 100.0%
Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Extent of agreement with
partner (average of 10
“agreement” questions)
Mean 5.9000 .09294
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 5.7111
Upper Bound 6.0889
5% Trimmed Mean 5.9135
Median 6.0000
Variance .302
Std. Deviation .54987
Minimum 4.40
Maximum 6.90
Range 2.50
Interquartile Range .60
Skewness -.428 .398
Kurtosis .544 .778
Perception of relationship
(mean of 16 relationship
feel andrelationship sat
questions)
Mean 4.1214 .05882
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 4.0019
Upper Bound 4.2410
5% Trimmed Mean 4.1260
Median 4.1875
Variance .121
Std. Deviation .34797
Minimum 3.50
Maximum 4.69
Range 1.19
Interquartile Range .56
Skewness -.301 .398
Kurtosis -.934 .778
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
71
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Television
Mean 3.60 .117
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 3.36
Upper Bound 3.84
5% Trimmed Mean 3.61
Median 4.00
Variance .482
Std. Deviation .695
Minimum 2
Maximum 5
Range 3
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness -.380 .398
Kurtosis .160 .778
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
Mean 3.09 .144
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.79
Upper Bound 3.38
5% Trimmed Mean 3.10
Median 3.00
Variance .728
Std. Deviation .853
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness -.170 .398
Kurtosis -.033 .778
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Computer
Mean 2.97 .176
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.61
Upper Bound 3.33
5% Trimmed Mean 2.97
Median 3.00
Variance 1.087
Std. Deviation 1.043
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 2
Skewness -.270 .398
Kurtosis -.088 .778
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Laptop/tablet
Mean 3.09 .155
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.77
Upper Bound 3.40
5% Trimmed Mean 3.10
Median 3.00
Variance .845
Std. Deviation .919
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness -.177 .398
Kurtosis .509 .778
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Television
Mean 3.91 .119
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 3.67
Upper Bound 4.16
5% Trimmed Mean 3.94
Median 4.00
Variance .492
Std. Deviation .702
Minimum 2
Maximum 5
Range 3
Interquartile Range 0
Skewness -.422 .398
Kurtosis .574 .778
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Smart
phone/mobile phone
Mean 2.71 .167
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.38
Upper Bound 3.05
5% Trimmed Mean 2.68
Median 3.00
Variance .975
Std. Deviation .987
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness .623 .398
Kurtosis .022 .778
72
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Computer
Mean 2.51 .166
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.18
Upper Bound 2.85
5% Trimmed Mean 2.48
Median 2.00
Variance .963
Std. Deviation .981
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness .354 .398
Kurtosis -.047 .778
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Laptop/
tablet
Mean 2.77 .174
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.42
Upper Bound 3.13
5% Trimmed Mean 2.75
Median 3.00
Variance 1.064
Std. Deviation 1.031
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 2
Skewness .490 .398
Kurtosis -.484 .778
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Television
Mean 2.26 .166
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 1.92
Upper Bound 2.59
5% Trimmed Mean 2.20
Median 2.00
Variance .961
Std. Deviation .980
Minimum 1
Maximum 5
Range 4
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness .635 .398
Kurtosis .443 .778
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
Mean 2.71 .127
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 2.46
Upper Bound 2.97
5% Trimmed Mean 2.74
Median 3.00
Variance .563
Std. Deviation .750
Minimum 1
Maximum 4
Range 3
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness -.353 .398
Kurtosis .140 .778
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Computer
Mean 1.94 .164
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 1.61
Upper Bound 2.28
5% Trimmed Mean 1.88
Median 2.00
Variance .938
Std. Deviation .968
Minimum 1
Maximum 4
Range 3
Interquartile Range 2
Skewness .738 .398
Kurtosis -.400 .778
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Laptop/tablet
Mean 2.20 .147
95% Condence Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound 1.90
Upper Bound 2.50
5% Trimmed Mean 2.17
Median 2.00
Variance .753
Std. Deviation .868
Minimum 1
Maximum 4
Range 3
Interquartile Range 1
Skewness .447 .398
Kurtosis -.232 .778
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
73
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-SmirnovaShapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Extent of agreement with
partner (average of 10
“agreement” questions)
.101 35 .200*.975 35 .610
Perception of relationship
(mean of 16 relationship
feel andrelationship sat
questions)
.109 35 .200*.949 35 .108
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Television
.318 35 .000 .817 35 .000
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
.231 35 .000 .888 35 .002
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Computer
.254 35 .000 .897 35 .003
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do you
interact and engage wit...-
Laptop/tablet
.263 35 .000 .886 35 .002
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Television
.320 35 .000 .816 35 .000
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Smart
phone/mobile phone
.251 35 .000 .877 35 .001
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Computer
.214 35 .000 .902 35 .004
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g.,
watching televi...-Laptop/
tablet
.258 35 .000 .881 35 .001
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Television
.232 35 .000 .879 35 .001
74
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
.305 35 .000 .840 35 .000
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Computer
.235 35 .000 .825 35 .000
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with yo...-
Laptop/tablet
.277 35 .000 .860 35 .000
*. This is a lower bound of the true signicance.
a. Lilliefors Signicance Correction
Extent of agreement with partner (average of 10 “agreement” questions)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
75
76
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Perception of relationship (mean of 16 relationship feel andrelationship sat questions)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
77
When using technology together such as watching television, how oen do you interact and engage
wit...-Television
78
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
79
When using technology together such as watching television, how oen do you interact and engage
wit...-Smart phone/mobile phone
80
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
When using technology together such as watching television, how oen do you interact and engage
wit...-Computer
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
81
82
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
When using technology together such as watching television, how oen do you interact and engage
wit...-Laptop/tablet
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
83
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while engaging in technology (e.g., watching tele-
vi...-Television
84
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
85
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while engaging in technology (e.g., watching tele-
vi...-Smart phone/mobile phone
86
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while engaging in technology (e.g., watching tele-
vi...-Computer
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
87
88
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while engaging in technology (e.g., watching tele-
vi...-Laptop/tablet
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
89
How oen do you use technology separately from your partner while being physically together with
yo...-Television
90
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
91
How oen do you use technology separately from your partner while being physically together with
yo...-Smart phone/mobile phone
92
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
How oen do you use technology separately from your partner while being physically together with
yo...-Computer
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
93
94
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
How oen do you use technology separately from your partner while being physically together with
yo...-Laptop/tablet
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
95
Frequencies
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Stina\Desktop\Psychology\esis\Results and Stats\thesis working db v5.sav
Statistics
How
long have
you been
with your
partner?
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Smart
phone/
mobile
phone
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Which
of the
following
do YOU
use?-
Laptop/
tablet
Which
of the
following
does
YOUR
Which
of the
following
does
YOUR
Which
of the
following
does
YOUR
Which
of the
following
does
YOUR
NValid 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Missing 000000000
Mean 6.29 3.36 4.69 3.79 3.90 3.14 4.43 3.38 3.69
Std. Error of
Mean .469 .198 .080 .203 .159 .203 .133 .196 .182
Median 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.50 4.00
Mode 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 3a5
Std.
Deviation 3.039 1.284 .517 1.317 1.031 1.317 .859 1.268 1.179
Variance 9.233 1.650 .268 1.733 1.064 1.735 .739 1.607 1.390
Skewness .059 -.573 -1.398 -.728 -1.202 -.410 -1.462 -.473 -.576
Std. Error of
Skewness .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365 .365
Kurtosis -1.201 -.574 1.078 -.661 1.507 -.868 1.391 -.620 -.510
Std. Error of
Kurtosis .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717 .717
Range 1042444344
Minimum 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1
Maximum 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Sum 264 141 197 159 164 132 186 142 155
25 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.75 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
50 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.50 4.00
75 9.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
a. Multiple modes exist. e smallest value is shown
96
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Frequency Table
How long have you been with your partner?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
0-1 years 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
2-3 years 10 23.8 23.8 28.6
3-4 years 4 9.5 9.5 38.1
4-5 years 1 2.4 2.4 40.5
5-6 years 5 11.9 11.9 52.4
6-7 years 2 4.8 4.8 57.1
7-8 years 7 16.7 16.7 73.8
8-9 years 5 11.9 11.9 85.7
10 years or more 6 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Television
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 6 14.3 14.3 14.3
Rarely 3 7.1 7.1 21.4
Some times 11 26.2 26.2 47.6
Often 14 33.3 33.3 81.0
Very Often 8 19.0 19.0 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Smart phone/mobile phone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Some times 1 2.4 2.4 2.4
Often 11 26.2 26.2 28.6
Very Often 30 71.4 71.4 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Computer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 3 7.1 7.1 7.1
Rarely 5 11.9 11.9 19.0
Some times 8 19.0 19.0 38.1
Often 8 19.0 19.0 57.1
Very Often 18 42.9 42.9 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following do YOU use?-Laptop/tablet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Rarely 2 4.8 4.8 9.5
Some times 6 14.3 14.3 23.8
Often 20 47.6 47.6 71.4
Very Often 12 28.6 28.6 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Television
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 8 19.0 19.0 19.0
Rarely 3 7.1 7.1 26.2
Some times 12 28.6 28.6 54.8
Often 13 31.0 31.0 85.7
Very Often 6 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Smart phone/mobile phone
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Rarely 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Some times 4 9.5 9.5 14.3
Often 10 23.8 23.8 38.1
Very Often 26 61.9 61.9 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
97
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Computer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 5 11.9 11.9 11.9
Rarely 4 9.5 9.5 21.4
Some times 12 28.6 28.6 50.0
Often 12 28.6 28.6 78.6
Very Often 9 21.4 21.4 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Which of the following does YOUR PARTNER use?-Laptop/tablet
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very Seldom 2 4.8 4.8 4.8
Rarely 5 11.9 11.9 16.7
Some times 10 23.8 23.8 40.5
Often 12 28.6 28.6 69.0
Very Often 13 31.0 31.0 100.0
Total 42 100.0 100.0
Correlations
[DataSet1] C:\Users\Stina\Desktop\Psychology\esis\Results and Stats\thesis working db v5.sav
Descriptive StatisticsMean Std. Deviation N
Extent of agreement with partner (average of 10
“agreement” questions) 5.9471 .53391 42
Perception of relationship (mean of 16 relationship feel
andrelationship sat questions) 4.1667 .34994 42
When using technology together such as watching
television, how often do you interact and engage wit...-
Television 3.68 .722 41
When using technology together such as watching
television, how often do you interact and engage wit...-
Smart phone/mobile phone 3.12 .872 41
When using technology together such as watching
television, how often do you interact and engage wit...-
Computer 2.98 1.097 40
When using technology together such as watching
television, how often do you interact and engage wit...-
Laptop/tablet 3.03 .947 40
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g., watching televi...-Television 3.98 .689 41
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g., watching televi...-Smart
phone/mobile phone 2.76 .994 41
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g., watching televi...-Computer 2.56 1.071 39
To what extent do you feel close to your partner while
engaging in technology (e.g., watching televi...-Laptop/tablet 2.82 1.048 39
How often do you use technology separately from your
partner while being physically together with yo...-Television 2.34 .938 41
How often do you use technology separately from your
partner while being physically together with yo...-Smart
phone/mobile phone 2.71 .742 42
How often do you use technology separately from your
partner while being physically together with yo...-Computer 1.95 .947 41
How often do you use technology separately from your
partner while being physically together with yo...-Laptop/
tablet
2.24 .860 41
98
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
Correlations
Extent of
agreement
with partner
(average of
10 “agree
ment”
questions)
Perception
of
relationship
(mean of 16
relationship
feel and
relationship
sat
questions)
When using
technology
together
such as
watching
television,
how often
do you
interact
and engage
wit...-
Television
When using
technology
together
such as
watching
television,
how often
do you
interact
and engage
wit...-Smart
phone/
mobile
phone
When using
technology
together
such as
watching
television,
how often
do you
interact
and engage
wit...-
Computer
When using
technology
together
such as
watching
television,
how often
do you
interact
and engage
wit...-
Laptop/
tablet
To what
extent do
you feel
close to
your partner
while
engaging in
technology
(e.g.,
watching
televi...-
Television
To what
extent do
you feel
close to
your partner
while
engaging in
technology
(e.g.,
watching
televi...-
Smart
phone/
mobile
phone
To what
extent do
you feel
close to
your partner
while
engaging in
technology
(e.g.,
watching
televi...-
Computer
To what
extent do
you feel
close to
your partner
while
engaging in
technology
(e.g.,
watching
televi...-
Laptop/
tablet
How often
do you use
technology
separately
from your
partner
while being
physically
together
with yo...-
Television
How often
do you use
technology
separately
from your
partner
while being
physically
together
with yo...-
Smart
phone/
mobile
phone
How often
do you use
technology
separately
from your
partner
while being
physically
together
with yo...-
Computer
How often
do you use
technology
separately
from your
partner
while being
physically
together
with yo...-
Laptop/
tablet
Extent of agreement with
partner (average of 10
“agreement” questions)
Pearson
Correlation 1 .560** .430** .289 .376*.341*.366*.331*.302 .342*-.117 -.205 -.021 -.137
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .005 .067 .017 .031 .019 .034 .062 .033 .466 .192 .897 .393
N 42 42 41 41 40 40 41 41 39 39 41 42 41 41
Perception of relationship
(mean of 16 relationship
feel andrelationship sat
questions)
Pearson
Correlation .560** 1 .515** .357*.370*.308 .633** .360*.498** .426** .137 .106 -.017 -.394*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .022 .019 .053 .000 .021 .001 .007 .393 .505 .917 .011
N 42 42 41 41 40 40 41 41 39 39 41 42 41 41
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do
you interact and engage
wit...-Television
Pearson
Correlation .430** .515** 1 .420** .507** .464** .336*.203 .429** .193 .237 -.008 .233 -.147
Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .001 .006 .001 .003 .032 .203 .006 .245 .135 .958 .143 .364
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do
you interact and engage
wit...-Smart phone/mobile
phone
Pearson
Correlation .289 .357*.420** 1.727** .716** .088 .583** .403*.560** -.205 -.155 -.114 -.242
Sig. (2-tailed) .067 .022 .006 .000 .000 .583 .000 .011 .000 .198 .333 .479 .132
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do
you interact and engage
wit...-Computer
Pearson
Correlation .376*.370*.507** .727** 1 .597** .066 .250 .536** .406*-.215 -.273 .197 -.265
Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .019 .001 .000 .000 .685 .120 .000 .013 .184 .089 .224 .103
N 40 40 40 40 40 38 40 40 39 37 40 40 40 39
When using technology
together such as watching
television, how often do
you interact and engage
wit...-Laptop/tablet
Pearson
Correlation .341*.308 .464** .716** .597** 1 .127 .413** .281 .526** -.038 -.311 -.141 -.258
Sig. (2-tailed) .031 .053 .003 .000 .000 .441 .009 .092 .001 .820 .051 .391 .107
N 40 40 39 39 38 40 39 39 37 38 39 40 39 40
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology
(e.g., watching televi...-
Television
Pearson
Correlation .366*.633** .336*.088 .066 .127 1 .429** .437** .353*.245 .143 .075 -.196
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .000 .032 .583 .685 .441 .005 .005 .030 .122 .372 .642 .226
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology
(e.g., watching televi...-
Smart phone/mobile phone
Pearson
Correlation .331*.360*.203 .583** .250 .413** .429** 1 .536** .828** .038 .020 .014 -.103
Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .021 .203 .000 .120 .009 .005 .000 .000 .814 .900 .933 .529
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology
(e.g., watching televi...-
Computer
Pearson
Correlation .302 .498** .429** .403*.536** .281 .437** .536** 1 .665** .187 .022 .263 -.189
Sig. (2-tailed) .062 .001 .006 .011 .000 .092 .005 .000 .000 .254 .894 .105 .255
N 39 39 39 39 39 37 39 39 39 36 39 39 39 38
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOTHERAPY Volume 2 Issue 1 (2014)
99
To what extent do you feel
close to your partner while
engaging in technology
(e.g., watching televi...-
Laptop/tablet
Pearson
Correlation .342*.426** .193 .560** .406*.526** .353*.828** .665** 1 .085 -.071 -.057 -.036
Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .007 .245 .000 .013 .001 .030 .000 .000 .612 .669 .733 .830
N 39 39 38 38 37 38 38 38 36 39 38 39 38 39
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with
yo...-Television
Pearson
Correlation -.117 .137 .237 -.205 -.215 -.038 .245 .038 .187 .085 1 .435** .300 .429**
Sig. (2-tailed) .466 .393 .135 .198 .184 .820 .122 .814 .254 .612 .004 .056 .006
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with
yo...-Smart phone/mobile
phone
Pearson
Correlation -.205 .106 -.008 -.155 -.273 -.311 .143 .020 .022 -.071 .435** 1 .397*.463**
Sig. (2-tailed) .192 .505 .958 .333 .089 .051 .372 .900 .894 .669 .004 .010 .002
N 42 42 41 41 40 40 41 41 39 39 41 42 41 41
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with
yo...-Computer
Pearson
Correlation -.021 -.017 .233 -.114 .197 -.141 .075 .014 .263 -.057 .300 .397*1 .415**
Sig. (2-tailed) .897 .917 .143 .479 .224 .391 .642 .933 .105 .733 .056 .010 .008
N 41 41 41 41 40 39 41 41 39 38 41 41 41 40
How often do you use
technology separately from
your partner while being
physically together with
yo...-Laptop/tablet
Pearson
Correlation -.137 -.394*-.147 -.242 -.265 -.258 -.196 -.103 -.189 -.036 .429** .463** .415** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .393 .011 .364 .132 .103 .107 .226 .529 .255 .830 .006 .002 .008
N 41 41 40 40 39 40 40 40 38 39 40 41 40 41
**. Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
