Content uploaded by Brandon T McDaniel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brandon T McDaniel on Dec 09, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
1
FINAL PEER-REVIEWED AUTHOR COPY
CITATION:
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). "Technoference": The interference of technology in
couple relationships and implications for women's personal and relational well-being.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000065
Link to article online: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ppm0000065
APA required statement:
"This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not
the copy of record."
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
2
“Technoference”: The Interference of Technology in Couple Relationships and Implications for
Women’s Personal and Relational Well-Being
Date Submitted: October 25, 2013
Date Accepted: October 29, 2014
Brandon T. McDaniel
The Pennsylvania State University
Sarah M. Coyne
Brigham Young University
Correspondence should be addressed to Brandon T. McDaniel, 314 BBH Bldg., University Park,
PA 16802. Email: bom5123@psu.edu
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
3
Abstract
Technology use has proliferated in family life; everyday intrusions and interruptions due to
technology devices, which we term “technoference,” will likely occur. We examine the
frequency of technoference in romantic relationships and whether these everyday interruptions
relate to women’s personal and relational well-being. Participants were 143 married/cohabiting
women who completed an online questionnaire. The majority perceived that technology devices
(such as computers, cell or smartphones, or television) frequently interrupted their interactions,
such as couple leisure time, conversations, and mealtimes, with their partners. Overall,
participants who rated more technoference in their relationships also reported more conflict over
technology use, lower relationship satisfaction, more depressive symptoms, and lower life
satisfaction. We tested a structural equation model of technoference predicting conflict over
technology use, which then predicted relationship satisfaction, which finally predicted depression
and life satisfaction. By allowing technology to interfere with or interrupt conversations,
activities, and time with romantic partners—even when unintentional or for brief moments—
individuals may be sending implicit messages about what they value most, leading to conflict
and negative outcomes in personal life and relationships.
Keywords: media use, technology use, couple relationships, relationship quality,
depression
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 4
“Technoference”: The Interference of Technology in Couple Relationships and Implications for
Women’s Personal and Relational Well-Being
In recent years, there has been an explosion of technology use in everyday family life.
Almost all adults in the United States have access to the Internet, with 65% or more having
access at home (Smith, 2010). Approximately 91% of American adults own a cell phone (with
81% of 25- to 34-year-olds owning a smartphone), 61% have a laptop, 50% of parents in the
United States have a tablet, and 72% of online adults now have a social networking site profile
(Brenner & Smith, 2013; Lenhart et al., 2011; Pew, 2012; Rainie, 2012; Smith, 2013; Zickuhr,
2013). With so many technology devices in and around family life, brief interruptions will likely
occur due to these devices. We term these interruptions technoference, which we define as
everyday intrusions or interruptions in couple interactions or time spent together that occur due
to technology. Technoference can occur in any type of interpersonal relationship and may range
from interruptions in face-to-face conversations to the feelings of intrusion an individual
experiences when his or her partner decides to check a device during couple leisure, even if
partners were not interacting at that exact moment. The current study focuses on romantic
relationships. Specifically, this paper examines the frequency with which technoference occurs
in romantic relationships and how these interruptions may relate to relationship conflict over
technology use and to women’s relational and personal well-being.
Positive Outcomes of Technology Use
Researchers have begun to examine how technology may help partners and spouses to
connect with each other. Indeed, many interactions take place between partners via computers
and cell phones through email, chat, text messaging, and so forth, and often individuals rate these
interactions as positive in nature. A recent report found that most family members feel that
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 5
technology has had a positive impact on their family life, with only 18% of participants stating it
made their family life worse (Barna Group, 2011). Technology can allow couples to stay
connected throughout the day (Pettigrew, 2009) and to reach out to each other when either
partner experiences stress (Dietmar, 2005). Furthermore, some research suggests that
technology-mediated relationship maintenance may increase commitment, satisfaction
(Sidelinger, Avash, Godorhazy, & Tibbles, 2008), and communication (Coyne, Stockdale,
Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011).
The Intrusion of Technology
Though this research suggests that technology use can be positive in relationships, a few
studies indicate that certain types of technology use may become problematic in romantic
relationships by increasing conflict and leading to poor relationship satisfaction (e.g., Ahlstrom,
Lundberg, Zabriskie, Eggett, & Lindsay, 2012; Coyne et al., 2012; Schade et al., 2013). One
explanation for these negative outcomes may be that technology use becomes intrusive in daily
life and individuals struggle to disconnect from their devices. Research examining pathological
levels of technology use reveals that technology use can be intrusive and can become so
pervasive that individuals begin to experience problems with friends and family members (e.g.,
Elphinstron & Noller, 2011; Gentile, Coyne, & Bricolo, 2013).
Though most individuals do not experience pathological levels of technology use,
evidence suggests that many individuals struggle to control their use and the possible intrusions
of technology into face-to-face interactions; they feel pulled toward their technology and have a
difficult time resisting the urge to check their devices (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Middleton &
Cukier, 2006; Oulasvirta, Rattenbury, Ma, & Raita, 2012; Rainie & Keeter, 2006). In Coyne et
al.’s (2011) sample, 38% of participants reported sending texts or emails during conversations
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 6
with their partners. Another small study found that women felt that their partners were distracted
by their smartphones and that this dynamic negatively impacted their relationship (Czechowsky,
2008; also see Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2005). Indeed, one study estimates that one-
fourth or more of American adults feel like they have to answer their cell phones even if doing so
will interrupt a meal or meeting (Rainie & Keeter, 2006). One individual explained the feeling in
this way: “You really don’t need to check every email you receive, you really don’t, but you feel
like you should if it [the phone] vibrates” (Middleton & Cukier, 2006, p. 255). These studies
suggest that technology can intrude on relationships. In the current study, we extend this research
by examining links between interruptions due to technology devices and technology use and
conflict in relationships, relationship satisfaction, and personal outcomes.
One example of the potentially intrusive nature of ever-present technology comes from
studies of work-to-family spillover. Often, these studies find that the use of cell phones blurs the
boundaries between work and home, leading to increased negative work-to-family spillover,
negative mood, and lower satisfaction with family life (e.g., Chelsey, 2005; Mazmanian et al.,
2005). The blurring of boundaries and effects on family life are likely due to the expectation that
workers respond to email quickly, and they can become stuck in a self-reinforcing loop of
frequently checking their email on their phone (Mazmanian et al., 2005). Workers often express
feeling in control of their technology use and devices, but researchers suggest this feeling of
control is more of an illusion and could better be expressed as “fighting the urge” to check their
device (Middleton & Cukier, 2006, p. 255). Collectively, all of this research suggests that some
types of technology use could be intrusive and interfere with interactions in daily life.
Technoference in Romantic Relationships
In the previous section, we described how technology use can sometimes be problematic
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 7
in relationships as well as some ways that technology can become intrusive and interfere with
interactions between partners. As technology interrupts daily interactions with others, it may
have a detrimental impact on romantic relationships. Popular news outlets sometimes play this
dilemma to the extreme, with one recent piece portraying families as starting their days by
checking their email, Facebook, or other online accounts (Stone, 2009). Such use could affect the
quality of the time that families spend together. Additionally, such use of technology could lend
itself to interruptions in family interactions—for instance, one partner may wish to plan the day,
while the other partner is still checking email. The extent to which technology devices
themselves—such as cell phones, televisions, computers, and tablets—interfere with interactions
between romantic partners has been given little attention in prior research.
To our knowledge, although there are studies that examine problematic technology use
(e.g., Bianchi & Phillips, 2005), there is only one study that has examined aspects similar to
technoference in relationships. Coyne et al. (2011) examined the ways in which romantic couples
use technology. Though the study was not focused on technoference specifically, there was a
single technology use item that asked couples how frequently they connected with others via
technology when interacting with their romantic partner. This behavior was positively related to
overall technology use and, at the bivariate level, was associated with poor relationship
satisfaction. This study does provide some basic support for the idea that technoference can
produce negative outcomes; however, the study was limited in a number of ways. First, it was
measured with a single item and was specific only to connecting with others. We suspect that the
causes of technoference are much more multifaceted than simply connecting with other people.
For example, individuals could be checking email, playing games, watching videos, listening to
music, shopping online, checking the weather, and much more; many brief interruptions could
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 8
also be caused by the technology devices themselves due to lights, sounds, and notifications.
Accordingly we provide a more complete view of technoference in our current study.
Coyne et al. (2011) also only examined relationship satisfaction as an outcome. We build
on this in the current study by also examining a number of other individual outcomes, including
depression and life satisfaction. Most importantly, we examine whether technoference predicts
conflict in the relationship over technology use and whether this conflict accounts for negative
outcomes. Other research has shown that high technology use by itself is not necessarily
problematic in romantic relationships. For example, Coyne et al. (2012) found that time spent
playing video games was not directly related to negative outcomes in romantic relationships.
Instead, it was the presence and amount of conflict over games that caused relationship problems.
As an illustration, there may be no effect on relationship satisfaction in couples where one
partner plays video games for hours each day, until such game play causes conflict and is viewed
as problematic (Coyne et al., 2012). We build on this research and examine whether
technoference increases conflict in relationships and whether this conflict is responsible for any
associations between technoference and negative outcomes in relationship and individual well-
being.
Technology may interfere with the development of face-to-face intimacy in romantic
relationships in two major ways. First, individuals may develop “intimacy” with electronic
devices at the cost of real-life intimacy. Several studies suggest that cell phone users experience
intimacy with their electronic devices through the development of a strong emotional attachment
to their cell phones (e.g., Turner & Turner, 2013; Vincent, Haddon, & Hamill, 2005; Wehmeyer,
2007). Carbonell, Oberst, & Beranuy (2013) explain that mobile devices can entice individuals to
form strong attachments with them due to their inherently gratifying features. Some of these
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 9
features include that mobile devices (1) can help individuals feel valued and loved as they send
and receive messages, (2) are highly personalizable and can become an extension of an
individual’s personality and social position, and (3) are multifunction devices, meaning they can
be used as a phone, map, calculator, clock, music player, gaming system, and so forth in all
aspects of the person’s life. Our relationship with electronic devices allows us to become
increasingly connected with others but may interfere in the development of face-to-face
relationships. Communication becomes truncated on electronic devices, and individuals may
begin to prefer online interactions as opposed to those that are face-to-face (e.g., Rettie, 2007).
Another reason that technology may interfere with the development of face-to-face
intimacy in romantic relationships is that individuals may “multitask” with technology while
interacting with others. Such behavior results in being “alone together,” where couples are
physically together in the same room but the partners are more involved with their separate
technology devices than they are with the other person (Turkle, 2012). As an example, it is now
fairly common to see couples on a date where both are engrossed with their cell phones as
opposed to engaging in meaningful conversation. These situations could be considered moments
of media multitasking, where individuals are attempting to engage with both their partner and
their technology device, and it is quite possible that one partner may feel that the devices are
intruding or interrupting their couple interactions and communication. Indeed, some evidence
suggests that media multitasking negatively affects relationships. For example, Pea et al. (2012)
found that media multitasking was related to reduced face-to-face contact and several negative
social outcomes among 8- to 12-year-old girls, such as difficulty making and keeping friends.
Conversely, face-to-face communication was associated with positive social outcomes. Though
this study was conducted with young girls, the results of this study likely apply to romantic
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 10
situations as well. One partner may use technology at high levels or at times that the other
partner deems inappropriate, such that interference or interruptions occur in their interactions. As
a result, these perceived intrusions into the relationship may then increase conflict and could
negatively influence the individual’s relationship with their partner (Coyne et al., 2012).
Additionally, research on general interruptions in conversations is also informative to the
present study. Interruptions in conversations have been related to perceived problems in the
interaction, including conflict (e.g., Bangerter, Chevalley, & Derouwaux, 2010; Farley, Ashcraft,
Stasson, & Nusbaum, 2010; Hawkins, 1988). Longer interruptions are perceived by partners to
be more problematic than short ones (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006). Furthermore, interruptions in
conversations that are “face threatening,” where only one partner is engaged with the interruption
and the other is kept waiting, are particularly problematic (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Although
technoference can result from problematic or too frequent use of technology by individual
partners, as mentioned earlier, technoference can also result from everyday intrusions that occur
due to the technology itself, such as when someone receives an unexpected text message or other
notification. Therefore, technoference may represent both short and long interruptions in couple
interactions and may also produce a sort of media multitasking, where individuals attempt to
engage with both their technology and their partner. Technoference may be face threatening, as
well, as only one individual is generally engaged with the technology device at the time of the
intrusion, making technology interruptions particularly impactful.
Conceptual Model of Influence of Technoference on Relational and Personal Well-Being
In line with the research in the previous section, we believe that interruptions due to
technology devices (either caused by individual use or by the devices themselves) will increase
the likelihood of relationship conflict specifically over the use of technology. Relationship
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 11
conflict could occur because individuals feel that their relationship is threatened or because they
are frustrated with the interruptions and lack of intimacy the technology use may cause (e.g.,
Turkle, 2012). In prior work, conflict over technology use has been shown to be an important
mediator or mechanism through which technology use influences relationship outcomes (e.g.,
Clayton, 2013). Relationship conflict often spills over into feelings of relationship satisfaction
(e.g., Gottman & Levenson, 1992). This lowered relationship satisfaction occurs because
partners likely become distressed by and have aversive reactions to the increased conflict
(Koerner & Jacobson, 1994), which can lead to cycles of negativity between partners and
possibly withdrawal as they respond to each other’s negative affect and irritation (for a review,
see Fincham, 2003). Conflict can also lead to negative cognitions, especially when partners do
not feel understood and validated (Verhofstadt, Buysse, Ickes, De Clercq, & Peene, 2005).
Thus, as we have seen, conflict can lead to more negative views of one’s romantic partner
and the relationship in general. Then, poor relationship quality has been shown to negatively
influence individuals’ mental health, such as depression, and life satisfaction (Beach, Katz, Kim,
& Brody, 2003; Davila, Karney, Hall, & Bradbury, 2003; Hawkins & Booth, 2005; Horwitz,
McLaughlin, & White, 1998; Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007; Whisman, 2001). One
explanation for the link between relationship quality and personal well-being is the marital
discord model of depression (Beach, Sandeen, & O’Leary, 1990), which suggests that the ability
to cope effectively with life and relationship challenges is reduced because poor relationship
quality simultaneously increases negative interactions and decreases positive interactions
between partners.
Accordingly, it is not always enough to simply measure the frequency of technology use;
studies have specifically found that technology use generally does not always directly predict
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 12
relationship outcomes. Rather, it is when individuals in the relationship view the technology use
as problematic and conflict over technology use arises (Coyne et al., 2012). In the current study,
we examine the relationships among technoference, conflict, and relationship and individual
outcomes. In light of all of the work mentioned previously, we expect everyday interruptions due
to technology in couple interactions to increase conflict over technology use, which will then
lead to further feelings of relationship distress and finally worse perceptions of personal well-
being (marked by greater depressive symptoms and lower life satisfaction). Figure 1 shows our
conceptual model.
The Current Study
The research and theory already mentioned would suggest that technology use can
influence a number of key outcomes in romantic relationships (e.g., Chelsey, 2005; Coyne et al.,
2011; Duran, Kelly, & Rotaru, 2011; Elphinstron & Noller, 2011; Schade et al., 2013; Turkle,
2012). However, this research often focuses on problematic use (such as overuse or addiction-
like behaviors) or simply the amount of use. Although problematic use and overuse can intrude
in relationships, the current study extends this work by specifically examining everyday
technology interruptions. This extension is important, as technology has come to be ever present
in many everyday interactions; therefore, an individual does not necessarily need to have
developed pathological or problematic use in order to experience everyday interruptions due to
technology. For example, intrusions can also be caused by the devices themselves when
individuals receive calls, text messages, or notifications. We also examine whether this
technoference is related to negative outcomes for both relationship and individual well-being.
First, we examined how often women perceived particular technology devices as
interfering with their interactions with their partner. Then we examined their ratings of the
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 13
frequency of some technoference scenarios in everyday life. We expected most of the
participants in our study to experience at least some technoference in their daily lives, since
technology is commonplace in families (Padilla-Walker, Coyne, & Fraser, 2012). We also
examined which devices and scenarios were rated as interfering or occurring most frequently.
Finally, according to our conceptual model, we hypothesized that more frequent technological
interruptions would be related to decreased well-being—marked by lower relationship
satisfaction, lower life satisfaction, and higher levels of depressive symptoms. These associations
would specifically be mediated by relationship conflict over technology use. Specifically, we
expected technoference to be indirectly related to romantic and personal outcomes through a
chain reaction of sorts—greater reported technoference would predict more conflict over
technology use. We then hypothesized that conflict over technology use would predict lower
relationship quality. Finally, we predicted that lower relationship quality would spill over into
lower life satisfaction and higher depressive symptoms. Figure 1 shows our conceptual model.
These outcomes were selected for the current study due to our conceptual model and
because prior work has linked greater technology use in general and problematic technology use
with greater negative mood, depressive symptoms, stress, feelings of loneliness, and lower
satisfaction with relationships and family life (e.g., Ayyagari et al., 2011; Bianchi & Phillips,
2005; Billieux, Van der Linden, & Rochat, 2008; Chelsey, 2005; Takao, Takahashi, & Kitamura,
2009; Thomée, Härenstam, & Hagberg, 2011).
Methods
Participants and Procedure
Participants included 143 married or cohabiting women in heterosexual relationships.
These participants were recruited through emails and fliers posted in local community buildings.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 14
Participants completed an online survey, which assessed Internet use, relational and personal
well-being, and technology interference. The University Institutional Review Board approved
this research. On average, the women were 30.37 years old (SD = 5.22). All were married or
cohabiting (90% married). Most of the women were Caucasian (89%) and had completed some
college (82%). The average household income was $68,000 (SD = $40,000). Many women had
each of the following devices in their homes: cell phone/smartphone (95%), television (90%),
computer (91%), and tablet (58%).
Measures
Technology Device Interference Scale (TDIS). Participants were asked in general how
frequently cell phones/smartphones, television, computers/laptops, and iPads or other tablets get
in the way of or even interrupt interactions that they have with their partners. They rated their
perceptions on a six-point Likert-type scale: 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), 4
(very often), and 5 (all the time). A principal components analysis revealed one factor that
accounted for 54% of the variance, and factor loadings for cell phones/smartphones, television,
computers/laptops, and iPads or other tablets were .78, .77, .81, and .44 respectively. These items
were examined separately as well as combined into an overall average TDIS score, with higher
scores representing more frequent interference in couple relationships (Cronbach’s alpha = .67).
Although the alpha was marginally lower than the typical acceptable cut-off, we expected some
variability within some individuals’ responses across the devices (especially since tablet use is
less common), which likely accounts for the lower alpha.
Technology Interference in Life Examples Scale (TILES). An additional five items
assessed the frequency with which participants experienced some situations in general. These
items included the following:
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 15
1. During a typical mealtime that my partner and I spend together, my partner pulls out and
checks his phone or mobile device.
2. My partner sends texts or emails to others during our face-to-face conversations.
3. When my partner’s phone or mobile device rings or beeps, he pulls it out even if we are
in the middle of a conversation.
4. During leisure time that my partner and I are able to spend together, my partner gets on
his phone, mobile device, or tablet.
5. My partner gets distracted from our conversation by the TV.
Participants rated these items on an eight-point scale: 0 (never), 1 (less than once a week), 2
(once a week), 3 (once every few days), 4 (once a day), 5 (2 to 5 times a day), 6 (6 to 9 times a
day), and 7 (10 or more times a day). A principal components analysis revealed one factor that
accounted for 63% of the variance, and factor loadings for the five items (as listed above) were
.83, .86, .85, .80, and .62 respectively. These items were examined separately and also averaged
to produce an overall TILES score with higher scores representing more frequent interference in
couple interactions and time spent together (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).
Conflict over technology use. Participants completed a modified version of the
frequency of relationship conflict measure, a scale obtained from the RELATE battery (Busby,
Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001). We modified the measure to include eight technology use items,
such as “time spent watching TV,” “time spent talking or texting on cell phone,” and “time spent
on computer.” Participants responded concerning the frequency with which they perceived
conflict over each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Items were
averaged to produce an overall conflict over technology use score with higher scores
representing more frequent conflict (Cronbach’s alpha = .82).
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 16
Depressive symptoms. Participants completed the CES-D (Radloff, 1977), in which they
were asked to rate how often they felt 20 different symptoms during the past week on a four-
point scale ranging from 0 (rarely or none of the time—less than 1 day) to 3 (most or all of the
time—5 to 7 days). Items were summed to produce an overall depression score with higher
scores representing more symptoms (Cronbach’s alpha = .91).
Life satisfaction. Participants’ life satisfaction was measured using one item: “How
satisfied are you with your life in general?” Participants rated their satisfaction on a five-point
scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
Relationship satisfaction. The Quality of Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983) was
utilized to measure participants’ relationship satisfaction. We changed the wording to partner
and to relationship. The first five items, such as “We have a good relationship” and “My
relationship with my partner is very stable,” asked participants to rate their agreement on a
seven-point scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The sixth
item asked participants to rate their overall relationship happiness on a ten-point scale ranging
from 1 (unhappy) to 10 (perfectly happy). We first standardized the items and then averaged
them to produce an overall relationship satisfaction score; higher scores indicate more satisfying
relationships (Cronbach’s alpha = .97).
Results
How Often Does Technology Interfere With Couple Interactions?
Computers were rated as interfering most often in interactions between partners (M =
2.26, SD = 1.27; 74% of participants rated sometimes, often, very often, or all the time on this
item), followed closely by cell phones/smartphones (M = 2.18, SD = 1.29; 70%), television (M =
1.91, SD = 1.24; 71%), and then tablets (M = 1.00, SD = 1.29; 32%). Participants who did not
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 17
own these devices were included in these frequencies. A repeated measures ANOVA found that
the frequency of technoference depended on type of device (F (1,142) = 27.10, p < .001), with
pairwise comparisons revealing that tablets were rated as interfering less frequently than all other
devices (all comparisons p < .001)—likely due to fewer families owning tablets in this sample
compared to other devices. Computers interfered more frequently than television (p = .03);
however, there were no significant differences for other technologies.
Examining the five life scenario items, the most frequently occurring was a participant’s
partner getting on his phone, mobile device, or tablet during couple leisure time (M = 3.66, SD =
1.94; 62% of participants rated this as occurring once a day or more often), followed by a
participant’s partner getting distracted from the couple’s conversation by the television (M =
2.76, SD = 1.95; 40%), a participant’s partner pulling out his phone when it sounds even when
the couple is in the middle of a conversation (M = 2.71, SD = 1.93; 35%), a participant’s partner
pulling out his phone during mealtime (M = 2.41, SD = 1.97; 33%), and finally a participant’s
partner sending texts or emails to others during the couple’s face-to-face conversations (M =
1.93, SD = 1.96; 25%). A repeated measures ANOVA found significant differences dependent
on the type of scenario (F (1,142) = 38.19, p < .001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that
technoference during leisure time was rated as occurring more frequently than any of the other
life technoference scenarios (all comparisons p < .001). Having a partner send texts or emails to
others during face-to-face conversations was rated as occurring significantly less often than all
other scenarios (all comparisons p < .001). No other significant differences were found.
Bivariate Correlations Between Technology Interference and Well-Being
A series of bivariate correlations on the main variables revealed significant correlations
between technoference and the well-being variables (see Table 1). Overall, those who rated
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 18
themselves as experiencing more technoference in their relationship also reported more frequent
conflict over technology use, more depressive symptoms, lower life satisfaction, and lower
relationship satisfaction.
Model of Technology Interference and Its Influence on Well-Being
Analysis plan. We utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) using maximum
likelihood estimation in the Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS) software (Arbuckle &
Wothke, 1999) to examine whether our conceptual model (Figure 1) fit the data well. It was
believed that more frequent technology interruptions would predict more conflict specifically
about technology use. Experiencing more frequent conflict over technology was expected to
predict worse relationship quality, and we expected worse relationship quality to predict worse
personal well-being, including greater depressive symptoms and lower life satisfaction. In our
model, we also created a technoference latent construct on which our two scales of technology
interference (i.e., the Technology Device Interference Scale and the Technology Interference in
Life Examples Scale) were loaded.
Results. Based on the pattern of the fit indexes, we judged the fit of our conceptual
model to be good (χ² (6) = 9.56, p = .26; RMSEA = .04; CFI = .99; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Figure
2 shows the model with standardized path estimates. The frequency of technoference predicted
conflict over technology use (β = .56, p < .001). This conflict predicted lower relationship quality
(β = -.37, p < .001), and lower relationship quality predicted lower life satisfaction (β = .39, p <
.001) and a trend toward higher depression (β = -.14, p = .07). We were unsure whether
technoference would still directly relate to personal well-being once the indirect path through
conflict and relationship quality was accounted for. In our model, we found that after accounting
for the indirect path, the direct paths from technoference to depression (β = .37, p < .001) and to
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 19
life satisfaction (β = -.31, p < .001) were significant; the significance of these direct paths
indicates that although our hypothesized pathway is viable, there may also be other ways in
which technoference relates to personal well-being.
Bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects based on 2,000 bootstrapping resamples and a
95% confidence interval were conducted for the indirect effects of the frequency of
technoference on well-being. As expected, significant indirect effects were observed between
technoference and relationship satisfaction (β = -.23, CIs [-.37, -.13]) and life satisfaction (β = -
.09, CIs [-.16, -.04]) (ps < .001), but unexpectedly not between technoference and depression,
which was a trend (β = .03, CIs [.00, .07], p = .09).
Discussion
The majority of our participants perceived that technology interrupted their interactions
with their partners. Interestingly, around 70% of our participants perceived computers, cell or
smartphones, or television as interfering in their relationship with their partner sometimes or
more often. It is important to note how frequently technology interfered when couples could be
spending time together, as other research has found that quality time spent together is related to
well-being (Johnson, Zabriskie, & Hill, 2006). For example, the majority (62%) of participants
reported that technology interfered in their couple leisure time at least once a day, and a
substantial proportion reported that it interfered with their conversations (35%) and at mealtime
(33%) at least once a day. These types of interruptions were associated with increased conflict
over technology use and lower relationship satisfaction.
This study expands on prior work (e.g., Coyne et al., 2011) by examining everyday
intrusions of technology broadly in romantic relationships and how this technoference may affect
conflict in the relationship and relational and personal well-being. The current study assessed the
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 20
frequency of interruptions or interference that women experienced due to technology, such as
cell phones or smartphones, computers, televisions, and tablets, in their relationships with their
partners and found that those who perceived more frequent technoference tended to show worse
overall well-being (lower relationship satisfaction, greater depressive symptoms, and lower life
satisfaction). This result coincides with prior research that has found that problematic use of cell
phones or social networking sites is connected to greater depressive symptoms, lower
satisfaction with family life, and lower relationship quality, though it should be noted that none
of these prior studies examined technology interference as defined broadly here (e.g., Bianchi &
Phillips, 2005; Billieux et al., 2008; Chelsey, 2005; Elphinstron & Noller, 2011; Miller-Ott,
Kelly, & Duran, 2012; Thomée et al., 2011).
Perhaps most pertinent to our study, technology has the potential to interrupt face-to-face
interactions because of its ever-present and always-on nature (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005;
Middleton, 2007). It is difficult to have a meaningful conversation with, pay attention to, and
truly listen to one’s partner when daily interactions are intermittently interrupted by technology.
An individual’s attention resources only stretch so far (e.g., Bowman, Levine, Waite, &
Gendrom, 2010; Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009; Pea et al., 2012), and our results suggest that
technoference during relationship interactions may breed conflict in the relationship. Indeed, as
stated earlier, conflict appears to be one mediating variable or mechanism between technoference
and relationship outcomes. When individuals place their technology above their partner, even if
only for a brief moment, they can sow conflict in their romantic relationship, which may then
lead to negative outcomes. The current study confirms previous research showing that general
interruptions in day-to-day conversations can be problematic (such as a waiter interrupting
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 21
conversations to take an order) and extends it to the world of technology (Bangerter et al., 2010;
Farley et al., 2010; Hawkins, 1988).
The current study found that technoference was relatively common. Left unchecked, the
small, but frequent interruptions by technology may be a source of conflict in relationships.
Indeed, one major strength of the current research is to highlight the role of conflict in the
intersection of technology use and romantic relationships. Conflict was a significant mediator, or
mechanism, between technoference and relationship satisfaction. This result suggests that
technoference is related to increased conflict in relationships, and this conflict is partially
responsible for feelings of dissatisfaction in the relationship (Coyne et al., 2012).
Couples should openly and honestly discuss why technology can be a source of conflict
in their relationship and then further discuss ideas on how to reduce feelings of conflict as both
individuals manage technology in their lives. The answer is not simply to ban technology in
relationships, as this is not realistic or particularly useful. Instead, couples should work out ways
they can use technology that do not increase feelings of conflict and dissatisfaction when they
are together. For some couples, it may be prudent to silence technological devices or at times
turn them off completely when interacting with each other, as this places each individual’s sole
focus on his or her partner and not on their devices. For other couples, it may mean checking
email is permitted only as long as it does not become extensive, for example. The way couples
manage the interference of technology in their relationships will likely differ, but it will require
an open and continuous dialogue between partners.
It should be noted that though our pattern of results confirmed our hypotheses for the
most part, we did not find that conflict or relationship satisfaction fully mediated the path
between technoference and personal well-being (depressive symptoms and life satisfaction);
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 22
rather, direct effects remained in which more technoference was associated with greater
depressive symptoms and lower life satisfaction. Certainly, other research has found a link
between high levels of technology use and depression (Gentile et al., 2011; Pantic et al., 2012). It
is likely that the relationship between more frequent technology interference and depression is
bidirectional, with depressed individuals using technology as a way to cope with problems;
however, this increased use of and reliance on technology may then backfire and increase
feelings of depression and worthlessness when technology does not “fix” personal problems, but
rather, also interferes with face-to-face relationships and communication.
Limitations and Future Directions
As it is with any correlational research, we cannot assume causation. It is likely that the
relationship between technoference and well-being is bidirectional. However, we would still
hypothesize that when partners experience what they perceive to be an interruption due to
technology, their views of the relationship are likely to suffer, especially if these interruptions are
frequent. More intensive longitudinal designs (such as daily diaries) are necessary to more fully
examine the potential processes involved. Additionally, due to our sample size (N = 143), we
could not examine more complex SEM models, although we believe our results are an
encouraging first step to examining technoference in family life. Our study was limited by
respondents being only women, many of whom were married and highly educated. It may very
well be that the relational and personal well-being of men or other samples of women are
affected in different ways by technoference. This idea should be tested in future work. Due to the
nature of our sample, we also could not test the intricacies of how technoference functions in
couple relationships. For example, it would be important in the future to determine whether
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 23
partners perceive technoference similarly and who or what caused the interference, as well as
how personal choice and preferences for technology use influence the whole process.
Observational measures of couple interaction and communication quality would
significantly add to this work. For instance, recording couples during leisure time or mealtimes
could provide us with a wealth of data on whether perceptions match the actual frequency of
technoference. Observations would allow us to assess how couple communication quality might
be affected, and we could also more fully assess the potentially circular nature of the
interruptions or how individuals’ interpersonal styles of technology use may play out within
observed couple interactions. It should also be noted that legacy media, such as reading paper
books or listening to the radio, were not included in our measures of technoference.
Finally, it is crucial to remember that we are examining complex relationships, and we
cannot blame only the technology for the potential interference. Often, specific individual
characteristics, such as personality (Ehrenberg, Juckes, White, & Walsh, 2008) and romantic
attachment style (Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013), influence the
adoption of specific technology devices and particular technology use strategies. Due to their
always-on nature (Middleton, 2007), there are likely times when technology devices directly
interrupt interpersonal interactions, such as when a phone rings due to a friend or work calling.
Although devices can be silenced, illustrating that there is still some personal choice in the
matter, even brief unintentional interruptions may cause frustration in one’s partner. At other
times, individuals may turn to devices to escape frustrating relationships. Overall, the current
study suggests that women perceive at least some interruptions due to technology. Future work is
needed to examine the complex nature of technoference, as interruptions can have multiple
sources and can be influenced by individual characteristics and choices.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 24
Conclusion and Practical Implications
In summary, interruptions in couple interactions due to technology use appear to
negatively relate to relational and personal well-being. For instance, those who perceive more
technoference also tend to show more frequent conflict over technology use, lower relationship
satisfaction, more depressive symptoms, and lower life satisfaction. It is important to note that
lower well-being was related to even small amounts of perceived technoference, which suggests
that even normative technology use may feed into individuals’ relational and personal well-
being. Although technology can help couples to connect (Coyne et al., 2011), couples’
technology use—when not directed toward connecting with each other—may also interfere at
times in their relationships. Some may benefit from “technology use etiquette” training, in which
they could be taught best practices for when devices should be put away, how to deal with
phones when they beep in the middle of conversations, and so on such that one’s partner
continues to feel cared for. As technology use has become commonplace, couple communication
programs may need to explicitly integrate such training in order to improve the quality of
communication and listening between partners.
Finally, we wish to express that technoference is a simple concept in theory but can be
complex to measure. It is not only the technology that is to blame for the interruptions; personal
characteristics and choice can also have a large, sometimes unseen, role. Therefore, we do not
wish for technology to be viewed negatively in and of itself, but due to its often always-on-in-
the-background nature, boundaries on its use should be considered. Individuals may wish to
examine their own technology use and whether what they do on a daily basis could be considered
as unduly frustrating and interrupting to their interactions with others.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 25
References
Ahlstrom, M., Lundberg, N., Zabriskie, R., Eggett, D., & Lindsay, G. (2012). Me, my spouse,
and my avatar: The relationship between marital satisfaction and playing massively
multiplayer online roleplaying games (MMORPGs). Journal of Leisure Research, 44, 1–
22.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Small Waters.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and
implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858.
Bangerter, A., Chevalley, E., & Derouwaux, S. (2010). Managing third-party interruptions in
conversations: Effects of duration and conversational role. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 29(2), 235–244.
Barna Group. (2011). The family & technology report: How technology is helping families—and
where they need help. State of The Church & Family: 2011 Annual Report. Retreived
from http://www.barna.org/store?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&
product_id=116&category_id=4
Beach, S. R., Katz, J., Kim, S., & Brody, G. H. (2003). Prospective effects of marital satisfaction
on depressive symptoms in established marriages: A dyadic model. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 20(3), 355–371.
Beach, S. R., Sandeen, E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1990). Depression in marriage: A model for
etiology and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Bianchi, A., & Phillips J. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 39–51.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 26
Billieux, J., Van der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and
problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1195-
1210.Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students
really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers
& Education, 54(4), 927–931.
Brenner, J., & Smith, A. (2013). 72% of online adults are social networking site users. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/social-networking-sites/Findings.aspx
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the
individual, family, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308–316.
Carbonell, X., Oberst, U., Beranuy, M. (2013). The cell phone in the twenty-first century: A risk
for addiction or a necessary tool? In P. M. Miller (Ed.), Principles of addiction:
Comprehensive addictive behaviors and disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 901–909). New York:
Academic Press.
Chelsey, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries: Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress,
and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1237–1248.
Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is
Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10),
717–720.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 27
Coyne, S. M., Busby, D., Bushman, B. J., Gentile, D. A., Ridge, R., & Stockdale, L. (2012).
Gaming in the game of love: Effects of video games on conflict in couples. Family
Relations, 61, 388–396.
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u :)!”: A
descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family
Relations, 60, 150–162.
Czechowsky, J. D. (2008). The impact of the BlackBerry on couple relationships. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Wilfrid Laurier University. Retrived from
http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2055&context=etd
Davila, J., Karney, B. R., Hall, T. W., & Bradbury, T. N. (2003). Depressive symptoms and
marital satisfaction: Within-subject associations and the moderating effects of gender and
neuroticism. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 557–570.
Dietmar, C. (2005). Mobile communication in couple relationships. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), A sense of
place: The global and the local in mobile communication (pp. 201–208). Vienna, Austria:
Passagen Verlag.
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the
dialectic of autonomy vs. connection. Communication Quarterly, 59, 19–36.
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as
predictors of young people’s technology use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(6), 739–
741.
Elphinstron, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications
for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14, 631–635.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 28
Farley, S. D., Ashcraft, A. M., Stasson, M. F., & Nusbaum, R. L. (2010). Nonverbal reactions to
conversational interruption: A test of complementarity theory and the status/gender
parallel. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 193–206.
Fincham, F. D. (2003). Marital conflict correlates, structure, and context. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12(1), 23–27.
Gentile, D. A., Choo, H., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011). Pathological
video game use among youths: A two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127(2), e319–
e329.
Gentile, D. A., Coyne, S.M., & Bricolo, F. (2013). Pathological technology addictions: What is
scientifically known and what remains to be learned. In K. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Media Psychology (pp. 382-402). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution:
Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2),
221–233.
Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality
marriages on well-being. Social Forces, 84(1), 451–471.
Hawkins, K. (1988). Interruptions in task-oriented conversations: Effects of violations of
expectations by males and females. Women’s Studies in Communication, 11, 1–20.
Hodgetts, H. H., & Jones, D. M. (2006). Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a
goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103–115.
Horwitz, A. V., McLaughlin, J., & White, H. R. (1998). How the negative and positive aspects of
partner relationships affect the mental health of young married people. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 39, 124–136.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 29
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Lang, K. R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology.
Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23.
Johnson, H. A., Zabriskie, R. B., & Hill, B. (2006). The contribution of couple leisure
involvement, leisure time, and leisure satisfaction to marital satisfaction. Marriage &
Family Review, 40, 69–91.
Koerner, K., & Jacobson, N. J. (1994). Emotion and behavior in couple therapy. In S. M.
Johnson & L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), The heart of the matter: Perspectives on emotion in
marital therapy (pp. 207–226). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Purcell, K., Kickuhr, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). Teens,
kindness and cruelty on social network sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media/Part-
1/Social-network-sites.aspx
Mazmanian, M. A., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2005). Crackberries: The social implications
of ubiquitous wireless e-mail devices. In C. Sørensen, Y. Yoo, K. Lyytinen, & J. DeGross
(Eds.), Designing ubiquitous information environments: Socio-technical issues and
challenges (pp. 337–344). New York: Springer.
Middleton, C. A. (2007). Illusions of balance and control in an always-on environment: A case
study of BlackBerry users. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 21(2), 165–
178.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 30
Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two
perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3),
252–260.
Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on
satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17–34.
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young
adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and
associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 45, 141–151.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more
pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105–114.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high speed family
connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family
Relations, 61, 426–440.
Pantic, I., Damjanovic, A., Todorovic, J., Topalovic, D., Bojovic-Jovic, D., Ristic, S., & Pantic,
S. (2012). Association between online social networking and depression in high school
students: Behavioral physiology viewpoint. Psychiatria Danubina, 24(1), 90–93.
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., Nass, M., Simha, A.,
Stillerman, B., Yang, S., & Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication,
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 31
media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental
Psychology, 48, 327–336.
Pew Research Center. (2012). A closer look at gadget ownership. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Infographics/2012/A-Closer-Look-
at-Gadget-Ownership.aspx
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal relationships.
Marriage & Family Review, 45, 697–716.
Proulz, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital quality and personal well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rainie, L. (2012). Smartphone ownership update: September 2012. Pew Internet & American
Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-
Update-Sept-2012.aspx
Rainie, L., & Keeter, S. (2006). Americans and their cell phones. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Americans-and-their-
cell-phones.aspx
Rettie, R. (2007). Texters not talkers: Phone call aversion among mobile phone users.
PsychNology Journal, 5, 33–57.
Scahde, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. M. (2013). Using technology to
connect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationships satisfaction, and
stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12, 314–338.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 32
Sidelinger, R. J., Ayash, G., Godorhazy, A., & Tibbles, D. (2008). Couples go online: Relational
maintenance behaviors and relational characteristics use in dating relationships. Human
Communication, 11, 341–355.
Smith, A. (2010). Home Broadband 2010. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010.aspx
Smith, A. (2013). Smartphone ownership 2013. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Smartphone-Ownership-
2013/Findings.aspx
Stone, B. (2009, August 9). Breakfast can wait. The day’s first stop is online. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/technology/10morning.html
Takao, M., Takahashi, S., & Kitamura, M. (2009). Addictive personality and problematic mobile
phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(5), 501–507.
Thomée, S., Härenstam, A., & Hagberg, M. (2011). Mobile phone use and stress, sleep
disturbances, and symptoms of depression among young adults—a prospective cohort
study. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 66.
Turner, P., & Turner, S. (2013). Emotional and aesthetic attachment to digital
artefacts. Cognition, Technology & Work, 15, 403–414. doi:10.1007/s10111-012-0231-x
Turkle, S. (2012) Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each
other. New York: Basic Books.
Verhofstadt, L. L., Buysse, A., Ickes, W., De Clercq, A., & Peene, O. J. (2005). Conflict and
support interactions in marriage: An analysis of couples’ interactive behavior and online
cognition. Personal Relationships, 12(1), 23–42.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 33
Vincent, J., Haddon, L., & Hamill, L. (2005). The influence of mobile phone users on the design
of 3G products and services. Journal of the Communications Network, 4, 69–73.
Wehmeyer, K. (2007). Assessing users’ attachment to their mobile devices. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference on the Management of Mobile Business, IEEE Computer
Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. doi: 10.1109/ICMB.2007.19
Whisman, M. A. (2001). The association between depression and marital dissatisfaction. In S. R.
H. Beach (Ed.), Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for
clinical practice (pp. 3–24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zickuhr, K. (2013). Tablet ownership 2013. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Tablet-Ownership-2013/Findings.aspx
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 34
Table 1.
Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for all Study Variables
1.
Device
interference
2. Tech
interference
in life
3.
Conflict
over tech
4.
Rel sat
5.
Dep
6.
Life sat
1. Frequency of device interference
1
.56***
.51***
-.30***
.38***
-.36***
2. Tech interference in life examples
1
.33***
-.21*
.24**
-.21*
3. Conflict over technology use
1
-.37***
.29**
-.43***
4. Relationship Satisfaction
1
-.25**
.46***
5. Depression
1
-.52***
6. Life Satisfaction
1
Mean
1.84
2.69
1.74
0.02
11.11
4.13
Standard Deviation
0.90
1.55
0.63
0.89
9.23
0.76
Note: ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, N = 143.
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 35
Figure 1. Conceptual model of how technology interference in couple interactions may lead to conflict over this technology use,
which may then spillover into relationship and personal well-being.
Interference
from Tech
Conflict over
Tech Use
Relationship
Well-being
Personal
Well-being
TECHNOFERENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS 36
.56***
.91
.62
.37***
-.31***
-.37***
-.14†
.39***
-.42***
Figure 2. Model of how the frequency of technology interference (technoference) may lead to conflict over this technology
use, which may then spill over into relationship and personal well-being. The figure shows the model with standardized
path estimates.
Conflict over
Tech Use
Relationship
Satisfaction
Depression
Interference
from Tech
Life
Satisfaction
Tech Device
Interference
Scale
Tech
Interference in
Life Examples
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychology of Popular Media Culture
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.