final-literature review paper

Running head: NET-MEDIATED TECHNOLOGY 1

NET-MEDIATED TECHNOLOGY AND ITS AFFECT ON FAMILY INTERACTION

Literature Review

RES 1006-Information Competency and Library Use

Final Assignment

by

Michael Shawn Ellis

Saybrook University

Oakland, CA

May 4 2015


Abstract

NET-MEDIATED TECHNOLOGY AND ITS AFFECT ON FAMILY INTERACTION

Since the introduction of the blackberry in 2003 and the introduction of the iphone in 2007, it can

be said that smartphone technology has become the number one choice and most widely used of

modern day technology integrating the abilities to make phone calls, text messaging, email,

social media, high end cameras, GPS, and games. This twenty-first century “swiss army knife”

has provided people with many tools that people use on a daily basis keeping people of all ages

locked in to their screens without the need to look up or engage in face-to-face communication

because it can all be done with a smartphone. Although there are benefits to the use of the

devices, it does appear the human interaction is decreasing, especially among children and

adolescence that have these devices, in that this writer will present to his readers whether this is

benefiting or hindering family interaction.


Research Statement

Working at AT&T, I am always surrounded by the newest in net-mediated technology and the

huge desire that our culture has for that this type of technology brought forth by the many

manufactures of these devices. I like technology myself and although there can be some form of

addiction that can evolve, especially being introduced to a new game, but my wife does a good

job of keeping me in check about how this technology affects family time and the relationship. If

myself and my family can be affected by the technology that I sell, then there are many families

that are also being affected which lead me to research this topic. I started my research by

collecting peer reviewed articles and after reading those, I found certain similarities on face-to-

face interaction, addiction, distractions, and communication present in the literature that would

lead me in the direction to collect the remaining sources for this paper.

NET-MEDIATED TECHNOLOGY AND 4

Net-mediated Technology and Its Affect on Family Interaction

Net-mediated technology: smartphones, laptops, tablets, and smartwatches have changed

the way people communicate with each other versus someone sending a family member, a friend,

or lover a letter in the mail or placing a call to someone on a home phone. These devices allow a

person to be connected to their family, friends, and lovers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week whether

it is through voice/video calling, texting, emailing, or social media releasing the time or distant

constraints that use to be there before the introduction of these devices. Of all the devices

previously mentioned, the smartphone is the one device that not only provides people the means

to communicate in its various forms, it also provides its users with high end cameras, GPS, and

games. This twenty-first century “swiss army knife” has provided people with many tools that

people use on a daily basis, keeping people of all ages locked in to their screens without the need

to look up or engage in face-to-face communication because it can all be done with a

smartphone.

Working at AT&T, I am always surrounded by the newest in net-mediated technology and

the huge desire that our culture has for that this type of technology brought forth by the many

manufactures of these devices. I like technology myself and although there can be some form of

addiction that can evolve, especially being introduced to a new game, but my wife does a good

job of keeping me in check about how this technology affects family time and the relationship. If

myself and my family can be affected by the technology that I sale, then there are many families

that are also being affected which lead me to research this topic. Although there are benefits to

the use of these devices, it does appear that family interaction is decreasing, especially among

children and adolescence that own devices. Kennedy-Eden (2014) states, “As a consequence,


adaptive system behaviour within families will be analysed in reference to their smart phone use

in two different environments, daily life and vacation, to see how they mediate this technology

use within the family and if the environment of the family vacation acts as a catalyst for change

in behaviour.” Based on this concept, this writer will present to his readers what the current

literature says about net-mediated technology and its affect on family interaction.

Net-Mediated Technology And Behavior

Net-mediated technology has it beginnings with the introduction of the internet and then

with the introduction of laptops it appeared that this technology was moving into making devices

more mobile, compact, and lighter which lead to the development of the most widely used net-

mediated device, the smartphone. This type of net-mediated technology has affected behavior all

of ages and the current literature presents the behavior change in this way:

Issues regarding social norms become salient when group boundaries blur. As older adults and particularly potential employers have joined Facebook, specific types of communication behaviors among younger adults have been impacted. Individual users of Facebook not only increasingly monitor their own behaviors, but also review how their friends represent them and request to be detagged, if the representations are unfavorable. Voluntary restrictions on cell phone use have become increasingly common in many public and social gatherings and the sudden ring of a phone elicits many disapproving glances. When formal groups are in a position to enforce certain social norms, such as school authorities, use of technology has been discouraged, even banned and punished. When these voluntary measures do not succeed, there are greater calls for specific public measures such as laws...there are no states that ban cell phone use while driving for all users but several states ban cell phone use by groups of drivers such as novice drivers or school bus drivers. Many states allow cell phone use but ban hand-held devices (Dholakia, 2012, p. 193).

This source presents many behaviors that have been affected due to the increasing use of the

smartphone: social norms, more concerned with how one behaves in the cyber world versus the

real world, no form of boundaries when using the phone (dinner table, school functions, and

school), and driving behavior. Another behavior change that this net-mediated technology has


affected is how shopping is being done because instead of going to the mall or a department

store, a person can pull out their smartphone and perform all their shopping in any setting

avoiding the need to use gas, run into people they do or do not like, or having the inconvenience

of having to take their children with them for family time (Nicholson, 2005). Based on the

literature, it does reveal that certain human behaviors are being affected and have changed

because of net-mediated technology, but the literature also reveals that basic face-to-face

interactions are being affected as well.

Net Mediated Technology And Face-to-Face Interactions

Although smartphone technology has advanced and enhanced how we communicate with

each other plus others way in which we can be entertained, whether it is watching a movie or tv

show, playing games, or listening to music, research is revealing that this all-in-one device is

inhibiting our face-to-face interactions, especially in the family. In his online article, “How Cell

Phones Are Killing Face-To-Face Interactions”, Mark Glaser talks about a experience he had in

London:

Last year when I visited London, I noticed an acute case of what I call gadget haze, with

so many hipster urbanites connected at all times to smart phones or MP3 players. When I got lost, I asked a woman if I was near SoHo, and it took a moment for her to realize that someone real in front of her was actually talking to her. Slowly, she removed herself from her bubble, took off her headset, asked me to repeat what I said. Eventually she pointed me in the right direction and put the headset back on. What amazed me was the delay between the time I asked my question and her reply. It was almost as though I was talking to her in a foreign language. She had to take a moment to come out of her reverie, to literally come back to the present moment and the place where she stood to talk to someone right in front of her (Glaser, 2007).

The literature has given a term for this distraction known as “technoference” and it is defined in

this way, “as everyday intrusions or interruptions in couple interactions or time spent together

that occur due to technology” (McDaniel & Coyne, 2014). McDaniel & Coyne (2014) go on to


clarify that “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.” Due to the amount of notifications that a

person can receive on their smartphone: missed call, new text, “your turn to play”, facebook

reply or new post, severe weather alert, just to name a few reveals what the literature labels as

technoference. With the influx of these many notifications, going from checking into one can

lead into one more until an hour to two has past because the person got so distracted from the

conversation(s) that they were having or starting to have.

More literature presents that this “technoference” is affecting all ages to the point that we

have become dependent for smartphones to be our one stop shop for all of our entertainment

needs, especially children and adolescents. Ictech (2014) presents to the reader that family

interaction is becoming hindered because the amount of time both children and adolescents

spend on these devices, are not that different in adults either even though they use the device for

different types of entertainment, affecting face-to-face interactions. Besides the face-to-face

interaction being affected by this net-mediated technology, children's non-verbal communication

is suffering as well, which plays a good 85 to 90 percent in face-to-face communication. Feiler

(2015) validates this in which he presented the results of study conducted by a Dr. Patricia

Greenfield who revealed that “children who get devices much earlier today, she said, often as

young as 3, 'jeopardize a critical period for learning to read emotions and may never acquire

these skills.'” Smartphone technology has created the benefit of overcoming the communication

barrier because it is so easy to get in touch with someone but as the literature has presented, not


much effort is being put into face-to-face interactions anymore because of this easy way to

communicate, allowing users of smartphones to continue on whatever they are devoting their

attention to. The reader has been able to see how the literature validates the affected face-to-face

interactions between family members due to smartphone use but because of the connectivity and

entertainment these devices bring, there is literature that reveals that the home life is being has

become distracted.

Net-Mediated Technology And Home Life

By having the ability to be connected to work email, company chat rooms, and company

text messaging groups, either through personal or company provided smartphone, leaving work

at work is harder than it use to when you would just log off the computer and go home.

Literature presents that with a smartphone versus the company computer, a manager or

managers, plus other employees, have the ability to communicate to the employee without

restrictions, making it seem like they never left work (Nickerson, 2000). This provides another

outlet for “technoference” to take place once you are outside the four walls of where you work,

adding more to the distractions and affecting the family interactions. A term coined and being

used in the literature to describe work going home and affecting a person's personal and family

life is known as “spillover” in which smartphone technology is aiding in this “spillover”

(Chesley, 2005). She goes on to state, “Research also shows that negative forms of spillover are

linked to problematic outcomes. For example, negative work-family spillover predicts family

dissatisfaction, whereas negative family-work spillover predicts work dissatisfaction. Negative

spillover in both directions is linked to higher distress.”

This reveals how “spillover” affects the overall quality of life, both professionally and


personally, in a negative way validating that smartphone technology has allowed this spillover to

break the dam. “Spillover” does not only affect the person that allows it to happen too but also

affects the people and family members involved with the person where “spillover” is taking

place. McDaniel & Coyne (2014) concludes this by revealing the results of their study, “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...” The literature presented has revealed that this has become a

heavy weight to carry in knowing that a person can be connected to their job around the clock

creating a unbalance where the overall quality of life has been replaced because of this pocket

size computer. Although the literature presented has discussed the negative ways net-mediated

technology is affecting home life, it appears there is some positive literature with regards to this

type of technology. This positive literature reveals:

By normalizing technology use to family members, it is reinforcing the concept that sending text messages, picture messages, or video chats allow family members to disclose that they are thinking of them and to provide another route to share life experiences especially to those family members out of state, which also serves as facilitators for when and how the family reunites and gain connectedness (Herlein & Ancheta, 2014).

Regardless of the negative or positive reviews on net-mediated technology, the literature brings

to light another way its affecting family interactions which leads the writer to present to the

reader the last of area of family interaction smartphone technology is affecting.

Net-Mediated Technology And Vacation Time

There are many ways to take a vacation, staying at home and searching for local events or

places that have not been visited, going away to a new part of the country like a beach, snow

skiing, a big city, or just getting away from city life by camping. Smartphone technology has


crept its way into the family vacations due to the resources it can provide: GPS, maps, compass,

restaurant and hotel reviews, that can enhance a vacation from a financial and a organizational

standpoint. Due to these benefits, there is literature also present in which the temptation to use

the device for hours of entertainment is lingering at the fingertips affecting the face-to-face

interaction, as already stated, but also preventing true bonding time from thriving. Kennedy-

Eden (2014) states the dangers of these devices being engrossed in family vacations this way, “In

the past, these bonds were strengthened by spending leisure time together as a family but now

smart phone technology provides opportunities for individual entertainment, connecting on

social media, and spending time physically together while being emotionally separated.”

To paint this picture better, imagine a beautiful scene with with mountains in the

background and waterfall coming out of those mountains with tall and full pines and firs taking

up the majority of the space. Once you come to ground level, there is a nice camping site where

three tents are present and it is early in the morning, the mother and father come out to make

breakfast while one is checking their Facebook status and the other reading the morning news.

The children come out of there tents, all holding there phones, in which they bring them to the

breakfast table and while the family eats there is barely any conversation going on except the

occasional look at what some posted or laugh because of what was said in a youtube video. This

is how the morning will start and nothing will change through out the day because all will stay in

there tents except to go get something to eat or use the restroom and if they need to charge their

phones, well they brought battery back ups just for that. On a vacation like this, one benefit that

could from a smartphone is the ability to take photos and videos for memories while another

would be to call for danger if the family had cell phone reception but “technoference” and


“spillover” seem to follow these devices. Harris (1999) presents it this way, “Media affects our

minds: they give us ideas, change our attitudes, tell us what the world is like. These mind

constructions (i.e., our perceived reality) then become the framework around which we interpret

the totality of experience. Thus media consumption and effects are very much a cognitive

phenomena.”

Assessing The Family Interaction

There is a test that Robert Strom and Shirley Strom have developed that tests the success

of the parents parenting and based on the literature that has already been presented, net-mediated

technology has the ability to negatively impact a parents success with their children. What this

test does is it “identifies favorable qualities of parents, and aspects of their behavior where

education seems warranted through parent self-reports and the perceptions of their children”

(Strom & Strom, 2009). The PSI consists of six subscales:

Communication, Use of Time, Teaching, Frustration, Satisfaction, and Information Needs. This allows adults to make better decisions about self-improvement because they can consider the perceptions of those they are trying to influence. Some common uses for the PSI are to: find out how parents view their assets and limitations during this demanding period of parenting, determine how parents are seen by their children, compare child and parent impressions of the parent performance, give feedback to individual parents about the attitudes and behaviors they ought to consider changing, design curriculum for parent groups with shared characteristics, and detect how parent-child interaction changes in response to educational intervention (Strom & Strom, 2009).

Through the integration of this assessment, this presents literature on how a family can test the

strength of their relationships, what areas need improvement, and how parents can reflect but

implement the changes need to increase the family interaction for the positive which should help

with the decrease in “technoference” and “spillover”.

Conclusion


This writer presented to his readers what the current literature says about net-mediated

technology and its affect on family interaction. It was presented that there are many positives to

smartphone technology, especially its ability to provide the person with many resources to

enhance communication, work, and vacations but because of these positives it has allowed its

users to become engrossed for hours affecting the many aspects of life that once was enjoyed

without this technology. As the current literature has revealed, one of the major use that people

use their smartphone for is to stay connected to the many social networking sites, which has

changed the way people socialize, especially among adolescents and young adults, allowing a

new way for them create, obtain, and maintain a identity (Anderson, Fagan, Woodnutt, and

Chamorro-Premuzic, 2012; Cauley & Martinez, 2013). Due to this new form of socializing and

identity creating, an assessment that measures peer experiences on social networking sites,

known as the SN-PEQ, measured that many of these adolescents and young adults are

experiencing cyber victimization along with the positive socializing that comes from social

networking sites (Landoll, La Greca, and Lai, 2013).

This measurement has also been able to measure the amount of stress and depression that

comes from the use of these social networking sites revealing that too much use will increase that

amount of stress and depression a person can develop. This paper did present some negatives that

smartphone technology has introduced and is currently changing our culture in providing a new

type of addiction that does not have a age restriction but it does not have to end with people

developing a form of pathology or psychopathology. In closing, Cauley & Martinez (2013)

presented that the best was to gain back the face-to-face interactions, leaving work at work, and

have true bonding time on vacations to set boundaries on when these devices should be used.


Examples of the boundaries would be not using them during dinner time or when you are out to

dinner, when coming home from work look at your emails, Facebook posts, and texts one last

time and then put the device away for the night, and when on vacation already have email and

social networking responses in place that say you are on vacation so you enjoy the time together

and use that smartphone to take some good pictures putting it up afterwards. This technology is

not bad by all means, but is it worth the many memories, great conversations, and wonderful

face-to-face interactions that you will never get back?


References

Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook psychology: Popular questions answered by research. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(1), 23-37. doi: 10.1037/a0026452 [7.01.1]

Cauley, K & Martinez, M. (2013, May 7). Family matters: Technology and relationships with Kathleen Cauley [Video file]. Retrieved from youtube.com [SG 56]

Chesley, N. (2005). Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1237–1248. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00213.x [7.01.1]

Dholakia, R. R. (2012). Technology and consumer behavior: Household, managerial, and social implications. In Jing Jian Xiao (Eds.), Technology and consumptions: Understanding consumer choices and behaviors (pp. 173-208). New York, NY: Springer. [7.02.25]

Feiler, B. (2015, April 17). Hey, kids, look at me when we're talking. The New York Times. Retrieved from nytimes.com [7.01.11]

Glaser, M. (2007, October 22). How cell phones are killing face-to-face interactions [webpage]. Retrieved from pbs.org [SGER]

Harris, R. J. (1999). A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. [7.02.18]

Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Clinical application of the advantages of technology in couple and family therapy. American Journal Of Family Therapy, 42(4), 313-324. doi: 10.1080/01926187.2013.866511 [7.01.1]

Ictech, O. B. (2014). Smartphones and face-to-face interactions: Extending Goffman to 21

century conversation (Master's thesis, University of New Orleans). Retrieved from uno.edu [7.05.42]

Kennedy-Eden, H. (2014). Do smart phones bring us closer? A family life and vacation perspective. In R. Baggio, M. Sigala, A. Inversini & J. Pesonen (Eds.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014 (pp. 27-32). Dublin, Ireland: ENTER. [7.02.25]

Landoll, R. R., La Greca, A. M. and Lai, B. S. (2013). Aversive peer experiences on social networking sites: Development of the social networking-peer experiences questionnaire (SN-PEQ). Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 695–705. doi: 10.1111/jora.12022 [7.01.1]


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 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065 [SGER]

Nicholson, D. B. (2005). Virtual product experience: An empirical examination of technology and individual characteristics on consumer psychology and intentions (Order No. 3206162). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305383945). Retrieved from proquest.com [7.05.41]

Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Technology: Technology and communication. In A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 28-30). Washington, DC; New York, NY: American Psychological Association. [7.02.25]

Strom, R. D., & Strom, P. S. (2009). Parent Success Indicator [Revised Edition] [Measurement instrument]. Retrieved from ebscohost.com [7.08.55]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065

final-literature review paper

Documents