Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy

Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions

ISSN: 1533-2691 (Print) 1533-2683 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20

Using Technology to Connect in Romantic

Relationships: Effects on Attachment, Relationship
Satisfaction, and Stability in Emerging Adults

Lori Cluff Schade , Jonathan Sandberg , Roy Bean , Dean Busby & Sarah
Coyne

To cite this article: Lori Cluff Schade , Jonathan Sandberg , Roy Bean , Dean Busby & Sarah
Coyne (2013) Using Technology to Connect in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Attachment,
Relationship Satisfaction, and Stability in Emerging Adults, Journal of Couple & Relationship
Therapy, 12:4, 314-338, DOI: 10.1080/15332691.2013.836051

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2013.836051

Published online: 28 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10093

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcrt20

Download by: [186.67.71.43] Date: 08 October 2015, At: 06:59

 Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12:314–338, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1533-2691 print / 1533-2683 online
DOI: 10.1080/15332691.2013.836051

Using Technology to Connect in Romantic

Relationships: Effects on Attachment,
Relationship Satisfaction, and Stability
in Emerging Adults

LORI CLUFF SCHADE, JONATHAN SANDBERG, ROY BEAN,

DEAN BUSBY, and SARAH COYNE
School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

This exploratory path analysis was designed to identify significant

associations among technology use and relationship variables in
a population of emerging adults. Two hundred seventy-six young
people between the ages of 18 and 25 in committed relationships
completed survey questions about ways they connect with their part-
ners using technology. Actor and partner effects were obtained. A
measure of attachment behaviors in relationships was tested as a
mediator. Results indicate that attachment behaviors were univer-
sally associated with relationship satisfaction and stability for both
men and women. No significant associations were found with social
networking sites. Male texting frequency was negatively associated
with relationship satisfaction and stability scores for both partners
while female texting frequency was positively associated with their
own relationship stability scores. Texting to express affection was
associated with higher reported partner attachment for both men
and women. For men, texting to hurt their partners was negatively
associated with reported partner attachment, relationship satisfac-
tion, and stability. Male-reported partner attachment mediated the
relationship between texting to hurt partners and relationship sat-
isfaction, and mediated the relationship between texting to express
affection and satisfaction. Other differences and clinical implica-
tions are discussed.

KEYWORDS attachment, emerging adults, technology, satisfac-

tion, stability

Address correspondence to Lori Cluff Schade, 274 TLRB, Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT 84602, USA. E-mail: lkschade@gmail.com

314
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 315

INTRODUCTION

Young people around the world are growing up in a world saturated by me-
dia in various forms (Brown, 2006). Most American households are equipped
with Internet access, email, online chatting, instant messaging, and other on-
line services (Bachen, 2007). A recent survey of American youth revealed
that young people spend an average of 7 hours 38 minutes a day using
several forms of technology simultaneously; estimates are that they may ac-
tually pack nearly 11 hours worth of media exposure into that period of time
(Roberts, Rideout, & Foehr, 2010).
The forms of technology reportedly being used are television, music,
computer, video games, print, movies, and cell phones. Online applications
like YouTube and social networking sites have also proliferated in recent
years (Sheldon, 2008). Young adult use is very similar to teen use, with
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

72% of 18- to 29-year-olds reporting the use of social networking sites, with
Facebook being the most popular choice (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr,
2010).
Not surprisingly, young adults are increasingly reliant on technology as
a mechanism for connecting with others (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008;
van den Einjden & Meerkerk, 2008; Willoughby, 2008). Given that a major
developmental task in late adolescence or emerging adulthood is the forma-
tion of healthy social connections and mutually satisfying, interdependent
relationships (Arnett, 2000; Collins & van Dulmen, 2006), the increasing use
of technology in these relationships cannot be ignored. In an effort to better
understand this association in an emerging adult population, this study is
designed to examine the link between technology use and relationship satis-
faction and stability as mediated by the level of attachment in their romantic
relationships. The use of dyadic data will enable examination of actor and
partner effects of technology use on relationship outcomes. Male and female
differences will be discussed.

Technology Use and Relationship Satisfaction and Stability

As technology-based personal relationships become more prevalent, it may
become increasingly important for social scientists to examine the correlates
of quality for these relationships (Anderson, 2005). The literature to date
reveals that technology-assisted communication impacts people in relation-
ships in a variety of ways (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Brown, 2006; Caplan,
2007; Hertlein, 2012). They can find partners independent of a geographic
region and maintain long-distance relationships as well as instantly share
videos, music, photos, and other links, which can enhance the development
of intimacy and the progression of a relationship (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008). In
 316 L. C. Schade et al.

general, young adults report that they often prefer to use technology-assisted
communication because it gives them control over the social interactions
(Madell & Muncer, 2007).
People who struggle with offline relationships seem to frequently prefer
online relationships as a safer medium (Buote, Wood, & Pratt, 2009). This
form of communication may provide socially introverted users with a vehicle
through which they can increase risk and connect and develop more inti-
macy in a way they could not through face-to-face contact (Brown, 2006).
However, this preference for the distance, control, and anonymity provided
by online communication can lead to more Internet use which, in turn, often
leads to negative personal outcomes in social settings (Caplan, 2007, 2005).
Anonymity refers to the fact that a user of technology may control his or
her own self-presentation in a way that is impossible in face-to-face interac-
tions in which one is under direct observation and judgment (Cooper, 2002;
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010).

While Internet-based communication lacks the same verbal and facial
cues important in social interaction, the level of anonymity also allows users
to risk more self-disclosure, plan more carefully how they will interact, and
orchestrate connection in personal relationships based on values and similar
interest rather than basing connection on initial physical attraction (Bargh &
McKenna, 2004). These may be positive indicators for the early formation
of romantic relationships. After initial relationship formation, when the re-
lationship is established, partners increase face-to-face contact and do not
necessarily seem limited by the initial nature of Internet communication
(Bargh & McKenna, 2004).
In particular, the use of texting with cell phones can increase inti-
macy by making partners more available and expanding their repertoire
of connection (Henline, 2006). One study of text messaging patterns re-
vealed that people in relationships use texting as an additional way to
stay connected, and that increased availability may enhance certain roman-
tic relationships (Pettigrew, 2009). Another study demonstrated that emerg-
ing adults in romantic relationships report using texting as a frequent way
to connect with their partners in a positive way in their relationships,
which may increase relationship quality (Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iver-
son, & Grant, 2011). A study comparing phone versus Internet communi-
cation in college students’ romantic relationships found no difference in
relational quality (Baym, Zhang, Kunkel, Ledbetter, & Lin, 2007). Addition-
ally, it was found that computer use by young people was associated with
higher friendship quality, perhaps because technology has created a norma-
tive standard for connecting in peer relationships among youth (Willoughby,
2008).
Technology will undoubtedly continue to be used as a mechanism
in romantic relationships. As use increases by emerging adults, it will be
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 317

increasingly important to gain understanding about effects to help inform

young adults about how to use technology in healthy ways in relationship
formation and maintenance (Brown & Bobkowski, 2011). This study is de-
signed to augment the knowledge base in this growing area.

Attachment and Relationship Indicators

Attachment theory has recently been used as a systemic framework to ex-
plain the patterns and processes people bring to relationships (Johnson &
Whiffen, 2003). The theory was originally developed through observation
and conceptualization by John Bowlby (1969) as an explanation for the
deep affectional bonds that human beings develop and maintain for salient
others in their lives. He posited that the most intense human emotions arise
related to attachment bonds, and that falling in love and losing someone are
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

examples of the making and breaking of these bonds (Bowlby, 1980). Later,
Hazan and Shaver (1987) conceptualized pair bonding, or romantic love,
as an attachment process that follows a sequence of steps similar to those
observed in infant-parent attachment (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). In couples,
secure attachment bonds are considered mutually reciprocal relationships
which provide comfort and security, and in which individuals experience
one another as accessible, responsive, and engaged (Johnson, Makinen &
Miliken, 2001). Accessibility, responsiveness and engagement are consid-
ered behavioral manifestations of attachment (Sandberg, Busby, Johnson, &
Yoshida, 2012). Research has supported the theory that when individuals
have attachment partners who are accessible in moments of high need, they
experience lower levels of distress and higher levels of mental resiliency
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) and that the availability of a secure attachment
partner may lead to an increase in exploratory behavior (Coy, Green, &
Davis, 2012; Feeney, 2004, 2007).
Several studies have followed the application of attachment theory
to adult relationships to determine how attachment relationships develop
throughout the life cycle (Feeney, 2002). In a study designed to identify at-
tachment figures in adulthood, adolescents and adults identified their peers
or romantic partners as those they used to fulfill attachment functions (Hazan,
Hutt, Sturgeon, & Bricker, 1991). Subsequent studies have supported the idea
that a normal part of emerging adulthood is transferring attachment func-
tions from parents to peers (Dinero et al., 2008; Galliher, Welsh, Rostosky, &
Kawaguchi, 2004). Individuals in securely attached relationships experience
higher relationship quality (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Roberts & Pistole, 2009)
and stability (Duemmler & Kobak, 2001). In summary, the link between at-
tachment style and relationship quality indicators is well established in the
literature, but a burgeoning use of technology in relationships and how it
might impact these qualitative factors is unknown.
 318 L. C. Schade et al.

Attachment and Technology Use

The role of attachment as a mediator in relation to technology use has not
been widely examined. This study is an attempt to identify how technology
use affects this fundamental dimension of romantic relationships. If individ-
uals use their attachment partners in romantic relationships for proximity
maintenance and a safe haven, many types of technology may supplement
this attachment as new technology allows couples to be in contact while
increasing exploration in other areas. Technology can facilitate a sense of
safety in partners knowing they can reach one other, if necessary, while also
functioning independently. When partners respond to comments or requests
via the technology, this may be tangible evidence that the significant other
is accessible, responsive, and engaged.
Given that attachment is related to many relationship outcomes (Mikulin-
cer, Florian, Cowan, & Cowan, 2002), and that technology use can be used in
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

both positive and negative ways in relationships (Coyne et al., 2011; Henline,
2006; Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010), we have made the following predictions:
First, we expect that general and, specifically, positive use of technology
(such as expressing affection) would be positively associated with attach-
ment levels, relationship satisfaction, and stability. We also predict that neg-
ative technology use (such as sending hurtful text messages or regulating
the relationship) would be viewed as a relationship intrusion and would be
negatively associated with relationship satisfaction and stability. Finally, we
expected that reported partner attachment behaviors would specifically me-
diate the relationship between technology use and relationship satisfaction
and stability.

METHOD
Participants
The participants included 276 individuals surveyed using the Relationship
Evaluation Questionnaire (RELATE; Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001).
They identified themselves as being currently involved in dyadic roman-
tic relationships and falling in the age range of emerging adults (18 to 25).
The data was paired for men (n = 138) and women (n = 138) in their dyadic
relationships, using an actor–partner interdependence model (Cook & Ken-
ney, 2005). The mean age for men was 23 years with a standard deviation
of 1.87. The mean age for women was 22 years with a standard deviation of
1.97. For a more thorough description of the demographics of the specific
sample, please refer to Table 1.
Couples were recruited through various forms of advertising and re-
ferrals from professors, researchers, and therapeutic professionals. Couples
accessed the RELATE assessment online and answered questions regarding
 Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics: Female (N = 138) and Male (N = 138)

Age Mean Std Dev

Female 22 1.97
Male 23 1.87
Engaged or
Nature of committed to Seriously
relationship be married dating Married
Female 64 52 22
Male 64 52 22
Time dating 0 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 12 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10
months months months years years years
Female 9 17 24 40 38 10
Male 9 13 25 45 35 11
African/ Mixed/ Native
Race Caucasian Black Latino biracial American Asian
Female 120 5 3 5 2 3
Male 116 9 5 5 2 1
Education Less than High school Some college, Some college, Associate’s Bachelor’s Some Graduate
high school or equivalent not enrolled enrolled degree degree graduate degree
Female 2 3 7 79 13 18 13 3
Male 0 11 16 63 8 30 8 2
(Continued on next page)

319
 Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

320
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics: Female (N = 138) and Male (N = 138) (Continued from previous page)

Age Mean Std Dev

Annual No income Under $ $20,000– $40,000– $60,000– $80,000– $100,000– $120,000– $140,000–
income 20,000 $39,999 $59,999 $79,999 $99,999 $119,999 $139,999 $159,999
Female 16 95 17 7 3 0 0 0
Male 11 72 35 14 3 1 0 1
Religious LDS/
affiliation Mormon Protestant Catholic Buddhist Jewish Other None
Female 47 42 16 1 1 14 17
Male 46 44 14 1 1 12 20
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 321

perceptions of themselves and their partners in four main areas: individual,

couple, family, and social.

Measures
The RELATE questionnaire includes over 300 items designed to evaluate
the relationship between romantically involved partners who are dating, en-
gaged, or married. The questions examine various areas related to individual,
cultural, and family-of-origin contexts in order to provide couples with feed-
back related to potential strengths and challenges of their relationship. The
reliability and validity, including test-retest and internal consistent reliability
and content, construct, and concurrent validity, have been established in
previous research (Busby et al., 2001). For detailed information regarding
the theory behind this instrument along with psychometric properties, the
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

reader is referred to Busby and colleagues’ (2001) discussion of the instru-

ment. Specific scales from the instrument are described next.

TECHNOLOGY USE
Technology use was assessed using two sets of questions regarding both
frequency and type of technology use to communicate in the relationship.
These questions were used in an earlier study related to technology use be-
tween partners (Coyne et al., 2011). The first set of questions for technology
use specifically considered frequency of two types of technology used to
connect to one’s romantic partner. Two single-item indicators were included
both for texting and for using social networking sites, such as Facebook.
Answers were assessed on a rating scale where 1 represented, “never,” 2
was “less than once a month,” 3 was “once a month,” 4 was “2–3 times
a month,” 5 was “once a week,” 6 was “once a day,” and 7 represented,
“more than once a day,” for how often they used that form of technology to
connect with their partner.
The other component of technology use, using the same rating scale,
focused questions on how technology was used to communicate in the re-
lationship. Respondents were asked to rate how often they used mobile
phones, texting, e-mail, instant messaging, blogs (including Twitter), social
networking sites, or webcams to engage in three purposes of relationship
communication. The first purpose was a single-item indicator for using tech-
nology to express affection to one’s partner. The second purpose was con-
sidered relationship regulation, using three combined questions, which were,
“to discuss serious issues with your partner,” “to broach a potentially con-
frontational subject,” and “to apologize to your partner.” The last purpose
was another single-item indicator asking how often they used technology to
hurt their partner. Cronbach’s α was .78 for men and .82 for women.
 322 L. C. Schade et al.

COUPLE ATTACHMENT
The couple attachment score was derived from their responses to the Brief
Accessibility, Responsiveness, and Engagement (BARE) assessment (Sand-
berg et al., 2012). The BARE is an instrument designed to be a brief self-
report measure of key attachment behaviors in couple relationships. The
psychometric properties were established using item response theory and
classical testing theory (Sandberg et al., 2012). It is designed to understand
how accessible, responsive, and engaged partners believe that they and
their partners are for one another. Respondents gave numerical responses
for each area on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Two questions were asked in each of the three categories
about their partners (accessibility, responsiveness, and engagement). Partner
scores were included here instead of self scores because previous studies
have demonstrated that often self scores are less accurate as indicators of
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

relationship phenomena (Busby & Gardner, 2008). For accessibility, respon-

dents were asked, “My partner is rarely available to me,” and “It is hard for me
to get my partner’s attention.” For responsiveness, respondents were asked,
“My partner listens when I share my deepest feelings,” and “Even when we
are apart, my partner reaches out to me.” For engagement, respondents were
asked, “It is hard for my partner to confide in me,” and “My partner struggles
to feel close and engaged in our relationship.” Items were reverse-coded
so overall scores were associated with higher attachment. Scores were then
added and the mean overall sum was assigned to each male (Cronbach’s
α was .76) and female respondent in a romantic relationship (Cronbach’s
α was .84).

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION
Relationship satisfaction was measured using a 5-item Likert scale that as-
sessed different facets of their relationship, with responses ranging from 1
(very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Cronbach’s α was .82 for men and for
women was .81. Test-retest reliability estimates for this scale in past research
were .78 (Busby et al. 2001). The scale is highly correlated with the exist-
ing relationship quality and satisfaction measures both in cross-sectional and
longitudinal research (Busby et al., 2001; Busby, Ivey, Harris, & Ates, 2007).

RELATIONSHIP STABILITY
Respondents answered three questions related to relationship stability. On
a scale where 1 (never) and 5 (very often), individuals answered questions
about how often they considered breaking up or had broken up. Items were
reverse-coded so higher scores indicated more stable relationships. Previous
studies have shown this stability scale to have test-retest reliability values
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 323

TABLE 2 Technology Variable Frequency

Technology variable Male Female

Uses texting to connect with partner:

More than once per day 82.6% 81.2%
Once per day 8.7% 9.5%
Once per week 1.5% 2.2%
2 to 3 times per month 2.2% 0.7%
Once per month 0.0% 0.5%
Never 5.1% 6.5%
Uses social networking websites to
connect with partner:
More than once per day 7.3% 6.2%
Once per day 9.3% 9.3%
Once per week 23.3% 19.7%
2 to 3 times per month 12.4% 16.7%
Once per month 7.8% 11.4%
Less than once per month 20.7% 14.5%
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Never 19.2% 22.8%

between .78 and .86, to be appropriately correlated with other relationship

quality measures, and to be valid in cross-sectional and longitudinal research
(Busby et al., 2001, 2007, 2009).

RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
Technology variable frequencies for men and women are represented in
Table 2. Results of the correlational analysis are shown in Table 3. Level of
significance on a two-tailed test was set at p ≤ .01. Male and female frequency
of texting were highly correlated variables, at .88, and their frequency of
use of social technology was correlated at .75. Their relationship stability
scores were correlated at .73, and their relationship satisfaction scores at .57.
For men, attachment and relationship satisfaction were correlated somewhat
highly, at .59, and women at .72, which was theoretically expected. Male
attachment was significantly correlated with relationship stability at .40, and
female attachment at .51, which was also theoretically expected. Attachment
was left separate to check for mediation effects.

Path Analysis
A path analysis was conducted with the data in SEM with Analysis of Mo-
ments Structure (AMOS, version 19) software (Arbuckle, 2008). The purpose
of the study was to assess significant relationships between the independent
variables of texting frequency to connect in the relationship, using social
 Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

TABLE 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables

Mean Std Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

324
1. Male 6.52 1.39 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
texting
2. Fe- 6.45 1.51 0.876∗∗ 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
male
texting
3. Male 3.51 1.97 0.085 0.007 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
social
media
4. Fe- 3.41 1.91 0.170∗ 0.150 0.752∗∗ 1 — — — — — — — — — — — —
male
social
media
5. Male 6.27 1.08 0.238∗∗ 0.154 0.101 0.096 1 — — — — — — — — — — —
affec-
tion
6. Fe- 6.24 1.26 0.076 0.241∗∗ 0.046 0.072 0.189∗ 1 — — — — — — — — — —
male
affec-
tion
7. Male 8.88 3.97 0.181∗ 0.139 0.198∗ 0.216∗ 0.369∗∗ 0.142 1 — — — — — — — — —
regula-
tion
8. Fe- 8.39 4.34 0.035 0.079 0.104 0.156 0.020 0.357∗∗ 0.318∗∗ 1 — — — — — — — —
male
regula-
tion
9. Male 1.27 0.66 0.026 0.027 –0.013 0.043 0.037 –0.064 0.202∗ 0.242∗∗ 1 — — — — — — —
hurtful
mes-
sages
10. Fe- 1.37 0.97 0.100 0.123 –0.057 0.067 –0.006 0.109 0.186∗ 0.459∗∗ 0.341∗∗ 1 — — — — — —
male
hurtful
mes-
sages
 Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

11. Male 12.51 2.15 0.179∗ 0.167∗ 0.195∗ 0.172∗ 0.237∗∗ 0.127 0.058 –0.171∗ –0.482∗∗ –0.306∗∗ 1 — — — — —
part-
ner
attach-
ment
12. Fe- 12.68 2.13 0.062 0.054 0.010 0.023 0.181∗ 0.128 –0.129 –0.234∗∗ –0.205∗ –0.265∗∗ 0.406∗∗ 1 — — — —
male
part-
ner
attach-
ment
13. Male 26.19 2.93 –0.036 –0.007 0.064 0.045 0.217∗ 0.088 –0.069 –0.165 –0.428∗∗ –0.231∗∗ 0.593 0.393∗∗ 1 — — —
rela-
tion-
ship
satis-
faction
14. Fe- 26.05 3.33 –0.065 –0.027 –0.025 –0.041 0.134 0.066 –0.171∗ –0.417∗∗ –0.417∗∗ –0.420∗∗ 0.492∗∗ 0.719∗∗ 0.566∗∗ 1 — —
male
rela-
tion-
ship
satis-
faction
15. Male 25.35 3.48 –0.121 –0.094 –0.011 –0.071 0.105 0.095 –0.222∗∗ –0.182∗ –0.479∗∗ –0.316∗∗ 0.395∗∗ 0.386∗∗ 0.480∗∗ 0.451∗∗ 1 —
rela-
tion-
ship
stabil-
ity
16. Fe- 25.42 3.55 –0.096 –0.005 –0.051 –0.087 0.126 0.169∗ –0.190∗ –0.239∗∗ –0.418∗∗ –0.367∗∗ 0.352∗∗ 0.506∗∗ 0.435∗∗ 0.581∗∗ 0.731∗∗ 1
male
rela-
tion-
ship
stabil-
ity

325
∗p ≤ .05, ∗∗ p ≤ .01.
 326 L. C. Schade et al.

TABLE 4 Regression Weights for Actor Effects

Unstandardized Standardized p

Female Actor Effects

∗∗∗
Female BARE → Female .600 .563
Relationship Satisfaction
∗∗∗
Female BARE → Female .231 .363
Relationship Stability
∗∗∗
Female Regulation → –.164 –.192
Female Satisfaction
Female Text → Female .483 .341 .02
Relationship Stability
Female Affection → .509 .192 .04
Female BARE
Male Actor Effects
∗∗∗
Male BARE → Male .547 .453
Relationship Satisfaction
∗∗∗
Male Hurt → Male BARE –1.851 –.416
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

∗∗∗
Male Hurt → Male –1.115 –.349
Relationship Stability
Male Hurt → Male –1.053 –.196 .01
Relationship Satisfaction
Male Affection → Male .483 .178 .02
BARE
Male Affection → Male .528 .161 .02
Relationship Satisfaction
Male BARE → Male .128 .178 .04
Relationship Stability
Male Texting → Male –.689 –.273 .05
Relationship Satisfaction
∗∗∗ p ≤ .001.

networking sites to connect in the relationship, using technology (as de-

fined in Measures) to express affection in the relationship, using technology
to discuss serious issues, and using technology to hurt one’s partner with
the dependent variables of relationship satisfaction and relationship stability.
Reported partner attachment was included as a possible mediating variable.
To maximize the best model fit, modification indices were obtained
and correlations were added between the variables until the maximum ben-
efit was achieved, in accordance with procedures for structuring a model
to achieve adequate fit statistics (Byrne, 2001; Kline, 2011). Results of the
goodness-of-fit statistics indicated that the model fit the data adequately
χ 2(35) = 43.4, p = .157, Tucker Lewis index (TLI) = .970, comparative fit
index (CFI) = .991, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
= .042.
Results for effects between types of technology use and relationship
satisfaction and stability variables were mixed, as well as mediating effects
of attachment. Results are in Tables 4 and 5. The figure of the model is
represented without error terms for clarity of interpretation (see Figure 1),
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 327

TABLE 5 Regression Weights for Partner Effects and Mediating p-Values

Unstandardized Standardized P

Female Partner Effects

Female BARE → Male .132 .211 .01
Relationship Stability
Female Hurt → Male BARE –.551 –.179 .02
Female BARE → Male .162 .154 .03
Relationship Satisfaction
Male Partner Effects
∗∗∗
Male Hurt → Female –.871 –.268
Relationship Stability
Male Texting → Female –.639 –.420 .003
Relationship Stability
Male Texting → Female –.680 –.266 .01
Relationship Satisfaction
Male Hurt → Female –.835 –.153 .01
Relationship Satisfaction
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Male Affection → Female BARE .569 .183 .03

Male BARE → Female .161 .132 .04
Relationship Satisfaction
Mediating Effects
Male Hurt → Male BARE → .02
Male Satisfaction
Male Affection → Male BARE .02
→ Male Satisfaction
Mediating Trends
Male Hurt → Male BARE → .06
Male Stability
Male Hurt → Male BARE → .06
Female Satisfaction
Female Regulation → .07
Female BARE →
Female Satisfaction
∗∗∗ p ≤ .001.

although error terms were included when the model was executed in AMOS.
Actor and partner effects will be discussed separately, as well as mediation
findings. There were no significant associations at all between use of social
technology (e.g., Facebook) and any dependent variables.

ACTOR EFFECTS
Shown in Table 4, as expected, report of partner attachment was highly
associated (p ≤ .001) with self-reported relationship satisfaction for both
men (β = .45) and women (β = .56). Reported partner attachment was also
positively associated at this level with self-scores for relationship stability
for both men (β = .18, p = .04) and women (β = .36, p ≤ .001). For
texting, female texting frequency was positively associated with reported
relationship stability (β = .34, p = .02), while male texting frequency was
 328 L. C. Schade et al.
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

FIGURE 1 Significant Standardized Regression Weights (∗ p ≤ .05, ∗∗

p ≤ .01, ∗∗∗
p ≤ .001).

negatively associated with self-reported relationship satisfaction (β = –.27;

p = .05).
For using technology to express affection, male use was positively as-
sociated with their own relationship satisfaction (β = .16, p = .02), as well
as their reported partner attachment (β = .18, p = .02). Female use of
technology to express affection was also positively associated with their
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 329

reported partner attachment (β = .19, p = .04). For using technology to

regulate the relationship, female use was negatively associated with their
own relationship satisfaction (β = –.19, p = .001). For hurting one’s part-
ner, there were no significant female paths. For men, there were negative
associations with their own satisfaction (β = –.20, p = .01), their own sta-
bility (β = –.35, p ≤ .001), and their reported partner attachment (β = –.42,
p ≤ .001).

PARTNER EFFECTS
Shown in Table 5, for reported partner attachment, there was a positive cor-
relation between male report of partner attachment and female relationship
satisfaction (β = .13, p = .04). There were also positive associations between
female report of partner attachment and both male relationship satisfaction
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

(β = .15, p = .03) and male relationship stability (β = .21, p = .01).

For frequency of texting, there was a negative relationship between
male texting frequency and female relationship satisfaction (β = –.27,
p = .01), and with female relationship stability (β = –.42, p = .003). There
were no significant effects from female texting to their male partner variables.
For using technology to express affection, there was a positive relationship
between male use and female report of partner attachment (β = .18, p =
.03) but no significant associations from female to male. For using technol-
ogy to hurt one’s partner, male use was negatively associated with female
relationship satisfaction (β = –.15, p = .01) as well as with female relation-
ship stability (β = –.27, p ≤ .001). Female use of technology to hurt partners
was negatively associated with male report of partner attachment (β = –.18,
p = .02).

MEDIATING EFFECTS
As shown in Table 5, a Sobel test was conducted to test for mediating effects
of female or male reported attachment in any significant pathways (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). There were only two significant pathways. Male report of part-
ner attachment met the requirements of significance for mediation between
using technology to hurt a partner and self-reported relationship satisfaction
(p = .02). Male report of partner attachment also met mediation significance
requirements between their use of technology to express affection and fe-
male relationship satisfaction (p = .02).
There were three pathways trending toward significance. For men, re-
port of partner attachment mediated the relationship between using technol-
ogy to hurt one’s partner and partner relationship satisfaction (p = .06), and
between using technology to hurt one’s partner and partner-reported rela-
tionship satisfaction (p = .06). Female report of partner attachment mediated
 330 L. C. Schade et al.

the relationship between using technology to regulate the relationship and

relationship satisfaction (p = .07).

DISCUSSION

Research related to technology use and its effect on relationships is relatively

new, largely because technology use has increased so quickly in the past
decade. This study is one of the first to examine attachment, technology, and
other important relationship outcomes in emerging adults. Creating bonds in
interpersonal and other romantic relationships becomes increasingly impor-
tant in the emerging adult population, as it is a stage when certain relation-
ships often take on more permanency and commitment than in adolescence
(Fincham & Cui, 2010). There were some specific findings in this study that
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

may provide a future direction for research as it relates to technology use

and attachment in these romantic relationships.
In general, partner report of relationship attachment behaviors seems to
be an important indicator for both relationship satisfaction and stability. In
particular, partner attachment can help mediate negative relationship effects,
particularly from men using technology to hurt their partners. Male reported
attachment may also enhance the pathway between expressing affection and
relationship satisfaction.
Overall, social technology use was not significantly associated with re-
lationship quality. Women using texting for regulating the relationship was
negatively associated with their own satisfaction. Using texting to express af-
fection had universal positive associations with reported partner attachment,
while using texting to hurt one’s partner as well as to regulate what might
be perceived as threats in the relationship had negative associations with
relationship quality indicators.

Attachment
It was not surprising that reported partner attachment is so highly correlated
with relationship quality and relationship stability. The attachment system
represents security in a relationship and can use the significant other as
a secure base from which to face life’s challenges and stressors (Davila &
Levy, 2006). It makes sense that individuals who reported accessibility, re-
sponsiveness, and engagement in a romantic partner would have higher
relationship quality, as explained by satisfaction and stability. Adult love is
representational, and even a mental image of a strong attachment relation-
ship can engender felt security (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007); therefore, even
communication instigated through technology connections may help emerg-
ing adults feel that their romantic partners are accessible, responsive, and
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 331

engaged, or vice-versa, depending on the type of technology communication

employed.

Texting Frequency
Interestingly, the significant findings related to frequency of texting were
different for men and women. The negative association with male texting
and relationship satisfaction, as well as lower reports of relationship satis-
faction and stability in their female partners, serves as a contrast with the
positive association between female texting frequency and their own rela-
tionship stability. A recent study of gender differences in desired partner
change in married and cohabitating relationships found that women de-
sired more companionate behaviors compared to their male counterparts
(Heyman, Hunt-Martorano, Malik, & Slep, 2009). It is possible that this asso-
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

ciation may indicate a desire in women for reaching out and connecting with
partners through higher frequencies of texting behavior. It is also possible
that, when the relationship feels threatened, men might somehow discon-
nect from more intimate forms of communication and use texting as a safer
medium. Future research related to gender differences and texting pattern
effects is needed to more fully understand relationship impacts.

Affection
There were some interesting implications for using technology to express
affection as it related to reports of partner attachment. Since the attachment
measure was a behavioral measure of partner accessibility, responsiveness,
and engagement, it seems likely that modern forms of social technology
represent additional tangible sources for partners to feel connected, aiding
relationship satisfaction. There might be a possibility for targeting technol-
ogy communication as a relationship enhancing factor. In terms of attach-
ment theory, texting and social networking responsiveness may increasingly
become important sources of reassurance, which can engender felt security.

Relationship Regulation
The negative association between women using technology for regulating
the relationship and their own satisfaction scores may also indicate a type
of protest behavior which is typical in anxious partners when relationships
feel threatened (Makinen & Johnson, 2006). The romantic connections in
this age range are continuously shifting; attachment anxiety may develop
from conflicts in the relationship, and resolution and perception may be
influenced by individual attachment styles (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, &
Kashy, 2005). In emerging adulthood, romantic relationships often take on
significance beyond adolescence, creating uncertainty. Attempts to regulate
 332 L. C. Schade et al.

relationships through this new use of social technology may be confounded

by the uncertainty inherent in this population. This was one area, however,
in which female report of partner attachment trended toward mediating the
relationship between their use of technology for this purpose and their rela-
tionship satisfaction, suggesting that this might be a target area for increasing
attachment behaviors.

Hurtful Messages
The several negative associations with using technology to hurt one’s partner
for men, and women in one instance, indicate that this may have powerfully
deleterious effects within a romantic relationship. Men using technology
to hurt partners was negatively associated with self and partner relationship
satisfaction and stability scores as well as reported partner attachment scores.
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Female use was negatively correlated with reported partner attachment. This
is one area, however, in which partner attachment may mediate the effects
of negative communication, because male reported partner attachment was a
mediator between both men hurting their partner and their own satisfaction;
it also trended toward mediation with female satisfaction as well as their
own stability scores. Overall, it seems that sending hurtful social technology
messages may be particularly harmful in romantic relationships, especially
for men. This is important since partners may not be aware of the impact
of these types of messages. As mentioned, if men find technology use a
safer form of communicating in the face of relationship threat, they may
increase this form of more detached interaction but may also underestimate
the far-reaching effects of engaging in this type of communication.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICIANS

As technology use becomes an intrinsic form of communication between

emerging adults and, as a result, a ubiquitous tool in the formation and main-
tenance of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood, clinicians need to
become aware of possible specific correlates. These findings suggest that
it is worthwhile for clinicians to assess for types of technology commu-
nication in romantic relationships and to make couples aware of possible
ramifications. Partners need to understand that texting is devoid of impor-
tant face-to-face cues, and that the messages have very real interpersonal
effects in relationships.
Clinicians can make clients aware of how technology use in communi-
cations might affect their interactions and help them focus on target areas
for intervention. For example, because attachment is so highly correlated
with relationship satisfaction and stability, clinicians can work with clients
to increase attention to their levels of accessibility, responsiveness, and
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 333

engagement and create those types of experiences in session, as in emo-

tionally focused couples therapy (Johnson, 2004). As a construct, attachment
is related to particular behaviors in a relationship, and increased responsive-
ness can lead to increased individual functioning (Feeney, 2007).
Also, the negative associations with hurtful communication lead to a
possible area for intervention, namely in evaluating the emotional tone of
messages and focusing on curtailing hurtful messages while increasing pos-
itive messages. There is a large body of research indicating that negative
communication can have an absorbing effect in a relationship and ultimately
lead to destabilization and eventual dissolution, so setting up a ratio of pos-
itives to negatives is a way to counteract those effects (Gottman, 1999).
Since verbal and facial cues are an incremental part of communication, and
these cues are missing in nonvocal types of communication, such as texting
and emailing, partners may misconstrue messages and attribute emotional
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

meaning that is absent, because emotional cues are often intuited from vocal
inflection (Coyne et al., 2011). Clinicians can use this information to encour-
age clients to be mindful and purposeful about the content of messages sent
in romantic relationships, and to be slow to interpret meaning in technology
communications.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION

There were several limitations in this study. The sample was a largely Cau-
casian, highly educated population. This may not speak to those in minority
groups or lower socioeconomic status populations. Additionally, although
individuals identified themselves as being in romantic relationships, no dis-
tinctions were made about time frame or commitment levels in those relation-
ships. As a result, there may have been varying levels of serious commitment
in the relationships, and commitment is an important factor in relationship
durability (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2010). Emerging adulthood is a
developmental time period that is considered the most heterogeneous, be-
cause young adults are negotiating various pathways of education, career
exploration, and relationship formation (Fincham & Cui, 2010). This implies
an inherent level of variability within their romantic relationships and thus it
is possible that uncovering systematic patterns is more challenging with this
population.
Texting, expressing affection, and hurtful communication were mea-
sured with a single item indicator, which may be inherently problematic in
that they are not perfectly reliable and valid (Kline, 2011). Additionally, any
discussion of gender differences should be approached with caution. Dyadic
romantic data is unique and represents a challenge for consistent replication;
statistical significance does not necessarily explain real gender differences
(Ackerman, Donnellan, & Kashy, 2010). Gender differences were discussed
 334 L. C. Schade et al.

in this exploratory study in part to generate future research questions in a

newly developing field of research.
It is important to point out that this is by no means a causal model.
A path analysis only gives information about correlations among variables.
It is difficult to draw certain conclusions about directionality (Kline, 2011).
Relationship quality factors may recursively influence frequency and types
of technology communications. There also might be other specific factors
of relationship satisfaction and stability that are also related to behaviors
in technology use in relationships. This study was simply designed as an
exploratory analysis to begin examining how an increase of technology use
in interpersonal romantic relationships might be tied to certain relationship
markers.
As communication tools change, it is worthwhile for researchers to be
aware of trends in how these tools might affect basic human relationships.
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Just as the advent of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and television were
accompanied by social concerns for how these technologies would affect
personal relationships, the advent of modern forms of technology via Inter-
net, cell phones and the like present similar concerns (Barh & McKenna,
2004). The authors hope to generate future questions about how emerg-
ing adults are being affected by their increasing use of technology in their
daily lives and in the formation and maintenance of their close romantic
relationships.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Kashy, D. A. (2010). Working with dyadic data
in studies of emerging adulthood: Specific recommendations, general advice
and practical tips. In F. D. Fincham & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships
in emerging adulthood (Advances in personal relationships) (pp. 67–100). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among Internet attitudes, Internet use, romantic
beliefs, and perceptions of online romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 8, 521–531.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
Bachen, C. M. (2007). Just part of the family? Exploring the connections between
family life and media use. In S. R. Mazzarella (Ed.), 20 questions about youth
and the media (pp. 239–252). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review
of Psychology, 55, 573–590.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 335

Baym, N. K., Zhang, Y. B., Kunkel, A., Ledbetter, A., & Lin, M. (2007). Relational
quality and media use in interpersonal relationships. New Media Society, 9(5),
735–752.
Bowlby, J. (1969). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 130, 201–210.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3, Loss: sadness and depression. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Brown, J. D. (2006). Emerging adults in a media-saturated world. In J. J. Ar-
nett & J. L. Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in
the 21st century (pp. 279–299). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Brown, J. D., & Bobkowski, P. S. (2011). Older and newer media: Patterns of use
and effects on adolescents’ health and well-being. Journal of Research on Ado-
lescence, 21, 95–113.
Buote, V. M., Wood, E., & Pratt, M. (2009). Exploring similarities and differences
between online and offline friendships: The role of attachment style. Computers
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

in Human Behavior, 25, 560–567.

Busby, D. M., & Gardner, B. C. (2008). How do I analyze thee? Let me count
the ways: Considering empathy in couple relationships using self and partner
ratings. Family Process, 47, 229–242.
Busby, D. M., Ivey, D. C., Harris, S. M., & Ates, C. (2007). Self-directed, therapist-
directed, and assessment-based interventions for premarital couples. Family
Relations, 56, 279–290.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship eval-
uation for the individual, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50,
308–316.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict
and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A Social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of
Communication, 55, 721–736.
Caplan, S. E. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic
Internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 234–242.
Collins, W. A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging
adulthood: Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In J. J. Arnett & J. L.
Tanner (Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century
(pp. 219–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cooper, A. (2002). Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians. New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge.
Cook, W. L., & Kenney, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: A
model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 29, 101–109.
Coy, A. E., Green, J. D., & Davis, J. L. (2012). With or without you: The impact of
partner presence on exploration. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48,
411–415.
 336 L. C. Schade et al.

Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv
u ”: A descriptive study on media use in individuals involved in romantic
relationships. Family Relations, 60, 150–162.
Davila, J., & Levy, K. N. (2006). Introduction to the special section on attachment
theory and psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74,
989–993.
Dinero, R. E., Conger, R. D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., & Larsen-Rife, D. (2008).
Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment
security. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 622–632.
Donahue, E. H., Haskins, R., & Nightingale, M. (2008). Using the media to promote
adolescent well-being. The Future of Children, 18, 1–7.
Duemmler, S. L., & Kobak, R. (2001). The development of commitment and attach-
ment in dating relationships: Attachment security as a relationship construct.
Journal of Adolescence, 24, 401–415.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). The attachment system in fledgling rela-
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

tionships: An activating role for attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 95, 628–647.
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
87, 631–648.
Feeney, B. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting
dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 92, 268–285.
Feeney, J. A. (2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: a
diary study. Personal Relationships, 9, 39–55.
Fincham, F. D., & Cui, M. (2010). Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood
(Advances in personal relationships). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical develop-
ments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General
Psychology,4, 132–154.
Galliher, R. V., Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. D. (2004). Interaction
and relationship quality in late adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 21, 203–216.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy.
New York, NY: Norton.
Hazan, C., Hutt, M. J., Sturgeon, J., & Bricker, T. (1991, April). The process of
relinquishing parents as attachment figures. Presented at the biennial meeting
of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511–524.
Henline, B. H. (2006). Technology use and intimacy development in committed
relationships: Exploring the influence of differentiation of self. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2008). Therapists’ assessment and treatment
of Internet infidelity cases. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34,
481–497.
 Technology, Attachment, Satisfaction, Stability, Emerging Adults 337

Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relation-

ships. Family Relations, 61, 374–387.
Hertlein, K. M., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “As” contributing to Internet-
related intimacy problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychology. Journal
of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(1), article 1. Retrieved from
http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2010050202
Heyman, R. E., Hunt-Martorano, A. N., Malik, J., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Desired
change in couples: Gender differences and effects on communication. Journal
of Family Psychology, 23, 474–484.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy. New York,
NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Miliken, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple
relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 145–155.
Johnson, S. M., & Whiffen, V. E. (2003). Attachment processes in couple and family
therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media
and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-
Adults/Summary-of-Findings.aspx
Madell, D. E., & Muncer, S. J. (2007). Control over social interactions: An important
reason for young people’s use of the Internet and mobile phones for commu-
nication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 137–140.
Makinen, J. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). Resolving attachment injuries in couples
using emotionally focused therapy: Steps toward forgiveness and reconciliation.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1055–1064.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment se-
curity in couple relationships: A systemic model and its implications for family
dynamics. Family Process, 41, 405–434.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote
mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological In-
quiry, 18, 139–156.
Pettigrew, J. (2009). Text messaging and connectedness within close interpersonal
relationships. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 697–716.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Should I stay or should I go?
Predicting dating relationship stability from four levels of commitment. Journal
of Family Psychology, 24, 543–550.
Roberts, A., & Pistole, M. C. (2009). Long-distance and proximal romantic relationship
satisfaction: Attachment and closeness predictors. Journal of College Counseling,
12, 5–17.
Roberts, D. F., Rideout, V., & Foehr, U. G. (2010). Generation M: Media in the lives
of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Sandberg, J., Busby, D., Johnson, S. M., & Yoshida, K. (2012). The brief accessibility,
responsiveness, and engagement (BARE) scale: A tool for measuring attachment
behavior in couple relationships. Family Process, 51, 512–26.
 338 L. C. Schade et al.

Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and

students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods and
Applications, 20, 1864–1105.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent
relationships. The Future of Children, 18, 119–146.
Van den Eijnden, R. J., & Meerkerk, G. (2008). Online communication, compulsive
Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 655–665.
Willoughby, T. (2008). A short-term longitudinal study of Internet and computer
game use by adolescent boys and girls: Prevalence, frequency of use, and
psychosocial predictors. Developmental Psychology, 44, 195–204.
Downloaded by [186.67.71.43] at 06:59 08 October 2015