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]

Final-Literature Review Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Final-Literature Review Paper

Similar to Final-Literature Review Paper (10)

Final-Literature Review Paper