1Running Head: TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

2
1
1
2

Technology Dependence in Relationships

Ninety percent of Americans own a cell phone, and a total of fifty-eight percent of them

3own smartphones; this is according to the data pulled from Pew Research Center (Stone, 2014).
4More drastic is the percentage of people who have developed a psychological attachment to their
5phones, which explains how serious the addiction of smartphones has become (Stone, 2014).
6There have been studies relating to the dependence of technology (how happy one is within such
7relationship) in relationships, however these various studies, that will later be discussed, either
8only mentioning about one gender, have too many variables involved, are too generalized and
9dont get into specifics, have too wide of an age gap, or specifically like the study done by Rosen
10which only focuses on attitudes towards technology.
11

This study which will be performed and discussed later in this paper will add a whole

12new level to the topic of technology dependence and its effects on relationships. To begin with,
13this study varies from all others because it looks at both male and female partners, male and male
14partners, and female and female partners. The later study will also include a dependent variable
15which hasnt been discussed in past research- relational uncertainty, by including this variable it
16puts an answer to the unknown and brings the entire study package together. The last and most
17important feature of the current study is how it will be focusing on specifically romantic
18relationships. This study will answer the major question of how independent variables,
19smartphone use and technology dependence, impact dependent variables, relational satisfaction
20and relational uncertainty, in college romantic relationships.
21

In a research study prepared by researchers at Brigham Young University, they studied

22computer-mediated communication; however, their main focus was non-computer mediated

23communication which fits closely to the study to be performed later. This study tests whether an

4TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

24individual was most likely to use a cell phone than any other medium of communication: texting
25was the next most common form of communication (Coyne, et al. 2011). This study also did an
26analysis to discover any demographic or relationship differences in the use of media and to
27discover the reasons behind this type of communication (Coyne, et al. 2011). By conducting the
28analysis and t-tests they did, the team was able to go further and discuss the reasons why partners
29use media to converse; which in turn made their research valuable because they were able to
30better understand the why of the matter (Coyne, et al. 2011). This will be helpful to keep in mind
31while performing future studies, specifically the current study.
32

The results of the Brigham Young University study support hypothesis two of the later

33study, though not as strong as anticipated, because they found that text messaging had the
34strongest influence on communication and relationship satisfaction. Text messaging to bring up
35confrontation showed an important relationship with positive (-0.08) and negative
36communication (0.10), as well as hurt ones partner in positive (-0.20) and negative (0.32)
37communication, and on the other hand, express ones affection in positive (0.15) and negative
38(0.-16) communication (Coyne, et al. 2011). The studys independent variable (text messaging) is
39much like the current studys independent variable (smartphone use), and this studys dependent
40variable (relationship satisfaction) is identical to the current studys dependent variable. This
41study contradicts the current hypotheses in a way, but is no reason to disregard the findings of
42this particular study.
43

It was hypothesized in another study by Shanhong Luo, that greater texting share will be

44associated with lower relationship satisfaction, which relates closely with hypothesis two that
45will be mentioned (Luo, 2014). They also used the same independent and dependent variables
46that relates to later study. This study questioned 395 participants, 175 of them being males and

7TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

47220 of them females. A demographic questionnaire was given and they also completed the
48Hendricks Relationship Assessment Scale with ten items on relationship satisfaction, using a
49seven point scale (Luo, 2014). This study is persistently like the study that will be performed
50later and will be vital to the procedure, however, there are a few flaws or gaps in the research that
51would need some looking over; the fact that they chose to use such a high number of questions in
52the Adult Attachment section poses a problem of participants getting bored and overwhelmed and
53another gap is by only examining texting frequency and not taking the length or content of the
54messages into thought was a limitation that should be looked at in further research (Luo, 2014).
55

Since the Luo study proposed five separate hypotheses, they were able to show the

56variety and vastness that a subject such as this can acquire which is a positive for the later study.
57Results suggested that texting share decreased as the relationship got lengthier, more avoidant
58and anxious participants spent more time on texting their partner- providing support that
59avoidance and anxiety will be associated with more texting share (Luo, 2014). They also found
60that the more texting took out of communicating to their partner the less satisfied they were in
61such relationship, proving support for hypothesis one and two the later study came up with (Luo,
622014). With the small number of results providing undesirable predictions, this offers future
63research hope, in which the initial hypothesis (hypothesis one) will be confirmed or at least will
64attempt to shorten the gaps that this study from Lou showed.
65

The study that doesnt correlate as closely to the future study as the other previously

66mentioned studies do, is one that looked at a number of measures and had a focus which was
67different from the ones looked at in the later study: they chose to focus on attitudes towards
68technology, and internet addiction (Rosen, et al. 2013). Even though these studies seem
69drastically different because they look at different values and are searching for different end

10TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

70results, this information is still needed in order to understand the details of why we want to
71further this area of study. This particular study, like the study done by Lou, used a high number
72of questions (which is a gap needing attention) and were given to two independent samples of
73individuals, in which 942 participants were used (Rosen, et al. 2013). In addition, factor analyses
74were used to create eleven subscales to represent different technology uses and four attitude
75based subscales were added (Rosen, et al. 2013). The 66 items plus the 18 items, along with the
76subscales are all in conjunction to helping the later study by giving a different perspective on the
77subject. Because of the high volume number of measurements, this would make it difficult for
78participants to stay focused and not get bored, as stated before with Luos study which is a
79notable gap in these two studies.
80

The findings that Rosen and colleagues came up with show that when they compared

81Facebook users and nonusers there were positive attitudes, but anxieties arose particularly about
82missing out on the technology and participants felt dependent on technology; which is closely
83related to the independent variable in the current study (technology dependence) (Rosen, et al.
842013). Even though these results only include this social media network, other items such as
85smart phones, texting, and the use of apps can be altered to fit this measurement instead, which is
86good to know for the present study.
87

Another similar finding that restates in a more simple form and molds better with the

88present study was read in the Technology-related Anxiety section. This recorded that the more the
89subjects used their smartphones the greater the anxiety about missing out on text messages and
90social networks was which proves again that this study and the current study have the same
91independent variable (smartphone use) but contradicts the current study because they have
92different dependent variables (technology dependence in this study represents an independent

13TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

93variable in the current study) (Rosen, et al. 2013). These findings support hypothesis one from
94the present study and it isnt to say that it will need to be taken into consideration of what an
95individual is using these devices because that will then coincide with the results and the why of
96the matter.
97

The final study to look at is the one provided by the Journal of Communication, Speech,

98and Theatre Association of North Dakota, where Judy C. Pearson and colleagues did a study in
99which is pretty self-explanatory and whose research question could be answered without further
100study, however, it is important to have this individual study done because it proves the answer
101asked and helps improve the present study. This study asked what motives college students had
102for their technology devices, and these devices being; cell phones, televisions, computers, and
103MP3 players; which is close to what the present study would like to find out (Pearson, et al.
1042009). Another motive for this study was to identify a relationship, if any, between the motives
105and their perceptions of solitude and belongingness and they figured this out by surveying 708
106university students (Pearson, et al. 2009).
107

The participants were given scales that measured their perceived loneliness and

108belongingness, their motives for technology, along with a set of demographic questions and were
109administered through online and hardcopy sources. They found that the students, who use
110electronic devices (for entertainment) and use cell phones and/or television (for social
111interaction), will be less likely to feel lonely; which unfortunately contradict all hypotheses noted
112in the current study (Pearson, et al. 2009). This studys independent variable (relational
113communication) is identical to the independent variable in the present study. Even though there
114are contradictions towards the current study, it is good to include the study by Pearson because it

16TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

115opens new doors to different findings and reasons as to why some individuals may turn to
116technology for communication.
117

No single method has been used to measure this subject in the number of studies looked

118at in this review along with studies not covered here, which makes this type of study difficult to
119come to a conclusion. Also as recently stated, the content and purpose of using the technological
120device will need to be taken into consideration in future research. Nevertheless, these studies
121have made a path for further research and will hopefully make the next study a detailed and
122comprehensive one where most, if not all, questions about this topic are answered.
123

The literature previously discussed and the knowledge already known about this topic

124helps us predict the following:

125

H1: As technology dependence increases, relational satisfaction will decrease.

126

H2: As the amount of smartphone use increases, relational satisfaction will decrease.

127

H3: As technology dependence increases, relational uncertainty will increase.

128

H4: As the amount of smartphone use increases, relational uncertainty will increase.
Methods

129
130Recruitment
131

College students from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and a variety of

132students through the Qualtrics database were recruited to take the survey provided (n = 194). The
133people who were asked to participate were sent an email that asked kindly for their involvement,
134told them what the survey would entail, estimated how long it would take for them to complete it
135(15-20mins), and given a deadline in which they needed to complete the survey. The email had a
136link provided and it sent them to the Qualtrics website where they would then complete the
137survey in which they were able to close out at any time if they felt uncomfortable. There was an

19TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

138extra credit incentive for the students enrolled at UNCW who completed the survey and its value
139was of their professors choosing.
140Sample
141

The sample started out with 194 people who attempted to complete the survey. Yet, there

142were a number of participants who were screened out (n = 53) due to their age, the length of their
143relationship which was a required 1 month, neither or only one owning a smartphone, and lastly
144if they failed to choose the questions the study used as an attention check. The attention check
145questions were questions that purposely asked the participant to choose Enter somewhat for
146this question for example, to ensure that the participant was paying attention and taking the
147survey seriously (n = 4).
148

Of these subjects the finished sample consisted of 17.9% male (n = 34) and 51.1% female

149(n = 97), and the age ran from 18-52, and the average age being 21.98 years (SD = 4.18). The
150sample reported race as follows: 61.1% were White (n = 116), 2.6% were Black/African
151American (n = 5), 2.6% were recorded Native American (n = 5), 2.1% were Asian/Pacific
152Islander (n = 3), 5.3% were Latino (n = 10), and 1.6% were recorded as Other/Multiracial (n =
1534).
154

The procedure of the study, as previously mentioned required a number of subjects to be

155screened out and thanked for attempting the survey in order to gain the most accurate data this
156study was looking for. However, before the screening out the subjects must answer a number of
157demographic questions about themselves such as their race, age, gender, marital status, distance
158between partners, and also questions about their romantic partner such as, partners gender, age,
159and race, etc.
160Measures

22TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE
161

There were a number of different measures that were looked at which included; 95.8% of

162individuals currently enrolled in college (n = 182), 72.2% of individuals currently involved in a

163romantic relationship (n = 137), 72.1% of individuals have been dating for 1 month (n = 137),
1645.8% of individuals were married to their partner (n = 11), 70% of both the individual and their
165partner own a smartphone (n = 133), 27.9% of both the individual and their partner did not own a
166smartphone and were screened out (n = 53), and finally the length of the individuals relationship
167in months (m = 26.36; SD = 33.31).
168Independent Variables
169

Technology Dependence: For this variable a 1-5 point Likert scale, 1 being strongly

170disagree and 5 being strongly agree, was used and the main concern the study wanted to know
171was whether the respondent agreed or disagreed with the statements asked in the table. The 15
172questions were designed to find the level of dependence the respondent had in relation to their
173smartphone and if their smartphone use is affecting their relationship with their partner. There
174was a second table that had the same 1-5 point Likert scale but the main focus of this table was
175for the respondent to think about their partner when answering the 16 questions. This table used
176one of the three attention check questions for the respondents to enter strongly disagree, which
177made up for the 53 subjects who were screened out. The numbers recorded with importance are;
178respondents overall technology dependence (m = 2.39; SD = 0.59; = .87) and the respondents
179partners overall technology dependence (m = 2.12; SD = 0.69; = .91). The scale was taken
180from an online journal in which was successfully used to help this study (Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee,
181J., Nam, J. K., & Chung, Y. (2014). Development of Korean smartphone addiction proneness
182scale for youth. PloS one, 9(5), e97920).

25TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE
183

Relationship Communication: For this variable a 1-8 point Likert scale, 1 being never

184and 8 being several hours a day were used to find out how often the respondent and their partner
185communicate. The table shows 5 different mediums used for communication for the respondent
186to choose from and they were; telephone, email, social networking sites, text messaging, and in187person. The recorded amount of time varies for this variable and are as follows: telephone- a
188few times a week (m = 6.36; SD = 1.01), email- few times a year (m = 2.4; SD = 1.85),
189social networking sites- few times a month (m = 4.48; SD = 1.96), text messages- for a short
190period each day (m = 7.52; SD = 0.66), and finally in-person- few times a week (m = 6.75;
191SD = 1.73).
192

Smart Phone Use: The subjects were asked how often they use certain apps on their

193smartphones on a typical day and how often they believe their partner uses such apps on a typical
194day and it was determined by asking two questions regarding the hours spent on their
195smartphones. The overall respondents smartphone use (m = 0.39; SD = 0.30), the respondents
196partners overall smartphone use (m = 1.12; SD = 0.59), the overall hours of smartphone use by
197the respondent (m = 3.57; SD = 1.36), and the overall hours of smartphone use by the
198respondents partner (m = 3.29; SD = 1.42) were all recorded with importance to the study.
199

The apps that this study looked at included; Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat,

200Google+, Pinterest, Vine and Tumblr. For the part of the survey asking about one selfs use of
201these apps the recordings were; Twitter (m = 1.41; SD = 1.33), Facebook (m = 2.54; SD = 0.94),
202Instagram (m = 2.67; SD = 1.23), Snapchat (m = 2.21; SD = 1.35), Google+ (m = 0.52; SD =
2031.00), Pinterest (m = 1.09; SD = 1.13), Vine (m = 0.52; SD = 0.92), and Tumblr (m = 0.39; SD =
2040.97). For the part of the survey regarding ones partners use of these apps are as followed;
205Twitter (m = 3.09; SD = 1.22), Facebook (m = 3.94; SD = 1.04), Instagram (m = 3.88; SD =

28TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

10

2061.38), Snapchat (m = 3.96; SD = 1.32), Google+ (m = 2.35; SD = 0.80), Pinterest (m = 2.53; SD

207= 1.03), Vine (m = 2.57; SD = 0.95), and Tumblr (m = 2.26; SD = 0.75).
208Dependent Variables
209

Relationship Uncertainty: A 1-6 point Likert scale of 21 questions was used for this

210variable, 1 being completely or almost completely certain and 6 being completely or almost
211completely uncertain, to determine how the respondent felt about their relationship with their
212partner. This table included an attention check question that the respondents were to enter
213mostly uncertain which helped screen out the 53 respondents. The noted numbers for this
214variable are: respondents certainty (m = 1.63; SD = 0.85; = 0.94) and respondents partners
215certainty (m = 1.61; SD = 0.85; = 0.94). The table used to find these numbers was successful in
216finding out what exactly the study was searching for (Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H.
217(1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies,
21850(4), 261-278).
219

Relationship Satisfaction: For this particular variable there were three separate tables

220and two standalone questions. The two standalone questions wanted to figure out the degree of
221happiness, all things considered in their relationship and how often the respondent thinks things
222are going well in the relationship in general. The first table was a 1-6 point Likert scale, 1 being
223strongly disagree and 6 being strongly agree and asked the respondents about the extent of their
224disagreements and agreements in their relationship to determine how satisfied or happy they
225were. The next table was also a 1-6 point Likert scale, 1 being not at all and 6 being completely,
226which asked questions to again determine how satisfied the respondent was with their partner.
227Within this table there was an attention check question that asked the subjects to enter
228somewhat which helped screen out the 53 respondents. The last table was again a 1-6 point

31TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

11

229Likert scale, 1 being 1 and 6 being 6, attempting to figure out the satisfaction of the respondents
230relationship. This table was different from the other two because it asked the respondent to
231answer between two opposite feelings in six different categories. The respondents were required
232to answer their immediate feelings and were urged to not think long about it. The only numbers
233recorded for this variable was for the satisfaction level for all tables and questions (m = 54.35;
234SD = 12.94).These tables were inspired by an outside source to successfully take this study to the
235next level (Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory:
236increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction
237Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583.)
238Covariates
239

Distance of Relationship: Participants were asked in the beginning of the survey how far

240or close they lived to their partners. 13.7% of respondents recorded they live with their partners
241(n = 26), 32.6% of respondents were recorded that they lived 0-10 miles away from their partner
242(n = 62), 6.2% of respondents said they lived 11-50 miles from their partner (n = 12), 2.6% of
243respondents said they lived 51-100 miles away from their partner (n = 5), 7.9% of respondents
244live 101-200 miles from their partner (n = 15), 0.5% of respondents recorded living 201-300
245miles from their partner (n = 1), and 5.3% of respondents recorded they live over 301 miles from
246their partner (n = 10).
247

Length of Relationship: In the demographic questionnaire section the respondents were

248asked how long they have been in their romantic relationship with their partner and the length
249was recorded in months (m = 26.36; SD = 33.31).

34TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE
250

12

Marital Status: Participants were asked in the beginning of the survey what their marital

251status was and 58% were married out of the 194 subjects leaving the remaining of the
252respondents single.
253

Seriousness of the Relationship Throughout the survey there was a part that specifically

254asked about the seriousness of the relationship the subject is involved in. The participants were
255asked questions such as; the degree of happiness in their relationship and how often they think
256things are going well in the relationship (m = 4.11; SD = 0.80). A 1-4 point Likert scale was used
257to determine the seriousness of the respondents relationship, 1 being a little and 4 being
258extremely. They were also asked a series of questions regarding disagreements, if any, in their
259relationship.
260

Results

261The results of this study included things this research has found new ground that past research
262has not. The four hypotheses that we recorded results for were the following; self-reported tech
263dependency and relationship satisfaction, self-reported tech dependency and relationship
264uncertainty, partner reported tech dependency and relationship satisfaction, partner reported tech
265dependency and relationship uncertainty. To start off with the results for the variable technology
266dependence and relationship uncertainty after controlling for distance, relational seriousness, and
267length of relationship; F (4,122) = 16.54, p< .001, R2 = .35 (these numbers come from the model
268summary table, ANOVA). Specifically, respondents technology dependency was a negative
269significant predictor of relationship satisfaction ( = -0.19, p < .05), relational uncertainty and
270tech dependency F (4,122) = 18.40, p < 0.01, R2= .38 and specifically, ( = 0.19, p < .001),
271partner tech dependency and relationship satisfaction F (4,122) = 18.40, p < 0.01, R2= .38 and
272specifically, ( = 0.19, p < .001),

37TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENCE

13

References

273

274Coyne, Sarah, M. (2011, April). I luv u:)!: A Descriptive Study of the Media Use of
275

Individuals

276Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing
277

precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction

278

Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572-583

279Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J. K., & Chung, Y. (2014). Development of Korean smartphone
280

addiction proneness scale for youth. PloS one, 9(5), e97920

281Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational
282

uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50(4), 261-278

283Luo, S. (2014). Effects of texting on satisfaction in romantic relationships: The role. Computers
284

in Human Behavior, 33, 145-152.

285Pearson, J., Carmon, A., Tobola, C., & Fowler, M. (2009). Motives for Communication:
286

Why the Millennial Generation Uses Electronic Devices. 45-55.

287Rosen, L., Whaling, K., Carrier, L., Cheever, N., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The Media and
288

Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human

289

Behavior, 29, 2501-2511.

290

in Romantic Relationships. Retrieved February 15, 2015, from Adobe Reader

291Stone, M. (2014, July 31). Smartphone Addiction Now Has A Clinical Name. Retrieved
292

February 15, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-nomophobia-2014-7.