Couples and the New Technology

Couples and the New Technology!

Pro Bono Counseling Project – 20th Year 15th Annual Mary Douglas Wells Speakers Forum

April 8, 2011

Laurel Fay, M.S., LCMFT

http://www.flickr.com/photos/exalthim/3999403503/

What is the New Technology?!

AIM digg Facebook Flickr Google Linkedin

Yahoo! Wordpress Y! Messenger YouTube Twitter MySpace

Blogger Delicious Windows Live hi5 lastfm

Many Paths to Connection!

Skype

www.flickr.com/photos/ajc1/503165914/sizes/t/in/photostream/

“The World Is Obsessed With

Facebook”

www.flickr.com/photos/rosauraochoa/3419823308/sizes/z/in/photostream/

www.flickr.com/photos/mringlein/3085388069/sizes/m/in/photostream/ www.flickr.com/photos/trucknroll/5058346018/sizes/o/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/exalthim/3999403503/

Why do we need to talk about this?!

Couples therapists report: §  An increase in the number of cases with an

Internet component (Cooper & Griffin-Shelley, 2002)

§  They struggle with appropriate treatment strategies in these cases (Nelson, 2005)

§  One study found that a majority (73%) are not trained in their programs to deal with this problem in treatment

(Goldberg, Peterson, Rosen and Sara, 2008)

www.flickr.com/photos/henrybloomfield/2828774204/sizes/o/in/photostream/

A new way of seeing!

www.flickr.com/photos/molas/120654792/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkadog/3484426248/

Content vs. Process:!what it enables vs. what role it plays!

Why is the Internet so

attractive and powerful?

Theories

Interactive

Intoxicating

Isolating Integral

Inexpensive

Imposing

Cyberhex Model of the

Internet

Carnes et al (2001)

Online Disinhibition Effect Suler, 2004

§  You don’t know me (anonymity) §  You can’t see me (anonymity) §  See you later (ability to get out easily) §  It’s all in my head (line between fantasy

and reality is blurred) §  It’s just a game (there are no

consequences to my online actions) §  We are all equals (everyone is a peer)

ACE Model Young, O’Mara & Buchanan, 2000

§ Anonymity § Convenience

§ Escape

The Seven “As” Contributing to Internet-Related Intimacy Problems

Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010 1) Anonymity 2) Affordability 3) Accessibility 4) Approximation (of real life) 5) Acceptability 6) Ambiguity 7) Accommodation

UTQ Results – 2011 Survey

Gender!

TOTAL PERCENTAGE FEMALE 118 77% MALE 35 23% TOTAL 153 100%

Age!

AGE FEMALE MALE TOTAL % FEMALE

% MALE % TOTAL

20-29 20 5 25 17% 14% 16% 30-39 58 17 75 49% 49% 49% 40-49 19 10 29 16% 29% 19% 50-59 14 2 16 12% 6% 10% 60-65 4 0 4 3% 0% 3% 65+ 3 1 4 3% 3% 3% TOTAL 118 35 153 100% 100% 100%

Please rate to what extent social technologies POSITIVELY affect your relationship

with your partner. !

COUNT PERCENTAGE MALE 13 37% FEMALE 45 38%

58 38%

Please rate to what extent social technologies POSITIVELY affect your relationship


COUNT PERCENTAGE 20-29 11 (OF 25) 44% 30-39 31 (OF 75) 41% 40-49 12 (OF 29) 41% 50-59 4 (OF 16) 25% 60-65 0 (OF 4) 0% 65+ 0 (OF 4) 0%

Please rate to what extent social technologies NEGATIVELY affect your relationship


COUNT PERCENTAGE MALE 7 20% FEMALE 24 20%

31 20%

Please rate to what extent social technologies NEGATIVELY affect your relationship


COUNT PERCENTAGE 20-29 5 (OF 25) 20% 30-39 15 (OF 75) 20% 40-49 9 (OF 29) 31% 50-59 1 (OF 16) 6% 60-65 1 (OF 4) 25% 65+ 0 (OF 4) 0%

A LOT: answered few times/week or daily or all day or weekly A LITTLE: answered monthly or rarely or never !

COUNT PERCENTAGE MALE (A LOT) 29 83% FEMALE (A LOT)

95 81%

How often do YOU use social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter)?

How often do YOU use social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter)?!

COUNT PERCENTAGE 20-29 (A LOT) 23 (OF 25) 92% 30-39 (A LOT) 65 (OF 75) 87% 40-49 (A LOT) 22 (OF 29) 76% 50-59 (A LOT) 12 (OF 16) 75% 60-65 (A LOT) 1 (OF 4) 25% 65+ (A LOT) 2 (OF 4) 50%

A LOT: answered few times/week or daily or all day or weekly A LITTLE: answered monthly or rarely or never


COUNT PERCENTAGE MALE (A LOT) 32 (OF 35) 91% FEMALE (A LOT)

77 (OF 118)

65%

How often does YOUR PARTNER use social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter)?


YOU YOUR PARTNER SAYS

MALE (A LOT) 83% 65% FEMALE (A LOT)

81% 91%

How often do YOU use social media (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, Twitter)?

% MALES % FEMALES

INCREASED OUR COMMUNICATION FOR THE BETTER

34% 25%

DECREASED OUR QUALITY TIME TOGETHER 23% 30% CAUSED ME TO DOUBT MY PARTNER’S FIDELITY 6% 3% CAUSED ME TO BE JEALOUS OF THE TIME S/HE SPENDS ON THE COMPUTER

26% 11%

In what ways you feel these pursuits have impacted your primary relationship?

“I hate that she'll interact with all her Facebook friends but me.” !


“Fills my need for socializing without having to either drag him with me to events or leave

him home with our daughter.” !


“Because we both work using technology in many ways it's made staying connected easier.

It becomes problematic when we choose to communicate via technology vs. face to face.” !


“There is not a jealousy but more a resentment that the time and energy can be

placed in the games etc. but not to vulnerable communication.” !


14% !

Social technology has brought my partner and I closer.

10% !

I think MY use of social technologies is negatively impacting our relationship.

10% !

I think MY PARTNER’S use of social technologies is negatively impacting our

relationship.

8% !

I’d like to cut down on my use of social technologies, but I don’t see how I can.

Anonymity +

Accelerated “Intimacy”

= Pull of the Internet

What does the New Technology provide or enable?

We want to be: loved

known important

special CONNECTED

www.flickr.com/photos/robwallace/109741959/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Global positives

§  The new technology shrinks the world. Geography is irrelevant

§  It creates new opportunities, professionally and personally

§  It augments personal relationships (Cooper, McLoughlin & Campbell, 2000)

§  It increases connection

Positives for Couples:

§  Online dating: 1 in 8 marriages started on a dating site (Huffington Post, 2010)

§  Builds connections with partner (Cooper, McLoughlin & Campbell, 2000)

§  Can assist with conflict resolution §  People enjoy using technology to

communicate with partners or potential partners (Henline & Harris, 2006)

§  Technology as a way to build transparency and intimacy

Negatives for couples:

§  Problems with misunderstanding §  Greater chance of “smothering” §  Over-involvement may lead to neglect of

“real life” (Henline & Harris, 2006)

Global Negatives:

§  Issues related to cybersex and infidelity

§  Distraction

§  Paradox of Technology and Connection

Cybersex

§  Approximately 20% of all Internet users report in engaging in some sexual activity online (Cooper, Scherer and Mathy, 2001)

§  Cybersex has major negative impact on relationships (Cooper, Delmonico, & Burg, 2000; Barak and Fisher, 2002)

§  Greater secrecy about internet use – 70% of those who pursue sexual interests online keep secret how much time they spend online (Cooper, Scherer, Boies & Gordon, 1999)

§  Boundary crossings more possible §  Major factor for women in separation or divorce

(Schneider 2003) §  Decrease in desire for relational sex §  Comparing oneself negatively to online partner §  Feelings of betrayal

Case example

Facebook

Online Infidelity

§  What is it? Ambiguous nature, differing opinions

§  Those in committed relationships saw online sexual chat and emotional involvement with an online contact as being unfaithful to the primary relationship (Henline, Lamke & Howard, 2007)

§  Online betrayal = offline betrayal (Whitty, 2005)

§  A symptom of underlying issues (Young et al, 2000)

Case example

The List

What is the cost of constant connection?

“Distraction is to an intimate conversation as water is to fire. To love, you must slow down; you must attend to the other person.”

- Edward Hallowell, Married To Distraction, 2010

www.flickr.com/photos/limonada/167352047/sizes/o/in/photostream/

The Culture of Distraction in The Age of Interruption

Hallowell, 2010

§  Attention = intimacy §  Distraction interrupts the dance §  We’re too busy to pay attention to loved

ones; difficult to get their full attention too §  FAST FAST FAST = continuous partial

attention §  The new pressure is to make time and pay

attention

Case example

Crackberry

“We look to the network to defend us against loneliness even as we use it to control the intensity of our connections.”

- Sherry Turkle, Alone Together, 2010

The Paradox of Technology and Connection Turkle, 2010

§  We have many “friends”, but little connections §  We want more connection, but also want easy

escape §  Tech promises to free us up, but tethers us to it §  Technology instead of community §  Boundaries eroded between “real” life and

online life §  “Crazy busy” §  Relationships è mere connections è intimacy §  “Cyberintimacies slide into cybersolitudes” §  Off the grid, we feel adrift

How do we know when technology is a

problem for our clients?

Need for Thorough Assessment

§  Only 20% of therapists ask their clients about cybersex use (Goldberg et al., 2008)

§  Failure to ask can lead to significant omissions

in treatment planning and subsequent clinical interventions (Goldberg et al., 2008)

§  There is a real need for simple tools to assess

the technology use of family members who are coming for therapy treatment (Hertlein & Webster, 2008)

§  Proper assessment can break through “don’t ask, don’t tell”

Assessment Tools

Facebook Compulsion Inventory (Pile, 2009)

Internet Sex Screening Test/ISST (Delmonico, 1999)

Use of Technology Questionnaire/UTQ (Fay, 2011)

Boundaries and Expectations

§  Develop a mutually agreed-upon policy §  Don’t say anything online you wouldn’t

say to your partner face to face

www.flickr.com/photos/stitch/272090142/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Questions for Couples to Consider when Developing an Acceptable Use Plan (AUP)

1.  How much time is acceptable to spend on social

networking sites? On technology in general? 2.  Should we be friends on Facebook? 3.  Do we link our profiles to show that we are

together? 4.  Is it appropriate to share passwords? 5.  Do we “friend” exes?

www.flickr.com/photos/46578758@N00/3301231105/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Sample Treatment Protocol for Internet Infidelity

•  Assessment of what the infidelity was: •  intensity x frequency x duration

•  Get the story from each point of view •  What need did it meet/what did it give •  What did it cost/steal/take •  Can they each see it from the other’s side?

•  Mutually agreed-upon definition of infidelity •  Regret? •  Relationship history: how did we get here? •  Assessment of commitment to relationship and to

therapy •  Goals – what do we want our relationship to look

like?

Moving Forward

•  With a clear picture of new relationship in mind •  Plan for new commitment to connection through

transparency •  Communication:

•  Frequent •  Face-to-face •  As a top priority •  Technology-free times together •  Freedom to bring up fears, concerns – building

on therapy gains

Communication

•  Levels of Intimacy handout •  Couples confidentiality handout

New Boundaries Around Relationship

•  Discussion of “real life” boundaries •  Discussion of online boundaries •  Acceptable Use Plan for technology

•  Mutually agreed-upon (no parent-child) •  Times used •  Password sharing •  Facebook boundaries (status, chat, wall,

privacy, friends) •  No secret computers •  Conceptualized as externalizing threats to

couple – more time in the “new” = more trust

Using Technology to Build Up the Relationship

•  Assess if this is too difficult, too charged •  Can we “untaint” it and take technology back? •  Secret email accounts to build sexual tension •  PAIRS app •  Intimate texts •  Facebook •  Online marriage support sites (Power of Two)

More windows

equals more opportunities

for our clients to

see, understand,

and love each other

www.flickr.com/photos/captaintim/2511680887/sizes/l/in/photostream/

[email protected] facebook.com/laurelfaytherapy

twitter.com/laurelfay

Slides: http://slideshare.net/laurelfay Rate my talk: http://spkr8.com/t/7103

Health & Medicine

Couples and the New Technology