1
The Influence of Smartphones on emerging adults’
romantic relationships.
Carlo Marzorati 10488596 Master’s Thesis University of Amsterdam Master Track: Youth & Media
E-mail: carlo.cynicman.marzorati@gmail.com Supervisor: Rinaldo Kühne
May 1st, 2014 Word Count: 7.855
2 Introduction
The large increase in the use of mobile communication devices surely represents one of the most notable changes regarding daily human interaction within the last few decades. As a matter of fact, today many people use Smartphones, tablets and other internet-ready devices on a regular basis (Rainie, 2012; Smith, 2013). The distinction between these recent devices and older ones relies on their mobile operating systems (Mei Min, 2012), and in detail on their ambivalent role by “offering traditional wireless voice service as well as native software
applications and […] the ability to connect to and run a myriad of Internet-based services including email, geo-location, streaming video, and social networking” (Kenny, 2011). This shift not only impacts professional environments and international information exchanges, but it plays a determinant role in daily lives as well. The question then arises if these technological developments alter the quality of social relationships and interaction between individuals.
This study investigates the potential negative effects of Smartphone use on the quality of romantic relationships. More precisely, the study focuses on the quality of emerging adults’ relationships, aged between 18 and 25 years old (Arnett, 2004). Emerging adults are more precisely defined as an age group relatively independent from social roles and expectations, well distinct from adolescence and young adulthood due to issues such as identity exploration, instability and feeling in-between (Arnett, 2000). An important developmental goal which surely represents this age group is the preference to establish long lasting romantic relationships (Coyne, 2013). Being able to be online 24 hours per day could lead to different approaches concerning the way love relationships are dealt with. Today, emerging adults have plenty of opportunities to establish connections with others, namely sending texts, e-mails, phone and video calls, comments on social networks and so on. Furthermore, one strong trait
3
of modern communication relies on its being simultaneous, immediate and highly spread, affecting relationships and interpersonal interactions to such an extent that it results difficult to disentangle digital reality and daily life (Warf, 2013).
I decided to study this particular age group as it is constituted by individuals deeply involved with technology and its most recent developments. Moreover, it represents an interesting category of people experiencing the so-called “in between” feeling, dense of radical changes and shifts as regards for instance mental, moral and identity development, not considering then only the technological shift happening during the last few years involving this generation in particular (Arnett, 2000, 2004). Furthermore, emerging adults are prone to connect and entangle relationships with their peers making use of online communication devices such as the Smartphones (Arnett, 2004). Thus, it is important to investigate whether the intensive use of these devices helps them to reach this important developmental goal or vice versa.
Previous research indicates that Smartphone use may have positive as well as negative effects on partnership quality. On the one hand, Smartphone use may have positive effects on several aspects concerning social activities of emerging adults (Yang, 2013), on mood management processes (Grellhesl, 2012) and on enhancement of romantic relationships (Jin, 2010). On the other hand, Smartphone use may decrease level of commitment of individuals towards their partners (Whitty, 2005, 2008; Mileham, 2007). Thus, the present study investigates the research question: To what extent are Smartphones influential with regard to the quality of love relationships among emerging adults?
4 Literature review
The main objects of investigation of this study are Smartphone use and level of relationship quality of emerging adults’ couples. More precisely, Smartphone use refers to the consumption of the physical communicational device which has been developed within the last years, and comprising not only the possibility to message via texts, call other users or send pictures, but the chance to get access to the Internet as well independently by time and location (Oulasvirta, 2012). The second item, namely the level of relationship quality, refers instead to the overall level of quality of a relationship of emerging adults, meant in this case as level of perceived commitment and well-being of emerging adults’ couples (Demir, 2008).
The effects of mobile phone use on the quality of romantic relationships have been investigated in a series of studies. One line of research has demonstrated that mobile phone use can impair relationship quality. Whitty (2005, 2008) and Mileham (2007) propose that negative consequences might derive from online infidelity and in particular that online communication could alter individuals’ personalities in regards to interaction with partners and emotional development. Other studies underline how this kind of attitude deriving by this sort of technological misbehaviour might even affect certain individuals to such an extent that these lasts could perceive themselves as traumatized victims on a psychological level when affected by infidelity, namely feeling vulnerable and powerless when being betrayed by their partners through the use of Internet (Schneider, 2012). These assumptions are expressed in further studies, as for instance the one led by Butt and Phillips (2008), regarding in this particular case the supposed relatedness of Internet consumption to lower levels of self-esteem when feedback by other peers does not occur. Schneider (2012) provided another interesting assumption regarding this issue, stating that not only the amount of available channels to spread communication among individuals is astonishingly high and various, but
5
also that these new media allow users to conceal their activities and hide them from other peers (Schneider, 2012). Thus, Smartphone consumption might elicit the formation of interest in other partners at the expense of the legitimate ones due to the possibility of establish communication with a huge number of potential lovers.
Positive and negative effects are both associated with the use of Smartphones. For instance, one positive effect is the enhancement of affiliation among peers, the management and negotiation of current friendly and romantic relationships and the possibility of keeping trace of social activities occurring within users’ network of acquaintances (Yang, 2013). Moreover, Smartphones influence processes of users’ mood management and they solve an important escapist function as well (Grellhesl, 2012). A further positive effect is constituted by the decrease of factors as uncertainty and low self-esteem when online communication is employed to strengthen and consolidate romantic relationships (Jin, 2010). As consequence of this hyper connected virtual world, however, an increase of phenomena such as cheating and betrayal committed against partners within couples could develop (Whitty, 2005, 2008; Mileham, 2007). This risk is generated by two factors in particular, Smartphone ownership and motives influencing individuals’ romantic behaviour towards their partners.
Sundar (2013) argues that new affordances available in new communication devices can influence the quality of emerging adults’ romantic relationships negatively. More precisely, certain features such as community building, interaction, responsiveness and browsing allow individuals to get easily in contact with their partners. It is possible to assume that Smartphone consumers are naturally inclined to satisfy their needs employing any sort of help or affordance available (Butt, 2008). This assumption is corroborated by Choi (2004) who states that some of predominant factors of gratification related to Internet consumption are respectively information seeking, amusement, surveillance, personal relationship, identity,
6
establishing status and acquisition. Consequentially, it is possible to consider that these new kind of needs generate motives which can only be satisfied with proper devices, namely Smartphones; this connection between satisfaction of needs and use of Smartphones could lead emerging adults to fulfill their potential lust for alternative partners by making use of these devices.
Furthermore, a second line of research shows how mobile phone use can have further positive effects on the quality of romantic relationships. According to a study by Jin and Peña (2010), online communication can be seen as strong enhancer of the quality of romantic relationships among adults, especially when Smartphones and other internet-ready devices are used to maintain contact with the partner. Basically, the authors assume that online communication might function as effective mediator between couples, allowing them to establish more frequent personal contact, thereby reducing uncertainty regarding the quality of the relationship and increasing self-esteem. However, it is also possible that if this does not occur there might be the possibility to lose trust and affiliation with the respective partner (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Moreover, if use of Smartphone is directed to other peers instead than the legitimate partner or spouse, the overall levels of relationship quality might decrease. Basically, consumption of Smartphones could lead to different effects and consequences depending by context and mode of use.
One goal of this research is indeed to investigate on the potential enhancement of pre-existing cheating compulsions of individuals, which might be stimulated by the consumption of the Smartphones (Griffiths, 1998). As reported by this Griffiths (1998), individuals tend to make use of technologies and their affordances in order to achieve determined objectives. In this context, one goal of emerging adults might be constituted by meeting potential romantic partners (Arnett, 2004). This opinion is shared by Bravo (2010) as well, when stating that
7
affordances are provided to people by the surrounding environment. Especially due to the development of perceptual competence, namely the ability to differentiate characteristics and features available within a determined context, individuals can effectively understand any sort of potential opportunity for action. In the case of this study, the determined context would be represented by the feeling and the opportunity to cheat on the legitimate partner, whereas the affordances offered by the environment would be represented by the specific features of Smartphones, such as voice calls, text messaging, access to social media and so on. Moreover, the authors assumed that “perceptual competence optimizes in adulthood, allowing for quick assessment of situations that may afford a reward or goal satisfaction, including opportunities for emotional or sexual gratification, which may be in the form of extra-marital involvement” (Bravo & Lumpkin, 2010). This assumption about perceptual competence links directly to the topic of this study, namely the association between Smartphone use and relationship quality, as for instance emerging adults who understand that more frequent use of these devices and their affordances increases the chance to establish contact with alternative partners could be more prone to develop feelings of cheating at the expense of their legitimate spouses.
Basically, one aspect which emerges as predominant when consuming these new technological devices is the extreme easiness to establish communication among various individuals (Warf, 2013). Moreover, the possibility to operate through different channels in a simultaneous way, and especially the speed by which personal information, content or private messages/calls are conveyed between users, constitute one interesting and concurrently unforeseen phenomenon. This assumption allows the elaboration of the following hypothesis, acknowledging all the previously mentioned considerations about the misuse of Smartphones in terms of infidelity. As a consequence, it is possible to formulate the first hypothesis of this study:
8
H1: The effects of Smartphone use on relationship quality is moderated by interactional effects.
H1a: Higher use of Smartphones is associated with lower levels of relationship quality, when their consumption is directed to other people than the legitimate partner/spouse.
H1b: Higher use of Smartphones is associated with higher levels of relationship quality, when their consumption is directed to the legitimate partner/spouse.
One further aspect of investigation regards then whether personality of individuals might influences motives for consumption of Smartphones and consequently their employment in order to cheat on their legitimate partners. As reported in articles such as the one by Palen (2000), which deals with motives in order to purchase mobile, motivations might derive by any specific need encountered by consumers in their daily life. Even if the study itself outlines several motives related to issues such as personal safety or business, it assumes that furthers reasons rely on unexpected circumstances (Palen, 2000), which might be either negative or positive. Considering this, it is possible to suppose that events such as encounter of a potential new partner, misunderstandings occurring within an existing couple and other circumstantial factors could lead to the adoption of Smartphones and consequently to infidelity. Moreover, further acknowledgments deriving from the study of Butt (2008) associated personal extraversion with higher consumption of communication devices. Bearing in mind that extraversion embeds as primary features traits such as excitement-seeking and positive emotions, and furthermore that other characteristics like openness to experience might affect heavy consumers of Smartphones and further internet-ready devices, it is plausible to suppose that these particular traits of personality, when related to the
9
consumption of Smartphones, could enhance latent inclinations to behave in an unfaithful manner towards the legitimate partner. This assumption is corroborated by Delevi (2013) who states that individuals showing high extraversion are more prone to send erotic images to attract potential partners (Delevi & Weisskirch, 2013).
Similar findings related to the traits of extroversion and openness to experience were reported in the study led by Ross (2009) investigating upon the association between personality and Facebook consumption. Especially in regard to openness to experience, the author stated that this personality factor is among the others the most likely to be associated with trial and consumption of new forms of online communication. As regards on the other hand the trait of extroversion, further findings deriving from the study of Schmitt (2004) demonstrated that this trait is positively associated with relationship infidelity and risky sexual behaviour (Schmitt, 2004). Furthermore, the role of personality traits as moderators associated to the use of media and communicational devices was highlighted in the paper by Seidman (2012), which underlined the positive relationship occurring between personality traits and the motives leading to the consumption of social media.
Basically, these characteristics push individuals to get in touch with potential partners, and if this kind of attitude is facilitated by the consumption of Smartphones, cheating could occur more frequently than in cases where users own a more closed and reserved personality. Acknowledging this further assumption, it is possible to formulate the following hypothesis:
10
H2: Effects of Smartphone use on relationship quality are moderated by personality traits of extroversion and openness to experience.
H2a: Smartphone use has a more negative effect for individuals with high extroversion than for individuals with low extroversion.
H2b: Smartphone use has a more negative effect for individuals with high openness to experience than for individuals with low openness to experience.
11 Method
Participants and procedure
I randomly recruited 200 participants through the social network of Facebook from 12.05.2014 to 22.05.2014. 173 participants were aged between 18 and 25 years old, whereas 27 reported different ages and were therefore dropped from the study. From these 173 respondents 77 satisfied the requirements of the research, namely possession of a Smartphone and involvement in a romantic relationship, whilst the remaining 93 did not satisfy the requirements of the study and were consequentially not considered for the analyses. Within this final sample of participants (n = 77), 35 declared to be male and 39 to be female. 3 respondents did not indicate their gender. Largest part of the respondents reported to have obtained Bachelor’s (n = 38) or Master’s (n = 18) degrees. Participants had to fulfil a self-completion online questionnaire. I adopted this method in order to reach this determined age group more easily, as largest part of emerging adults are active on this particular social network to establish relationships with other peers (Ross, 2009; Coyne, 2013; Yang, 2013). Moreover, the same method was adopted in previous studies related to the same topic, as for instance the research led by Jin and Peña (2010) and Yang (2013). By this reasons, quantitative cross-sectional survey was the most suitable method to emerging adults and to collect exhaustive and reliable data. A self-completion questionnaire realized with Qualtrics was sent to the participants through the social network of Facebook. The survey was anonymous in order to prevent potential biases related to phenomena such as social desirability and acquiescence (Bryman, 2002). Completion of the online questionnaire required approximately between 10 and 15 minutes in average.
12 Measures
Relationship quality
In order to measure the dependent variable relationship quality, I decided to adopt the scale employed by Rusbult (1998). This decision was based on the fact that the scale constitutes a solid measure, which was already employed not only in the aforementioned study but in other studies as well (Rubin, 1970; Jin and Pena, 2010). The reliability of the scale was consequentially strong with Cronbach’s alpha = .90. Relationship quality was measured with the related subscale developed by Rusbult and colleagues (1998). This subscale consists of seven items (e.g. “my partner fulfills my needs for intimacy”) with a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree completely.
Smartphone use
The independent variable related to the consumption of Smartphones (Smartphone
use) was measured following a previous scale elaborated by Fikkers (2013) to measure the
direct estimate of media exposure in a day. This scale accounted the most common features available with Smartphones, namely text-messaging, phone calling, photo-messaging, e-mailing, video-calling and access to social network platforms. This scale was suitable in order to measure the estimated amount of time spent by respondents using voice calls and text messaging, respectively, with their peers via Smartphone during the week and more in detail measuring the amount of hours and minutes involving the consumption of Smartphones within the day. The items related to this variable (e.g. “Using social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)”) were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = often.
13 Motives for Smartphone use
This variable was measured adopting the scale deriving from Yang (2013), namely a 20 items scale describing different motivations for using Facebook. The original composition of scale derived from a previous study led by Sheldon (2008). This scale was adapted in order to include motives related to the use of Smartphones, and it comprised 6 items out of the original 20. Each item (e.g. “I make use of Smartphones to communicate with my romantic partner”) was answered on a 7-point Likert scale indicating how often the item was a reason for the respondents’ Smartphone use and ranging from 1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree
completely.
Personality
In order to measure traits of personality related to extroversion and openness to
experience, I made use of the NEO-FFI scale elaborated in the study of John (1999). This
scale was a self-administered 44-item version of the Big Five Factors Inventory employed by John (1999) in his study. In order to measure the sole concepts of extroversion and openness
to experience, a further re-elaboration of the scale took place, considering only the 20 items
referring to the two aforementioned personality traits and therefore excluding the traits of personality referring to agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism. Participants’ level of agreement was rated on a 7-point items scale (e.g. “I see myself as someone who is talkative”) ranging from 1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree completely.
14 Results
Testing the dimensionality and reliability of the measurement instruments
For each set of indicators that were used to measure relationship quality, Smartphone use,
motives for Smartphone use and personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience
a principal component analysis was conducted. In regards to the first variable of relationship
quality, this was subdivided in two separate variables, one referring to the felt level of quality
of romantic relationship with the legitimate partner and one relating instead to the potential felt level of romantic relationship with alternative ones. For this reason I first performed factor analysis on the first 10 items of the questionnaire, which showed that these items formed a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue 5.74). All items correlated positively and with relatively high factor loadings with this component, exception made for fulfillment of sexual needs (factor loading .47). Reliability of the scale was very good with Cronbach’s alpha = .90. For this reason I merged the 10 items within a single variable referring to relationship quality with legitimate partner (M = 5.76, SD = .88).
I adopted the same procedure in order to merge the 10 items referring to the felt level of quality of romantic relationship with alternative partners. Factor analysis with Oblimin rotation showed that these items formed two separate scales whose eigenvalues were higher than 1 and respectively 4.96 and 2.05. The first five items related to the needs for intimacy,
companionship, sexuality, security and emotional involvement correlated to the first
component with relatively high factor loadings, exception made for fulfillment of sexual needs which, as before, had a low factor loading of .54. The remaining five items of alternative
partner appeal, ideal, date, attractiveness and needs satisfaction correlated to the second
15
refer by theory to one component only (relationship quality with alternative partners), I checked the reliability of the whole scale (10 items) and I obtained a Cronbach’s alpha = .88. For this reason I assumed as logical to merge these 10 items in one variable referring to
relationship quality with alternative partners (M = 4.22, SD = 1.23). However, I did not make
use of this variable as the scale elaborated by Rubin (1970) measured not only relationship
quality, but also to predict the intention of respondents to abandon their legitimate partner.
Thus, the second part of the scale did not suit the hypotheses of this study, which focuses on the overall level of relationship quality only and does not investigate specifically on the extent to which individuals could be prone to leave their legitimate partners. For this reason I decided not to insert this second variable in the study, even though it was necessary to include it in the questionnaire in order to respect the strength of the whole scale and theoretical concept underlying this research. A factor analysis was conducted with the items that measure
Smartphone use. However, the analysis did not produce reliable results, and as a consequence
I assumed as logical to merge the 6 items of the scale by adding the results of the single items and computing a new variable named Smartphone use (M = 24.39, SD = 4.12). This choice was determined by the fact that the features of the Smartphone considered in the research, namely voice calls, text messaging, social media use, sending pictures (MMS), sending e-mails and video calls could be considered as standard features which together represent the overall consumption of this device. Smartphone total consumption (M = 29.96, SD = 29.22) was computed by merging the three items referring to the total consumption of Smartphones in terms of time (frequency during the week and daily consumption measured in hours and minutes). I had to split the two variables referring to the actual consumption of Smartphones due to their different levels of operationalization. Motives for Smartphone use was instead computed by performing at first factor analysis with Oblimin rotation, which highlighted two
16
main components. The eigenvalue of the first component was 2.79, whereas the eigenvalue of the second one was 1.88. These two components referred to motives for consumption of Smartphone directed to legitimate partners (communication, relationship strength, knowing
more) and to alternative partners (communication, knowing more, relationship development).
As the 6 items composing the scale were divided within these two categories according to the division produced by the factor analysis, and observing high loading factors as well, I merged the first three items (Cronbach’s alpha = .75) into a new variable named motives for
Smartphone use to communicate with the legitimate partner (M = 4.89, SD = 1.37). The same
procedure occurred while merging the second cluster of three items (Cronbach’s alpha = .92) into a new variable named motives for Smartphone use to communicate with alternative
partners (M = 2.64, SD = 1.63).
With regards to the last cluster of items referring to the personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience, several changes needed to occur in order to create reliable variables. As a matter of fact, I performed factor analysis on this cluster of items following the guidelines provided by the paper of John (1999) regarding the Big Five Inventory. These guidelines indicated which items from the Inventory referred to each trait of personality, and only extraversion and openness to experience were required for this study. In this way I performed factor analysis on the cluster of 8 items referring to the sole trait of extraversion. I obtained two components with eigenvalue higher than 1. The first component had eigenvalue = 3.64. whereas the second one had eigenvalue = 1.10 In order to obtain a reliable scale I deleted one item referring to assertiveness due to the fact that it was the only item which loaded on a single component and recoded three items (“I see myself as someone who is reserved”, “…tends to be quiet” and “…is sometimes shy, inhibited”) with reversed scores, basing this computation on the theoretical background provided by the Inventory
17
(John, 1990) and thus obtaining a reliable 7 items scale with Cronbach’s alpha = .84. The new mean index variable was then computed and named extraversion (M = 4.79, SD = 1.00). The same procedure was performed with the trait of openness to experience. After performing a factor analysis on the 10 items referring to openness to experience I obtained three components with eigenvalue higher than 1. The first component had eigenvalue = 3.47, the second one eigenvalue = 1.24 and the third one eigenvalue = 1.11. Two items within the initial cluster of 10 had to be re-coded with reversed scores (“I see myself as someone who prefers work that is routine”, “…has few artistic interests”) in order to obtain a reliable scale comprising all the items related to openness to experience with Cronbach’s alpha = .70. For this reason I decided to compute a mean index variable with these 10 items and I named it
openness to experience (M = 5.09, SD = .67).
Test of hypotheses
The further steps of my analysis mainly focused on Hypothesis 1a and 1b, which assumed that the effects of Smartphone use on relationship quality is moderated by interactional effects. In order to test H1a, stating that higher use of Smartphones is associated with lower levels of relationship quality, when their consumption is directed to other people than the legitimate partner/spouse, I performed two different hierarchical regression analyses. Relationship
quality was included as dependent variable and motives for Smartphone use to communicate with alternative partners as moderator. Independent variables were motives for Smartphone use to communicate with alternative partners, Smartphone total consumption (included in the
first regression) and Smartphone use (included in the second regression). This decision was based on the fact that the two independent variables referring to Smartphone consumption were measured following different levels of operationalization and for this reason I decided to
18
perform two hierarchical regression analyses per hypothesis. Control variables were
education, age and gender. Both these regressions were statistically significant. The first
regression obtained F(5,73) = 4.10, p = .003. The model predicted 23% of the total variance
(R2 = .23, adjusted R2 = .17). Motives for Smartphone use to communicate with alternative
partner, b* = -.40, t = -3.38, p = .001, 95% CI [-.32, -.08], Smartphone total consumption, b* = .08, t = .80, p = .421, 95% CI [-.00, .00], gender, b* = .10, t = .87, p = .386, 95% CI [-.22, .58], education, b* = -.17, t = -1.51, p = .135, 95% CI [-.33, .04], age, b* = .08, t = .73, p = .468, 95% CI [-.08, .18] were then not predictive of a decrease of relationship quality with the legitimate partner when communication through Smartphone was directed to other people than the first one. The interaction effect between motives for Smartphone use to communicate
with alternative partners and Smartphone total consumption did not produce significant
results, with b* = -.23, t = -.66, p = .510, 95% CI [-.00, .00].
The second regression model was significant with F(5,73) = 4.13, p = .002, and the model predicted 23% of the total variance (R2 = .23, adjusted R2 = .17). Motives for Smartphone use directed to other people than the legitimate partner, b* = -.39, t = -3.35, p = .001, 95% CI [-.32, -.08], Smartphone use, b* = .09, t = .88, p = .381, 95% CI [-.02, .06], gender, b* = .13, t = 1.11, p = .270, 95% CI [-.17, .62], education, b* = -.17, t = -1.46, p = .146, 95% CI [-.32, .05], age, b* = .07, t = .66, p = .510, 95% CI [-.09, .17] were not predictive of a decrease of relationship quality with the legitimate partner when communication through Smartphone was directed to other people than the first one as resulting from the first regression. The interaction effect between motives for Smartphone use
to communicate with alternative partners and Smartphone use was not significant, with b* =
19
H1a, and for this reason H1a was not supported by the results of the analysis. These results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Definition of parameters (b, SE) of hierarchical regression analysis H1a.
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption
Step1
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption Step2 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step1 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step2
Motives for Smartphone use alternative partner
.-20** .06 .-30 .09 -.20** .06 .-62 .33 Total Smartphone consumption .00 .00 .00 .00 Smartphone use .02 .02 -.02 .04 Gender .17 .20 .16 .20 .22 .20 .28 .20 Education .-14 .09 .-13 .09 .-13 .09 -.10 .09 Age .04 .06 .04 .06 .04 .06 .03 .06 Interaction effect .-00 .00 .01 .01 Adj. R2 .17 .16 .17 .18 P value = *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
In order to test H1b, which assumed that higher use of Smartphones is associated with higher levels of relationship quality, when their consumption is directed to the legitimate partner/spouse, I performed two different hierarchical regression analyses. Relationship
quality was included as dependent variable and motives for Smartphone use to communicate with legitimate partners as moderator. Independent variables were motives for Smartphone use to communicate with legitimate partners, Smartphone total consumption (included in the
20
followed the same parameters adopted in order to test H1a. Both the regressions were not statistically significant. The first regression was not significant with F(5,73) = 1.67, p = .152,
and the model predicted 11% of the total variance (R2 = .11, adjusted R2 = .04). Motives for
Smartphone use to communicate with the legitimate partner, b* = .08, t = .75, p = .445, 95% CI [-.09, .20], Smartphone total consumption, b* = -.02, t = -.24, p = .811, 95% CI [-.00, .00], gender, b* = .27, t = 2.31, p = .023, 95% CI [.06, .86], education, b* = -.16, t = -1.29, p = .200, 95% CI [-.33, .07], age, b* = .08, t = .64, p = .521, 95% CI [-.09, .19] were then not predictive of an increase of relationship quality with the legitimate partner when communication through Smartphone was directed to the legitimate partner. The interaction effect between motives for Smartphone use to communicate with legitimate partners and
Smartphone total consumption was not significant with b* = .35, t = .59, p = .555, 95% CI
[-.00, .00].
The second regression was not significant with F(5,73) = 1.72, p = .141, and the model predicted 11% of the total variance (R2 = .11, adjusted R2 = .04). Motives for Smartphone consumption directed to the legitimate partner, b* = .08, t = .69, p = .488, 95% CI [-.09, .20], Smartphone use, b* = .06, t = .53, p = .598, 95% CI [-.03, .06], gender, b* = .28, t = 2.42, p = .018, 95% CI [.08, .87], education, b* = -.15, t = -1.24, p = .218, 95% CI [-.33, .07], age, b* = .07, t = .57, p = .565, 95% CI [-.10, .18] were not predictive of an increase of relationship quality with the legitimate partner when communication through Smartphone was directed to the legitimate partner. The interaction effect between motives for Smartphone use to
communicate with legitimate partners and Smartphone use was not significant with b* = -.98, t = -1.09, p = .278, 95% CI [-.05, .01]. H1b was not supported by the results as H1a, and as a
consequence it was possible to assume that H1 was not supported by the regression analyses. These results are shown in Table 2.
21
Table 2. Definition of parameters (b, SE) of hierarchical regression analysis H1b.
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption
Step1
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption Step2 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step1 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step2
Motives for Smartphone use legitimate partner
.-05 .07 .00 .11 .05 .07 .54 .45 Total Smartphone consumption .00 .00 -.00 .01 Smartphone use .01 .02 .11 .09 Gender .46* .19 .44* .20 .48* .19 .48* .19 Education .-13 .10 .-13 .10 .-12 .10 -.12 .10 Age .04 .07 .04 .07 .04 .07 .04 .07 Interaction effect .00 .00 -.02 .01 Adj. R2 .04 .03 .04 .05 P value = *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
In order to test H2, which assumed that effects of Smartphone use on relationship quality are moderated by personality traits of extroversion and openness to experience, I adopted the same plan of analysis employed while testing H1. In order to test H2a, stating that Smartphone use has a more negative effect for individuals with high extroversion than for individuals with low extroversion, I performed two different regression analyses. Relationship
quality was included as dependent variable and extraversion as moderator. Independent
variables were extraversion, Smartphone total consumption (included in the first regression) and Smartphone use (included in the second regression). This decision followed the same parameters employed in order to test H1. Control variables were education, age and gender. The first regression was significant with F(5,73) = 2.37, p = .048, and the model predicted
22
14% of the total variance (R2 = .14, adjusted R2 = .08). Extraversion, b* = .24, t = 1.92, p =
.058, 95% CI .00, .41], Smartphone total consumption, b* = .01, t = .14, p = .885, 95% CI [.00, .00], gender, b* = .18, t = 1.49, p = .139, 95% CI [.10, .73], education, b* = .11, t = -.94, p = .349, 95% CI [-.29, .10], age, b* = .06, t = .55, p = .584, 95% CI [-.10, .17] were not predictive of negative influence of extraversion on the level of relationship quality. The interaction effect between extraversion and Smartphone total consumption was not significant with b* = -.41, t = -.80, p = .422, 95% CI [-.00, .00].
The second regression was significant with F(5,73) = 2.47, p = .041, and the model
predicted 15% of the total variance (R2 = .15, adjusted R2 = .09). Extraversion, b* = .24, t =
1.95, p = .055, 95% CI [-.00, .41], Smartphone use, b* = .07, t = .64, p = .519, 95% CI [-.03, .06], gender, b* = .19, t = 1.57, p = .120, 95% CI [-.08, .75], education, b* = -.10, t = -.87, p = .384, 95% CI [-.28, .11], age, b* = .05, t = .44, p = .657, 95% CI [-.11, .17] were not predictive of negative influence of extraversion on the level of relationship quality. The interaction effect between extraversion and Smartphone use was not significant with b* = 1.03, t = 1.15, p = .254, 95% CI [-.02, .07]. H2a was not supported by the results of the analysis. These results are shown in Table 3.
23
Table 3. Definition of parameters (b, SE) of hierarchical regression analysis H2a.
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption
Step1
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption Step2 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step1 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step2 Extraversion .20 .10 .27 .14 .20 .10 -.50 .62 Total Smartphone consumption .00 .00 .01 .01 Smartphone use .01 .02 -.11 .11 Gender .31 .21 .33 .21 .33 .21 .39 .21 Education .-09 .10 .-09 .10 .-08 .10 -.09 .10 Age .03 .07 .03 .07 .03 .07 .04 .07 Interaction effect -.00 .00 .02 .02 Adj. R2 .08 .08 .09 .09 P value = *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
In order to test H2b, which assumed Smartphone use has a more negative effect for individuals with high openness to experience than for individuals with low openness to experience, I performed two different regression analyses. I performed two different regression analyses. Relationship quality was included as dependent variable and openness to
experience as moderator. Independent variables were openness to experience, Smartphone total consumption (included in the first regression) and Smartphone use (included in the
second regression). This decision followed the same parameters employed in order to test H1. Control variables were education, age and gender. The first regression was not significant
with F(5,73) = 1.76, p = .132, and the model predicted 11% of the total variance (R2 = .11,
24
Smartphone total consumption, b* = .06, t = .54, p = .590, 95% CI [-.00, .00], gender, b* = .28, t = 2.41, p = .018, 95% CI [.08, .87], education, b* = -.17, t = -1.41, p = .161, 95% CI [-.35, .06], age, b* = .09, t = .75, p = .452, 95% CI [-.08, .19] were not predictive of negative influence of extraversion on the level of relationship quality. The interaction between
openness to experience and Smartphone total consumption was not significant with b* = -.32, t = -.38, p = .702, 95% CI [-.01, .00].
The second regression was not significant with F(5,73) = 1.76, p = .133, and the model
predicted 11% of the total variance (R2 = .11, adjusted R2 = .05). Openness to experience, b*
= .09, t = .80, p = .425, 95% CI [-.17, .41], Smartphone use, b* = .06, t = .52, p = .602, 95% CI [-.03, .06], gender, b* = .29, t = 2.57, p = .012, 95% CI [.11, .89], education, b* = -.17, t = -1.33, p = .185, 95% CI [-.35, .06], age, b* = .09, t = .70, p = .482, 95% CI [-.09, .19 were predictive of negative influence of openness to experience on the level of relationship quality, but only considering as independent variable Smartphone use. The interaction effect between openness to experience and Smartphone use was significant with b* = -3.26, t = -2.73, p = .008, 95% CI [-.17, -.02]. However, it was logical to assume that also H2b was not supported by the results, as the first regression related to this sub-hypothesis did not provide significant results. In conclusion, it was possible to state that H2 was not corroborated by the analyses. These results are showed in Table 4.
25
Table 4. Definition of parameters (b, SE) of hierarchical regression analysis H2b.
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption
Step1
Relationship quality / Total Smartphone consumption Step2 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step1 Relationship quality / Smartphone use Step2 Openness to experience .15 .15 .20 .21 .12 .15 2.48** .87 Total Smartphone consumption .00 .00 .01 .02 Smartphone use .01 .02 .52** .18 Gender .47* .19 .49* .20 .50* .19 .59** .19 Education .-14 .10 .-14 .10 .-14 .10 -.10 .10 Age .05 .07 .05 .07 .05 .07 .02 .07 Interaction effect -.00 .00 -.09** .03 Adj. R2 .05 .03 .09 .09 P value = *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
26 Discussion
This study explored the influence of Smartphone use on emerging adults’ love relationships and its associations with interactional factors such as total consumption of Smartphones and use of specific features. Moreover, it investigated the influence of individuals’ personality traits of extraversion and openness to experience on the quality of romantic relationships of this age group.
The results showed that participants did not make use of Smartphones as tool in order to establish connections or any other kind of relationships with alternative partners, and moreover that higher consumption of Smartphones does not seem to correlate with increased levels of relationship quality when communication is directed to the legitimate partner. H1 was then not predictive of specific interactional effects which might alter the level of relationship quality of emerging adults’ couples. This result was unexpected, as emerging adults’ lifestyle and behavior is thought to be heavily influenced by this kind of communication devices (Arnett, 2000, 2004) regarding interpersonal relationships and reciprocal contacts with peers. Instead, results suggested that respondents deriving from this age group do not make intensive use of Smartphones in order to establish connections with their partners.
Considering the results related to H1 it was indeed possible to assume that no effective influence characterized the interactions between motives for Smartphone use, Smartphone
total consumption and Smartphone use, either when considering communication directed to
the legitimate partner or to alternative individuals. The results related to H1a in specific did not evidence any particular insight, as the interactions emerging from the regression models were not only insignificant, but they even showed extremely small coefficients regarding the influence of the interactions on the quality of the relationship. Even when adopting two
27
different levels of operationalization with regards to Smartphone consumption, hierarchical regression models did not show any significant finding. The same conclusions were drawn from the analysis related to H1b, which did not show significant results or remarkable differences in the degree of influence of higher consumption of Smartphones on the quality of romantic relationships when communication was directed to the legitimate partner. Control variables did not add any relevant information to the analyses, as in all regressions their scores were not significant. The findings deriving from the analyses related to H2 were similar, considering that none of the regressions provided significant results. With regards to H2a, extraversion did not provide any particular nor relevant information regarding the influence of this trait of personality on the level of relationship quality, considering both the analysis related to total consumption of Smartphones in terms of time spent on these devices and to the use of specific features. The same results were obtained after performing hierarchical regression analyses related to H2b. Openness to experience did not evidence remarkable differences in the influence of this trait of personality on the level of relationship quality.
Considering the existing literature and theoretical background about emerging adults, the findings of this study result to be unexpected in regards to emerging adults’ behavior and attitude. As a matter of fact, as previously reported after the analysis led on H1, it might be that this age group acknowledges romantic relationships and the way it deals with them differently than in past years, or anyway with a different approach than the one employed in order to establish communication with other peers. This phenomenon could be explained by the enhancement of several behavioral characteristics of emerging adults, such as development of a stronger sense of identity, autonomy and privacy (Arnett, 2000, 2004) which might influence the communication processes related to romantic relationships by
28
reducing online and virtual contact with partners and enhancing at the same time face-to-face and actual human interactions. This assumption is corroborated by other authors such as Subrahmanyam (2008), who states that emerging adults, even when acknowledging the importance of communication tools such as the Internet in their daily lives, would rather spend time and communicate in person with their relatives, peers and partners than via online devices.
Furthermore, this research has shown the emerging adults who show high levels of extraversion and openness to experience do not seem to use their Smartphones more frequently than others. As previously mentioned, it could be assumed that emerging adults do not consider technological devices such as Smartphones as a tool to expand their network of acquaintances, or at least that these devices are not employed within the context of romantic relationships even if individuals from this age group could be tended to show high levels of extraversion or openness to experience. This findings are supported by other authors such as Amiel (2004) and Wilson (2010), who investigated these traits of personality and their influence on online behavior and consumption of communicational devices. The reasons for this outcome could be retrieved in the unexpected development of the aforementioned characteristics (Arnett, 2000, 2004) typical of emerging adults.
In conclusion, the research question of this study aimed to discover whether Smartphones are influential in regards to romantic relationships of emerging adults. The results of this research showed that, eventually, these devices are not influential and are not employed by emerging adults neither to enhance the level of their current romantic relationships nor to communicate with alternative potential partners.
29 Limitations of the study
One strong limitation of this study was constituted by the cross- sectional design employed to analyze the hypotheses. As a matter of fact, data were recorded only once by the respondents, and for this reason it could be difficult to establish principles of causality between Smartphone consumption and influence on relationship quality basing our findings only on one observation. For the same reason, the internal validity of the whole research is not very high, whereas external and ecological validity are respected due to the type of design itself. The same problem could have affected as well the reliability of the final results. Moreover, the size of the final sample of respondents (n = 77) was statistically acceptable but surely limited in comparison with the initial sample (N = 200). It has to be considered as well that several respondents were dropped from the research due to the lack of Smartphones or romantic partners, but as the sample is not representative of the whole population it might be possible that some results were biased due to the limited amount of respondents (n = 77) who took part to this study.
Implications and future research
The findings of this study showed that emerging adults do not make intensive use of Smartphones in order to communicate with legitimate or alternative partners. In societal terms, this leads to different acknowledgments regarding this age group in comparison with the existing literature. It could be assumed that current studies and researches about this topic do not consider the newest developments of technology and how this influences the manner with which this age group actually relates to peers and partners. In particular, online behavior and attitude in regards to the use and consumption of Smartphones of emerging adults did not reflect the initial assumptions of this study, and this implies that future research is needed in
30
order to confirm the findings of this study or discover new developments regarding communicational behavior and managements of romantic relationships of this age group. Improvements in this sense could derive by the adoption of different research designs. One suitable option could be represented by a longitudinal study, which could assess more precisely whether principles of causation correlate the consumption of Smartphones and the quality of romantic relationships. Furthermore, a higher number of respondents could provide more exhaustive and reliable results than the ones collected during this study.
31 References
Amiel, T., & Sargent, S. L. (2004). Individual differences in Internet usage motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(6), 711-726.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American psychologist, 55(5), 469-480.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging Adulthood : The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the Twenties. Oxford University Press, 3-25.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 226.
Bravo, I. M. & Lumpkin, P. W. (2010). The Complex Case of Marital Infidelity: An Explanatory Model of Contributory Processes to Facilitate Psychotherapy. The
American Journal of Family Therapy, 38:5, 421-432.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Butt, S., Phillips, J. G. (2008). Personality and self reported mobile phone use. Computers in
Human Behavior, 24, 346-360.
Choi, J. H., Watt, J. H., Dekkers, A. C. and Park, S. (2004). Motives of Internet uses: Crosscultural Perspective - the US, the Netherlands, and S. Korea.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEOPI-R professional manual. Odessa:
32
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a Digital World: A Decade Review of Media Use, Effects, and Gratifications in Emerging Adulthood.
Emerging Adulthood, 125-137.
Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2589-2594.
Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 9(2), 257-277.
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Weeda, W. D., Vossen, H. G., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2013). Double Dose: High Family Conflict Enhances the Effect of Media Violence Exposure
on Adolescents’ Aggression. Societies, 3(3), 280-292.
Grellhesl, M., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2012). Using the uses and gratifications theory to understand gratifications sought through text messaging practices of male and female undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2175-2181.
Griffiths, M. D. (1998). Internet addiction: Does it really exist? Psychology and the Internet:
Interpersonal and transpersonal applications. 61–75.
Jin, B., Peña, J. F. (2010). Mobile Communication in Romantic Relationships: Mobile Phone Use, Relational Uncertainty, Love, Commitment, and Attachment Styles.
33
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research, Vol. 2, 102–138.
Kenney, M., & Pon, B. (2011). Structuring the smartphone industry: is the mobile internet OS platform the key? Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 11(3), 239-261.
Mei Min, C., Ling Hong, C., Jian Ai, Y., & Pei Wah, W. (2011). Conceptual Paper: Factors Affecting the Demand of Smartphone among Young Adult. International Journal on
Social Science, Economics and Art, 2(2), 44-49.
Mileham, B. L. A. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: an ethnographic exploration. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 11-31.
Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(1), 105-114.
Palen, L., Salzman, M., & Youngs, E. (2000). Going wireless: behavior & practice of new mobile phone users. Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, 201-210.
Rainie, L. (2012). Two-thirds of young adults and those with higher income are smartphone owners. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, 1-4.
Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, M. G., & Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human
34
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 265–273.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.
Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 301-319.
Schneider. J. P., Weiss, R., Samenow, C. (2012). Is It Really Cheating? Understanding the Emotional Reactions and Clinical Treatment of Spouses and Partners Affected by Cybersex Infidelity. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment &
Prevention, 19:1-2, 123-139.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 54(3), 402-407.
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67–75.
Smith, A. (2013). Smartphone Ownership: 2013 update. Pew Research Center’s Internet &
35
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420-433.
Sundar, S. S., & Limperos, A. M. (2013). Uses and Grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525.
Warf, B. (2013). Global geographies of the Internet. Springer.
Whitty, M. T., Carr, A. N. (2005). Taking the Good with the Bad. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions, 4:2-3,
103-115.
Whitty, M. T., Quigley, L. L. (2008). Emotional and sexual infidelity offline and in cyberspace. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, vol.34, no. 4, 461-468.
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults'
use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 13(2), 173-177.
Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using facebook, patterns of facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of youth and
36 Appendix
Questionnaire
Relationship quality
Are you currently involved in a romantic relationship? (yes/no)
My partner fulfills… (1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree completely) … my needs for intimacy (sharing personal thoughts, secrets, etc.)
… my needs for companionship (doing things together, enjoying each other’s company, etc.)
… my sexual needs (holding hands, kissing, etc.)
… my needs for security (feeling trusting, comfortable in a stable relationship, etc.) … my needs for emotional involvement (feeling emotionally attached, feeling good when another feels good, etc.)
I feel satisfied with our relationship
My relationship is much better than others’ relationships My relationship is close to ideal
Our relationship makes me very happy
Our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy, companionship, etc. My needs for…
… intimacy (sharing personal thoughts, secrets, etc.) could be fulfilled in alternative relationships
… companionship (doing things together, enjoying each other’s company, etc.) could be fulfilled in alternative relationships
… sexuality (holding hands, kissing, etc.) could be fulfilled in alternative relationships … security (feeling trusting, comfortable in a stable relationship, etc.) could be fulfilled in alternative relationships
… emotional involvement (feeling emotionally attached, feeling good when another feels good, etc.) could be fulfilled in alternative relationships
37
My alternatives to our relationship are close to ideal (dating another, spending time with friends or on my own, etc.).
If I weren’t dating my partner, I would do fine/I would find another appealing person to date My alternatives are attractive to me (dating another, spending time with friends or on my own, etc.).
My needs for intimacy, companionship, etc., could easily be fulfilled in an alternative relationship.
Smartphone use
Do you own a Smartphone? (yes/no)
How often do you use your Smartphone? (from 0 = never to 7 = seven days a week)
On the days that you use your Smartphone, how much time do you spend on this per day? (hours/minutes)
The following items are measured on a scale from 1 = never to 7 = very often
Voice calls
Text messaging (including SMSs, chat services not included in social media, etc.)? Using social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
Sending MMS (namely pictures plus/without description) Sending mails
Make video calls
Motives for Smartphone use
I make use of smartphones… (1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree completely)
… to communicate with my romantic partner.
… to strengthen my relationship with my romantic partner … to know more about my romantic partner
… to communicate with alternative romantic partners. … to know more about potential romantic partners … to develop relationships with other potential partners
38 Personality
I see myself as someone who… (1 = do not agree at all to 7 = agree completely)
… is talkative … is reserved … is full of energy
… generates a lot of enthusiasm … tends to be quiet
… has an assertive personality … is sometimes shy, inhibited … is outgoing, sociable
… is original, comes up with new ideas … is curious about many different things … is ingenuous, a deep thinker
… has an active imagination … is inventive
… values artistic, aesthetic experiences … prefers work that is routine
… likes to reflect, play with ideas … has few artistic interests
… is sophisticated in art, music or literature
Demographic questions
What’s your age? (free completion)
What’s your gender? (male/female)
What’s your relationship status? Tick the answer that applies to you.
(Married, In a partnership, Divorced, Widowed, Single / separated, Never been married /
39
What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? Tick the answer that applies to you.
(Less than High School, High School, Some College, Bachelor’s Degree (BA/BS), Master’s Degree ,Doctoral Degree, Professional Degree).
