4.4 Article

Daily technoference, technology use during couple leisure time, and relationship quality

期刊

MEDIA PSYCHOLOGY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 637-665

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15213269.2020.1783561

关键词

-

资金

  1. Illinois State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The landscape of couple leisure time has shifted to include and, in some relationships, rely upon technology use. While technology has the potential to intrude upon face-to-face interactions, it can also lead to bonding in relationships. Results from the study suggested that both own and partner technology use impact daily relationship quality through leisure satisfaction and conflict.
The landscape of couple leisure time has shifted to include and, in some relationships, rely upon technology use. Technology has the potential to intrude upon face-to-face interactions and quality time together - i.e., technoference, phubbing. However, it is also likely that couples engage in shared technology use, which could lead to bonding. In the current work, we examined one's own, one's partner's, and shared technology use during couple time across 10 days and the potential impacts on couple-time satisfaction, conflict, and relationship quality. We utilized data from 145 couples who completed a baseline online survey and 10 days of daily online surveys concerning leisure time spent together with their partner and their technology use. Multilevel mediational modeling revealed within-person associations between own and partner technology use with daily leisure satisfaction and leisure conflict. Small, but significant within-person indirect effects on daily relationship quality through leisure satisfaction and conflict were also found for own and partner technology use. In other words, results implied a pathway where technology use impacts one's satisfaction with and conflict during time spent together, and then this (dis) satisfaction and conflict impacts daily relationship quality. Although shared technology use was also a significant predictor, its effects were not robust.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据