Impact of Technoference on Relationships

 




In India, marriage is considered sacred. India serves an interesting context of romantic relationships through its mythologies, such as Mahabharat, Kama Sutra, and Puranas. Indian society strongly views the human race’s relationships and understanding between spouses (Shah & Deshpande, 2024). The Hindi language does not have the word “divorce,” but India’s divorce rate is between 1% and 1.5%, although the Indian divorce rate remains considerably low compared to Western countries. As children, we pick habits from our parents regarding maintaining relationships. We are exposed to them with the idea of an ideal couple, and that's the same behavior children practice when they get into this holy bond of marriage. In Indian society, the head of the house is considered the father as he is the breadwinner of the house, but in the last 50 decades, things have changed. Women also act as breadwinners regardless of whether the marriage is arranged or loved. The idea that both the partners are working is due to their passion as well as the rising prices of the rudimentary goods, technological advancements, and last but not least, high competition for jobs. Due to technological advancements, mobile phones have become ubiquitous worldwide (Mackay et al., 2022). According to apurva chandra, secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting remarks that India has over 1.2 billion active mobile phone users(Anand, 2022), whereas it is estimated that the number will increase to 1.55 billion-plus by 2040 (Statista, 2023).



 we all have experienced or at least come across this situation while we are at a family gathering, eating lunch in the canteen with friends. Does it sound familiar? In this instance, you have experienced technoference. Technoference is a portmanteau word derived from blending two or more distinct words. The word  techno- means "technical" or "technological," and an -ference is from interference, which has its origins in an Anglo-French word meaning "to strike one another." The prefix techno- is taken from the word technological. That word was borrowed from Greek in the early 19th century, from the word technologia, meaning "systematic treatment of an art”. The term is pioneer Brandon mcdaniel, an assistant professor of human development and family science at Illinois state university in 2016, which means everyday intrusions and interruptions due to technology devices (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Phubbing is also a portmanteau of the words “phone” and “snubbing.” “phubb” means interrupting your conversation with someone when he or she attends to their cell phone or tends to use it instead of communicating with you. Partner phubbing (Pphubbing) is when an individual uses or is distracted by his/her cell phone. In contrast, in the company of his/her relationship partner, these terminologies go hand in hand (Roberts & David, 2015).

The importance of studying Technoferences and phubbing

 There is a rise in the number of marriage dissatisfaction and negative parent-child relationships   (Shah & Deshpande, 2024). Several media psychology researchers and multidisciplinary researchers are exploring the role of technoference/phubbing and problematic smartphone use (PSU) influencing relationship dissatisfaction. A Canada study was conducted to understand the meditating partway from PSU to technoference behaviors to relationship satisfaction and, finally, to life satisfaction. Purposive sampling techniques were obtained while selecting the 530 Canadian adults in romantic relationship partners. The result indicates that a partner’s smartphone usage was directly associated with reduced relationship satisfaction and indirectly linked with lower life satisfaction. Technoference was not a significant predictor, but the finding indicates how problematic types of smartphone use can be associated with personal and interpersonal relationships (APA PsycNet, 2024). Another study with 143 married and cohabiting women examined the frequency of technoference in romantic relationships and whether these everyday interruptions relate to women’s personal and relational well-being. The majority of participants perceived that technology devices frequently interrupted their interactions.  The finding also indicates participants rated more technoference in their relationships and also experienced and reported more conflict over technology use. They also reported lower relationship satisfaction, more depressive symptoms, and lower life satisfaction(McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Another study reveals the significant impacts of technoference related to work on employee feelings of work-to-family spillover, greater feelings of overload, lower life satisfaction, and lower job satisfaction (Daniel, 2021). Technofreces affect both partner relationships and the dynamic of affection between parents and children. Parents often spend their time on technological devices (such as cell phones, laptops, or entertainment platforms), which leads to the question. Does parents’ high technological device usage interfere with regular parenting behaviors and distract them from engaging in optimal parent-child interactions, negatively impacting child health and development? The study highlighted that mothers of old newborn babies spent 3 hours per day, on average, on their smartphones. 16% reported spending 5–15 hours on their smartphones daily, and 6.7% self-reported being addicted to their smartphones(Mackay et al., 2022). 

The objectives of this essay are as follows:-

  1. To critically analyze the impact of technoference on relationships. 

  2. To understand how technoference affects parent-child relationships?

  3. To understand how technoference affects children's physiological development. 

  4. To make readers aware of the consequences of technoference.


Symbolic interactionism theory suggests that due to our internet, our interactions with other individuals are through digital media, in which symbols play a crucial role. When one uses technology in the presence of one's partner, this may send the message that the device is more valuable than the partner (McDaniel et al., 2020b). The displacement hypothesis states that the technology of digital devices is also replacing the dee,p high-quality in-person interaction that could occur while switching between classes, making dinner, having dinner, and so on (McDaniel et al., 2020b). Media multiplexity theory states that technology can be an additional tool that helps us connect worldwide rather than replacing face-to-face interactions. We must learn to balance the interplay between the digital and physical realms with some regulations and strategies. Understanding how technology interferes with family interactions is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate these effects and promote healthier family relationships, a core focus of family therapy(S et al., 2024). In this essay, we aim to critically analysis the effects of technoference on relationships, parent-child relationships, and child development.

Discussion

Impact of technoference on relationships. 

The study was conducted in Bangalore using a purposive sampling method, and 78% of participants reported that due to technology use, they often experienced communication breakdowns. 65% experienced conflicts over screen time and privacy issues. These disruptions often resulted in increased stress and anxiety, highlighting the critical role of family support in mitigating the adverse effects of technoference. Indian study demonstrated that high levels of smartphone usage in romantic relationships were associated with lower relationship satisfaction and increased conflict, particularly regarding communication quality (S et al., 2024). 34% of participants in our study reported that technology, due to video calls, helped them stay connected with distant friends and family, indicating that the impact of technology on relationships is multifaceted and context-dependent, specifically in india, where the prevalence of internal migration is high due to education, employment, etc. 145 couples an online survey was conducted with three hypothesis. The first hypothesis was that the usage of the technology would occur a couple of times the majority of the days. The second hypothesis has two parts: one- technology use by oneself (own use) and one’s partner (partner use) would predict lower satisfaction with time spent together, while two-shared technology use would predict greater satisfaction with time spent together. The third hypothesis also has two parts: technology use by oneself (own use) and one’s partner (partner use) would predict more significant conflict during time spent together, while two-shared technology use would predict lower conflict during time spent together. The fourth hypothesis is that one satisfaction with the time spent together and a second conflict during time spent together would act as mediators through which technology use impacts daily relationship quality.  The finding indicates that distraction with technology (perceptions of own and partner use during shared couple time) predicted less satisfaction with leisure or time spent together. Perceptions of partner use predicted more conflict during leisure or time spent together. The result did not prove the hypothesis but highlighted that when the partner used the individual's technology in the presence of their other partner. IT distracted them from the interactions and reduced their satisfaction. Conflict arises when one partner receives the other using technology during their shared time (McDaniel et al., 2020b). 

Technoference affects parent-child relationships.

Studies have observed that parents spend high amounts of time each day on a technological device, which leads to the question: Does their use of technology interfere with regular parenting behaviors and distract them from engaging in optimal parent-child interactions, negatively impacting child health and development? Yes, technoference among parents affects parent relationships and hinders parent-child bonding. Parent-child relationships refer to the quality of the time parents spend with their children. Research indicates that mothers' high screen time is associated with conduct problems, ADHD, and emotional problems among their children. Fifty parents' mobile usage was observed while their children played in the playground. Findings indicated that 76% of parents used their mobile device for up to 17.5 min of the 20 min observation period. Optimal parent-child interactions refer to when a child verbalizes, gestures, or cries, and the parent responds appropriately with care and love (Mackay et al., 2022). Another study displayed parents with technoference their children reported unusual behavior. The boys in this study displayed significantly more externalizing behavior, whereas the girls showed more prosocial behaviors. These prosocial behaviors may counterweight to the development of internalized and externalized problematic behaviors, as higher prosocial behavior is related to lower-level behavior problems (Sundqvist et al., 2020b). 


Technoference affects children's physiological development.

When parental technoference was observed in playgrounds of the USA and Israel, parents’ interactions with their children were suboptimal. Research indicates those parents regularly ignored their children, could not understand their children's emotions, and were careless about their children's safety needs due to their focus on cell phones (Elias et al., 2020). A Canadian systematic study aims to study the impact of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children’s health and development (Mackay et al., 2022). The finding indicates childhood is characterized by a sensitive period for children as their brain and biological developments are still in progress, making them vulnerable to their immediate environment. Social learning theory states children are influenced by the environment in which they live, which can improve or damage their development and health(Hertzman, 2009). Children’s development includes gross motor (e.g., sitting, standing, walking, running), fine motor (e.g., eating, writing), language acquisition (e.g., speaking, gestures), interpersonal relationships (e.g., relationships with others, responding to others’ feelings), and cognitive (e.g., learning, understanding, problem-solving, reasoning, remembering)(Young et al., 2020). Children's biological health involves (e.g., cardiac, respiratory, endocrine, muscular-skeletal, and gastroenteric domains) and psychological health (e.g., mental, emotional, and behavioral domains). Research indicates parental technoference can interfere with children’s health and development, explicitly predicting children’s externalizing hyperactivity, aggression, and internalizing anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems(McDaniel & Radesky, 2017) (McDaniel & Radesky, 2018).

Limitations  

The studies mentioned above were conducted online, and self-report questionnaires lacked accuracy. The questionnaire was sent to each participant mid-night, which might make it difficult for the participants to recall their day accurately; questionnaires were sent through email it is difficult to estimate how many participants were interrupted by notification while filling up the questionnaire (Sundqvist et al., 2020b). Most of the studies are correlational, making it inaccurate to understand the direction of casual flow. Partners who are already less satisfied with their relationship may showcase more Pphubbing behaviors. Researchers analyze the individual and their partner's perception of digital media usage. This may not accurately capture the actual usage. The majority of the studies were conducted in developed countries. Underdeveloped countries might not showcase the same result. Several studies indicate that families with low socio-economic status tend to score low on technology usage(S et al., 2024). Studies sample size involves individuals who had been in a relationship for at least 6 months, and therefore, research results cannot generalize to individuals in romantic relationships that are just beginning or relationship lengths of fewer than 6 months(McDaniel et al., 2020b). The result may look different in samples of at-risk or highly unsatisfied couples. Moreover, studies did not examine what type of technology (e.g., smartphone, TV, tablet, etc.). Also, studies fail to discuss the media content or activities that use these technologies. Research highlights that engaging in shared technology is related to more positive feelings about couple time and daily relationship quality. Still, this result may differ for the individuals who all have been married for more than 10 years. During COVID-19, other stressors are likely to impact romantic relationships negatively. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the results. Studies fail to capture the usage of phones through objective measures. The studies captured only perceived phone usage and social media usage(Zoppolat et al., 2022b). 


Future implications 

Future research could opt for self-rating with passively sensing app on phones/tablets for an objective measure of digital media use in conjunction with observations of real-life interactions. Future research should also include an equal sample of male and female participants(Sundqvist et al., 2020b). Future studies can examine which type of technology or media content moderates the effects of technoference. Experimental and longitudinal studies are crucial to understanding the direction of causal flow thoroughly. Future research could use longitudinal studies to examine whether increasing Pphubbing over time also results in a gradual decline in relationship satisfaction (Roberts & David, 2015).



Conclusion 

Technoference is a new word that is yet to be explored. The prevalence of technoference has become common. From children to old, individuals are seen watching someone on their digital devices during family gatherings. Marriage is prone to fall into the trap of technoference/Phubbing. The divorce rate is rising in India. In Gandhinagar, the divorce rate has grown by 65%. In Kerela, the divorce rate has increased by 350% in the last decade. As mentioned earlier, the study highlights the negative effect of technoference on marriage, relationships, and parent-child relationships. It's crucial to understand that digital media is the tool, not the replacement, for maintaining relationships. Therefore, it is essential to have regulations such as app timers, a digital detox once-a-month policy, no phone bedroom policy, and shared charging stations. 




References 

  1. Anand, S. (2022, November 16). India has over 1.2 bn mobile phone users: I&B ministry. Mint.https://www.livemint.com/technology/gadgets/india-has-over-1-2-bn-mobile-phoneusers-i-b-ministry-11668610623295.html

  2. APA PsycNet. (2016). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-96577-001

  3. Booth, J. (2024, February 19). Dating Statistics and Facts in 2025. Forbes Health. https://www.forbes.com/health/dating/dating-statistics/

  4. Çakir, C., & Köseli̇Ören, M. (2022). Technoference as technology interference in the communication process: A study on married couples. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 9(2), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.1091267

  5. Delgado, L. (2025, January 31). Divorce Statistics 2025: Everything You Need to know. Graziano & Flynn, P.C. https://www.grazianolaw.com/blog/divorce-statistics/

  6. Editors of Merriam-Webster. (2018). Words We're Watching: 'Technoference' https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-were-watching-technoference

  7. Elias, N., Lemish, D., Dalyot, S., & Floegel, D. (2020). “Where are you?” An observational exploration of parental technoference in public places in the US and Israel. Journal of Children and Media, 15(3), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1815228

  8. Harper, B. (2024, January 15). Divorce Statistics in 2024 (Latest U.S. data) | Maze of love. Maze of Love. https://mazeoflove.com/divorce/

  9. Hertzman, C. (2009). The state of child development in Canada: Are we moving toward, or away from, equity from the start? Paediatrics & Child Health, 14(10), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/14.10.673

  10. India: smartphone users 2040 | Statista. (2023, September 18). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/467163/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-india/

  11. Maatta, P. (2024, July 3). 19 Fascinating love Statistics in 2024 - DreamMaker. DreamMaker. https://dreammakerr.com/love-statistics/

  12. Mackay, L. J., Komanchuk, J., Hayden, K. A., & Letourneau, N. (2022). Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: a scoping review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01918-3

  13. McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2014). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000065

  14. McDaniel, B. T., Galovan, A. M., & Drouin, M. (2020). Daily technoference, technology use during couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychology, 24(5), 637–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2020.1783561

  15. McDaniel, B. T., O’Connor, K., & Drouin, M. (2021). Work-related technoference at home and feelings of work spillover, overload, life satisfaction and job satisfaction. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 14(5), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-11-2020-0197

  16. McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2017). Technoference: parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12822

  17. McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0052-6

  18. Revankar, S. (2024, October 7). Divorce Statistics By Figures, Facts and Trends. Sci-Tech Today. https://www.sci-tech-today.com/stats/divorce-statistics/#The_Global_Facts_Figures_And_Statistics_of_Divorce

  19. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2015). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058

  20. S, N. M., Nirmala, B. P., Janardhana, N., & Sharma, M. K. (2024). Connected or disconnected? Exploring technoference and its impact on interpersonal relationships among youth. International Review of Psychiatry, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2024.2442410

  21. Shah, P. C., & Deshpande, A. (2024). Relationship between Relationship Satisfaction, Resilience, Optimism, and Forgiveness among Young Married Couples in India        |  International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy. ijip.co.in. https://doi.org/10.25215/1202.302

  22. Siege. (2024, April 24). Relationship statistics for finding a partner in 2024. Ours. https://www.withours.com/blog/relationship-statistics/

  23. Sundqvist, A., Heimann, M., & Koch, F. (2020). Relationship between family technoference and behavior problems in children aged 4–5 years. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 23(6), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0512

  24. Tips for parents: What is “Technoference” and why does it matter? (n.d.). Mississippi State University Extension Service. http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/tips-for-parents-what-is-technoference-and-why-does-it-matter

  25. Young, E., Green, L., Goldfarb, R., Hollamby, K., & Milligan, K. (2020, October 1). Caring for children with mental health or developmental and behavioural disorders: Perspectives of family health teams on roles and barriers to care. The College of Family Physicians of Canada. https://www.cfp.ca/content/66/10/750.short

  26. Zoppolat, G., Righetti, F., Balzarini, R. N., Alonso-Ferres, M., Urganci, B., Rodrigues, D. L., Debrot, A., Wiwattanapantuwong, J., Dharma, C., Chi, P., Karremans, J. C., Schoebi, D., & Slatcher, R. B. (2022). Relationship difficulties and “technoference” during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(11), 3204–3227. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221093611

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts