Advertisement

Contemporary Family Therapy

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 249–260 | Cite as

From Online Dating to Online Divorce: An Overview of Couple and Family Relationships Shaped Through Digital Media

  • Christiane EichenbergEmail author
  • Jessica Huss
  • Cornelia Küsel
Original Paper

Abstract

From the very early stages of initiating relationships to types of post-break-up behaviors, the internet has the potential to play an influential role in all areas of family and particularly couple relationships. This paper examines how ICTs (“information and communication technology”) can shape such relationships. The impact on the various stages of relationships is systematized (relationship development, couple and family formation, separation) with a special focus on intergenerational opportunities and conflicts associated with modern media usage. Against the background of psychological and media communication theories and psychotherapeutic approaches as well as empirical findings the following topics are considered: (1) Initiation of relationships through ICTs (e.g. meet new partners through online dating); (2) Impact of digital media on relationship development and existing partnerships (e.g. new opportunities and internet-related challenges that have to be faced by couples) (3) Influence of ICTs on separations (e.g. online mediation, getting divorced online). In summary, the role of ICTs in new, existing and separated partnerships and families is multifaceted. An outlook on further developments as well as research desiderata is given.

Keywords

Digital media Couple and family relationship Online-dating Online-communication Family models 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbas, R., & Mesch, G. (2016). Do rich teens get richer? Facebook use and the link between offline and online social capital among Palestinian youth in Israel. Information, Communication & Society. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1261168.Google Scholar
  2. Aditi, P. (2014). Is online better than offline for meeting partners? Depends: Are you looking to marry or to date. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 664–667. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aicken, C. R. H., Estcourt, C. S., Johnson, A. M., Sonnenberg, P., Wellings, K., & Mercer, C. H. (2016). Use of the internet for sexual health among sexually experienced persons aged 16 to 44 years: Evidence from a nationally representative survey of the British population. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18, e14. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Al Mutawa, N., Bryce, J., Franqueira, V. N. L., & Marrington, A. (2016). Forensic investigation of cyberstalking cases using behavioural evidence analyses [Supplemental material]. Digital Investigation, 16, S96-S103. doi: 10.1016/j.diin.2016.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alhabash, S., Hales, K., Baek, J., & Oh, H. J. (2014). Effects of race, visual anonymity, and social category salience on online dating outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvarez, A. R. G. (2012). “IH8U”: Confronting cyberbullying and exploring the use of cybertools in teen dating relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 1205–1215. doi: 10.1002/jclp.21920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among Internet attitudes, internet use, romantic beliefs, and perceptions of online romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aretz, W. (2016). Match me if you can: Eine explorative Studie zur Beschreibung der Nutzung von Tinder. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 1. Retrieved from http://journal-bmp.de/2015/12/match-me-if-you-can-eine-explorative-studie-zur-beschreibung-der-nutzung-von-tinder/.
  9. Aretz, W., Becher, L., Casalino, A., & Bonorden, C. (2010). Digitale Eifersucht: Die Kehrseite soziale Netzwerke. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 1, 17–24.Google Scholar
  10. Aretz, W., Gansen-Ammann, D.-N., Mierke, K., & Musiol, A. (2017). Date me if you can: Ein systematischer Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand von online-dating. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 30, 7–34. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-101465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker, A. J. (2004). Double click: Romance and commitment among online couples. Cresskill: Hampton Press Book.Google Scholar
  12. Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bay, B., Larsen, P. B., Kesmodel, U. S., & Ingerslev, H. J. (2014). Danish sperm donors across three decades: Motivations and attitudes. Fertility and Sterility, 101, 252–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berend, Z. (2016). The online world of surrogacy. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  15. Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 152–157. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blackhart, G. C., Fitzpatrick, J., & Williamson, J. (2014). Dispositional factors predicting use of online dating sites and behaviors related to online dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowers, J. R., Mitchell, E. T., Hardesty, J. L., & Hughes, R. Jr. (2011). A review of online divorce education programs. Family Court Review, 49(4), 776–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Braun, C. (2009). Gruppenheimat im Cyberspace? Digitale Medien, Suchtgefährdung, Online-Therapie. Paper presented at Berliner Institut für Gruppenanalyse BIG, Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Bridges, A. J. (2008). Dyadic consequences of non-addictive use of sexually explicit media. Oral presentation presented at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  20. Briken, P., & Basdekis-Jozsa, R. (2010). Sexuelle Sucht? Wenn sexuelles Verhalten außer Kontrolle gerät. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, 53, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brym, R. J., & Lenton, R. L. (2001). Love online: A report on digital dating in Canada. Report. Retrieved from University of Toronto, Faculty of Arts & Science: http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/brym/loveonline.pdf, 2017/06/24.
  22. Campbell, L., & Kohut, T. (2016). The use and effects of pornography in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.004.Google Scholar
  23. Cavaglion, G., & Rashty, E. (2010). Narratives of suffering among Italian female partners of cybersex and cyber-porn dependents. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 17, 270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Couch, D., Liamputtong, P., & Pitts, M. (2012). What are the real and perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from online daters. Health, Risk & Society, 14, 697–714. doi: 10.1080/13698575.2012.720964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Daneback, K., Ross, M. W., & Mänsson, S. A. (2006). Characteristics and behaviors of sexual compulsives who use the Internet for sexual purposes. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 13, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Döring, N. (2000). Romantische Beziehungen im Netz. In K. Thimm (Ed.), Soziales im Netz. Sprache, Beziehungen und Kommunikationskulturen im Netz (pp. 39–70). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Döring, N. (2003). Sozialpsychologie des Internet. Die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen im Internet (2 edn.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  28. Döring, N. (2010). Wie wir Liebes- und sexualpartner im Internet finden: Der aktuelle Forschungsstand. Psychosozial, 4, 33–49.Google Scholar
  29. Döring, N. (2015). Smartphones, sex und social media: Erwachsenwerden im Digitalzeitalter. Wie Jugendliche in Deutschland mit Smartphone, apps und social-media-plattformen umgehen. Televizion, 28, 12–19.Google Scholar
  30. Döring, N. (2017). Vom Internetsex zum Robotersex: Forschungsstand und Herausforderungen für die Sexualwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 30, 35–57. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-101471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Döring, N., & Dietmar, C. (2003). Mediated communication in couple relationships: Approaches for theoretical modelling and initial qualitative findings. Forum Qualitative Social Research FQS, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.nicola-doering.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/D%C3%B6ring-Dietmar-2003-Mediatisierte-Paarkommunikation.pdf.
  32. Doss, B. D., Cicila, L. N., Georgia, E. J., Roddy, M. K., Nowlan, K. M., Benson, L. A., et al. (2016). A randomized controlled trial of the web-based OurRelationship program: Effects on relationship and individual functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 285–296. doi: 10.1037/ccp000006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 61–67. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eichenberg, C. (2007). Online-Sexualberatung: Wirksamkeit und Wirkweise. Evaluation eines ProFamilia-Angebots. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 3, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eichenberg, C. (2009). Internetnutzung und Sexualität aus gesundheitspsychologischer Perspektive. In B. U. Stetina & I. Kryspin-Exner (Eds.), Gesundheit und Neue Medien. Psychologische Aspekte der Interaktion mit Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (pp. 85–111). Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Eichenberg, C. (2010). Zusammen—getrennt: Paarbeziehungen im Internet aus medienpsychologischer und psychodynamischer Perspektive. In H. G. Soeffner (Ed.), Unsichere Zeiten. Herausforderungen gesellschaftlicher Transformationen. Verhandlungen des 34. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Jena 2008. Wiesbaden: Springer. (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
  37. Eichenberg, C., & Auersperg, F. (in press). Chancen und Risiken digitaler Medien für Kinder und Jugendliche: Ein Ratgeber für Eltern und Pädagogen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  38. Eichenberg, C., & Auersperg, F. (2013). Auswirkungen von Online-Sexualität auf das sexuelle Verhalten. Schlussfolgerungen aus dem aktuellen Stand der Forschung. Psychotherapie im Dialog, 2, 72–76.Google Scholar
  39. Eichenberg, C., & Blokus, G. (2010). Cybersexsucht: Epidemiologie, Diagnostik, Ätiologie und Therapie—Ein Überblick zum Stand der Forschung. Psychologie in Österreich, 2(3), 142–154.Google Scholar
  40. Eichenberg, C., & Kühne, S. (2014). Einführung Onlineberatung und-therapie. München: Reinhardt UTB.Google Scholar
  41. Eichenberg, C., Schott, M., Decker, O., & Sindelar, B. (2017). Attachment style and internet addiction: An online survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19, e170. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 415–441. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eynon, R., & Helsper, E. (2015). Family dynamics and Internet use in Britain: What role do children play in adults’ engagement with the internet? Information, Communication & Society, 18, 156–171. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.942344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online-dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. doi: 10.1177/152910061243652. Retrieved from https://www3.nd.edu/~ghaeffel/OnineDating_Aron.pdf.
  45. Fiore, A. T. (2004). Romantic regressions: An analysis of behavior in online dating systems. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  46. Fox, J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Romantic partner monitoring after breakups: Attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 491–498. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Franke, G. H. (2000). BSI. Brief symptom inventory—Deutsche version. Manual. Göttingen: Beltz.Google Scholar
  48. Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2009). Gamete donation: Parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Human Reproduction, 24, 505–516. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Freeman, T., Jadva, V., Tranfield, E., & Golombok, S. (2016). Online sperm donation: A survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Human Reproduction, 31, 2082–2089. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew166.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Freud, S. (1945). Formulierungen über zwei Prinzipien des psychischen Geschehens. Gesammelte Werke (VIII). London: Imago.Google Scholar
  51. Gauthier, D. K., & Forsyth, C. J. (1999). Bareback sex, bug chasers, and the gift of death. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Geser, H., & Bühler, E. (2006). Partnerwahl online. Retrieved from http://socio.ch/intcom/t_hgeser15.htm.
  53. Gonyea, J. L. (2004). Internet sexuality: Clinical implications for couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gramatikov, M., & Klaming, L. (2011). Getting divorced online: Procedural and outcome justice in online divorce mediation. TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1752903. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1752903.
  55. Hall, J. A. (2014). First comes social networking, then comes marriage? Characteristics of Americans married 2005–2012 who met through social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 322–326. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Handel, M. J., & Shklovski, I. (2012). Disclosure, ambiguity and risk reduction in real-time dating sites. GROUP12 Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 175–178). doi: 10.1145/2389176.2389203.
  57. Heller, J., & Dresing, T. (2001). Chat - Kommunikationsmedium mit Entwicklungspotential. In R. Bader, W. Schindler & B. Eckmann (Eds.), Bildung in virtuellen Welten—Praxis und Theorieaußerschulischer Bildung mit Internet und Computer (pp. 83–90). Frankfurt: Gemeinschaftswerk der Evangelischen Publizistik.Google Scholar
  58. Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, L. C. (2014). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Hoffmann, J. (2006). Stalking. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Huels, D. J. (2011). Beginning romantic relationships online: A phenomenological examination of Internet couples. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 72(5-B), 3135.Google Scholar
  61. Hugger, K.-U. (Ed.). (2010). Digitale Jugendkulturen. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity scales: Reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 586–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Keehn, J., Howell, E., Sauer, M. V., & Klitzman, R. (2015). How agencies market egg donation the internet: A qualitative study. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 43, 610–618. doi: 10.1111/jlme.12303.Google Scholar
  64. Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lampert, C., Schmidt, J. H., & Schulz, W. (2011). Jugendliche und Social Web—Fazit und Handlungsbereiche. In J. H. Schmidt, I. Paus-Hasebrink & U. Hasebrink (Eds.), Heranwachsen mit dem Social Web. Zur Rolle von web 2.0-Angeboten im Alltag von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen (pp. 275–297). Berlin: Vistas.Google Scholar
  66. Lee, S. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from internet use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 509–531. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01451.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Linke, C. (2010). Medien im Alltag von Paaren. Eine Studie zur Mediatisierung der Kommunikation in Paarbeziehungen. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Maddox, A. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Markman, H. J. (2011). Viewing sexually-explicit materials alone or together: Associations with relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 441–448. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9585-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Mao, A., & Raguram, A. (2009). Online infidelity: The new challenge to marriages. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 302–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family characteristics and intergenerational conflicts over the Internet. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 473–495. doi: 10.1080/13691180600858705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More infromation than you ever wanted: Does facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Poley, M. E., & Luo, S. (2012). Social compensation or rich-get-richer? The role of social competence in college students’ use of the Internet to find a partner. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 414–419. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pollock, S. L. (2006). Internet counseling and its feasibility for marriage and family counseling. The Family Journal, 14, 65–70. doi: 10.1177/1066480705282057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ramirez, Jr. A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287–310. doi: 10.1080/03637750701543493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Reime, B. (2017). Leihmutterschaft—Assistenzbusiness in der globalisierten Welt. In P. Biniok & E. Lettkemann (Eds.), Assistive Gesellschaft: Multidisziplinäre Erkundungen zur Sozialform “Assistenz” (pp. 145–163). Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., Cummings, C., & Felt, J. (2008). The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating versus traditional dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2124–2157. Retrieved from http://www.csudh.edu/psych/+FINAL%20ONLINE%20DATING%20ARTICLE%20IN%20PRESS%20VERSION%20-%20Rosen,%20Cheever,%20Cummings,%20Felt.pdf.
  80. Saini, M., Mishna, F., Barnes, J., & Polak, S. (2013). Parenting online: An exploration of virtual parenting time in the context of seperation and divorce. Journal of Child Custody, 10, 120–140. doi: 10.1080/15379418.2013.796265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schneider, J. P. (2003). The impact of compulsive cybersex behaviours on the family. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 18(3), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schramm, D. G., & McCaulley, G. (2012). Divorce education for parents: A comparison of online and in-person delivery methods. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53, 602–617. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2012.721301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Skopek, J. (2012). Partnerwahl im Internet. Eine quantitative Analyse von Strukturen und Prozessen der Online-Partnersuche. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Staley, C., & Prause, N. (2013). Erotica viewing effects on intimate relationships and self/partner evaluations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 615–624. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-0034-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Stinson, S., & Jeske, D. (2016). Exploring online dating preferences in line with the “social compensation” and “rich-get-richer hypothesis”. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 6, 75–87. doi: 10.4018/IJCBPL.2016100106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7, 321–326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10, 849–852. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9941.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Vossler, A. (2016). Internet infidelity 10 years on: A critical review of the literature. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24, 359–366. doi: 10.1177/1066480716663191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 28, 105–134. doi: 10.1177/009365001028001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Weinstein, A. M., Zolek, R., Babkin, A., Cohen, K., & Lejoyeux, M. (2015). Factors predicting cybersex use and difficulties in forming intimate relationships among male and female users of cybersex. Frontiers in Psychiatry. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00054. Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00054/full.
  92. Wendt, V. (2016). Überprüfung der Wirksamkeit einesLiebestagebuchszur Reduktion beziehungsspezifischer InterpretationsverzerrungenEine randomisierte Wartegruppenstudie Master’s thesis. Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.Google Scholar
  93. Wéry, A., & Billieux, J. (2017). Problematic cybersex: Conceptualization, assessment, and treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 238–246. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Whitty, M. T. (2008). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Presentations of self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707–1723. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00088.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and Reality. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  96. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachmann, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063–1077. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christiane Eichenberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica Huss
    • 2
  • Cornelia Küsel
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute for Psychosomatics, Medical FacultySigmund Freud Private UniversityViennaAustria
  2. 2.University of KasselKasselGermany
  3. 3.University of Bundeswehr MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.University Hospital Carl Gustav CarusClinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic MedicineTU DresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations