Advertisement

Interplay Between Families and Technology: Future Investigations

  • Xiaoran Sun
  • Cassie McMillanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the National Symposium on Family Issues book series (NSFI, volume 9)

Abstract

Technology has become increasingly pervasive in American society, leading researchers, journalists, parents, teachers, and popular culture alike to question how technology is shaping our daily lives. The influx of technology raises a variety of new issues, many of which are specifically of interest to family scholars. It remains unclear whether technology is changing the way we form, maintain, and understand families—and the conditions under which these changes are for better or worse. In this concluding chapter, we bring attention to three themes that resonate throughout the volume: (1) how technology has shaped power dynamics in families, (2) the role technology has played in redefining and adjusting boundaries between family members and around the family, and (3) the relation between technology, family, and inequality. We conclude with suggestions for future research on family and technology by pointing to the need to integrate more theory and novel methods.

Keywords

Elder’s linked lives Technology family power dynamics Technology family inequality Technology family scholars Technology family research Technology family theory Technology changing families Technology family boundaries Parent-child power structures 

References

  1. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felmlee, D. H., & Faris, R. (2016). Toxic ties: Networks of friendship, dating, and cyber victimization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(3), 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felmlee, D. H., & Kreager, D. A. (2017). The invisible contours of online dating communities: A social networks perspective. Journal of Social Structure, 18(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Goldstein, J. R., & Klüsener, S. (2014). Spatial analysis of the causes of fertility decline in Prussia. Population and Development Review, 40(3), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hessel, H., He, Y., & Dworkin, J. (2017). Paternal monitoring: The relationship between online and in-person solicitation and youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerig, P. K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(2–3), 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., & Yu, M. (2014). “Where have all the good men gone?” gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(47), 18814–18819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luke, N., Goldberg, R. E., Mberu, B. U., & Zulu, E. M. (2011). Social exchange and sexual behavior in young women's premarital relationships in Kenya. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1048–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). A macro-and micro-examination of family power and love: An exchange model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(2), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents’ and parents’ changing conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zuckerberg, M. (2018, January 11). [Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Development and Family StudiesPenn StateUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and CriminologyPenn StateUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations