Ellen Dal Pra Dissertation

Institute for Clinical Social Work

Impact of Cell Phones: Family’s Experience of Cohesion and Flexibility

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Partial Fulfillment For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Ellen Dal Pra

Chicago, Illinois January, 2020

Abstract

This mixed methods research explores how families use cell phones to communicate with each other and how it impacts their relationships. In the first phase of the study, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES-IV) was given to determine if the families were balanced or unbalanced. The participants in this phase of the study ended up falling primarily into the balanced range. Five balanced families were asked to return to explore their experiences in more depth. The findings included ways in which the families use the cell phone to maintain relationships with each other, the meaning they placed on the phone, and how it impacted their overall experiences within the family.

ii

For Christopher, Robert, and Einstein

iii

Table of Contents

Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..ii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...iii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………vii Chapter I.

Introduction………………………………………………………………1 General Statement of Purpose Significance of the Study for Clinical Social Work Statement of Problem Hypothesis or Research Questions to be Explored Theoretical and Operational Definitions of Major Concepts Statement of Assumptions Foregrounding

II. Literature Review…………………………………………………………....18 Introduction Families as a System Theoretical Notions of Adolescent Development Technology, Adolescence and Family Intersubjective Theory iv

Table of Contents-Continued

Chapter

Page

III. Methodology……………………………………………………………...…54 Introduction Rationale for Mixed Methods Design Research Design Data Collection and Measurement Tools Data Analysis Ethical Considerations Issues of Trustworthiness IV. Results……………………………………………………..………………...74 Part I: Survey Results Part II: Qualitative Results Introduction Interview Themes The Phone Is More than a Communication Device Meaning Is Everything We Are Family Parenting Is the Toughest Job Teen’s Wit and Wisdom Field Notes

v

Table of Contents-Continued

Chapter

Page

V. Findings and Implications…………………………………………………152 It’s the Norm Can I Use a Lifeline?

Growing Pains Can You Hear Me Now? I Am Women, Hear Me Roar Broader Implications for Social Work Limitations Suggestions for Future Research Summary Appendices A. Adult Consent (Phase I)……………………………………………………200 B. Legal Guardian’s Consent for Adolescent (Phase I)…………………..…204 C. Assent for Adolescent (Phase I)……………….…………………………...209 D. Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES IV)….213 E. Additional Survey Questions………………………………………………217 F. Introduction E-mail………………………………………………………..220 G. Code Book………………………………………………………………….222 H. Adult Consent (Phase II)……………………… …………………………228 vi

Table of Contents-Continued

Appendices

Page

I. Legal Guardian Consent for Adolescent (Phase II) ………………….…..232 J. Adolescent Assent (Phase II)…………………… ……………………..…..237 K. Interview Schedule………………………………………………………....241 References……………………………………………………………………..243

vii

List of Tables

Table

Page 1. Cohesion and Flexibility Dimension Scores………………………………..77 2. Communication Scale Results………………………………………....……78 3. Satisfaction Scale Results……………………………………………..…..…79 4. Ancillary Survey Question Results…………………………………….…....80 5. Description of Families………………………………………………..…..…84 6. Themes and Subthemes…………………………………………….….…….86 7. Applications Used to Communicate with Family Members………………93

viii

List of Abbreviations

FACES IV

Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV

ix

1

Chapter 1

Introduction General Statement of Purpose This study addressed the impact of portable electronic devices on communication in families. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used and it involved collecting quantitative data first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth qualitative data. In the first, quantitative phase of the study, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale IV (FACES-IV) was administered to families to test the circumplex model which is grounded in family systems theory to assess whether the use of portable devices relates to the overall communication style of the family. FACES-IV is a 62 item survey that assessed each family members experienced flexibility and cohesion within the family system. In addition, to administering the FACES-IV to participants, this researcher collected data regarding the frequency and accessibility to their cell phones of members and other general demographic information. The second, qualitative phase, was conducted as a follow up to the quantitative results. This additional data illuminated the data gleaned from quantitative results. The purpose of this phenomenological qualitative phase offered further explanation of the quantitative results with interviews. These interviews are intended to provide rich descriptions, to explore the experience of the

2

family, and thus provide insight into the meaning of the family’s experiences with mobile technology.

Significance of the Study for Clinical Social Work Cell phone technology has changed the nature of family communication.

Understanding how family members interact with technology and how that influences their interpersonal relationships is the primary significance of this study. In turn this may help therapist intervene in more effective ways.

Two core values of the NASW ethical standards are the importance of human relationships and competent practice (National Association of Social Work [NASW], 2017a). Both of these standards are important to this study. Portable electronic devices support a different way for people to communicate. Communication is one of the primary building blocks for making and maintaining relationships and with technological changes the relational dynamics also may change. This study focused on these connections and therefore, centers on the ethical value of human relationships. The potential changes in communication influence not only the relationships that adolescents and their families develop, but also the relationships developed with the therapist. Along with specific updates in the code of ethics, NASW invited multiple social work organizations to join a task force, which developed specific standards for technology in social work practice.

This supplemental document, explores ethical responsibilities in social work for the use of technology across different domains. They include the practice setting and educational settings (National Association of Social Work [NASW], 2017b). The focus on technology is important as it can impact the therapeutic relationship and should be taken

3

into consideration in providing client care, including maintaining confidentiality and professional boundaries.

As previously noted, human relationships are one of social workers’ core values.

Family therapist are often tasked with understanding and encouraging change within these intimate relationships. The field in which these practitioners are embedded is a reflection of the larger social milieu. This field is changing and therefore, understanding the ways in which cell phone communication has transformed the daily interactional style of families may also highlight ways in which they relate to each other. This study, in particular explored the lived experiences of families in a technological age.

Finally, changes in the way a society communicates or disseminates knowledge can produce a shift in the social structure that can have a ripple effect from the micro to the macro level. Therefore, changes in the way families communicate with each other may also influence the way communities are defined and policies are implemented within the larger social structure. For example, if the family is finding a larger community through the use of mobile devices, they may be spending less time building relationships within their physical neighborhoods. Furthermore, the perceived closeness and accessibility of virtual relationships may overshadow those in physically closer community settings. This in turn infiltrates the larger social structure, which may have an additional ecological effect on the ways in which people view each other in larger society. Finally, parents may either implicitly or explicitly support other family members use of virtual networking, which become a family value. The ways in which parent’s support and reinforce communication in the family, whether it be through cell phone technology or communication also has an influence on what the “norm” becomes in the

4

younger generation. This “norm� filters up through the social structure and in turn shapes the culture that we inhabit and thus the expectations of others in larger society.

Statement of the Problem and Specific Objectives to Be Achieved Access to the internet on smaller and smaller devices expands the world of the adolescent and family. During the last five years, smart phone access by teenagers has increased significantly. While the level of cell phone users in adolescence has leveled off in the last couple of years, the sophistication of cell phones from a simple flip phone to a smart phone has increased dramatically. A recent 2018 Pew Research Center survey documented that 95% of teenagers have access to a smart phone (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). This is a 22% increase in access from 2015 and a 72% increase from 2011 (Lenhart & Page, 2015; Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013). Virtually, people have the world at their fingertips and many rely on other people outside their immediate environment for support (e.g. blogs, Snapchat, Facebook, Tweeter, and Instagram). The expanding world of the internet allows for a much larger pool of potential friends and social circles. Because relationships can be made on the internet, face-to-face communication may seem less of a necessity. A sense of familiarity and closeness can be achieved through a common interest, from a blog on a particular subject, a social issue website, or a dating site. Groups can be formed while sitting alone in the comfort of one’s living room. The use of synchronistic texting, blog or instant messaging can provide a conversational like atmosphere, but at what cost to the richness that faceto-face communication provides between family members (Steiner-Adair, 2013).

5

Furthermore, students can attend school or employees can work from home.

These options appear to add more opportunities for families to spend time together.

However, it also may blur the line between the home and community environments.

Because of the ease of access to work and other social venues, family members may not be able to balance the virtual world and quality time with each other. Instead, family members may feel pressure to meet the needs of others (e.g. employees/employers or friends) when they previously would have been focused solely on family interactions.

The distortion between home and work/school life is also true for cell phone utilization with adolescents and their friends. Teens are often in contact with their social groups at any time of day. Texting allows for an almost immediate interaction and teens have reported feeling pressure to instantly answer to maintain peer connections, regardless of the time of day. Because the teen’s ability to “always be on”, sleep cycles may be effected and in turn, academic performance can be impacted. Sometimes conflict between peers are hashed out publicly via group text messages or posting on a social media board. The publicly displayed conflict between peers may be hard for some teens to process and they may feel at risk of alienation by a larger group of peers (Turkle, 2011). Furthermore, since cell phones allow for the social milieu to be always present in the home, family connections may be compromised. Little research has investigated this impact.

Conversely, the cell phone allows consistent communication through short text messages when the family is physically separated. What used to be an independent day at school for a teenager may be interspersed with short messages to a parent that elicit support. Parents can also track a child’s movements through the phone’s GPS functions.

6

Furthermore, changes in schedules of either guardian or teen can be easily communicated and plans can be altered without a trip to the school office. Therefore, the ease of access can make the parent-teen dyad experience a feeling of closeness due to the frequency of communication.

Current research has focused on three primary areas: large quantitative studies, smaller studies on the impact of cell phones on peer relationships, and the impact of technology on family communication. PEW research center (a nonprofit, nonpartisan “fact tank” based in Washington D.C.) has conducted large participant survey studies with follow up that allow for comparison of multiple social issues, including cell phone use, over time. Over the last decade, cell phone ownership has begun at a younger age. In addition, more smart phone ownership is reported by teens, thus an increase in internet access via the cell phone. Although, safety is typically seen as the reason that parents provide a cell phone to their teen, cell phone usage exposes the adolescent to cyberbullying, sexting, and other safety issues (Kennedy, Smith, Wells, & Wellman, 2008; Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010; Madden et al., 2013).

Second, other researchers have focused on adolescents’ relationship to their peer group. Adolescents who use text messages or social media to augment their face-to-face communication reported higher levels of closeness to peers than those who only used one communication method. However, at some point the cell phone can become exclusionary; those teens without one cannot join the group. In qualitative studies, narratives around cell phones/social media include feelings of increased anxiety around not answering peers’ messages immediately, decrease in sleep, and increased vulnerability to cyberbullying. In addition, talking on the cell phone is seen as much more

7

intimate than texting. Therefore, texting has taken over as the primary form of communication among teens (Baiocco, Cacioppo, Laghi, & Tafa, 2013; Turkle, 2011; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Walsh, White, & Young, 2009).

Finally, there have been fewer studies focusing on the family, communication, and use of electronic devices. Many of the studies report that ease of access between family members has increased. Also increasing are the arguments regarding boundaries, utilization, and time spent on the phone. Depending on how the electronic device is utilized (one study looked at the computer) the increase in arguments were more prominent when the device was used for social or game oriented purposes versus for learning (Mesch, 2006; Padilla-Walker, Coyne, & Fraser, 2012; Weisskirch, 2011). One study focused on trust and reported that teens view cell phone communication as more positive when it is initiated by them versus their parents (Khan, 2011). In another study with older college-bound adolescents, the use of social media helped the student feel less alone. The ease of connection with family had a positive impact on the adolescent transitioning away from home (Gentzler, Oberhauser, Westerman, & Nadorff, 2011).

The theme throughout many of the books about mediation of communication within families has focused on cautionary tales of loss of core family values. Children and adolescents are exposed to the larger world sooner than parents would prefer and this makes parenting much harder, ultimately impacting the attunement they can provide (Steiner-Adair, 2013).

Current research has indicated families are utilizing cell phones more frequently; however, the experience of this technology on the intersubjective space between family members and the family unit has not been thoroughly explored. Communication styles

8

and the ease of access may either make the families more disconnected (via the decrease in nonverbal communication) or more enmeshed (via the increase in ease of access to one another). Furthermore, with parents becoming more electronically connected to work, gaming and other entertainment opportunities on their own cell phones, the parent may negatively impact the quality of the adolescent-parent relationship. One observational study depicted the parents with cell phones as less attentive to their young children when being observed in a fast food restaurant (Radesky et al., 2014). Exploring the experience of these relational changes is a specific objective of this proposed study.

In this study, the researcher looked at the ways families communicate. Therefore, both the circumplex and intersubjective models informed the theoretical aspects of this study. In the survey portion of the study, the circumplex model was the grounding theory.

One of the primary hypothesis of the circumplex model is balanced families will be able to communicate more effectively than those that are unbalanced. A balanced family is defined by its ability to adapt to change and has an optimal amount of support and flexibility, which in turn allows the unit’s communication to be effective. In Bowenian terms each family member is differentiated to allow for flexible communication allowing for support that provides growth both within the system and development of each individual person depending on their developmental needs. Dysfunctional communication can become patterned in families that are unbalanced. Two interwoven processes can happen in unbalanced family systems. First, the family can either rely on each other too much or become alienated from each other. Second, the family can become rigid in their roles and/or family rules which does not provide the structure necessary to facilitate a supportive family milieu. In order to measure the perceived

9

cohesion and flexibility of participant families, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-IV) will be administered. This tool is a Lickert scale that measures the perceived cohesion and flexibility within families. After each family member (12 years or older) takes the 62 item self-report scale, the families will be placed into one of six categories identified by the circumplex model. The six categories include balanced cohesion, enmeshed, disengaged, balanced flexibility, chaotic, and rigid (Olson, 2010).

The circumplex model is grounded in Bowen’s family system’s theory. Family systems theory posits that the family functions as an emotional unit. The whole is greater than its parts, but the parts interact and influence the homeostasis of the whole. Three major concepts are applicable for this study. First, different members play different roles, therefore, each relationship within the family may provide a different function to the family and each individual’s experience can be extremely different for other members of the family (e.g. different children may either provide support or be the scape goat).

These differing experiences shape the developmental process of the individual, which in turn also influence each member’s experience of relationships outside of the home.

Second, anxiety is a major construct within the theory. The homeostasis of the unit can be altered when anxiety is introduced by one member and the system can become unbalanced. Reactions from family members can range from overcompensation/enmeshed to under-compensation/cut off. Either extreme can leave the family unit unbalanced. If this unbalanced relating becomes habitual, the unbalanced system becomes the norm. This in turn affects the health of the unit but also the health of the individuals within the unit. Communication and family functioning can break down

10

and the family members’ ability to function in relationships outside of the unit will be negatively impacted. Finally, the “regression of society”, also defined as social influences was another major concept applicable to this study. The concept speculates that social norms and values can affect the ability of the family to optimally function. Because the family is part of a larger system, whether it be neighborhood, community, state or nation, the family functioning can be influenced by trends, social norms, or values of the society they are part of. This in turn can influence the way the family experiences the world and thus influence the way in which they parent, provide support or raise their young. One area of concern is the overstimulation of technology on the family unit; with the increased use of technology as a “babysitter” in the home and the infiltration of technology into day-to-day life, this area of concern continues to be a contributing factor in the ways that family members communicate and alleviate the anxiety introduced into the family (Gilbert, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

Intersubjective theory can augment family systems theory. Atwood and Stolorow (1984) describe intersubjective theory as within the dyad, the space created by two people versus primarily intrapsychic phenomena. Therefore, it is assumed that both parties have an influence on the way meaning is made. Intersubjective theory not only focuses on the selfobject functions and needs of the person (self psychology emphasis) but also expands this focus to the affective attunement between the parties and the subsequent patterning of how these experiences shape the way the individual views the world. The intersubjectivists are not only focused on how relationships between two people are maintained but also how the history of the person’s interactions shade the way they view the current interaction they are experiencing. Affective attunement and the ability for

11

parents to meet their child’s selfobject needs is an important aspect of development.

However, the selfobject needs and the ability to grow continues throughout the lifespan (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984).

In conclusion, this study enhanced the understanding of the positive and negative impact of cell phones on family relationships. The stakeholders in this study included therapist, educators/youth workers, and the family with adolescents. Understanding of family experiences with cell phones may provide therapist more skilled interventions and increased empathetic responses with clients. Educators and other community members that work with youth, may benefit from the research results to help implement policies that support the most optimal environment for teens and their families. Finally, families with adolescents may benefit from understanding what some of the positive and negative impacts of cell phones have on their family relationships.

Hypothesis or Research Questions to Be Explored This researcher’s primary or central research question is, “What is the impact of the use of portable electronic devices on the and communication styles of families?”

The following two hypotheses were initially developed to be tested through the quantitative phase of this study: 1. If families are identified as balanced, then they will experience the use of portable

electronic communication as more positive.

2. If families are identified as unbalanced, then they will experience the use of

portable electronic communication as more negative.

12

The following five sub questions will be explored through the qualitative phase of the study.

1. How are cell phones used?

2. What meaning is placed on the cell phone (both as an individual and a family)?

3. How are the relationships within the family experienced and impacted by the devices?

4. How do portable electronic devices influence the overall experiences of each member as a separate being?

5. What differences and similarities are there between both balanced and unbalanced families when it comes to the use of their cell phones?

The following question was explored by combining the quantitative and qualitative data together.

1. To what extent and in what ways do qualitative interviews with families serve to contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the impact on the use of portable communication devices on the overall communication style of the family?

Theoretical and Operational Definitions of Major Concepts Adolescent For the purpose of this study, adolescent will be defined as anyone between the ages of 14 and 20 years old. Parent(s) will be defined as any guardian that the adolescent resides with at least 50% of the time. Family will be defined as the adolescent and guardian combination. Each family member had a cell phone they called their own. The

13

cell phone can either be a smart phones (i.e. have the ability to access the internet) or those simply capable of texting or making calls.

Cohesion and Flexibility From the FACES-IV survey definitions of both cohesion and flexibility are defined for the instrument and come directly out of the circumplex model. The definition of family adaptability is “ability of a martial couple or family system to change its power structure, role relationships and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stressors” (Olson, 2011, p. 65). The definition of family cohesion is “the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another” (Olson, 2011, p. 65).

Communication From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, communication is defined as “the act or process of using words, sounds, signs, or behaviors to express or exchange information or to express your ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc. to someone else” (Communication, n.d.). Communication is an important part of being human and can take many different forms. Some psychodynamic practitioners and attachment researchers have explored the importance of implicit communication on the development and maintenance of relationships. They posit early attunement and implicit communication between infant and caregiver will affect communication and relational patterns across the lifespan. These relational patterns are played out in the family of origin, later intimate relationships, and the therapy room (Beebe & Lachmann, 2002).

The concepts of implicit and explicit communication are important to the study as portable electronic devices limit the implicit communication. When texting, there is no voice-to-voice connection; voice inflection and tone are not present. Therefore, in this

14

study, the aforementioned Merriam-Webster definition will be used given that it covers all aspects of communication (e.g. written, nonverbal, and verbal).

Statement of Assumptions 1. Technology is not an integral aspect of family.

2. Cell phones are changing the way we communicate and they are impacting the relationships in which they are used.

3. People are relating differently due to the easy access and the prolific nature of the cell phone.

4. Throughout the course of this research cell phones, mobile phones, and portable electronic devices will be used interchangeably.

5. Unbalanced families will be negatively impacted by cell phone use.

6. Balanced families will use cell phones to augment their communication style.

Epistemological Foundation of this Project This study was rooted in pragmatic worldview. Based on the writings of American philosophers William James, Charles Sanders Pierce and John Dewey, the pragmatic point of view started in the 1870s but did not become a popular paradigm for research until the 1970s. The basic ideology focuses on what makes sense when solving a problem and using methods that will best answer the question posed. Dewey posited that when one contemplates a problem, that person will use a thoughtful logical approach. However, the experiences of the person will shade the answers derived about the problem.

Therefore, no person can be completely removed from the research problem they are

15

studying because it is grounded in a societal context that has unspoken implications.

Consequently, the societal norms will influence the parameters of acceptable answers generated (Floorczak, 2014; Hookway, 2013; Morgan, 2014).

As previously stated, this study’s mixed methods approach lends itself to the pragmatic viewpoint. The quantitative results will help shape the qualitative interview questions and in turn made the information gathered richer. Furthermore, the quantitative portion of the study provided clarification and categories that added a descriptive dimension to the qualitative data. By taking a purely post-positivist or social constructivist viewpoint, the results would have been less multi-dimensional.

Foregrounding The foreground of this research rest in both the family dynamic changes this researcher has experienced in the role of family therapist and personal observational experiences. Cell phones and electronic devices have transformed the social context and has altered presenting problems that are brought to family therapy. Cell phones, social media, and the use of electronic communication is often at the forefront of conversations and comes up as often as curfew or household chores. It seems that three primary themes are common. First, management around technology is often an avenue for disagreement and misattunements between generations. Parents often still want to get to physically know their teen’s “friends” on social media (e.g. have friends over to meet them).

Oversight of devices might include being part of a “friend list” on Facebook, monitoring computer use through “babysitter” programs, or checking messages on the teen’s phone.

The parents’ oversight often elicits teenagers feeling they are not trusted. In turn, the

16

teenager either disable the “babysitter� on their computer or feels like his/her parents were committing child abuse if their internet/phone time is curtailed or taken away. The limits put around the cell phone by parents often escalates into verbal arguments with their teen that can last for days. Some parents find it hard to maintain the boundary set and this leaves the parent feeling ineffective. Second, the parent often knows less about technology than their teenager. This seems to generate more anxiety in the parent and creates additional feelings of discontent between family members. The connections and supports that the teen makes via the cell phone can be harmful, but it can also provide support that the adolescent does not feel in their immediate environment. Furthermore, the family often does not explore the ways technology might bring them together.

Finally, the family often expresses a distancing between family members because of the infiltration of technology into their day-to-day life. Time spent together might also be spent using their devices. Meals, watching television or playing a game has the potential to be interrupted by outside environmental forces (texts from friends, work e-mails or other interruption).

On a more personal note, this researcher had electronics introduced into her family unit, often times sooner than neighborhood friends. However, there was a specific balance that was kept between the use of the devices and other activities. This researcher has fond memories of playing video games with family members and learning to use a computer or calculator; however, these items did not overtake other family experiences.

As noted previously, a decade ago electronics were not as common; however, currently they have become embedded in the fabric of our cultural, political, and familial world. Because cell phones have become more prolific, the question arises how do

17

families use these devices within the intimacy of their relationships. Does the cell phone augment or detract from the family experience and the development of the adolescent’s cohesive self, or is it somewhere in between?

18

Chapter 2

Literature Review Introduction to Literature Review The literature review used a purposeful sampling process. As industrialized societies have become more seeped in technology, researchers have begun to look at technology’s impact. This study proposes to focus on the relationship within the family and the influence of cell phones on those relationships; a particular emphasis will be placed on the adolescent-parent relationship.

This researcher started with a broad search. Key words included adolescent and technology or family and technology. Teenagers, social media, parenting, relationships, internet, and cell phone were also used. Search sites included university databases (PEP, PSYCH info & EBSCO Host), Google Scholar, Google, and Amazon. The initial goal was to understand the current trends in literature. The technology and adolescent search included roughly 3500 hits. Initial exclusionary articles focused on technology as a tool (e.g. cell phone reminders for medical health conditions or technology as learning tools), television studies, and articles that were fifteen years or older (technology searches only).

Further excluded articles included research focused on particular behaviors (e.g. texting while driving, sexting and cyberbullying) when the articles did not link the behavior back to a relationship, but focused instead on the frequency or problems associated with the behavior.

19

Key concepts appeared in the cursory search that applied to this research project, therefore, additional searches were completed. These concepts became key words. They included closeness, cohesion, and belonging. These key words were coupled with previous key words. Searches on these subjects included five to fifteen hits. In addition, this researcher used reference pages from key research article to gather additional articles. PEW research provided an additional resource; an e-mail alert system was used to receive any new studies on technology from PEW. Further reviews were done throughout the course of the research and information was incorporated into this section using similar search criteria as in the initial search.

Research on the family and technology was sparse. Initial literature review included cell phone and parent had 94 hits on EBSCO Host. Items excluded from this portion of the literature review included parenting books specific to the internet/cell phone as this researcher felt they were more antidotal. These resources seemed to be based in broad parenting skills applied to new technology, not new information that was formulated due to technology.

Finally, research informed by the psychodynamic perspective had less information regarding family relationships and technology. There were 184 hits in the initial search for cell phones, but many of these hits simply mentioned cell phones within an article that focused on some other subject. Those articles that centered on cell phones concentrated either on the clinical relationships or the impact on the patient.

Due to the multiple concepts used in this proposed research, reviews of adolescent development will be included along with the current research on technology and its

20

impact on both the family and the adolescent. Finally, a review of self psychology and the intersubjective theory will be covered.

Families as a System Since the family is the central unit of study, this section reviews family systems theory. Systems theory has grown out of multiple disciplines including anthropology, sociology, biology, and psychology. During the 1950s and 1960s, the family as a system became the focal point for some therapist. Salvador Minuchin, Murray Bowen, Carl Whitaker, Jay Haley, and Gregory Bateson each developed theories that were extensions of general systems theory. The basic principle was that the unit was greater than its individual parts (Gilbert, 1992; Hoffman, 1981).

General systems theory was first coined by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Australian biologist. He focused on the open and closed qualities of living systems. A closed system was defined as a system that was impenetrable to outside forces, while an open system was defined by its ability to be more flexible. Therefore, an open system can grow from its interactions with outside forces. These ideas have influenced multiple other disciplines, such as cybernetic, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. In particular, the concepts of open and closed systems are often applied to the family and how they function (Gerson, 2010).

Gregory Bateson was an anthropologist that studied cybernetics; he was part of the Palo Alto group. Bateson applied the cybernetic principles to family communication.

Bateson observed patterns of communication in families. He hypothesized that these

21

patterns could contribute to maladaptive functioning in family members. Bateson looked at both the pragmatics and the syntax of the communication and the multiple spoken and unspoken messages conveyed through them. One of his major contributions was the “double bind.” A double bind can be defined as communication that is emotionally taxing to the receiver and contains one or more messages that are in conflict or negate the other message. With increased patterns of double bind communication, Bateson theorized that the receiving family member would become disorganized and decompensate mentally.

Strategic family theory was developed out of these ideas; Haley, Virginia Satir and later Chloe Madanes are all associated with this school of thought which relies heavily on the influences of communication and patterning within the family (Gerson, 2010; Hoffman, 1981).

While the Palo Alto Group took an approach that was based in mechanics, Murry Bowen focused in on the emotional systems of the family and how it is stably maintained over time. His work is important to this research as the FACES-IV survey is grounded in his theory. Bowen’s theory is based on interlocking concepts that influence and shape the family system. Anxiety is the primary emotional construct that he used and his theory is built on the family’s ability to manage anxiety that is introduced into the family unit (Gilbert, 1992; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

Bowen’s theory is broader than some of the other systems theories as it places emphasis on the intergenerational influences of the family which helps sustain and maintain the social constructs of the family nuclear unit. Through “intergenerational transmission”, basic values, goals and ways of maintaining the emotional stability of the

22

nuclear unit are passed down from one generation to another. The nuclear family emotional process (initially knows as the family nuclear ego mass) is the way the family sustains its emotional milieu. Bowen further breaks the family down into triangles which he considers to be the building block of all family unit. The triangles consist of two people that are close and a third that is more distant. When anxiety is introduced into the dyad that is close, the third person can change position and form a closer bond with the initially close family members. For example, parents typically have a level of togetherness. However, if one spouse cheats, the other spouse may move into a closer relationship with a child and use the child as a stabilizing emotional force. Children may also manifest symptomatic (emotional and physical) behaviors that require attention from the family. These symptoms and the child may function as a relief for any overflow of anxiety within the parental unit and sustain the stability of the system. If the child is removed from the home or the symptoms abate it is often common to see another child in the system have problems to meet the underlying family functional needs (Gilbert, 1992, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988). “Differentiation of self� is the major concepts of how each person functions in the family. Self is defined by the combination of the basic self and the pseudo self. Bowen hypothesized that each person has both basic (also called solid self) and pseudo self (also referred to as functional self). The basic self is the piece of the person that is separate from the family system; it is in direct proportion to the level of differentiation of self from the family unit as a whole. The basic self has impenetrable boundaries that allows the individual member to be less reactive when anxiety is introduced into the family

23

system. The basic self is also associated with individual member’s ability to identify and hold differing opinions from the family of origin. Increased basic self does not mean lack of emotional availability, it means the individual member can make more informed decisions about the ways in which to interact and intervene within the family. The pseudo self is viewed as the functioning part of the family member within the family unit. The pseudo self has flexible boundaries that are influenced by others desires and needs and often reacts in an automatic, patterned way to help stabilize the system. Thoughtful decision making is often overlooked for emotional reactivity. Therefore, each person has both a basic and pseudo self; the amount of each points to the level of vulnerability to family forces and the amount of ability for the family member to disentangle his emotional response to his family of origin. This concept is particularly important to this study as one of the roles of a family is help its children become more differentiated as they age, which in turn changes the experience of their shared space (Gilbert, 1992, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Titelman, 2014).

Bowen theorized that family members can become “fused” or “cut off” from one another. Fusion is defined as an enmeshed relationship between family members while a cut off is an emotional or physical distancing between family members. Both of these concepts at their extreme can cause problems within the family units functioning as a healthy system. The use of fusion relieves certain stressors, but does not help with the differentiation of individual members within the family. Likewise, a family member that cuts themselves off from others either physically or emotionally will often take this into their adult life and repeat similar patterns in the next generation. Fusion and cut off

24

emotionality, at their extreme are both indicative of a higher level of pseudo self and therefore, the individual member is at risk of developing mental and physical health symptoms that impact the family systems functioning (Gilbert, 1992, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Titelman, 2014).

Bowen felt that his theory could also be applied to society as a whole. Bowen developed “regression of nature” which theorizes that animals (including human beings) decompensate when under stress as a community. In an industrialized society, multiple modern environmental and social influences stress the basic family structure. These extra familial tensions continue to distract from primary relationships and contribute to a regression of social values. Gilbert (2004) noted that from 1950 to 1990, teachers reported concern for their students have changed from chewing gum in class to assault and drug abuse. In addition, the increased anxiety produced by media coverage, fear of “enemy” attacks, different cultures trying to live with each other in harmony, and the overwhelming influence that technology can has increased the level of anxiety that potentially can be introduced in the family unit and continue to strain the family unit and the society at large. Furthermore, the family has becoming increasing mobile which adds to the unit’s stress. Nuclear family units geographically move away from extended family and the use of care centers for the elderly contribute to disconnection and limits the intergenerational family influence (Gilbert, 2004; Kerr, 2019).

In conclusion, systems theory and in particular Bowen’s theory allows a lens of how to explore the shared space and functioning of the individual members and family unit.

Systems are complex and ever fluid entities that help maintain and shape the individuals

25

experience of themselves and their experience within the world. Therefore, in this research, one of the primary questions is how mobile devices influence the shared space between family members with the increased pressures and anxiety of a more global arena introduced into the family unit. As an alternative, does the experience of mobile communication bridge the gap between geographically distance relatives?

Theoretical Notions of Adolescent Development Adolescence is a relatively new concept; the term adolescence first appeared in the fifteenth century and was derived from the Latin word adolescere which means to grow into maturity (Lerner & Steinberg, 2009). Adolescence is often viewed as the bridge between childhood innocence and adult maturity. Most theorists see puberty as the start of adolescence. The endpoint, however, is less clear and is often based on some met cultural norms or a rite of passage that signifies entrance into the world of adulthood.

Early psychoanalytic theorists, such as Sigmund Freud and Eric Erikson viewed development as distinct stages, while postmodernist view development as more layered.

(Kaplan, 1984; Perret-Catopovic & Ladame, 1998; Lerner & Steinberg, 2009). The following section contains a brief review of the psychology theories from Sigmund Freud to more contemporary theorists. What remains clear is that adolescence is a time of multiple changes in physical, mental and social milieus that proves hard for both the adolescents and those that are closest to them. Therefore, the following review of adolescent theory is important, because over time adolescence has been viewed differently, but some aspects remain the same. The introduction of cell phones and technology into this already turbulent developmental time could impact the individual

26

adolescents experience and impact not only on the family influences, but the social experience of these young people. Therefore, the following is a backdrop to understand one aspect of the dyad proposed in the study and it changes across theorist. With increased technology in a post modernistic world, the theories previously set out can provide a lens to conceptualize change.

Sigmund Freud viewed development through an evolutionary lens. He based his developmental theory on the psychosexual stages. Freud’s premise was that the internal structures (id, ego, and superego) maintain a homeostatic state and that each stage had a different erogenous zone with subsequent developmental tasks that need to be resolved.

When the child enters puberty, the genital phase begins. The combined influences of physical changes, increased ability to have triadic relationships, and superego maturation throw the adolescent into a sexual maelstrom. The libidinal and aggressive drives that are relatively dormant in the previous stage are reactivated. However, the difference is that the once auto-erotic urges become object seeking. Therefore, the major goal of the genital phase is consolidation of the ego/character with the final aim being the ability to find love objects outside the family system (S. Freud, 1949; McCarthy, 1995).

Around 1910, G. Stanley Hall coined the term “storm and stress” to describe adolescence and developed a theory also based on an evolutionary model. He believed that species needed to relive their primitive process and “recapitulate” earlier primitive times. The adolescent period was one of those times. Hall noted that the adolescent would hold seemingly contradictory values, goals, and emotions at any given moment. The adolescents task was to reconcile these seemingly different experiences, which would

27

lead to better understanding of both their maturing selves and their place within a larger social context (i.e. community and family) (Lerner & Steinberg, 2009).

Anna Freud built upon her father’s ideas, but focused more on ego development and defensive structures. She, like Hall, found the adolescent period one of internal upheaval and external turbulence. While she focused on many of the maladaptive process that could take place A. Freud (1958) articulated normal development in the following statement: I take it that it is normal for an adolescent to behave for a considerable length of time in an inconsistent and unpredictable manner; to fight his impulses and to accept them; to ward them off successfully and to be overrun by them; to love his parents and to hate them; to revolt against them and to be dependent on them; to be deeply ashamed to acknowledge his mother before others and, unexpectedly, to desire heart-to-heart talks with them; to be deeply ashamed to acknowledge with others while searching unceasingly for his own identity; to be more idealistic, artistic, generous, and unselfish than he will ever be again, but also the opposite: self-centered, egoistic, calculating. Such fluctuation between extreme opposites would be deemed highly abnormal at any other time of life. At this time they may signify no more than that an adult structure of personality takes a long time to emerge, that the ego the individual in question does not cease to experiment and is no hurry to close down on possibilities (pp. 275-276).

28

Therefore, the adolescent should not be analyzed because of his/her inability to work through unconscious conflicts due to inadequate libido to regress effectively and work through the transference (A. Freud, 1958). This stance permeated much of the future clinical thought on adolescence and therefore this age group was overlooked in research and clinical interventions which is still understudied.

Peter Blos (1967) equated adolescence to a second individuation process. He formulated the argument that adolescence is a time of individuation that can be likened to the individuation process of the toddler. While the first individuation process is one in which the toddler navigates his separation from the mother to find object constancy, this second individuation process is a disconnection from the dependency on the early internal objects to allow the teenager to find a path outside the family (significant other and place in the society).

With this disengagement from the support of the early internalized objects, some ego weakness is experienced and both ego and drive regression will ensue while the adolescent develops his own sense of mastery and personality. There is an ego reconfiguration. Blos (1967) points out that outward turbulence is normal and can explain superficial relationships with peers, testing of parent and societal values and expectations, somatic complaints, and dramatic mood fluctuations. However, if the regression is only used in a defensive way, the developmental process can be stunted and pathology can take hold, thus curtailing any further progression of development. What started out as an acting out behavior can end with a more firmly embedded personality structure and an

29

identity that is associated with the defensive acting out. Like A. Freud, Blos (1967) thought that the upheaval is a necessary part of this developmental stage.

Eric Erikson (1956) like many developmental theorists before him, had linear stages within his view of development. Each stage referred to a crisis that had to be resolved and the adolescent crisis, identity formation versus role confusion, is a pivotal phase that helps shape the individual’s successful navigation into and through adulthood.

Erikson’s theory while grounded in part on Freud’s psychosexual stages also emphasized the psychosocial aspects that influence the individual. His hypothesis was that while latency provides a moratorium on libidinal drives, adolescence was a psychosocial moratorium. The psychosocial moratorium allows the teenager time to try on different identities in search of what he/she is to become. Therefore, ego identity formation is built upon the successful synthesis of the ego; this provides a self-understanding for the individual that is stable over time, authentic, and consistent with societal norms and expectations. However, diffusion can happen which results in maladaptive patterns and a weakened ego that limits successfully advancing into a productive adulthood (Erikson, 1956, 1968; Wallerstein, 1998).

The complexity of later paradigms started the shift to a more contextual viewpoint of adolescent development. The linear stage models of the early theorists were replaced by more cohesive, overlapping views which integrated cultural, environmental and individual differences that influence development. Galatzer-Levy and Cohler (1993) wrote about these changes and what defines the period of adolescence. They reflect that with increased expectations for education to find a job in a post-industrial world, the

30

length of time that teenagers still rely on a parent’s support (either financially or emotionally) has extended. Unlike Erikson’s adolescent that is finding his way into the adult world, adolescents of postmodern society often linger well into their twenties as they attend post-secondary schooling. Development therefore is also influenced by how society defines it. Media, school, neighborhood, family, gender identity, and many other informal and formal influences help shape the current definition of the adolescent (Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993).

Since Freud, there have been paradigm shifts in the theoretical views of adolescent development. Depending on the theoretical stance, underlying infantile processes and the adolescent’s struggles can be understood differently from different perspective. For example, early object relationalists concentrate on the struggle between the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions (McCarthy, 1995). Likewise, some of the newer psychodynamic models do not have a specific developmental timeline. One example is self psychology; while not focusing specifically on adolescence they believe that selfobject needs are required for continued development throughout life. Palombo (1988) does however speak to the specific adolescent development in relation to the selfobject needs. His theory is that adolescence is not a time of re-experiencing past developmental stages, but has its own specific developmental task that move the adolescent towards development of a cohesive self. The guardian’s ability to meet these challenges in a flexible yet attuned way is essential for the continued healthy development of both parties.

31

Within social contexts, adolescents have different selfobject needs. The adolescent’s new social groups become an important aspect of his/her growth outside of the home. They begin to provide the adolescent twinship/alter ego selfobject needs.

While Kohut (1984) initially felt that twinship was a form of mirroring, he later revised his theory and put more emphasis on the need to feel likeness with another. It differs from mirroring because it does not require validation. The importance the teen places on his or her social group fall into this category.

The intersubjectivists put a greater emphasis on the alter ego selfobject as a connection (Lessem, 2005). Since the adolescent is also trying to develop a sense of autonomy from the parents, the adversarial selfobject becomes an important part of the dynamitic that develops between parent and child. The parent’s role changes and instead of being experienced as the mirror or the idealized other, he/she becomes more of an adversarial selfobject. This selfobject need helps the teenager feel that a safe other is in opposition to them. This in turn allows the teen to separate from the family and explore a world outside of their family of origin (Lachmann, 1986; Lessem, 2005).

With the current structures of psychoanalytic theories, attention has refocused on the influence of early developmental and attachment theorists. Attachment configurations laid down in infancy can become repeated patterns in later relationships. Beebe and Lachmann (2002) have proposed a systemic view of relationships that focuses on the affective selfobject needs over time. According to this school of thought, relationships are viewed as co-created and bi-directional. The earliest experiences with caregivers from

32

vocal patterning, facial monitoring and distress tolerance all influence development. In turn, these experiences can be predictive of the attachment styles in youth.

Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, and Target (2002) reflected on how mentalization impacts the ability of the adolescent to achieve development tasks. This group of attachment theorists hypothesized that with increased cognitive development, the teen is able to empathize with others and create more elaborate narratives of other’s internal experiences. This in turn helps the adolescent reflect on his/her own internal life and cultivate a deeper understanding of it. Empathy, they state, promotes the capacity of the adolescent to look for similarities between the other person and himself. This in turn fosters a more intimate and complex ability to relate to others and will promote healthier adult relationships and experiences. Furthermore, the teen is able to expand their social environment and develop relationships outside the home through this process. When there is a breakdown in mentalization, the teen might withdraw or try to hold onto the symbiotic relationships of earlier developmental stages to buffer anxieties. This in turn can become pathological.

With the growing research in neurology, focus has turned to brain development and the influence it has on the developmental process. No longer do theorists believe that the brain is static. Its plasticity and capacity for change well into the person’s early 20s.

What researchers have found is that the brain develops slowly and at the start of puberty it is only approximately 80% developed. The executive functions are typically the last to be developed (frontal cortex) and therefore, the adolescent may look like an adult, but in reality still has a very immature brain. The adolescent’s perceived omnipotence coupled

33

with fluctuation in mood, risk taking and often apparent inability to problem solve effectively align with Hall’s “storm and stress” descriptor of this developmental time period. The further complication is that the brain is bathed in sex hormones which are dormant until the onset of puberty. Therefore, the teenager much like the toddler is not only in a time of physical growth, but also brain reconfiguration that is influenced by environmental relationships, experiences, and family support (Jensen, 2015).

In conclusion, adolescence is a time of change and growth. The integration and change in many different spheres coalesce into a mature adult. The hallmarks of the stage combine both a vulnerability because of both physical and psychological changes. All of these major internal changes are also offered by the environment and cultural influences and expectations.

Understanding adolescent development is important to this study because it focuses on one half of the dyad that is under study. The adult people in teens lives are typically tasked with helping the development progress and as noted in the review, it is a time of turbulence and change. The adolescent is typically seeking relationships outside of the family. Cell phone ownership typically starts during these years and the teen’s needs from the family are often unspoken, but there. Therefore, part of this study is focused on how relationships with primary caretakers, those people who have supported and raised adolescents from birth may be either enhanced or hindered when cell phones are introduced as an alternative way to communicate.

34

Technology, Adolescence and Family Cell phone ownership has become the norm in American society. Research on the impact of mobile devices is ever growing, but often the research encompasses more than just the cell phone. It also includes computer use and the use of social media sites. This is important to this research as mobile phones continue to expand in functions; voice-tovoice calls or texting are just a small fraction of what the phone can provide teens as an option for communication. Furthermore, much of the research reviewed below explores the experiences of one part of the parent-child dyad versus the relational, bidirectional flow of the communication in a family.

The mobile phone revolution happened very fast. Just a few decades ago, the cell phone was a luxury item for the rich, not a common accessory of any high school student.

As mentioned previously, the mobile phone is not just a phone that can call people; the multiple applications that can be added to the phone allows for multiple ways to communicate both with friends and family. Therefore, the boundaries between social entities (work, school, home, community) have collapsed and are often blurred by the “always on� nature of society. Furthermore, the development of short messages services (SMS) has allowed another form of communication that does not require a phone call, but a fast-paced way to stay connected to others. These connections change the ways people interact and may influence the ways people develop and maintain relationships.

With the advent of new technologies, typically a theoretical perspective about causality develops in the societal discourse. Technological determinism, which takes either a utopian (positive) or a dystopian (negative) position on technology, focuses on how the technology impact the user. Typically, the fear associated with the invention

35

leads to the more dystopian view point and often is seen in the early stages of a technological revolution. Socrates reportedly feared the development of the alphabet and written language as he thought it would impact people’s memories, thus making them stupid (Baym, 2015; Boyd, 2014; Ling, 2004).

Another perspective that often surfaces around technology is social determinism. In this view social context helps maintain and produce changes in technology. Social environment, not technology, drives the trajectory of the invention. For example, apps are developed out of a perceived need and augment the cell phone. A third view referred to as social shaping explores the bidirectional nature of technology with the social milieu.

This group’s perspective focuses on “affordances” technology can make and what the expected uses of technology will be in the future. (Baym, 2015; Boyd, 2014; Ling, 2004). It is important to examine these views because any one of them can influence the dissemination of knowledge and the way in which data is presented from the media.

Therefore, may influence the lived experiences and thus may be interwoven into the family narratives within this study.

From a scholastic standpoint, family relationships in the context of mobile phone usage have not been studied extensively. Existing studies provide a cross sectional view of one element of family life and often look at alternative electronic devices, such as the internet or the computer. Large sample surveys have also been done that provide statistics on use and frequency of use of the devices by both teens and parents. This information will be incorporated into the first half of this literature review as it gives a clear understanding of what is currently available. More studies have been conducted on the

36

perceived wellbeing of the adolescent within his or her support group and the ways in which development may be impacted.

Typically, cell phone ownership begins in middle school and often times the first cell phone is bought by a parent for safety (Lenhart et al., 2010). Twenty-three percent of American teens obtain their first cell phone at age 12, with another 23% receiving their first cell phone at 13 years old; 93% of parents buy the mobile device for their child and cite safety as the reason. (Kennedy et al., 2008). In a recent PEW research survey, cell phone access has become almost universal for teens. Ninety-five percent of teens, (ages 13-17) had access to a smart phone, which is up from 73% in 2014. With this increase access to smart phones, teens also had a significant spike in time spent on the internet. In 2018, 45% of teens reported “almost constantly� being online compared to 24% of teens in 2014 (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Jiang & Anderson, 2018; Lenhart & Page, 2015).

However, there is a digital divide still present among socioeconomic classes. Adults making less than $30,000 per year are less likely to own a cell phone, while those with incomes over $100,000 typically have multiple devices that can access the internet, like a tablet, smartphone and computer (Anderson & Kumar, 2019).

Ways in which teens use telephones to communicate has also been of interest to the PEW research group. Texting is common among youth; the mean being 30 texts sent and received each day. Female participants in the survey however, send and receive more texts per day than their male counterparts receive. Utilization of texts increase with age with females between the ages of 17 and 18 years old sending approximately 83 texts per day. (Lenhart & Page, 2015; Madden et al., 2013). The increased use of the internet through the cell phone has also made social media more accessible. Anderson & Jiang

37

(2018) report 85% of teens say they have used YouTube, 72% have used Instagram, and 69% have used Snapchat. However, when asked about which platform they use the most, 35% say that Snapchat is that app, with another 34% reporting they use YouTube. When asked about the impact of social media, most of the teens stated they did not feel it had a negative or positive effect on their life at 45%. However, those that saw it as more positive (31% of the participants) cited being able to connect with family members and friends. Those citing a negative (24% of the participants) impact reported bullying and lack of in person contact as the most main reason. Turkle (2015) reports that 25% of teenagers are connected to their device within five minutes of waking up and 80% sleep with their phones. This number has since increased with 44% of teens saying they often check their phones for messages as soon as they wake up. The statistics provide a backdrop for the proliferation of teen access to phones and the multitude of ways in which they communicate, which is a focus of this study. Furthermore, teen electronic ownership is the norm within families, however, the meaning of the use of these devices is still underdeveloped.

Tapscott (1999) dubbed youth two to 22 years old in 1999 as the Net-Generation (NGeneration), which considering the later statistics, seems appropriate. Since he was writing at the front end of the technology revolution, he spoke of the “generational lap” not “gap” between youth and their parents when it comes to using the internet and communication technology. The conversation about families, communication and relationships was based on the idea that there was a discrepancy between the knowledge of the younger (digital natives) and the older (digital immigrants) generations. He posited that the digital natives are making a world that is more flexible and in turn, are expanding

38

both what they expect of each other and how they interact with others and their communities. However, it seems that many parents are catching up. The market is close to saturation. Ninety-nine percent of adults ages 18 to 49 use some form of technology.

Ninety percent of adults ages 39 to 54 have a smart phone; 68% of those ages 55 to 73 own a smartphone. Forty percent of those over 74 years of age also have a smartphone.

Furthermore, social media is used more frequently by adults. Eighty-six percent of adults in the 39 to 54 age range use some form of social media, which is about a 5% increase since 2012. Therefore, parental monitoring of their teens on their devices has become more prevalent. Parents (mother more often than fathers) check their teen’s websites (61%), friend or follow their teen on social networks (56%), look through history of calls or texts on mobile phones (48%) or use parental controls to track their teen’s activity (39%) (Anderson, et al., 2016; Hitlin, 2018; Vogels, 2019).

As the gap is bridged a newer phenomenon has risen. Radesky et al. (2014) explored the amount of time parents attend to children during an observational study of 55 families eating at casual or fast food restaurants. Forty of the 55 families looked at a device during their meal. Furthermore, during their observations they noted that the child would often escalate behavior to garner the caretaker’s attention; this in turn was often met with a “harsh” response from the distracted parent.

While families with three or more cell phones report an increase in ease of coordination of family activities, they spend less time face-to-face (i.e. meals) than their counterparts with one to two cell phones (Kennedy et al., 2008). This dynamic of quick and easy access may be compromising the overall health of the family unit. On the one hand, a cell phone provides more safety or the perception of safety, as the teenager and

39

parent can be in contact over changes in schedule, the monitoring the teenager’s activities, or the communication of any accidents that may have happened (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Lenhart et al., 2010). On the other hand, the teen’s sense of privacy is often impinged upon and the teens have reported feeling that the level of monitoring lowers their feelings of trust with their parents. The teen in turn may withdraw from the parent and be less likely to answer the phone. Forty-nine percent of parents will text their adolescent if they need to get in touch with them quickly, while 41% call; these numbers are different depending on income, with 57% of higher income families using text, while only 31% of lower income parents use text as a way to contact their teens. The lower income parent is more likely to call (51%) (Anderson et al., 2016). Overall, the sense of trust and connection between teens and their parents were rated as higher if the calls were initiated by the teen versus the parent (Devitt & Roker, 2009; Weisskirch, 2009, 2011).

Additionally, some teens feel less connected with their technology using parents.

The adolescents often report that they feel they are interrupting their parents’ personal use. First, parents often work from home after hours; the adolescent may not want to interrupt them and often does not know the difference between work and entertainment (e.g. many devices serve for both). Second, adolescents do not want their phone use scrutinized if they ask for their parents not to use similar technology. For example, when the parent breaks the “no devices at the dinner table rule”, the teens follow suit. Third, adolescent reflect that they do not feel they can relax at home if their parents take pictures to post as they are fearful that friends might see them. Finally, many adolescents feel there is no room for verbal conversation within the family as each member is connected

40

to their own devices. This bidirectional flow and use of mobile devices is not the teenagers alone and may be impacting the cohesion and satisfaction families experience within their relationships, a focus of the current research. (Turkle, 2011, 2015).

Kennedy et al. (2008) and Walsh, et. al. (2009) both report the internet and cell phone utilization make connections with family easier and in turn broadens the support of the nuclear family to extended members with whom they might not have as frequent contact otherwise. Increased connectedness also extends to those families that spend time either playing video games together or watching television or movies with their teenagers. However in the same study, the families that use social networking as their primary source of togetherness reported feeling less connected (Padilla-Walkder, et al., 2012). In another study, as entertainment internet use went up, the reported cohesion/time spent together as a family decreased. Increases in arguments were also found (Mesch, 2003, 2006). Punamäki, Wallenius, Hölttö, Nygård, and Rimpelä (2009) supported this finding; but found the conflict to be specific to the same sex parental relationship, thus mother-daughter and father-son relationships where viewed as more problematic. Khan (2011) also reported an increase in parent-teenage arguments with increased internet utilization, but found mixed results for cell phones. The cell phone provided a sense of connectedness and ease for planning, but increased parent-adolescent arguments due to limitations placed on use. One additional study investigated the cell phone as a protective factor for first year college students. College students connecting to family via the cell phone were less likely to report feelings of loneliness versus same aged peers that used social networking sites as their primary mode of communication

41

(Gentzler, et al., 2011). Therefore, cell phones have multiple purposes and provide different avenues of connectedness within the family. Because some of these studies occurred prior to the almost universal access to cell phones by family members, the experience of the cell phone in the family may be different. One feature of technology is called domestication; as a technology becomes the norm, it drops into the background. It is not new, but an expected part of day-to-day life (Baym, 2015). In many of the previous studies, the cell phone and internet were “new” not “domesticated.” This research provided another cross-section of time in technological development.

Further research also points to some potential unintended consequences of being always connected. Qualitative research raises concern over the substitution of mobile devices for face-to-face time. From the early “pass back” of the tablet or phone in the car to keep the younger child entertained while driving to the latency age and teenage child who is glued to the onboard vehicle television or his own cell phone on the ride home, time for quiet self-reflection and communication between parent and child has decreased.

Furthermore, the inability to read social cues and the discomfort of carrying on a face-toface conversation, as well as with new rules of conversation also have impacted the overall experiences of youth’s ability to function in situations that require more nuanced social skills (Boyd, 2014; Turkle, 2015).

The connectedness that parents have to their phones also models a certain behavioral norm to their children. The impact of early exposure to cell phones can create unintended attachment and brain development difficulties. Toddlers are primed to respond to their parents’ voices, but a book read via a cell phone does not provide the

42

same attachment opportunities as does the turning of pages and the connection of sitting on the caregiver’s lap. Furthermore, using tablets or cell phones to engage a child under two can impact the developmental sensorium. The visual nature of phones and tablets reinforces the brain’s visual pathways and may weaken other senses development. This can lead to learning and social problems in later schooling. While the long term implications of these changes in parenting are unknown, reported signs of teenager’s empathy and ability to empathically read others in social situations continues to decrease each year (Bergen, Davis, & Abbitt, 2016; Turkle, 2015).

Another section of research on communication and communication technology focuses on the adolescents’ experience of themselves and how they incorporate these devices into the effort to develop identity. E. H. Erikson (1968) theorized that adolescence was time of active experimentation of different identities (moratorium). The internet provides a new environment for this. Depending on the choice of on-line games, social network sites, blogs, or a combination of the above, adolescents can try out different personas of their budding selves. Many adolescents have four or five different personas across different social media venues. They report feeling less pressured by normal social structure in these new realities, thus expressing themselves in novel ways (Subrahmanyam & Smalhel, 2011; Turkle, 2011). While this can meet part of the developmental need, it also has some concerns. Fifty-five percent of adolescents believe their parents know “very little” about their on-line identities (Subrahmanyam & Smalhel, 2011). G.S. Mesch (2009) report those adolescents with an active page on a social networking site are more likely to be bullied; forty percent of the surveyed youth report

43

some form of cyber bullying. This is much higher than the 23% reported in the Lenhart et al. (2010) study on cell phones alone. Each study suggests parental involvement will decrease the risks of victimization. However, G. S. Mesch (2009) found that the only significant protective factor was for parents to look at the adolescent’s site history.

Limiting time on the internet or the placement of the computer in a public area had no significant effect on lowering the risks of adolescent victimization.

Another area of research is the impact of social networking sites and instant messaging on development and maintenance of peer relationships. Valkenburg and Peter (2007) and Baiocco et al. (2011) found adolescents that use more versatility in their communication styles (both face-to-face contact and communication technology) expressed more social connectedness with their peers than those that used one. However, teenagers that reported on-line friends only did have a significant decrease of perceived loneliness versus those teenagers that identified no on-line or off-line friends; hence some connection is better than none (Baiocco et al., 2011). Walsh, et al. (2009) used focus groups to study cell phone utilization and connectedness. These researchers found cell phones provide a sense of connectedness within adolescent peer groups, but it also became an inclusion criterion for the social group. Walsh et al. (2009) and Turkle (2011) both report that adolescents feel forced to have their phones on all the time. Participants in both studies reflect increased pressure to answer texts from friends immediately and expect the same in return. This breeds a fear of exclusion if they do not follow the social norm (Walsh et al., 2009). Conversely, Turkle (2011) reports adolescents also feel they have consistent support from their peers. Currently, new social norms around cell phone

44

usage are being developed. Boyd (2014) posits that teens are more likely to use social media as a way to augment and continue face-to-face interactions. They cite that posting pictures and synchronistically chatting on the sites are a common way teens extend the events they attend. Furthermore, more parents are now following their teens on these sites and can bridge the divide by having conversations with them; the boundary between teenage privacy and parent’s concerns for safety must be navigated. Turkle (2015) suggests that face-to-face conversations are the key to healthy development and through these conversations, teens can develop the skills needed to advance into adulthood. As noted previously, these research articles provide a base, but it is less clear how cell phones are impacting the intersubjective space between family members and what selfobject functions the parent can provide for their teenagers in this evolving age of technology.

In conclusion, research on the communication technologies and adolescence is multifaceted. In modern society, the family and community are growing more complex and the ways in which we communicate continues to grow and develop. Cell phones are a stable and with this increased accessibility for the adolescents and the ease of connecting to others, it is now a given, not a luxury. Those material objects can extend into the intersubjective space and this in turn makes one question the meaning that individuals place on the cell phone and how this object influences the interactions within the family and in turn how these are internalized within the members of the family. What are the strengths of being connected and what is lost? How has the contextual frame changed the family dynamic and the ways in which these intimate relationship patterns are

45

experienced by the family? For the therapist, one wonders how this will change the dynamic that is presented in the room when a deeper empathic understanding is needed to develop and maintain rapport or is it simply used a transitional object that later becomes integrated into deeper patterns of personality?

Intersubjective Theory Classical analytic theory is intrapsychic in nature. The drives are primary. Kohut and later theorists had paradigm shifts which widened the therapeutic field of exploration to an interactional space.

Atwood and Stolorow (1984) reflect: In this conceptualization [intersubjectivity] psychoanalysis is not seen as a science of the intrapsychic, focused on events presumed to occur within one isolated “mental apparatus.” Nor is it conceived as a social science, investigating the “behavioral facts” of the therapeutic interaction as seen from a point of observation outside the field under study. Rather, psychoanalysis is pictured here as a science of the intersubjective, focused on the interplay between the differently organized subjective worlds of the observer and the observed. The observational stance is always one within, rather than outside the intersubjective field or “contextual unit. (p. 41).

When this theory began to develop, cell phones and the internet were in limited use. Therefore, the idea of an intersubjective world described two people in close

46

proximity and the space they created. However, with the ever-growing ways in which people communicate, from text messaging, tweeting, Instagram messaging, blogs e-mail and Facebooking, meaning of the intersubjective space is not as simple. We have started to create a space in which we have instantaneous access to others with a field that can be physically distant, but feel very near. There is no waiting for a reply by mail (handwritten letters from a loved one), a talk around the dinner table, or even a voice on the other end of the telephone line. Instead, communication is often a few characters of texting that is immediately accessible and can either soothe or aggravate the recipient. At the same time, this communication may leave out many of the intimate nuances that implicitly provide meaning. This form of communication impacts the “contextual unit.” The way in which observer and observed experience this field are changing the way in which people understand and interact. The implications of being always “connected” will be one of the foci of this research.

Kohut (1977) stated the selfobject experiences are not repressed. They function to maintain a cohesive self. His theory maintained that healthy narcissism is part of normal development. Initially, the idealized parental imago and the grandiose self were described as unconscious structures that are transformed and integrated through the contact the person has with an object. The idealized parental imago when internalized becomes ideals; the grandiose self is transformed into ambitions. When trauma is introduced into the system the idealized parental imago and grandiose self cannot be fully integrated, therefore, a developmental arrest will occur. Furthermore, the alter-ego was differentiated from the grandiose self later in the development of the theory. The alter ego axis and

47

twinship transference manifest through likeminded experiences with a broader community. There is a tension arc between each of these poles that helps sustain and integrate them since as Wolf (1988) stated the poles will “push/pull the self in different directions” (p. 50) (Banai, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005; Elson, 1986; Kohut, 1977; Kohut, 1984; Siegel, 1996; Wolf, 1988).

Kohut posited that each individual is born into an environment that is ripe with both selfobject needs and others to meet these needs. Parents provide primary selfobject functions in infancy; the intensity and frequency of these needs are constant. As the infant grows, selfobject functions are integrated through transmuting internalization.

When selfobject functions are withdrawn at an optimal pace, the child will be able to transform the selfobject functions provided by others into their own selves. This process does not have to be perfect but “good enough” to provide the child with a sense of agency and self-esteem. When optimal frustration is not consistent, the child can experience trauma and is at risk of developmental arrest. (Banai, et. al., 2005; Elson, 1986; Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984; Siegel, 1996; Wolf, 1988).

Stolorow and Atwood maintain some of the tenets of self psychology, but they expanded many of the concept. While Kohut did not have a specific definition of the self, Atwood and Stolorow (1984) define the self as a separate entity, the “structure of a person’s experience of himself” (p. 34). Selfobjects are also expanded into affective states. Socarides and Stolorow (1984) define selfobjects “phenomenologically as an object that a person experiences as incompletely separated from himself and that serves to maintain his sense of self” (p. 105). The intersubjective space is important to the

48

integration of selfobject functions because selfobject functions are affective, not drive motivated. Affective meaning is inherently stimulated through the experience of empathic introspection. The child or other can incorporate these experiences into his/her own self structure. In turn, this allows for the child to regulate his/her own affect when not directly supported by an other. (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984; Stolorow, Barandchaft, & Atwood, 1995). This space grows and develops with the child and as he/she become more competent and able to use selfobjects in different ways.

Scoarides and Stolorow (1984) expanded the affective functions of selfobjects and proposed tasks that are optimally experienced early in life when the parent’s immersion into the intersubjective space is most pronounced. Parents continue to help refine the child’s experiences and therefore, sense of self, throughout his/her development (and into adolescence and beyond). The first is for the parent to help the child begin to cultivate self-boundaries. The child will be able to start to differentiate feeling states, which in turn helps the child differentiate self from parent. The integration of seemingly paradoxical affective states is another important function. Third, the parent should assist the child in understanding his affective states and being able to use them effectively to deal with the larger contextual world. If this does not happen, sectors of the child’s affective life can be defensively cut off from the child’s experience. If the child is able to negotiate and internalize this function, he/she can use those signals as ways to explore his world without experiencing a fear of fragmentation. Finally, through this understanding of affective states, the child will learn to communicate these affective states and develop internal representations that helps with the consolidation of the self. Parents must have a

49

cohesive self that are able to tolerate the emotional storms of their child while maintaining a stance of empathic understanding. This stance allows the child to use the parent to promote further development (Socarides & Stolorow, 1984). Optimal frustration and transmuting internalization are important for the maintenance of relationships in intersubjective space. In addition, with a child’s development of functional capacities, he or she will be able to self soothe and self-monitor more effectively and not need the caretaker or therapist to provide these functions. Furthermore, through emotional introspection, the child will develop stronger internal structures that are created not just through internalization of selfobject functions but through the shared space with a parent.

(Atwood & Stolorow, 1984; Elson, 1986; Stolorow, et al., 1995).

Although the need for self object remains through the life cycle, the ways in which they are met changes. It is important to take into consideration what needs may be required from each family member. Schave and Schave (1989) relate some of the toddler’s selfobject needs to the parent-early adolescent experience. Their hypothesis is that whenever there is a time of growth/transition, children regress. Therefore, they note much like early development, the young adolescent again goes through a phase of more intensive needs from the parents. The striving for self-integration, when coupled with the cognitive, emotional, physical, pubertal, and social changes of this age group, creates volatile states of mind, which do not lend themselves to allowing early adolescents to be treated like adults. When their lack of life-experiences and resulting immaturity are coupled with their propensity

50

to rapidly shifting states of mind, they do not have the solid psychic foundation, or set of organizing principles firmly formed enough to assume the functions of young adult . . . thus paradoxically, at a time when early adolescents are striving to reach independence and self-sufficiency, their need for dependency is inherently increased (pp. 71-72).

Schave and Schave (1989) also reflect that unlike the toddler stage, this phase of development is much more tumultuous for both adolescent and parent. The needs of the teenager are often underestimated because of their increased ability to be mobile (can leave the situation), are more verbal, and seem to have a façade of self-esteem. However, with the difficulties in the changes, it is just as important for the parent to provide protective selfobject functions and continue to enter into the intersubjective space to help maintain the teenager’s self-esteem and lessen the likelihood of fragmentation. However, within the intersubjective space of parent and child, the parent too is vulnerable due to the attacking nature and emotional turmoil of their young teenager. The parent may have more difficulty finding an empathic stance and be more likely to withdraw and not provide the selfobject functions for their child. If an earlier developmental arrest has taken place, this could potentially leave the youth continually vulnerable in the missed developmental experience or create new traumata that follows the young adolescent into later life (Schave & Schave, 1989).

While the adolescents are also seeking selfobjects outside of their primary relationships for the first time, they still are looking back towards their parents to help solidify ideals and enhance their own empathic abilities. Parents also are exploring what

51

they hold true in regard to their own goals and ideals, often times questioning which can be modified through their shared experiences with their growing adolescent (Elson, 1986). As noted earlier, how do modern modes of communication play into this connection and impact the development of both teen and parent.

Palombo (1988) provides a full account of the development of selfobject functions in the adolescent and the corresponding experiences of the parents. The baby is born with a sense of self. Through each developmental stage, the child is exposed to new experiences and then incorporate them into their being a way that is developmentally appropriate. In adolescence, destabilization does not always equate to fragmentation.

Instead, it can be another experience that needs to be integrated for the adolescent to gain higher levels of functioning. Therefore, adolescence is a time of growth and change.

Parents also have to renegotiate the role they play in providing selfobject functions for their growing teens. Palombo suggests both humor and flexibility in response with the understanding that misattunement will happen as the adolescent explores their growing sense of independence (Palombo, 1988).

Shaddock (1997) and others take a more global approach to the family and selfobject functions within the family matrix. While Shaddock agrees with the notion that family members provide selfobject functions for each other throughout life, he also expands this idea to include overall thematic material between and among the family members that help maintain a cohesion of the family system as a whole. The underlying expectation is that through selfobject experiences the family will have a sense of affect regulation that helps promote and stabilize the family unit. This however, as with any

52

other intersubjective space may have disjunctive experiences that will alter or alienate certain members. In addition, some members may be relegated to certain roles that do not fully acknowledge or promote the individuals members health (Cohen, 2005; Ornstein, 1997; Shaddock, 1997).

One final thought: concretization through enactments or use of symbolic objects can present and make latent material manifest. For the purpose of this research, the concretization through symbolic object is of importance. Historically, Winnicott (1953) saw the transitional object as the “first not-me” object, but the intersubjectivists have expanded this idea to include other objects that can hold importance in the internalization of emotional or psychic integration during a growth process. Does the cell phone provide this function for adolescent?

Family dynamics continue to be important during this phase of development: cell phones are often introduced to the adolescent. However, as the adolescent experiences ownership and the freedoms that it encompasses does this provide an additional way to “leave” the family of origin even when sitting in the same room? Concurrently, the parent is also able to be distracted and may not be responsive to the providing selfobject needs of the adolescent. How this is experienced within the contextual space of the relationship may depend on the frequency and duration of distancing but also have an influence on the fragile sense of self the adolescent is developing.

53

Conclusion Research on both communication technologies and families is lacking in the psychodynamic literature. In modern society, the family and community are growing more complex and the ways in which we communicate continues to grow and develop.

Cell phones are now a given and provide increased accessibility for adolescents, their friends and family, not a luxury. These material objects can extend into intersubjective space and this in turn makes one question the meaning that individuals attribute to the cell phone. How does this object influence interactions within the family and how do these experiences impact the relationships? Parents provide the road map that their children will use as they gain more independence and while the teen is experimenting outside of the home, these relationships can provide a stabilizing and comforting environment to return too. However, the contextual space that is outside of the home has entered what used to be sacred walls through the ties the teen has both in their friendship.

54

Chapter 3

Methodology

Introduction This study addressed the impact of portable electronic devices on communication in families. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used and it involved collecting quantitative data first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth qualitative data. In the first quantitative phase of the study, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-IV) was collected from families to test the circumplex model, which is grounded in family systems theory, and to assess whether the family was balanced or unbalanced. In addition, to the FACES-IV, this researcher collected data regarding the frequency and accessibility of participants’ cell phone use and other general demographic information. The second, phenomenologically based qualitative phase, was conducted through in-depth interviews with the families. The interviews provided a richer description of the quantitative data.

This researcher’s primary or central research question is, “What is the impact of the use of portable electronic devices on the communication style of families?”

The following two hypotheses were unable to be tested through the quantitative phase of this study:

55

1. If families are identified as balanced, then they will experience the use of portable

electronic communication as more positive.

2. If families are identified as unbalanced, then they will experience the use of

portable electronic communication as more negative.

The following five sub questions were explored through the qualitative phase of the study.

1. How are cell phones used?

2. What meaning is placed on the electronic device (both as an individual and a family)?

3. How are the relationships within the family experienced and impacted?

4. How do portable electronic devices influence the overall experiences of each member as a separate being?

5. What differences and similarities are there between both balanced and unbalanced families when it comes to the use of their cell phones?

The following question was explored by combining the quantitative and qualitative data together.

1. To what extent and in what ways do qualitative interviews with families serve to contribute to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the impact on the use of portable communication devices on the overall communication style of the family?

This chapter will explore the rationale for the methodology used, along with sampling and methodology.

56

Rationale for Mixed Methods Design Mixed method advocates cite the following for using the design. First, the data being collected is richer. It provides both a numerical and narrative portion. Second, the problem being asked can be more fully understood through both quantitative and qualitative means. Third, triangulation of data from different sources increases validity.

Fourth, the mixed method design allows the researcher the ability to build on the strengths of each research design. Finally, the mixed methods design provides for a more cohesive development of the research process (Creswell, 2014, 2015; Creswell & PlanoClark, 2011; Mayoh & Onwuegbuzie, 2013; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods was selected for many of these reasons. Through the quantitative survey phase, the balanced and unbalanced families were identified. This adds a layer of description to the qualitative analysis. The initial plan was set up to compare the types of families which would make the data amendable to this process. Furthermore, collecting data in a sequential nature assisted in providing a more informed interview schedule, which added to the data’s strength in relation to the original research questions and increased the trustworthiness of the study. Finally, because the nature of quantitative and qualitative data is dissimilar (numbers/finite answers versus words/inquiry) it added to the richness of the data collected. The methods and epistemological stance taken in each type of research were also different. Therefore, when the results from the two types of data were compared, this comparison led to increased validity of the overall findings of the project.

Historically, mixed methods has not been used because of the basic paradigm differences between quantitative and qualitative methods (positivism versus constructivism). However, mixed methods research became increasingly popular in the

57

1990s as some researchers started viewing the paradigms as a continuum versus a binary choice. Being able to mix the objective stance of the positivist with the subjective stance of the constructionist was critical in developing a deeper understanding of the questions being posed in health care, education and human services. Since the research paradigms can be viewed on a continuum, a pragmatic worldview fits the mixed methods research.

Pragmatism is an approach that does not take an either-or position, but instead considers what will best work when answering a question. It accounts for the interaction of logical thought and the current social milieu, thus placing emphasis both on the researchers own values, the social constructs that influence these values, and logical progression that shape the analysis of the questions being posed. Therefore, in different phases of a research project, the data collected and stance of the researcher can take on nuances of either subjectivity or objectivity. (Creswell, 2015; Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011; Greene, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

A pragmatic worldview is primarily associated with using what works best to answer the research question, it is multi-dimensional. The worldview this researcher resonates with is social constructionist. The basic premise is that people’s interactions with an object or others will provide rich and varied narratives based in their own historical and cultural experiences. In a phenomenological study, understanding and synthesizing this experience from multiple participants/perspectives is the key. Therefore, through the second, phenomenological, qualitative phase of the study this is the epistemological stance that was taken. (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012; Creswell, 2015; Creswell & PlanoClark, 2011; Moustakas, 1994; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).

58

Research Sample The sample consisted of families. Each family was considered a unit of study. A family was defined as at least a guardian-adolescent dyad. An adolescent was defined as anyone ages 14 to 20 that was living with the guardian for at least 50% of the time.

Guardian were defined as anyone that lived and cared for the adolescent at least 50% of the time. Inclusion criteria included being a member of a family with adolescent members. Second, each family member had to have their own cell phone. Exclusion criteria included children that are under 14 years of age or over 20 years of age, family members that had spent a significant amount of time outside of the home (e.g. a guardian in the armed forces that have been deployed within the last three months), or any family member that wanted to participate but the other necessary half of the dyad did not (e.g. adult willing to participate, but adolescent is not).

The sampling plan was a nonprobability sample as the population did not represent all families. The sample will be a convenience sample. Two community members, a sports coach and a church leader, were identified as community sponsors for the IRB approval. Further community members were identified throughout the course of the research.

The sampled consisted of 45 families. Forty-three families consisted of one parent-one adolescent, while two families consisted of two parents-one adolescent. Out of the 47 parents, there was seven stepmothers, one stepfather, 28 mothers, five fathers, and two adoptive mothers. Four did not answer. The adolescents that answered the survey included the following. Six were 14 years old; eight were 15 years old; 12 were 16 years

59

old; 13 were 17 years old; four were 18 years old; one was 19 years old; one was 20 years old. Sixty-seven percent of the youth taking the survey were male and 33% were female.

In the second qualitative portion, the sample was purposeful. Participants were acquired from the phase one participants. Because there were not enough unbalanced families, five families were asked to return from the balanced families. The families were chosen by taking only those teens and parents that both answered “yes” to the final survey question, which was “Would you be interested in returning for a follow up interview with your family?”

Of importance is the contextual backdrop of the research. While the research was not conducted in a specific environment, such as a business or an organization, it was conducted in the Inland Northwest. The Inland Northwest is defined as the area between the Cascade Mountains and the Rocky Mountains; it encompasses both Washington and Idaho. The primary seat of the Inland Northwest is Spokane, Washington. The area’s primary economic structure comes from industry, health care, and agriculture. The area has an air force base and six universities along with multiple smaller trade and community colleges ("Inland Northwest," n.d.). The Inland Northwest contains both rural and midsized urban areas. This aspect is important as rural areas, while catching up to more urbanized areas, still have a lower rate of both broadband access or use and people living in rural areas report less time spent checking their phones or on the internet (Perrin, 2019).

60

Research Design The research design is a mixed methods explanatory design. The first quantitative phase was a survey, followed up by a second phenomenological phase that includes an in-depth interview.

Quantitative portion.

On-line surveys have become increasingly popular in the last decade. As the internet has become a prominent fixture in people’s lives, decimation of information through electronic means has become the norm. Therefore, the internet (e-mail or web based) surveys have become a viable access point for data collection. On-line surveys are considered more cost effective, can reach a larger group of people geographically, and survey turnaround time is often more rapid then traditional survey methods. (Fowler, 2014; Sue & Ritter, 2012).

Sue and Ritter (2012) developed a survey methodology which was followed in this research. The steps included developing specific objectives, literature review of the research subject, sampling selection, survey software choices, creating and pretesting the invitation and questionnaires, dissemination of the survey, coding, and analysis of the data.

The following steps were taken during the quantitative survey portion of this research: 1. A literature review was done prior to the collection of data to understand where this research was situated in relation to current research.

61

2. Permission from Live Innovations, Inc. was received to use the FACES-IV survey.

3. Survey Monkey on-line survey software was used to conduct the survey.

4. Three separate surveys were set up. One for parents with underage children. This survey contained the adult consent (Appendix A) and the legal guardian’s consent for their child to participate in research (Appendix B). A second survey was set up for the underage child with the child’s assent (Appendix C). Since the sample consisted of some legal consenting adolescents that were 18-20 years old, there was a third survey that had only the adult consent (Appendix A) attached to it. Survey Monkey provides encrypted transmission of data for additional security which is suggested by Sue and Ritter (2012).

5.

To reach the survey, the consents and accents had to be completed. As part of the accent process, the parent provided the child’s e-mail information. The survey consisted of the following parts. First, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES- IV) (Appendix D) was administered to determine if the family is unbalanced or balanced.

FACES-IV consisted of a 62 Lickert scale which can be administered to all family members over 12 years of age. Demographic information was collected in this portion of the survey. Additionally, the frequency of cell phone use, accessibility to their cell phones and satisfaction with the cell phone use was also gathered (Appendix E). Best practice was utilized in

62

development of the additional questions (Couper, 2008; Sue & Ritter, 2012).

6. Identified community sponsors were asked to send out an e-mail to potential adult/guardian participants to invite them to contact this researcher. In addition, additional recruitment occurred. The approved introduction was placed in this researcher’s community newsletter, a colleague posted it on a MSW school Facebook page, along with placing it in two private school newsletters, and other church leaders were contacted for further support. Other colleagues collected names of friends that where sent the introduction in an e-mail format. Furthermore, the researcher went to a few community meetings to try to gather additional participants.

Those interested where asked for contact information and a call was made to complete inclusion and exclusion criteria.

7. The sample was a nonprobability sample. While many survey methodologists report that probability sampling provides the most reliable data, Sue and Ritter (2012) report that nonprobability sampling can be used in exploratory studies.

8. The families that contacted this researcher were assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. If appropriate for the research, an invitation with consent/accent information was sent to the guardian first. Once the guardian consented for the underage participant with the accent, a survey link was sent to the underage participant.

63

9. Informed consent and assent were completed as part of the survey. If the participant did not consent, a thank you message was sent and the participant was not able to proceed to the survey.

10. Each person that completed a survey regardless of their family members’ interest in the survey was sent a five-dollar Amazon e-gift card as a thank you for their time.

11. The FACES-IV and additional survey questions were collected for at least two family members. Family members that did not have the other half of the required dyad were withdrawn from the subject pool used for data analysis.

12. Initial analysis of data was completed through the FACES-IV excel program to determine family types (balanced and unbalanced). There was an unequal number of balanced and unbalanced families, therefore, the survey remained open to collect an additional 15 family groups from the original 30 family groups.

13. The FACES-IV questionnaire was interpreted using the excel database provided by Live Innovation. In the database, the answers to each question were computed and sorted into balanced and unbalanced family types.

Satisfaction and communication scales were also computed.

14. This database was scrubbed for errors. All errors were corrected and recoded.

15. Next, a code book (appendix G) was developed for all variables.

64

16. A database was set up using MAXQDA (with analytic pro) and was used for synthesis of all data. Data was entered into this database 17. Database was scrubbed. All errors were corrected and re-coded.

18. Because there were not enough unbalanced families and no unbalanced families that consented to the interview, five balanced families were invited back for the qualities portion.

Qualitative portion.

This second phase followed Moustakas (1994) model of phenomenology. In this method, the researcher bracketed oneself out of the research and the data was approached through a phenomenological reductionist standpoint. Phenomenological reduction is defined as “describing in textual language just what one sees, not only in terms of the external object but also the internal act of consciousness, the experience as such, the rhythm and relationship between phenomenon and self” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 90). The following steps were taken in this phase.

1. Five families were selected from balanced families from phase one, the quantitative phase.

2. Prior to starting the interview, consent and assent were obtained from all participants (Appendix H through J).

3. In-person, semi-structured interviews lasting up to 120 minutes with the family units were conducted using an interview schedule (Appendix K).

4. A general question was provided as the starting point, which was “Tell me about technology use with family members.” Sub questions and further

65

prompts were used to continue the conversation. Each member of the family was addressed and asked specific questions as needed.

5. The interview schedule was adjusted throughout the collection process because of emergent themes. Moustakas (1994) suggested that the interview questions should focus on the descriptive nature of the phenomena under review. The adjustments were minor and included a question at the end, asking the participants if there was any additional information they felt was important that was not already addressed. The interview schedule also included some additional information regarding when the teenager got their first phone.

6. During the interview process, this researcher collected field notes.

7. Each family was given a twenty-dollar movie gift certificate for their time.

8. After each interview this researcher completed additional field notes through journaling.

9. Each interview was recorded and transcribed by this researcher.

10. The whole transcript was read; the researcher did this with a psychological reductionist attitude (bracketed off own beliefs). The main goal of this step was to immerse oneself into the data, but not to pull out specific meanings or concepts (Moustakas, 1994).

11. After the first reading of the transcript, additional readings were done to develop meaning units/invariant constructs. The researcher brackets their own opinion and looks for shifts in the transcripts. These meaning units are smaller workable pieces of the larger document (Moustakas, 1994).

66

12. Coding and themes were assessed through additional reading and working with the transcripts. Through this process, the themes were clustered. Memo writing was also done during the analysis of the data (Moustakas, 1994).

13. Themes and codes across transcripts were developed. MAXQDA (with analytic pro) along with note cards (for non-computer visual representations) were used to help analysis the data. The themes were compared and other alternative meanings were looked for per Moustakas’ recommendation.

14. Member checking was done. Three of the five family was sent an e-mail and asked to review the draft of the results. They were each given the opportunity to either respond by e-mail or in a follow up telephone conversation with this researcher. Everyone chose to follow up via e-mail and felt that it was representative of their experience. One mother wrote that it was empowering to see her voice and liked the way that the information was clustered into groups. It made her feel less anxious about her own experience as a parent.

Another stated that she did not realize until seeing it on paper, just how much cell phone technology has affected her family and society as a whole. The teens that reviewed the results expressed that it was “interesting” and “seemed accurate.” They also appreciated the use of pseudonyms for their names.

Data Collection and Measurement Tools Quantitative sections.

During the first quantitative phase of the research, survey data was collected utilizing the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES- IV), plus

67

additional items around frequency, accessibility, and satisfaction of portable electronic devices. In addition, some demographic information was also collected. See Appendix D for the full survey.

FACES-IV is a 62-item Likert scale that measures the perceived cohesion and flexibility within family members, along with the participant’s feelings regarding their satisfaction with their family overall and their perceived level of communication. From the 42 items that assess cohesion and flexibility, the scores are then grouped into six categories: balanced cohesion, enmeshed, disengaged, balanced flexibility, chaotic, and rigid. The raw scores for each are converted to percentage. These percentages are utilized to develop both the cohesion and flexibility dimension scales, which in turn determines if the participant falls within the balanced or unbalanced family set. Alpha reliability of the scales range from .77 to .89. Three additional scales where used to help correlate the validity of the scales. Four of the six scales have appropriately high positive or negative correlations with the comparison scales. The rigid and enmeshed scales are the two scales that demonstrated relatively lower correlation scores. (Olson, 2011).

Theoretically, the survey tool is grounded in the circumplex model. The circumplex model’s primary hypothesis is balanced families will be able to communicate more effectively than those that are unbalanced. The model proposes that a balanced family can adapt to change easier and has more mutual support, which in turn allows the unit’s communication to be more effective in comparison to its unbalanced counterpart.

Dysfunctional communication can become customary in families that are unbalanced (Olson, 2011).

68

Qualitative sections.

In the second qualitative phase of the research, data was collected through a semistructured interview with each identified family unit. Moustakas (1994) advised that the interview should be free flowing and the researcher should come into each interview with an open mind and without preconceptions (epoch).

The researcher was the instrument and an open-ended interview schedule was used. It included both overarching questions and probing questions. Each interview was recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Memo writing was done through the interview and during analysis of the data. This was incorporated into the results chapter.

Data Analysis Quantitative portion.

After collecting the quantitative data, the data was prepared for analysis. To do this, the data from the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-IV) was entered into the Excel database provided by Life Innovations, Inc. This database calculated a number of descriptive family qualities including the cohesion and flexibility dimension scores. In the cohesion dimension score, the range included disengaged, somewhat connected, connected, very connected, and enmeshed. The flexibility dimension scale included rigid, somewhat flexible, flexible, very flexible, and chaotic.

The dimension scales, along with balanced/unbalanced total, family satisfaction and family communication were considered responses and given numerical codes for MAXQDA (with analytic pro). Additional codes were developed for the information collected from the survey questions on the cell phone use and demographic information.

69

Prior to entering the data in MAXQDA (with analytic pro), a code book (Appendix G) was developed. After entering the data, the data was scrubbed. When this data was ready, frequency scores for the total number of participants, parents, and adolescents were run.

Chi-square analysis was not able to be calculated as the basic assumptions between unbalanced and balanced families were not able to be met. The expected frequencies for the cells that have unbalanced families did not meet the criteria of five. The hypothesis for the quantitative sections therefore could not be tested (Nardi, 2014; Sue & Ritter, 2012).

Qualitative portion.

In the second qualitative phase, words become the data. Moustakas’ (1994) phenomenological methods was used. Each interview was transcribed by this researcher, which allowed this researcher to start to become acquainted with the material. MAXQDA (with analytic pro) software was used to help analysis the data. As part of this process, the researcher used colored note cards and printed out the meaning units. Each family got a color of note card.

Reading and re-reading the transcripts allowed the researcher to become familiar and embedded into the data and explore potential meanings. Each statement initially held the same significance; Moustakas calls this “horizontialization�. A phenomenological reductionist attitude was taken. The researcher looked for unchanging or invariant constructs/meaning units. These meaning units were clustered into themes. The research developed individual textual descriptions (explicit with transcript quotes); MAXQDA

70

was used to pull out individual quotes. In addition, an individual subjective description (explicit from the researcher) and memo writing within the documents was done. These were then combined into a textual-subjective description for each participant. Next, the themes were then compared and contrast between participants. Themes were either expanded or collapsed as further data was collected. Early themes and constructs were made and the data was moved around. Past interviews were revisited as new data was collected and themes became more formalized (Moustakas, 1994).

Finally, the last stage of the analysis consisted of merging the qualitative material with the quantitative data. This was done by comparing the themes and codes from the qualitative phase with the findings from the quantitative results. This was incorporated into the findings chapter.

Ethical Considerations Ethical practices were adhered to in the following ways. First, the researcher had IRB approval. Second, the researcher gained consent and/or accent from the participants.

Third, all data will be maintained for five years after the completion of the study. Finally, permission was granted from Life Innovation, Inc. for reproduction and distribution of the FACES-IV survey.

Confidentiality is another major aspect of ethics. To insure anonymity, each participant was given a number code and each family was also given a number code. For example, the first family that had both adult and teen survey completed was given F1P1 (Family One, Parent One) and F1T1 (family one, teen one). All recorded transcripts were

71

uploaded to a password protected computer as soon as the researcher got home from the interview. The transcripts and all files were kept in password protected files on a password protected computer. Both the files and computer have different passwords.

To protect the confidentiality of each family member the following steps were taken. First, in the consent and assent process, the researcher first asked the guardian for consent of their underage teenagers (those fourteen to seventeen). After the consent was given by the parent, the adolescent was contacted to assent via the teenager’s personal email; this e-mail needed to be different from the guardian’s e-mail. If the teenager did not want to participate in the study, the information was not communicated to the guardian.

Finally, the parents still received the e-gift card for completing the survey, but the survey was not included in the final data analysis as it did not meet the criteria for the subject group.

During the qualitative phase, to make sure that participant’s confidentiality and comfort was maintained, the researcher offered multiple private places for interviews and let the participant make the choice. They included a colleague’s office space and library space (rooms can be reserved) for face-to-face contact with participants.

There were no reported adverse effects that occurred during the study. Therefore, the adverse effects protocol was never initiated.

Issues of Trustworthiness To ensure credibility, the following suggestions were made by Bloomberg and Volpe (2012) and were incorporated into this research. First, credibility was increased by the multiple sources of data. Comparisons were made between different phases of the

72

research along with the memo writing with the themes developed during the phenomenological phase. Second, any data that did not support the findings was evaluated in more depth. One example of this was there appeared to be a theme developing around teens asking their parents for food, either within the house or when the parents were coming home. However, this was not supported through the course of all interviews and it was not part of the final results. Third, transparency of both the data and the biases of the researcher will be included in the study. Fourth, member checking was used. Miles and Huberman (1994) agree with Bloomberg and Volpe, but also suggest that creditability is increased by collecting the data in more informal environments of the participants’ choice and through face-to-face interaction.

To increase the dependability of the research, this writer used memo writing during the data collection and analysis phase. The field notes are an overview of some of the notes taken. (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2012).

The primary way to increase transferability is to provide descriptions of the contextual elements of the study. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) call this construct a “thick description” and define it as “making detailed descriptions of the context and other aspects of the research setting so that other researchers can make comparison with others contexts in which they are working” (p. 296). Memo writing can help in this process along with collecting data face-to-face. The transferability of this study was limited both by the geographical location and the subjects that participated in the survey. This will be further explored in the limitations of the study.

73

The Role and Background of the Researcher The role of the researcher is different depending on the phase of the treatment.

The first quantitative stage has a survey phase therefore; a distant stance was taken. In the phenomenological portion of the study, the researcher was the instrument to collect data and therefore, one cannot be fully separated from the participants or the data collected.

Multiple elements of this researcher’s lived experience influenced the way data is perceived and collected. First, this researcher did a literature review and had academic knowledge regarding families, cell phone utilization and adolescent development.

Second, this researcher works with adolescents and their families and has listened to the family’s stories regarding benefits and consequences of using cell phones. Third, this researcher uses a cell phone and has come to depend on it for certain tasks in day-to-day living. Fourth, this researcher is closer in age to participants that are parents and due to lived generational experiences and developmental life experiences, this researcher resonated with their reality more than the reality of their children.

74

Chapter 4

Results

This explanatory mixed methods research studied the impact of cell phones on family communication. In the first phase, an on-line survey was given. The sample for this portion had 92 individuals that made up 45 families. The family was considered the unit of study.

In the second phase of the research, select family members that affirmatively answered a survey question about interest in returning for an interview were invited back for an in depth semi-structured interview that was held face-to-face for up to 120 minutes. Each family consisted of a parent and teenager between the ages of 14 and 20.

The number of families in this portion of the study was five. Each family was made up of a teen and his parent (ten total individual participants).

Part I-Survey Results The survey results consist of 45 families. For the purpose of this study, a family was defined as a parent and adolescent living together at least 50% of the time. The teenager had to be between the ages of 14 and 20 years of age. Each participant had to have a cell phone that the individual called their own. Each individual participant took his

75

or her own survey. Forty-five total families participated with 92 individual persons taking the survey. Two families had both parents take the survey.

Out of the 47 parents, there was seven stepmothers, one stepfather, 28 mothers, five fathers, and two adoptive mothers. Four did not answer. The adolescents that answered the survey included the following. Six were 14 years old; eight were 15 years old; 12 were 16 years old; 13 were 17 years old; four were 18 years old; one was 19 years old; one was 20 years old. Sixty-seven percent of the youth taking the survey were male and 33% were female.

The survey consisted of both the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale (FACES-IV) along with additional survey questions about each person’s use of their cell phones and their feelings about their devices. The FACES-IV survey is informed by the circumplex model. The circumplex model is Olson’s (2010) philosophy based on Bowen family theory. FACES-IV contains 62 Likert scale questions. The first 42 questions determine the family’s style along two continuums, flexibility and cohesion, while the remaining 20 questions form two, ten-point scales to determine overall satisfaction and communication within the family. The flexibility and cohesion dimensions comprise the scales that determine if a family is functioning in the balanced or unbalanced categories.

The categories on the flexibility dimension scale range from enmeshed to disengaged, while the categories on the cohesion dimension range from rigid to chaotic.

Seven questions relate directly to each of the following six scales: enmeshed, balanced cohesion, disengaged, rigid, balanced flexibility, and chaotic. The numerical score for each answer range from strongly agree (five points) to strongly disagree (one point).

76

Individual scores are then added together to get a raw score for each scale. The raw scores for each scale are converted into percentiles and used to compute the flexibility and cohesion dimension scores. Each percentage conversion allows for more distinction between numbers. The cohesion dimension score is calculated by the following equations: Balanced cohesion + (enmeshed-disengage)/2. The output included enmeshed, very connected, connected, somewhat connected and disengaged. Those families scoring in the enmeshed or disengaged categories are considered unbalanced, while those scoring in the very connected, connected, and somewhat connected are considered balanced. See Table 1 for results from the participant in this study. The flexibility dimension is computed in a similar manner as the cohesion dimension. The flexibility dimension uses the following formula: balanced flexibility + (chaotic-rigid)/2. The output is chaotic, very flexible, flexible, somewhat flexible, and rigid. Those scoring in the chaotic or rigid range are considered unbalanced, while the family members scoring in the very flexible, flexible and somewhat flexible are considered balanced. Table 1 depicts specific numbers for all participants. Eighty-two of the total participants scored as balanced, while 10 fell into the unbalanced category.

77

Table 1: Cohesion and Flexibility Dimension Scores Parents

Teens

Scale Range

(n=47)

(n=45)

Disengaged

1-15

2 (4.3%)

3 (6.7%)

Somewhat Connected

16-35

4 (8.5%)

4 (8.9%)

Connected

36-65

12 (25.5%)

11 (24.4%)

Very Connected

66-85

29(61.7%)

27 (60.0%)

Enmeshed

86-100

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Rigid

1-15

1 (2.1%)

2 (4.4%)

Somewhat Flexible

16-35

3 (6.4%)

2 (4.4%)

Flexible

36-65

21 (44.7%)

25 (55.6%)

Very Flexible

66-85

21 (44.7%)

15 (33.3%)

Chaotic

86-100

1(2.1%)

1 (2.2%)

Dimension Scales Cohesion Dimension

Flexibility Dimension

The final 20 Likert style questions of FACES-IV make up two additional scales, the communication and satisfaction scales. The communication scale asks the participants to rate their feelings about their communication on ten Likert scale questions. Examples include “Family members are able to ask each other for what they want” and “Family members are good listeners.” The questions are then scored strongly agree (five points for raw scale) to strongly disagree (one point towards raw scale). Scores are added, with a possible range of scores between ten and 50. Table 2 depicts the results of the communication scale for the participants in this research.

78

Table 2: Communication Scale Results Adolescent Communication

Raw Score Range

Parent

Percentage Range

N=45 N=47 n

%

n

%

Very High

44-50

86-99

12

25.5

12

26.7

High

38-43

62-83

20

42.6

18

40.0

Moderate

33-37

36-58

6

12.8

7

15.6

Low

29-32

21-32

3

6.4

1

2.2

Very Low

10-23

10-18

6

12.8

7

15.6

Olson (2010) reported when a family member scores “very high” on the communication scale, they feel “very positive about the quality and quantity of their family communication” (p 15). Those scoring “high” feel “good” about the communication and “have few concerns,” while those scoring “moderate” feel “generally good about their communication but have some concerns.” Those scoring “low” have “several concerns about the quality of their family communication” and those scoring “very low” have “many concerns” (Olson, 2010, p. 15).

The remaining ten questions on the survey explores how each member feels overall about their satisfaction within in the family. Like the communication scale, the range of scores are between ten and fifty. These ten questions are rated on a Likert scale ranging from extremely satisfied (five) to very dissatisfied (one). Examples of questions include “Family members concern for each other,” “your family’s ability to share

79

positive experiences,” and “your family’s ability to resolve conflicts.” The following table reports the scores for satisfaction total, parents, and adolescents.

Table 3: Satisfaction Scale Results Satisfaction

Raw Score Range

Percentage Range

Parent

Adolescent

n

%

n

%

Very High

45-50

87-99

5

10.6

5

11.1

High

40-44

66-84

15

31.9

13

28.9

Moderate

36-39

40-58

9

19.1

12

26.7

Low

30-35

21-35

7

14.9

7

15.6

Very Low

10-29

10-18

11

23.4

8

17.8

As would be expected, those people that rate their satisfaction with family members as “very high” are “very satisfied and really enjoy most aspects of their family” (Olson, 2010, p. 16). Those rating satisfaction as “high” are satisfied “with most aspects of their family”; a rating of “moderate” means “somewhat satisfied and enjoy some aspects of their family” (Olson, 2010, p. 16). Finally, those rated “low” are “somewhat dissatisfied and have some concerns about their family” and those rated “very low” are “very dissatisfied and are concerned about their family” (Olson, 2010, p. 16).

In addition to the FACES-IV survey, participants were asked to answer additional survey questions regarding their use of the cell phone. Table 4 depicts the responses to the additional questions.

80

Table 4: Ancillary Survey Question Results Question

n

Parent

Adolescent

(N=47)

(N=45) %

n

%

Q1: I use my cell phone to plan events with my family members.

Strongly Disagree

5

10.6

5

11.1

Generally Disagree

7

14.9

10

22.2

Undecided

6

12.8

5

11.1

Generally Agree

20

42.6

17

37.8

Strongly Agree

9

19.15

8

17.8

Q2: I am lost without my cell phone.

Strongly Disagree

7

14.9

5

11.1

Generally Disagree

16

34.0

11

24.4

Undecided

5

10.6

7

15.6

Generally Agree

17

32.2

19

42.2

Strongly Agree

2

4.3

3

6.7

Q3: I think my cell phone provides a way to communicate my feelings to my family.

Strongly Disagree

5

10.6

6

13.3

Generally Disagree

15

31.9

13

28.9

Undecided

7

14.9

11

24.4

Generally Agree

18

38.3

13

28.9

Strongly Agree

2

4.3

2

4.4

81

Q4: I like the amount of cell phone contact I have with my family.

Strongly Disagree

1

2.1

0

0

Generally Disagree

4

8.5

5

11.1

Undecided

2

4.3

3

6.7

Generally Agree

36

76.6

30

66.7

Strongly Agree

4

8.5

7

15.6

Q5: My family members argue about the cell phone.

Strongly Disagree

9

19.1

8

17.8

Generally Disagree

23

48.9

33

34.1

Undecided

6

12.8

8

17.8

Generally Agree

6

6.4

8

17.8

Strongly Agree

0

0

1

2.2

Q6: During a normal week, how many phone calls do you make to your teen/parent?

0

4

8.5

4

8.9

1-5

30

63.8

31

68.9

6-10

11

23.4

9

20.0

11-15

1

2.1

0

0.0

16 or more

1

2.1

1

2.2

Q7: During a normal week, how many texts do you send to your teen/parent?

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1-10

15

31.9

14

31.1

11-20

15

31.9

9

20.0

21-30

10

21.3

13

28.9

More than 30

7

14.9

9

20.0

82

Summary of Survey Results The majority of the participants in this survey were considered balanced. The wide range of scores considered cohesive or flexible most likely contributed to this outcome, along with the relatively small number of participants. Because there were few unbalanced families, the basic assumptions needed to compute a chi-square to compare the balanced and unbalanced families were not met. Therefore, the two hypothesis proposed for this quantitative portion could not be tested. They included first, that the families identified as balanced would find the use of portable electronic devices as more positive. The second, those families identified as unbalanced would find the use of portable electronic devices as more negative. Furthermore, the limited amount of unbalanced families also hindered the comparison of interview data in the second qualitative portion of this study.

Of additional note, 16 surveys were eliminated from the study as the second part of the dyad did not fill out their survey. In each case, the parent filled it out, but the teen either refused or did not follow up. As part of the methodology, the survey was left open after the original 30 families were collected because of the low number of unbalanced family. However, the additional collection of data did not provide enough unbalanced families to have a comparison group. In addition, those families identified as the unbalanced category did not express interest in coming back for the second qualitative phase.

83

Part II: Qualitative Results Introduction.

Five families agreed to return for an in-depth semi-structured interview. Both adolescent and parent checked “yes� on the final survey question to be asked to return for this portion. Table 5 describes the family, what type of phone they call their own, the age of each teenager, and both parent and child scores on the satisfaction and communication subscales of FACES-IV.

84

Table 5: Description of the Families Family 1 (Mark and Linda)

Family 2 (Andrew and Sandy)

Family 3 (Alex and Brenda)

Family 4 (Dan and Tammy)

Family 5 (Josh and Jessica)

Relationship Son and between Family Biological Members Mother

Son and Biological Mother

Son and Biological Mother

Son and Biological Mother

Son and Biological Mother

Age of Teen

14

16

14

18

16

Cell Phone Type (flip phone or smart phone) of both parent/teen

Smart Phone (both)

Smart Phone (both)

Smart Phone (both)

Smart Phone (both)

Smart Phone (both)

Family Type

Balanced

Balanced

Balanced

Balanced

Balanced

Parent Satisfaction Score

High-79%

Very Low12%

Very Low10%

Very Low15%

Moderate40%

Teen Satisfaction Score

Very High87%

Very Low12%

Very Low10%

Very Low10%

Very High99%

High-70% Parent Communication Score

Moderate58%

Moderate36%

High-70%

High-70%

High-65% Teen Communication Score

High-80%

Very Low15%

Very Low10%

Very High97%

In this portion of the study, the central research question was, “What is the impact of the use of portable electronic devices on the communication style of families?�

Secondary questions included the following: 1. How are portable devices used?

85

2. What meaning is placed on the electronic device (both as an individual and a family)?

3. How are the relationships within the family experienced and impacted?

4. How do portable electronic devices influence the overall experiences of each member as a separate being?

5. What differences and similarities are there between both balanced and unbalanced families when it comes to the use of their cell phones?

The last questions could not be assessed, as so few families who participated in the study scored in the unbalanced category; thus, the results primary depict the experiences of families considered to be balanced in terms of flexibility and cohesion, as per the FACES-IV survey.

Interview Themes Each interview was recorded and transcribed. Transcribed interviews where read and re-read to develop an understanding of the material. Initial codes were developed and with each reading the variables where either collapsed into other codes or expanded with additional data. Major constructs were developed along with subthemes (See Table 6).

Six primary constructs with associated subthemes emerged from the data. The results included: The Phone is More than a Communication Device; Meaning is Everything; We are Family; Parenting is the Toughest Job; Parents Traveling in a Foreign Land; and Teen’s Wits and Wisdom. During the interview, each dyad showed compassion to each other and had a shared narrative that brought both individual

86

elements of their self and a family narrative together. These elements are woven throughout the subthemes as noted in the chart below.

Table 6: Themes and Subthemes Major Construct/Theme

Subthemes

The Phone is More than a Communication Device

Parents Traveling in a Foreign Land

        

Teen’s Wit and Wisdom

  

Meaning is Everything

We are Family

Parenting Is a Tough Job

 

It gives me a voice It is a great tool We would be lost without it Creative connections Tech free time, we try House of strangers House rules I worry about the impact Remember when we had corded phones?

Oh, the places I will go Extended family Who Calls? Snapchat, Facebook and More Virtual reality Vis-à-vis

The Phone is More than a Communication Device One of the research questions asked how the participants used their cell phones.

The participants gave succinct answers to this question. This data will be incorporated into the introduction to each family. Overall, they used the cell phone not just for the purpose of communication but as an entertainment device, scheduler, and education tool.

In addition, when available, narratives around how and when the teenagers got their first phone will be included.

87

Linda and Mark.

Linda is a 46-year-old Native American-Caucasian woman, who works from home. Her job requires her to travel for periods of time. Mark is her 14-year-old biological son. Mark identifies as Chinese American/Native American. Linda is married and has one younger daughter from that marriage. She also has one older son that is away at college. Linda and Mark have integrated technology into most aspects of their life.

Some of the comments about uses include the following: Linda: I use it for everything . . . for everything. I use it all the time, for organization for work, for entertainment, for everything.

We even communicate in the house, when we are in the house on the cell phones. Like if I am downstairs and he is upstairs, we use it to communicate, just texting on our cell phones.

Mark: Sometimes I will like snapchat. I will ask her stuff. It is a different way of communicating. If she is away I will FaceTime her so I can see her and I can show her my little sister and show my mom stuff, so she can see her.

Linda: I travel a lot for work, so . . .

Linda stated Mark “got his first phone at five, but it is okay because he was responsible.� She went on to say that at that point in her life, she was single parent and it helped them coordinate school pick up times, provided her with a feeling of safety for Mark and made sense for what they needed in their family relationships.

88

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy, a 43-year-old Caucasian female, is Andrew’s biological mother. Andrew is 16 years old and is in an advanced program offered through the high school in which he can take college courses for credit. He has one younger brother. Sandy and her husband are separated, but co-habitat in the family home with the two boys.

Sandy: We are pretty cell phone heavy, pretty technology heavy in our family.

Andrew's dad is a software engineer, so he is pretty big on, you know computer everything. We have been at it for years. I don't recall a time when Andrew didn't have a cell phone. I think you were eight when you got your cell phone, nine.

Andrew: I think I was nine.

Sandy: Yeah he was nine. His younger brother was eight when he got his. So um, yeah they . . .we pretty much communicate . . . We use a family calendar app, so everyone knows where everybody else is.

Face Messenger and text messaging only because I’m pretty much a Luddite and can't get any further than those. So, I will do those but he uses Snapchat and everything else. I am just like "I am not going there." Primarily between the two of us it is primarily texting and messenger. Messenger if I want a record.

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda is 41-year-old Caucasian women and Alex is her 14-year-old biological son. She has four sons total and Alex is the youngest. She works as a part time caterer and cooks out of her home. She has one son that has special needs and it requires Brenda

89

to be near the family home to help him. She is married to Alex’s biological father; the rest of her sons are from a previous marriage. The family recently relocated to Spokane from a small town in Oregon (about six months earlier). They had lived in the Spokane area prior to the relocation (had moved away and then came back). The family members living in the home are the special needs son, Alex, Brenda, and her husband. One of the other boys is a freshman at college (about a three to four-hour drive away) and another that is working in Seattle (across the state). These two boys come and go in the family home.

Alex: Most of my social life is on the internet because most of my friends I really love are basically in Oregon. So I can only talk to them via the internet. And it honestly where I spend most of my time if I am not at school. I watch videos a lot on the internet.

Brenda: I use to communicate with my friends and family . . . And studying. I do a lot of studying.

Alex did not get his own cell phone until about a year ago, but was using his older brothers or other family members’ old cell phones. He described the time prior to getting a phone that had all features on it. The narrative is as follows: Alex: I started using my brothers phone a lot like I adopted it like it was my small little child about four years ago and then I used my Dad's old phone.

Brenda: When you were 11.

Alex: Then I had my Dad's and my Mom's old phone that she shattered the screen on and I used them simultaneously . . . They both had battery issues. I would use one and then use the other and they would have the same stuff on them.

90

Brenda: So about age 11 when he started using phones, and I think it was your 13th birthday that we got your first phone. We let you have your own phone, and J. put you on his phone plan . . . You just turned 13. It was a used phone and we put him on the plan. And now when he turned 14 actually it was for the summer because M. and I left for 10 days.

Alex: My LG broke and I was using the iPad, but I had to give the iPad back to the school and then she gave me her old phone and after, she got this swanky piece of equipment.

Brenda: Right. You have the twin of it. He has an iPhone 6S plus Alex: 6 Plus

Tammy and Dan. Tammy, a 39-year-old woman, is a MSW student. Dan is the youngest of three; he was 18 at the time of the interview. Both identify as Caucasian. He is a high school graduate. He is currently living at home with his parents and older sister. Tammy and Dan live in a rural community. Dan had recently broken his phone, so he was using a track phone. Out of all of the teenage participants, he was the most adamant about having face-to-face communication and stressed the importance of it. However, he also reflected that he knew he held a different opinion than most other peers his own age.

Dan got his phone the latest out of all the teenagers because of socioeconomic strains and being the youngest in the family. It was sometime in high school; neither family member could remember when as they had a cell phone that was considered their “home phone� prior to that. Dan report he would often use his computer for

91

communication more than the cell phone. Dan primarily communicated through Facebook Messenger and gaming sites. When asked how they used technology in the home Dan expressed the following: Dan: Well, uh, we all play video games. Mainly my dad and I, so um, him not so much anymore. I play to pass time. We all watch TV . . . Me not so much. So they use TVs for TV. I use whatever TV I am using for videogames. We use our phones to text each other. Usually on messenger or on text messaging . . . Um, I use my computer to play games with my friend that lives in Oregon. My sister uses her computer to do whatever she does in her room all day. (Laughs). We all have, well we have a PlayStation 4, two X box 360s. I have a PlayStation. Um the two Xbox 360 are usually used most of the time after 6. The PlayStation 4 is used almost all the time by someone or it is just on . . . But that is pretty much all the technology we have other than our phones. It is either just to ignore each other or to pass the time or to talk to each other.

Jessica and Josh.

Josh is Jessica’s oldest son. Jessica is 46 years old; she is Caucasian and was originally from Canada. She has lived in America the majority of her adult life. She has a younger son and a younger daughter. Jessica is divorced but has a partner that also has three children. His oldest child is away at college, but the two younger children live in the home. Josh is taking advanced classes through the college though he is still in high school. Josh and his sibling spend half their time with their father and half with Jessica.

Jessica was not part of the decision making process when Josh got his phone. Josh’s

92

father made that decision shortly after the divorce. Jessica expressed that she was happy to have the phone and was able to use it to stay in touch with her children when they were at their father’s home. When asked about family use of technology, Jessica and Josh expressed the following: Jessica: Well we use it to communicate, we watch it, (Laughs), we stream it. We binge watch.

Josh: Play games.

Jessica: Shop.

Josh: Social media.

Jessica: Our alarm system runs through technology, through our phones.

Josh: Music.

This back and forth depicts the attitude of most of the families when asked how they use technology. There are so many functions of the telephone and at this point, they appear mainstream, therefore, not much explanation was needed for any of them.

Overall, the families expressed that they used the calling and texting functions the most to communicate with each other. However, the teens used multiple other applications (e.g. Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook) to talk with their friends. All family members used the phone as a small computer and/or for entertainment. This seems to be true for the larger survey group too. Table 8 outlines the use of technology from the survey. The question was “Which of the following do you use to communicate with your family?”

93

Table 7: Application Used to Communicate with Family Members Application Parent

Adolescent

(N =47)

(N=45)

Texting

47

45

Phone Calls

47

43

Facebook

32

28

Instagram

8

8

Video chat

11

9

Twitter

8

4

Snapchat

6

6

Other

0

0

Meaning Is Everything One of this research’s sub questions was centered around the meaning both the family and each individual family member assigned to the cell phone. The answers ranged from being an inanimate object to an extension of the self. The teenagers felt it provided them with a voice, one that was often necessary for maintenance of peer relationships. The parents saw it more as tool, from being a scheduler or a communication tool. It provided an easy way to look up information or shop for needed goods. However, the parents where more apt to panic if they forgot their cell phone since it has become a planner, a way to keep track of lists and way to reach out to others if needed. As a family unit, the cell phone has become embedded in the fabric of family life and they feel they could not function without the phones.

94

It gives me a voice.

Linda and Mark.

Mark: Like what do you mean. I feel like it is a part of me you know. . .Like I feel like I always need it. It is like my whole life.

Linda: It is not part of you, but you think it is.

Mark: It is; it is . . .

Linda: You do think it is it.

Later in the interview, Linda stated “He would DIE . . . If the phone was away for a week, but he has never known what it is like.”

Sandy and Andrew.

Andrew: I tried to feel . . . It felt like when my phone was gone I didn't have . . . that my voice was gone.

Sandy: WOW! (She tears up here) . . . that's pretty big . . . I don’t think that I realized how big that was. I am sorry! (a quiet moment) That makes me not want to take it away from you. I am okay . . . I am just having a moment of "Oh-h-h".

Brenda and Alex.

Alex reported that the primary change after getting his own phone was “I actually started talking to people. Like I had friends that I talked to at school, but they are school friends.”

95

Tammy and Dan. Dan talked about his voice on social media. While many of the teens used their phones, Dan used his computer as his primary source of communication. He posted messages on Facebook and was focused on the political climate of the United States.

Dan: It gives you a bigger voice.

Tammy: It does?

Dan: It makes your voice matter more, which I mean it could be spun negatively or positively. I am just saying.

It is a helpful tool.

The parents identified ease of planning, access to the internet and other phone related functions that made their day to day life more manageable. They reported using it as an entertainment device (e.g. kindle readers, streaming movies, and playing games).

These apps were not as meaningful to them as the calendar, shopping apps, and family organizer for the families’ busy life. Therefore, they had a significant attachment to their phone, but it was more about its organizational functions versus an extension of their internal self.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: Meaning, it is everything. It is organization, work, communicating. Right now, I have a lot of planning going on with my other son. He is a football player at WSU so I am with a whole bunch of moms and we all plan stuff all of the time . . . Social media but I do a lot of work from there and I also have businesses and

96

so all my businesses are on there. Everything is on there. It is very important. I would be lost without it . . . I have two phones in fact. Because I just need one but my work pays for one.

Sandy and Andrew.

Andrew: It becomes more of not necessarily um an entertainment method but a tool. So now that I am in college I am using it a lot for homework; I am e-mailing a lot and checking grades and stuff like that and I am using it a lot less for entertaining myself and a lot more to do things, like actually be productive and figure stuff out. I am using a lot more apps that are related to school versus YouTube or Facebook. It is pretty much what I have to do. My phone use during the morning is school related and then probably about noon is when I swap it over to entertainment and stuff like that.

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda: I think that is because my generation, it is a tool, not a main source of communication. So, for me it is a tool to get information from one person to another, but for them, it is the overarching way of communicating, so communication even verbally is like, I think often times I think, well I know 'cause you will say, "Don't talk to me. I don't want to talk," but you will text.

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica: I am trying to think in terms of my usage, I think it frees up a lot of time

97

for other things for me. So, and so maybe it is a determinant to the kids, I don't know. Most of the shopping that I do is on line now. Even the dog food comes from Amazon. So to not have to drive places . . . for me [it is] ultra-convenient to have that extra time with the on line shopping. Which sound ridiculous when I say it out loud. It is convenient, it really, time wise, frees me up for a lot of things, you know. "Mom I need cleats," “Mom I need gloves,� you know it's just yeah.

And it's here in two days with Prime. It's awesome.

We would be lost without it.

Overall, the families expressed that texting was the primary way that they stay connected and was integral for their daily communication. The parents seemed to be more reflective on technological change, but none of the teenagers disagreed. Dan was the only one that indicated that he would prefer face-to-face or telephone calls versus texts, but he also acknowledged that he knew he was the anomaly in his generation. As mentioned in the above section, every family talked about how the phone had become necessary for the optimal family functioning.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: I don't know what we would do. We are so dependent on it and sometimes it is bad but I mean there are so many things that we need on it to make our lives feel easier. The way our lives are in 2017 . . . Our life are so much more difficult and the ways in which we have to manage our lives that we need to have this kind of things like cell phone and technology and the apps. I couldn't get him the cash

98

every day if he needed it or if I need to pay something on PayPal or pay on line--I just do it. I use my phone for all that. Everything—I use it for everything.

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: We pretty much communicate . . .

Andrew: Primarily it is through cell phones.

Sandy: Yeah, yeah, we have great conversation when we see each other, but Andrew is on the go constantly, so it just is easier to type it out (laughs).

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica: Um-hum. I think that I don't know where I would gauge us in terms of if we are doing okay, if there is too much technology. If we are an advanced family technologically. I have no idea where we would fit in in terms of the society in general. Which may not be a very good thing either, but ignorance is bliss for me.

Are we problematic, do we spend too much time or too much money? --I haven't put too much thought into that . . . I will have to think about that. But I think at this point, it would be hard for us to function as a family without the technology, in terms of communicating. Where we have gotten ourselves with the kids and planning and keeping up with them and even my schedule and S.’s [partner] schedule. If everyone lost their phone, I feel like we would be screwed.

The meaning varied across the generation, but it is clear that cell phone, ease of access and the ways in which family are communicating is changing. The adolescents

99

seem to be using it as an extension of their voice and how they engage their peer group, stay in contact with their family, and use it to express themselves. Their parents likewise have taken technology to help organize their life, work, and stay connected to their children. However, the families have adopted cell phone communication as a way to stay connected and attach. They seem to view it as a necessity, both when they are separated and when they are in the house.

We Are Family This category speaks to the shared narratives of how the family either comes together or grows apart because of cell phone use and the influence it has on family communication. This theme addresses both the primary research questions about the impact cell phones had on family communication along with the sub question on how the relationships within the family are impacted by the devices. The families each expressed how they used the cell phone for the bulk of the daily communication and they all report busy schedules that often do not coincide with each other because of school, athletic, work and social commitments.

Creative Connections The families all had ways that they incorporated technology into the way they connected. While some of them used the texting function or sites to connect, many other

100

developed playful ways to maintain connections. It appeared that they had more contact throughout the day because of these apps. For example, following similar stories or groups on Facebook and developing regular activities that supported attachment. It seemed that the families were in more contact with each other throughout the day because of the ease of access, but physical time spent together seems to have decreased because of schedules.

Linda and Mark.

Linda and Mark used their phones to stay connected throughout the day, including time when Mark was at school. Linda reflected that she uses snapchat so the Mark does not get into trouble by having his phone buzz. In addition, the features of snapchat allow them to have a predictable morning routine through pictures.

Mark: Like in the morning sometimes we will say good morning to each on like text or Snapchat and then like in the afternoon I will text my mom “Am I riding the bus or are you picking me up?” or “What is the plan?” We will text later that night “Hey what is for dinner?” or “Do you want to go eat somewhere?”

Linda: Just to piggyback on that, most of those are all driven by him. Like in the morning he always says “Good morning” on text or Snap. When I get up which is after him, I will always take a picture of my shades in my room and because I am still in bed usually and I still Snap it every morning. Um, I guess the consistency of doing the same thing we are still in contact with each other. I know he will ask

101

me about 2:20 if he is riding or I am here to pick him up and it’s going to be hard when I am gone . . . but we live so close.

Linda: And if he wants something or to go somewhere he will ask me. Because I am usually downstairs and he is upstairs. So our house is really big and he has his own area upstairs but we do have a main like meeting room and the kitchen is upstairs so the majority of the time we are around each other is there, but my room is down stairs. We are just separated a little bit. That separation is why we talk more on the phone or text more because I am downstairs.

Mark: We are too lazy to go downstairs or upstairs.

Linda: It is comfortable for us.

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: It just comes in moments Andy: Yeah Sandy: It is not scheduled . . . We still do dinner at the table a few nights a week and where everyone comes to the dinner table and phones still have to be put away. And there will be times when phone comes out because we will be talking about something and someone needs specific data, then someone will say, "Can I pull my phone out?" then it is a race to see who can get the data first. Which is fun because Andrew's younger brother will be like I got this and then Andrew will say “Well I got this and mine makes more sense� and it is back and forth and

102

creates a conversation that is bigger. We have a good time with stuff like that. So we are bringing technology in more as a . . . to the fun . . . There is this app and you tap on the app and it tells you you need to get from apples to Ebola in how many steps using only Wikipedia, so you start with apples and you click on a hyperlink and it will take you somewhere else and you have to work your way, like degrees of separation to the next thing. And we will race with that, to kind-a of “How did you get there?” and “Listen to what I just learned,” so that is a kind-a of fun thing. So we do stuff like that. It is a good time.

Another way that Sandy and Andrew stayed connected included sharing different events together.

Sandy: I really like that Andrew and I can see the same things. So like some pages that I follow on Facebook only because Andrew follows them. Like Vice is one of them. He really likes Vice on YouTube and their Facebook page and the Young Turks. So these are pages that he got me interested in and I can say “Did you see this?” and we have these conversations about something that is heavy in the world and I can find out his perceptive . . . I think that goes back parenting--that is one thing that I get a better view of his perceptive on life and I can be a little bit in his world, without being in his world--inappropriately. (she laughs). I can stay appropriate.

Andrew: I think that it is cool too. Like we can you know say, "Hey did you see this document or watched that and did you see the part of blah, blah, blah” and we can understand each other’s idea about the topic and it is a nice level and a good

103

respectful conversation about our opinions on a subject. It is nice to be able to have that.

Brenda and Alex.

Alex seemed to surprise his mother when he disclosed during the interview that he was trying to get her to sing. It seemed that he was getting his needs met through technology.

Alex: I only brought headphones this time because you usually talk to me about subjects and I can usually get you to sing if I have headphones in.

Brenda: You want me to sing?

Alex: I usually get you to sing songs I know.

Brenda: Hum. Well your ulterior motives are coming out.

Tammy and Dan. Tammy and Dan used technology to connect as a family. Dan expressed his father was into gaming and he also identified as a “gamer.” While not on the telephone, the use of technology created a “play” space for the family that provided a creative way for the family to connect.

Tammy: We shot each other in the face (laughs) Dan: So, um, this is uh, well I don't remember a lot of technology when I was younger, THE biggest part was, um, we are a family of five. Dad really liked

104

gaming. So we got Halo, a four-person game. We would play the multi-player and you know . . .

Tammy: Shoot each other in the face.

Dan: Shoot each other in the face. And that continued through iterations of Halo 1, Halo 2, and then it switched to Call of Duty and continued to Call of Duty 2 and that actually is the only reason we have two X-boxes. Not because they needed one in their room and we needed one in the living room. It was because if we had two X-boxes we could play on-line with four people.

Tammy: Yeah Dan: And . . .

Tammy: And then you couldn't screen cheat, we had some screen cheaters.

Dan: You couldn't screen cheat. And then Call of Duty 3. What was it called?

Modern Warfare 3 you added this two versus two. So it would be [older brother] and I versus Mom and Dad. Um, and that was actually really good for bonding because it was something we all played and something we could all relate too.

Tammy: Yeah, when we were grumpy with each other we would just shoot each other in the face and then we felt better. It was so funny too, 'cause you could hear them scream from the other room "God damn it!" (laughs) and it was very interactive. Yeah, like the bulk of our bonding.

Jessica and Josh.

Josh reflected on his sibling relationships and how they have changed over time.

105

Josh: Relatively too, I think that we [siblings] are starting to be less like phone game based and like it's less about what the next game on the phone is and more about like, what's going on next weekend. Like what are you doing and that kind of thing. So, I don't know, I think like I mean, when we were younger and we were just getting this technology it as all "What do you think of this, this is cool," And now we are growing out of that a little bit, we are still there for sure, but like more of our focus isn't on like what is the next best game I guess.

House of strangers.

Some of the families were physically living in the same house, but had little to no contact with each other outside of cell phone communication. Paradoxically, this appeared to maintain the physical proximity of the family (traditional family configuration), but buffered face-to-face communication. The cell phone seemed to create connection that helped them define themselves as a family, but still kept them emotionally separated. The family developed dyads within the family that where split off.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: But you, in term of percentage of face-to-face talking . . .you don't really talk to your step-dad, which is my husband. You talk to him via texting.

Mark: Yeah-h-h . . . I just feel like a little bit awkward.

Linda: You are really shy.

106

Mark: I just text him like ask him a question through text or call him or something. I don't know . . .

Linda: He will text him on the way home when I am gone and I am gone a lot. He will text him on the way home about what he is going to get for dinner. They don't talk in person.

Mark: And sometimes I will text my mom to ask him something.

Linda: He [step-dad] will ask M. [husband] to do things on text, instead of them communicating in person. Because they are both a little bit introverted I think.

Mark: It seems to help.

Linda: They wouldn’t talk at all if it wasn't for the cell phone.

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: We are in a unique situation. G. [father] and I separated about eight years ago but we could not decide who was going to move out so we both are still in the house . . . I am pretty much the parent and G. comes alone. We do a lot of things by text. We use a family calendar app, so everyone knows where everybody else is. While the three of us, Andrew, his brother and I know where we are. Their dad can keep track of us, but he doesn't put anything in it. Like last week I was out of town, so in the calendar app I had in there that he had to take the day off at noon.

And notes, I had to list out what he was doing. You need to get Andrew and take him here and then get S. [younger son] and then get Andrew and take them home.

I use technology so he can be in the loop and know where he fits in and what his next role is . . . that kind of thing.

107

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda: It makes families quieter and also meaner (laughs). More absent.

Alex: More anti-social with the family. Like Dad doesn't talk to us much. Mom tries then she hibernates back.

Brenda: That is because everyone ignores me.

Alex: And then I am upstairs because that is where my room is. Then there is nobody upstairs ever, so nobody ever talks to me, so I have no reason to come downstairs ‘cause there is no valid reason to be down there.

Brenda went on to say: “It's somewhat, I think it has somewhat turned a family home into society where everyone is bumping into each other, where we are co-existing.

There is an extreme lack of intimacy.”

Tammy and Dan. Tammy: Our family is more like two families in a house. So, D. [husband/father] and L. [sister/daughter] and then Dan and I-we’re very separate entities. I am the go between the two entities, I guess. Um-m, I probably text L. way less than I text Dan, because she just wants something or because she does have to be in a mood to communicate. And if she comes out and wants to talk face-to-face, you have to be real careful and judge what mood she is in because she . . .

Dan: It has kept the peace.

Tammy: Explain that.

Dan: Well, let's be honest Dad and I would have fought a lot more if there wasn't for technology. Just because of the way we are. And I would say you and L.

108

[sister] would have gotten into more argument and you and Dad would have gotten into arguments if you wouldn't have that . . .

Tammy: To distract you by.

Dan: Because when someone is saying something stupid and you zone out until they are gone and then just agree with them. So . . .

Tammy: I, I just want to point out that I did that with the TV long before the phone came around.

Dan: Did you, that’s still technology. You are mean, MEAN. You are mean. [he was joking and they were laughing] Tammy: Okay, sorry, so Dan: I am going to need my phone after this (laughs harder)

Tech free time, we try.

The parents tried to provide times that were technology free. The attempts varied in time across the technological revolution but the parents seemed to find more success when the teens were younger. However, the parents felt their attempts at tech-free time was a losing battle and felt that technology had infiltrated both the family and each family’s member time, especially as the teens got older. However, the teens also expressed a longing to have this time and/or remembered some of the past tech-free attempts fondly when their mothers shared their memories. This section addresses the research question about how the relationships between family members are experienced and impacted because of cell phone use.

109

Sandy and Andrew.

Andrew: You turned off the power, and we would turn off the power and turned on the fireplace and then turned on a radio movie-we listened to the movie on the radio . . . It was fun. I was really young. I think I was five.

Sandy: You were five. We did it for a few months.

Andrew: Yeah we did like every Sunday for a few months. It was nice . . . it was good family time. I didn't have a cell phone so I didn’t know. I wasn't really into the whole technology things, so I thought OH radio was really awesome, I didn’t know anything.

Sandy: I can usually get a little buy in. Now we do a . . . probably once a month, we do a forced family fun night, literally forced family fun. It was Andrew's girlfriend, she just left for college . . . it was much easier when she was here, because she loves forced family fun night; so I had buy in from him because she wanted to do it. But now . . . Oh, now it is going to be a little tougher to get him to be part of it.

When asked what “forced family fun night” looked like, Sandy responded by saying: We do dinner and then we play Clue, which is the favorite board game. In the summer time, we would do movies in the backyard. Put up a projector and put on a movie. We would invite friends over, it is fun. I could get him for about an hour and half, and after that he would be done. So long enough to play a board game and have a good laugh . . . So once in a while . . . But I miss that power out night

110

thing too. And the time that we would spend without technology and getting to laugh and have a good time.

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda: Like someone just texted me and that will happen when we are watching a movie and it is not generally a movie that I want to watch.

Alex: I gave up on game nights.

Brenda: We did game nights for a while but it was a long long time ago . . . It was fun.

Alex: O. [brother] would refuse to play. J. [another brother] would refuse to play.

Brenda: I could make them play.

Alex: I would beg them to play.

Brenda: I would say "Get down here and play" (yells) Alex: You shut down the internet.

Brenda: I have done that before, I shut down the interweb.

Alex: It didn’t work.

Brenda: That is not true.

Alex: I would read a book.

Brenda: I would rather you read the book. Actually, you might not remember this, but back in the day, I used to have a technology free day. And it was either a Tuesday or Friday. It was never on the weekend because that was the only times the kids really had full access. Um, you remember that?

Alex: No, why wouldn't you do that now?

111

Brenda: HUH, can you imagine papa without technology. Spare me, M. [husband] spends more time in his phone than speaking to anyone.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: Hum, you are on it way more than I am, but that is another thing . . . We also think that the other person is on it more than the next person. My husband is always on his phone too and, but he says that I am always on my phone but I swear he is on his all the time. I am like “Do you ever put your phone down?”

Like the dinner really drives me crazy. So I am like we are going to dinner and not going to be on your phone but it’s inevitable that something happens or someone calls or someone texts. And I have mine now on my watch (she shows it to me), so I can get all of these things come up on here and I can see before I check my phone. I can be like auh and I can easily like respond by doing a scribble--not having to say anything in it or anything, so you know technology is even more intense than it was. But just us doing it at dinner and like sometime I just want to be at dinner and chat with each other but.

Tammy and Dan. Dan: We used to wander through the woods.

Tammy: Oh yeah, because, it didn't matter what time of year it was, I could always find snow and they would be like in t-shirt and tennis shoes. I would be

112

like "No go to the top of the mountain." Yeah, where there was like three feet of snow. It was really fun.

(Laughing) Dan: But it was going through the woods, photo shoots, they used to do demolition derbies. So we would watch them do a derby. Then they started doing drag racing and then that ended; the engine in our drag car, ah, blew up, got a hole torn through it. Um, and it hasn't been fixed yet. So it was adventuring, then photoshoots, with drag racing and derbying.

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica: Mostly cell phone free. Especially, you know, we have seating in the kitchen and then we have a dining room. And the days we try to eat in the dining room it's definitely cell phone free. But sometimes if we're informal in the kitchen we will have our phones kicking around.

Josh: But even then not usually I think because . . .

Jessica: Well and sometimes it's . . . It doesn't always happen but it happens probably . . .

Josh: A lot.

Jessica: About three quarters.

Josh: Yeah.

Jessica: Three quarters of the time, we can manage. And well it's not very long either. We eat and then it's done. So, we do okay. Yeah, S. [partner] likes to cook, so we like to sit and wait for his food. (laughs) That's basically how it shakes out.

113

Josh: It is kind-a visit time.

Parenting Is the Toughest Job In this broad code, many of the parents talked about how they experienced their role as parents and reflected on this role within the larger society. Most notably, parents felt that parenting challenges have changed. It is easier to track their kids, stay in contact with them, and plan events. However, the parents also have to teach their teenagers management skills, safe internet skill, and have less influence on what they have access to because of the world wide web. While it manifested in different ways, each parent worried about certain aspects of the phone and the long term consequences it might have on the development of their children. Therefore, being a parent both influences the dyadic relationship between parent and child, but also shapes the individual identities of each adult in the interviews. Therefore, this question speaks to both the research question about impacts of cell phones on individual development and the impact on the family.

The overall experiences of parenting in a technological age will be explored than the sub codes that further support this larger code.

Sandy.

Sandy was reflective throughout the interview about the impact technology has had on her family. She acknowledged some of her own worries, but also was grateful for the aspects of Andrew’s personality that she saw developing and the shared space they had been provided through social media/blogs.

Sandy: The biggest thing when you hold this new person in your arms is that you

114

are going to protect this person from the world. The lessons come really quick that you can't. All you can do is prepare them for the world. (She teared up). So I think that technology falls into that category. You know--I have made a point to teach Andrew that 99% of the world is good, there is so much more good in the world then there is bad. So you look for the good. So even if you fall down the rabbit hole sometimes that is just horrible, start looking for the people that make a difference in it . . . technology has helped him find more good in the world and I think also . . .

One of the things I like about Facebook is that you can see when other people comment on things and sometimes I see his comments out into the world when he is on a social justice bent and it’s those moments that I am going "Okay he is going to be a good adult." I don't need to worry . . . I don't need to worry about who he is going to be. He may have moments when things don't go right but overall he is a good human. So, technology has given me some insight into places that I wouldn't get to see and that’s one of my joys . . . of seeing those moments of him . . . I get a little emotional that he is almost grown. (She was tearing up).

So we set clear expectations early, so I think that when you--I think one of the things I have realized that when you expect--when you have high expectations they rise to meet them. And I think that is part of the reason why I didn't want to use net nannies, it felt so disrespectful . . . I recognize that you’re experiencing the world for the first time, and you wanting to understand your world and there is somethings that you don't want to come to me about. So, go look and go explore.

Someone will tell you something and I will hear about it . . . You will tell me

115

when you are ready. It was a gamble, but it has paid off really well . . . When I talk to my friends, um I know more about my kid than most of my friends know about theirs. And there is not a lot of secrets and it is a big deal and he lets me be.

He doesn't have a second Facebook page that I get that is a clean and sanitized version. I get the real version and I get to see where he really is and what he really thinks and he doesn't have any problem communicating that. I think that is pretty great and part of that is because I have been able to see him and it matches. I get to see who he really is in the world and it matches who he is when he is communicating with me. There is no fear at all at that point because you are just a good human. You are a good human, Andrew.

I had these visions when I went into parenthood and what it would be like to you know have dinner with my kids and you know we would sit and laugh around the table and all these things that you have this picture of and then you get into life. And I think technology came and boomed shortly after he was born and I kind-a feel like I got cheated a little on the moments that our parents had and our grandparents had, we didn't get that kind of [experience]. But I don't think I would trade it because even though I don't get to have those moments, I have real insight into who he is, and I don't know if my mom got that kind of insight to who I really was until I was an adult and felt a little freer to talk to her. I think that technology opens up a lot of communication and it overall, it is a pretty good thing.

116

Tammy and Dan. Tammy was reflective about a time when she misinterpreted a phone call and the influence cell phones have on maintaining family relationships.

Tammy: There was one time though that Dan, I was in class and he told me to come home and I just ignored him. And then he said. What else did you say? Do you remember what you said?

Dan: I remember, because. . .I am not going to say because it was stupid.

Tammy: He wanted me to come home for a very legit reason. But he didn’t tell me the reason. So on break I have all my friends out and asked what would a 17year-old all of sudden want . . . We were like he is being a spoiled brat and probably wants something, um, so we minimized it down to he’s just an annoying child. When I got home I found out that his girlfriend had attempted suicide and he was attempting to talk to someone and he walked the mile to high school to talk to his counselor there. Uh! [Silence] Tammy: UH, that was an enlightening mother moments. You answer the phone. It was so, I tried to set up a keyword. If it was really important so I know that it is important and it isn't just him wanting me to pick up lemonade. His response was "Why don't you just pick up your fucking phone when I call you?"

Dan: No keyword, maybe you should just answer your phone.

Brenda.

Brenda identified the way she anticipated her children’s needs through the way in

117

which they text. Brenda reflects on how she knows, even when there is not a heard voice in the messages that are sent to her.

When P. [one of the older sons] sends me a text with certain words or forgot punctuation, I know that I need to get in touch with him immediately, so in that way, crisis management, technology is really helpful.

Jessica.

Jessica expressed how she often uses the cell phone to start a conversation and allow enough space between parent and teen for them to communicate more effectively, thus avoiding a larger fight.

Often times if something comes up with one of the kids and this is when you know it is easier to text them then sit down. You know this weekend um, my middle son, he was driving and we thought that maybe that he was driving . . . He is in that six month--he is not supposed to have passengers yet. And so we suspected that maybe he had gone off that for an hour and it was just really easy to text him right away and say "Hey I just found out that maybe you were driving and maybe you shouldn't have been with certain passengers. You know what is going on. This is disappointing for me to hear. This is your text and I’m giving you a chance to explain it." Um, I think for him, like for me to say J. we have to talk about something, like that would instantly get his heart rate up, but for him to read the text, "oh, no mom I was in the gated community and I just ran up to Liam's to grab a phone charger," so I feel sometimes the texting allows me to kind-a hit the head and it's easier than having that conversation.

118

House rules.

In this subcategory, the parents talked about the house rules around cell phone management with their teens. Overall, the families agreed that the cell phone was one of the only consequences that had meaning for their teenager. Parameters around cell phone use was individualized for each family, some had none, while other required teens to check in their phones at night. The parents all depicted their teens as responsible and dependable, therefore, they felt they did not have to manage cell phone use as much.

Content management, what came into the home via their teen’s cell phone, was a consistent worry, but one that most parents felt that they had lost. Therefore, it was something they felt was only protected against through open communication with their teen. Again this category answers the questions about the ways in which family members experience and are impacted by social technology.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: The only other things that I have thought about is that the cell phone is so important. It is a tool you can use for punishment. So if he doesn't clean his room, which he doesn't ever . . . So it will be to the point where the only way that he will do it is if I do threaten his phone. So I will threaten the phone when I come home on the weekend. I will be back on Sunday or whatever but this weekend I will be back on Saturday. Like last weekend I was like “If your room is not clean by the time that I get back on Sunday then I am taking your phone for a week” . . . He WOULD DIE . . . If the phone was away for a week, but he has never known what it is like. So he got his room clean quickly.

119

Mark: Yeah.

Linda: But is thrown in there as that thing over your head because it is just the only thing. You don't have to have it; I could take it away or not have it. It is a benefit that you have and you like it so you are going to follow the rules to keep it. So that is the one thing that it is just that important in life that you can throw it over their head and they will do anything for it.

Mark: It is true.

Linda: It is interesting because what else is there, what else am I going to take away from them, there is nothing else. What else am I going to make you do?

Like you are a teenager and you aren't going to do anything. You wouldn't care, so what if I lose that or did that but if it is the phone then he will do it.

Mark: It is true.

Linda: That is all there is, there is nothing else. Computers--like oh well.

Sandy and Andrew.

Andrew: That is probably the biggest one.

Sandy: That is THE only consequence . . . It is probably the only consequence. I think that I have only done it twice because it has to be pretty serious for me to take his phone and he doesn't really do anything that requires that amount of consequences . . . The other rule in our family is that you can ask any questions that you want to, but you better be prepared because I am going to tell you the truth. So I explained porn to A. at nine years old and I was not ready . . . But he was much more careful with his searching after that--what he typed in after that.

120

But I think that there is so many things about the world that are scary.

Andrew was also aware that his own activities on the internet could be under scrutiny and what he wrote could have long term implications for himself; this value however seemed to be directly linked to the values and teaching that his parents had instilled in him. One of the major house rules that he learned and followed was around what to post.

Andrew: I don't feel like there is anything that I would post technologically that would not be not okay with people. You kind-a have to sign your own consent form when using technology. By posting this I realize that someone that I don't necessarily want to see it will or could see it and that I am accepting that risk. And so I guess it is kind-a of a decision to make. If I don’t want someone to know something, I am not going to post it for everyone else to see. I don't want someone showing them or something like that . . . I think it depends on the circumstance but I am not worried about my privacy. I think that the things that are private, I keep private, and the things that aren't private, I don't try to hide . . .

I am not worried about internet safety or anything like that. Yes, there is bad stuff on the internet but there is bad stuff everywhere. There is bad stuff a block away but you just gotta . . . And yeah you are going to run into it. Just have to manage yourself so there is kind-a that self-responsibility around technology where you have to present in your mind and responsible for your actions. Does that make sense?

121

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda: I do say no phones at the dinner table, but . . . If my husband is going to bring his phone to the table, then everyone else is.

She later stated, So, there are no real parameters on cell usages other than if I say put it down, then put it down. Because I will, I have turned, I have gone into my parental control and turned off certain features. Like J. was really misbehaving when we were on vacation and I blocked; the only two phones he could not call--his girlfriend and his best friend.

Brenda also made a reference to the value of knowing too much about your teen and the trust factors that are involved as the teen grows.

I don't actually see very many pros, because I don't think that instant access to your children's thoughts, feelings even geolocation is good. It doesn't breed trust; it doesn't help you learn to have trust; I mean why trust something. Why trust it when just know it. You know what I mean? You don't like have to use your intuition as much although it does nag at me pretty hard. I still am incredibly empathic. I can totally tell when one of my kids is not doing well.

Tammy and Dan. This family presented with a unique situation because Dan is 18 years old.

Tammy reflected on how technology had impacted the house rules in the past, and the lessons she had learned. She focused more on the electronics they had, especially since her children had received phones much later.

122

Tammy: There's parenting skills for you. If you have two of the same sex child living in a room and you give a Christmas presents like technology, you should probably give it to the boys versus one of them.

Dan, like Andrew acknowledged the power of written words on blogs or social media sites. He too recognized how parenting shaped the way he expressed himself on these sites and the rules that he was taught to maintain both his safety, but respect the views of others.

Dan: So, okay so when we first got Facebook, I remember being told, you don't say cuss words on Facebook. You have relatives on Facebook, so you don't do anything that's, anything that could signal bad stuff about our family or anything unwholesome. Here you can share political views and all this stuff. So I make it a point to not cuss that much on Facebook or anything like that. If anything, I do it to reply to my friends and making a joke. L. [sister] however, um, in that one instance insulted them saying, you know, "Assface" and all this stuff. I am like "No; you don't cuss on Facebook. It is not something you do.� It is like, that can be used against you, you know that right? You called your Mom, your Mom an "Assface," you are a horrible person. Some stranger could have that information (Laughing). I am like, are you going to get mad at me for sharing a meme, like about the Crusades. Like Ow-ow. And lately I have noticed, I don't know if I changed the setting and never changed it back. All of my post, all of my post are all pubic--which really isn't that big of deal, because I don't post anything super personal or anything.

123

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica talked about the nuts and bolts of managing time on the phone. Her focus was more on the way in which they increased privileges as the children aged and became more responsible.

Jessica: They have to turn their phone in at night, except for [son] and S's [partner] oldest as well. They are both seniors and they are allowed to have their phones at night now. Um-m and we did the same thing with S.'s oldest child.

When she was a senior, she got to have her phone in her room at night. Um, the younger kids still have to plug their phones in at night and depending on what is going on, if there is an issue or someone is grounded they lose their phone or they lose access to their phone at certain times. So we have used it for consequences but not always. And in terms of policing or monitoring, I am probably really terrible that way. I don't monitor at all, I never pick up the phone and look through it, which I probably should do that, but I never do it. But again I would say J [middle son] J. is probably the (she is laughing) one I would, I should monitor his phone.

I worry about the impact.

Because technology is relatively new, the parents all expressed fears about the impact technology has on their children. While, as mentioned earlier they felt they lost the fight against trying to control or monitor some of the content, they also expressed worries about the changes it made in their teens lives. This theme continues to answer the

124

ways that cell phones are experienced by family members and the impact they have on the family.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: Another con for us and my family. Mark worries about a lot of stuff, so he sees everything on social media and if he did not have it, he would not see it if he didn't have it. We would probably all sit down at the TV and watch Dateline or the 6 o'clock news together or whatever and you know, we see everything on media. So I worry about that for him because he doesn't need to be worrying about the world problems he can't change right now. Of course, you can change them but worry about other things rather than these huge things that you can’t . . .

Kind-a like right now with the wars and the way Trump is tweeting. I think it is inappropriate and it is hard to teach my son that is 14 years old that it is not okay to tweet like this when the president of the United States is. But I still have to work and show my child that is not acceptable. So that is a huge thing for me right now and I don't want him to see the stuff that is happening out there but it is all over and my kids are not protected. That is a huge thing for me on the cons. Just the stuff he is stating about things and my husband is black and my daughter is mixed and Mark is Chinese-American and my family is very, very diverse and the things that are in the community and things happening right now with race and equality is really close to my heart . . . And I have to protect my family. And I am Native American and Caucasian. I think I can handle it and understand. But my family and social media isn't . . . It is leaving it out there and even if my husband

125

is reading something that someone stated about someone that is black it is really harsh right now. All of it, and we get it on our phone. We can't turn away from it right now.

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: It is much harder to get the serious talk, you know like the deep and meaningful . . . because Andrew is pretty much face in the phone and when I am wanting to have the serious talk with him. This, don't take offense to how I am going to say this, it is almost like . . . I sometimes call it swiping brain--like next topic, next topic, next topic and I want to just say “Come back here and just listen,” but he is constantly jumping ahead and it is like "No stop!" It feels like trying to stay engaged, it is . . . sometimes that creates boredom, just having a conversation, I think creates boredom for him. I am not sure. I think that I struggle with that—to try to get him to be present.

Sandy adds onto the thought with the following: I think that part of it is you know I think that it is great that they are so socially connected but the same time it doesn’t leave a lot of room for personal growth because it is constant committee . . . You know everyone is always talking about everything and it is hard to find your own voice in the group collective voice and I think that's one thing that I struggle with. That is the biggest struggle with parenting and technology--I really believe that my job as his mom is that I have 18 years to prepare him for the next 60 and there is not always going to be someone on the other end of a text message or a Snapchat or there is going to be

126

moments when you are alone and you are lonely and you are bored and you need to know yourself well enough to be able to do something with those moments.

That is where your growth comes from. And trying to get that message across with technology coming in at the same time. I feel like I fight it a lot. I am constantly trying to argue with the cell phone for who gets control of that lesson.

And sometimes I feel like I am losing, yeah . . . that just where I just have to come back to "It's his journey," because I can't, there are just some fights that I can't win and technology is one of them, it is always going to be there.

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda, much like Sandy expressed concerns about the fight over supremacy of instilling values and how technology seems to be another roadblock in the fight to maintain intimacy within the family relationships. Brenda stated: Um, but yeah, don't really have a lot of guidelines and parameters because it was really exhausting for me to try to control something that felt so much just like oh, it is insidious. It becomes like a spell. It is this thing that . . . and it is bigger and smaller than anything that I can control. And, my kids are very well behaved and they are respectful citizens.

So the cons are lack of intimacy, lack of responsibility, like nobody has to really, be really truly be responsible for what they say, while they have that immediate rush, saying what they want to say to me, or I to them.

127

Tammy and Dan. Tammy expressed concerns about the way in which teens have no “filter” and the concerns over the unintended consequences.

Tammy: Yeah, it doesn't give them, they don't realize that they can keep stuff in their head and they don't realize that there are things that we can THINK and that it is alright to think it, but we should never be saying it. Um, hum. Until something horrible happens or until they have a horrible consequence. It is just accepted now to just say whatever you think.

So when Dan was in high school, I had a big long talk with the counselors up there, for them social media doesn't give them an outlet to escape everyone, because they are always connected. And they’re, they’re just, they almost compulsively check that wither its good news or bad. When I was in high school we went home at the end of the day and we did not see you until the next day.

There was no constant barrage of crap put on us.

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica has similar concerns about the impact technology had on her teens.

Because Josh was with her, she focused on her concerns around the time he spent on the phone and time management in general.

Jessica: Up until this school year, he was probably the one that I was worried about the most in terms to time management and his phone. I would say besides the morning routine; A. [daughter] is probably the one I worry about the least. She can put her phone down and get her work done. So, I don't worry about her that

128

way at all. And J [brother] is probably somewhere in the middle. Um, but you are, you are a lot better this year. I have to say you are doing a lot better. But I was worried about him the most . . . but maybe you are just a procrastinator and I am blaming it on the phone . . . I don't know. (laughs) Jessica also worried about the ways in which her teens were communicating and learning to resolve conflict. Jessica discusses this concern in the following: I think that the cons for me are what Josh talks about just in terms of how it affects the kids. I think sometimes I get frustrated because when their interacting with their peers and I will say "Just call!" "Why aren't you addressing this?" like "Why is this happening on Facebook?" Like call your friend and talk to your friend about what's going on. Or give your friend a chance. Don't bury your friend because you saw something. I feel like that is getting lost for these guys. That it's this kind of everything is awesome world and they are falling through the cracks with their communication and their lack of ability to address conflict especially.

They, you know, the water is getting muddier for them. I worry about that as they grow into adults because they are, they’re not going to be able to function in the world. But, you know, I don't know how that's going to turn out for them. But that, that's my biggest con, my biggest worry, is just the lack of ability to communicate or deal with difficult things.

Parents Traveling in a Foreign Land Each parent, while having the identity of being a parent and how that impact their sense of self, also spoke about the impact technology had on them separate from the

129

family. Tapscott (1999) described the middle aged, adult generation as technology immigrants—those people that were not born into a technological, cell phone based world versus their children (the natives) that were. Therefore, many of the parents are still becoming accustom to the technology. The themes in this section answer the research questions about how cell phones impact each member (this section refers to the parent) as a separate being and on their development.

Remember when we had corded phones?

Most of the parents reminisced about their own experiences as a teen growing up versus the “always on� experiences of their teens. These stories provided a historical narrative, but also articulated the differentiation of the parent as a separate being. The parents presented with empathy and seemed to be trying to communicate their understanding of how difficult it might be for their teens to grow up in the current social context. However, these narratives also provide a framework regarding how quickly technology has become embedded into the family milieu.

Linda and Mark.

Linda: Because we know that is how the world is going to be so she needs to learn that . . . It is different than when we were kids, we had to take typing and had this old school computer, but you (towards Mark) could already type right away before . . . You learned typing in school instead of cursive. It is crazy . . .

Remember typewriters? C. [Step-father/husband] remembers doing the typewriters in college. It is hilarious. I try to stay away from those.

130

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: It is different from when we were growing up . . . I was thrilled to have three way calling and I thought I was great with my own phone number. I was the only one to have my own phone number of any of my friends and it was only because I had annoyed my mother because I kept the phone tied up . . . It is just so different now and I guess I did not realize how important it is in the sense of being connected. Because it is probably like my grandmother trying to understand a MP3 player. The idea that music is on this little tiny thing instead of a record.

You know that kind of thing, just a different evolution. I think I forget that they use it well.

Brenda and Alex.

Brenda: He [her dad] added a 25-foot cord, coiled cord at my house onto my phone. I could traverse the entire house (she laughs) I could be in the bathtub with the phone down. And I did that. That is a thing. Flip phone did not happen until I was in my 20s.

I don't think they truly know what it means to be spending time with a person. I rode horses and we moved horses, there were three of us girls. We spent six hours on the back of a horse moving them to another piece of property. That is spending time. Or turning on music and braiding each other hair or playing games or making silly plans to steal pickles and a piece of cheese to take a hike. Or whatever teenagers were doing. I grew up in the country. (laughs) My mother hated that—stealing pickles. We would pickle. We were raised Mormon and then

131

we weren't anymore. If I wanted to go on a hike with my girlfriend we had the best pickles in the whole neighbor, so I’d steal a quart of pickles and she would whack off a hunk of cheese and we would get half a loaf of bread my grandpa would make and put it in a bag and hike up to this big tree. That is spending time together. That is conversing and when we were up there we would talk about "Oh let’s make these fancy paper dolls" or whatever. Then we would actually go and do those things that we talked about. My son's generation, they, it's not, honey there is nothing wrong with you. Or wrong with it, it’s so different and so skewed that it would be life altering and soul shocking if you were actually put in a situation to have the kind of communication with each other that I had to have in order to have, to maintain a friendship.

Tammy and Dan. Tammy: And back in the day, as a Navy brat, I lost so many friends because all we could do was write each other letters and who . . .

Dan: And that’s time consuming.

Tammy: And who does that.

Dan: Who wants to pay the postage? Isn't that outdated, paying postage, haven't done that in my life yet.

Jessica and Josh.

Jessica: I think I had plenty of days as a kid where I was doing' something Sunday

132

at midnight when it was due on Monday and I survived. It was just a different form of distraction.

Oh, the places I will go.

Most of these women have used technology to either expand their own educational goals, build their businesses or it has helped them develop as individuals.

They have found the internet helpful for their own personal growth and this speaks directly to their own identity and needs outside of the family. These mothers had focused on their role as parent which made this a smaller section in the interview. It is important to note that they found something positive for themselves.

Sandy.

Um, I have . . . I have . . . I am a lifelong learning . . . like just love, always love and have always been obsessed with learning and um, I am in school right now on line and I do my classes on line, so I use technology for that and then I also have been on a bit of a spiritual growth path at the moment which is (she laughs). So I am researching different religions and learning more about them and so I use technology for that . . . And I took cello up last year, so when I am trying to figure out how the fingering works and it is in between my lessons and I can look at how someone else is doing it to see if I can pick it up. Um, one of the things that I really love is that I have become incredibly smart at home improvements. Just being able to YouTube; like the other day my Mom messaged me that her toilet broke. And I am like no problem but in my head I going “Oh my God, I can't . . . I

133

learned that in eighth grade shop, I have no idea how to do this.” So I just break out YouTube and watched the video and said “Okay I can do that." Those things as a woman . . . I find that the internet is really empowering. You know I grew up with the whole “YOU need a man kind-a thing,” not “You really are capable.” I think that it’s something powerful about being able to find the answer for myself and solve the problem. Um, or there is this website I really like that they have woodworking plans and I have made a couple of things. It is like I have this power . . . My neighbor was walking by one day when I was cutting wood on the miter saw and G. [husband] was outside shortly after and the guy walked back by and said "I would never let my wife use power tools." And G. starts laughing and goes "Yeah she finds things on the internet and I learned a long time ago that I should just stay out of her way.” It felt so good to hear that I am capable. But then I look at A.'s generation, they don't have the same mentality of that. There isn't an inequality. You . . . that’s kind-a gotten dropped with Gen X and starting to fade away. I don't think they see it the same way, they don’t see life the same way we do. There is a lot more equanimity and it is cool . . . It is really cool to see that part of technology and what that is creating. That there is no question that they will figure it out and most of the time when A. [son] gets mad about those discussions he sees on line it is some old guy complaining about the younger generation or complaining about women not knowing their place . . . That is when he gets anger and it’s like really neat to see this view. His friends are the same way . . . This seems to be just who they are. I admire that with technology . . . I think that idea of, you know, being connected to people that you don't know. We

134

would learn about things through a newspaper or a news cast and it just so focused on what they wanted us to see and they are the journalist. They [indicating Andrew] are seeing things and they are sharing it. We wouldn't know about police officers killing African American people in the street. We wouldn't have known about it. We didn't know about it! But because someone with a cell phone caught it and shared it, we are discussing it. And I think that is where technology is pretty darn cool. We are learning so much and I just love that. I love how we see so much more outside of our bubble especially in Spokane which is quiet a bubble. (laughs) It is a really big bubble.

Linda.

Not have misunderstandings and communication is huge . . . Social media but I do a lot of work from there and I also have businesses and so all my businesses are on there. Everything is on there. It is very important. I would be lost without it.

Tammy.

Oh, man, if I had to get my degree without Google . . . I would have to go library and dig through the cards and books and the oh, my gosh . . . I would have been like . . . ‘No, too much.� Yeah, no the internet is wonderful. I love it.

Brenda.

I also use the telephone for education purposes. I am a forever stay at home mom .

135

. . I am . . . I am 90% self-taught because I have had kids since I was 19 and I didn't get to go college.

Extended family connections—Those that I might not have.

In addition, many of the parents spoke about the connections they have had with their families of origin and grown children. The experiences were mixed, but this theme speaks to continued support they can receive, but also the support that they can give to family members which in turn has impacted their sense of self.

Sandy.

My mom and I laugh about it all the time, that you know she is able to talk to me more now than she was when we lived in the same house, because I am available by phone all the time and it is like okay.

Jessica.

I think that the connection is nice, that is a pro for me. And not just these guys, but I Facetime with my Mom, she is in Eastern Canada. With my Dad. I can chat with my sister.

Linda.

My Dad texts a little bit but my Dad is not a big texter and when I text him I know he is going to call me. I know that when I text him I have to be ready to answer the phone. I always know how that is going to be. (laughs) . . . So I don't ask

136

important information. And L., his fiancée, is always on the phone when he calls so I don't feel comfortable telling him everything or talking about stuff because they put it on speaker. It is Weir-r-d-d. It just started happening. He has just been engaged for a little while and I’ve never been around someone that has done that.

So like my Aunt is not really happy about that and is upset--it is his sister. She gets really mad because she knows that she is going to be in the background. Like all of a sudden and she says something and you are like “Wow. You didn't call her or didn't want to talk to her and she is always there.” So me and my aunt remind each other that she is always going to be there listening in and it is weird.

Tammy.

While most of the parents describe their connections to family members not living in the home as positive, Tammy expressed some of the frustrations she has with her oldest son. Tammy older son struggles with mental health issues and she describes some of the downfalls she has with texting and on line communication when he is struggling.

She describes her frustration in the following statements Tammy: It can seem; it can seem unneedingly hostile. Because he will either, he'll either send something that’s way off topic or send you a picture . . . Sometimes he doesn't know how to form the sentence and you have to read it like twenty million times to even understand what might be getting at. It is harder to use technology for him than to just talk to him.

137

Teen’s Wit and Wisdom While the parents each had their own story and influences related to technology, the teens in the study talked about the influence they also experienced via technology.

While this group has grown up in a world that has been connected, they spend time both online and face-to-face. Their time online was a concern to most of them. Three of the five teens had apps on their phone that tracked time and they were thoughtful about their use. This came as a surprise to each of their parents. In addition, they seemed thoughtful about both the pluses and the minus of technology, but realistically reflected on how important it was to their own connection to their community of friends, social networks, and school. They also expressed concerns about how much time their parents used technology. Overall, they had a humorous stance on technology, but also a wisdom that came with growing up digitally. In the following subthemes, the question of how technology/cell phones are experienced individually (for the adolescent) and how it impacts the individual developed is discussed.

Who calls? Snapchat, Instagram, and other forms of communication.

A number of telephone functions defined “calling,” it was not just voice-to-voice calls. The teens noted they did not use the cell phone to make calls (talking) that often.

Instead texting or other group functions, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram, or Snapchat, are more often used it to communicate with their peer group. They do report texting as the most frequent way of contacting their parents, but would call if something was “call worthy.”

138

Josh.

I think it's easier and more common to not speak over the phone but I don't think that like . . . I don’t think that people go out of their way to avoid it. But it just not their number one choice and I think for me I like I use the phone to actually . . .

When I'm calling people like I'm making plans or when I am texting people I’m making plans. That kind of thing. Um, I don't usually use the phone or the messenger function outside of that really. And it is more the Snapchat. Then you can send a selfie or whatever and it's easy to type “How's it going?” or “What are you doing?” That kind of thing. So.

Sandy and Andrew.

Andrew: I usually text them [friends].

Sandy: You have a Snapchat group, don't you? That you use heavily.

Andrew: Yeah, so I can group text them.

Alex and Brenda.

Alex: I do a lot of calling with my girlfriend, but not with them. Texting with my friends.

Brenda: And Facetime. And texting.

Alex: That is calling.

Dan. Um, I'm almost always at home, so they usually message me on Facebook. So they will message on Facebook if we have anything at home that we need,

139

anything like that. Pretty much like just anything we need from the store. Or my sister will text me "Can you shut out the hallway light?" when she is in bed because she doesn’t want to get up. So, it is kind-a just short "Do we have this?" or "Can you do this?" That is pretty much it.

Virtual reality.

The teens expressed a large portion of their social life was connected to their use of the phone. They expressed that they used the phone or other communication technology to stay connected to their friends via virtual spaces. These virtual, online arenas have become large portions of the teen’s play and study spaces; often the teens augment these virtual spaces for physical proximity. They stay in the comfort of their own homes and FaceTime, Skype, text or game with others. In this theme, the teens talked about how important this virtual, technological reality is to maintaining their friendships and how they used it to keep up with people. However, the parents also expressed some of their own viewpoints on how these spaces were used as they watch their teens develop.

Sandy and Andrew.

Sandy: They [brothers] do Skype when they are playing video games. It is kind-a cool cause they will sit in their bedrooms and then they will play. Their game systems are in separate rooms and they will both be on Skype with other friends and make it a big group conversation.

However, Sandy’s concerns over Andrew’s developmental growth were clear in

140

the following exchange, along with Andrew’s explanation of his lived experience through technology: Sandy: I recognize that is all there is, that is all they communicate with. They will be in—(laughs) his girlfriend will be at our house and they will be sitting next to each other on their phones, on Facebook and he will tag her in something he sees.

It just cracks me up because they are sharing things back and forth on Facebook or sharing videos or sitting next to each watching YouTube. It is all parallel play . . . It feels like the stuff they did when they toddlers. It seems sometimes like, no offense, please don't take offense to that (to Andrew), but it still feels like we are not moving out of parallel play and actually engaging, but I don't know how to help them with that. Except to just let it be their journey.

Andrew: I don't think it is necessarily . . . I don't think it is necessarily as childless as you think it is. I don't know if childless is the right word.

Sandy: No, it is . . . it should be intimate . . . I think there is a loss of intimacy. It is so.

Andrew: It is a lot different for you than it is for me. I don't know. I think it would be cool to grow up in time where not everyone, no one has a cell phone. It makes sense when no one has a cell phone, but if one person doesn't have it, then they are left out . . . my phone is a way to connect with other people even though I am not with them. Even when I’m with them, I still can. We do our thing. We wake up, so she [girlfriend] is a terrible morning person, so she sits on her phone and tags me on something (Mom laughs). So basically it is another communication method.

141

I feel like there is that little push to conform to what other people are doing and thinking and there are other times when it is "NO, this how it is. This is what I think it is and what I am sticking with." It depends on the topic and situation but primarily it is as an individual, I feel more individualized than same as everyone else . . . Even though we might be looking at the same picture on the internet we perceive it differently. It is kind-a that individualization and you can form your own opinions and it is a really good tool for friendly arguments as well.

You can go into a controversial article and go down to the comment section and you see these people that discuss opinions and stuff. You can go there and you can type out your opinion and get two hundred responses of what other people either agree or disagree and why they disagree. You are learning about other people as well even people that don't . . . people you will never meet. You can learn about people that you never going to see in person ever.

Sandy: You might not even know their names.

Andrew: Yeah, someone that you might not know at all, but you can still understand what that person is thinking and I think it adds a new level of like, relationship almost. You understand what they are thinking and you can change your opinion based on what they think or take that into mind or you know explore other ideas and stuff like that. So I think it provides a lot of individualization and communication.

Jessica and Josh.

Josh reflected on Facebook posts:

142

I think it kind-a makes you less confident in general. I think in a group of anyone it's like oh, well like you only have this many followers on Instagram, or "Oh I have this many likes.� I have a ton or none or whatever. I think that it kind-a brings that dynamic into like social groups. Like I know, like I don't know if you hear, but W. whenever he walks in--He walks in he will be like "Bro, I just got this many likes on my last photo."

Jessica: On a picture . . .

Josh: Or that kind-a thing Jessica: Yeah.

Josh: For me I don't really know, I don't really post on social media. I don't really look at it to just kind-a browse through whatever is going on. I use it to directly communicate with people. So I mean for me, that is the kind-a of basis of my usage.

Josh expanded on this again later in the interview by stating: Yeah, I think that the cons is the social awareness of like so and so is better than me because they have this many followers or so-and-so is not going to like me because they got this many likes on their picture or whatever. That kind of thing. I think the pros is that I mean it is kind-a cool to see what everyone is doing and interacting with everyone even if it's on such a basic level like "Oh you liked my picture." I think it is kind-a cool to see like when people travel to where ever they go, you know, and they are like a six-hour plane ride away and it's like well you don't even have, like some years back you don't even have phone. (laughs). You could die and not know for however many days. Um, but now it's like, it cool

143

‘cause I can see "Oh, my friend K. just went to um Guatemala” I think. And she posted about that and those photos and so it was kind-a cool because you could see "Oh wow, K. went to Guatemala." You experience that with her.

Linda and Mark.

Mark was one of the younger participants in the interview. He was more connected to his family and was focused on maintaining those connections. However, during the interview, Mark and Linda reflected “They do homework together on the phone . . . They use Facetime.” Mark however, did differentiate between text messaging and face-to-face in the following comment, “What I would do and say I do on text message, I would do and say in real life.”

Brenda and Alex.

Alex was in a unique position as his family had recently moved to the Spokane area. His good friends still lived in the town he moved from. His connections on social media helped maintain these relationships. He stated, “There is a world in there [computer/phone] and sometimes I care about that world a little more.”

Alex: Most of my social life is on the internet because most of my friends I really love are basically in Oregon. So I can only talk to them via the internet. And it is honestly where I spend most of my time if I am not at school. I watch videos a lot on the internet.

It was mostly about video games.

Brenda: It was mostly about video games on the computer, live action video

144

games. I just felt feel like you can’t live in a game.

Alex: World of Warcraft is not.

Brenda: It is a game in which you have altered self, you have a different life.

Alex: It is fun.

Brenda: It becomes . . . That is great, but not healthy. Focus on the life you have outside instead of building some crazy one in the computer.

Alex: I don't game on the computer, but I game with my friends.

Brenda: But you don't.

I walked into his birthday weekend. All four of them where laying in the bed snuggled up in a human pile of teenager goo and with everyone with phone face on. (made a sound and face). Oh, look, you all look jaundice.

Alex: I was looking for memes to show C. (girlfriend) C. (friend) was on Instagram liking photos. E. (friend) was on snapchat and M. (friend) was arguing with her boyfriend.

Brenda: So they weren't really spending time together. I think, I think that his generation has a completely skewed or completely abstract idea of what it truly means to spend together.

Tammy and Dan. Dan was the oldest teen to be interviewed. Dan was unique because throughout the interview he acknowledged the need for face-to-face communication and the loss of nonverbal communication with the use of text. This continued to be one of his major concerns about cell phone technology. “So to encapsulate I think you lose a lot of the

145

skills you get face-to-face, body position and posture that reads into someone, um, you get more disconnected from the world.”

However, Tammy and Dan reflected on ways that virtual spaces influenced Dan’s high school career.

Dan: One big experience. I was never a part of this . . . But there was an app called "After School" and you put in the school and it would verify through Facebook that you went to that school. If it couldn't be verified than it would send an e-mail and you would have to show your student id or something like that. To enter uh, like an anonymous group for posting things. And it caused, it caused a really big thing because someone said they wanted to fuck one of the teachers and the teacher got in trouble for it, because now it's like you might have a relationship with a student. She cried in class because she was a new teacher, maybe three, four-year teacher at the school. They never found out what student did it because of the app. Um, they decided to embargo the app so anyone that had it on their phones was liable to punishment, which I don't think is legal.

For L. [sister] it’s like "Look at what I am doing because everyone should care" and all that stuff. And I think, like the phone itself has like changed the way she views her interaction in the world. Like, she, that she is more important then what she used to believe. And because she has this direct line of communication with anyone, she should, she should be able to use it to her full extent and do whatever she wants.

I think the whole Facebook is overall trivial. There is no reason that you need to put what you’re doing or what you’re eating um, all the time. Ah, like,

146

someone on my Facebook, goes like, like they will do those bait posts where it is like "I can't believe you did this SMH" which by the way I hate those.

Tammy: The phishing posts.

Dan: Where they are looking for someone to ask what is wrong. And overall in society I think it's, it's worsened to be "I need attention," it's, it's "I'm the one that needs attention and you all need to give it to me.”

Vis-à-vis.

While many of the teenagers talked about the impact it had on them or others in their peer group, many of the participants also talked about the importance of face-to-face communication. They made a point to talk about putting down their phones when they were involved in some intimate conversations. This seemed more common in the older teens versus the younger teens, which likely reflects their changing developmental stages.

Josh: Usually we use it some, usually when we are playing, we don't usually end up using the phone a ton when, at least I don't, when I'm hanging out with other people. Like when I'm by myself like I will use my phone, but when I'm hanging out with my girlfriend or my friends I usually put my phone down and I don't tend to take pictures or anything when I’m doing anything and people are always like "Oh like take some pictures when you going wherever--Take some pictures. Take some photos.” and that doesn't happen. I literally never take out my phone when I'm hanging with friends. We went over to my friend’s. He was having a birthday celebration the other night and we uh, we sat and played uh, Cards against Humanity um for a really long time. (laughs) and uh. And then we, I mean we

147

played video games for a short amount of time. But then uh he had to take his girlfriend home and I had to take my girlfriend home and after that we kind-a . . .

We had to lay in bed and be quiet because his step-mom was getting up in the morning. And then me and couple of my buddies that were all spending the night were talking about random stuff throughout the rest of the night so it's . . . For me, it's stuff, my phone is not a focus while I'm interacting with other people face-toface.

Andrew: I am with my friends a lot and that is about 75% of the my time, that is primarily technology free, unless I am looking something up or someone needs me to text someone or something like that. So I do find that balance between real life and technology. I think most of my friends find that balance too. But I have some friends that get really wrapped up in their phones all the time and they are always on the phone. And that bugs me because it feels like they are not present in the moment for these experiences and the making of these memories or here for a conversation that we are having or there to listen to the song that we are all listening to together in the car . . . I feel most of them, most of my friends are like me and they understand that there is a limit for technology. But there are a couple who don't and that gets on my nerves sometimes.

Sandy (mom) validated these statements in the following: Sandy: But like over the summer, it was gosh probably six nights a week that they were all together at someone's house . . . They are at the house and you know the first day of school we all went out to dinner. They are more connected then I think he realizes they are.

148

The two younger boys (Mark and Alex) also spent time off technology.

Mark talked about times spent prior to his move to Spokane: I would go into town at Dunes with about a cell phone with 80% [power left] and then have it for 75% [seemed to be saying that he only used 5% of his battery when with his friends]. The rest of the time, we would walk around town for hours and hours and hours and hours. I would just use it to contact them. We would walk through the forest and scare the crap out of other people.

Linda made the comment that Mark was getting some non-technology time with peers through the school.

Linda: He is so busy with homework and school life. And now that he is involved in school. He is the new vice-president for freshman class, so he is involved in spirt and all the activities at school which he wouldn't be if he wasn't involved in leadership, being an officer . . . As much. That really helps you have a new community of people.

Conclusion Overall, the families expressed some impactful narratives about the way in which cell phones have changed communication with each other, expanded their own experiences and allowed for connections they might not have with others in their worlds.

Cell phones have become a necessity and the ways in which families communicate are impacted by the cell phones. Each member of the family and the family system as a whole seems to have incorporated cell phones into their everyday life.

149

Field Notes During the process of the interviews, memo writing was completed. Initially, this researcher wondered about the impact of the research and if this research subject was passÊ. It seemed when asked about technology use, there was not much explanation by the participants because it mainstream knowledge. However, as memo writing continued, the realization was this thought was more about the researcher’s own anxiety not about the subject matter.

In addition to these feelings, this researcher noted the nonverbal communication and the space that was filled by the mother and son pairs throughout the interview. It was apparent that these family groups were close, but I wondered if that connection extended to all other family members. Family humor, myths and anxieties were often expressed during the interviews.

Additional memos that were made included the type of family. Two of the families seemed to be more disorganized, which made this researcher question the type of family. Through memo writing, this researcher noted that the impact of being a family therapist made my worldview hone in on certain communication styles that while might benefit from therapy does not mean that they need therapy. When listening again to their interviews and reviewing them, this researcher realized that the narratives where more cohesive than originally thought. Their numbers from the surveys were also rechecked.

During the coding process, memo writing was used to help develop more imagination around the codes and allow this researcher to think outside of the boxes that needed to be checked. Initially MAXQDA was used to help with the process, but eventually this was translated into note cards that could be moved around and additional

150

notes could be written. This process helped eliminate some repetition and this writer was able to become embedded in the material. The richness of the data was explored through this process and allowed this researcher to sit with the material more thoughtfully.

Other areas that were journaled included this researcher’s thoughts about the parents. Common life experiences with this researcher were explored. This researcher is from the same generation as the parents, have had similar life experiences, and has a stepson that is a “native” of technology. Therefore, this researcher made the goal was to give as much space to the teenager and allow their half of the narrative to rise up and be heard, as “sum is greater than its parts.”

Summary In this explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the first part of the research included a survey of 45 families. The survey consisted of FACES-IV questionnaire plus additional questions around each participant use and emotional connection to their cell phones. The point of the FACES-IV was to help define the families as either balanced or unbalanced. Of the 92 individual participants, 82 identified as having a balanced family while 10 were considered unbalanced. Because of the small number of unbalanced families, chi square analysis could not be performed. The data however, provided descriptions of the sample and some insight into the ways in which families use and view their cell phones within the family.

Five balanced families from the survey were invited back for in-depth semistructured interview. These interviews lasted up to 120 minutes and compromised of at least a parent and teens. All participants were mother-son combinations.

151

The major codes developed from this second qualitative phase data included the following. The first theme was “The Phone is More than a Communication Device”. This theme introduced the family dyads and talked about the multiple ways that both parent and teen used their phone. These usages went well beyond a communication device.

Examples include calendar, gaming, watching television, and reading books. The second theme was “Meaning is Everything”. This theme noted the meaning placed on the phone.

The teens saw the phone as an extension of their voice, while the parents saw it as a tool.

However, to allow the family to function optimally, the phone was a necessity. The third theme was “We are Family.” This theme explored the relationships between family members and how they managed technology/cell phones to maintain connections throughout the day. This theme also explored the ways in which the family tried to limit or provide tech-free time. The fourth theme was around parents’ experiences. In “Parenting is a Toughest Job,” the parents explored how they monitor their children’s cell phone use, along with the fears that parents had around their teen’s technology use. The fifth theme, “Parents Traveling in a Foreign Land,” focused on the individual experiences of the parent. This category explored both the historical reflection of the parent’s teenage years, but also the current self exploration that was provided by their technological experiences. Finally, the adolescent’s individual experience was explored in the theme “Teen’s Wit and Wisdom.” The way that the adolescents managed both their on and offline lifestyles to develop social relationships was a major focus. These themes together provide a narrative around the lived experiences of the family, how cell phones have influenced the ways they have developed as families and individuals, along with how they communicate and stayed connected with each other.

152

Chapter 5

Findings and Implication

Cell phone communication has become a significant way in which families connect. Based on the results of this explanatory mixed methods study, the findings and implications will be discussed below. The primary question this research aimed to answer was how families use cell phones to communicate and the impact it has on the relationships between family members. The focus was on teens and their parents. Specific questions to be answered included the following: 1. How are cell phones used within the family?

2. What meaning is placed on the cell phone (both individually and as a family)?

3. How are the relationships within the family experienced and impacted?

4. How do cell phones influence the overall experiences of each member as a separate being?

5. What differences and similarities are there between both balanced and unbalanced families?

In addition, the final research question will also be explored: To what extent and in what ways do qualitative interviews with families serve to contribute to a more comprehensive

153

and nuanced understanding of the impact on the use of portable communication devices on the overall communication style of the family Below is a list of the five findings that emerged from the narrative data themes and the research question(s) which they relate. 

It’s the Norm: Most of the participants from the qualitative portion of the study were functioning in the balanced range. They had a “normal” amount of perceived cohesion and flexibility. This finding directly relates to the fifth research question, which could not be answered because there were not enough unbalanced families to compare the two groups.



Can I use a Lifeline?: The families use their cell phones as a primary source of communication. This finding relates to the research questions about use of the cell phone and meaning placed on the cell phone.



Growing Pains: Roles and relationships within the family seem to be impacted by the use of technology. This finding relates to the research questions about meaning and the experiences of individuals within the family and the family as a whole.



Can you hear me now? The participants differentiated between face-to-face communication and cell phone communication. Again, this relates to the research questions about the experiences of both the family and individual members.

Particular focus will be on the teenagers’ reality.



I am Woman, Hear me Roar: The parents, all mothers, in the qualitative portion of the study appeared to gain a sense of empowerment from their use of technology.

154

This finding relates to the experiences of the individual parents in the qualitative research.

The implications regarding each finding will be discussed within each finding. In addition, how the findings relate to the current knowledge and within the theoretical stance that was utilized in this study will be discussed.

It’s the Norm: Most of the families are within a healthy range of functioning in this research sample.

Of the participants that took the survey, 82 of the participants fell within the balanced range while 10 participants fell within the unbalanced range. A number of factors could potentially explain the overrepresentation of balanced families. First, both the parent and teenager were required to take the survey, as the family was the unit of measurement. Those families functioning in the unbalanced range of the scales were more likely to be dysfunctional (chaotic, rigid, enmeshed, or disorganized). Unbalanced families by definition have more anxious distress and may be experiencing more cutoffs or ruptures in their relationships that may have impacted more than one family member completing the survey. Sixteen surveys were filled out by the parent, but no matching adolescent survey was completed. This may have simply been because the adolescent did not want to fill out the survey, it may have been a way to create a “cut off� in Bowenian terms or a way for the adolescent to differentiate from the parent (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

Furthermore, multiple additional invitations were sent out to parents and were not returned. Without the returned survey from the parent, there is no consent for the child to participate in the survey, therefore, no subsequent adolescent surveys were sent out.

155

Therefore, it is unknown how many of these unreturned surveys would have contained unbalanced families. Second, the survey was done electronically. Sue & Ritter (2012) stated that electronic surveys, while reaching a larger array of people, also have the drawback of not having face-to-face communication with the researcher. This lack of personal knowledge of the researcher may make it easier for the participant to not take it.

Third, most survey that are on line do not require the extensive release process that a university study does. The first four pages of the parent’s survey were consents for both themselves and their underage teenager. This may have affected the rate of return for those parents functioning in a more disorganized way. Finally, the length of the survey.

While it took approximately 10 minutes to fill out once the participant got to the survey, this length of time was still more than your typical on line survey, which asks two or three questions.

From a theoretical standpoint, the majority of the participants in the study were balanced. This meant they had enough flexibility and cohesion in their family processes to manage any major issues or developmental challenges introduced into the family system. In Bowenian terms, this balance means that each family member has a healthy degree of wanting to be part of the family, while individuating and exploring characteristics that make each person unique and separate from the family. The family is able to explore both themselves and contribute to the family unit in ways that help the family evolve and productively function. The family is functioning as an emotionally healthy unit (Gilbert, 1992; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

While overall the sample was balanced, the other two FACES-IV scales (communication and satisfaction) yielded additional descriptive numbers. Sixty-four

156

percent of the participant felt at least moderately satisfied with their family, while 82% felt their communication was at least moderate. Moderate on both scales means that they are overall either satisfied with their family dynamic and functioning or felt they could communicate effectively with the family members. Generally, the parents and teens agreed with each other. See Table 5 and 6 for specific breakdowns.

Of other importance, is the breakdown of the families. Sixty-seven percent of the adolescents answering the survey were male. Seventy-nine percent of the parents identify as a mother figure when answering the survey. There could be a couple of reasons for this. First, mothers are often the emotional caretaker of the family and may have been interested in the research topic as they felt it might help them better understand their own parenting style and their child. Second, the sources that provided the most potential participants were also female heavy (MSW program, school newsletters, and community newsletters). There appeared to be little response from athletic groups. Finally, the sample for the survey may have had a snowball effect. The researcher asked the initial community partners to resend the approved introduction to their contacts a second time when the survey had to be kept open and interested participants stopped calling. The second time, a request to forward it to anyone else they might know that would be interested in participating was added. This may have increased the number of mothers because one mother may have forwarded to another. The male adolescent participants were also rather high. At times, the families identified other children in the family, but only one answered. This may be that only one teen fell into the inclusion criteria (age and have a cell phone they called their own) required or it may have been that was the child that was interested in the study. The boys may have felt less pressure about exploring cell

157

phone usage because they use gaming consoles more frequently as a connector with peers versus their female counterparts (Jiang & Anderson, 2018). Therefore, the phone and social media is not the only way they connect through technology and this may have made them more willing to participate in the study because they did not have as much to keep private from their parents. Furthermore, this dynamic might also be the reason why so many of the families were classified as balanced. More unbalanced parent-teen dyads might experience more tension in their day-to-day communication and decreased willingness to share their thoughts on a survey.

Because of the overall healthy functioning of the family taking the survey, the implication for the remaining findings are that the findings will cover an overall healthy functioning group of families that are more likely to be able to problem solve any ruptures in their relationships and remain attuned to each other needs. In essence, this provides only part of the narrative this research hoped to explore and only represents a fraction of those using cell phones. Therefore, results will be skewed to in this direction and the rest of the findings in this chapter will be based on the experiences and narratives of the balanced family. The research question around comparing both balanced and unbalanced families will be left unanswered.

Can I use a Lifeline? The families appear to use their cell phone devices to do much of their communication. However, the cell phone was not only used for communication and this impacted the meaning each generation placed on the device.

This finding directly relates to the research question about how families are using

158

their cell phones and the meaning that is placed on them. In the survey results, 92 out of 92 participants reported they texted with other family members. Ninety out of 92 participants used the telephone call function. These numbers where supported in the additional survey questions. No participants in the survey stated that they averaged zero texts per week between family members, while eight total participants reported averaging zero calls per week. Sixteen of the 92 participants reported more than 30 texts per week.

Twenty-nine out of the 92 participants ranked 1-10 texts per week, which was the most frequently chosen category. The majority (66%) of the survey participants reported one to five phone calls (30 parents and 31 teens) per week.

In the second qualitative portion of the research, the participants further supported this pattern. All the families in one version or another stated, “I think that I use text the most.” To use the call function, the conversation topic “call worthy” which meant that it either had to be “urgent” or “if we are driving.” Texting was the preferred choice of communication.

The finding from both quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the cell phone and texting has become an important part of the families’ communication and has become a frequent way of connecting family members. However, the use of cell phones and the meaning that is placed on it for each individual family member expands beyond the communication it provides. Family members use it for many ancillary functions, which in essence makes the cell phone more meaningful. It appeared from the interviews that the phones where used like a small computers and many of the parents and children used multiple other functions that provided support, entertainment, and internet access.

Parents reported using the scheduling function, internet shopping, entertainment (playing

159

games, surfing the web), educational support, Kindle or other e-reader functions, social media, streaming videos, using video chat, e-mailing, banking, running the house alarm, and GPS or navigation functions. The range of understanding of how to use each of these functions and comfort with it varied from parent to parent. It appeared those more connected to their phone used more functions. One more technologically savvy mom had an Apple watch. She could answer e-mail via the watch and reported that she used her phone “for everything.”

In addition to the communication functions previously talked about, the teens used their phones for educational support, connection with friends via social media, blogging, video streaming, video games, and internet access. The teens did not appear to differentiate between the cell phone, tablet, or computer. They drew parallels between similar functions on all three and used them interchangeably or sometimes together. The cell phone provided the most portable options, but as one young participant put it “I can watch Netflix, while playing Minecraft, while looking at Pixels to play in Minecraft, while also texting my friends. I had two monitors set up into one computer. So I had Netflix here and Minecraft . . . I was being productive.” These statements are supported by a recent Pew Research survey in which teen boys report playing more games on their phones than their female counterpart. Overall teens report that the top three apps used on their phones are YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat. This in part is because 95% of teens either have a smartphone or have access to one and 45% say they are on the internet “almost constantly” (Anderson & Jiang, 2018).

Parents had mixed emotions about their technology. When asked how they would feel if they lost their phone, three of the five parents reported they would feel “panic.” One

160

did not say why, one said for communication with a special needs son, and the other for the family schedule. Only one parent reported that her cell phone meant “everything” to her, while the other four depicted it as “a tool” that was helpful to their family and individual day to day functioning.

The teens on the other hand, attributed a deeper meaning to the telephone. It was seen as a social connector and the teens recognized that it gave them a “voice” or a “bigger voice” than they had without it. One teen stated he felt like the phone “was part of me,” while another reported that when he lost his phone he felt like “I had lost my voice.” In the ancillary survey questions, 49% of teenagers either generally agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am lost without my cell phone.” This seems low compared to the data collected in the qualitative stage of the research. It might be that the teens underrated or minimized their connection to the cell phone when they took the survey.

Three of the five teenage interview participants rated the question “I would be lost without my cell phone” as “generally disagree.” One of the five rated it as “undecided,” while the final boy rated it as “strongly agree.” However, when they began to talk about the cell phone in the interview portion of the study and explore it’s meaning more in depth, their feelings become more well defined and the object’s value was more pronounced, along with their connection to it. The value of qualitative research is that constructs can be explored in a deeper way.

This pattern of responding was also seen in the parent’s answer to the same survey question with 37.5% of parents either agreeing or strongly agreeing that they would be lost without their cell phone. Of the five mothers in the interview portion, two “generally disagreed,” one was “undecided,” one “generally agreed,” and one “strongly agreed” to

161

the survey question “I would be lost without my cell phone.” Therefore, the parents’ numbers could be more accurate, as the parents did not have as strong an emotional connection to the cell phone in the qualitative data.

While individually, the parents and teens placed different meanings on the phone, the family as a unit reported that they “would be screwed” without their cell phones. One parent stated that she felt “our lives are so difficult, and the ways in which we have to manage our lives, we need to have cell phones and technology.” Other family members’ comments included they felt the cell phone helped them “plan,” “have proof of a conversation,” or simply “communicate in the house.” The cell phone also provided a bridge for more problematic communications between teenagers and parents. One mother reflected that her son will often state, ““Don’t talk to me. I don’t want to talk,” but you will text.” Another stated that “I will text because I don’t want to get yelled at when I knock on the door.” At times it appeared easier for the parent and teen to use technology to get their needs met versus doing it in person.

One implication is that cell phone communication is being substituted for in person connections between family members. Because family life is often very busy, the connections and scheduling that can happen via the cell phone can make relationships feel cohesive and close, but some of the underlying needed face-to-face time and nonverbal experiences may get missed. Turkle (2015) implied that our society has lost the ability to have long conversations which in turn decreases the expectation of intimacy and attention to emotional content. Without the face-to-face connection, empathy and the ability to introspectively connect with others most likely is negatively impacted.

Early learning and attachment is based on the nonverbal experiences of infants and

162

their caregivers, which lays the groundwork for later relational experiences. However, one has to wonder if this early positive attachment is enough to overcome communication that is primarily based on the phone as the person ages. While it is developmentally appropriate for the teenagers to engage his or her social environment more, some selfobject needs are still met through contact with the parent. The way the families depicted their stories in this sample made it appear as if individuals within the family lived separate lives and while face-to-face conversation was enjoyable, many depended on the cell phone as the major way to communicate. In fact, many of them expressed concerns about the emotional alienation that their family’s experienced and they felt the cell phone was a contributing factor. One mother expressed “cell phones make a family quieter and meaner.” Since Atwood and Stolorow (1984) define the self as the “structure of a person’s experience of himself” (p. 34), continued disconnection from the family may have a lasting effect on the overall experiences of both the individuals within the family and the shared introspective space they create. When empathy and attunement is supported in early relationship, secure attachment and early affective understand is developed in the young child. However, continued affective connections need to be provided to support the self/selfobject experience. The aspect of being known and cared about on a deep level is most likely impacted when the primary form of communication is through the cell phone. An emotional distance could be fostered which could lead to loneliness and feelings of alienation from others (Lessem, 2005; Palombo, 2008; Socarides & Stolorow, 1984).

This emotional distance could promote untended repercussions for society, such as increased problems with mental health. While people may feel more loneliness,

163

alienation from others, and depressed in this “always on” society, they may also deny these feelings because they have a consistent feedback loop through the telephone.

However, empathic failures could increase and this in turn could lead to more use of defenses, lower self-esteem, and more likelihood of symptom formation or fragmentation of the self. There could be an increase in anxiety within relationships because people feel less known or deeply cared about. Current suicide rates support this idea. Since 1999 completed suicide has increased in almost every state, with half the states having more than a 30% increase in suicides. Many people that complete suicides have no formal mental health diagnosis, but it is one of the top causes of death in America. While the teenager reported many positive aspects of social media, 45% reported feeling “overwhelmed by all the drama” and 26% reported feeling “worse about their own life” (Jiang & Anderson, 2018, p. 6). Therefore, for some of the more vulnerable youth, cell phones and social media may be a contributing factor to increased mental health and disconnections from others (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018; Lessem, 2005).

Because the cell phone is a constant line of communication for many of the teens, there may be repercussion on the development of self. One wonders if there is enough space within relationships to allow for optimal frustration and eventual integration of selfobject functions. Instead of feeling uncomfortable in a situation and then learn to self soothe, the teen with a cell phone can reach out for affirmation from literally a world of other people. The balance between self soothing or reliance on one’s internal strength and reliance on others may not be optimally met. While seeking peer approval is a normal part of adolescent identity development, ceaseless phone and internet access, affirmation

164

can come from many different venues or people. If anxiety or inadequacy becomes a focal point of the adolescent’s identity, fantasy or distractions from the internet could prevent the teen from integrating selfobject functions during this developmental stage, especially for those that might have had earlier disruptions in their developmental processes. This could easily lead to impulsive or harmful behaviors that could have a lasting impact on the teen. The other piece of this process is that cell phones, while allowing access to other people, are still machines and cannot replicate the touch, feel, and nonverbal engagement of a face-to-face experience or the deeper level of feeling known by a loved one. Furthermore, value clarification might be disrupted because the affirmation that they might seek may be skewed because of the sites they visit (e.g. selfmutilation positive websites) or social pressure that feel overwhelming.

In this sample, the teenagers came from balanced families, but the teens reflected on the process of trying to keep their cell phone communication and use balanced and the struggles they experienced. One teen expressed “You know everyone is always talking about everything and it is hard to find your own voice in the group collective voice and I think that's one thing that I struggle with.” Another teen stated, “Yeah, I think that the cons is the social awareness of like so-and-so is better than me because they have this many followers or so-and-so is not going to like me because they got this many likes on their picture or whatever.” While both of these statements seem very typical of the adolescent struggle, allowing time to individually process away from the “group collective” could be problematic for some teens. The added pressure of being connected to social media and having the phone always on could potentially create additional stress on the adolescent and there may be a decreased understanding of their emotional self.

165

The phone provides the teen a voice or person on the other end, but the teen may be less emotionally aware, which may reduce the teen’s ability to emotionally grow. As one teen stated “I think as a generation, we are kind of basing our communication less around speaking and that kind of thing even over the phone. It is more going to be a text or a Snapchat or whatever and it is super easy not to respond all together.”

Turkle (2015) and Boyd (2014) each talked about how these connections have both pros and cons for the networked youth; Turkle focused on the loss of conversational skills, ability to empathize with others and the ability to self-soothe, while Boyd looked at the ability for additional connections to be made after an event or when friends where not there. Therefore, the dynamic that is set up for teens is complicated. However, it was a theme in this sample. The teens put meaning on their cell phones, both as an object that is an extension of his or her self, but also a tool that is essential to their social wellbeing.

Another implication is the cell phone may become an extension of the self for the teenager. Many of the teens linked their cell phone with their “voice” or as “part of me.”

This level of integration could be transient to the age or it could become more symptomatic as the teen grows. As noted before, this group of teenagers came from balanced families; therefore, it seemed that they were using the phone to help them develop. In a healthier scenario, the cell phone may also act as a symbolic object to help teenager through this developmental stage. Atwood and Stolorow (1984) acknowledge the concept of concretization of symbolic events, dreams, emotions, and things. They expanded Winnicott’s transitional object as a way to help people make meaning of their unconscious and integrate these pieces into their self. Those teens that place more importance on the phone and make it an extension of themselves may be an example of

166

this process. The cell phone could become the transitional object needed to help them integrate and process their social environment since they feel they have voice through social media, texting, and blogs. The cell phone utilized in this way could help them to experience themselves in the broader community. As one teenager stated: I think the pros is that I mean it is kind-a cool to see what everyone is doing and interacting with everyone even if it's on such a basic level like "Oh you liked my picture." I think it is kind-a cool to see like when people travel to where ever they go, you know, and they are like a six-hour plane ride away and it's like well you don't even have, like some years back you don't even have phone. (laughs). You could die and not know for however many days. Um, but now it's like, it cool ‘cause I can see "Oh, my friend Kate just went to um Guatemala� I think. And she posted about that and those photos and so it was kind-a cool because you could see "Oh wow, Kate went to Guatemala." You experience that with her.

Through the phone they also can express opinions and develop a clarity around their value system. Another older teen reported: It is kind-a that individualization and you can form your own opinions and it is a really good tool for friendly arguments as well. You can go into a controversial article and go down to the comment section and you see these people that discuss opinions and stuff. You can go there and you can type out your opinion and get two hundred responses of what other people either agree or disagree and why they disagree. You are learning about other people as well even people that don't. . . people you will never meet.

167

This teen seemed to be using the cell phone to help him develop his identity and allowed him “the voice” to communicate his opinion. Many of the teenagers put an emphasis on how much they used their phones and acknowledge the necessity for cell phones as an inclusion process socially. While not supported in this group, one would wonder about the implications of the cell phone becoming an unhealthy narcissistic extension of self especially if they become dependent on affirmation from posts, blogs or likes. This topic would be a subject for future research, but with the theme of the cell phone taking on a deeper meaning, this potential could be there.

From the data provided in this finding, one implication is that cell phones have become an essential part of the family functioning. Baym (2015) and Tapcott (1999) laid out the theory that as some advances in technology become prolific, they are integrated into the fabric of the society and instead of being unique or something novel, the item becomes a needed versus wanted object. Cell phones have become this way. The families did not expand on how they used their cell phones because it was “common knowledge” and they treated the cell phone much like a refrigerator or running water. One teenager reflected on the generational differences in the following: “I think it would be nice for everyone to just lose technology for a bit . . . Like there is a week out of the year that no one has any access to the internet and they shut off everything. You have to come back to the real world for a week and everyone is participating. It is not the same if one person is doing it . . . Everyone has to commit to it.” For example, in the community, there are few to no telephone booths anymore, people are expected to have their own phone; many families do not have land lines. The age of first cell phone ownership has continued to

168

drop and to be socially included the cell phone appears to have become a need not a want.

The power that comes with the cell phone will most likely only increase, but to stay connected in our society it appears that cell phones are essential (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Jiang & Anderson, 2018; Kennedy et al., 2008).

Overall, the family uses their cell phone to communicate much of the time.

However, the meaning that is placed on the cell phone is important. While the teens seem to use it as an extension of the self, the parents depend on their phones as tool to help manage their families’ life. The role of the cell phone in communication within the family is paramount and the cell phone has become a necessity for the family to function fluidly, along with providing cohesion and maintenance of each of its members both within the family unit and socially outside of the family unit. Monitoring time on the phone and making a space off the phone for deeper connections will be areas that families and society will continue to need to struggle with to find the optimal balance for mental health and sustainable relationships in the future. Parents can take the first step by continuing to provide a shared intimate space that promotes personal intimacy. With this emphasis the phone has positive aspects for the developing, differentiating adolescent.

Growing Pains: Roles and relationship within the family seem to be impacted by the use of technology.

As noted in the previous finding, cell phones and in particular texting have become a core component in family communication. The phone also provides many additional functions that are convenient for the family unit. The phone also has changed the way the family relates and the roles they have within their relationships. This finding

169

will explore the third research question about how the families experience and are impacted by cell phone technology. A few major themes will be explored along with the implications. First, like every generation, there is a generational gap, in which parents experience some portion of their child’s lives as different. This often leads to reminiscence of the adult’s experience as a teenager. The process seems to allow the families to grow and promotes a deeper level of knowing between parent and teen.

However, the cell phone also proved to be an area where the teens, at times, had more knowledge of the technology than their parents. This in turn offered an area for developmental growth. Second, at the same time new technology also creates fears for the parents, in particular around the impact it will have on their children. The fear changes the way they think about parenting and how they parent. Third, the families in the second phase of the study reported disconnections within the family system that were unexpected. This reconfiguration of family dynamics and roles will be explored as it may be linked to the cell phone. The cell phone seemed to provide a way for families to live with each other while limiting their face-to-face communication. Finally, even with what appears to be more limited communication face-to-face, the families found creative ways to establish connections that are more technologically based. Certain dyads, like the mother-son dyads that came in for the interview appeared to be attuned to each other.

While it is common for teens and parents to experience a generational gap, the fast-paced implementation of technology has put this generation of teens and parents at a disadvantage. While the parents may have experienced cell phones in their college years, they most likely had limited access to smart phones. Even before smart phones were an accessible item, Tapscott (1999) talked about the challenges of being either an immigrant

170

(parents) or native (teens) to communication technology and the internet age. This generation fits this description and are unique because the immigrants are raising the natives. Through the second qualitative portion of the study, the parents reflected on how it was “different from when we were growing up.” This reminiscence seemed to be a way for the parents to express themselves and explore the changes that have occurred over their lifetime, while also providing their teenagers with an alternative narrative of cell phones. From “three way calling” to “a 25 foot coiled cord,” the mother expressed some positive memories, but while it seemed to bridge the generational gap, it also may have been a way for them to feel more known by their sons. However, the parents also acknowledged the positive aspects of their children having cell phones. One mother expressed, “I was lost for three or four hours and no one stopped to help. That would never happen to my children.”

From an intersubjective standpoint, the creation of a narrative allows the dyad to know each other in a more intimate manner. Because the research was focused on cell phones, the parents seemed to use the interview as a way to introduce a different perspective that might add to the family narrative, thus providing additional individualized themes that help them become more cohesive as a family unit and keep the family in a homeostatic environment. The parent’s remembering how they experienced a relatively technologically free childhood may have helped them make sense of their own fears around technology and the added difficulties they had with parenting their sons.

This reflective process may be one reason why the families were in the balanced range on the survey portion, as they were able to effectively communicate their own experiences

171

which were separate from the family experience, but at the same time made it meaningful for the family overall (Gilbert, 2004; Shaddock, 1997).

Because of this fast-paced integration of technology and in particular cell phone technology, unexpected relational dynamics that were not anticipate when the parents started having children have developed. Many teenagers are getting their first phones in the preadolescent years, which opens up another area of contention between teen and parent. While the pre-teen should be de-idealizing his parent, the cell phone may be one area that this happens due to the split in knowledge base between generations. However, as Palombo (1988) and others have noted the parent that is more cohesive, will likely be able to find some humor in the process. The parents seemed to do this through reflection on their history and told some humorous stories of what they had experienced as parents.

Furthermore, the teenager may use social media venues such as Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook to help them feel more omnipotent. The process may be a modern way to help the teens further integrate selfobject functions. Overall, the parents in this research seemed to support this developmental process, which in turn allowed both parent and teen to start developing a deeper understanding of each other and continue to connect within their relationship. For example, one parent called herself a “Luddite” and would only use “Facebook Messenger and texting” as a way to communicate with her sons, while another son proudly noted “I feel like I understand technology the most probably out of anyone in the house.” The affective experiences allowed the family to maintain emotional stability and at times it appeared the shared space created a positive experience for both parent and child (Shaddock, 1997; Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993; Palombo, 1988; Schave & Schave, 1989).

172

The parenting role when children become adolescents is tough and often unpredictable even without cell phone technology. The expansion of the parenting role into monitoring a global community and the challenges that are associated with the unknown was a focal point for many of the parents. All five parents expressed that they struggled with the content that their kids were exposed too, the amount of time spent on the phone and also the lack of control they felt around their ability to parent with so many outside influences and easy access to information. One parent summed up the problem in her statement, “I don’t want him to see the stuff that is happening out there, but it is all over and my kids are not protected.” This parallels recent research done by Pew Research Institute. Sixty-five percent of parents worried about the amount of time their teens spent on the internet (Jiang, 2018). With the knowledge of the time spent on the internet, all five parents reported that they “pick my battles,” because “it [cell phone technology/internet] is bigger and smaller than anything I can control.”

Another set of fears focused around the teen’s ability to communicate effectively and resolve problems. One mother wondered why her son did not “call your friend and talk to your friend” versus letting the conflict “happen on Facebook.” This seemed to blend into fears of teens being able to develop intimacy in relationships and fears around learning to be “responsible for what they say” and that the teens “don’t realize that they can keep stuff in their head” when given the social media platforms. The person that each of these kids are taking on is not in their physical proximity and they do not have the intimacy of the nonverbal reactions that would come with saying those words to someone in person. Other concerns seem to focus on the ability for their teens to have “an outlet to escape,” “just get bored,” or “have a moment of inner reflection.” This seemed to equate

173

to the teen’s ability to individuate and form their own separate thought processes. One mother summed up the underlying parenting issues when she stated, “I am constantly trying to argue with the cell phone for who gets control of that lesson. And sometimes I feel like I am losing.”

The fears coupled with the lack of ability to control what the teens are exposed too creates a new way of relating and how the family has to function. Bowen speaks to this process in his theory. While he talked about the ways in which generations impacted each other, he also noted that social changes were cyclic and that increased community disconnection or chaos was a possibility. He hypothesized that when there are shifts in the social milieu, this in turn can lead to discontent among the society’s citizens and ultimately the society as a whole will become regressive, much like the family unit. This regression could manifest itself in increased crime rates, increased rates of suicide, and lack of clear and cohesive leadership. He also hypothesized that technology could have a negative impact on this process. Because the social structure is systemically stressed, this in turn stresses the smaller units that make up the society, the family. The family may not have as much generational support due to nuclear family moves, have two working parents, and have increased divorce rates that also become cyclic bringing additional energy and stress into the large social networks. The larger social system also influences both the family and individual subjective experiences and affective regulations (Gilbert, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

The families in this study appeared to use technology to maintain their family relationships, but it also appeared that they often had little time for face-to-face communication. In addition, the parents expressed their concerns about how their

174

children do not get a break from the stressors of the social world. In Bowen’s terms this negatively feeds the loop back into the larger social structure. With the worldwide access that the internet allows, each individual family member has not just a local community or a larger country they are connected too, but multiple worlds that they can explore.

Furthermore, Bowen points to the mixed messages that are often given to the parent about their role in any psychopathology that develops and how this will in turn make the parent back away from some of their parenting responsibilities. The child is then left to try to take control over their own feelings and are exposed to having to become a “leader” in the family well before they are developmentally ready. This cycle increases anxiety within the family unit and the child. While this sample’s families were balanced and the fears of the parents seem reasonable, the social phenomena on the development of children is an overall concern (Gilbert, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

The families however may have been able to compensate for this deficit in the larger social milieu through the space that each of these parents developed with their children. Each of these families also tried to provide time that was “technology free.”

These events included some small acts of togetherness that were thoughtfully placed.

Examples include time making dinner together, sitting down for part of a meal, a ride to school, or other acts that provided a connected empathetic experience. However, it appears that these events were most likely built upon earlier cell phone free attachment that was most likely secure. In addition, it appeared that the parent’s willingness to reflect on social change allowed both a way for them to make meaning of the current social environment and alleviate some of that stress for their teens. It opened up a space for the

175

parent to become more creative and look for ways to maintain the functioning of the family unit. An implication of this finding is that parents should be mindful of the time spent on the cell phone and also put more emphasis on technologically free time that will provide a milieu for the teen to emotionally regulate and feel fully known by another so that they can develop healthy internal structures (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984; Beebe & Lachmann, 2002).

Within this sample, there also seemed to be a balance between the parent’s fears around internet and telephone exposure with the teenager’s awareness of the public nature and risks associated with posting on internet sites. One teen expressed that he “signed my own consent” when it came to what he posted on social media. The teens and parents appeared to be able to come to a shared narrative around these issues, which would seemingly support a more flexible family dynamic. This shared understanding and the empathy that appeared to exist between the parent and teen was observed in their nonverbal language, but also in the level of vulnerability and comfort in what they expressed during the interview process. All of the teens reported that they had close relationships with their mothers. She was the teen’s “go to person” and “it is not weird at all to talk to her face-to-face.” The mothers in this study provided the affective attunement that was needed both via telephone and in person from a family member.

Reciprocal openness was present in the mother-son dyads. The mother shared “news articles,” “follow pages on Facebook,” and use apps to provide a play space and increase communication with their sons. The mothers seemed to make a conscious effort to incorporate technology into the family narrative as a way to provide another shared

176

space that they could attach, provide empathy, communicate and play. The teens appeared to appreciate and respond positively to this engagement and it appeared to allow the family to maintain a homeostatic balance.

This flexibility within the family unit allows the family to maintain their emotional connections and maintain the needed selfobject functions. The family is experiencing new developmental growth and for the adolescent, this period is a time when they are reassessing their past experiences through their current experiences. The concrete selfobject functions that were provided by the parents in earlier developmental stages are much more symbolic. The use of a narrative or this type of sharing around the telephone/technology could be an important symbolic way of the parents to continue to support the adolescent’s needs, but at the same time allowing the adolescent to continue to develop a cohesive sense of self that is become their own, separate from their parents.

Furthermore, these teenagers noted that their mothers were their primary attachment figure and they continue to be able to utilize them when needed in person. This would indicate that while there might be fearfulness on the parent’s part around what their teens are subjected to, they are also allowing a more distant stance so that their teens can continue to experience transmuting internalization at this developmental stage (Palombo, 2008).

Furthermore, the connections through Facetime or other video chat also made these relationships more intimate when one family member was away from home. One mother has 50% custody of her children, while another traveled extensively for work.

Both reported that they used Facetime or video chat to stay in contact with their children.

The first to help provide support if the child needed it while at his fathers, and the second

177

was to maintain contact when on the road (“talked most evenings”) when away. The technology allowed for the dyads to have nonverbal communication as part of the conversation and maintain the attachment, along with meet selfobject needs while physically distant.

An implication of this reciprocal, open process is that the parents can use the technology as a way to support their teens. If used in conjunction with the face-to-face communication, the parent can provide daily attachment (i.e. the good morning ritual on Snapchat of the mother-son pair) or open more depth oriented conversation that may in turn allow the teen to present his or her thoughts while the parent is able to provide support if they feel it is needed. One parent reflected a positive aspect of technology when she stated, “I think that goes back to parenting—that is one thing that I get a better view of his perceptive on life and I can be a little bit in his world, without being in his world—inappropriately.”

This process may also be a way for the mother-son dyad to continue to share the closeness they developmentally, appropriately shared in the son’s younger years. The distant between mother and son that is usually expected in the teenage years may be diminished by the use of cell phones. The sons can still reach out to their mothers and share information or ideas without being face-to-face. The mothers in return can both send loving messages, but also do some of the more uncomfortable parenting through the cell phone. One parent had particular insight into this process as she described aspects of parenting her adolescent sons.

Often times if something comes up with one of the kids and this is when you know it is easier to text them then sit down. You know this weekend

178

um, my middle son, he was driving and we thought that maybe that he was driving . . . He is in that six month--he is not supposed to have passengers yet. And so we suspected that maybe he had gone off that for an hour and it was just really easy to text him right away and say "Hey I just found out that maybe you were driving and maybe you shouldn't have been with certain passengers. You know what is going on. This is disappointing for me to hear. This is your text and I’m giving you a chance to explain it."

Um, I think for him, like for me to say we have to talk about something, like that would instantly get his heart rate up, but for him to read the text, "Oh, no mom I was in the gated community and I just ran up to my friends to grab a phone charger." So I feel sometimes the texting allows me to kind-a hit the head and it's easier than having that conversation.

Because the family unit was considered a dyad in this research, these findings hold true for the two people in the interview and as noted earlier the sons all identified their mothers as the “go to” parent in the family. Because of the cell phone, the data also pointed to potential fractures in other relationships within the family. One parent report “their Dad and I separated about eight years ago, but . . . both are still in the [same] house.” Another parent noted that cell phones had “turned a family home into a society where everyone is bumping into each other, where we are co-existing. There is an extreme lack of intimacy.” Another family described a split between mother-son and father-daughter dyads and described it as “two separate entities.” Still another family described the relationship between stepfather and stepson maintained through the cell

179

phone and texting. It seemed as if the families were able to maintain close physical proximity while having a significant rupture in at least one of the relationships.

All of these families were considered balanced from the survey portion, but again the data was only collected from the dyad. These families have been able to manage their anxiety and have developed an understanding of each other needs, but there appeared to be significant cutoffs that where maintained between family members. The cell phone and ability to communicate without physical proximity may alleviate the expected anxiety within the family unit. One would wonder about how differentiated the individual units were within the family. As one of the teenagers noted, “there is not as much fighting” when discussing the pros of cell phone communication (Gilbert, 2004).

This disruptive process appeared to be in many of these “healthy” families, which appeared to make them present as fractured. As noted by one mother, “It is like two families living under the same house.” Other dyads reported that the parent that was not present was often a high user of technology which contributed to disruptions in the family unit’s functioning. It seemed that when the spouses are engaged in less expected emotional and physical intimacy, they can maintain in the same household. Bowen’s theory would suggest that anxiety would be foreseeable and present over time as pathological. However, these families have been able to maintain a sense of cohesion and flexibility. It seemed that the phone was used to mediate some of the anxiety experienced by family members. While they may not feel satisfaction in their family relationships, they were able to complete familial tasks that kept them physically together. The cell phone kept anxiety provoking experiences distant enough to decrease the chaotic nature

180

of the family, without making the family disconnection completely (Gilbert, 1992; Gilbert, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988) Three of the five families in the second phase had “very low” ratings on the family satisfaction scale of the FACES-IV; all three families described some of the aforementioned disconnection. “Very low” means that the family members are “very dissatisfied and have some concerns about their family” (Olson, 2010, p. 16). Therefore, while the system as a whole is functioning within the balanced range, the individuals within the system may not be getting their needs met. The cell phone may mask some of the underlying defenses and in fact support use of these defenses on a more individualized basis. Bowen’s concept of differentiation of self may play a role in understanding this phenomenon. The parents appeared to have a significantly differentiated self with a high degree of basic self, which seemed to buffer the anxiety that would be expected between triangles. The family seemed to be able to keep this anxiety in check because they were able to communicate through their cell phones and did not require direct contact. However, the system as a whole still maintains a balanced function because they can come together in a way that is not direct but still supportive (Gilbert, 2004; Kerr & Bowen, 1988).

While it appeared that the family’s executive system was stressed and satisfaction was low, Elson (1986) suggested that parents get some of their selfobject needs met through parenting and watching their child grow and develop in healthy ways. This was a theme within the parents’ narratives. They described their kids as “good humans,” “responsible,” “trust him,” and “trustworthy.” The parents stated that they felt overall they knew what their kids did on the cell phone and they felt like they could trust them to

181

come and talk to them if they had problems. These relationships appeared to be solid and had an intersubjective space that allowed for shared positive experiences that helped both parents and kid to continue to feel emotionally connected.

Even though there seemed to be enough support within different dyads to maintain a sense of family unity, an implication could be that the underlying disconnection could lead to less empathy between family members. Atwood & Stolorow (1984) addressed the development of pathogenesis when a selfobject need goes unmet developmentally. While it would be optimal for the teen to have both parents providing selfobject functions, the one parent that came with the teen seemed to be meeting the adolescences needs more frequently and often not in unison with the other parent.

However, it leads one to wonder how the selfobject needs within the spousal relationship are being met and what part of the individual family member’s experiences are disavowed. In turn, since each developmental stage opens up the child for more complex intersubjective fields, one wonders if some of the fears that the parents initially had around communication are not only because of cell phone technology, but also the dynamics that are set up within the families. However, there is also the possibility that the one parent providing significant support and selfobject functions is enough to further the adolescent’s developmental progress.

The disconnection between different family members may explain the wide range of answers on the ancillary survey question. For example, on question number three, “I think my cell phone provides a way to communicate my feelings to my family,” 15% of parents and 24% of adolescents rated this question as undecided. The ratings were also high for generally agree (parents at 38.3% and teens at 28.9%) and generally disagree

182

(parents at 31.9% and teens at 28.9%). The scores could be skewed as each individual may have some family members they feel they can express emotions to, while others they cannot. Second, it could have been because the families use multiple apps on their phone and they may have thought it was texting or phone calls only. Finally, the other possibility is that the families provide enough in-person talks that allow for the heavier important emotional content to be processed. However, only 4% of both the parent and teen groups strongly agreed with the statement.

One thing is clear, family have continued to evolve and cell phones in part have impacted that. The families appear to still maintain a closeness and developmentally supportive place for the adolescent to develop, but they also appear to be less cohesive and much more flexible in their day-to-day functioning. The amount of anxiety that is within the system may not have increased, but is channeled into technology versus dress, music or other generational issues. The families in this survey appeared to try to find a balance between technology and face-to-face communication and older traditions (e.g. dinner around the table) with new traditions (e.g. Snapchatting “Good morning�). The parents also appeared to have the ability to both express their fears, but also manage them successfully, which in turn allowed the adolescent a healthy arena to explore their independence but also feel supported when the teen needed it. Secure early childhood experience coupled with this continued support may be the protective factor.

Can you hear me now?: The participants seemed to differentiate between face-to-face contact and cell phone/technology contact.

This finding speaks directly to the adolescents’ experience with cell phone

183

technology which was research question four. All of the teens acknowledge that technology is an important part of their social environment and they need it to function at the most optimal level (e.g. Snapchat, chat rooms in video games, Instagram or Facebook). They use the internet and the cell phone to maintain their relationships, plan time with friends and stay connected even when the friends are not in town. However, the boys also discussed the importance of maintaining relationships without the cell phone. It seemed that as the boys aged, they were more apt to acknowledge the importance of faceto-face communication. While the younger boys in the study, spoke less about face-toface connections, they still reported how it was important in maintaining their peer relationships. This may be in part because of early attachment experiences that were stable and supported a secure attachment. Furthermore, the families in study did put an emphasis on how they made time to have face-to-face conversations. It could be making time for dinner together, a “car ride from school,� or the parent providing time when the teens open up basic conversations that can build into conversations that are more intimate.

Early attachment researchers, such as Meltzoof, Trevarthen, and Stern suggest that intersubjectivity starts early in life and the mind is dialogic versus monological. The need for humans to have others is an important developmental process that helps shape cultural experiences from language to traditions, both as a family and as a society.

Because infants develop this subjectivity primarily through the reaction to and imitation of their parents (oftentimes in nonverbal expressions), an early emphasis on nontechnologically embedded experiences could provide a protective factor that allows the child/teen to continue a healthy developmental trajectory when it comes to other

184

seeking behaviors. Early experiences shape the way that the infant will communicate throughout life and the way people interpret their intersubjective experiences as they grow (Beebe, Rustin, Sorter, & Knoblauch, 2003). A purposefully nontechnological stance during a child’s early development may have important implications for later development. There is the possibility that with early purposeful time spent in a technology free environment, along with some emphasis on this time as the teenager begins to use the phone, it may provide an environment that promotes face-to-face communication and furthers healthy development.

However, parents also have to maintain this stance and limit the time they spend on technology, as the relationship is interdependent. The observational study Radesky et al. (2014) completed seems to support this ideal. The researchers noted that the young children would become more animated and attention seeking when their parent’s attention was focused on electronic devices. The research group felt that the children appeared to be trying to garner parent’s attention away from the devices the parents were using. This lack of acknowledgement and attunement done consistently over time could produce a dramatically different result than what was seen within the families in this research. The time spent early on and the emphasis placed on development of the mirroring selfobject needs helped the teens later develop the necessary self-esteem and internal resources to limit potential fragmentation. The families seemed to have placed importance on the maintenance of their continued relationships which seemed to help the teen develop increased independence and self-confidence (Elson, 1986; Kohut, 1971; Lessem, 2005).

185

While the adolescents in this study expressed feeling their phones were an extension of themselves, it seemed surprising that they would put emphasis on their faceto-face connections with peers. However, this group did. It may be due in part to their developmental stage. A. Freud (1958) reflected on the inconsistencies of the normal adolescent and their development and paradoxical engagement strategies. For example, the teen that is embarrassed by their parents, but also wants heart to heart conversations with them. This paradox seems to hold true for teen’s relationship with their cell phones.

The older adolescents had narratives that reflected the importance of technologically free engagement with their friends. One teen summed up his experience as “We don't usually end up using the phone a ton when, at least I don't, when I'm hanging out with other people.” One younger teen express “I don’t get to touch the people on the cell phone . . .

I prefer physical contact when I am talking.” It seemed the more importance the family put on face-to-face communication along with cell phone free time and areas, the more often a narrative emerged in the teen interview that followed the same theme.

The emphasis on this face-to-face communication is also important in maintaining the twinship selfobject needs. While social media and other technology-oriented venues associated with the cell phone could help augment this process, in the teen’s development the feeling of closeness and likeness with another group required the intimacy face-toface connection provided. As one of the teens said he was “bugged” when friends “get wrapped up in their phones” because they did not feel “present.” To have this presence and meet the twinship selfobject needs, the teens have to be together and attuned.

However, the phone is an important part of this inclusion process both as a tool to reach out or plan events, but also as an extension of face-to-face time through shared posts or

186

pictures of the events on social media. These combined experiences appear to allow the teen to develop a sense of self separate from the family and cell phone is intricate in feeling this twinship (Lessem, 2005).

Turkle (2015) expressed that she felt there needed to be more time for conversations, especially with the younger generation. However, in this small sample, it appeared that the young people were worried about having peer connections outside of electronics and took steps to monitor the time spent on the phone. At least three of the five teens had apps that tracked the amount of time they spent on the phone and they used this to help monitor their use and stop them from “getting wrapped up in it. Technology can take a lot of your time really quickly.”

While there might be multiple contributing factors that are associated with this trend, it seemed that the older the teen, the more likely they were to put down their phone and engage separately from it. As noted earlier they all admit the necessity of having a cell phone, but they also understood the burden it entailed. It may be that the cell phones have lost some of the “luster” that it had when they first got it. Furthermore, the adolescents expressed concern over their personal use of technology and their subsequent monitoring of it, which surprised their parents. Most of the teens wanted to make sure that they remained productive and task oriented versus spending an extended amount of time playing games or posting on the internet. This trend would possibly indicate that the teens were moving towards a more mature stance on what the cell phone’s meaning; it was becoming a useful tool.

The parental group was not as apt to use monitors or control the amount of time they spent on technology. Only one mother stated, “I use an app that actually shuts down

187

my phone and one that shuts down my computer, so I can't use other apps except Word.”

This seemed to translate to the sons’ concerns about their parent’s use of technology. One teen reflected on the hypocrisy of his father around the use of cell phone and technology.

He stated, “I said if you think the older generation is so much better, live by it . . . He is almost always on his phone.” Other teens reflect on parent’s use of “Candy Crush,” or that “He [Dad] is not socializing” due to their technology use.

The ability to monitor use could be a positive implication of growing up digital.

These teens were concerned about the amount of time they spent on technology, which could equate to being less likely to overuse technology. The concern of overuse seems to be in line with recent research done by Pew. Fifty-four percent of teens expressed that they spend too much time on their cell phones and 52% say that they have cut back on the time spent on their phones (Jiang, 2018).

Furthermore, the pattern of monitoring the cell phone use seems to be a deviation from what the older generation is doing. The parents reported very little monitoring of their phone or technology use. This in turn may create a false sense of parents providing time that is technological free. The cell phone is not the novelty for the younger generation that it is for the older generation and because the teens are learning to manage it early on and have support to do so, the teens seemed to be more responsible with the use of technology. Finally, the younger generation, having grown up with technology, may have become more accustom to the cellphone and in turn more worried about the potential side effects of too much use.

While the younger generation is often depicted as “always on,” the teenage participants in this study displayed a balance between using the cell phone as a tool and

188

developing intimate relationships with others separate from their phone. The adolescence search for an other illustrates the dialogic mind and the development of more intrinsic intersubjectivity; the adolescent continues to seek out selfobjects that provide not just electronic support, but continued face-to-face support. These young adults appear to be more in line with the early research in regard to using social media to augment or elongate face-to-face time. Examples include using Facebook to post pictures of shared events or to spend time after an event playing games and chatting on-line. Furthermore, the teens in this study continue to support past research that stated the more versatility that a teen had in communication the more socially connected he felt, thus this contributed to a feeling of having higher levels of satisfaction in his/her social experiences (Baiocco et al., 2013; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Furthermore, this seems to be a deviation from what the older generation is doing. The parents reported very little monitoring of their phone or technology use. This in turn may create a false sense of providing time that is technological free.

Overall, the teens in this study appeared to appreciate technology, but also appeared to be responsible with it. They monitored use and acknowledged the downside of technology as a “time suck.� They continued to place emphasis on face-to-face communication with their peers, which would seem developmentally appropriate, as they individuate.

I am women, hear me roar: The parents in this study (all mothers) found a sense of empowerment from technology.

This finding speaks directly to the experiences of the parents in the study and how

189

cell phones and technology have influenced individual experience of self, which relates to research question four. The mothers in this study spent a fair amount of time talking about their experiences of motherhood, but all reflected on what they personally gained from the use of technology. They seemed to be able to broaden hobbies, achieve higher education, and develop businesses while still maintaining their overall commitment to their role as mother.

In the United States, women became more active in the work place in the 1980s and beyond. However, women where still viewed less than equal with their male counterparts in the work force evidenced by less pay for similar jobs, being passed over for promotion, and at times training the men that would later supervise them.

Expectations around motherhood still seemed to be part of the social fabric, but it was delayed as women started careers. However, the problem was that often times the women had to find a way to balance motherhood and a career and/or further education (Collins, 2010).

The women in this survey represent a small sampling of women that grew up in the 80s and 90s. They are all mothers, but that is not their only role or “station” in life.

Through the process of technology, they have found support and empowerment. From gaining higher education, to augmenting cello lessons, to fixing toilets, one mother said, “I find that the internet is really empowering.”

While the women in the study acknowledged the impact technology had on their family, many of them used the technology to increase their own academic goals, learn new hobbies, or enhance personal life experiences. They expressed that through technology they were able to find a balance between being a mother and being an

190

individual separate from motherhood. This is an important finding as three of the five women expressed having “very low� satisfaction with their family life. If family life was their only outlet for support, they may have had less satisfaction with their life as a whole. However, all of the women seemed to have moments that they expressed pride in their own accomplishments separate from the family. One mother, expressed that she was able to help her mother fix a plumbing problem and while she initially thought that she might not be able to complete the task, she looked it up on the internet and had the self-confidence to know that she could figure it out.

As noted in an early section, the executive system of the family seems to be compromised in many of these families, however the family is maintaining equilibrium.

Therefore, an implication of technology on an individual level, is that some of the mothers may be getting some of their selfobject needs met through outside sources. The internet and their phones provide them with a community of others that can support twinship and mirroring needs. As students, the group would have a likeminded experience and can have a reciprocal relationship that is filled with empathy. Through building and maintaining a business, achieving higher education, or developing a new hobby, the mothers are fulfilling an ambition that could promote healthy self-esteem and further developmental growth as a person (Elson, 1986; Siegel, 1996).

This is important on many different levels. In social work, one of the underlying values is to help empower and encourage people to find a voice. Many of these women are being empowered through their access to the internet and the support it provides. In addition, on an intersubjective level, this empowerment most likely is effecting the relationships they have within the family. While many of them had significant others, the

191

cell phone and technology related to that cell phone either saved them time that they then could spend on themselves or it allowed them to grow out of traditional roles of mother.

In turn this role modeling most likely effects the relationships that they have with their sons.

They were also able to garner more support and had easier access to extended family members. One women stated, “My mom and I laugh about it all the time, that you know she is able to talk to me more now than she was when we lived in the same house, because I am available by phone all the time and it is like okay.” Another stated “I Facetime with my Mom; she is in Eastern Canada. With my Dad too. I can chat with my sister.” One of Bowen’s concerns about social regression was that families did not have the support of the larger extended families due to moves. At least two of the five mothers expressed more connection and the ability to easily connect in a positive way to other family members. Another one used it to stay in contact with her older son and help plan tailgating events with other mothers (her older son was a football player at a nearby University). Since the mothers had additional support both from the community and extended family, this support may have been enough to help maintain the nuclear families’ cohesion.

As noted earlier, the mothers viewed their phones as a “tool” that helped them make their days easier and freed up additional time. Many of them shopped, paid bills or did banking, along with other tasks that historically required in town errand running. This in essence was one form of taking care of individual family members and taking care of household chores. This may impact Bowen’s ideas of differentiation of the self and in particular the concept of self within the theory. The mothers in this study still feel that

192

they are maintaining their roles within the family and thus to them the family is stable, but are also able to explore different element of their self outside of the family relationships. This may produce less stress or anxiety in the internal family dynamic (Kerr, 2019). The self-exploration outside the family is important as it helped the mother feel more empowered which could continue to help them maintain a sense of healthy narcissism. It may in turn help the relationships that are shared in the family; positive role modeling for their sons and an ability to contribute in a different way to the nuclear family.

While the mothers’ note that much of exploration outside of the family is achievable because of the technological advances, there may be many additional reasons that the mothers are developing new careers and becoming more educated. Their children are growing and individuating, which leaves them with more time, especially since technology seems to help with time management. This ability to switch roles and develop relationships outside of the family may also be an important indicator that not all of the relationships within the family are as stable as the ones in the research dyad. Many of the families expressed concerns about the executive system within the family. One has to wonder what the results would have looked like had they included these family members in this study and if there is a certain amount of denial that also plays a part in some of these women’s experiences. Turkle’s (2011) research indicated that some people developed a world that was based on fantasy on the internet that became more important than the reality. While none of these women did this, one has to wonder about the partners that spend large amount of time watching television or playing games on their phone. Without including the whole family, part of the narrative is missing.

193

There was a fair amount of shared experience with the women in this finding. The research grew up in the same time period (80s and 90s). Many of these women used technology to further their education, which in essence this researcher has done as a distant learner. However, it is clear that while the parents rely on the telephone as a tool, they also used it extend their network of support, which in turn continued to help them maintain their own self efficacy and esteem.

Summary In this study, there were five primary findings. The first was that the majority of the participants were in a healthy range of functioning. The majority of the participants rated their families as balanced. Second, the families appear to use their cell phone devices to do much of their communication. As noted earlier, the families use the phone both to communicate when they are not together, but also inside the home. Third, roles and relationships within the family seemed to be impacted by the use of technology. Cell phones have played an important role in the way that the family configurations can be maintained, but it has also changed the way that families spend time together and manage household chores. There seemed to be a disconnection between family members that was deflected by the use of the cell phone. While the satisfaction in these families appears to be low, the family as a unit continues to function in a rather healthy way. Fourth, the participant seemed to differentiate between face-to-face contact and cell phone or technology based contact. The teens in this study, especially the older teens, made an effort to put down their phones and develop a balance in their friendships that combined both face-to-face and technologically augmented time together. Finally, the mothers in

194

the study found empowerment through technology. They advanced their careers, developed more hobbies and became more educated because of their use of technology.

The implications point to the need for people to balance cell phone use with faceto-face communication. The teens continued healthy develop relies on a shared space in which they can have self/selfobject experiences. Technologically free time is important throughout the lifespan. The infant relies on this time to develop affective understand while promoting secure attachment. As the child moves into the teenage years, cell phone can become a positive developmental tool if the teen is feeling a sense of closeness and being deeply known through a continued other.

Broader Implications for Social Work With the prolific use of technology, there are broader implications for social work and its practice. In particular, this research indicates that relationships are maintained in different ways and information is communicated differently. From a social justice viewpoint, the macro or mezzo level activist could use social media platforms to garner a larger audience. Getting information out through Facebook or other platforms such as Twitter may encourage younger constituents to take notice or become involved politically. Grass roots advocacy may start as a Facebook post or a Tweet that goes viral.

The teens clearly understand the internet’s power to give them voice, as many of them talked about how they responded to and felt part of social media message boards or commented on stories they felt passionately about.

From a practitioner level, many people may be more comfortable communicating via their telephone and this should be taken into consideration when a course of therapy

195

starts. Meeting the client where they are at and developing a shared space may take longer as technology may decrease the ability to be psychologically minded. It also should be noted that practitioners can be followed more closely by curious clients as their public information is accessible (e.g. marriage records, home purchases). Therefore, this information may enter into a therapeutic relationship even if the practitioner is trying to keep it out. While technology cannot really be avoided, the therapist should strive to provide a strong face-to-face connection and create a space that provides the necessary intersubjective space to help the client explore affective experiences; this space may take on a feel that is much different because of the proliferation and ease of cell phones. It is unclear if this space can take on the same feel through texting or technology.

Furthermore, parents should be encouraged to create technologically free zones that support continued self/selfobject experiences for their teens. Part of the relational conversation should be around this phenomenon. In addition, the parent should be encouraged to track the time they spend on technology to give them insight into how this may be impacting their relationships with family members. However, the cell phone, may also provide appropriate developmental process for the teen if they are getting enough support elsewhere, so the use of technology should be fully explored when appropriate.

The ability for clients to explore both their identity in this space and develop skills through an on-line venue are viable; however, there are the downfalls and social pressures that could be negatively impacting the clients.

Limitations One of the major limitations of this study was the definition of family. Using a

196

dyad as the definition limited the outcomes. Families are units and without all of the parts that make up the unit contributing to the data gathered in the qualitative interview, the narratives and data collected only told part of the whole story. A second limitation was the size of the sample. In the quantitative sample if there was a way to get additional numbers, the last research question could have been answered, as the more numbers one adds the more likelihood some of those participants would have fallen into the unbalanced range. Third, all of dyads that participated in the second qualitative interview were mother-son dyads. This further limits the transferability of the data, as it was one dyad configuration out of multiple. In addition, PEW research points to the heavier use of the cell phone in female teenagers, so the meaning placed on the cell phone is only applicable to males. Fourth, the fact that the survey results had primarily balanced families limited the findings and results. The two groups could not be compared, therefore, it eliminated part of the narrative that this study aimed to explore. Finally, like many dissertations, the research was limited to a small geographical area, the Inland Northwest, and therefore, the results depict only a small slice of a much larger society and again transferability is limited.

Suggestion for Future Research A qualitative research study with the whole family (all members) would be indicated. The study could focus on how technology plays a role in the family functioning and communication. Because the family is a unit, it would be interesting to explore how the different relationships are maintained and supported. It would provide a richer data set. It would be recommended that an interview be performed with the family

197

as a whole and then each individual member separately to develop an understanding of the unit and all working parts.

Research into how technology is impacting social norms and views would also be interesting. Since many of the younger generation or natives to cell phone technology may define or see their worlds as more global, they may also define and experience community differently. How they feel they contribute to this community could be an aspect of this research, while also exploring their “reality� based local communities. Does this shape value clarification in the teens and to what extent does this impact personality development?

Further research to explore sibling relationships would also be indicated. There has been little research on how or if these relationships are maintained, strengthened or weakened by the use of social media and how that influences both their relationships when in the home and as they move into adulthood or more independent living environments. On that same note, further research into how the parental unit uses and maintains their relationship and the impact that the cell phone has on that dynamic could be explored.

As online therapy or technologically assisted therapy becomes more common a controlled study comparing the therapist relationship with clients between office only, blended office and technology and technology only would be indicted. If a similar therapeutic model was explored as a control, it would may be easier to explore the therapeutic relationship.

Finally, research into social media and how teens view, develop, and experience their internal self. And how does that impact later development. As noted earlier in this

198

chapter, does social media create a narcissistic extension of the self that could develop into a personality disorder.

Summary This research attempted to answer the broad based question “What is the impact of the use of portable electronic devices on the communication style of families?� The answer is multi-dimensional. The family uses their cell phones as a major way to communicate about the simple day-to-day functioning of the family, but as individuals within the family members, it provides entertainment, security, and links to social community and knowledge based resources. Communication both inside and outside of the house has changed. Many of the participants reflected that they use texting as their primary way of talking with each other, both within the home and when they are physically outside of the house. The devices however, have come into the home in such a way, that time that was spent as a unit is also infiltrated with outside entertainment or social influences. Tech free time is often hard to support because there are many different individual activities that can be accessed through the phone. Families can physically be in the same room, but be streaming different videos, reading different books, or listening to music. One family talked about spending time together, but having everyone on their own devices. Others found ways to incorporate technology into the way they play. This could be gaming together or sharing information from different sites that developed into later face-to-face conversations. Parenting has also changed because of the cell phones influence. Parents have fears around what their teens are exposed too, but also use the cell phone as a way to open up conversations or parent without the face-to-face

199

opposition that could accompany a confrontation.

Overall, cell phones have become an essential part of the family functioning and is needed for families to function optimally. Therefore, some of the initial assumptions that were put forth held true. Cell phones have changed the way the family communicates and people are relating differently because of the easy access and prolific nature of the cell phone. However, one initial assumption was that technology is not an integral aspect of the family. It appears it has become integral and without it many families feel that they would be lost. As one mother stated “we would be screwed” if “we all lost our cell phones.”

In closing, technology and cell phones have changed the ways that families operate. Some changes are positive, while others may have long term negative consequences. However, the families in this research do not see a way that they could function as a family unit without the use of cell phones.

200

Appendix A Adult Consent (Phase I)

201

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Consent for Participation in Social Behavioral Research IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 1

I, __________________________________________________, acting for myself, agree to take part in the research entitled “Impact of cell phones: Family’s experience of cohesion and adaptability”

This work will be carried out by Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principal Researcher) under the supervision of Dr. Denise Duval Tsioles (Dissertation Chair)

This work is sponsored by and conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street, Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; (312) 9354232.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of how cell phones and other portable communication devices enhance and/or weaken relationships between teenagers and their parents. To this end, I hope to first understanding the basic feelings you have around your family connections and communication, along with the frequency your family uses cell phones or other devices to communicate with each other. With this basic knowledge I would like to follow up with in depth interviews that would further illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of this relatively new technology and the impact that it has on both the family and its individual members. This is phase one of a two-part study. In this phase, you will be asked to independently take a survey on your feelings about your family and your technology use. At the end of the survey, you will be asked if you want to participate in the second phase of this study. From those

202

the families that have interest a smaller sample will be asked to come in for an interview (which is the second phase of the study).

Procedures used in the study and duration This is Phase one of a two Phase study. In this phase, you will be asked to complete an online survey using Survey Monkey software. The survey consists of approximately 70 closed and scaled questions. This survey will include both demographic questions, as well as scaled and closed ended questions pertaining directly to how your family communicates, family connectedness, and frequency and accessibility of cell phone use within your family. The survey should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete. Participants will receive an $5.00 Amazon egift card at the end of the survey.

Benefits There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this survey. The research will contribute to the knowledge base of clinical social work and expand on social workers and therapist understanding regarding family communication in a digital age.

Costs There is no cost to you for your participation in this study outside of your time, which is approximately 30 minutes.

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects Privacy and confidentiality are a common risk to any research, including this one. Survey Monkey will be temporarily storing their data until 45 family groups (both teenager and parent) have been completed and submitted, at which point all data will be exported into my personal documents. However, the risk is very minimal.

In addition, there may be a chance that some uncomfortable feelings will arise when answering questions about your family. Any question can be skipped, you can stop at any time, and if further assistance is needed after the interview, you can contact the following resources. You also can use a local help line (First Call for Help: 509-838-4428) and/or it associated services: Frontier Behavioral Health; 107 S. Divisions Street; Spokane WA; 509-838-4681.

Privacy and Confidentiality Your name will not be used in the final report. Your family and you will be given a number that represents them. Additional family members that answer the survey will not have access to the answers you provide on this survey. Each participating member will do this survey independently. All names associated with the number will be stored separately. All hand written

203

data or notes will be kept in a locked file cabinet and all computer files will be kept in password protected documents on a password protected computer. Data that is collected will be destroyed five years after results are published.

Subject Assurances By clicking “accept” at the bottom of the page, I agree to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness.

I may cancel my consent and refuse to continue in this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of the ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if I refuse to take part, or if I begin the study and then withdraw.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principal Researcher) at this phone number: 509-230-8706 or Dr. Denise Duval Tsioles (Dissertation Chair) at this phone number 773-880-1485. I can also contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW at ewoltemath@icsw.edu If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of the Institutional Review Board; ICSW: At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu

Signatures I hereby consent to participate in the above described research project. I am 18 years of age or older. I have received a copy of this consent form for my records. I have all my questions answered. I understand that a copy of the online consent form may be printed prior to clicking the “I agree” button. If I am unable to print a copy of the consent form, I may obtain a copy by contacting Ellen Dal Pra at 509-230-8706 or by sending an e-mail to ewoltemath@icsw.edu. I understand that by clicking the “Accept” button, I will be giving my consent to participate in this study.

If you consent to be in this study, click "Accept"

If you do not consent to be in this study, click "Reject"

□

□

Accept

Reject

204

Appendix B: Guardian’s Consent for Adolescent Participation (Phase I)

205

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Parent Permission Form for Participation in Social Behavioral Research IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 1

What is the purpose of this research study?

The purpose of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of how cell phones and other portable communication devices enhance and/or weaken relationships between teenagers and their parents. To this end, I hope to first understanding the basic feelings you have around your family connections and communication, along with the frequency your family uses cell phones or other devices to communicate with each other. With this basic knowledge I would like to follow up with in depth interviews that would further illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of this relatively new technology and the impact that it has on both the family and its individual members. This is phase one of a two part study. In this phase, your child will be asked to independently take a survey on his/her feelings about your family and his/her technology use. At the end of the survey, your child will be asked if you have interest in participating in a family interview (which is the second phase). Of those participants that have interest, a smaller sample will be asked for to come in for an interview and another consent will be asked for.

What will my child be asked to do if I allow him/her to participate in this study?

206

This is Phase one of a two Phase study. In this phase, your child will complete an online survey using Survey Monkey software. The survey consists of approximately 70 closed and scaled questions. This survey will include both demographic questions, as well as scaled and closed ended questions pertaining directly to how your family communicates, family connectedness, and frequency and accessibility of cell phone use within your family. The survey should take no longer than 30 minutes to complete. Your child will receive a $5.00 Amazon e-gift card at the end of the survey. At the end of the survey, your child will be asked if he/she has interest in the second phase, the family interview. A smaller sample of families from the survey portion will be chosen for this second phase from those that are interested.

Parents please be aware that under the Protection of Pupil Rights Act.20.U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(1)(A), you have the right to review a copy of the questions asked or of materials that will be used with your children. If you would like to do so, you should contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW, at 509-230-8706 to obtain a copy of the questions or materials.

What are the risks for my child’s participation in this study?

Privacy and confidentiality are a common risk to any research, including this one. Survey Monkey will be temporarily storing their data until 45 family group (both teenager and parent) have been completed and submitted, at which point all data will be exported into my personal documents. However, the risk is very minimal.

In addition, there may be a chance that some uncomfortable feelings will arise when answering questions about your family. Any question can be skipped, you can stop at any time, and if further assistance is needed after the interview, you can contact the following resources. You also can use a local help line (First Call for Help: 509-838-4428) and/or it associated services: Frontier Behavioral Health; 107 S. Divisions Street; Spokane WA; 509-838-4681.

207

What are the costs for my child’s participation in this study?

There are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this survey. The research will contribute to the knowledge base of clinical social work and expand on social workers and therapist understanding regarding family communication in a digital age.

How will the privacy and confidentiality of my child be protected?

Your child’s name will not be used in the final report. Your family and you will be given a number that represents them. Additional family members that answer the survey will not have access to the answers you provide on this survey. Each participating member will do this survey independently. All names associated with the number will be stored separately. All hand written data or notes will be kept in a locked file cabinet and all computer files will be kept in password protected documents on a password protected computer. Data that is collected will be destroyed five years after results are published.

Subject Assurances

By signing this consent form, I agree to allow my child (child’s name) to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my child’s rights or released this institution from responsibility or carelessness.

I understand that I may take my child out of this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, nor or in the future, if my child refuses to take part, or if he/she begins the study and then withdraws.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principle Researcher) at 509-230-8706 or ewoltemath@icsw.edu or Denise Duval-Tsioles (Dissertation Chair), at this phone number at 773-880-1485.

If I have any questions about my child’s rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu.

Signatures

208

I hereby consent that I am the legal guardian of the child (under 18 years of age)

My child’s name is Print Name

Date of Birth

A copy of the survey can be sent to my child at: ________________________ (enter e-mail address).

I have received a copy of this consent form for my records. I have all my questions answered. I understand that a copy of the online consent form may be printed prior to clicking the “I agree” button. If I am unable to print a copy of the consent form, I may obtain a copy by contacting Ellen Dal Pra at 509-230-8706 or by sending an e-mail to ewoltemath@icsw.edu. I understand that by clicking the “Accept” button, I will be giving my consent for my child to participate in this study.

If you give permission for your child to participate in this research study, click "Accept"

If you do not give permission for your child to participate in this research study, click "Reject"

□

□

Accept

Reject

209

Appendix C: Adolescent’s Assent (Phase I)

210

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 1

1. My name is Ellen Dal Pra. 2. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about how your use your cell phone to communicate with your family and what that experience is like for you. I also want to hear from your family members so I am asking them to answer the same survey questions and later be part of an interview. Not all families have to participate in both parts of the study.

3. If you agree to be in this study, this is the first of two parts. In this part, I will be asking you to take an on-line survey. It has about 70 questions. Some of them ask you about your age and your family members. Other questions ask you to rate some part of how you feel about your family life. Other questions ask you about how often you use your cell phone to talk to your family members. Your survey results will be kept private. Your parent/guardian will be asked to take the same survey. The survey will take no more than 30 minutes. At the end of the survey you will be given a five-dollar Amazon e-gift card for you time. You will be asked at the end of the survey is you want to participate in the second part of the research which is an interview with your parent and you about how you use cell phones in your family. Not everyone will be asked to do the interview part.

4. Part of the research process is to explain what risks there could be. One question that many people have is about their privacy. You name will not be used in any write-ups. In fact, your name will be given a number and I will keep that number and name list away from any real information you give me. In addition, your parents will not know how you answered the survey question. A second potential problem that might arise is that you get uncomfortable with some question the survey asks. You do not need to answer any question you don’t want to, just skip them, and you can stop taking the survey at any

211

time. If you want to take a break you can. If sometime after you have had the interview and something comes up for you, you can talk to your parent/guardian about it. They have some numbers that you could call.

5. There are few real benefits for you to participate in this study. However, I hope that it will help other people that work with kids understand how the cell phone might impact families.

6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to participate.

We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take part in this study.

But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to do this.

7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember, being in this study is up to you. If you make the choice not to participate, your parents will not know. Also, even if you change your mind later and want to stop, you can.

8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. You can call me, Ellen Dal Pra, at 509-230-8706 or ewoltemath@icsw.edu. If you have a question later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me or e-mail at that time.

9. By pressing the accepts button at the bottom of the screen you are agreeing to participate in the survey. You can print out a copy of this before you press accept if you want it. If you can’t print it out you can contact me, Ellen Dal Pra, at 509-230-8706 or at ewoltemath@icsw.edu for a copy of this information.

Subject Assurances

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra (principal researcher) at 509-230-8706 or Denise Duval Tsioles at 773-880-1485. You can also email me at ewoltemath@icsw.edu

If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu

Signatures

I hereby consent to participate in the above described research project. I am 18 years of age or older. I have received a copy of this consent form for my records. I have all my

212

questions answered. I understand that a copy of the online consent form may be printed prior to clicking the “I agree” button. If I am unable to print a copy of the consent form, I may obtain a copy by contacting Ellen Dal Pra at 509-230-8706 or by sending an e-mail to ewoltemath@icsw.edu. I understand that by clicking the “Accept” button, I will be giving my consent to participate in this study.

If you consent to be in this study, click "Accept"

If you do not consent to be in this study, click "Reject" □

□

Accept

Reject

213

Appendix D: Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale-IV (FACES-IV)

214

FACES IV: Questionnaire Directions to Family Members: 1. All family members over the age 12 can complete FACES IV. 2. Family members should complete the instrument independently, not consulting or discussing their responses until they have been completed.

3. Fill in the corresponding number in the space on the provided answer sheet.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Generally Disagree

3 Undecided

4 Generally Agree

5 Stron gly Ag re e

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Family members are involved in each other’s lives.

Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.

We get along better with people outside our family than inside.

We spend too much time together.

There are strict consequences for breaking the rules in our family.

We never seem to get organized in our family.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Family members feel very close to each other.

Parents equally share leadership in our family.

Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home.

Family members feel pressured to spend most free time together.

There are clear consequences when a family member does something wrong.

It is hard to know who the leader is in our family.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Family members are supportive of each other during difficult times.

Discipline is fair in our family.

Family members know very little about the friends of other family members.

Family members are too dependent on each other.

Our family has a rule for almost every possible situation.

Things do not get done in our family.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Family members consult other family members on important decisions.

My family is able to adjust to change when necessary.

Family members are on their own when there is a problem to be solved.

Family members have little need for friends outside the family.

Our family is highly organized.

It is unclear who is responsible for things (chores, activities) in our family.

25.

26.

Family members like to spend some of their free time with each other.

We shift household responsibilities from person to person.

215

27.

28.

29.

30.

Our family seldom does things together.

We feel too connected to each other.

Our family becomes frustrated when there is a change in our plans or routines.

There is no leadership in our family.

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Generally Disagree

3 Undecided

4 Generally Agree

5 Stron gly Ag 31. Although family members have individual interests, they still participant re in family activities. e 32. We have clear rules and roles in our family.

33. Family members seldom depend on each other.

34. We resent family members doing things outside the family.

35. It is important to follow the rules in our family.

36. Our family has a hard time keeping track of who does various household tasks.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Our family has a good balance of separateness and closeness.

When problems arise, we compromise.

Family members mainly operate independently.

Family members feel guilty if they want to spend time away from the family.

Once a decision is made, it is very difficult to modify that decision.

Our family feels hectic and disorganized.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

Family members are satisfied with how they communicate with each other.

Family members are very good listeners.

Family members express affection to each other.

Family members are able to ask each other for what they want.

Family members can calmly discuss problems with each other.

Family members discuss their ideas and beliefs with each other.

When family members ask questions of each other, they get honest answers.

Family members try to understand each other’s feelings When angry, family members seldom say negative things about each other.

Family members express their true feelings to each other.

1 Very Dissatisfied

2 Somewhat Dissatisfied

3 Generally Satisfied

4 Very Satisfied

How satisfied are you with: 53. The degree of closeness between family members.

54. Your family’s ability to cope with stress.

55. Your family’s ability to be flexible.

56. Your family’s ability to share positive experiences.

5 Extremely Satisfied

216

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

The quality of communication between family members.

Your family’s ability to resolve conflicts.

The amount of time you spend together as a family.

The way problems are discussed.

The fairness of criticism in your family.

Family members concern for each other.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Current relationship status: (a) Single, never married (e) (b) Single, divorced (f ) Living together (d) Married, first marriage

Married, not first marriage Life-partnership (c) Single, widowed (g) (h) Separated

Current living arrangement: (a) Alone (b) With Parents (c) With Partner

With Others With Children With Partner and Children

(d) (e) (f)

Use Current Family: If no current Family, use Family of Origin Family Structure: (a) Two parents (biological) parents (step family) (e) One Parent (c) Two parents (adoptive) Family Member:

Number of Children (a) in Family: (e)

(d)

Two Parent (same sex) (b)

(a)

Father

(c)

First Child

(b)

Mother

(d)

Second Child (f)

None Four

(b) (f)

One (c) Five (g)

(e)

Two (d) Six or more

Thank you for Your Cooperation!

Two

Third Child Fourth or Younger Child Three

217

Appendix E: Additional Survey Questions

218

Additional Survey Questions The following statements are about your family relationship and the use of cell phones.

Please pick the answer that most represents your feelings towards the statement below 1 Strongly Disagree

2 Generally Disagree

3 Undecided

4 Generally Agree

5 Strongly Agree

63. I use my cell phone to plan events with my family members.

64. I am lost without my cell phone 65. I think my cell phone provides a way to communicate my feelings with my family.

66. I like the amount of cell phone contact I have with my family.

67. My family members argue about cell phone use.

The following questions are general questions about the cell phones that you have access to in your home.

68. Does your family have a land line in the home? a. Yes b. No 69. What type of phone do you own? a. Smartphone (phone plus internet) b. Basic phone (call and text) c. Other: Please specify: The following questions are going to ask you about your personal use of the cell phone per week. Please click the one that applies.

69. During a normal week, how many times do you call your teenager/parent per week using your cell phone? a. 0 b. 1-5 c. 6-10 d. 11-15 e. More than 16 70. During a normal week, how many times do you text your teenager/parent per week using your phone? a. 0 b. 1-10 c.11-20

219

d. 21-30 e. More than 30 71. What features of your phone do you use to communicate with your family? (please check all that apply) a. texting b. phone calls c. Facebook d. Instagram e. Twitter d. Snapchat e. Video chat f. Tumblr g. Other: Please specify: 72. Would you be interested in returning for a follow up interview with your family? a. yes b. no

220

Appendix F: Introduction E-mail Sent to Participants

221

My name is Ellen Dal Pra and I am a Ph. D. candidate in social work at the Institute for Clinical Social Work in Chicago. I am conducting a research study for my dissertation in which I am interested in learning about the experiences families with teenagers have in regard to the use of cell phones. I am exploring how cell phones enhance or weaken relationships between parent/guardians and their teenagers. To qualify for the study, I am looking for families with teenagers. Your teenager must be between 14 and 20 years of age and live with you at least 50% of the time. In addition, I would like both teenager and parents filling out the survey to have a cell phone that they consider their own. I am asking for both the teenager(s) and guardian(s) to fill out a survey via Survey Monkey. The survey should take about 30 minutes to fill out and asks questions on your relationships with your family members and how you use your cell phones. For your time a five dollar e-gift card will be provided at the end of the survey. After family surveys are completed, I will be asking some of the families to participate in a follow up interview that will take approximately two hours. At the end of the survey, you will be given the option to check “yes� if you are willing to participate in the follow up interview. A select number of families will be chosen for interviews. If you are interested in learning more about the study, please call me, Ellen Dal Pra at (509) 230-8706 or e-mail me at ewoltemath@icsw.edu.

222

Appendix G: Code Book

223

Coding for FACES IV data base (Part 1) For Questions 1-52 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree For Questions 53-62 1=Very dissatisfied 2=Somewhat Satisfied 3=Generally Satisfied 4=Dissatisfied 5=Extremely Satisfied

Coding for MAXQDA database 1. Cohesion Scale 1=Somewhat Connected 2=Connected 3=Very Connected 2. Flexibility Scale 1=Somewhat Flexible 2=Flexible 3=Very Flexible 3. Disengaged Scale/Level 1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High 4. Enmeshed Scale/Level 1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High 5. Rigid Scale/Level 1=Very Low

224

2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High 6. Chaotic Scale/Level 1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High 7. Cohesion Dimension 1=Disengaged 2=Somewhat Connected 3=Connected 4=Very Connected 5=Enmeshed 8. Flexibility Dimension 1=Rigid 2=Somewhat Flexible 3=Flexible 4=Very Flexible 5=Chaotic 9. Family Communication 1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High 10. Family Satisfaction 1=Very Low 2=Low 3=Moderate 4=High 5=Very High

11. Family Type 1=Balanced 2=Unbalanced

225

12. Plan Events 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree 13. Lost without cell phone 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree 14. Communicate Feelings 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree 15. Like amount of contact 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree 16. Argue about phone time 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Generally Disagree 3=Undecided 4=Generally Agree 5=Strongly Agree 17. Landline 1=yes 2=no 18. Type of Phone 1=Smart Phone 2=Basic Phone 3=Other

226

19. Weekly Calls 1= 0 2= 1-5 3=6-10 4=11-15 5= More than 15 20. Weekly Texts 1= 0 2= 1-10 3=11-20 4=21-30 5= More than 30 21. Features on Cell Phone 1=Texting 2=Phone Calls 3=Facebook 4=Instagram 5=Twitter 6=Snapchat 7=Video chat 8=Tumblr 9=Other 22. Parents 1=Two parents (bio) 2=Two parent (step) 3=Two parents (adopt) 4=Two parents (same sex) 5=One parent 6=Other 23. Your Role 1=Mother 2=Father 3=Step-mother 4=Step-father 5=Adoptive Mother 6=Adoptive Father 7=Male Teen 8=Female Teen 9=Other

227

24. Number of Children in the family 1=1 2=2 3=3 4=4 5=5 6=6 or more 25. Interview 1=yes 2=no

228

Appendix H: Adult Consent (Phase II)

229

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Consent for Participation in Social Behavioral Research IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 2

I, __________________________________________________, acting for myself, agree to take part in the research entitled “Impact of cell phones: Family’s experience of cohesion and adaptability”

This work will be carried out by Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principal Researcher) under the supervision of Dr. Denise Duval Tsioles (Dissertation Chair)

This work is sponsored by and conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Clinical Social Work; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street, Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; (312) 9354232.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of how cell phones and other portable communication devices enhance and/or weaken relationships between teenagers and their parents. To this end, I hope to first understanding the basic feelings you have around your family connections and communication, along with the frequency your family uses cell phones or other devices to communicate with each other. With this basic knowledge I would like to follow up with in depth interviews that would further illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of this relatively new technology and the impact that it has on both the family and its individual

230

members. This is phase two of a two part study. In this phase, you and your family will be asked some open ended questions about cell phone utilization between members of your family.

Procedures used in the study and duration This is Phase two of a two Phase study. In this phase, you will be asked to engage in a family interview that will last approximately 120 minutes. The purpose of this interview is to get a detailed account of the family’s experience of communication and cell phones. The format will be open ended questions and a discussion format. The interview will be recorded and transcribed by this researcher (Ellen Dal Pra). MAXQD, a computer program, will be used to help interpret the data. All information will be kept on a password protected computer. At the end of this phase, a $20.00 movie theater pass will be given to the family.

Benefits There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this survey. The research will contribute to the knowledge base of clinical social work and expand on social workers and therapists understanding regarding family communication in our digital age.

Costs There is no cost to you for your participation in this study outside of your time, which is approximately two hours.

Possible Risks and/or Side Effects Privacy and confidentiality are a common risk to any research, including this one. To protect your identity, a neutral place will be used for the interview. The information you share will only be used by the researcher; access will be given to facility overseeing the research. No one else will have access to the data. Your family will be assigned an identification number when the interview is transcribed. The transcription will be done by the primary researcher (Ellen Dal Pra).

The list connecting your name with the identification number will be stored separately from the interview data in a locked file cabinet.

While not anticipated, there may be a chance that some uncomfortable feelings will arise when answering questions about your family. Any question can be skipped, you can stop at any time, or take a break from questioning and then return. If further assistance is needed after the interview, you can contact your local help line (First Call for Help: 509-838-4428) and/or its associated services: Frontier Behavioral Health; 107 S. Division Street; Spokane WA: 509-8384681.

Privacy and Confidentiality

231

Your name will not be used in the final report. Your family and you will be given a number that represents them. All names associated with the number will be stored separately. All hand written data or notes will be kept in a locked file cabinet and all computer files will be kept in password protected documents on a password protected computer. All data that is collected will be destroyed five years after results are published.

Subject Assurances By signing this consent form, I agree to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my rights or released this institution from responsibility for carelessness.

I may cancel my consent and refuse to continue in this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of the ICSW will not be affected in any way, now or in the future, if I refuse to take part, or if I begin the study and then withdraw.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principal Researcher) at this phone number: 509-230-8706 or Dr. Denise Duval Tsioles (Dissertation Chair) at this phone number 773-880-1485. I can also contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW at ewoltemath@icsw.edu

If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of the Institutional Review Board; ICSW: At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu

Signatures I have read this consent form and I agree to take part in this study as it is explained in this consent form.

Signature of Participant

Date

I certify that I have explained the research to (Name of subject) and believe that they understand and that they have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward.

Signature of Researcher

Date

232

Appendix I: Guardian’s Consent for Adolescent (Phase II)

233

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work Research Information and Parent Permission Form for Participation in Social Behavioral Research IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 2

What is the purpose of this research study?

The purpose of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of how cell phones and other portable communication devices enhance and/or weaken relationships between teenagers and their parents. To this end, I hope to first understanding the basic feelings you have around your family connections and communication, along with the frequency your family uses cell phones or other devices to communicate with each other. With this basic knowledge I would like to follow up with in depth interviews that would further illuminate both the strengths and weaknesses of this relatively new technology and the impact that it has on both the family and its individual members. This is phase one of a two part study. In this phase, your child will be asked to participate in a 120-minute interview with other members of your family. The interview will contain open ended questions about your feelings regarding communication technology and its use within your family.

What will my child be asked to do if I allow him/her to participate in this study?

This is Phase two of a two Phase study. In this phase, your child will be asked to engage in a family interview that will last approximately 120 minutes. The purpose of this interview is to get a detailed account of the family’s experience of communication with cell phones and how it impacts your family relationships. The format will be open ended questions and a discussion format. The interview will be recorded and transcribed by this writer. MAXQD, a computer program, will be used to help interpret the data. All information will be kept on a password

234

protected computer. At the end of this phase, a $20.00 movie theater pass gift certificate will be given to the family.

Parents please be aware that under the Protection of Pupil Rights Act.20.U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(1)(A), you have the right to review a copy of the questions asked or of materials that will be used with your children. If you would like to do so, you should contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW, at 509-230-8706 to obtain a copy of the questions or materials.

What are the risks for my child’s participation in this study?

Privacy and confidentiality are a common risk to any research, including this one. To protect your child’s identity, a neutral place will be used for the interview. The information your family shares will only be used by the researcher; access will be given to facility overseeing the research. No one else will have access to the data. Each participant and family will be assigned an identification number when the interview is transcribed. The transcription will be done by the primary researcher (Ellen Dal Pra). The list connecting your name with the identification number will be stored separately from the interview data in a locked file cabinet.

In addition, there may be a chance that some uncomfortable feelings will arise when answering questions about your family. Your child can skip any question, can stop at any time, and if further assistance is needed after the interview, you can contact the following resources. You also can use a local help line (First Call for Help: 509-838-4428) and/or it associated services: Frontier Behavioral Health; 107 S. Divisions Street; Spokane WA; 509-838-4681. However, the risk is very minimal.

What are the costs for my child’s participation in this study?

There are no direct benefits to your child for participating in this survey. The research will contribute to the knowledge base of clinical social work and expand on social workers and therapist understanding regarding family communication in a digital age.

How will the privacy and confidentiality of my child be protected?

Your child’s name will not be used in the final report. Your family and your child will be given a number that represents them All names associated with the number will be stored separately. All

235

hand written data or notes will be kept in a locked file cabinet and all computer files will be kept in password protected documents on a password protected computer. All data that is collected will be destroyed five years after results are published.

Subject Assurances By signing this consent form, I agree to allow my child (child’s name) to take part in this study. I have not given up any of my child’s rights or released this institution from responsibility or carelessness.

I understand that I may take my child out of this study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. My relationship with the staff of ICSW will not be affected in any way, nor or in the future, if my child refuses to take part, or if he/she begins the study and then withdraws.

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra, LICSW (Principle Researcher) at 509-230-8706 or ewoltemath@icsw.edu or Denise Duval-Tsioles (Dissertation Chair), at this phone number at 773-880-1485.

If I have any questions about my child’s rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago, IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu.

Signatures Please check the appropriate box(es) and provide your signature and date below.

My child’s name is Print Name

 YES, I give my permission for my child to participate in this research study.

Parent/Guardian Signature

Date of Birth

OR

 NO, I do not give permission for my child

Print Name

to participate in this research study.

Date

236

I certify that I have explained the research to (Name of parent) and believe that they understand the study and have agreed to allow their child to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research or afterward.

Signature of Researcher

Date

237

Appendix J: Adolescent Assent (Phase II)

238

Leave box empty - For office use only

Institute for Clinical Social Work ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

IMPACT OF CELL PHONES: FAMILY’S EXPERIENCE OF COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY PHASE 2

1. My name is Ellen Dal Pra. 2. We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying to learn more about how your use your cell phone to communicate with your family and what that experience is like for you. I also want to hear from your family members so I am asking them to answer the same survey questions and later be part of an interview with you present too. Not all families have to participate in both parts of the study.

3. If you agree to be in this study, this is the second of two parts. In this part, I will be asking your family and you to participate in a two hour interview together. Question will be broad and I will ask you to talk about how the family is uses their cell phones and how it effects your relationships. The questions will be asked with your family members. At the end of the interview your family will be given a $20.00 movie theater gift card.

4. Part of the research process is to explain what risks there could be. One question that many people have is about their privacy. You name will not be used in any write-ups. In fact, your name will be given a number and I will keep that number and name list away from any real information you give me. A second potential problem that might arise is that you get uncomfortable with some questions I ask. You do not need to answer any question you don’t want to and you can skip any question you want. If you want to take a break you can. If sometime after you have had the interview and something comes up for you, you can talk to your parent/guardian about it. They have some numbers that you could call.

239

5. There are few real benefits for you to participate in this study. However, I hope that it will help other people that work with kids understand how the cell phone might impact families.

6. Please talk this over with your parents before you decide whether or not to participate.

We will also ask your parents to give their permission for you to take part in this study.

But even if your parents say “yes” you can still decide not to do this.

7. If you don’t want to be in this study, you don’t have to participate. Remember, being in this study is up to you. If you make the choice not to participate no one will be upset.

Also, even if you change your mind later and want to stop, you can.

8. You can ask any questions that you have about the study. If you have a question later that you didn’t think of now, you can call me, Ellen Dal Pra, at 509-230-8706 or e-mail me at ewoltemath@icsw.edu.

9. Signing your name at the bottom means that you agree to participate in this study. You and your parents will be given a copy of this after you sign it.

Subject Assurances

If I have any questions about the research methods, I can contact Ellen Dal Pra (principal researcher) at 509-230-8706 or Denise Duval Tsioles at 773-880-1485. You can also email me at ewoltemath@icsw.edu

If I have any questions about my rights as a research subject, I may contact Dr. John Ridings, Chair of Institutional Review Board; ICSW; At Robert Morris Center, 401 South State Street; Suite 822, Chicago IL 60605; irbchair@icsw.edu

________________________________________________ Name of Subject

______________________ Date

240

_____________________________________ Signature

______________ Age

___________________ Grade in school

I certify that I have explained the research to ________________________ (Name of Child) and believe that they understand the study and have agreed to participate freely. I agree to answer any additional questions when they arise during the research process or afterward.

______________________________________________

______________________

Signature of the Researcher

Date

241

Appendix K: Interview Schedule

242

Overarching Question: Tell me about technology use in your family 1. Tell me about: What do you use the most?

Who in your family do you use it with? —not needed as they often answered this right away Are the differences between what you use with your family and with your friends? * What was the decision making process around getting a phone (For the child)? * 2. Tell me about use with mom, dad, siblings?

What apps do you use and with whom?

What are the differences? * Who is it easier with/harder with?

Who do you text the most in the family?

If you had a problem, who would you text?

3. What is communicated in texts? In phone calls?

Other? * 4. Tell me about the differences between texts and phone calls?

5. Tell me about family time in general?

What is it like?

Are devices present?

What if they are not?

6. How do you feel the cell phone influences each family member individually?

What do you use it for independently?

7. Tell me what you view as pros and cons of cell phone use (including apps/social media*) for your family?

Parenting around cell phone use* 8. Did I miss anything that you think is important to share? *

* Added items to the original interview questions.

243

References

Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teenssocial-media-technology-2018/ Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2019). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption. Retrieved from www.perresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lowerincome-americns-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/ Anderson, M., Smith, A., & Page, D. (2016, January 7). Parents, teens, and digital monitoring. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/07/how-parentsmonitor-their-teens-digital-behavior/ Atwood, G. E., & Stolorow, R. D. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic phenomenology. Hillsdale: The Analytic Press.

Baiocco, R., Cacioppo, M., Laghi, F., & Tafa, M. (2013). Factorial and construct validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents [Special issue]. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 962-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9658-1 Banai, E., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut’s self psychology: Link with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 224-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0736-9735.22.224

244

Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

Beebe, B., & Lachmann, F. (2002). Organizing principles of interaction from infant research and the lifespan prediction of attachment: Application to adult treatment.

Journal of Infant, Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 2(4), 61-89.

Beebe, B., Rustin, J., Sorter, D., & Knoblauch, S. H. (2003). An expanded view of intersubjectivity in infancy and its application to psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13(6), 805-841.

Beebe, B., Sorter, D., Rustin, J., & Knoblauch, S. H. (2003). A comparison of Meltzoff, Trevarthen, and Stern. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13(6), 777-804.

Bergen, D., Davis, D. R., & Abbitt, J. T. (2016). Technology play and brain development: Infancy to adolescence and future implications. New York: Routledge.

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2012). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 22(1), 162-186.

Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Suicide rising across the US. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html Cohen, P. (2008). The yin and yang of it: Working with the adolescent in the context of the family. Journal of Infant, Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy, 4(2), 171-180.

245

Collins, G. (2010). When everything changed: The amazing journey of American women from 1960 to the present. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.

Communication. (n.d.). In Merriam-Wester on-line dictionary. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communication Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Devitt, K., & Rocker, D. (2009). The role of mobile phones in family communication.

Children and Society, 23(3), 189-202.

Elson, M. (1986). Self psychology in clinical social work. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4, 56-122.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Floorczak, K. L. (2014). Purists need not apply: The case for pragmatism in mixed method research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 27(4), 278-282.

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E., & Target, M. (2002). Developmental issues in normal adolescence and adolescent breakdown. In P. Fonagy, G. Gergely, E. Jurist, & M. Target (Eds.), Affect regulation, mentalization, and development of the self (pp.

317-340). New York: Other Press.

246

Fowler, Jr., F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 13(1), 255-278.

Freud, S. (1949). Three Essays on the theory of sexuality (J. Strackey, Trans.). Mansfield Centre, CT: Manito Publishing. (Original work published 1905) Galatzer-Levy, R. M., & Cohler, B. J. (1993). The essential other: A developmental psychology of the self. New York: Basic Books.

Gentzler, A. L., Oberhauser, A. M., Westerman, D., & Nadorff, D. K. (2011). College students’ use of electronic communication with parents: Links to loneliness, attachment, and relationship quality. CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1/2), 71-74.

Gerson, M. (2010). The embedded self: An interactive psychodynamic and systemic perspective on couples and family therapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gilbert, R. M. (1992). Extraordinary relationships: A new way of thinking about human interactions. New York, NY: Wiley.

Gilbert, R. M. (2004). The eight concepts of Bowen theory. Lake Frederick, Virginia: Leading Systems Press.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hitlin, P. (2018). Internet, social media use and device ownership in U.S. have plateaued after years of growth. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/09/28/internet-social-media-use-and-device-ownership-in-u-s-haveplateaued-after-years-of-growth/ Hoffman, L. (1981). Foundations of family therapy: A conceptual framework for systems change. New York, NY: Basic Books.

247

Hookway, C. (2013). Pragmatism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.standford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/pragmatism/ Inland Northwest (United States). (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 28, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_Northwest_(United_States) Jensen, F. E., & Nutt, A. E. (2015). The teenage brain: A neuroscientist’s survival guide to raising adolescents and young adult. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Jiang, J. (2018). How teens and parents navigate screen time and device distractions.

Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/08/22/how-teens-andparents-navigate-screen-time-and-device-distractions/ Jiang, J., & Anderson, M. (2018). Teens’ social media habits and experiences. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/28/teens-social-media-habits-andexperiences/ Kaplan, L. (1984). Adolescence: Trivialization and glorification. In L. Kaplan (Ed.), Adolescence: Farewell to childhood (pp. 29-51). New York: Simon and Schuster.

Kennedy, T. L., Smith, A., Wells, A. T., & Wellman, B. (2008). Networked families.

Retrieved from http://www.pewinterent.org/internet/2008/10/19/networkedfamilies/ Kerr, M. E. (2019). Bowen theory’s secrets: Revealing the hidden life of families. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family Evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

248

Khan, S. H. (2011). Duration of adolescence technology use and closeness with parents (Master thesis). Retrieved from academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:13900 Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? A. Goldberg (Ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lachmann, F. (1986). Interpretation of psychic conflict and adversarial relationships: A self psychological perspective. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 3(4), 341-355.

Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and mobile phone.

Retrieved from http://pewinterent.org/Reports/2010/Teens-andMobilePhones.aspx Lenhart, A., & Page, D. (2015, April 9). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015: Smartphones facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens.

Retrieved from http://www.pweinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-mediatechnology-2015/ Lerner, R. M., & Steinberg, L. (2009). The scientific study of adolescent development: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Series Ed.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Vol. 1. Individual basis of adolescent development, (pp. 1-45). Hoblien, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Lessem, P. A. (2005). Self Psychology: An introduction. Lanham: Jason Aronson.

Ling, R. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

249

Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teen-andhttp://www.pewinternet.org/2013/03/13/teens-and-technology-2013/ Mayoh, J. A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Towards a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689813505358 McCarthy, J. B. (1995). Adolescent character formation and psychoanalytic theory. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 55(3), 245-267.

Mesch, G. S. (2003). The family and the internet: The Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 1038-1050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.00384941.2003.08404016.x Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family relations and the internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. Journal of Family Communication, 6(2), 119-138.

Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parent mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying.

Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 387-393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2009.0068 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045-1053.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nardi, P. M. (2013). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods (3rd ed.).

Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

250

National Association of Social Work [NASW]. (2017a). Code of ethics of the national association of social workers. Retrieved from www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp National Association of Social Work [NASW]. (2017b). NASW, ASWB, CSWE, and CSWA Standards for technology in social work practice. Retrieved from clincialsocialworkassociation.org/resources/Documents?SW%20Technology%20 standards.pdf Olson, D. H. (2010). FACES IV manual. In FACES IV Manual. Retrieved from http://www.prepare-enrich.com Olson, D. H. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 3(1), 64-80.

Ornstein, A. (1997). A developmental perspective on the sense of power, self-esteem, and destructive aggression. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 25, 145-154.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connections. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 61(3), 426-440.

Palombo, J. (1988, Fall). Adolescent development: A view from self psychology. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 5(3), 171-186.

Palombo, J. (2008). Self Psychology Theory. In K. M. Sowers & C. N. Dulmus (Series Ed.) & B. A. Thyer (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Social Work and Social Welfare: Vol. 2. Human behavior in the social environment, (pp. 163-205).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

251

Perret-Catopovic, M., & Ladame, F. (1998). Adolescence and psychoanalysis: The story and the history. In M. Perret-Catopovic & F. Ladame (Eds.), Adolescence and psychoanalysis: The story and the history (pp. 1-17). London: Karnac Books.

Perrin, A. (2019). Digital gap between rural and nonrural America persists. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-betweenrural-and-nonrural-america-persists/ Punamaki, R. L., Wallenius, M., Holtto, H., Nygard, C. H., & Rimpela, A. (2009). The association between information and communication technology (ICT) and peer and parent relations in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(6), 556-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025409343828 Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzerg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., ...

Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 133(4), 843-849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1543/peds.20133703 Schave, D., & Schave, B. (1989). Early adolescence and the search for self. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Shaddock, D. (1997). Chapter 18: An intersubjective approach to conjoint family therapy.

Progress in Self Psychology, 13, 289-308.

Siegel, A. M. (1996). Heinz Kohut and the psychology of the self. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Socarides, D. D., & Stolorow, R. D. (1984). Affects and Selfobjects. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 12, 105-119.

252

Steiner-Adair, C. (2013). The big disconnect: Protecting childhood and family relationships in the digital age. New York: Harper Collins.

Stolorow, R. D., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood, G. E. (1995). Psychoanalytic treatment: An intersubjective approach. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Subrahmanyam, K. & Smahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital. [Amazon Digital Services]. Retrieved from amazon.com/Growing-Up-Digital-Generation-Oracleebook/dp/B000FA5L3G/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTFB&me= Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

Titelman, P. (Ed.). (2014). The concept of differentiation of self in Bowen theory.

Differentiation of self: Bowen family systems theory perspectives (pp. 3-64). New York, NY: Routledge.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversations: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Press.

253

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). On-line communication and adolescent wellbeing: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1169-1182.

Vogels, E. A. (2019). Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace digital life. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2019/09/09/us-generation-technology-use/ Wallerstein, R. S. (1998). Erikson’s concept of ego identity reconsidered. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 46(1), 229-248.

Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., & Young, R. (2009). The phone connection: A qualitative exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use amongst Australian youth. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 225-240.

Weisskirch, R. S. (2009). Parenting by cell phone: Parental monitoring of adolescents and family relations. Journal of Youth & Adolescent, 38(8), 1123-1139.

Weisskirch, R. S. (2011). No crossed wires: Cell phone communications in parentadolescent relationship. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(78), 447-451.

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the first not-me possession. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89-97.

Wolf, E. S. (1988). Treating the self: Elements of clinical self psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.