To boldly go where no relationship has gone before: Commentary on interpersonal relationships in the digital age

ABSTRACT

Individuals have a need to maintain positive social interactions, and with the advent of new-media technologies, there are a myriad ways individuals can satisfy this need by engaging socially in mediated (non-face-to-face) communication, hence the need for a special issue on “Relationships in the Digital Age.” The articles in this special issue reflect the need to answer theoretical questions brought forth by the increased tendency for individuals to create and maintain interpersonal relationships through mediated forms of communication. The commentary highlights the need for increased research on mediated interpersonal relationships by psychologists and discusses how the articles in the issue can be used to answer theoretical questions about mediated interpersonal communication. The article ends with speculation on how media may create social spaces that may be advantageous for some individuals.

KEYWORDS:

• Computer-mediated communication
• interpersonal relationships
• media
• relationships

This special issue of The Journal of Social Psychology focuses on how interpersonal relationships are affected when communication among the parties is mediated—whether the communication occurs on social network sites (SNS), microblogging sites, online dating sites, text messages, or any of the other myriad forms of mediated communication. Humans are motivated to create and maintain rewarding interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Good interpersonal relationships serve as a buffer for many psychological and physiological maladies (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Conversely, the consequences of bad interpersonal relationships are profound (Williams, 2007). For example, being excluded from interpersonal relationships can lead to lowered basic-need satisfaction and the activation of brain regions associated with physical pain (the dorsal angular cingulate cortex; Eisenberger, Gable, & Lieberman, 2007; Eisenberger, Leieberman, & Williams, 2003; Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, & Wager, 2011; Onoda et al., 2010), indicating the importance placed on interpersonal connections in human survival. Indeed, one of the consequences of interpersonal threat is the motivation to affiliate with others (Mikullincer & Shaver, 2001; Taylor et al., 2000). However, modern methods of mediated communication have led to changes in the ways in which individuals can interpersonally relate to one another.

Discussions of how much communication technology has changed border on being cliché. One of us (DE) recalls being a loyal fan of Star Trek when it first came out and watching with envy because of the amazing communication devices that Captain Kirk and the rest of the crew had. Now those devices seem like old-fashioned flip phones! The last 150 years have seen a tremendous growth in new forms of media, beginning with radio and movies in the late 19^th and early 20th century and the introduction of TV and TV networks mid-century. The study of interpersonal relationships by psychologists is fruitful. However, much of the extant research examines these relationships in face-to-face (FtF) settings, ignoring sustentative increases in the use of media to create, maintain, and develop interpersonal relationships through mediated channels (Walther, VanDerHeide, Ramirez, Burgoon, & Pena, 2015). There are now a myriad of ways that mediated social interaction takes place. Six Degrees is often acknowledged as the first social media Web site. It launched in 1997; that is, just 21 years ago. It is estimated that, in 2017, approximately 80% of adults living in the United States have at least one social media account (Edison Research, n.d.), and that just under 2.5 billion people world-wide are active on social media (Statista, n.d.). The most prominent social-networking site, Facebook.com, reported that over a billion people are using the site to interact with others interpersonally (Facebook, 2017), bolstering the need to understand and capture psychological processes and behavior that over 1 billion people experience daily. While there is debate over which was the first smart phone, most people agree smart phones have been around for over 20 years (Ling, 2004). In 2018, 77% of the United States population owned a smart phone (Pew Research Center, 2018). This is important because Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smartphones are where a significant proportion of mediated communication takes place (Newport, 2014). Indeed, over half of adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 report they have developed friendships online, and their preferred method of communication with friends is text messaging that likely takes place on smart phones (Pew Research Center, 2015).

The rise in mediated interpersonal relationships has led psychologists to call for the increased study of media by psychologists (Okdie et al., 2014). The call was made because there has been limited research by psychologists on the influence of communication technologies on interpersonal relationships (Okdie et al., 2014; see McKenna & Bargh, 1999 as an early example). Not surprisingly, researchers across a number of disciplines outside of psychology have spent a fair amount of time studying these new forms of media (Bryant & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005; Delia, 1987; Krcmar, Ewoldsen, & Koerner, 2016; Rogers, 1994). Much of this research emerges from scholars of communication, media, education, and sociology. Two content analyses found that from 1998 to 2012, less than 2% of the articles published in general psychology journals (e.g., Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Science), social psychology journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), or developmental psychology journals (e.g., Developmental Psychology) focused on media (Okdie et al., 2014; Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2004). Moreover, the content analyses used an inclusive definition of media, making the lack of media focus surprising.

A more recent transdisciplinary approach has emerged to study mediated communication. Specifically, the area of media psychology blends insights from psychology and communication to gain a richer understanding of the psychological processes involved in the selection of, exposure to, interpretation of, and effects of mediated communication (Bryant & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1999; Okdie et al., 2014). We view this approach as transdisciplinary because insights from both disciplines result in a synergy that neither discipline would achieve on its own.

In this issue of The Journal of Social Psychology, we focus on the psychological effects of media on interpersonal relationships. The focus on interpersonal relationships reflects an increasing trend to study the impact of social media on interpersonal relationships. Indeed, the study of social media and studies of the impact of media on children are the two primary areas where psychologists have historically studied mediated communication. As the articles in this special issue demonstrate, there are now an increasing number of media channels that are studied to determine how mediated interactions affect interpersonal relationships (Carpenter, Green, & Laflam, this issue). Moreover, the papers in this special issue point to important differences in how relationships form (Hance, Blackhart, & Dew, this issue), are maintained (Trepte, Masur, & Scharkow, this issue; Vogel, Rose, & Crane, this issue), and can be impaired in mediated communication contexts (Hales, Dvir, Wesslemann, Kruger, & Finkenauer, this issue).

In this issue, there are papers addressing the unique affordances (i.e., what actions are made possible by the environment; Edan, Ewoldsen, Lee, & Beyea, in press; Gibson, 1979; Norman, 1988; Walther, 2007) of different media technologies (such as unique forms of online self-expression) that impact relationship development (Adams, Miles, Dunbar, & Giles, this issue; Trepte et al., this issue; Vogel et al., this issue). For example, Hale’s et al. (this issue) show that mediated interactions can decrease one’s ability to socially connect with others when using cell phones in FtF interactions because interaction partners feel decreased relational evaluation. Conversely, Iannone, McCarthy, Branch, & Kelly’s article (this issue) shows that chronically ostracized individuals who are high in need to belong can regain their unmet social needs by engaging in mediated interactions (parasocial in this case) on Twitter. Vanman, Baker, Tobin (this issue) demonstrate that taking a break from mediated interactions such as those that occur on Facebook can have positive (decrease stress hormones) and negative effects (decreased life satisfaction). These studies demonstrate that mediated interactions have meaningful psychological and physiological effects.

Mediated interactions can also be used to enhance one’s ability to receive social support and potentially increase one’s ability to find a potential romantic partner. In this issue, Trepte et al. (this issue) indicate that self-disclosure in mediated communication initially predicted social support 6 months later (but FtF did not) while Vogel et al. (this issue) suggest that individuals are more likely to receive social support when their requests are positive and contain temporal elements (i.e., indicated improvements across time). Additionally, Hance et al. (this issue) indicate that rejection-sensitive individuals feel better able to express their true self online leading to greater use of online dating sites. Carpenter et al. (this issue) demonstrate that not all mediated communication is equal by showing that private (compared to public) messages increase closeness between interaction partners. Finally, Adams et al. (this issue) argue that the participants in mediated communication will accommodate the manner in which they communicate to one another and are more likely to do so when they are low (compared to high) status.

As the papers published in this issue demonstrate, it is important to understand the interaction between mediated and FtF communication. At a minimum, the studies in this issue help to establish important nuances in interpersonal relationships that often operate differently in FtF compared to a mediated context. Thus, studying the role of mediated communication in relationship development helps document the generalizability of existing theories in this new context. Sometimes the same processes hold, but in other instances, there are distinct outcomes not possible without mediated communication (Hance et al., this issue; Iannone et al., this issue). Given the growing importance of mediated communication, it is critical to understand when theories tested in a FtF context do, or do not, generalize to mediated contexts. Perhaps more importantly, it is critical that research identify theoretically driven mediators that explain when the processes are distinct between FtF and mediated communication. Doing so will aid in the further development of theories of interpersonal communication.

While important, focusing only on the generalizability of existing theories of interpersonal relationships to mediated contexts misses important questions about the dynamic relationship between mediated communication and interpersonal relationships. For example, the theory of niche construction recently emerged within the evolutionary sciences (Kendal, Tehrani, & Odling-Smee, 2011; Laland, Matthews, & Feldman, 2016). Niche construction theory maintains that evolution is more than a process of a species adapting to its environment. Instead, there is a more nuanced dynamic relationship where species also modify their environment (Laland et al., 2016; Zeder, 2016). For example, evolutionary theory has often treated culture as a byproduct of evolution. Conversely, niche construction theory hypothesizes that the emergence and evolution of cultures is in a dynamic relationship with traditional evolutionary pressures such that those social niches that allow a culture—and hence humans—to survive influence how we evolved (Sterelny, 2011). Indeed, Gintis (2011) has argued that many of the behaviors social psychologists are interested in studying, such as norms, altruism, interpersonal communication, and cooperation and trust, are a consequence of this dynamic process.

More recently, the concept of a social niche has been defined as a fairly stable social environment in which we can discuss the relative fitness of individuals (Saltz, Geiger, Anderson, Johnson, & Marren, 2016). Obviously, many of the new forms of social media such as Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit comprise novel social niches. From an evolutionary perspective, inclusive fitness entails whether the individual, operating within that social niche, increases the probability of survival and reproduction. A critical question involves asking the extent to which individuals vary in their degree of fitness in any particular social niche. More specific to this special issue, one might investigate whether there are individuals who thrive using particular forms of mediated communication compared to other forms of mediated communication. For example, people high in social anxiety may function better (e.g., experience less anxiety) when they communicate via text messaging as opposed to FtF communication. While social psychologists are rarely concerned with reproductive success, to the extent that mediated communication systems provide contexts in which people find a place to thrive, we argue these forms of mediated communication constitute social niches within which individuals can demonstrate inclusive fitness. Continuing with the above example, if communicating through text messaging decreases an individual’s anxiety, it also likely improves the quality of the individual’s relationships and perceptions of their own competence. We argue communicating via text messaging provides a social niche in which this individual increases his/her inclusive fitness.

We recognize that these ideas are highly speculative. However, consider Hance et al’s findings (this issue) that people who are high in rejection sensitivity—individuals who tend to have difficulty developing interpersonal relationships due to anxiety—are more comfortable on online dating sites. This suggests that online dating sites may provide a social niche in which rejection-sensitive individuals are more comfortable and possibly better able to develop relationships. Likewise, Iannone et al.’s findings that people who are high in the need to belong and experience ostracism use Twitter as a place to develop relationships—albeit parasocial relationships. If these parasocial relationships aid individuals in feeling they have stronger relationships, then Twitter maybe operating as a social niche for these individuals. Likewise, Trepte et al.’s findings that self-disclosure online has more positive long-term effects on social support is intriguing. Given the importance of social support for psychological and physical wellbeing, this finding suggests interesting possibilities for understanding how online interpersonal communication may increase people’s wellbeing across time and may aid in the creation of larger social networks. Trepte et al.’s findings suggest that an affordance offered by online self-disclosure may involve greater reinforcement of the reciprocal effects of self-disclosure on future social support, creating an environment in which individuals can thrive. These studies highlight the continued importance of taking a transdisciplinary approach to this area of research, given the dearth of questions these findings raise.

We hope that the reader finds the papers in this special issue enjoyable. More importantly, we hope they spur researchers to consider the importance of media psychology as an approach to understanding human behavior in a mediated environment. Finally, we are proud to announce that all articles in this special issue have earned open materials badges (and many have earned open-data or preregistration badges). These supplementary materials for all articles are available on the Open Science Framework (Okdie & Ewoldsen, in press; http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/645BK).