Abstract
Technology has become increasingly pervasive in American society, leading researchers, journalists, parents, teachers, and popular culture alike to question how technology is shaping our daily lives. The influx of technology raises a variety of new issues, many of which are specifically of interest to family scholars. It remains unclear whether technology is changing the way we form, maintain, and understand families—and the conditions under which these changes are for better or worse. In this concluding chapter, we bring attention to three themes that resonate throughout the volume: (1) how technology has shaped power dynamics in families, (2) the role technology has played in redefining and adjusting boundaries between family members and around the family, and (3) the relation between technology, family, and inequality. We conclude with suggestions for future research on family and technology by pointing to the need to integrate more theory and novel methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.
Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1339.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267.
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509–524.
Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3&4), 235–248.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.
Felmlee, D. H., & Faris, R. (2016). Toxic ties: Networks of friendship, dating, and cyber victimization. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(3), 243–262.
Felmlee, D. H., & Kreager, D. A. (2017). The invisible contours of online dating communities: A social networks perspective. Journal of Social Structure, 18(1), 1–27.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldstein, J. R., & Klüsener, S. (2014). Spatial analysis of the causes of fertility decline in Prussia. Population and Development Review, 40(3), 497–525.
Hessel, H., He, Y., & Dworkin, J. (2017). Paternal monitoring: The relationship between online and in-person solicitation and youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 288–299.
Kerig, P. K. (2005). Revisiting the construct of boundary dissolution: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(2–3), 5–42.
Kreager, D. A., Cavanagh, S. E., Yen, J., & Yu, M. (2014). “Where have all the good men gone?” gendered interactions in online dating. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 387–410.
Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(47), 18814–18819.
Luke, N., Goldberg, R. E., Mberu, B. U., & Zulu, E. M. (2011). Social exchange and sexual behavior in young women's premarital relationships in Kenya. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 1048–1064.
Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289–302.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186.
Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1976). A macro-and micro-examination of family power and love: An exchange model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(2), 355–362.
Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents’ and parents’ changing conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 31–46.
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zuckerberg, M. (2018, January 11). [Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sun, X., McMillan, C. (2018). Interplay Between Families and Technology: Future Investigations. In: Van Hook, J., McHale, S., King, V. (eds) Families and Technology. National Symposium on Family Issues, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95539-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95540-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)