Cited by 643Attachment and Relationship DynamicsChild Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on Adolescents

“Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being.

McDaniel, Brandon T., Coyne, Sarah M.·2016·Psychology of Popular Media Culture

Abstract

Technology use has proliferated in family life; everyday intrusions and interruptions due to technology devices, which we term “technoference,” will likely occur. We examine the frequency of technoference in romantic relationships and whether these everyday interruptions relate to women’s personal and relational well-being. Participants were 143 married/cohabiting women who completed an online questionnaire. The majority perceived that technology devices (such as computers, cell or smartphones, or TV) frequently interrupted their interactions, such as couple leisure time, conversations, and mealtimes, with their partners. Overall, participants who rated more technoference in their relationships also reported more conflict over technology use, lower relationship satisfaction, more depressive symptoms, and lower life satisfaction. We tested a structural equation model of technoference predicting conflict over technology use, which then predicted relationship satisfaction, which finally predicted depression and life satisfaction. By allowing technology to interfere with or interrupt conversations, activities, and time with romantic partners—even when unintentional or for brief moments—individuals may be sending implicit messages about what they value most, leading to conflict and negative outcomes in personal life and relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ppm0000065

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent research suggests that phubbing can negatively impact others across interactions between friends, romantic partners, and parents and children.

    “Research in this area has suggested that phubbing can negatively impact others across interactions between friends [45], romantic partners [46,47], and parents and children [48,49,50].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
Published
2016-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
85-98
ISSN
  • 2160-4134 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-4142
OpenAlex
W2110446532
Cited by
643
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
16.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology of Popular Media Culture (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
technoference, couple relationships, married women, relationship satisfaction, depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, family technology use, romantic relationships

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review