Instant Messaging, Instant Reaction

Generally speaking I love technology. I play video games - on consoles, PC, and phone, I completed my Masters in Counselling Psychology online, and my practice is open to using Skype and other web-telecommunications for reaching clients at a distance. There is a line, though, that people need to identify for themselves in how technology is going to be used especially in the forum of the relationship.

Psychology Today published an awesome article back in July 2016 called "The New Menage a Trois" talking about how various forms of technology have infiltrated the human relationship. There are some couples who thrive using technology - it enhances their relationship, it gives them something to do together. I can think of a couple of couples in particular who really dive into this deeply and thoroughly enjoy it. Equally, I know of many couples who met online and use the web to stay connected at a distance, meeting periodically for dates in each other's home towns for the face-to-face interaction.

When a relationship is getting rocky, though, technology can destroy what little is left.

There are a handful of major dangers that come with technology that I want to explore here (for some additional insights check out this Psychology Today article from 2010):

1. Isolation - In this I am actually referring to two forms of isolation. (A) Emotional isolation, where the relationship is so focused on communication through technology that we fail to identify the person on the other end. Depending on the psychologist or sociologist you talk to anywhere between 30% and 60% of human interaction is non-verbal - no words required. I think of the TV show Lie To Me which focuses on Dr. Cal Lightman who can find out if you're lying just by reading your body language when I think of this concept. However dramatized, the concept holds true. I completed an experiment using clients where I had them identify emotion using facial expressions and then just by reading instant-messaging (IM) conversations (context added) and the clients where virtually incapable of recognizing the emotional context of IMs AND were unable to respond appropriately. (B) Addiction. Technology provides a practically limitless hub for addiction which is further isolating and self-gratifying. Men and women, more and more equally, are getting attached to porn, communicating with online "friends" and other forms of non-human interaction and substituting it for human interaction. This is an addiction, further an addictive dependence, when it harms other avenues of communication. I should mention here that the linked Psychology Today article severely undermines the danger of porn in relationships. For more info please contact me.
2. Etiquette - There really is no general guideline for communicating in these forums, only what those involved in the conversation consider to be right or wrong. Going back to my little experiments there are a few major concerns here. (A) Response time. We think that instant messages require an instant response. When a man IMs his significant other and s/he doesn't respond right away and the relationship is having some level of difficulty he may immediately start jumping to conclusions. Just as in normal conversation we need time to provide a complete answer. With instant messaging this ranges from a few seconds after reading the message to minutes after reading just to start the response. This does not mean that your IM partner is formulating a lie. Without non-verbal communication cues the response time slows. (B) Response compliance or acquiescence. Two sides of a similar coin. During my experiments I found that the first experience that people have is, "What is the right response?" [during this experiment I had my clients write down there thinking process]. This was followed by a reluctant response (acquiesced) based solely on who it was they were responding to (context). In the same conversation with another person in the room there was near-immediate compliance! You need to be in the same place.
3. Interference - Brandon McDaniel, a rather new PhD recipient, uses the word technoference to describe what technology does in our lives. In his co-research it was found that technology use leads to dissatisfaction when not controlled. The same self-control we use to not simply fist-fight with those we are in conflict with needs to be used, even moreso, on the tech in our lives. Laptops/computers, TVs, cell phones, other handheld devices, gaming consoles, and alike are interfering if they are so much as nearby.
4. A distant fix - I have spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks attempting to find any article that says relationships of any kind (spousal, employer-employee, friends) can be fixed at a distance using technology. I found NOTHING and am quite pleased by that fact. Even the employer-employee relationship requires the CEO or other leadership in the organization to make a physical appearance to the team every now and again to establish a rapport. The Campaign to End Loneliness even goes so far as to say that the continued isolation of those using technology to establish friendships is causing additional distress. If you want to fix your relationship you need to do it together in the same space. Have some distance between you so that you don't take a swing at your partner if you need to but key items like empathy require direct human interaction [(1), (2)]. There is actually a small section of our brain that is active in empathetic processes that can only be activated by direct interaction - the anterior cingulate cortex. 

If you were looking for a 5-step fix for this, well too bad. It's not that easy. In order to fix some of these issues you will need to discuss them, face-to-face, and set rules for meaningful interaction. If you want help doing that I would be more than happy to set up an appointment. Possibly even online.

In case you were curious, these last few lines were meant to be humorous (and true).