First, it was the comic book. Then it was the television, then the Game Boy or the console, and now it is the smartphone. We’ve long been warning teenagers whose attention is fixed on something other than conversation that they won’t be able to navigate the real world if they don’t put their phones down. And now science seems to back that parental worry about tech-addicted teens, at least when it comes to the love lives they lead later on.
In a study of almost 500 teenagers from an average American high school, those who spent more time communicating with their boyfriends or girlfriends through instant messaging and social media apps proved far less capable of managing conflicts, sharing problems, or asserting themselves in real life a year later, claims a new study in the Journal of Research on Adolescence.
“In romantic relationships that are very close and very intimate, people tend to enjoy all kinds of positive aspects. But know how to express needs, talk about problems and reach compromises is important too,” said Mitch Prinstein, director of clinical psychology at the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill. “A lot of communication is occurring in public forums, so while you’re communicating, you’re also thinking of how this would play out for a worldwide audience.”
With more and more school kids investing their time in texting, Snapchat and Instagram, the medium is affecting the message, evolving the nature of relationships. “With electronic communications, there are fewer interpersonal cues,” said Jacqueline Nesi, the lead author of the study, to Futurity. “You’re not seeing facial expressions or using nonverbal communications. So, the predominant use of social media may limit the opportunity to practice in-person conversations that are crucial for adolescents, particularly boys, to develop important skills.”
In order the track the behaviour of the in-love teenagers, the research team gave them a questionnaire to gather data on their level of relationship skills and to see how much time they spend communicating with each other across the internet rather than face-to-face or on the phone. Twelve months later, the researcher sent out the same question and discovered that proportionally higher online engagement was associated with lower relationship skills.
“A lot of people have been very sceptical, if not critical about children’s use of the Internet. There’s nothing bad about the Internet in general and there’s lots of benefits. But are these specific types of things that are good or bad?” Prinstein said.
The team’s research does not recommend to parents that they ban their lovesick teenager from using the Internet. But the scientists hope their work can be used to pose more questions about the potential harms of the online world, as well as what the benefits can be.
“I wouldn’t say that any particular type of social media is better or worse,” Nesi said, adding that some apps and digital platforms may engage teenagers and offering them more scope to communicate. “For example, FaceTime or Skype, where adolescents can see each other and make eye contact, might allow for more practice with certain interpersonal skills than something like Facebook messenger, which is primarily text-based.”
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the research is the fact that it showed that boys fare worse than girls when it comes to having their relationship skills diminished by online communication. Even though it did affect both groups, with both sexes getting worse at stopping fights, comprehending their partner’s opinions, or explaining how they felt about a relationship, boys ultimately performed worse.
Boys tended to more pronounced conflict management deficits than girls, with the conflict even more poorly managed in same-sex relationships. And with more and more of these relationships starting and ending on screens, boys are afforded fewer chances to partake in face-to-face communications.
