Knowledge for What? (Tyler and Rebecca)

Tyler- you're responsible for the article from the top til "Messages Disseminated by Media."
Rebecca- you're responsible for the article from "Messages Disseminated by Media" til the end.

The social and behavioral sciences have often been the site of skirmishes by cantankerous observers. This particularly has been the case for those who would apply them to the solution of real and important problems. The proper methodology, the correct interpretation of data, the validity of inferences—these are persistently challenged, often by those with vested ideological or material interests. We have chosen a title used almost 70 years ago by Robert S. Lynd (1939), the pioneering sociologist who was coauthor (with his wife) of Middletown (1929) and Middletown in Transition (1937)—the quintessential studies that set the standards for describing American communities—to emphasize our enlistment in the long history of drawing on the social and behav- ioral sciences for practical guidance. His plea was that more should be made of what is known. We concur, and believe this is especially so for media and young people—although we are embarrassed this should remain the case after the passage of so much time.

I. USING THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 1
We are aware that a commitment to use the social and behavioral sciences is somewhat cyclical. The famous “golden fleece” award of Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) many years ago popularized the belief in the useless—and seemingly often silly—research funded by federal agencies. (Many of the winning projects, of course, bask today in respect and honor as significant contributions to their fields.) The “experimenting society” was coined by Donald Campbell for use in the 1960s and early 1970s of the social and behavioral sciences to evaluate the effectiveness of major interventions (Head Start, Sesame Street, racial integration of public schools), a by-product of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. The promotion of a “positive psychology” that relies on empirical findings (as opposed to ideology or philosophy) to enact better personal lives (Seligman, 19..) is a current example. The question then, is whether media and young people meet the criteria for applying social and behavioral science. We believe they do because of four circumstances:

• The research on many topics—for example, violent television and film entertainment, and time spent with media—has become exten- sive and much more informative and convincing than was the case not so long ago.
  
• A wide range of topics has now received some attention. This expan- sion of the research protocol is exemplified by the data documenting the very early years at which media use now begins.
  
• The development of theory allows us to extend the empirical evi- dence in useful ways because conclusions now can signal concerns beyond what was possible earlier. Examples include the application to prosocial behavior of the findings on media violence, and the role of the media in socialization.
  
• Research of the past decade has significantly extended knowledge. The new evidence includes a better understanding of the television viewing experience, and the use of media by young people.
  From the perspective of a much earlier examination of priorities by the first author and colleagues (Comstock et al., 1978), the present landscape is quite different. Then, our emphasis was on abstract concepts and strategic maneuvers. We were trying to prescribe conditions for the maximum effectiveness of social and behavioral science in pursuit of practical application. We presented an analysis of the forces influencing television based on the sources of action (regulatory vs. nonregulatory) and the targets of action (industry struc- ture vs. social effects). We advocated meticulous examination of the ways research might be used, including the identification of policy issues and the data that might affect their resolution. We preached on behalf of focused research, including the organizational features that would make such programs more influential. Our goal was a better knowledge machine. We did not specify much in the way of concrete concerns.

In retrospect, our emphases reflected the times. We were optimistically naïve about the malleability and promise of the scientific endeavor, and somewhat short—although hardly lacking—in identifying specific issues. We thought much could be resolved by the systematic design and implementation of research and policy strategies. We (mostly the first author, who does not want to burden unjustly his coauthors with his reasoning at the time) thought it possible to con- struct more efficient ways to make things better. We were concerned less with what had been learned and what it might mean than with how we could learn more and how we could ensure that what we learned had practical application.
In fact, things did not change at all in the directions we prescribed. Our arguments retain some validity, but they are not likely to see much in the way of implementation because none has occurred in the ensuing three decades. We thus embark on a quite different approach. We focus on specific areas of concern, and raise questions as well as deliver answers. We thus abandon the knowledge machine for an agenda of issues identified by social and behavioral science. This is more realistic in regard to the influence of research on policy and action (including those of parents in the home), where research seldom leads to a policy solution.

As we recently have written elsewhere (Comstock & Scharrer, 2006), we see social and behavioral science as importantly entering into the deliberations and negotiations that affect policy and action in regard to the media while rarely being determinative. Research raises questions and presents evidence that it is difficult for those engaged in these exchanges to ignore entirely. Two examples are tele- vision advertising and young viewers, and television and film vio- lence and antisocial behavior. In both cases, research has influenced the fundamental framework of knowledge and shaped policy, whereas the immediate sources of policy have resided in social, political, and economic factors.

II. THE ACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE ROLE OF MEDIA
There are primarily three parties that influence the role of media in the lives of young people in addition to the choices that young consumers themselves make. They are the federal regulatory apparatus, the media industries, and parents.

A. The Role of Federal Regulation
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Com- mission (FTC), and the Congress have important but in practice quite limited roles in regard to television and no role at all for other media. Our hope is that their actions would conform to pertinent research, but the past half century has not been encouraging. The emphasis, as expected with the license to broadcast the principle economic property of an outlet that otherwise would have no value, has been on structural issues—who is empowered to broadcast, how many signals the spec- trum can handle in a market, the acceptable degree of concentration of ownership across outlets. The trend toward deregulation of the past few decades has left much unattended to—the program-length com- mercial (once banned, but now accepted as inevitable), host-selling outside the boundary of the home program (lowers ad recognition but easy to ban), the retreat imposed on the FTC by Congress in regard to advertising directed at children (a substitution of political force for evi- dence-based policy). In contrast, the FCC requirement, in accord with legislation passed by Congress that broadcasters allot two hours a week to educational and cultural programming for the young, has apparently been quite successful (as measured by the number of such programs available). However, the FCC’s current concern with indecency is ironic when faced with its comparative indifference to violent enter- tainment, since the research provides little reason (other than fastidi- ousness) for concern about the former and much cause for concern about the latter. Beyond broadcast television, other media, including cable, are not regulated. What can we expect from the federal regula- tory apparatus is limited to one medium, and within that medium, very narrow in scope.

B. The Role of Industries
Those in the business of making and disseminating media products will be primarily motivated by economic interests, although in many cases a large role will be played by creative concerns. For the same economic reasons, we can expect them to be very sensitive to public concerns and expectations. The retreat of the television broadcasters in the face of the V-chip legislation is an example. The broadcasters vowed to fight the proposal to install devices in new television sets that would allow parents to scramble undesired signals based on codes that the industry would supply. They fled from the field of battle when polls produced about 80 percent of the public as dissatisfied with the amount of violence on television. The public relations cost was too high, and the threat of formal regulation, although in fact probably remote, too great. Research on the effects of violent entertainment played no visible part in the industry’s decision, although it certainly influenced those who were calling for action. Whatever research might suggest, we cannot expect those engaged in profitable activities to suspend them because research will rarely be so compelling that all counter-arguments can be vanquished. However, we can expect that an industry will respond to public concerns and these are in part set by research, and in particular in this case we can hope that descriptive codes and discretionary warnings offered as information to parents will be as accurate as possible.

C. The Role of Parents
The major responsibility in regard to media and young persons inevitably falls to parents and other caregivers. They determine the opportunities for very early use of television and the age at which other media become read- ily accessible, the household environment that figures so importantly in the use of all media, and the media stockpiling in bedrooms that makes isolated media use so frequent for so many young people. They also have the opportunity to discuss media with young persons, to emphasize the many positive features of media, to encourage constructive use of media, and to enhance the learning from the media by expanding on and reinforc- ing theses, portrayals, and accounts presented by the media. Parents, finally, establish the environment in the home that is more or less favor- able for questionable media use—unfettered viewing of television and film that interferes with scholastic achievement, obsessive involvement in depictions of violence that encourage hostile thoughts and antisocial behavior, or exposure to pornography.

III. WHERE THE DATA POINT
We organize our concerns by the chapter in which the data on which we draw are primarily presented. This should make the link between evidence and conclusion clearer and more accessible. Our criterion for concern is that the data point to a problem or an unanswered question for some young people. We use the data as a warning; we do not require a compelling case, but we do require that the data identify a problem- atic circumstance.

A. Media Use
The data on media use raise four issues about the welfare of young persons. They concern very early media use, media use in isolation, media use apart from the family, and the preference for screen media

and entertainment.

1. Early Media Use The very recent Kaiser surveys make it clear that regular attention to a television screen now begins earlier than the age of two. We know, from the pioneering work of Meltzoff, that infants as young as six months can replicate—that is, imitate—phys- ical actions they see on a screen. However, this does not mean that media effectively can substitute for interactions with humans. At this early age, when the infant is beginning to make sense of the world and perceive distinctions between his or her self and others, human interaction is crucial. The attentive care of parents is impor- tant for healthy development during infancy. Imitation of the parents becomes a means by which the infant establishes a sense of separate- ness and an understanding of human commonality. Language acquisi- tion will be furthered by the flexible reinforcement of parents. Atten- tion to television is not necessarily harmful, but it is no substitute for contact with parents.

2. Media Use in Isolation Media use has increasingly become pri- vate and isolated. This trend began many years ago with the increase of multiset households. They are now ubiquitous. The trend was only slightly slowed early in the process by the tendency of parents to take the initial additional set for their own bedrooms. However, the increas- ing availability of a wide range of media, and particularly screen media, in the bedrooms of young people has been accompanied by extensive use of media alone. One consequence is that social exchanges with other members of the family, and particularly parents, become con- strained. Another is that media use of which parents would disapprove becomes more likely—erotic, extreme violence, dangerous chat rooms.

3. Media Use Apart from Family The trend among young people toward screen media use apart from the family—only young children and only during prime time do they spend a majority of their screen media time with parents—has an additional consequence. It places a severe limit on parental mediation. This results in a loss on three fronts: (a) Parents cannot express their approval or disapproval of por- trayed behavior, and thus cannot make their values clearer; (b) Parents cannot guide the aesthetic and cultural choices of their children, and thus forego shaping tastes and preferences; and (c) Parents cannot com- ment upon and discuss what has been said or portrayed, and thus surrender a means of increasing the educational impact of viewing certain screen media—because young people (and probably everybody) learns more from the screen when someone else reviews, reinforces, or com- ments upon the material presented.

4. Preference for Screen Media Despite all the attention to the Internet, surveys record that screen media, and primarily television, by far consume the great majority of time young people spend with media. The sole rival in terms of time use is audio media featuring music, and this occurs only among older teenagers and, in particular, teenage females. These data inevitably raise questions about the contribution of the large amounts of time that young people spend with media to their imaginative, creative, and intellectual growth while amply docu- menting that they have found an enjoyable way to spend time.

B. Data on Television Viewing
The data on the experience of viewing television leads to two very broad conclusions. On the one hand, attention is irregular, divided, partial, and certainly unlike that common to movie theaters. Remote controls and the increasing number of available channels make a surf- and-skip pattern likely much of the time. On the other hand, the pri- mary motive for viewing is an escape from stress and unwelcome thoughts. The surf-and-skip pattern serves this end admirably, because it accommodates for content of maximal interest. The questions remain the same but the focus now is not on what is consumed but how it is consumed. Might not something more occasionally be expected from media use in the way of imaginative, creative, and intel- lectual development while recognizing that much of media use will be only passingly enjoyable?

C. Messages Disseminated by Media
There is much that is problematic about the messages that are dissem- inated by media, and particularly by television—after all, the most pop- ular of media. Television offers much that is uninformative and quite wrong about the world. It also offers much in the way of bad advice. This bad advice extends from what young people consume to how they behave. It also fails to some extent in providing images and portrayals that confirm the viewer’s self-worth. Our assumption is that television operates to some degree as a source of information and that the people it portrays function as models for emulation or the confirmation—when the viewer can identify with them—of oneself. This is not unreason-

able as an assumption, because those presented on television usually are attractive, successful, or at least powerful, all of which encourage emulation and identification.

We draw attention to four areas where portrayals are problematic:
1. Stereotyping
Gender, race, and age are marked by depictions that distort the demo- graphics of everyday life. Males, and particularly white males, are overrepresented. So, too, are young adults, and particularly white young adults. Children and old people are seldom seen. Typically, depictions of males emphasize muscularity, independence, authority, and power, whereas depictions of females typically emphasize slimness and physical attractiveness, dependence, and deference to males.
2. Exclusion
Some people seldom see those like themselves on the screen. This applies not only to the very young and the very old, but to gays, lesbi- ans, and most minority ethnic groups other than blacks (who appear in proportions about equal to their proportion in the population).
3. Unhealthy choices

Much that is presented in the way of consumption on television is unhealthy. Advertisements promote alcohol and foods that are low in nutritional value. Programs frequently depict alcohol use. Tobacco use, although banned from commercials, appears often in programs, and particularly older shows in syndication and older movies. Both alcohol and tobacco use are frequently portrayed as the province of the glamorous, brave, or powerful. A diet based on foods advertised to the young would increase the risk of obesity.

4. Bad advice
The behavioral recommendations implied by much of television are often bad advice. Violence is frequently endorsed as a widespread, nor- mative, and desirable way to behave that will gain respect and enjoy social approval. Sexual coupling is often depicted as common between the unmarried, and sexuality is seldom connected with health risks, responsibility, or safe options.

Just as frequent exposure to commercials for a product maintains a favorable position in an individual’s hierarchy of options (and generally ensures an association between product category and brand), repeated exposure to stereotypes and bad advice will make such images more accessible when decisions are being made about how to act. In contrast, some viewers will find themselves excluded from the social acceptance implied by the portrayal of those resembling themselves.

D. Converting Young People to Customers

The data on advertising and young people raise a number of intriguing and sometimes puzzling questions. There is no doubt that children below the age of eight are exploited by advertising aimed at them, because before that age a majority do not comprehend the self-interested motives of advertisers. There is also no doubt that advertising directed at young people is often effective and that the language employed is often disin- genuous. The fact that the giant food manufacturers sidestepped restraints on television commercials aimed at children by Congressional edict rather than the facts of the case is disturbing. So, too, is the extent to which the youth market—segmented by age and stage of cognitive development—has become a major target of marketers.

The fact that young people are not always easy prey to particular advertising campaigns does not translate into support for the often- heard industry claim that young people today are too smart or “savvy” to be manipulated. Converting young people to customers has become an ardently and artfully pursued goal of advertisers, and the calculated introduction of children to brands begins early. Concern has become great enough for the American Psychological Association to offer a task force report on the ethics of using social and behavioral science to market to young people. These issues—the exploitation of children, the use of science as a strategy in marketing to the young, the growing importance of the youth market—take on enhanced importance in the current communications context in which the Internet, computers, and other means of disseminating persuasive messages blur the border between advertising and sports, entertainment, or other media content. The protections made possible by the structured formality of television broadcasts and commercial inserts—the recognizability of the “pod”— is vanishing. The result is renewed significance for the research on advertising and marketing and young people, and a less certain environment in which to apply its results.

E. The Effect of Viewing on Academic Achievement
Amount of television viewing is negatively associated with scholastic achievement for all subjects, but the greatest concern is with the three basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic because they are funda- mental to progress in most subjects throughout the academic career of a young person. The biggest news—although an old story to many teachers and parents—is the evidence that television socializes the aesthetic and leisure preferences of young people. Viewing is negatively correlated with an interest in and respect and liking for books, with the reading of challenging material, and reading outside of assignments, and positively correlated with a preference for television-like con- tent—romance, and celebrity inside dope.

These factors that correlate negatively with television viewing, of course, correlate positively with achievement. Time use is at the center of our paradigm. Time spent with television may displace time acquiring or maintaining the skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. The data support the proposition that the penalty for time displaced lies in the value of the displaced activity. It was no surprise that the greater the intellectual resources in the home—books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias—the more negative the association between viewing and achievement. In homes with fewer or no resources—often homes with high centrality of television to the virtual exclusion of other media—the negative association is less pronounced. Displace- ment effects become significant only among those who spend a great deal of time with television—above the eightieth percentile in average amount of viewing. The negative correlations between achievement and viewing are also in part attributable to greater viewing by those with attributes that predict lower achievement—lower socioeconomic status, stressful relationships with peers and parents, and lower mental ability. We are particularly concerned about a minority at risk, although the inhibition of serious reading may be somewhat more widespread.

F. Influence of Screen Media on Behavior
The several meta-analyses, the consistency of results for experimental designs and survey designs, and the parallel outcomes for violent and prosocial portrayals make a strong case for an influence of screen media on behavior. The meta-analytic coefficients are positive (and statistically significant) for a wide range of differing conceptualizations of the independent and dependent variables, which means the relationship between exposure to violent entertainment and aggressive and antiso- cial behavior is very robust. The well-documented positive correlation between everyday violence viewing and aggressive and antisocial behavior—not fully explainable by anything other than exposure to violent entertainment—suggests that the experimental proof of causation within that limited setting is generalizable to everyday settings. In scientific jargon, the surveys confirm the external validity of the experiments.
The parallel outcomes for violent and prosocial portrayals lead us to conclude that the principles developed in connection with violent portrayals apply widely to behavior. In our terminology, these princi- ples hold that emulation of portrayed behavior is enhanced by depictions (or implications) of efficacy, normativeness, and pertinence, and by

viewers susceptible to influence (which, in the context of violent por- trayals, means a state of frustration, anger, or a motive to aggress).

There comes a time in the exploration of an area by social and behavioral science at which one chooses to continue to pursue questions within narrow parameters or to generalize on a wider basis. That time is at hand in regard to media and behavior. An important step was the development of the General Aggression Model (GAM), which synthesizes concepts from several different theories and research paradigms. Another step was the recognition that factors on which the effects of violent portrayals are contingent apply to a broad range of behavior. A good example is the health belief model, which has the same theoretical roots as much media violence research. In the case of the health belief model, however, the hypotheses concern the effects of media (and other interventions) on behavior related to health.

There are many parallels in the data on violent portrayals and the playing of violent video games. Video games nevertheless require fur- ther investigation because of their rapidly increasing degrees of reality, the greater physical and mental involvement, and variations across games in point of view of the player (or shooter). Age is also likely to matter. Television viewing returns to earlier, higher levels of viewing when education is completed, whereas video game use typically declines (or vanishes) after adolescence. There is also a major question regarding gender. Video game use so far has been much greater among males than females, but television viewing does not display such a disparity. The content of the games is one potential explanation, with many games emphasizing violence, action, and logical and spatial reasoning, all of which tend to appeal more to boys and men than to girls and women.

The new evidence of media influence on sexual behavior is particu- larly impressive. The designs favor a causal interpretation indicting sexual depictions on television and in song lyrics, and the outcomes further support the kind of behavioral influence attested to by the data on violent television and film entertainment.

We emphasize that in the case of screen portrayals context is extremely important. The likelihood of influence varies with the prop- erties of the portrayal and the state of the viewer. In addition, the social setting of the viewer matters. As the GAM posits, an environment filled with hostility or marked by the availability of a deserving target (from the point of view of a potential aggressor) enhances the likeli- hood of aggression and thus the likelihood of some influence by prior exposure to violent portrayals. Age enters because adolescents and young adults are more likely to be in social settings that encourage aggressive or antisocial behavior.

G. Socialization

Everything we have written about concerns socialization of one kind or another. Even the experience of viewing television deals with the circum- stances in which socialization-relevant information is attended to. One of the keys to the influence of screen media is that they do not encourage a critical or thoughtful stance. They typically are consumed with enough attention to follow the narrative but do not engage much more in the way of cognitive scrutiny. This sort of processing opens the way to influence that a more guarded view might thwart. We root for the cop-killing bankrobber to get away because he is so charming. We’re skeptical of the credibility of commercials but repetitive exposure enhances the salience— and implied goodness—of products. Then there is the justly famous research in which bigots saw Archie Bunker (All in the Family) as a spokesperson whereas the unprejudiced saw him as an object of satire.

We now extend our attention to socialization by turning to politics, gender, and physical presence. Media have assumed an increasingly important role in regard to politics as party loyalties have become less fixed and parents less frequently bestow on their children a rooted allegiance to one or the other of the major parties. Media have become newly important sources of information. Gender roles are particularly susceptible to media influence as options for females become wider. The overall emphasis of media is on conventional male and female roles, but the data on socialization also indicates that nonstereotypical portrayals can encourage a more liberal outlook. As the research on advertising and marketing suggests, the media are quite influential in regard to physical presence—fashion, brands, and body image—and particularly so for tweens and teenagers.

The typology developed by Roberts and Foehr reminds us that there is widespread variation among young people in media use. Use varies as a function of household availability, parental rules, and personal tastes, and these in turn can be traced in part to such factors as house- hold socioeconomic status and ethnicity. The unavoidable conclusion is that media influence also will vary considerably across the segments that constitute the audience of children and teenagers, with influence greatest among those who use media the most or for some reason are particularly susceptible to media influence. This has two consequences. First, the journalistic commonplace of monolithic terminology (“children,” “teenagers,” “young adult women,” “seniors,” etc.) must be abandoned in favor of more varied segments. Second, our concern with effects of the media or other influences should focus on these narrower segments because they define vulnerability. The result is a two-step paradigm: use and consequence.

Four theories that help to explain socialization effects are social comparison, social identity, social cognition, and cultivation. Social comparison posits that individuals use media to evaluate themselves, shifting in perspective and behavior when comparisons are unfavorable. Social identity holds that media contribute to the sense of self and the use of in-groups and out-groups in establishing status and position in relating to the social environment. Social cognition emphasizes the use of internalized symbolic examples to further one’s ability to emulate or model the behavior and attitudes of successful others. Cultivation argues that the emphases of the media become an important basis for the construction of reality. These formulations have a common thread—the media surpass their contribution of a set of entertaining and diverting images to become practical guides to growing up and getting on.

IV. THE THREE M’S—STRATEGIES TO ENCOURAGE A CRITICAL STANCE
When we are asked to speak to parent or teacher groups about young people and media, we are frequently asked what can be done to help negotiate the potential hurdles (violence, hypercommercialization, stereotypes, etc.) and encourage a critical stance toward media. In response, the second author has come up with a pithy list of three sug- gestions: moderation, mediation, and media literacy. Although we rec- ognize the complexity of young people’s orientations toward and responses to media, we offer these simple strategies as a place to begin. Each is firmly grounded in the research record.

Since many studies have identified heavy use of particular media forms with some types of influence, moderation in consumption is a potentially fruitful strategy. Such an approach allows for greater oppor- tunity to compare media messages with other sources of information about the social world, encourages exposure to a more limited number of favorites rather than choices employed to simply pass the time, and is less likely to displace other activities important for personal and social development. Mediation, as we have explained, allows for the expression of one’s own responses to media, thereby communicating what is deemed objectionable and why as well as what is preferred. In households in which mediation occurs, the development of a critical outlook is likely, modeled initially perhaps by parents and other adults but also adopted by children and teenagers themselves. Finally, media literacy is the inclusion in kindergarten through twelfth grade class- rooms of lessons and units designed to develop knowledge about media industries, media practices, and audience responses; the ability to use and access media in its many forms; and the application of critical thinking skills to evaluate and analyze media. Research in this area shows promise that media literacy curricula can enhance learning about many of the media topics that we have raised in this book and may even make media effects less likely. Moderation, mediation, and media literacy are steps toward empowering young people to challenge media while still retaining the pleasure that media afford.

Articles for Week of April 27, 2015

Kids and Video Games (Alex)
http://time.com/34075/how-violent-video-games-change-kids-attitudes-about-aggression/

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/08/violent-video-games-dont-make-us-less-caring/

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/how-playing-violent-video-games-may-change-the-brain/


Prosocial effects of video games (John C.)
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0034857.pdf

Online Assignment Thursday, April 23, 2015 (Couples, the Internet, and Social Media)

In lieu of meeting on Thursday, please read the following article and write a 2-page reaction to it. The first part should be a summary, and the second part should be your own reaction/thoughts/opinions. I hope you'll find the article as interesting as I did.

Couples, the Internet, and Social Media 

BY AMANDA LENHART AND MAEVE DUGGAN

As digital technology becomes more and more of a fixture in Americans’ daily lives, it has infiltrated all sorts of domains, including how people meet, communicate with their romantic partners and manage their lives together.  In an earlier report, Online Dating and Relationships, the Pew Research Center detailed the meeting part of the equation, looking at how adults use technology to find, date and interact with potential romantic partners.  This report looks at the next step in the process – how couples in committed relationships use technology to manage their digital and offline lives, but also how couples feel technology has enhanced or detracted from a sense of intimacy and connection with their partner.

The focus of this report is on couples who are in an existing marriage or other type of committed relationship. Specifically, this includes anyone who describes themselves as:

• Married (47% of Americans are currently married)1
• Living with a partner (6% of Americans fall into this category)
• Not married or living with a partner, but are currently in a “committed romantic relationship” (12% of Americans are in a committed relationship of this kind)

Throughout this report, when we refer to “couples,” or to people who are in a “marriage or committed relationship,” we are referring to the 66% of the American public that falls into one of the three categories listed above. Additional demographic details about these groups can be found in the appendix at the end of the online dating report.

Technology plays a prominent role in the lives of partnered Americans. Among those who are married or in a committed relationship:

• 88% use the internet (as do 85% of American adults)
• 71% use social networking sites (as do 72% of all internet users)
• 93% have a cell phone (as do 91% of adults)

The remainder of this report, with the exception of the discussion of sexting, examines the role of these technologies in the lives of Americans who are married or in a committed relationship. The sexting analysis focuses more broadly on all adult cell phone owners, both single and those in couples.

Digital Sharing & Logistics

While most American couples tend to operate their online accounts independently, a subset of couples utilizes email, social media and other digital tools together as a unit. Sharing email accounts between couples is relatively prevalent—although far from a majority activity. Meanwhile, sharing an online calendar or social networking profile is relatively uncommon:

• 27% of internet users who are married or in a committed relationship share an email account.
• 11% of such couples share an online calendar.
• 11% of couples who use social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter say that they share a social networking profile.

Although fully “joint accounts” are relatively uncommon when it comes to online communication platforms, many more couples share passwords with their spouse or significant other. Some 67% of internet users in a marriage or committed relationship say that they have shared an online password with their spouse or current partner.

27% of internet users in couples share an email account with their partner. Older couples are especially likely to share an email account.

Among internet users who are married or are in a committed relationship, some 27% share an email account with their partner. The likelihood of sharing an email account becomes steadily greater with age – just 12% of married or committed adults ages 18-29 share an email address with their partner, compared with 47% among adults ages 65 and older. Adults earning more than $50,000 in household income are substantially more likely to share an email address with a partner or spouse than those who earn less, with 18% of those earning less than $50,000 a year reporting sharing an email address, while 32% of those couples earning more share an address. White adults in committed relationships or marriages are more likely to share a joint email address than similarly married or committed African-American adults (28% vs. 17%).  Retirees are also substantially more likely to share an email account with their spouse or partner, with 42% of them reporting a shared email address, compared with 24% of those employed full time.

11% of internet users who are in a couple share an online calendar with their spouse or partner. Sharing online calendars is most prevalent among parents and middle aged couples.

Sharing online calendars is less common than sharing email accounts—11% of internet users in a couple say that they share an online calendar with their spouse or partner. Sharing online calendars is not especially prevalent for any demographic subset of committed couples, but is most common among couples at a stage in life in which logistical scheduling can be challenging. In particular, the following groups have relatively high rates of online calendar sharing (all figures are based on internet users in a marriage or committed relationship):

• Middle aged couples – 16% of 25-34 year olds, and 12% of those ages 35-44, share an online calendar with their partner. Calendar sharing also increases at retirement age, as 11% of those 65 and older share an online calendar with a partner.
• Couples with children living at home – 13% of parents share an online calendar.
• Those who are employed full-time – 12% of those who are employed full-time share an online calendar with their spouse or partner.
• Those with higher income and/or education levels – 16% of college graduates, and 15% of those with an annual household income of $75,000 or more per year, share an online calendar with their spouse or partner.

Individuals who own a smartphone, or who use social networking sites, are also more likely to share a calendar with a partner or spouse compared with non-adopters of these technologies.

11% of social network site users in a marriage or committed partnership share a social media profile with their spouse or partner.

Sharing of social networking profiles is also relatively uncommon. Among adults in a couple who use social networking sites, just 11% say that they share a profile with their spouse or partner. There is also relatively little demographic variation when it comes to this behavior—for example, social media users of all ages are equally likely to share a profile with their spouse or partner. However, those who have only completed high school are a bit more likely to say they share a social media profile compared to those with a college degree (15% vs. 9%).

67% of committed couples have shared a password with partner or spouse

Sharing of online passwords between partners is much more common than creating joint accounts. Fully 67% of internet users in a marriage or committed relationship have shared an online password with their partner or spouse. Password sharing does not vary by age, but it is more prevalent in higher-income households. Couples who earn more than $50,000 a year in household income are more likely to share passwords with each other than those who earn less (76% vs. 56%). Parents are also a bit more likely to report sharing passwords than those without children at home. Some 71% of parents share passwords with their partner or spouse as do 65% of those who are not parents.

Couples who share one type of digital tool or account tend to share others as well

Couples who share one type of digital tool will more often share other tools and accounts. Among adults who share a calendar with their spouse or significant other, more than 2 in 5 also share an email account, 18% share a social media profile and nine in ten share passwords with their partner.

Couples who share an email address also share other online tools and materials – one quarter of email sharers also co-own a social media profile, 16% share an online calendar and 87% share passwords with their partner.

Long-term couples are more likely to approach their online accounts as a joint undertaking.

Couples who have been together for a longer period of time—and therefore may have first encountered many of these technologies as a couple, rather than as single individuals—tend to have higher rates of account sharing compared with couples who have been together for a shorter period of time.

Among the married and partnered, there are big differences between those in relationships of long duration and the more newly partnered: the longer partners in a couple have been together, the more likely they are to share an email address. For those married or partnered for 5 years or less, just 10% share an email. This rises to 24% for those together for 6 to 10 years and 38% for those married or in a committed relationship for more than ten years. The age of the individual is not as strong a factor in email sharing as how long a couple has been together.

Couples who have been together for more than ten years are more likely than those who have shared their lives for shorter periods to say they share a social media profile. Fourteen percent of the long-married or internet users in couples who have been together for more than ten years share a profile, while just 8% of those married or partnered for less than a decade do so. As with email, the duration of the relationship is a more important factor than the age of the individuals.

Couples who have been married or partnered for 6 years or more are also more likely to have shared a password with their partner than those married less than 6 years (59% vs 71%).

Sharing calendars is the only activity where the length of the relationship does not seem to have an impact.

Impacts and Experiences

Most couples say that the internet has had no real impact one way or the other on their relationship—but for those who say it has had an impact, that impact is overwhelmingly positive.

For a substantial majority of couples, the internet plays a modest role in their relationships. Just 10% of internet users in couples say that the internet has had a “major impact” on their relationship, while 17% say that it has had a “minor impact.” On the other hand, fully 72% of married or committed online adults said the internet has “no real impact at all” on their partnership.

Although most couples believe that the internet’s impact on their relationship has been minimal, the proportion saying it does have some impact has increased since we first asked this question in 2005. At that point, a total of 16% of internet users in couples said that the internet had either a major or minor impact on their relationship, compared with a total of 27% who say so today.2

Among the adult internet users who report that the internet had an impact on their marriage or partnership, the majority of them say the impact was positive, with three quarters of adult internet users reporting a positive impact. Still, 20% said the impact was mostly negative, and 4% said it was both good and bad.

Younger and more tech-savvy Americans tend to view the internet as having a more pronounced impact on their relationships

Overall, just 27% of internet users in couples say that the internet has had some impact on their relationship—but this varies substantially by age. Some 45% of internet users in couples ages 18-29 say that the internet has some impact on their relationship (21% say it has had a “major” impact, and 24% say it has had a “minor” impact). On the other hand, just 11% of such internet users in couples ages 65 and older say that the internet has an impact on their relationship (and only 1% of these older adults say that the internet has a “major” impact on their marriage or partnership).

Relationship duration shows a similar pattern – internet users who have been married or partnered ten years or less are substantially more likely to say the internet has had an impact on their relationship than those in longer partnerships. While 15% of more newly partnered people say the internet has had a major impact on their partnership, just 5% of those partnered more than a decade say the same.

As the earlier Online Dating and Relationships report shows, adults in partnerships or marriages of ten years or less look quite similar to single and dating adults in their use of the internet and social media for the work of meeting, flirting and checking up on people they are about to date or have dated in the past. These adults have already incorporated the technology in the beginnings of their relationship, and now continue to do so as they enter a more stable phase of their romantic lives. For more details on married and partnered adults’ use of social media and the internet to manage meeting, flirting, breaking up and checking up, see the Online Dating and Relationships report.

Adults with a wider range of technology assets – for instance, those who use social media sites or own smartphones—are also more likely to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship. Some 13% of smartphone owners in committed relationships say the internet had a “major” impact on their relationship, compared with just 4% of non-smartphone owners, and 3% of those without a cellphone at all. Similarly, 13% of coupled social media users say the internet has had a major impact on their relationship, compared with just 4% of internet users who do not use social media. And 38% of those in committed relationships who have used online dating sites say the internet has had a major impact on their partnership, compared with 7% of those who have not used online dating sites.

In addition, parents are more likely than non-parents to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship, and urban dwellers (and to a lesser extent, suburbanites) are more likely than those living in rural areas to say that the internet has had an impact on their relationship.

Among adults in couples who say that the internet has an impact on their relationship, a majority say the impact is positive.

Among internet users in couples who report that the internet has at least a minor impact on their marriage or partnership, a substantial majority—74%–say that the internet has a positive impact. An additional 20% say that the impact of the internet on their relationship is mostly negative, while 4% say that its impact is both good and bad.

As the proportion of online couples who say that the internet has had some impact on their relationship has increased over time, the proportion saying that its impact on their relationship is negative has also increased. When we asked this same question of online couples who felt that the internet had an impact on their relationship in 2005, some 84% said that the internet had a positive impact on their relationship—a figure that has dropped to 74% today. Similarly, at that time 13% of these online couples said that the impact of the internet on their relationship was mostly negative—today 20% of these couples say that the internet has had a negative impact on their relationship overall.

The number of respondents who answered this question (n=328) is too small to conduct a detailed analysis of demographic subgroups.

For younger adults and those in relatively new relationships, technology can be a source of frustration and distraction—even as it offers new sources of intimacy.

Couples communicate. In the last two decades, the options that couples have at their fingertips for communication within or outside of the partnership have diversified tremendously. Voice and text based communication on phones of all kinds, social media postings, instant and email messages, photos, videos and video chatting all have changed how couples can communicate with one another.

Technology can be a source of tension in relationships…

Some 8% of online adults in a marriage or partnership have argued with their partner about the amount of time one of them was spending online, and 4% have been upset by something they found out their partner was doing online.

Those who have been with their partner for ten years or less were significantly more likely than those in longer relationships to have encountered these negative experiences. Young adults (those ages 18-29 years old) were especially likely to say they had an argument with their partner about the amount of time one of them was spending online (18% have experienced this), and this experience is also relatively common along with those living in households with an annual income under $30,000 (15%). Both of these groups were also likely to say they found the online activity of their partner upsetting (8% of young adults and 9% of low-income people have experienced this).

Beyond these general annoyances, cell phones seem to have a particularly distracting effect on relationships. Fully 25% of cell phone owners in a committed relationship have felt that their spouse or partner was distracted by their cell phone when spending time together.  Cell phone distractions are especially common among younger couples—some 42% of 18-29 year olds in marriages or serious relationships have experienced this issue. Other groups of couples who have experienced this at relatively high rates include parents, college graduates, and those with relatively high household incomes.

• 42% of 18-29 year olds felt that their partner was distracted by their cell phone when they were together
• 29% of those ages 30-49 said the same
• 32% of those living in households with an annual income of more than $75,000/year said their partner was distracted by their cell phone
• 31% of parents reported that their partner was distracted by their cell phone in their presence
• 28% of college graduates reported similar phone-based distractions.

…but can also add a new level of emotional intimacy to communication between partners

But even as it introduces new sources of annoyance and frustration, technology can also add a level of emotional intimacy to one’s communications that many couples find helpful in their relationships. For example, 21% of internet users or cell phone owners in committed relationships have felt closer to their partner because of exchanges or conversations they had online or by text message. Another 9% have resolved an argument with their partner online or by texting that they had difficulty resolving in person. And 25% of text messaging users who are in relationships have texted their partner while both were home together. Those who have been in relationships for ten years or less were more likely than those in longer relationships to exhibit all three of these behaviors.

Even as they are more likely to experience some negative consequences of technology in the form of distraction and arguments with their partners, young people (those ages 18-29) are also particularly likely to experience more positive outcomes with respect to technology and relationship communication. Some 33% of text messaging users in this age group who are in a committed relationship have texted their partner while both are at home, while 41% of young internet users or cell phone owners in relationships have felt closer to their partner due to online or text conversations, and 23% have resolved an argument in the digital sphere that was difficult to resolve in person. Parents were also likely to describe feeling closer to their partner due to technology (26% of internet users or cell owners in relationships) and to text while at home together (30% of texters in relationships).

Sexting on the Rise

People – whether in couples or not – are also using technology to share some of the most intimate aspects of their relationship. Sexting – receiving, sending, or forwarding sexually suggestive photos or videos via cell phones– is on the rise among cell phone owners. Some 9% of cell phone owners have sent a suggestive picture or video, while 20% have received one. These are both statistically significant increases from the last time we asked about these behaviors in 2012 when 6% of cell owners had sent a sext and 15% had received one. Just 3% of cell owners have forwarded a sext, a figure that is unchanged from the percentage who did so in 2012.

As in 2012, age remains the strongest demographic predictor of sexting. Younger adults are more likely than their older counterparts to send, receive, and forward sexts. Cell owners ages 18-24 are the most likely to say they receive sexts (44%), while those in their mid-twenties through mid-thirties are more likely than older adults to say they send sexts (22%). Forwarding sexts is not highly popular among any age group – just 6% of those 18-24 do so along with 5% of those 25-34.

Across all age groups, the proportion of cell owners that says they send and receive sexts has increased since the last time we asked in 2012. The largest gains were reported by those ages 18-24. In previous surveys, those in their mid-twenties through mid-thirties were the most likely to both send and receive sexts. For the first time, however, those ages 18-24 are the most likely of any age group to say they receive sexts (44%). This represents a significant increase from 2012, when 26% of those 18-24 said they received sexts.

Overall, fewer cell phone owners report sending sexts than receiving them. But this behavior, too, has also seen increases since 2012 across every age group except those 55 and older.

The rise in sexting also correlates with the growing popularity of smartphones, which make it easy to take and share pictures and videos. Some 56% of American adults own a smartphone (including 80% of those 18-29), up from 46% in 2012. Smartphone owners are significantly more likely than other cell phone owners to sext. Some 27% have received a sext, more than double the 10% of other cell owners who have received one. Smartphone owners are also more likely to send sexts – 12% vs. just 4% of non-smartphone cell owners. Forwarding sexts is also somewhat more popular among smartphone owners (4%) than other cell owners (1%).

Those who are actively dating are also more likely to sext. Cell phone owners who said they were “single and looking” are significantly more likely than those who are single but not looking to say they send, receive, and forward sexts. Fully 42% of single and looking cell phone owners have received a sext, 23% have sent one, and 10% have forwarded a suggestive picture or video.

Cell phone owners who date online are even more likely to sext. Over half (55%) have received a suggestive image, almost a third (31%) have sent one, and 9% have forwarded a sext. They are significantly more likely than cell owners who do not use online dating to perform all three activities.

Sexting, however, is not just for daters. Adults in marriages or committed relationships are just as likely to say they have sent sexually suggestive texts as single individuals. Some 9% of those in a relationship have sent sexts, along with 10% of those not in a relationship. But when it comes to receiving and forwarding sexts, those not in a relationship are significantly more likely to do both. A quarter of those not in a relationship say they have received sexts compared to 18% of those not in a relationship. Some 4% of singles say they forward sexts along with 2% of those in a relationship, both relatively low figures. Sexting has been with us since cameras were added to cell phones – so it is possible that partnered (or single) adults could be referring to past sext-sending rather than current activity.

Among those in relationships, cell owners who have been partnered for ten years or less are significantly more likely than those who have been in a relationship for more than ten years to sext. A third (32%) of those in shorter relationships have received a sext, more than five times the proportion of those in longer relationships to say so (6%). Some 17% of those partnered for ten years or less have sent a sext, compared to just 2% of those in a relationship for more than ten years. Another 4% of those in shorter relationships have forwarded a suggestive picture or video, while a slim 1% of those in longer relationships have done so.

1. This data point is an estimate based on the sample for this survey and is slightly different from the Census estimates published in other Pew Research Center surveys. The Center’s current figure for married adults based on 2012 Census data is 51%. ↩
2. In our 2013 survey, this question was asked of all adults. However, we are reporting our findings throughout this section based on internet users in order to be comparable with our 2005 data, which was asked only of those who use the internet. There are only modest differences in our 2013 data when based on all adults as opposed to internet users, and results for both groups can be found in the “survey questions” section at the end of this report. ↩

Please email me your finished work by Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 before class.

Thanks.

Jack