Introduction

Digital Communication and Interaction Patterns

What is considered appropriate behavior via technology is often determined by the cultural and relational contexts in which individuals are embedded (Kircaburun et al., 2020; Paulovich et al., 2022; Ruben et al., 2021). A robust body of literature has documented cross-cultural differences in Internet adoption and technology use, including variations in family roles, relational expectations, and perceptions of problematic use (Chen, 2021; Silver et al., 2022; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022). For example, technology often changes traditional family dynamics. In many households, children are more tech-savvy than their parents, which levels the playing field and makes family roles less strict. Additionally, cultures vary widely in what they consider to be ‘too much’ screen time (Taipale, 2019; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022). These differences shape not only how technology is used, but also how it is interpreted within relational systems.

Existing research has examined how people in different regions use smartphones and digital platforms to initiate and maintain romantic relationships, with findings suggesting variability in motivations, communication styles, and relational expectations (Beukeboom & Pollmann, 2021; McCormack & Ogilvie, 2020; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; Roberts & David, 2020; Wang et al., 2022). Before exploring the specific mechanisms of how technology impacts romantic partnerships, it is helpful to understand what the broader research has identified. Simply put, smartphones and digital apps have fundamentally changed the way we interact. Research shows that while technology makes it incredibly easy to stay connected across long distances, it also introduces stressors. For example, the expectation that we should always be reachable can make people feel anxious when a partner does not reply right away. Furthermore, screen time frequently interrupts face-to-face moments – a phenomenon scholars call "technoference" – and people often feel ignored when their partner looks at a phone instead of them (commonly referred to as "phubbing"). In short, technology acts as a double-edged sword: it offers new ways to build closeness but also creates new ways to feel insecure or disconnected (Hertlein, 2012).

Just as phones serve as a tool for connection, the scholarship at times has overlooked how they function as mechanisms of emotional regulation within relationships. Emerging scholarship suggests that digital environments create conditions of constant accessibility, visibility, and responsiveness that shape how individuals manage emotional experiences, particularly anxiety and uncertainty (Kushlev & Dunn, 2019; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). These conditions may facilitate both adaptive and maladaptive regulatory processes. While discussed by Hertlein (2012), this distinction has not been fully articulated within relational frameworks.

Technology, Emotional Regulation, and the Balancing Act of Relationships

Developing a relationship requires partners to navigate a constant balancing act, sometimes referred to in research as relational dialectics (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996), the theoretical proposition that relational life is defined by ongoing, unresolved tensions between opposing relational needs rather than a single stable equilibrium. This involves managing the natural push-and-pull between wanting independence versus wanting closeness, seeking privacy versus being open, and desiring stability versus embracing change (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Solomon & Roloff, 2018). These tensions are particularly salient during transitional phases such as initiation, conflict, and termination. While the core ways humans build trust, communicate, and resolve conflict have not changed over time, the tools we use to achieve them have shifted significantly in the digital age (Solomon & Roloff, 2018). Systemically, these processes are understood as regulatory interactions: partners influence one another’s emotional states through communication and behavior, a process conceptually related to what attachment scholars term co-regulation, though framed here at the level of the dyadic system rather than individual attachment style. Within digital contexts, these regulatory processes are increasingly mediated by technology, creating new forms of interactional patterns (Hertlein, 2012; Maheu et al., 2018).

Recent work in attachment and emotion regulation highlights the importance of co-regulation, defined as the process by which individuals regulate emotional states through interaction with others (Butler & Randall, 2013; Coan & Sbarra, 2015). While this paper approaches these regulatory interactions from a systemic/relational perspective and does not explore psychological traits such as attachment, it is important to acknowledge that psychodynamic theorists have discussed these concepts for many years with different language to describe how technology mediates relational and emotional dynamics (Russell, 2015). When regulatory efforts fail or become excessive, they may contribute to dysregulation, characterized by escalating emotional distress, reactivity, and maladaptive behavioral cycles. Technology supports the process by enabling continuous monitoring (e.g., “last seen,” read receipts) (Elhai et al., 2020; Maheu et al., 2018), asynchronous (sometimes delayed) responsiveness, and increased opportunities for surveillance and triangulation (Hertlein & Chan, 2020). In other words, technology may amplify both co-regulation and dysregulation processes by increasing access to relational cues while simultaneously introducing ambiguity and misinterpretation.

Digital Co-Regulation and Dysregulation in Romantic Relationships

Although prior research has documented both the benefits and challenges of technology use in relationships (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Maheu et al., 2018; McDaniel & Radesky, 2018), limited work has conceptualized these effects through a regulation framework. Digital communication can facilitate co-regulation by providing reassurance—and building perceived attachment—through timely responses (Bröning & Wartberg, 2024; Busch & McCarthy, 2021), maintaining connection across distance (Chada, 2022), and supporting emotional attunement. At the same time, it can contribute to dysregulation by increasing anxiety through delayed or ambiguous responses, encouraging repetitive checking and monitoring behaviors (Kushlev & Dunn, 2019; Nesi et al., 2018), and amplifying negative interpretations of partner behavior (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Hertlein & Chan, 2020).

Research suggests that technology-related behaviors such as social media surveillance and excessive messaging are associated with increased relational uncertainty, jealousy, and anxiety (Kushlev & Dunn, 2019; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). These patterns are consistent with broader models of emotional dysregulation, in which attempts to reduce distress paradoxically maintain or intensify it. In addition, while digital tools offer novel avenues for connection and co-regulation, it is imperative to acknowledge their ubiquity in facilitating the "dark side" of relational dynamics. The continuous connectivity afforded by digital platforms can easily be weaponized, leading to technology-facilitated abuse within intimate relationships. This encompasses a range of coercive behaviors, including using surveillance apps or social media to obsessively monitor, control, or harass a partner (Afrouz & Vassos, 2024; Rogers et al., 2022). Furthermore, a particularly severe and contemporary manifestation of this digital dysregulation is image-based sexual abuse (sometimes termed “revenge porn”) which involves the non-consensual distribution or threat of distribution of sexually explicit images or sexts (Patel & Roesch, 2020). Whether these behaviors manifest as one-sided coercive control or as mutually problematic digital interactions, they reflect a significant distortion of systemic power. Recognizing the ubiquity of these dark behaviors is critical, as they represent a profound violation of relational boundaries and fundamentally compromise the safety and emotional stability of the romantic system. Notably, the depersonalized quality of many digital platforms, which strips communication of tone, facial expression, and immediate accountability, may be part of what allows dysregulated and coercive behaviors to escalate more readily online than they would face-to-face (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012; Ritchie et al., 2026).

A central tenet of the systemic perspective used in this article is conceptualizing technology as a triangulated phenomenon within the romantic dyad. In traditional family systems theory, triangulation occurs when a two-person system experiencing tension or anxiety draws in a third entity to reduce discomfort and restore temporary stability (Bowen, 1978). In the modern relational context, technology frequently serves as this active third party. Rather than acting as a passive medium for communication, digital devices are triangulated into the relationship to manage emotional distance and closeness. For instance, when partners experience emotional dysregulation or conflict, they may instinctively turn to their screens to diffuse tension, seek external validation, or avoid direct confrontation (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). While this digital triangulation may offer immediate, individual emotional relief, it fundamentally alters the dyadic regulatory process, shifting the system’s reliance away from direct partner co-regulation and toward a technology-mediated emotional buffer.

Taken together, this literature points to a consistent tension: the same technological features that support relationships (constant access, low-cost contact, and the ability to maintain closeness across distance) are also the features most implicated in dysregulation (ambiguity, surveillance opportunities, and pressure toward continuous availability). This dual-edged quality of technology is the starting point for the present study’s purpose.

Purpose

Despite extensive research on technology and relationships, there is still important information to be learned on how technology regulates relationships (Prieler & Kohlbacher, 2017; Sharabi & Timmermans, 2020). Existing studies have largely been conducted within Western samples, limiting understanding of how digital relational processes operate across cultural contexts. There has also been limited theoretical integration of technology into systemic models of emotional regulation. In reviewing the literature, the author could not find one paper on how technology actively shapes emotional and interactional processes within relationships. The present study addresses these gaps by examining how individuals use technology within romantic relationships across cultural contexts. While initial aims focused on relationship initiation and termination, findings revealed a central organizing process: the use of technology as a mechanism of digital co-regulation and dysregulation. This study proposes that technology functions as an embedded component of relational systems, shaping how partners manage emotional experiences, navigate uncertainty, and engage in interactional cycles.

Materials and Methods

Theoretical Perspective

Informed by a phenomenological perspective, this study sought “the understanding of meaningful, concrete relations implicit in the original description of experience in the context of a particular situation and is the primary target of phenomenological knowledge" (Moustakas, 1994, p. 14). Rather than generate a theory on how people use their phones, we were primarily interested in relationship growth, the involvement of technology in the developmental arc of a relationship (initiation, conflict, and termination), and how these manifest in a non-Western sample. Further, the Couple and Family Technology Framework (Hertlein, 2012) identify seven elements of technology that influence the structure (role, rules, boundaries) and process of relationships (relationship initiation, maintenance, and termination). The framework does not specify what is considered normative or healthy; instead, it relies on the idiosyncrasies in the relationship system to determine how technology use in these domains is used in a healthy way. We are using the framework to guide our questions and are focusing on two relational dialectics present in the framework: relationship initiation and relationship termination.

Participants

Adults aged 18 and older were eligible to participate in this study, provided they were able to speak conversational English. A total of 31 individuals participated in the interviews. Participants were between the ages of 20 and 40 with an average age of 24.5. There were 9 men and 22 women. Ten of the participants reported living with a romantic partner. Another 10 were living with a roommate; 4 reported living with a family member and the remaining 7 reported living on their own. The countries of nationality from the participants included Austria (n = 5), Croatia (n = 1), Germany (n = 6), India (n = 1), Ireland (n = 1), Italian (n = 1), Japan (n = 2), Kazakhstan (n = 1), Mexico (n = 4), Poland (n = 3), Romania (n = 4), South Korean (n = 1), and the United Kingdom (n = 1). Freely-given, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained by participants.

Procedures

Interviews were conducted by one faculty member and one student. Subjects participated in a semi-structured interview lasting no longer than 60 min, ranging from 22 to 60 min. The interview schedule contains 13 questions assessing how technology influenced roles, rules, boundaries, and relational processes. We asked specific questions about the use of technology in all personal relationships; the focus of these findings, however, are on romantic relationships. This study was approved by the Ethics Commission at a university in Austria. See Appendix A for the interview schedule. All interviews were conducted individually rather than in a focus-group format; where quotations appear to reference another participant’s statement, this reflects the fact that participants were, in some cases, drawn from overlapping social circles and were describing their own independently-formed perceptions of shared experiences rather than direct conversation with one another during the interview itself.

Analysis

The data was analyzed by open- and axial-coding and the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The interviews were read and coded by a team of analysts, all of whom except for the first author were graduate students in mental health programs. The graduate students completed this project as capstone students underneath the first author. The first author read and coded all interviews: each interview had two additional readers and coders assigned in a rotation. For example, Interview #1 was read and coded by the first author, Team Members 2 and 3. Interview #2 was coded by the first author and Team Members 3 and 4, etc. This initial coding was done simultaneously (Saldaña, 2021). At the time in which codes were discussed, each team member posted their codes individually. Then we reviewed the codes as a team and collapsed those into one common code. Once codes were distinguished, they were again compared back to the data to see if the codes made sense in the context in which they emerged (Emerson et al., 1995). Thirty three distinct codes were initially identified when the first round was completed.

Following the initial coding phases, we discussed a pictorial representation of what we heard, resulting in the model presented in Fig. 1. We mapped the systemic connections between emergent themes to understand how regulatory behaviors functioned across the relationship lifespan as was consistent with what we heard in the interviews. This process involved analyzing how the acute transitions of relationship initiation and termination served as boundaries that contextualized the ongoing, day-to-day dyadic regulation efforts.

Rigor

The rigor in our study was consistent with the recommendations provided by Anfara et al. (2002). We established credibility through using coders who were not part of the project until after the interviews were completed and transcribed. Overlaps in the codes independent of the reviewer suggested dependability. We also included probes to questions in the semi-structured interview process to ensure we achieved a thick, rich description of the constructs discussed. Finally, confirmability is identified through the alignment of our findings with findings from previous investigations.

Findings

The findings of this study revealed how technology was used in three types of transitional spaces covered in relational dialectics. Two of these spaces – relationship initiation and relationship termination – were expected to be discussed. In relationship initiation, participants described how they were able to control the tempo of the intimacy building when fostered over technology. They also described their ability to be purposeful in how they present to the other partner, in what they say, what information about them is highlighted, and how they can present a particular image.

Within the process of the relationships, participants described relationship initiation to be affected by differences in the definition of intimacy, shifts level of comfort, and provided a mechanism for people to make an interpretation on why a relationship did not evolve beyond initial stages. Relationship termination is affected by the fact that there are multiple contacts and outlets for communication, personality of each partner and how they use technology, and the ability/convenience of being able to block someone. Finally, the third relational space that emerged was related to anxiety in the relationship. Participants clearly described how the introduction of anxiety about the relationship fueled specific interactions with technology to assuage the anxiety. Each of these are discussed in detail below.¹

Relationship Initiation

Dedicated Considerations in Presentation and Exhibition

For many participants, there was much consideration given to how they initially present themselves to others in digital contexts. Participant 04 stated: "I don’t like to take care of my image, but internet is marketing. You have to sell yourself invest in what you are." Participant 29 expanded on this:

I think that there is a certain component to internet that is really distorting your image. If it’s good it’s going to upscale it, if it’s bad it’s going to out scale it. So, I totally second what he said I don’t want to take care of my image, it’s not that I don’t care about how I behave to the other but how to take care of my online image which we totally going to be distorted from what I actually am".

One participant in particular described the applicability to how she used the smartphone with her partner as they approached their arranged marriage, since she and her husband did not know each other:

... me and my husband we had an arranged marriage back in India. So, the first way we really started to communicate with each other was over the phone... Texting him, talking both but I think texting was a little more because you can do it all day. So, that’s how we really started communicating with each other, we feel comfortable saying a few things over the phone. (p. 11)

Participants also had a keen sense of when they were in control of their personas and developed strategies for when they were not: "People are so vulnerable when they post, they don’t know that but they show many weaknesses, insecurities that they have and for me I don’t want to do that with people I don’t feel comfortable with. So, when I felt that I’m no longer in charge of the way I present myself, I deleted the account." (p. 30). While this initial action appears as an individual coping mechanism, it inherently disrupts dyadic processes. By retreating from digital spaces to hide vulnerabilities, the individual preemptively alters the relational system, blocking potential avenues for partner co-regulation and forcing a shift in how the couple communicates and manages insecurity.

Structured/Intentional Intimacy Management in Early Relationship Stages

The participants in the study commonly noted how the definition of intimacy has changed. Specifically, participants suggested relationship initiation is easier when you start online because it is less vulnerable. One participant stated: "The ease of communication via text also changed relationship initiation. You can start talking to multiple people and then narrow on those who respond." (p. 16). For some participants, it provided a mechanism to start communicating privately when they knew someone in a more public context. Participant 29 stated: "She was not from the same city that I lived in Romania, she was from a different city in Romania so we always had to chat on Skype, Facebook things like that. It was actually helpful." Participant 02 exemplified this by saying: "[My boyfriend and I] knew each other before and we went on a road trip, a friend’s trip and we had this group chat and then he texted me privately." (P. 02). Another participant provided an example of the vulnerability issue and the utility of texting by reporting, "The phone is too intimate, so we start off texting; text makes you lazy; facade; ease of communication, easier because it is less intimate." (p. 13). Another participant reported: "I can barely imagine somebody calling because you don’t know each other very well and just calling is very intimate. You don’t know if the person is in the right mood or is doing something important or is busy, so, it’s easier to just write." (p. 11).

Participants also used technology to hide their vulnerability and better mitigate intimacy processes: "I tend to be shy when I talk to other people, and using the cellphone makes it just easier because… I’m texting and there is no body language and no face-to-face contact. (P. 17). Another participant exemplified this by saying, "I just can’t speak the same way to people in person the way I speak to them over the phone. I don’t know. There’s some mask in between, where I feel free to say whatever I want but when in person I really can’t do that." (P. 07). Another participant described her process via text for keeping space until she was ready for something more: "I just for example send him short messages and I’m not really into conversation and never start various conversation. I just don’t care; I just write when I want. I write what I want. I don’t care about anything: just short messages". (P. 10).

Figure 1 presents a comprehensive conceptualization of these relational dynamics. It is important to note that while participant narratives frequently anchored on the highly salient phases of relationship initiation and termination, the model illustrates that these transitions function primarily as the outer boundaries of the relationship lifecycle. The model is dedicated to the continuous, iterative dyadic regulation efforts that occur between these transitional events. Therefore, Fig. 1 depicts how partners continuously negotiate and maintain systemic stability during the active romantic relationship, contextualized by how the relationship begins and ultimately concludes.

Using Technology to Manage Anxiety and Emotions

One of the key and exploratory findings of the study was the role that technology plays in managing anxiety and emotions, both individually and relationally. In fact, the bulk of the evidence suggests that participants are moving away from managing anxiety on their own and using the apps and capabilities of their phone to do so. Some participants used the phone to take them away from their own emotional state. For example, Participant 24 noted: "even I got some problem or when I depressed about something… I unconsciously like open the phone and like other people’s posts." There is anxiety attached to what is happening on the phone when the phone is away from us. Participant 18 stated: "Some couples around me check their phone like almost every day. Oh! My gosh it’s so stressful." Another stated: "It’s also easy for everyone to just share randomness with you that usually doesn’t impact you right now but you check your phone nonetheless just in case it might be something impactful, just in case it might be important.” (P. 08). Another participant discussing work noted: "[The smartphone] creates conflict because I’m available all day and [employers] have to be, and that creates a lot of stress and that’s not always nice. You can’t calm down and relax” . (p. 25).

Many times, the anxiety in the inability to respond even causes a change in plans. As one participant explained:

We went to the mountain, a mountain weeks ago, but my data doesn’t work…I know I really rely on mobile phone...So I feel uncomfortable and then maybe another day passed...My phone was dying and I feel really uncomfortable because I had too many messages from all over the world. I have to reply him as soon as possible because they are waiting me. But I can’t do it. So I felt really hurried it and then it makes me go home more early because of the phone. (P. 10).

Second, there is anxiety when there is ambiguity about what is going on within a relationship. Many participants referred to situations involving timeliness of response, noting "you want a response immediately, or in a decent amount of time" (P. 07), responsiveness of partner, lack of cues to interpret context responded to them, etc. These experiences may result in frequent and multiple checking of messages or even triangulating their search through Facebook or GPS locating apps. Common responses supporting this behavior included "In my last fight, [my girlfriend] didn’t answer me back for 3 days." (P. 04). For example, Participant 14 stated:

[The person I texted] made me anxious like, you’re online, you can see my message, and like why don’t you answer me. You already seen my message and you’re not answering right now?" (p. 14)

Participant 03 spoke about his girlfriend’s inability to manage anxiety when she does not hear from him: "In that case let’s say I’m somewhere in training and I do sports and I do sports longer than I’m supposed to, that moment that I get off I’m like, "Okay I’ll write her text." Or if I see that she already freaked out then I have like 10 missed calls I’m going to give her a call." This individual coping strategy can have relational implications: when one partner relies heavily on the other to soothe their anxiety, it may create a high-pressure relational dynamic characterized by hyper-vigilance on one side and obligatory appeasement on the other. This pattern has the potential to erode independence and trust as the relationship becomes organized around managing panic rather than fostering a secure, independent connection. Over time, this cycle of anxious demand and immediate accommodation can breed exhaustion and hidden resentment, shifting the partnership from a place of equality to one of constant emotional management. It is worth noting that the framing of "independence" within a relationship as an inherently healthy goal reflects individualist, largely Western relational norms; in more collectivist cultural contexts, the same pattern of frequent checking-in may be experienced as normative interdependence rather than a loss of autonomy.

This mechanism allowed people to unobtrusively understand moments of others’ lives. If there was confusion about why a relationship did not evolve past the initial stages, participants reported that they were able to come to their own conclusions of the cause by spying through social media to verify. One participant reported "Because direct contact got less and I was trying to find out reasons why this was happening, and what he’s doing instead of meeting me. " (p. 16).

Participant 24 described the feelings that happen around responsiveness (or lack thereof):

Usually if I’m okay with myself, I didn’t think it’s something happen to her. If she would not answer for a whole day or two then I would be worried... the other part is that we both expect from each other to be available on phones all the tie and when we aren’t, it’s not cool.

Even when participants indicated they were not anxious, they would describe behaviors consistent with being anxious and managing their anxiety through checking behaviors. As Participant 17 noted:

I don’t feel anxious or nervous, but I’m curious why he didn’t answer because I see he’s online and then I see the checking marks... And then I ask myself why he is not answering, but not anxious but I’m waiting and thinking, okay, answer come on.

Another participant supported this by saying: "I think sometimes it can also be a real reason why someone is not texting, so I don’t freak out after just a couple of minutes. So, I would wait… a day and if they’re not responding then I will be like, Hey, what’s up?".

In another case, lack of constant contact ended the relationship: "But I also have friends or I had boyfriends and they didn’t do that the whole day. I really felt not that loved and I really felt poor, so I broke up with them and this was the reason". (p. 25).

Other participants described triangulating other methods of technology to manage their anxiety or obtain a window into why the decision to not respond was made. For example, Participant 15 stated: "They made me anxious like, you’re online, you can see my message, and like why don’t you answer me. You already seen my message and you’re not answering right now? You feel like it gives you impotence."

Termination of Relationships

The Ease of Ending Relationships Digitally

Due to the ability users possess to delete profiles, unfollow users, and block contacts, the way in which users can end relationships does not necessarily result in a lengthy conversation about why the relationship was no longer working for one of the participants and may not even require a face-to-face conversation. Many participants acknowledged ending a relationship via media in one way or another, whether that was over text, through ghosting, or blocking. Participants routinely acknowledged that to end relationship in this may be "cold", "rude", "inappropriate" or "lack heart", they also noted that the nature of the relationship may result in using technology as the only option. For example, the mechanisms to be able to terminate a relationship digitally may be appropriate given the geography of the partners involved. For example, one participant discussed how she texted her partner about the need for a conversation over the phone and ended the relationship on the phone call. She stated:

It was another long distance relationship and it was a point where I couldn’t wait till I see him the next time, so, I had end the relationship... it would be a long time and it would have interfered with my mental health to have that in the background to know, okay, it’s not an end right now. (p. 06).

Other participants echoed this statement in describing how they use a text to block the time and place and then have the conversation face-to-face: "I used the smartphone to organize like prepare the part of, "I think we need to talk. Can we meet like a few days, so, the partner knew something was up, I have got to prepare myself, and then the actual decision face-to-face." (P. 09).

Digital termination may also provide a protective function for those who are in abusive relationships or for those who a user may deem unsafe based on their personality or other characteristics. For example, Participant 21 noted their decision to end a relationship via cell phone, via text, or in person "completely depended on the personality of the other [partner]". Another participant linked the decision of whether to terminate a relationship via text, phone, or in person to the emotional intelligence and psychological development of the individual who wanted to break up. Referring to each form of termination, he stated:

I’ve done them all. I’m sure I would never do those things again but in my process of emotional intelligence, I thought it’s okay just to stop talking to the other... Now I really know how to handle a relationship. I feel like I can communicate properly with people around me that I care about, so, I would never do those things but I know how it feels and what it means to do any of these things. (P. 04).

In addition, Participant 14 described terminating a relationship with someone with whom she had an interaction and took an interest to her (and who had obtained her number through their work):

I was very funny, like he didn’t say anything wrong, but I was feeling really, like, anxious because he was texting me and I didn’t know him and then were like, how does he have my phone? Like how did these happen and I was like, Okay, well, and like I start to answer first, like, with short answers, like don’t ask him anything else and he was like, keeping, saying things to me and they will, this is getting really weird. And I was really nervous. So I was like, Okay, I’m going to block you. So I just block him and he was like, okay, you know, I hope he never comes to my home because he can find out information about me. (P. 14)

The reason for using some of these methods was also governed by one’s inability or unwillingness to deal with the anxiety of a face-to-face (or even text-to-text) conversation. For example, one participant stated:

There was no way to end it in person. I tried the last time we were together but he was such a manipulative person that I could not succeed in these conversations and always felt like he wiggled his way back into the picture. Over text, I could plan my next statements, reflect on what he said and what I said, could take my time, and actually solve the problem better". (p. 13)

Another supported this by saying:

Me ending it online did not stop his bad reaction... you could tell over his messages that he was becoming more upset and started responding with, um, snappy comments. I was afraid of that happening, but it was going to happen in person anyway and this way I could cry about what he was doing to me without him seeing it". (p. 28).

The Complexity of Managing Multiple Networks and Associated Contacts.

For many of the participants, the termination of the relationship was a complicated event due to the nature of the multiple contacts, networked ties, and shared network.

Participant 11 exemplified this by stating:

It really feels bad because once you befriend someone like you get a lot of mutual friends, on Facebook that’s a very common thing. I had a friend and she had all my family and other cousins and stuff like, people like that, we were mutual friends because since I knew her well. Then because of some misunderstanding we just stopped and she blocked me off but my family could get updates from her and I wouldn’t be getting and like all she did that she posted that you don’t know, that kind of, she hasn’t blocked them. She actually became friends with them because of me and now I’m blocked. It happens the common friend I have since I’m blocked she would take snapshots or like screenshots of her updates and she forward it to me and say, "This is what she is posting." These things happen. (p. 11)

The ability/convenience of being able to block someone makes it easier to end a relationship with technology. As Participant 20 stated, interference and excessive contact is manageable due to the ability to block: "I think it’s not a problematic, because you can always block someone. But if you want to still sometimes talk between each other, you still can. I mean, if the other person is, I don’t know causes problems to you and calls you every hour or sends you a lot of messages, then you can always block them." (P. 20). Participant 16 echoed this statement: "I don’t want to pursue a relationship. If you don’t like acknowledge my boundaries then we just can’t talk to each other anymore." So, then I blocked him on every page that he could reach me." (P. 1 6).

Discussion

Toward a Theory of Digital Co-Regulation and Dysregulation in Romantic Relationships

The findings of this study extend existing scholarship on technology and relationships by identifying a central, previously under-theorized process: the use of technology as a mechanism of emotional regulation within romantic systems. While prior research has documented the role of technology in facilitating communication, connection, and conflict (e.g., Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; McDaniel & Coyne, 2016), the present findings suggest that technology is not merely a medium of interaction, but an active regulatory system embedded within relational processes.

Across participants, technology was consistently used to manage emotional states, particularly anxiety related to uncertainty, proximity, and responsiveness. People report being engaged in behaviors such as repeated message checking, monitoring partners’ online activity, triangulating through social media (consistent with the description of triangulation provided earlier), and adjusting communication frequency to restore emotional equilibrium. These behaviors reflect attempts at co-regulation, wherein one partner uses digital channels to influence or stabilize their own or their partner’s emotional state. On the other hand, the attempt at co-regulation via these same processes frequently resulted in dysregulation, and partners do not necessarily need a person to co-regulate. Rather than alleviating anxiety, digital behaviors often amplified it through recursive cycles of checking, ambiguity, and delayed or absent responses. For example, participants described heightened distress when messages were seen but not answered, leading to increased monitoring and escalation behaviors. Critically, dysregulation in this study did not require the presence of a co-regulating partner to unfold: participants described self-perpetuating cycles in which the checking behavior itself, rather than any partner response, became the primary driver of escalating anxiety, distinguishing digital dysregulation from dysregulation that occurs strictly within a dyadic feedback loop. In this way, technology both mediates and intensifies relational feedback loops (AUTHOR, in revision). This suggests that digital regulation may represent a normative relational process in modern relationships, shaped by the affordability of constant connectivity and visibility (Hertlein, 2012). It also fully supports the seminal work of McDaniel and Coyne (2016) in viewing anxiety as a presence in relationship dynamics.

Connection to Relationship Development Theories

Research on romantic relationships is grounded in several foundational theoretical models which describe how partners interact, negotiate intimacy, and manage conflict. Two prominent frameworks in this area which connect to the present study are Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) and Adult Attachment Theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). RDT posits that relationship development is an ongoing negotiation of inherent dialectical tensions, primarily the opposing pulls between autonomy and connection, openness and privacy, and stability and change. Partners must continuously manage these tensions through communication to maintain relational satisfaction (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). While not a tested variable in this study, attachment theory emphasizes how individuals’ attachment styles influence their expectations and behaviors in romantic partnerships, particularly in how they seek proximity, provide support, and co-regulate emotions during times of distress or uncertainty (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). These models emphasize that romantic relationships require continuous, dynamic efforts to balance competing relational needs and manage emotional states.

In the present study, the way in which digital technology was used to manage mood states emerged. Participants exhibited clear signs of attachment anxiety triggered by the ambiguous nature of digital communication, relying on ‘read receipts’ and constant availability as modern forms of proximity seeking. When expectations of digital responsiveness were unmet, partners experienced profound emotional dysregulation. Furthermore, consistent with Relational Dialectics Theory, participants utilized the protective barrier of digital screens to carefully negotiate the openness/privacy dialectic during relationship initiation, while relying on features like blocking and “ghosting” to establish immediate autonomy during relationship termination.

Co-Regulation and Dysregulation as Dual Pathways

While co-regulation and dysregulation are universal processes within human connection, a critical question arises: what is unique about how these processes unfold through technology? The findings of this study emphasize that technology does not merely provide a more accessible or convenient medium for emotional exchange; rather, it qualitatively changes the relationship patterns themselves. To understand this shift, it is useful to view these findings through the lens of Hertlein (2012) multiaxial framework of technology in couple and family life. AUTHOR posits that technology alters both the structural elements of a relationship—such as its roles, rules, and boundaries—and its process elements, including relationship initiation, maintenance, and termination.

When viewed through this AUTHOR framework (Hertlein, 2012), digital co-regulation and dysregulation emerge as distinctly altered phenomena. Because technology changes the rules and structure of a relationship (e.g., expectations of immediate responsiveness, the ambiguity of read receipts, or the public nature of social media interactions), it shifts how partners must navigate their emotional states. Consequently, digital co-regulation is not simply traditional regulation performed on a screen; it requires partners to navigate new digital rules and roles to maintain stability. Digital dysregulation often occurs because the unique structural features of technology such as accessibility or asynchronous communication disrupt traditional relational boundaries and exacerbate emotional distress. In other words, technology does not just facilitate emotional processes; it fundamentally reshapes the systemic environment in which they occur.

The findings of this study suggest that digital regulation operates along two primary pathways: digital co-regulation and digital dysregulation. In the more adaptive, co-regulation model, technology facilitates connection, reassurance, and emotional attunement. Participants noted the helpfulness of their partner’s timely responses and the ability for ongoing contact independent of what and where they were located. They also emphasized shared communication not only with their partner but with extended family (both theirs and their partners). These positive interactions highlight how technology functions as a vital tool for reinforcing not only the intimate pair bond, but the broader relational support system.

Digital dysregulation cycles are where technology amplifies anxiety and conflict through surveillance, ambiguity, delayed responsiveness, and escalation cycles. See Fig. 1 for a graphic of how these cycles interact. These findings align with research on technoference and phubbing, which similarly shows that technology-related interruptions during interaction are associated with decreased perceived partner responsiveness, increased conflict, and lower relationship satisfaction (Beukeboom & Pollmann, 2021; McDaniel & Drouin, 2019; Roberts & David, 2020; Wang et al., 2022). These findings suggest that technology use may disrupt moment-to-moment attunement processes, contributing to escalating cycles of relational dysregulation.

Further, these pathways are not mutually exclusive; rather, relationships often oscillate between them. The same technological features that enable connection (e.g., constant access, visibility) also create conditions for heightened monitoring and reactivity. (See Fig. 1).

The codes supported the central sequence represented in the figure: a digital or relational event such as distance, delayed response, distraction, unclear boundaries, or perceived rule violation activates anxiety or uncertainty. The individual then attempts to regulate the relationship through texting, calling, checking, monitoring, information seeking, rule setting, or another digitally mediated behavior. Partner responsiveness and system feedback are interpreted through existing expectations concerning trust, privacy, availability, and communication. Accessibility, transparency, respect, and meaningful dialogue are more likely to produce positive reassurance and movement toward co-regulation, whereas missing cues, misleading presentation, lack of response, privacy violations, or broken rules may produce negative attributions and movement toward dysregulation. The resulting reassurance or escalation then feeds back into subsequent digital behavior, creating a recursive cycle that may stabilize the relationship or intensify anxiety and conflict.

Implications for Theory Development

This study contributes to relational and systemic theory by introducing digital co-regulation/dysregulation as a core relational process, extending theoretical frameworks to include technology-mediated feedback loops (AUTHOR, in revision), and by challenging assumptions that emotional regulation is primarily internal or dyadic by demonstrating the role of digital infrastructures in shaping relational experiences. Future research should further examine how these regulatory processes vary across cultural contexts, relationship stages, and levels of relational distress, as well as how individuals and couples can develop more adaptive strategies for managing technology-mediated interactions.

These findings are consistent with literature such as Johnson et al. (2019, 2024) and Hertlein (2020) which describe how people can increase closeness using technology. There is a process by which people intentionally use technology to increase intimacy through structured presentations and exhibitions, while also using features of technology to limit other external factors to focus on relationship-building activities. In many ways, this can be a double-edged sword: the more people become used to being able to control their presentation, the less they are able to manage anxiety when they cannot control others’ presentations or presence.

Anxiety was a significant driver for the interactions. Participants often reported that they would utilize multiple channels or make multiple attempts to reach out to their partner if they were anxious about something in the relationship. Often participants describe the anxiety that emerges during times when they had not heard from their partner and therefore would try to identify whether their partner was upset or unavailable. While this study did not explore individual traits such as attachment variables, the findings highlight that the structural introduction of technology itself creates distinct systemic patterns of regulation and dysregulation. The continuous accessibility and ambiguity of digital communication act as unique systemic stressors that partners must navigate, shaping the emotional climate of the relationship regardless of the specific individual traits involved.

According to research, both resulting from this study and beyond, the use of technology to manage relationship anxiety (specifically post-termination) can be both helpful and problematic (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Holtzman et al., 2021). Many modern relationships include a degree of online connectedness fueled by an array of popular social media outlets and applications. Couples integrate the use of social media connections into the reality of their relationship in terms of connected friends and family, photo sharing, and public proclamations of their relationship status, even when sharing photos was deemed as crossing a boundary for some of the participants in our study.

On the other hand, the options technology provides also limit the extent to which people feel like they can manage anxiety. The more options to manage anxiety through technology (e.g., checking a partner’s location, messaging status, or social media activity), the less likely people were to manage anxiety psychologically (e.g., self-soothing, tolerating uncertainty, or reflecting on the source of the worry without seeking external verification). In fact, the way people used technology to solve the problem often exacerbated anxiety rather than resolved it. This concept has been visited at least once before in the literature: in Hertlein (2012) study on treating Internet infidelity, the therapist participants noted that they encourage clients who have experienced infidelity to engage physical barriers to contacting another until such a time that they can enact the psychological ones. Further, the way people may use technology to manage their anxiety may serve to increase anxiety. For example, using social media to track someone to ostensibly decrease anxiety might increase anxiety simply because of the medium (Lee & Jang, 2019).

Practice Implications

Due to the nature of the anxiety management findings, the implications are vast. At the clinical and individual level, family science scholars can engage in mapping co-regulation and dysregulation with clients to be able to use technology most effectively in their relationships. Couple therapists may also work with couples using technology to create both space and togetherness in the relationship while teaching the couple more effective ways to avoid engaging in anxiety-driven patterns of pursuer-withdrawer. At a broader, societal level, however, the implications extend beyond any single clinical relationship. It may mean that the benefit of having a constant connection to our partners provides a rationale for no longer having to sit in silence, which may feel uncomfortable. Future research needs to focus on how – or if – people can enact strategies that will be more productive and enable them to learn and implement more coping skills. While there is little information available on coping strategies for relationship anxiety, a similar example emerges from scholarship on couples experiencing anxiety around infertility (i.e., Zurlo et al., 2020). This body of research notes that the strategies to manage anxiety are more effective when the strategy is situation-dependent; in the case of Internet use, anxiety management tends to be global and not case-specific and often revolves around engaging in more strategies that are likely to increase anxiety.

In addition, the participants noted that after two hours, they would experience anxiety at such a high level it manifested in checking and monitoring activities. The implications for this are perhaps there may be a reduction of our ability to be in anxiety-producing situations and more easily using the connectivity the Internet provides as a self-soothing mechanism only to discover that it often does not reduce the anxiety but amplifies it (Busch & McCarthy, 2021). More is to be learned about the role of anxiety in initiating certain Internet activities, such as surveillance of partner or repetitious checking behaviors.

Clinicians can utilize our model to help distant partners establish structured digital boundaries and shared meaning. Clinicians should understand couples who are geographically distant or navigating long-distance relationships digital communication is the primary way they are intimate and experience conflict. These couples might be especially vulnerable to the dysregulation cycles identified in this study where the ambiguity of asynchronous communication can escalate relational anxiety. Therapists can assign targeted clinical interventions such as having long-distance couples explicitly negotiate their "response time" expectations, or teaching them to use specific check-in texts that foster digital co-regulation (e.g., "I am going into a long meeting and won’t be able to text, but we are okay") to bridge the physical gap and mitigate ambiguity.

Limitations

Despite its integrative potential, the Digital Regulation Model is not without limitations. First, the model is primarily conceptual and synthesizes existing empirical findings rather than deriving from direct longitudinal or experimental testing, limiting conclusions about causality and temporal sequencing of regulatory processes. Second, although the model incorporates cultural and contextual moderators, it may not fully capture the complexity of sociocultural variation in digital norms, particularly across non-Western contexts and structurally diverse family systems. Third, the model centers on interactional processes within dyadic and family relationships but may underrepresent individual differences such as attachment style, psychopathology, and developmental stage that shape how individuals engage with technology as a regulatory tool. Future work might examine positive effects for insecure people. Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of digital platforms and artificial intelligence introduces challenges for model stability, as new affordances may alter patterns of co-regulation and dysregulation in ways not yet reflected in the literature. Finally, while the model emphasizes recursive feedback loops, empirical measurement of these dynamic processes remains methodologically challenging, particularly in capturing real-time, multi-platform interactions. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, cross-cultural, and multimethod designs to test and refine the model across diverse relational contexts.

From a methodological perspective, there are also limitations. One limitation of this study is that the first author conducted coding across all interviews. While this approach promoted consistency in coding decisions, it may have also introduced bias by privileging a single interpretive lens and reducing opportunities for alternative perspectives. In other words, we only interviewed one member of the couple, which may lend itself to a perspective that is limited in its systemic view. In addition, we relied on participant recollection rather than observing their interactions in real time or collecting data on their phones to triangulate times and interactions. Finally, there may be limited transferability due to the nature of one perspective in the couples. To enhance trustworthiness, we sought to obtain a thick, rich description of the data and provide a context of those we interviewed.

Conclusion

Media and technology shape the way that relationships are maintained. This study shows the nuanced use of technology allows for ways to engage with one’s partner but also to use the structure to create distance when need be. A central theme revealed how the way in which anxiety is managed in relationships is through using the internet to either avoid or to track one’s pattern, each of which may pose problems later in life.

Appendices

Appendix A

• Tell me a little bit about your family. Who lives in your home? What are the ages of those in your family? Are you in a romantic relationship? If so, how long?
• What are the qualities of smartphones and the Internet that help your relationship? What are the qualities of smartphones and the Internet that interfere?
• What are the rules, if any, about phone use in the romantic relationship?
• How are rules about using the phone and the Internet decided upon? How are rules enforced?
• What are the boundaries for using the phone or Internet in your romantic relationship?
• What are the roles each person has related to the phone?
• How do you use phone and Internet to establish a romantic relationship?
• How do you use phone and Internet to maintain a romantic relationship?
• How does your family use the phone or Internet to end a romantic relationship?
• When, if ever, do you feel that your smartphone is intruding on your romantic life?
• When is it appropriate, if at all, to interrupt a face-to-face conversation for an incoming voice call? Text message? Email?
• Describe a time, if at all, when the open availability afforded you via your smartphone was intrusive, or a burden?
• Is there anything else about smartphone use and relationships that I haven’t asked you about?