10/26/15, 6:07 PMWhen you just cannot get away: Technology and work-life spillover – Journalist's Resource Journalist's Resource

Page 1 of 3http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/workers/when-you-just-cannot-get-away-technology-work-life-spillover

GENDER, INTERNET, SOCIAL MEDIA, WORKERS

When you just cannot get away: Technology and work- life spillover Tags: facebook, technology, telecommunications, women and work | Last updated: April 5,

2013

(iStock)

The issue of whether or not U.S. workplaces should allow more telecommuting, and hence better work- life balance, continues to create controversy. But for many workers, technology has proven a mixed blessing: The Internet-enabled smartphone makes one accountable to managers and coworkers at all hours of the day, seven days a week.

Researchers have been studying the extent of this “work-home spillover” phenomenon and its impact on American life. Prior scholarship has shown that employees with greater levels of ambition are more likely to use communication technologies when not at work — but they are also likely to report having work- life conflicts. Other research has focused on how technologies are associated with the creation of more “supplemental work,” performed during off hours, and how, again, these are linked to perceived conflicts. In principle, though, technology may afford some workers greater flexibility and allow for more balance.

A 2013 study published in Information, Communication & Society, “When You Just Cannot Get Away,” analyzed responses from 1,100 individuals who participated in the Work-Life and Technology Use Survey, from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The researcher looked at the frequency of ICT (information and communication technologies) use and the relationship

10/26/15, 6:07 PMWhen you just cannot get away: Technology and work-life spillover – Journalist's Resource Journalist's Resource

Page 2 of 3http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/workers/when-you-just-cannot-get-away-technology-work-life-spillover

with perceived conflicts between work and home; respondents were asked whether jobs interfered with family life (work-home), and if issues at home made workday activities more difficult (home-work). The respondents were 68% female, 68% married or co-habitating, and 89% white. The researcher notes that this sample is not fully representative of the U.S. population as a whole, and so the study must be seen as a window into these issues and not as a valid national picture.

The study’s findings include:

Among the respondents, 63% reported checking their work email more than once a day outside of office hours, and 61% reported checking personal email accounts while at work multiple times a day.

With regard to work-home dynamics, more frequent use of email was associated with negative spillovers: “These effects were found even when controlling for demographic and employment characteristics, suggesting that ICT use may play a significant role in defining the permeability of work/home boundaries and the negative consequences associated with increased boundary-blurring.”

Frequent use of personal email and Facebook at work was associated with negative spillovers from home life.

“Being female was related to scoring higher on the negative work-home spillover scale, as was being married/living with a partner and being white. Respondents belonging to the two lowest family income brackets were shown to have higher scores on the negative spillover scale (compared to those with a family income of $100,000 or more), indicating that those reporting higher family incomes also reported lower rates of spillover.” Having a child at home was also associated with higher reported levels of home-work spillover levels.

Some of these general spillover patterns appear to be generational: “Members of the Silent/GI Generation [ages 65 and older] continued to trend towards lower spillover scores compared to the Millennials.”

Interestingly, the use of Facebook at home to contact work colleagues was associated with lower reported levels of work-home spillover. This may be because the content of the message on Facebook may not be related to professional life necessarily, and therefore Facebook may actually “provide a means to lessen work-related stresses and contribute to less negative spillover.”

“In addition to what has already been suggested,” the researcher writes, “future research should also explore the potential positive effects ICTs may have on work/home spillover. This paper focuses solely on the impacts ICTs may have on negative spillover, but a body of literature suggests that ICTs may also assist in alleviating work-home and home-work conflict … and future investigations may continue to unfold the complex positive and negative relationships technology may have with work/home life.”

10/26/15, 6:07 PMWhen you just cannot get away: Technology and work-life spillover – Journalist's Resource Journalist's Resource

Page 3 of 3http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/workers/when-you-just-cannot-get-away-technology-work-life-spillover

Tags: technology, Facebook, women and work, telecommunications

Writer: John Wihbey | April 5, 2013

Citation: Berkowsky, Ronald W. "When You Just Cannot Get Away,” Information, Communication & Society, March 2013. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.772650.

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 1 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

SundayReview | OPINION

The Flight From Conversation SHERRY TURKLE APRIL 21, 2012

WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 2 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

Our colleagues want to go to that board meeting but pay attention only to what interests them. To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from one another, even as we are constantly connected to one another.

A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t stop by to talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says they’re “too busy on their e-mail.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not telling the truth. I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d rather just do things on my BlackBerry.”

A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost wistfully, “Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.”

In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the campus of a high-tech start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of us is in our own bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A senior partner at a Boston law firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite of technologies: laptops, iPods and multiple phones. And then they put their earphones on. “Big ones. Like pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With the young lawyers in their cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken.

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people — carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use technology to keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right. I think of it as a Goldilocks effect.

Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much, not too little — just right.

Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 3 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.

We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places — in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation.

Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, “I am thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in sips doesn’t work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words that mean to move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon to see things from another’s point of view.

FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.”

And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self- reflection. These days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with less, we seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse about the future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 4 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

sophomore confides to me that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database. Indeed, many people tell me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advanced, “she” will be more and more like a best friend — one who will listen when others won’t.

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with technology, I have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this feeling helps explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed — each provides so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why — against all reason — so many of us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us. Researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be companions to the elderly, to children, to all of us.

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought one of these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility, and an older woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed to be looking into her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted.

And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice about dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to computer psychiatry, this enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused conversation with connection and collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of delusion that accepts the simulation of compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why would we want to talk about love and loss with a machine that has no experience of the arc of human life? Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for one another?

WE expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful fantasies: that we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and that we never have to be alone. Indeed our

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 5 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

new devices have turned being alone into a problem that can be solved.

When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device. Here connection works like a symptom, not a cure, and our constant, reflexive impulse to connect shapes a new way of being.

Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a text.”

So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our rush to connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves. Lacking the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as they are. It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves.

We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true. If we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

I am a partisan for conversation. To make room for it, I see some first, deliberate steps. At home, we can create sacred spaces: the kitchen, the dining room. We can make our cars “device-free zones.” We can demonstrate the value of conversation to our children. And we can do the same thing at work. There we are so busy communicating that we often don’t have time to talk to one another about what really matters. Employees asked for casual Fridays; perhaps managers should introduce conversational Thursdays. Most of all, we need to remember — in between texts and e-mails and Facebook posts — to listen to one another, even to the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments, moments in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another.

I spend the summers at a cottage on Cape Cod, and for decades I walked the same dunes that Thoreau once walked. Not too long ago, people walked with their heads up, looking at the water, the sky, the sand and at one another, talking. Now

10/26/15, 6:07 PMThe Flight From Conversation – The New York Times

Page 6 of 6http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversation.html

they often walk with their heads down, typing. Even when they are with friends, partners, children, everyone is on their own devices.

So I say, look up, look at one another, and let’s start the conversation.

Sherry Turkle is a psychologist and professor at M.I.T. and the author, most recently, of “Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other.”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on April 22, 2012, on page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: The Flight From Conversation.

© 2015 The New York Times Company

10/26/15, 6:07 PMIs Facebook Making Us Lonely? – The Atlantic

Page 1 of 19http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

T E C H N O L O G Y

Is Facebook M

Lonely? Social media—from Facebook to Twitter—have made us more densely networked than ever. Yet for all this connectivity, new research suggests that we have never been lonelier (or more narcissistic)—and that this loneliness is making us mentally and physically ill. A report on what the epidemic of loneliness is doing to our souls and our society.

S T E P H E N M A R C H E | M A Y 2 0 1 2 I S S U E

Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work

in one of these ways

Sign up for The Atlantic Daily newsletter

Phillip Toledano

10/26/15, 6:07 PMIs Facebook Making Us Lonely? – The Atlantic

Page 2 of 19http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

Also see:

Live Chat With Stephen Marche

Vickers’s web of connections had grown broader but shallower, as has happened for many of us. We are living in an isolation that

YVETTE VICKERS, A FORMER Playboy and B-movie star, best known for her role in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, would have been 83 last August, but nobody knows exactly how old she was when she died. The Los Angeles coroner’s report, she lay dead for the better part of a year before a neighbor and fellow actress, a woman named Susan Savcobwebs and yellowing letters in her mailbox, reached through a broken window to unlock the door, and pushed her way through the piles of junk mail and mounds of clothing that barricaded the house. Upstairs, she found Vickers’s body, mummified, near a heater that was still running. Her computer was on too, its glow permeating the empty space.

The Los Angeles Times posted a story headlined “Mummified Body of Former

Playboy Playmate Yvette Vickers Found in Her Benedict Canyon Home,” which

quickly went viral. Within two weeks, by Technorati’s count, Vickers’s lonesome

death was already the subject of 16,057 Facebook posts and 881 tweets. She had long been a horror-movie icon, a symbol of Hollywood’s capacity to exploit our most basic fears in the silliest ways; now she was an icon of a new and different kind of horror: our growing fear of loneliness. Certainly she received much more attention in death than she did in the final years of her life. With no children, no religious group, and no immediate social circle of any kind, she had begun, as an elderly woman, to look elsewhere for companionship. Savage later told Los Angeles magazine that she had searched Vickers’s phone bills for clues about the life that led to such an end. In the months before her grotesque death, Vickers had made calls not to friends or family but to distant fans who had found her through fan conventions and Internet sites.

10/26/15, 6:07 PMIs Facebook Making Us Lonely? – The Atlantic

Page 3 of 19http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

The author will be online at 3 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, April 16, to answer readers' questions. Click the link above for details.

would have been unimaginable to our ancestors, and yet we have never been more accessible. Over the past three decades, technology has delivered to us a world in

which we need not be out of contact for a fraction of a moment. In 2010, at a cost of $300 million, 800 miles of fiber-optic cable was laid between the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange to shave three milliseconds off trading times. Yet within this world of instant and absolute communication, unbounded by limits of time or space, we suffer from unprecedented alienation. We have never been more detached from one another, or lonelier. In a world consumed by ever more novel modes of socializing, we have less and less actual society. We live in an accelerating contradiction: the more connected we become, the lonelier we are. We were promised a global village; instead we inhabit the drab cul-de-sacs and endless freeways of a vast suburb of information.

At the forefront of all this unexpectedly lonely interactivity is Facebook, with 845 million users and $3.7 billion in revenue last year. The company hopes to raise $5 billion in an initial public offering later this spring, which will make it by far the largest Internet IPO in history. Some recent estimates put the company’s potential value at $100 billion, which would make it larger than the global coffee industry—one addiction preparing to surpass the other. Facebook’s scale and reach are hard to comprehend: last summer, Facebook became, by some counts, the first Web site to receive 1 trillion page views in a month. In the last three months of 2011, users generated an average of 2.7 billion “likes” and comments every day. On whatever scale you care to judge Facebook—as a company, as a culture, as a country—it is vast beyond imagination.

Despite its immense popularity, or more likely because of it, Facebook has, from

10/26/15, 6:07 PMIs Facebook Making Us Lonely? – The Atlantic

Page 4 of 19http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

the beginning, been under something of a cloud of suspicion. The depiction of Mark Zuckerberg, in The Social Network, as a bastard with symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome, was nonsense. But it felt true. It felt true to Facebook, if not to Zuckerberg. The film’s most indelible scene, the one that may well have earned it an Oscar, was the final, silent shot of an anomic Zuckerberg sending out a friend request to his ex-girlfriend, then waiting and clicking and waiting and clicking—a moment of superconnected loneliness preserved in amber. We have all been in that scene: transfixed by the glare of a screen, hungering for response.

When you sign up for Google+ and set up your Friends circle, the program specifies that you should include only “your real friends, the ones you feel comfortable sharing private details with.” That one little phrase, Your real friends —so quaint, so charmingly mothering—perfectly encapsulates the anxieties that social media have produced: the fears that Facebook is interfering with our real friendships, distancing us from each other, making us lonelier; and that social networking might be spreading the very isolation it seemed designed to conquer.

FACEBOOK ARRIVED IN THE MIDDLE of a dramatic increase in the quantity and intensity of human loneliness, a rise that initially made the site’s promise of greater connection seem deeply attractive. Americans are more solitary than ever before. In 1950, less than 10 per