Too Close and Too Far: Counseling Emerging Adults in aTechnological Age

Karen W. TaoUniversity of Utah

Individuals increasingly connect with others via social media (e.g., blogs, social networking, chatrooms),a phenomenon that is likely to impact psychological well-being and development. As such, therapistsplay an important role in assisting their clients to identify how virtual and in-person relationshipsinfluence their sense of self, interpersonal communication, and how they engage in meaningful relation-ships. In this article, I describe 3 examples related to working with emerging adults that take intoconsideration how this population does relationships in this technological era. Specifically, 3 clinicalexchanges1 illustrate ways to (a) enhance interpersonal skills (b) develop self-awareness about emotions,and (c) gain a clearer understanding of the intersections of social identity.

Keywords: emerging adults, Internet, social media, psychotherapy

A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on coldday in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with theirquills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove themtogether again, when just the same thing happened. At last, aftermany turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that theywould be best off by remaining at a little distance from oneanother (Schopenhauer, 1851/1964, p. 226).

Schopenhauers analogy illustrates the enduring tension of hu-man intimacythe individuals need for closeness and simultane-ous fear of engulfment. His analogy functions also as a cautionarytale, reminding humans to nurture the balance between attachmentand isolation. Over a century later, this parable is ever morerelevant. We live in a technological age where we are oftenphysically alone, but somehow submerged in a stream of socialrelationships that are often established and primarily maintainedonline (Junco, 2012). According to a recent statistics on Internetuse, 69% of adults (18) who access the Internet use socialnetworking sites (SNSs), 66% report using Facebook, and 25million individuals access online dating services each month (Dug-gan & Brenner, 2013; Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, & Sprecher,2012). It is also estimated that 99% of U.S. college students havea profile on Facebook and spend an average of 1 to 2 hr/day on thisSNS (Fox & Warber, 2013). In 2010, a study of media use amongyouth ages 15 to 18 (e.g., TV, computer) revealed an average useof 53 hours per week (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010).

The widespread use of SNSs (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) amongthe adolescent and emerging adult (ages 1825) population hasbegun to attract attention from mental health professionals andresearchers interested in how this social phenomenon influencesinterpersonal development (e.g., Subrahmanyam & Greenfield,

2008). We can now send messages to thousands of followers (e.g.,Twitter) or spend hours surveying the intimate details of friendsand acquaintances lives without physical proximity or actuallytalking. How does this merging of technology and social relation-ships affect our ability to derive satisfaction from interpersonalconnection? What do we do about it as clinicians still invested inwhat is ultimately a low-tech, perhaps even old-fashioned affair?

Decades of research indicate that social connectedness and theability to form close relationships are essential to well-being andpsychological functioning. As in childhood, adults also seek stable,trusting, and responsive relationships especially in times of need ordistress (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1969). Not surpris-ingly, the explosion of technologically mediated social relation-ships appears to have an important influence on how we commu-nicate and interact with each other. This change may have certainbenefits. For example, studies point to the positive impact oftechnology-facilitated relationships, including the association be-tween online identity experimentation and positive social compe-tence among adolescents (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). However,we now maintain many relationships without any physical andreal interpersonal contact, and several studies link extensive useof technology to negative outcomes. For example, the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics warns parents about the potential dangersof the unmonitored use of social media forums by youth, includingdepression (OKeeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). A recent series ofcase studies also link the overuse of Facebook to psychoses (Nit-zan, Shoshan, Lev-Ran, & Fennig, 2013). Mental health profes-sionals should be prepared to work with and understand howtechnology impacts individuals ability to initiate and maintainrelationships (e.g., emotional expression, intimacy).

Traditionally, psychotherapy has served as a vehicle for clientsto work on their relationships and live more satisfying lives (e.g.,emotion-focused therapy, Greenberg, 2004; psychodynamic psy-

1 All clinical exchanges and case material presented in this article arefictionalized or an amalgam of several cases. Any resemblance to realpersons is purely coincidental.

This article was published Online First September 23, 2013.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Karen W.

Tao, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt LakeCity, UT 84112. E-mail: k.tao@utah.edu

This

docu

men

tis

copy

right

edby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

calA

ssoc

iatio

nor

one

ofi

tsal

lied

publ

isher

s.Th

isar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

fort

hepe

rson

aluse

oft

hein

divi

dual

use

ran

dis

not

tobe

diss

emin

ated

broa

dly.

Psychotherapy 2013 American Psychological Association2014, Vol. 51, No. 1, 123127 0033-3204/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033393

123

chotherapy, Strupp & Binder, 1984). Although specific approachesmay differ with regards to identified change mechanisms, psycho-therapists often help their client, (a) enhance interpersonal skillsrelated to intimacy, including empathy and self-disclosure (Tey-ber, 2006), (b) develop self-awareness about emotions, where andwith whom emotions are expressed, and how they are regulated(Greenberg, 2004), and (c) gain a clearer understanding of theintersections of social identity and the dimensions that influenceself-understanding (Chantler, 2005; Crenshaw, 1991). Despite newtechnological outlets, the interpersonal aspects of psychotherapyremain salient. Yet, to enact this interpersonal approach, therapistsmust take into account the new ways young adults do relation-ships and how technology shapes and co-occurs with their emo-tions, behaviors, and attitudes toward interpersonal interactions.

Below, I outline several ways in which psychotherapy candirectly address individuals relationships and experiences withtechnology, treating the technological mediation of relationships asyet another aspect of an individuals ecological system that canand should be explicitly addressed in treatment (Bronfenbrenner,1977). The three clinical processes presented in this article provideways in which the client and therapist can address how computer-mediated communication is interpersonal in nature, elicits basichuman emotions, and influences a clients sense of self and iden-tity.

Comment Regret: Interpersonal Process and IntimacyThe development of intimate and romantic relationships, al-

though important across a life span, is particularly relevant duringadolescence and emerging adulthood. Arnett (2000) suggests it isduring the teens and twenties when individuals begin asking thequestions of Who would I enjoy being with, here and now? andGiven the kind of person I am, what kind of person do I wish tohave as a partner through life? (p. 473). These questions, whilestill talked about openly with family and friends, are being increas-ingly explored through social networking. Self-disclosure on SNSsis an immediate way to receive a wide range of reactions (Valk-enburg & Peter, 2009) and discover what others think about them(Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). Relatedly, the functionof SNSs as an unending source for individuals to compare them-selves with others (e.g., posts and pictures) or seek peer approval(e.g., number of likes on a Facebook status) has led to variousstudies, including one on the phenomenon of Facebook envy(Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja, & Buxmann, 2013). The follow-ing dialogue between Ivan, a 22-year-old male student, and femaletherapist provides an example of how a client with difficultyfocusing on his feelings after a relationship breakup over Facebookis responded by a therapists use of immediacy.

Ivan: My boyfriend broke up with me over Facebook last night.I found out when he changed his status to single. Then hedefriended me so I cant go on to his page. My close friends startedposting stuff on my page telling me that hes a chicken for dumpingme like that and a mature person would have told me face to face.So, I decided to write a nasty post about some of the things he toldme in private, so he gets a taste of his own medicine. Do you thinkit was wrong to write that post?

Therapist: You sound really overwhelmed. A very personalthing happened to you in a public wayand then you wereexcluded from his world almost immediately. I wonder, however, if

my telling you how to handle this situation, would only be addingto this stress. Youve told me that people telling you what to do orhow you should feel often confuses you. I wonder if we might trysomething else in here by starting how with you are feeling rightnow.

Ivan: I dont know. I havent really slept, so Im exhausted. Ididnt even want to come in today, but I figured it would be goodto talk about this. I cant believe that after 3 years, he wouldnteven have the nerve to talk to me first. I thought we were gettingbetter.

Therapist: Its hard to talk about this when youre sleep de-prived, but what I also get is that you feel blindsided and arehaving a hard time putting your thoughts together. What elsecomes up?

Ivan: Well, I dont know, I should have seen what was coming.Hes been acting strangely, like not texting me back like he usuallydoes. My best friend Sia has also been telling me that there issomething going on. Shes seen him out a couple times when Ithought he was at work.

Therapist: You blame yourself for not seeing the signs.Ivan: (starts to cry). Its my fault he broke up with me. He said

I was too needy and I probably pushed him away. Now that I madethat post, I ruined any chances on getting back together. If I do goback to him, all my friends are going to think Im so weak.

Therapist: You feel really hurt, and I am sorry to hear howdifficult this is for you. I also sense that you dont feel like you havea lot of support right now. Im wondering, it sounds like it felt goodto send out that comment in the moment, but now youre reallysitting in some regret.

In this exchange, the therapist does not attend to Ivans focus onother individuals in his narrative, but invites him instead to expandon his emotional experience of the event. By working in thehere-and-now (aka immediacy), the therapist examines what theconflict brings up and also uses the clienttherapist relationship toaddress external phenomena (Teyber, 2006; Yalom, 2005). Essen-tially, focusing on the present serves two primary functions: (a)providing the client with a corrective emotional experience (i.e.,not disempowering the client by giving solutionsa presentingissue) and (b) linking in-the-moment instances to what the clientexperiences outside of the therapeutic context.

The therapist also demonstrates an application of an interper-sonal process model of intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Accordingto this model, intimacy is built on a series of evocations that takeplace between two participants that include self-disclosure andpartner responsiveness. In this case, the therapist emotionallyresponds to the clients distress and also uses self-disclosure (i.e.,You feel really hurt and I am sorry to hear how difficult this is foryou.). Given the content of the clients disclosure, the therapistintentionally refrains from discussing the details of the Facebookbanter, but, invites the client to talk about what feelings thisdiscussion brings up for the client in the session.

Feeling Lonely With 300 Friends: The Roleof Emotions

Eliciting and addressing emotions in psychotherapy is alsocentral to the psychotherapeutic process (Greenberg & Safran,1989; Perls, 1973; Rogers, 1951). Broadly, the expression ofemotion is an interpersonal phenomenon that serves a critical

This

docu

men

tis

copy

right

edby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

calA

ssoc

iatio

nor

one

ofi

tsal

lied

publ

isher

s.Th

isar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

fort

hepe

rson

aluse

oft

hein

divi

dual

use

ran

dis

not

tobe

diss

emin

ated

broa

dly.

124 TAO

purpose in communicating our needs and meeting the needs ofothers. Given the real-time nature of social media, individuals nowhave instantaneous ways to communicate their emotions and oftenuse technological venues to seek comfort, support, or even ap-proval (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). Given the rise inresearch on Facebook use and links to depression and self-esteem(Jelenchick, Eickhoff, & Moreno, 2012; Krasnova et al., 2013), atherapists attention to the various contexts in which clients areseeking social connectedness can no longer be viewed as a super-fluous subject. Rather, the incorporation of discussion on the topicof SNSs and how it impacts clients emotional well-being iscritical.

Until a decade ago, the possibility of broadcasting the end of arelationship was not possible, yet today, an entire network of closefriends, acquaintances, and even strangers may be alerted to some-ones change from coupled to single status within seconds. Howdoes a breakup that happens so immediately and publicly influencean individuals emotional response? In Ivans situation, he is alonewhen receiving the news and then bombarded with a host ofreactions. In this next exchange, the therapist picks up on Ivansdistress, his mixed emotions about the ending of his relationship,and comments from his social network.

Ivan: More than anything, Im super embarrassed. Ive beengetting all of these texts from my friends to check if Im okay andI just dont want to reply. I havent even had time to process.

Therapist: You sure have a lot of people who care about you,but it all seems to be coming in so quick and youre just not surehow to respond to their texts yet. Lets take a breath. You said youfeel embarrassed. Lets delve into this feeling a bit more be-cause it sounds important.

Ivan: I dont know. I just always wanted to have the perfectrelationship. I would brag to all of my friends about how I foundthe perfect guy and that this could be the one, and . . .

Therapist: . . . and then he changed his status. You felt loved inthis relationship and comforted by the potential of being with yourboyfriend long-term. That makes a lot of sense to me. Earlier youmentioned feeling too needy in this relationship. Tell me moreabout that.

Ivan: I guess I just always felt jealous or afraid that he wasgoing to dump me, so I would constantly check his emails or textswhen he wasnt looking. He caught me a couple of times and wasreally pissed off.

Therapist: Afraid to be dumped? Where do you think the fearcomes from?

Ivan: I just dont want to be single and alone. Im already 22years old and should have things figured out. Lots of my straightfriends have their lives planned out perfectly. I dont know whenIm going to find that and Im tired of online dating. Look whereit got me this time.

Therapist: The clock is ticking fast. Pressure, pressure, pres-sure. I feel my own nervousness increasing as I hear you sharethis.

This exchange demonstrates the therapist working to enhanceIvans emotional awareness and then begins to move towardpotential sources of his relational difficulties. The therapist focuseson helping the client identify emotions underlying his actions aswell as the impact of his friends opinions. Ivan laments how hehas not had time to process his feelings about recent events, yetexperiences a lot of pressure to have things figured out. The

therapist acknowledges Ivans sense of urgency to respond to hisfriends, given the public nature of the breakup, but also encouragesIvan to explore his own feelings as well as those deeper emotions(e.g., fear of being alone) triggered by this event. The therapist alsoshares her own reaction to what the client shares to let the clientknow she is joining him and providing a space for various emo-tions to be expressed.

I Change my Profile Every Month: Intersectionsof Identity

A primary developmental task for late adolescents and emergingadults is the consolidation of identity (Arnett, 2000; Erikson, 1959;Marcia, 1966), figuring out who they are and want to be, identi-fying their stances on politics and religion, and understanding theirposition or roles across various contexts (e.g., school, home, com-munity). According to Arnett (2004), this time marks a time ofexploration and instability, a self-focused age, and an age ofpossibilities (p. 21). It is a time marked by confusion as individ-uals begin to make major life decisions, involving the search forautonomy while relying on the safety nets of stable relationshipswith significant adult figures (e.g., parents, mentors). For youngadults with minority statuses (e.g., sexual, ethnic), these explora-tions can be particularly challenging, as they must learn to navigatemultiple, and sometimes discrepant, contexts (e.g., coming out inan extremely religious community) (Rosario, Schrimshaw, &Hunter, 2004).

The intersectionality of individuals social identities is animportant area for therapists to consider in their work with youngadult clients (Watts-Jones, 2010). Social identity is defined byindividuals self-perceptions, sense of affiliation, and identifica-tion with social groups, including race, ethnicity, sexual orienta-tion/affection, social class, age, religion/spirituality, and so forth.(Mahalingam, Balan, & Haritatos, 2008.) In this third exchange,Ivan and his therapist explore the intersections of his social iden-tity as it relates to his current presenting issue, including thepredominant influences on how he views himself as a 22-year-old,gay, Asian American male.

Therapist: It sounds like there is pressure coming from differ-ent directions and that you often compare yourself with whatothers are doing and feel a need to meet certain expectations. Tellme more about this.

Ivan: Its confusing. See, Ive got all my friends, straight andgay, my White friends, my Asian friends, my family, my Vietnamesecommunity. Sometimes I feel like I have multiple personalities.

Therapist: I hear a few things. For one, it sounds your beinggay is a significant part of who you are. You also mentioned thatbeing Asian and Vietnamese are also important aspects of who youare.

Ivan: Yeah. Most of my friends here are White. They dontreally get why I get all stressed about this stuff. They just tell meto be myself . . . whatever that means. I think the only place I everfeel free is online where no one can see me and I can just say andbe however I want.

Therapist: My ears perked up to your last statement that theonly place you feel like you can be yourself is when you are online.How so?

Ivan: I dont worry as much about how other people are goingto react, and I just write whatever is on my mind without carefully

This

docu

men

tis

copy

right

edby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

calA

ssoc

iatio

nor

one

ofi

tsal

lied

publ

isher

s.Th

isar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

fort

hepe

rson

aluse

oft

hein

divi

dual

use

ran

dis

not

tobe

diss

emin

ated

broa

dly.

125COUNSELING TECHNOLOGICAL AGE

choosing my words. I know it gets me in trouble sometimes, but itmakes me feel more powerful at the moment.

Therapist: That makes sense. You dont have as many distrac-tions like facial expressions and immediate reactions. Yet, at thesame time, it seems like you still do worry about what they thinkand take what they say to heart, like last night. And, perhaps, youmiss out on things that you would in a face-to-face conversation.

Ivan: I know. Its weird. Communicating through Facebook orchat rooms is kinda like speeding in a car. I meet new people allthe time and I can try on different personas. It feels awesome tothrow caution to the wind, but then after the high I feel guilty andanxious.

Therapist: To let yourself be who you want is simultaneouslyexciting and scary. I also hear you saying that you are a multidi-mensional person who does not like being boxed in. You know, Iam really curious about what its like in here, with me. Who areyou in our counseling sessions?

In this exchange, the therapist and Ivan begin exploring thedimensions of Ivans identities, the influence of various relation-ships, and the tension between his private and public selves. Ivansfocus on his online image versus how he presents in person reflectsthe extensiveness of sources from which he draws on to definehimself. Ivan describes his feeling of exhilaration in self-disclosurethrough social media, which gives him a sense of freedom toexplore his various selves. Again, the therapist continues to useimmediacy and invites Ivan to stay in the room by describingwho and how he presents with her. The intention here is tohighlight how interpersonal interactions, whether through technol-ogy or in person, hold meaning and are powerful ways in whichindividuals experience who they are to one another, foster inti-macy, and create a sense of self.

OMG, What do we do?: Implications for TherapistsThese three clinical exchanges demonstrate the relevance of

psychotherapy for generations that have little or no memory of lifebefore the Internet, e-mail, and mobile devices. The virtual andinterpersonal are not mutually exclusive, but rather overlappingrealms. With each technological shift, worries about the negativeeffects of media and technology on children and adolescents,including social isolation, depression, and anxiety abound (Chou& Edge, 2012; OKeeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011). Moreover,many therapists that value connectedness and interpersonal workmay be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater andconsider the key to interpersonal health to be a rejection of tech-nologically mediated relationships. I argue, however, that the focusmay be less on choosing to be off the grid or staying plugged in,but rather on the type, quality, and quantity of interactions online.For example, spending 3 hr/day passively following friends onFacebook, resolving interpersonal conflicts via email or texting(similar to Ivans situation), or perseverating over everyone elseslife as better than yours based on a few posted photos may not bebeneficial.

For emerging adults, therapists can serve as an important bridgebetween the technological and face-to-face worlds. Asking ques-tions like How much time do you spend on the Internet? andHow much time do you spend with your friends? are equallyimportant. Listening to how clients do relationships and payingclose attention to whom and where they find social connectedness

and intimacyand finally how these relationships influence clientssense of selfare at the heart of psychotherapy. Therapists arebeing asked to learn a new technological language. However, thetechnology of humans has not changed, and thus, new ways ofcommunicating do not preclude the need for human connectionand a place to just sit and talk.

ReferencesArnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from

the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the lateteens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire forinterpersonal attachments as a fundamental motivation. PsychologicalBulletin, 117, 497529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human

development. American Psychologist, 32, 513531. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Chantler, K. (2005). From disconnection to connection: Race, gender andthe politics of therapy. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33,239256. doi:10.1080/03069880500132813

Chou, H. T. G., & Edge, N. (2012). They are happier and having betterlives than I am: The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of otherslives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 117121.doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0324

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identitypolitics, and violence against women. Stanford Law Review, 43, 12411299. doi:10.2307/1229039

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013, February). The demographics of socialmedia users 2012. Pew Research Centers Internet & American LifeProject. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_SocialMediaUsers.asp

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S.

(2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psy-chological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13,366. doi:10.1177/1529100612436522

Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in theage of Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults perceptions,motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-working, 16, 37. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288

Greenberg, L. (2004). Emotion-focused therapy. Clinical Psychology andPsychotherapy, 11, 316. doi:10.1002/cpp.388

Greenberg, L. S., & Safran, J. D. (1989). Emotion in psychotherapy.American Psychologist, 44, 1929. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.1.19

Jelenchick, L. A., Eickhoff, J. C., & Moreno, M. A. (2012). Facebookdepression? Social networking site use and depression in older adoles-cents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 128 130. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.008

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use,participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers& Education, 58, 162171.

Krasnova, H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. (2013). Envy onFacebook: A hidden threat to users life satisfaction? 11th InternationalConference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI), Leipzig, Germany.

Mahalingam, R., Balan, S., & Haritatos, J. (2008). Engendering immigrantpsychology: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 326336.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551558.

This

docu

men

tis

copy

right

edby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

calA

ssoc

iatio

nor

one

ofi

tsal

lied

publ

isher

s.Th

isar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

fort

hepe

rson

aluse

oft

hein

divi

dual

use

ran

dis

not

tobe

diss

emin

ated

broa

dly.

126 TAO

Nitzan, U., Shoshan, E., Lev-Ran, S., & Fennig, S. (2013). Internet relatedpsychosisA sign of the times? The Israel Journal of Psychiatry andRelated Sciences, 48, 207211.

OKeeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social mediaon children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127, 800804.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). Collegestudents social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Ap-plied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227238.

Perls, F. S. (1973). The gestalt approach and eye witness to therapy. BenLomond, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. InS. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367389).Chichester, England: Wiley

Rideout, V. J. Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2:Media in the lives of 818 year olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. KaiserFamily Foundation.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implica-tions and theory. London: Constable.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial dif-ferences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths:A comparison of sexual identity over time. Cultural Diversity & EthnicMinority Psychology, 10, 215228.

Schopenhauer, A. (1964). (T. B. Saunders, Trans.). The pessimists hand-book. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published1851).

Strupp, H., & Binder, J. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key: A guide totime-limited dynamic psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (2008). Communicating online:Adolescent relationships and the media. The Future of Children: Chil-dren and Media Technology, 18, 119146.

Teyber, E. (2006). Interpersonal process in therapy: An integrative ap-proach (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internetfor adolescents: A decade of research. Current Directions in Psycholog-ical Science, 18, 15.

Watts-Jones, D. (2010). Location of self: Opening the door to dialogue onintersectionality in the therapy process. Family Process, 49, 405420.

Yalom, I. D. (2005). Theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.).New York: Basic Books.

Received May 7, 2013Accepted May 8, 2013

This

docu

men

tis

copy

right

edby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

calA

ssoc

iatio

nor

one

ofi

tsal

lied

publ

isher

s.Th

isar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

fort

hepe

rson

aluse

oft

hein

divi

dual

use

ran

dis

not

tobe

diss

emin

ated

broa

dly.

127COUNSELING TECHNOLOGICAL AGE

Too Close and Too Far: Counseling Emerging Adults in a Technological AgeComment Regret: Interpersonal Process and IntimacyFeeling Lonely With 300 Friends: The Role of EmotionsI Change my Profile Every Month: Intersections of IdentityOMG, What do we do?: Implications for TherapistsReferences