Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
An insightful summary of a research study investigating the role of Facebook in maintaining romantic relationships. The study explores how Facebook usage affects relational satisfaction, dependency, insecurity, and jealousy in romantic relationships. The literature review covers various aspects of Facebook's impact on relationships, including relationship formation and maintenance, measures of dependency and insecurity, and Facebook usage and satisfaction. The study also discusses interesting findings regarding Facebook stalking behaviors and the public's acknowledgement and approval impact on relational satisfaction.
What you will learn
Typology: Study notes
1 / 84
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The Effects of Facebook “Stalking” on Romantic Partners’ Satisfaction, Jealousy, and Insecurity BY KATHERINE A. LINDNER B.A., Western Michigan University, 2008 THESIS Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago, 201 2 Chicago, Illinois Defense Committee: Sharon Meraz, Chair and Advisor Zizi Papacharissi Hui-Ching Chang
i
i iii iv v CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................. III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ A. Social Networking Sites (SNSs) ......................................................................
iii
iv
Since the formation of Communication as a discipline, scholars have been interested in examining every aspect of interpersonal relationships, from casual acquaintances to romantic partners (Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Despite the vast amount of research that has already been generated in the field, there still exists a deep need to understand the complex dynamics of interpersonal relationships, especially as the possibilities for enacting these relationships expand in unimaginable ways in the digital age (Rau, Gao, & Ding, 2008). As individuals continue to increase their usage of and dependency on the Internet and social media, it is critical to examine the consequences of new technologies on our most fundamental relationships. Appropriately addressing these issues requires the concerted effort of interpersonal scholars to encompass the rapidly evolving technological world in their research. Of all the relationships we engage in over a lifetime, perhaps the most important are our romantic relationships. Our romantic relationships are some of the most complex, challenging, and rewarding relationships we will ever experience (Brown, Feiring, & Furman, 1999). Besides being fulfilling, these relationships are also instrumental to our survival. Not only do the individuals benefit emotionally, but also there are many psychological (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Myers & Diener, 1995) and physical health benefits (Glanz & Lerman, 1992; Kiecolt-Glaser,
(Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Scholars have long studied the effects of jealousy on romantic relationships (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006; Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989); however, very little research conducted thus far has examined the impact of the Internet, specifically social networking sites, on jealousy and romantic relationships. In order to obtain a better understanding of how romantic relationships are impacted by the sustained use of social networking sites, this paper seeks to discover the role of Facebook in maintaining romantic relationships. Specifically, this study is focused on how individuals use Facebook to engage in surveillance of their romantic partner in the context of his or her online social networks. In order to draw conclusions about the ways in which relationships are being impacted by the use of social networking, this study will utilize an online questionnaire composed of a battery of scales related to Facebook use, relationship satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988), jealousy (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), and insecurity and dependency (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). Understanding these issues is crucial as individuals continue to incorporate new technologies into their everyday lives and become increasingly dependent on such communication tools to carry out their romantic relationships.
dependency is necessary for relationships to exist; however, it is important to deconstruct this term. Actual behavioral dependence refers to the degree of closeness experienced in his or her relationship, which can be defined as “a high mutual dependence exhibited in the partners’ behavioral interaction” (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998, p. 33; Kelley et al., 1983). In contrast, perceived dependence is a psychological state in which an individual subjectively feels closeness towards his or her partner (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). While actual dependency is critical for the success and stability of a relationship and leads to increased relational satisfaction, there may be a discrepancy between this and an individual’s perceived dependency. This perceived dependency may be unhealthy for the relationship and typically leads to decreases in relational satisfaction and increases in insecurity and jealousy (see Figure 1). This issue is further compounded when the degree to which each partner is dependent is not equal. As a result, the partner who is more dependent experiences more negative emotions than the less-dependent partner (Le & Agnew, 2001). These negative emotions further exacerbate feelings of insecurity and jealousy and contribute to decreases in relational satisfaction. As individuals become more invested in the relationship and their dependency grows, feelings of insecurity surface based on the subconscious fear that this need-fulfillment might be taken away and there are no other viable options for satisfying these needs. This is often associated with “security concerns about the continuance of the relationship and the partner’s future provision of need satisfaction” (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998, p. 34). While dependency is necessary for insecurity, insecurity does not automatically follow from dependency. Insecurity is caused when “…the person [is] uncertain of the continuance of the relationships and [experiences] feelings of relationship insecurity in conjunction with high dependency” (Attridge, Berscheid & Sprecher, 1998, p. 34). It is the combination of this
dependence, uncertainty, and insecurity that lead to decreases in relational satisfaction and usually manifests in the form of jealousy or distrust (see Figure 1) (Berscheid & Fei, 1977). Jealousy typically follows threats to an individual’s self-esteem or threats to his or her romantic relationship “… generated by the perception of a real or potential attraction between one’s partner and a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (White, 1981, p. 296). In romantic relationships, the most typical situation that causes jealousy is when a rival, often times an individual of the same sex, appears to be vying for the individual’s partner’s attention. This creates a romantic triad, whether real or perceived, where “…an individual becomes jealous as he or she suspects or actually learns that a partner is interested in a rival” (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006, p. 637). This jealousy is often a response to an anticipated social rejection that the romantic partner will reject them in favor of the rival. Overall, the experience of jealousy tends to have important consequences for the satisfaction and longevity of the relationship (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001, p. 205). Furthermore, there are two different components to jealousy. Cognitive jealousy in relationships typically involves suspicions of infidelity which occur “…when a person becomes aware of a threat to the relationships… [and] prompts appraisals about the extent to which the self and the relationship are likely to be harmed” (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001, p. 206; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). This is almost exclusively an intrapersonal stage, which can often turn into emotional jealousy. The component of emotional jealousy is reactive “…involves a variety of different feelings, including anxiety, discomfort, anger, fear, insecurity and upset” (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001, p. 206; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). It is this emotional aspect that often manifests itself in distrust, which involves behaviors such as snooping or spying (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).
Figure 1: From initiation to dissolution: A graphic representation of the development of romantic relationships
Due to the dearth of research concerning romantic relationships and Facebook, the relevant literature to romantic relationship development will be discussed separately from the literature relevant to social networking and Facebook. This literature review covers a wide range of topics that are pertinent in any scholarly discussion of the Internet, but are particularly significant in a discussion of Facebook and the role it plays in romantic relationships. These topics include the formative role gender has played in shaping the Internet, privacy, and lurking. Furthermore, special attention is given to the historical context of all of these phenomena, as well as the historical development and architecture of the Internet, Social Networking Sites (SNSs), and Facebook. Throughout the past few decades, as Internet usage grew rapidly and became a household staple, so grew academic concern that this new technology could be harmful to humanity. Many scholars have advanced the idea that “…Internet communication is an impoverished and sterile form of social exchange compared to traditional face-to-face interactions, and will therefore produce negative outcomes (loneliness and depression)” (Bargh & McKenna, 2004, p. 575). Conversely, others have argued that the Internet is instrumental in building social capital (Wellman et al., 2001), and, furthermore, that greater use is “…associated with greater social and psychological well-being and that online relationships do not differ in terms of breadth or depth from offline relationships” (Bonebrake, 2002). Questioning the impact of a new technology is hardly unique to the Internet. Every major innovation since the 18th^ century has inspired criticism that has been “…reinvigorated and intensified as each new communication technology became popular: the telephone, radio, movies, and, most profoundly, the television” (Katz, Rice, & Aspden, 2001, p. 406). What is
engage in social behaviors like sending and receiving email and seeking out online support groups for personal problems (Fallows, 2005, p. 5). Thus, rather than seeing the technology as a tool to extract information or solve problems, women tend to see the Internet as an extension of their social space, where they can keep in touch with their friends and family and find social support. This social media explosion that occurred throughout the 2000s has caused a distinct “feminization” of the Internet (Rosenbloom, 2008). These technologies that emphasize networking, sharing content, and collaboration, social networking sites rapidly became the most popular sites on the web and have fundamentally altered how and why people use the Internet. A. Social Networking Sites (SNSs) It is clear that social networking has become extremely important over the past decade, though it is by no means an original concept. Social networks have always existed “…because humans are societal and require relationships with other humans in order to survive” (Coyle & Vaughn, 2008, p. 13). Our social networks provide us with the social bonds, resources, and support required for humans to thrive (Henderson, 1977, p. 185). The support that is found in social networks is essential for psychological well being, and has been found to have significant benefits for physical health as well, by decreasing life stressors (Furukawa, Sarason, & Sarason, 1998 ; Henderson, 1977). Thus, when individuals faced with similar levels of life difficulties or stressors are compared, “people who report more perceived social support may see them as less threatening and thus stay relatively immune to the deleterious effects of these stressors” (Furukawa, Sarason, & Sarason, 1998, p. 57). Even on a more superficial level, if social networking sites ceased to exist, we would still engage in social networking activities every day. For example, “each time you tell a friend about
a good movie, bore a neighbor with pictures from your kid’s birthday party, or catch up on gossip at work, you are reaching out to people you know to share ideas, experiences, and information” (Hamilton, 2007, p. 1). Perhaps this is why social networking sites have gained such a massive user base in such a short amount of time, because it is intuitive to us. The value of social networks lays precisely “in their ability to capture the essence of these informal exchanges and distill them online into an expanding matrix of searchable, linked Web pages” (Hamilton, 2007, p. 1). However, the recent phenomenon of social networking online has taken this very basic tenet of humanity to a completely new level. The term social networking site (SNS) has been defined since its inception as a website that “…allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 1). Furthermore, the purposes of social networking sites vary greatly. For example, they can be “…oriented towards work-related contexts (e.g. LinkedIn.com), romantic relationship initiation, or connecting those with shared interests such as music or politics (e.g. MySpace.com)” (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2006, p. 3). While the purposes of social networking sites are extremely varied, there are typically two characteristics that distinguish social networking sites from other websites. Most social networking sites are “…based on the presentation of the participant’s profile and the visualization of her network of relations to others” (Gross & Acquisti, 2005, p. 2). The content on these profiles varies greatly from site to site and from user to user, but typically includes “…descriptors such as age, location, interests, and an “about me” section” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 1). However, the importance of the profile is also something that fluctuates based on the
The first site to combine all of the familiar features of social networking sites in one website was SixDegrees.com, which launched in 1997 (boyd & Ellison, 2007). It was unsuccessful and folded by 2000 because, although Internet membership was increasing rapidly in the family home, “most [users] did not have extended networks of friends who were online yet, and consequently had very little to actually do once they signed up for the site” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 3). However, SixDegrees.com was successful in creating interest in the genre of social networking online. Following its example “…hundreds of social networks spurred online, sometimes growing very rapidly, thereby attracting the attention of both media and academia” (Acquisti & Gross, 2006, p. 38). Other popular social networking sites that launched during this time were LiveJournal (1999) which was focused on blogging, but allowed users to list their friends and Cyworld (1999) a Korean virtual worlds social network (boyd & Ellison, 2007). These sites experienced success, but had more narrowly defined purposes than SixDegrees.com. The success experienced by these initial sites sparked the next wave of social networking which, according to boyd and Ellison (2007), began in 2001. The first of these second-generation sites was Ryze.com, which began in 2001 as a site to help “…people leverage their professional connections” (Todi, 2008, p. 3). While Ryze never gained much popularity, it was essential to the history of social networking sites because “Ryze’s founder introduced his website to other future founders of social networks, such as Friendster, LinkedIn and Tribe.net [and] they believed they could all exist without cannibalizing each other’s user bases” (Todi, 2008, p. 3). In the end, “…Tribe.net grew to attract a passionate niche user base, LinkedIn became a powerful business service, and Friendster became the most significant…” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 4). Friendster launched in the fall of 2002 and by January of 2004 it had exploded to five million members (boyd, 2004). Rather than attempting to compete with Ryze, it was designed to
complement it, while competing directly with Match.com. The idea behind it was that instead of “…introducing people to strangers with similar interests, Friendster was designed to help friends-of-friends meet, based on the assumption that friends-of-friends would make better romantic partners than strangers” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 4). Reflective of its aims, Friendster’s user base were “…typically 20-something, educated city dwellers, their social and sexual interests [were] quite diverse” (boyd, 2004, p. 2). Friendster’s basic functions were similar to the current popular social networks. Users were encouraged to “…articulate their social network, present themselves through a Profile (interests and demographics), post public testimonials about one another, and browse a network of people” (boyd, 2004, p. 2). Ultimately, the company squandered its early success partially due to Friendster executives deleting all of the fake Friendster accounts (or Fakesters) that users liked to peruse. While their aims were altruistic (keeping the site truthful), the executives ended up alienating their base because they “…restricted the activities of its most passionate users” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 5). Many of the most enthusiastic Friendster users left after this because of the “…combination of technical difficulties, social collisions, and rupture of trust between users and the site” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 5). Starting in 2003, during the height of Friendster’s popularity, social networking sites began multiplying rapidly. The expansion was so overwhelming that industry analysts and journalists barely took notice of the (eventual) social networking giant MySpace when it launched in 2003. MySpace’s early success was due in large part to Friendster’s alienating ways (boyd & Ellison, 2007). Besides relying on Friendster refugees, MySpace was proactive about culling relationships with independent bands. It was precisely this “…symbiotic relationship between bands and fans [which] helped MySpace expand beyond former Friendster users” (boyd
