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
This thesis explores the impact of social media on romantic relationships, focusing on the emergence and management of relational dialectics. The study is based on interviews with 18 participants who use social media in their relationships. The research reveals that both internal and external dialectics emerge when relationships are on social media, and participants suggest that transparency and communication are key to managing these tensions. The thesis also discusses the importance of understanding the privacy and transparency of social media in the context of relationships.
What you will learn
Typology: Thesis
1 / 119
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the of Agriculture and Applied ScienceNorth Dakota State University
By Bethany Rose Lutovsky
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS
Major Department:Communication
July 2016
Fargo, North Dakota
Title Romantic relationships and social media use: The emergence and management of relational dialectics By Bethany Rose Lutovsky
The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
Dr. Stephenson Beck Chair Dr. Carrie Anne Platt Dr. Claudette Peterson
Approved: July 7, 2016 Date Dr. Mark MeisterDepartment Chair
iv
Many people supported me during the process of completing my thesis. While I put a lot of hard work into my research and writing, it would have been difficult to complete this thesis without the help of the following people. To Dr. Stephenson Beck: there are many things that I should thank you for. Thank you for seeing my potential and encouraging me to carry on beyond my bachelor’s degree. I would not even have considered the idea of pursing a master’s degree had it not been for your encouragement and support that started in the first very first class I took from you. I appreciate your continued support during the master’s program. Having you as my adviser has allowed me to develop my learning, research, and writing abilities, and your guidance has allowed me to be prepared to continue of for my PhD. You have been there when I had questions and needed guidance, and I hope that you will continue to be my mentor as I continue my education. To Dr. Carrie Anne Platt: I appreciated the invaluable experience I gained both as your teaching assistant and in your courses which were instrumental in completing this thesis. Taking your courses in my undergraduate degree and being your teaching assistant spurred my interest in the area of digitally mediated communications and social media and how they can affect relationships. Had it not been for your courses and your guidance, I would not have realized my potential in this area. Thank you for helping me enjoy learning, about this research area and more. To Dr. Claudette Peterson: Thank you for being so flexible and accommodating when it came to helping with this thesis. The experiences and knowledge I gained in your course was invaluable. I have so much respect for you as an educator, and I was grateful to have you join my committee and provide me with feedback when I needed it.
v
To Bryce Tellmann: Thank you for stepping in to act as my second coder. I appreciate all of the time and effort you put in to help me make this thesis possible. To my husband, Joe: Thank you for being my main support system throughout this entire process. Your support and encouragement have allowed me to grow as a person and as a member of academia. Thank you for being willing to take this next step in our adventure as I continue in my education. To my family, friends, and other graduate students: thank you for everything you have done for me from answering questions to simply lending an ear when I needed one. I have received so much support during my master’s program and it has helped immensely to have all of your encouragement.
viii
Table Page
Many types of social media have emerged over the past decade, adding to the numerous ways that people can connect with one another via technology. Social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat allow people to stay in contact with friends and family and maintain relationships. Nearly two-thirds of adults in the U.S. use social media (Perrin, 2015). The increase in social media types has coincided with an increase in societal social media usage and frequency. In fact, half of social media users log onto their various social media accounts several times a day (Duggan, 2015). Facebook, the most popular medium, used by 72% of online adults, maintained relatively constant user totals over the past few years (Duggan, 2015). Other social media, such as Pinterest, LinkedIn, and Instagram, experienced significant growth in users (Duggan et al., 2015). In addition to this, 17% of smartphone owners use apps such as Snapchat or Wickr which automatically delete sent messages (Duggan, 2015). As individuals adopt new social media in their communication with others, they must adapt their communication style for each social media. When individuals enter a romantic relationship, they must learn to balance their social media use with relationship expectations. As has been shown in past research (Baxter, 1986), there are implicit relationship rules that exist in romantic relationships. If a romantic partner were to violate these implicit rules, their significant other may see it as a reason to terminate the relationship. Consistent with this research, Petronio (1991) determined that relationship partners need to balance issues of privacy and transparency when interacting with one another and those outside the relationship. In certain circumstances, relational partners may expect open and straightforward communication. However, there may be other situations where partners will choose to withhold or keep information private.
Baxter (1988) explained that people in relationships experience dialectical tensions, or contradictions, in their relationship. Contradictions are present when there are two opposing tendencies that emerge in a relationship, such as being open or closed in their communication with the partner. These contradictions both “affect and are affected by the communication strategies the relationship parties enact” (Baxter, 1988, p. 272). In other words, the tensions relationship partners face influence how the partners choose to solve the contradictions, and the strategy used to manage contradictions influences how the tensions will emerge in the future. For instance, if one partner wants to share information about the relationship with others and the other partner does not, they will need to determine how they will manage this tension. The choice taken for managing the tension will influence the future decisions in the relationship. However, these contradiction are not negative; instead, they are inherent to social life and emerge in all relationships (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These contradictions do not simply emerge within a relationship, but also between those in the relationship and those in one’s social network (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). Although initial research by Baxter and Erbert (1999) has deemed the contradictions within the relationship to be more central to relationship success, the emergence of social media have made communication with people in a social network more prevalent (Cohen, Bowman, & Borchert, 2014; Linke, 2011). The rise of social media has led to a need to reexamine the contradictions as they emerge between people in the relationship and their social network and how these contradictions impact the romantic relationship. The varying levels of privacy and transparency across social media types may complicate the management of tensions within romantic relationships. People who are on social media have the option of using various methods to control the information that others see about them, however, there may be the expectation that they will be providing information about themselves
existing literature on social media and the emergence of relational dialectical tensions has neglected external dialectics, the present study focuses on both external and internal dialectics.
Introduction In order to examine the influence of social media on relationships, four areas are discussed in the following sections of the literature review. First, Baxter’s (1988) relational dialectics theory discusses contradictions that people face within their relationships. Second, a discussion of past social media research provides a background on how social media and relationships have been studied in the past and how it relates to relational dialectics theory. Next, the concepts of transparency (sharing information with others) and privacy (keeping information from others) are examined in regard to their relationship with social media and romantic relationships. While social media have inherent privacy settings, individuals make decisions on how they use these settings, as well as how they use the public and private aspects of each of the social media. Finally, Baxter’s (1986) Rules Theory and Petronio’s (1991) Communication Boundary (Privacy) Management theory explains how people in relationships establish rules to avoid conflicts. As social media becomes more prevalent, they may impact the romantic relationships that exist offline. Each of these four areas explores the relational dialectics that exist in these social media influenced relationships, and how the relationship partners manage the contradictions that emerge. Relational Dialectics Theory Individuals in relationships often manage a variety of interpersonal tensions. Relational dialectics theory (RDT) attempts to explain how relationship partners manage these tensions or dialectics. Dialectics are “contradictory forces pulling in opposite directions” (Duran, Kelly, & Rotaru, 2011, p. 20). Dialectics, or contradictions, consist of two factors that are interdependent on one another, yet they also oppose or negate one another (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). Such
Table 1 Internal and External Breakdown of the Supra-Dialectics Supra-Dialectic Internal dialectic External dialectic Integration-Separation Autonomy-Connection Inclusion-Seclusion Stability-Change Predictability-Novelty Conventionality-Uniqueness Expression-Privacy Openness-Closedness Revelation-Concealment Note. Internal dialectics manifest within a relationship, while the external dialectics emerge between the relationship members and those outside of the relationship (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). The integration-separation supra-dialectic “refers to the basic contradiction between social solidarity or unity, and social division or separation” (Baxter & Erbert, 1999, p. 548). This supra-dialectic includes two dialectics: autonomy-connection and inclusion-seclusion. The autonomy-connection dialectic takes place within a relationship. Those experiencing the autonomy-connection dialectic are feeling a tension between being their own person, independent from the relationship, and being in a relationship, dependent on the other person (Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Erbert, 1999; Baxter & Simon, 1993). In a relationship, the partners must be willing to give up some of their independence in order to be a part of the relationship, yet giving up too much of themselves to be in a relationship will result in a loss of personal identities (Baxter & Simon, 1993). The external manifestation of the integration-separation supra-dialectic is the tension of inclusion-seclusion. This dialectic highlights the partners’ desire to communicate with those outside of the relationship versus isolating themselves as a couple from others (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). While taking time to be together as a couple is important, too much isolation from society is unhealthy. Relationships often require acknowledgement from those in their social circle (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). Therefore, partners need to maintain a balance between being with others while also keeping time for just the two of them.
The second supra-dialectic is that of stability-change, which “refers to the fundamental opposition between stability and flux” (Baxter & Erbert, 1999, p. 548). In other words, this is the idea that relationships may be the same as or different from other relationships or the relationship may also differ from how the same relationship was in the past. The internal dialectic is that of predictability-novelty. This tension exists when partners either know what the other partner will do and say or they find the other person to be unpredictable in their actions (Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Erbert, 1999; Baxter & Simon, 1993). When a partner is too predictable, the relationship may become boring and may not provide enough stimulation for each person (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). According to Baxter and Simon (1993) boredom due to predictability is often a reason given for ending a relationship. However, having a partner who is not at all predictable can lead to a dysfunctional relationship, as one person never knows what the other will do (Baxter, 1990). The external dialectic is the conventionality-uniqueness tension. Partners experience this dialectic when comparing their relationship with those of the people around them. While society expects couples to maintain the social norm of relationship behavior, it is important for them to be able to have unique aspects to their relationship, so that they are not identical to all of the relationships around them (Baxter & Erbert, 1999). Partners maintain a balance of fulfilling the society expectations of the relationship, yet they are also attempting to have aspects of their relationship that do not adhere to the expectations of others in order to be unique. The final supra-dialectic is that of expression-privacy, or the tension of “informational candor versus informational discretion,” which can be explained as the decision to disclose information or keep it private (Baxter & Erbert, 1999, p. 549). Within the relationship, the tension exists as openness-closedness, or choosing to share information with the other person versus keeping that information to oneself. In relationships, it is important that partners are
the discussion of dialectical phases, Baxter (1988) identified autonomy-connection as the primary dialectical tension, with the novelty-predictability and openness-closedness building from it. Not only does this show the link between dialectical tensions, but the dialectical phases also emphasize that the dialectical tensions change throughout the relationship. The first phase in a relationship is Autonomy to Connection (Baxter, 1988). According to Baxter (1988), “this phase is one of mutual exploration as the parties get to know one another and determine whether they want to form an interdependent relationship” (p. 262). Naturally, uncertainty is a dominant characteristic of this phase, since the two potential partners get to know one another. While the individual will feel a great sense of novelty (being unsure of what the other will do), actual relational interactions in this phase are largely predictable, as the social scripts for initial interactions are the basis for one’s actions (Baxter, 1988). Society has defined the appropriate interactions to have in the initial phases of the relationship. This causes the relationship members to be superficially open in their communication. While partners may discuss trivial topics openly, they tend to remain closed on more serious and personal topics (Baxter, 1988). However, this does not prevent partners from taking a more indirect approach to gathering information. The second phase is also Autonomy to Connection; however, this is a more serious level. In this phase, the individuals work out the details of the relationship and how the relationship impacts the partners as individuals (Baxter, 1988). Partners in this phase feel uneasy about the relationship; there will be an increase in conflict and decrease in stability as the partners debate whether they are making a mistake. People in this phase attempt to create predictability in the relationship through the formation of symbols and rituals, such as nicknames and anniversaries. Baxter (1988) states, “Because symbols and rituals emerge from a time-specific situation in the
relationship’s history, they are constant reminders of the relationship’s past and thus bridge the certainty of the known past with the uncertainty of the unknown present and future” (p. 266). Conflicts in this stage are often positive for the relationship, as partners work cooperatively to solve the conflict. Yet, in this phase, partners are often apprehensive about having open discussions about the state of the relationship. Instead, parties use ‘secret test’ strategies to gauge the partner’s response to a situation, such as testing jealousy through the introduction of a real or hypothetical romantic rival, making the relationship costly to the other to test the strength of the commitment, and using public displays of the relationships to see the other’s response. The third phase is the Autonomy-Connection Synthesis period, where “a relationship will likely experience a dialectical synthesis in which autonomy and connection are no longer regarded as opposites but have become functionally reinforcing of one another” (Baxter, 1988, p. 267). In this phase, partners experience predictability in their daily routines and how well they believe they know one another; however, this can lead to emotional and cognitive deadening, as well as reduced emotional arousal (Baxter, 1988). It is important for the partners in this phase to work on their relationship in order to experience some level of novelty. The partners need to be willing to be open with one another, as the cognitive deadening is a side effect of the perception that the partners already know everything about each other. Partners who are not open in this stage will likely struggle, as they are not putting ‘work’ into their relationship to maintain it. The final possible phase is Connection to Autonomy, which is the dissolution phase of the relationship. Those that are unable to manage the dialectics may reach this phase. Relationships in this phase experience increased conflict, however there will be declining attempts to repair the relationship. While conflict in phase two is constructive and novel, the conflict in this phase ensures the dissolution of the relationship (Baxter, 1988). In this phase,
