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, 2012

Chicago, Illinois

Defense Committee:

Sharon Meraz, Chair and Advisor

Zizi Papacharissi
Hui-Ching Chang
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ i

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. iv
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. v

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 3
III. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 8
A. Social Networking Sites (SNSs) ...................................................................... 10
1. Facebook .............................................................................................. 15
a. Relationship Formation & Maintenance on Facebook ............ 18
2. Lurking in Online Communities .......................................................... 20
3. Privacy on SNSs ................................................................................... 24
B. Romantic Relationships ................................................................................... 25
1. Relationship Development ................................................................... 25
2. Social Networks & Romantic Relationship Development ................... 27
IV. RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES ........................................................................... 30
V. METHODS .................................................................................................................. 34
A. Procedure ......................................................................................................... 34
B. Instrument Design ............................................................................................ 34
1. Facebook Usage ................................................................................... 34
2. Relationship Status and Satisfaction .................................................... 35
3. Measure of Jealousy ............................................................................. 36
4. Measures of Dependency and Insecurity ............................................. 37
VI. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 39
A. Participants ....................................................................................................... 39
1. Relationship Status and Facebook Usage ............................................ 39
B. Index Construction ........................................................................................... 40
C. Relational Satisfaction ..................................................................................... 41
D. Insecurity .......................................................................................................... 43
E. Dependency ...................................................................................................... 44
F. Jealousy ............................................................................................................ 45
G. Additional Findings .......................................................................................... 47
1. Fighting & Breaking Up ...................................................................... 47
2. Insecurity & Lurking ............................................................................ 49
3. Facebook Usage & Satisfaction ........................................................... 51
VII. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 53
A. Lurking ............................................................................................................. 53
1. Lurking & Satisfaction ......................................................................... 54
2. Lurking & Insecurity ............................................................................ 55
3. Lurking & Jealousy .............................................................................. 55

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER PAGE

B. Behavioral Jealousy ...................................................................................... 56

1. Behavioral Jealousy & Insecurity ..................................................... 57
C. Positive Effects of Facebook Usage on Romantic Relationships ................. 57
VIII. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ....................... 61
IX. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 64

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 65

CITED LITERATURE .......................................................................................................... 70

VITA ...................................................................................................................................... 78

ii
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE

I. INDEX CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 40

II. RELATIONAL SATISFACTION & LURKING .............................................. 41

III. INSECURITY & IMPORTANCE OF FACEBOOK ........................................ 43

IV. JEALOUSY & LURKING ................................................................................ 45

V. JEALOUSY & FIGHTING/BREAKING UP AS A RESULT OF

FACEBOOK ...................................................................................................... 47

VI. FIGHTING/BREAKING UP VS. FIGHTING/BREAKING UP ON FB ......... 48

VII. INSECURITY & LURKING ............................................................................. 49

VIII. INSECURITY & BEHAVIORAL JEALOUSY ................................................ 50

IX. INSECURITY & SPECIFIC BEHAVIORAL JEALOUSY ITEMS ................. 51

X. RELATIONAL SATISFACTION INDEX ........................................................ 65

XI. DEPENDENCY INDICES ................................................................................ 65

XII. INSECURITY INDICES ................................................................................... 66

XIII. COGNITIVE JEALOUSY INDICES ................................................................ 66

XIV. EMOTIONAL JEALOUSY INDICES .............................................................. 66

XV. BEHAVIORAL JEALOUSY INDEX ............................................................... 67

XVI. INDICES OF GENERAL FACEBOOK USAGE ............................................. 67

XVII. INDICES FOR FACEBOOK USAGE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................. 68

XVIII. INDICES OF FACEBOOK LURKING ............................................................ 68

XIX. INDICES OF FACEBOOK RECIPROCITY .................................................... 69

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. From initiation to dissolution: A graphic representation of the

development of romantic relationships ........................................................... 7

iv
 SUMMARY

With Americans spending an average of 53.3 billion minutes per month on Facebook, it

is imperative to understand how individuals are utilizing the site, especially in regards to

romantic relationships (Ho, 2011, p. 1). While many Facebook studies have emerged since its

inception, very little research has been done on how romantic relationships function on the

social-networking site.

This study, conducted from January to February 2011, is comprised of the responses of

244 undergraduates in the Communication department at a large urban Midwestern university.

These respondents completed a 42-item instrument, which ranged from items about their

Facebook usage habits to their levels of satisfaction (Hendrick, 1988), dependency and insecurity

(Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998), and jealousy (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) in their romantic

relationships.

Results indicated that individuals who experienced decreases in relational satisfaction and

increases in jealousy and insecurity were more likely to lurk or engage in behavioral jealousy

(aggressive lurking behaviors). Respondents who reported increased insecurity placed higher

importance on the use of Facebook in relationship maintenance. While not all hypotheses were

supported, this study represents a significant step forward in understanding how romantic

relationships may be impacted by the use of Facebook.

v
 I. INTRODUCTION

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,

1999) associated with committed romantic relationships (DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Lampe, 2006).

These benefits are not automatic, but rather gained over time as both partners increase

their dependency on one another and, eventually, come to consider the union to be an integral

part of their identity and essential to their well-being (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998).

While dependency is essential to the survival of any relationship, it can also cause anxiety,

sadness, jealousy, and insecurity when a threat to the relationship (real or perceived) occurs

1
 2

(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.

 II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The theoretical underpinning of this study is the Interdependence Theory (Kelley, 1979;

Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), often considered to be one of the most influential theories guiding

interpersonal relationship research (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). This paradigm will

provide the primary theoretical understanding for the romantic relationship component of this

study and will guide our understanding of the motivations underlying individuals’ use of

Facebook. The Interdependence Theory delineates the typical lifecycle of romantic relationships;

particularly how deepening romantic relationships become characterized by growing

dependency, which can often result in decreases in relational satisfaction and increases in

insecurity and jealousy.

As romantic relationships develop over time, the relationship naturally deepens and

becomes more serious. Inevitably, this causes individuals to become increasingly dependent on

their significant other. This dependence is necessary for the survival of romantic relationships

and, thus, can be considered a defining feature of close relationships (Le & Agnew, 2001).

Dependency entails an individual’s reliance on someone to uniquely satisfy needs in a way they

perceive no one else can (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998, p. 32). More specifically, the

Interdependence Theory describes it as “…a function of the degree to which the goodness of the

outcomes the individual is receiving in the relationship exceeds the individual’s ‘comparison

level for alternatives’” (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998, p. 23; Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). In

other words, dependency occurs when an individual believes he or she cannot do any better than

he or she is presently doing and that his or her partner possesses a unique ability to satisfy certain

needs. The realization that these needs cannot be satisfied by anyone else causes increases in

dependency, upon which relational stability is contingent. Fundamentally, some degree of

3
 4

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
 5

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).
 6

As our relationships become increasingly dependent on the digital sphere for initiation

and maintenance, it becomes clear that the core elements of the Interdependence Theory are not

limited to our physical worlds. Despite the overwhelming popularity of social networking sites,

the research conducted thus far has not examined the dynamic of romantic relationships. It is the

aim of this study to demonstrate how the components of relational satisfaction, dependency,

insecurity, and jealousy in romantic relationships are being adapted to the Internet and social

media. With over 845 million active users making it the largest social networking site, Facebook

is the obvious choice to study how these factors to coalesce in cyberspace (Facebook, 2012a).

The body of works presented will guide this study in trying to establish how romantic

relationships develop over time and, also, how facets related to social networking and Facebook

may exacerbate problems in romantic relationships.

 7

Figure 1: From initiation to dissolution: A graphic representation of the development of romantic relationships
 III. LITERATURE REVIEW

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

8
 9

interesting about this cyclical dialectic is that “…contemporary commentators are unaware that

they are recapitulating more than a century of sociological debate about whether community has

become lost, saved or liberated since the Industrial Revolution” (Wellman & Hampton, 1999, p.

649). Like all of these major technological advancements, the Internet has been simultaneously

heralded and attacked as it has become increasingly integral to society.

Unlike most other major technological advancements, which have been consistently

driven and dominated by men throughout history, the Internet has undergone a rapid

feminization in its brief history (Ono & Zavodny, 2002; Wajcman, 1991). Although scholars had

found significant gender differences in both access and usage early on (Dholakia, Dholakia, &

Kshetri, 2003; Weiser, 2000), research has shown that the gender gap in Internet usage was

already beginning to diminish rapidly by 2000 (Odell et al., 2000; Weiser, 2000). During this

time researchers found that 94% of male college students and 95% of female college students

reported using the Internet extensively and that there was little difference in the actual time spent

online (Odell et al., 2000).

Whereas web content in the 1990s seemed to bias men, the 2000s saw a “…shift to more

emotionally rich content [that] favors girls and women who tend to cultivate social networks”

(Quizon, 2010, p. 39). Communication has long been considered the domain of women, thus it

seems natural that women, “driven by a desire to communicate…think of social media as simply

new tools for broadcasting and publishing” (Quizon, 2010, p. 37). This is evidenced in extensive

research conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project (2005). While online, men

were significantly more likely than women to use the Internet for factual information or

instrumental resources, such as looking up do-it-yourself instructions or financial, sports, or

political news (Fallows, 2005, p. 5). Conversely, women were much more like to use the web to
 10

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
 11

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
 12

site. For example, “in match-making sites, like Match.com or Nerve and Salon Personals, the

profile is critical and the network of relations is absent. In diary/online journal sites like

LiveJournal, profiles become secondary, networks may or may not be visible, while participants’

online journal entries take a central role” (Gross & Acquisti, 2005, p. 2). The second

characteristic, “public displays of connection,” is what actually make the sites social (boyd &

Ellison, 2007). Overall, most SNSs require that relationships be bi-directional (meaning that a

user must accept your friendship request or friend you back in order for the friendship

connection to be activated), but even this is not a necessary tenet of social networking (e.g.

Twitter).

Other common features of social networking sites are mechanisms that allow users to

communicate with one another (boyd & Ellison, 2007). There are public feedback channels in

close proximity, typically called ‘leaving comments,’ similar to a bulletin boards in that they are

visible to other users on the network (boyd & Ellison, 2007). There are also usually private

feedback channels, similar to traditional email or chat that allow users to discuss matters out of

public view.

Although the concept of online communities, such as bulletin boards and listservs, has

been around since the early days of the Internet, it was not until “…the advent of the commercial

Internet did such communities meet public success” (Acquisti & Gross, 2006, p. 38). As a result,

the social networking sites we rely on today to manage our expansive social circles have only

been in existence for a little more than a decade. Even though social networking sites have not

been around for very long, their history has already been quite complicated and dramatic, with

many millionaires made, but even more enterprises collapsed.

 13

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
 14

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
 15

& Ellison, 2007, p. 6). Based on this foundational development, three distinct populations

formed the majority of MySpace’s user base: musicians, teens, and the post-college urban social

crowd. MySpace was further able to carve out a niche by adding new features based on user

feedback and by giving users the freedom to personalize their own profiles by using HTML to

create unique backgrounds and layouts (boyd & Ellison, 2007). While MySpace quickly gained

dominance over the social networking scene (accelerated in part by NewsCorp’s $580 million

purchase of MySpace in 2005), it would not be unchallenged for long. Mark Zuckerberg’s

college-specific social networking site, Facebook, was introduced in 2004 and promptly began

its ascendance to the top. In an effort to stay competitive with Facebook, MySpace shifted

completely towards an entertainment focus, with developments such as MySpace TV and the

MySpace Music (Plunkett, 2009). The MySpace music venture joined MySpace together with

Amazon.com and three of the four largest music labels (Universal Music Group, SonyBMG, and

Warner Music), which allowed users to listen to any song free of charge from these labels entire

catalogs (Plunkett, 2009). Such developments have kept MySpace viable in the social

networking sphere, but have not been successful in slowing Facebook’s exponential growth.

1. Facebook

Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg created the social networking phenomenon known as

Facebook in February 2004. Zuckerberg’s idea was to “…to digitize the legendary freshman-

year “facebook,” and allow students not only to gawk at one another’s photos but also to flirt,

network, interact” (Hirschorn, 2007, p. 1). The site was originally intended for strictly college

students, first opening up to elite schools and then to colleges around the nation. This expansion

was the key to Facebook’s success because it fostered “…building meaningful communities

whose loyalties tied them more closely to Facebook” (Hirschorn, 2007, p. 1).
 16

The idea born in a Harvard dormitory has exploded over the past eight years. With

membership growing to 845 million monthly active users, Facebook is by far the most popular

social networking site on the Internet (Facebook, 2012a). Recently, Facebook even surpassed

Google in 2010 to become the most accessed website on the Internet (although Google

recaptured its number one spot in 2011) (Dougherty, 2010). The success of Facebook can be

partially attributed to its structure, which allows users “…to articulate existing offline social

connections as well as forge new ones...” (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006, p. 1). A bounded

network is characterized by having networks of users “…based on offline, geographically

confined groups (e.g. a campus)…this reflection of the offline community to the online

environment may [lead] to unique forms of use amongst users” (Joinson, 2008, p. 1027). Thus,

users are not burdened with making an entirely new set of friends on the site by interacting with

strangers. Rather, all they have to do is find their offline friends on the site by perusing their

networks (e.g. high school, college, work) as well as their friends’ friends. This spatially

bounded online network reinforces the participation of users, both online and offline. This

encourages not only active participation, such as writing on friends’ walls and updating profile

information, but it also includes the more passive participation of lurking. When users lurk, they

visit their friends’ pages and keep up-to-date with their recent activities, but do not contribute in

any way.

Part of Facebook’s incredible success is due, in part, to its adaptability. When Mark

Zuckerberg founded the site in 2004, it was intended only as a way for college students to

network with their college classmates. In 2006, amid much protest, Facebook opened its doors to

anyone with a valid email address, which “created an almost viral growth within non-educational

organizations” (Joinson, 2008, p. 1027). Other areas in which Facebook demonstrated its
 17

adaptability were the introduction of the NewsFeed (live updating stream of friend updates) and

MiniFeed (live updating stream of a user’s updates) in September 2006. These developments

initially caused an uproar in the Facebook community, with many Facebook groups created and

rapidly spread (ironically, through the NewsFeed), gaining millions of followers in less than a

day (Schmidt, 2006). The protestors were only assuaged when developers gave them privacy

controls to limit what information appeared in their friends’ NewsFeeds. Facebook has not only

proven to be adaptable, but has demonstrated a willingness to listen to user feedback in an effort

to make the site more user-friendly.

Many of these changes have been spurred by Facebook’s attempts to stay viable among a

sea of competitors. The NewsFeed and MiniFeed were a response to Twitter’s live-updating

status format. Facebook was able to dramatically increase its user base and surpass MySpace for

the first time with the introduction of Facebook Platform in May 2007 (Jung & Lee, 2011).

Facebook Platform is a public API (Application Programming Interface), which allows third

party developers to create applications (such as Zynga’s Farmville) that “…integrate with

Facebook and send information both ways to create more engaging and richer social experiences

on the Web” (Ko, Cheek, Shehab, & Sandhu, 2010, p. 37). These applications are able to access

Facebook users’ data and also allow users to connect to outside websites and applications with

their Facebook login and profile (Ko, Cheek, Shehab, & Sandhu, 2010). This development has

made Facebook omnipresent on the web and has essentially positioned Facebook as the crux of

users’ Internet experience.

As Facebook is ever evolving, it is no surprise that further changes to the infrastructure

have occurred since the data for this study was collected. The introduction of the “Timeline” in

December 2011 has further integrated the profile, mini-feed, and wall and allows for a more
 18

visual representation of users’ lives (bolding milestones like graduation, relationship changes,

etc.), encouraging users to tell their stories “from beginning, to middle, to now” (Facebook,

2012b). This change suggests an ever-stronger desire for relationships to be cultivated and

maintained on Facebook.

a. Relationship Formation & Maintenance on Facebook

Whether the goal is forming or maintaining relationships, individuals must first join

Facebook. New users are prompted during the registration process to identify their online

networks (e.g. city, university, workplace), which correspond with an offline network. Research

has shown that it is most common for these offline relationships to be articulated online

(Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). These links make Facebook particularly interesting

for communication scholars because “…they are specifically dedicated to forming and managing

impressions, relational maintenance, and relationship seeking” (Tong et al., 2008, p. 532). The

fact that these preexisting relationships are migrating online indicates that Facebook is conducive

to maintaining relationships of all kinds.

After joining, an individual creates a profile “…describing themselves and then tries to

establish explicit links with other users, who are described as “friends” by the system” (Lampe,

Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007, p. 435). The profiles include both demographic and personal

information (e.g. relationship status, interests, and tastes). In addition, users have the ability to

post comments publicly on their friends’ walls, join groups that interest them, and post and tag

pictures for other users to view (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007, p. 167). The combination of

this content along with an expansive number of applications available for users to add serves to

personalize the user’s profile and allows the user to present themselves uniquely to the rest of the

network. Of the most important aspects of a profile, Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert (2009)
 19

found that 62% of users included their relationship status (Single, In a Relationship, Engaged,

Married, It’s Complicated, or In An Open Relationship). Of those, nearly 47% indicated that it

was important for people to know (surpassed only by school affiliation at 52% and birthday at

48%), with 18% responding that this information expresses who they are (2009). This

demonstrates that Facebook is considered an appropriate and even an important place to carry

out relationships.

It is important to define the term “friend” as it has a different meaning on Facebook than

its conventional definition. To become “friends” with someone and access their personal profile

and content, “…an individual directs the Facebook system to initiate a request to be recognized

as someone’s friend, to which the two parties must agree” (Tong et al., 2008, p. 532). Beyond the

initial friendship requests, there are no requirements or distinctions between friendships. A best

friend is weighed the same as a casual acquaintance or a complete stranger. These friends appear

on the user’s profile and these linkages “…are one way in which individuals traverse through the

network, using links to travel from one profile to another” (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007,

p. 436). Often an individual’s friend count grows rapidly once a few initial connections are

made, because “new friendship links snowball via the enlarging and overlapping of friends’

networks thus started” (Tong et al., 2008, p. 532).

For Facebook users, there are many channels to utilize in communicating with others. An

individual can write on another user’s wall (a box within the profile for friend comments), send a

private instant message, or send an email message through Facebook. In Pempek, Yermolayeva,

and Calvert’s (2009) study, students responded that they used the wall post feature most

frequently and the content of their wall posts were most often “referring to inside jokes” or

“catching up” (2009). Individuals can further stay in touch with friends simply by logging onto
 20

Facebook through the News Feed. The News Feed is a page of running headlines that shows any

updates that a user’s friends make to their profiles. For example, it is through the News Feed that

users can see when their friends have altered their relationship status. This has made it easier for

individuals to stay constantly knowledgeable about his or her friends with up-to-the-minute

information, which encourages lurking. These channels are the primary ways that individuals go

about enacting their interpersonal relationships on Facebook.

2. Lurking in Online Communities

While much has been published about lurking in online communities in the past two

decades (Katz, 1998; Nonnecke & Preece, 2000; Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004; Wellman

& Gulia, 1999), the concept of lurking in communities is by no means a recent phenomenon

(Ebner & Holzinger, 2005). Human beings, by nature, are curious. We not only need to observe

our surroundings to find out information that is critical to our survival, we also observe to satisfy

social needs. It is no coincidence that observation, in general, has been demonstrated to be one of

the most powerful ways to obtain knowledge (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). It is due in part to

lurking that we become competent members of society. Observing those around us is integral to

socialization, because it allows us to acquire essential information about how to be a member of

society (e.g. norms, values, mores) (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Saks & Ashforth, 1997;

Soroka & Rafaeli, 2006). The fact that we lurk online is simply a natural extension of how we

learn about our surroundings in the offline world. However, what the Internet has changed about

this phenomenon is that there is now little risk involved in lurking, due in part to the invisibility

of the lurker, but also because of the increased opportunity to lurk as data that used to be private

becomes increasingly public (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Lurking has become acceptable and even

encouraged behavior on social networking sites. Facebook in particular makes privacy controls
 21

purposefully complex and confusing under the auspices of giving us more freedom to choose

how we share information. In reality, the myriad of controls makes it difficult for the casual user

to understand how and with whom information is being shared. We are now living our lives as

default public in the online sphere. Our data is only made private if a user opts in, which makes

lurking much easier.

There are many different ways to measure and conceptualize the lurking phenomenon.

The concept of lurking can be operationally defined loosely as “regular visits to the community,

but reticence or very seldom posting” (Rau, Gao, & Ding, 2008, p. 2760). On the other hand,

researchers may adopt a more rigid definition, such as “someone who has never posted in the

community to which he/she belongs” or “someone who has not posted during the last three

months” (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004, p. 3). Conceptually, online lurking can be

thought of as “…reading and/or viewing information without directly interacting in any way”

(Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009, p. 9) or “…a ‘vicarious learning’ process, during

which lurkers can benefit cognitively and socially from observing others’ learning” (Rau, Gao, &

Ding, 2008, p. 2760).

The traditional use of the verb “to lurk” has often been negative, typically meaning

“…‘lying in wait’, often with malicious intent…” (Soroka & Rafaeli, 2006, p. 2). Despite such

negative connotations, the meaning of this term in regards to Internet users is not necessarily

“…pejorative and indeed is casually used reflexively: “Oh, I’m just lurking”...” (Nonnecke &

Preece, 2001, p. 1). The meaning of “lurking” in relation to the Internet has evolved to have

associations that are more positive. Examples of this can be seen in “…the Merriam-Webster

dictionary definition of the verb "lurk" offers an additional unexpected meaning – "to persist in

staying". Thus lurkers can be defined as a persistent but silent audience” (Soroka & Rafaeli,
 22

2006, p. 2). This shift is perhaps recognition that lurking is a universal phenomenon that is

spurred more by curiosity than by malice.

Despite this human universal, research lagged behind on investigating the phenomenon of

lurking until the late 1990s, as personal computing and Internet usage in the home began to

accelerate (Nonnecke, 2000). The first studies specifically concerning lurkers and their impact on

group dynamics were focused on listservs and online posting communities that were dominant

during the formative years of the Internet (Nonnecke, 2000).

Even now, there is still a lack of research on lurkers, despite their large presence on the

web. Part of this has to do with the methodological paradox presented by lurkers. The

complication is that lurkers are largely invisible, and “despite the promises of

“cyberarcheological” excavations into logs of virtual community behavior, lurking is hard to

track in many computer-mediated forms” (Rafaeli, Ravid, & Soroka, 2004, p. 1). Perhaps this is

why online community researchers throughout the 90s “…showed little interest in lurkers,

preferring to focus on those who actively post…” (Nonnecke, Preece, & Andrews, 2004, p. 1;

Parks & Floyd, 1996)

While listservs and bulletin boards may not be as popular as they were in the 1990s,

lurking is more prevalent than ever. Instead of lurking in online communities full of strangers,

Internet users now prefer to lurk on their Facebook pages, following all of the happenings of

their friends’ lives right from their own homepage. The design of Facebook itself seems to

encourage lurking; the first things users see when they log on are their friends’ statuses, pictures,

and more. This fosters an ambient awareness among users, where they are constantly tapped in to

the goings on of their friends, and allows individuals to go as far as to “sense the mood, interests
 23

and views of a friend…” without speaking to them (Schadewitz & Zamenopoulos, 2009, p. 2).

While participation is necessary for Facebook to exist (e.g. writing on walls, updating profiles),

research done on Facebook has indicated that users often engage in much more observation than

action (Pempek, Yemolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). Lurking is so prevalent on Facebook that the

colloquialism “Facebook stalking” has emerged in popular culture (Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, &

Cratty, 2011). Unlike early perceptions of lurking, “Facebook stalking” is often it is discussed

openly in a jesting manner without negative connotation.

In their study of Facebook, Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert (2009) determined that

“lurking activities were “…performed frequently by the majority of participants: 69.57% looked

at or read others’ profiles often….58.70% often looked at photographs, and 54.35% often read

their News Feed about what their friends were doing on Facebook” (p. 9). Furthermore,

individuals were far more likely to perform lurking behaviors than active behaviors on Facebook

(45% reported “quite a bit,” 20% reported “a whole lot,” compared to performing various

activities on Facebook which had 20% answer “quite a bit,” and only 9% reported “a whole lot”)  

(Pempek, Yemolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). These statistics help to establish that lurking is the

most prevalent activity on Facebook. This occurs because individuals are able to acquire a nearly

endless stream of useful social information without ever posting.

The prevalence of lurking on Facebook indicates that students are keenly aware of what

is going on in their friends’ lives without directly speaking to them, and users are probably aware

that their friends “lurk” on their page in the same way. This suggests the hyper-awareness of

self-presentation on Facebook, which affords users the ability to refine their profiles and tailor

their postings to present the most desirable, and highly selective, version of themselves

(Mendelson & Papacharissi, 2010). Self-presentation management occurs on a more

 24

sophisticated level on social networking sites because with the “…control over verbal and non-

verbal cues in a variety of online contexts, individuals may put together controlled performances

that ‘give off’ exactly the ‘face’ that they intend” (Papacharissi, 2009, p. 210). This is evidenced

in Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert (2009) findings in which individuals were “…twice as

likely to post messages on each others’ walls than to send private messages to each other” (p. 9).

This indicates that individuals specifically choose to enact their relationships in a public domain.

It is likely that this communication occurs in the public domain of Facebook because the users

want to articulate their relationships publicly in the expectation that others will “lurk” and see

this exchange on their profile page. It is in this way, Pempek, Yermolayeva, and Calvert (2009)

suggest, that Facebook allows “…users to become the producers and stars of their [own]

productions as they create their… profiles and observe those of others” (p. 11).

3. Privacy on SNSs

Issues of privacy and the disclosure of personal information are critical to any discussion

of lurking on SNSs. The typical SNS user’s profile is brimming with sensitive information, not

only about his or her identity (e.g. age, birthday, sex, location), but also his or her personal

preferences and social networks. All of this information is contributed voluntarily by the user,

which makes it even more astounding when you consider the “…nature, amount, and detail of

the personal information some users provide, and ponder how informed this information sharing

is” (Acquisti & Gross, 2006, p. 37).

These sites all vary in how much personal information is required (or suggested) of a

user, how easily identifiable the user is, and how visible the information is to the public, what

seems to be the common denominator is the willingness, some might say enthusiasm, with which

users divulge this information (Gross & Acquisti, 2005). It seems that most “…participants are
 25

happy to disclose as much information as possible to as many people as possible…” (Gross &

Acquisti, 2005, p. 2). This personal information sharing is even further compounded by the

realization that “…online social networks’ security and access controls are weak by design—to

leverage their value as network goods and enhance their growth by making registration, access,

and sharing of information uncomplicated” (Acquisti & Gross, 2006, p. 37). What this

essentially means is that even on the most private social networks, users’ personal information

may not be protected. While this should be enough to make anyone proactive about protecting

their identities, Acquisti and Gross (2006) found that “…although [Facebook] members express,

in general, significant concern about their privacy, they are not particularly concerned for their

privacy on [Facebook]” (p. 37). The issue is further compounded by the complexity of

Facebook’s privacy controls. While some users may not be particularly concerned for their

privacy, there are many who are but lack the knowledge of how to set their privacy controls

because the information is sophisticated not readily accessible.

B. Romantic Relationships
1. Relationship Development
Romantic relationships are one of the most complicated and intense social

connections individuals undertake in their entire life, thus this topic can be extremely difficult to

define. Taken from Collins’s (2003) research on adolescents’ relationships, romantic

relationships will be defined here as “…on-going, voluntary interactions that are mutually

acknowledged…[and] have [an] intensity that can be marked by expressions of affection,

including physical ones” (p. 2). Individuals begin these romantic relationships with potential

significant others at a very impersonal level that is dictated by cultural norms. As interactions

increase, a sense of intimacy develops, which allows individuals to “…increase the breadth,
 26

depth, and spontaneity of their exchanges. As the relationship becomes more personal,

psychological data are exchanged, contributing to the evolution of an idiosyncratic pattern of

communication” (Aune, Buller, & Aune, 1996, p. 116). Advancements in the relationship and

increases in trust and intimacy only occur if the individuals expect more rewards than cost.

Greater expectations of rewards result in increasing self-disclosure (Aune, Buller, & Aune,

1996). Relationships come to be defined by intimacy, which is partly determined by the

increasing self-disclosure, but also by feeling good about oneself, and by perceiving the

interactions as improving toward a greater understanding of each other (Prager, 1995). These

components of intimacy are all highly dependent on the idea of reciprocity.

Operationally, the norm of reciprocity is that “…a very strong correlate of disclosure

output to a given target-person [is] the amount of disclosure input from that person” (Jourard,

1959, p. 179). It is also known as equity theory, as defined by Stafford & Canary (1991). They

explain that people engage in relationships because there are perceived rewards, but participants

acknowledge that both parties experience both positive and negative consequences from the

relationship (Johnson et al., 2008). Specifically, “…as their relationships develop, persons invest

time, energy and other resources, and expect reciprocation on such investments” (Stafford &

Canary, 1991, p. 219). This reciprocation is most often expected to be in the amount of self-

disclosure individuals share with one another (Cozby, 1972). Furthermore, studies show that in

regards to the reciprocity of self-disclosure, individuals have higher degrees of liking and

affiliation for those who disclose the most. Reciprocity is something that is intuitive to each of

us. When you give something, whether it be tangible material goods, or intangible emotional

support, you do so in the hope and the expectation that this will be reciprocated. If such

reciprocation does not take place there is usually a friction resulting in confrontation or
 27

dissolution. Therefore, reciprocity and self-disclosure are tied to the attraction and the

satisfaction of the relationship (Cozby, 1972). As relationships progress along this path, one

thing is inevitable: the involvement of social networks in the relationship.

2. Social Networks & Romantic Relationship Development

Part of becoming a couple involves integrating the social networks of both individuals to

create a cohesive existence. Research has shown that “…when family and friends are perceived

to affirm a relationship’s existence, the relational parties are more likely to establish and sustain

a bond of intimacy and closeness” (Baxter & Weidenmann, 1993, p. 322). However, not all

couples are lucky enough to receive such affirmation from their family and friends, which can

have a detrimental effect on a relationship.

There are two models that describe how these social networks make their presence

known in romantic relationships: the support model and the interference model (Bryant &

Conger, 1999; Milardo & Lewis, 1985). The support model “…asserts that network members

help couples build feelings of satisfaction with their partners by validating their relationships…,

nurturing a sense of coupleness by inviting the pair to social events as a couple and asserting the

couple can work through their problems…” (Bryant & Conger, 1999, p. 438). In this model, our

social networks serve to provide the “glue” of the relationships. For example, our friends and

family can help to solidify the initial attraction and liking by welcoming the new romantic

partner into the social circle or by expressing positivity about the new union. This social support

can be the deciding factor whether the relationship progresses or is dissolved.

Conversely, the interference model suggests “…network members contribute to the

breakdown of…unions by fostering partners’ feelings of dissatisfaction with their relationships

(Bryant & Conger, 1999, p. 438). These two models function largely through uncertainty
 28

reduction, social comparison, social sanctions, resocialization, and self-regulation. In the course

of the relationship, through good times and bad, individuals often utilize these strategies to

correct the relationship. Individuals employ uncertainty reduction by discussing the problems in

their romantic relationship with members of their social network to get others’ opinions on the

matter. This allows them to gain perspective. In addition, individuals engage in social

comparison in order to measure their own relationship against others’.

If members of the social network are unhappy with the relationship, they can impose

social sanctions on individuals by expressing approval or disapproval of the relationship.

Furthermore, if members do not agree with the relationship, they can engage in resocialization,

which deals with reminding the couple of expectations that people and society hold. Lastly, all of

these aspects are reinforced by self-regulation, in which the individuals in the relationship

attempt to closely follow the norms that have been prescribed by their networks. All of these

functions work in concert to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the relationship in

comparison to the rest of the social network (Bryant & Conger, 1999).

While these scholars were looking solely at offline social networks, it seems reasonable

to be able to apply this research to our online social networks as well. The people that we

surround ourselves with in our everyday lives, our networks of friends, family, and coworkers,

provide each of us with crucial “social and emotional support, information resources, and ties to

other people” (Joinson, 2008, p. 1028). Research has found similar patterns within online

communities “…with users turning online for both emotional support and as an information

resource (e.g. via a mailing list). In both cases an online social network may provide users with

social capital” (Joinson, 2008, p. 1028).

 29

It is the articulation of all our social networks on the Internet that makes the web so

interesting to study in terms of romantic relationship maintenance. The opportunities for

interference and support from our social networks are so plentiful that it clearly warrants closer

examination of romantic relationship maintenance on social networking sites.

 IV. RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES

The concepts of dependency, relational satisfaction, insecurity, and jealousy are all bound

together in the complexity of relationships. As the relationship grows, our independence

decreases and our happiness becomes more and more bound to our significant other, which

creates an “… awareness—and dread—of the conditions and circumstances which may take the

loved person away from us, and threaten our happiness…” (Berscheid & Fei, 1977, p. 105).

Thus, giving up complete autonomy and vesting our future happiness in another individual

creates a dependence, which ultimately causes insecurity that this leap of faith will not be

rewarded and the relationship will eventually end. It is the development of these emotions that

provide the foundations for jealousy to grow (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998, p. 34).

Frequently, the most threatening situation that arouses jealousy and inspires insecurity tends to

be “…the appearance of a third person to whom the partner appears to be attracted” (Attridge,

Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). It does not matter whether or not this third party is a real or

imagined threat, the suspicions of a third party will create jealousy, anger, and, potentially,

aggression.

As individuals become more dependent on their significant others, their insecurity (from

their loss of autonomy) lends itself to decreases in relational satisfaction and increases in

suspicion (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). These increases in suspicion will lead to an

increase in surveillance in an attempt to confirm or reject the suspicion. Facebook provides an

ideal medium for this surveillance to take place, because the potential evidence is in a public

domain and there is little risk of being caught. As individuals perceive these threats on Facebook,

individuals will likely engage in increased lurking, trying to obtain more evidence of the threat.

30
 31

H1: Respondents who experience less relational satisfaction will be

significantly more likely to lurk on their partners’ Facebook page than

respondents who experience more relational satisfaction.

Due to the fact that a decrease in satisfaction is symptomatic of increases in insecurity

and jealousy, it can be hypothesized that active Facebook users experiencing decreases in

satisfaction will likely use Facebook as a surveillance tool for confirmation of threats. For the

purposes of this study, relational satisfaction is used to refer to how happy an individual considers

himself or herself to be in a relationship. It encompasses feelings, thoughts, and behaviors that

indicate an individual is content to be in his or her romantic relationship (Hendrick, 1988). This

satisfaction is tied to the idea of trust in the romantic relationship, which is "a generalized

expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, or statement of another individual can be

relied on" (Rotter, 1980, p. 2). When relationships become deeper and more dependent,

individuals are likely to experience lesser relational satisfaction because they realize their

happiness is bound to another. This raises questions about how much an individual can trust his or

her partner, which causes the individuals to experience insecurity.

Furthermore, individuals experiencing higher levels of relational insecurity are likely to

seek out ways to confirm or deny their feelings of insecurity. The subjects of this study, college

students, are likely to turn to Facebook to seek out this information, as Facebook is part of their

daily lives and contains all of the information about their social worlds. Individuals using

Facebook to assuage their insecurities are most likely going to see Facebook as more central to

their relationship. This is hypothesized because individuals experiencing more insecurity will

rely on Facebook to engage in surveillance and obtain information (perhaps confirmation of

threats) about their significant other, as was determined in a related pilot study (Lindner, 2009).
 32

H2: Respondents who experience more relational insecurity will be

significantly more likely to place importance on using Facebook in

maintaining their romantic relationships than respondents who

experience less relational insecurity.

Similarly, this logic also applies to individuals who report higher levels of

dependency. Dependency here is defined as “the reliance of an individual on another person for

the satisfaction of his or her needs, [and it] is integral to many theoretical analyses or

interpersonal relationship phenomena, especially relationship stability” (Attridge, Berscheid, &

Sprecher, 1998, p. 32). As we have established, the more dependent an individual is on his or her

partner, the more insecurity he or she will feel. Thus, as these feelings of dependency and

insecurity increase and individuals experience a loss of control over their well being, they are apt

to engage in tactics to prevent their significant other from straying (which would damage their

well-being). Often, these tactics involve engaging in surveillance to monitor the interactions their

significant other is having with members of the opposite sex. With the publicly articulated

information on Facebook, it is reasonable to hypothesize that dependent individuals will engage

in increased lurking on Facebook to satiate their insecurities and seek confirmation of threats.

H3: Respondents who experience more dependency in their romantic

relationships will be significantly more likely to lurk on Facebook than

respondents who experience less dependency in their romantic

relationships.

Furthermore, as a result of this increased surveillance and lurking, the individuals are

most likely going to find confirmation of a threat (even if it is just the perception of a threat),

which will cause an increase in jealousy. Conceptually, it is useful to think of jealousy as “a

 33

complex of thoughts, feelings, and actions that follow threats to self-esteem and/or threats to the

existence or quality of the relationship when those threats are generated by the perception of a

real or potential attraction between one’s partner and a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (White, 1981,

p. 296). This jealousy is fueled by how dependent the individuals are on the relationship. While

the jealousy is initially brought on by the increases in dependency and insecurity (Attridge,

Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998), it is the confirmation of threats (real or perceived) during

surveillance that will fuel the individual’s jealousy.

H4: Respondents who lurk more on Facebook will be significantly more

likely to experience increases in relational jealousy than respondents

who lurk less on Facebook.

In total, these hypotheses, although unable to encompass all of the issues pertaining to

romantic relationships and Facebook, seek to provide a foundational understanding to how these

variables are affected by, and also accelerate, lurking on Facebook.

Borrowing from the Interdependence Theory, the more dependency an individual feels,

the more insecurity they will experience, which will foster feelings of distrust and create less

relational satisfaction. Thus, decreases in relational satisfaction are bound to the dependency

individuals feel toward their partner.

 V. METHODS

A. Procedure

The questionnaire was open from January 17th to February 11th, 2011. Invitations to

participate were emailed to undergraduate Communication course instructors at a large urban

Midwestern university. Participating instructors then distributed the questionnaire via email to

students and extra credit was offered in exchange for subjects’ participation. The only two

requirements of the sample were that they were an active member of Facebook and that they

were currently in a relationship or had been in a romantic relationship in the past six months

(both of which were explained to potential respondents in the recruitment letter). 244

respondents out of approximately 949 students solicited completed the 42-item questionnaire

hosted by SurveyGizmo, a response rate of 26%. The data was downloaded off of SurveyGizmo

and the results were processed using SPSS. Using factor analysis, indices were constructed for

each of the components of the hypotheses (see Appendix). Indices were created for Relational

Satisfaction, Dependency, Insecurity, Jealousy (Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral), and

Facebook Usage (including individual’s usage and his or her lurking behaviors as well as his or

her partner’s usage). These indices were then run against each other using bivariate correlations

to determine what relationships, if any, existed between them and if support could be found for

the hypotheses.

B. Instrument Design

The questionnaire was composed of four major parts:

1. Facebook Usage

The first part of the questionnaire established the respondent’s usage patterns on

Facebook. Questions included items like “How long have you been a member of Facebook?” and

34
 35

“How many minutes per day do you use Facebook?” The items assessing Facebook usage were

adapted in part from Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert’s (2008) study of students’ social

networking experiences. Due to Facebook’s rapidly evolving features, questions were

additionally crafted to encompass newer facets of the site. These questions informed each of the

four hypotheses in establishing the frequency with which they use the medium and, specifically,

their lurking behaviors.

2. Relationship Status and Satisfaction

The second part of the questionnaire sought to establish the status of the respondent’s

romantic relationship status and their level of relational satisfaction. These basic questions

included “Do you consider your relationship to be serious?” and “How far do you live from your

significant other?” The relationship segment of the questionnaire also adapted Hendrick’s seven

item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) (α= 0.86) to measure the quality of the respondent’s

romantic relationship and their level of relational satisfaction. These items were included to

provide information for the first hypothesis concerning relational satisfaction and lurking. This

measure was chosen because of its significant correlation with “…love, sexual attitudes, self-

disclosure, commitment, and investment in a relationship” (Hendrick, 1988). Also, the RAS is

one of the few romantic relationship scales that is not specific to marital relationships, which

makes it “…applicable to anyone in an intimate relationship, including dating, cohabiting, and

engaged couples, while maintaining high internal consistency” (Vaughn & Baier, 1999, p. 141).

Hendrick’s (1988) article has been cited over 400 times, because of its wide range of

applications. The RAS offers a “…generic measure of relationship satisfaction that is applicable

to many types of close relationships” (Berscheid, 1994, p. 115). The scale is valuable because its

length is convenient for subjects to take and works well with other scales (Hendrick, 1988;
 36

Vaughn & Baier, 1999). Despite the fact that it is brief, the RAS provides researchers with “…a

concise picture of individuals’ perceptions of relationships” (Vaughn & Baier, 1999, p. 145).

These factors made Hendrick’s RAS a logical choice for this study.

3. Measure of Jealousy

To best assess the degree of jealousy the respondent feels in his or her romantic

relationship in hypothesis four, the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) was adapted from

Pfeiffer and Wong (1989). This measure was chosen for its high internal consistency, validity,

and reliability (cognitive α=0.92, emotional α=0.85, behavioral α=0.89). In addition, the MJS

was chosen to measure jealousy because of its treatment of jealousy as a multidimensional

construct (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). It was the first jealousy scale to combine the behavioral,

cognitive, and emotional dimensions of jealousy rather than measuring them separately, which

allowed for a more complete picture of the jealousy an individual is experiencing (Pfeiffer &

Wong, 1989; Salovey, 1991).

While other scales (White, 1981) focus on the coping strategies individuals employ to deal

with jealousy, the Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) MJS focuses on an individual’s behavioral

response to the feeling of jealousy (Salovey, 1991). This includes the “detective/protective

measures a person takes when relationship rivals (real or imaginary) are perceived” (Pfeiffer &

Wong, 1989, p. 183). Furthermore, Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) consider anger, sadness, and fear

in relation to jealousy as well as the “…paranoid worries and suspicions [that] may influence an

ongoing jealousy situation” (Salovey, 1991, p. 45). By including these elements, Pfeiffer and

Wong (1989) go further than previous jealousy scholars (White, 1981; White, 1984) to

underscore that jealousy is not necessarily a rational, conscious process; in fact, it is most often

the opposite. This acknowledgement suits this study’s emphasis on the imagined or perceived
 37

threat. It did not matter whether or not transgressions were actually occurring, what mattered was

the individual’s reliance on Facebook to satisfy their jealousies and insecurities. Even if they did

not find any evidence of transgressions or threat, they would still tend to fabricate or ‘dream up’

these threats to confirm their own suspicions.

The MJS is broken up into three parts composed of eight questions each: cognitive (e.g.“I

suspect that X may be attracted to someone else”), emotional (e.g. How would you emotionally

react to the statement “X is flirting with someone else”?), and behavioral (e.g. “I question X

about his or her telephone calls”). The first two sections were kept identical to Pfeiffer and

Wong’s (1989) study; however, the behavioral section was adapted to discuss only questions

regarding Facebook. Thus, “I look through X’s drawers, handbag, or pockets” was adapted to “I

log onto X’s Facebook profile to see what he or she is up to” in order to fit the nature of the

study.

4. Measures of Dependency and Insecurity

Lastly, measures of dependency and insecurity were taken from Attridge, Berscheid, and

Sprecher’s (1998) study on dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships to inform

hypotheses two and three. Originally developed by Fei and Berscheid (1977), the Dependency

and Insecurity Scales were never published and only made available upon request (Attridge,

Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). For more than 30 years, researchers have been employing the

scales and testing their validity (Attridge, Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995; Sprecher, 1988; Sprecher

et al., 1995; Sprecher & Sedikides, 1993).

The Dependency and Insecurity measures are particularly useful because they are

relationship specific, meaning that it evaluates a respondent’s perceptions about a specific

relationship partner (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998). This is crucial for the present study
 38

because the study aims to assess perceptions about the particular relationship the respondent is

in, not just general attitudes about dependency and insecurity. The dependency measure consists

of 16 first-person statements such as “I am very lucky to be involved in a relationship with X”

and has an alpha reliability of 0.81. The insecurity scale, which has an alpha reliability of 0.94,

consists of 15 first-person statements such as “I feel very secure in my relationship”. These two

measures were also selected for their strong reliability, their validity, and their applicability to

the subject matter.

 VI. RESULTS

A. Participants

Of the 244 responses, the sample was heavily female (74%). Perhaps because of this

skew, gender did not reveal itself to be significantly correlated with any of variables of interest in

this study. For ethnicity, the respondents identified as Caucasian (59%), Asian/Pacific Islander

(14%), Hispanic (12%), African American (7%), and Other/Multi-racial (7%). The majority of

respondents were in their early twenties, with 63% between the ages of 20-22 (28% of

respondents were between the ages of 18-20). 96% of respondents were full-time students (13%

Freshmen, 20% Sophomores, 38% Juniors, 25% Seniors).

1. Relationship Status and Facebook Usage

In regards to their romantic relationships, the average length of respondents’ relationships

was 1.5 years (with 59% of relationships being one year or less, while 38% were between 2-5

years). Only 12% of respondents reported living with their significant other, while 46% reported

living within 10 miles (15% live more than 100 miles apart). 26% of respondents classified their

relationship as Very Serious (7% reported Not Serious At All). 71% of responses concerned a

current romantic relationship and 37% of responses concerned a relationship that had ended

within the past 6 months.

As far as their Facebook usage, respondents had been on Facebook an average of 3.62

years (60% had been using Facebook for 4 years or more, while 8% had been using it for 1 year

or less). 55% of respondents reported using Facebook between 30-60 minutes per day (while 7%

reported 0 minutes per day and 5% reported 4 hours or more per day). Women had a higher

average of use at 88 minutes per day, while men reported an average of 53 minutes per day.

39
 40

B. Index Construction

Variable Index Name Reliability

Satisfaction Relational Satisfaction (RELSAT) (α= 0.92)
Dependency Dependency 1 (D1) (α= 0.92)
Dependency 2 (D2) (α= 0.83)
Insecurity Insecurity 1 (I1) (α= 0.88)
Insecurity 2 (I2) (α= 0.75)
Security (SEC) (α= 0.81)
Jealousy Cognitive Jealousy 1 (CJ1) (α= 0.93)
Cognitive Jealousy 2 (CJ2) (α= 0.88)
Emotional Jealousy 1 (EJ1) (α= 0.89)
Emotional Jealousy 2 (EJ2) (α= 0.78)
Behavioral Jealousy (BJ) (α= 0.88)
Facebook Usage FB Usage 1 (FB1) (α= 0.71)
FB Usage 2 (FB2) (α= 0.71)
Romantic Partner’s FB Usage 1 (RPFBU1) (α= 0.88)
Romantic Partner’s FB Usage 2 (RPFBU2) (α= 0.87)
Relational FB Usage for Publicizing the Relationship (α=0.84)
Maintenance on (FBUPR)
Facebook FB Usage for Relationship Communication (α=0.78)
(FBURC)
Romantic Partner’s FB Usage for Publicizing the (α=0.79)
Relationship (RPFBUPR)
Romantic Partner’s FB Usage for Relationship (α=0.82)
Communication (RPFBURC)
Facebook Lurking (LURK1) (α= 0.92)
Lurking
Lurking Fostering Perception of Secrecy (LURK2) (α=0.723)

Facebook FB Profile Reciprocity (FBPR) (α=0.89)

Reciprocity FB Message Reciprocity (FBMR) (α=0.90)
Table I: INDEX CONSTRUCTION
 41

Factor analyses were conducted to construct indices for the variables of interest in this

study. The Appendix deconstructs these indices and specifies which questionnaire items factored

and which did not. All of the measures borrowed and adapted from previous studies factored and

had high alpha reliabilities. Hendrick’s (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale had an alpha

reliability of 0.92 in this study (RELSAT). Attridge, Berscheid, and Sprecher’s (1998) measures

of Dependency and Insecurity factored into five separate indices in this research, two for

Dependency (D1: α= 0.92; D2: α= 0.83) and three for insecurity (I1: α= 0.88; I2: α= 0.75; Sec: α=

0.81). Lastly, Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) factored into

five indices: two indices of cognitive jealousy (CJ1: α= 0.93; CJ2: α= 0.88), two indices for

emotional jealousy (EJ1: α= 0.89; EJ2: α= 0.78), and one index for behavioral jealousy (BJ: α=

0.88). As previously discussed, the Behavioral Jealousy scale has been adapted to specifically

pertain to Facebook. Such findings not only demonstrate the replicability of the previous studies,

but also the adaptability to such scales to use online, specifically with Facebook. Once it was

established that these indices were reliable, they were used to test the hypotheses.

C. Relational Satisfaction

H1 Relational Satisfaction (α=

0.92)
Lurking index r= 0.10, p<.880
(α= 0.92)
Behavioral r= -.188**, p<.005
Jealousy Index
(α= 0.88)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table II: RELATIONAL SATISFACTION &
LURKING
 42

H1, which predicted that respondents who experienced less relational satisfaction would

be significantly more likely to lurk on their partners’ Facebook page than respondents who

experienced more relational satisfaction, was only partially supported by the data. No statistically

significant correlation (r= 0.10, p<.880) existed between the Relational Satisfaction index (α=

0.92) and the Lurking index (e.g. looking at partner’s profile, wall-to-wall, etc.) (α= 0.92).

Further bivariate correlations revealed no statistically significant relationship between the

Relational Satisfaction index and the individual items that comprised the Lurking index.

While a relationship between Relational Satisfaction and “passive” lurking could not be

established, there was a moderate negative correlation between Relational Satisfaction (α= 0.92)

and Behavioral Jealousy (α=0.88)(r= -.188, p<.005). This correlation provided support for H1.

The Behavioral Jealousy index was comprised of more aggressive or active Facebook lurking

behaviors such as “logging into your romantic partner’s Facebook page” and “walking up behind

them to see what they are doing on Facebook” (the Behavioral Jealousy index will also be

referred to as Facebook “stalking”) rather than just checking up on their wall or posting activity.

Thus, respondents who reported experiencing less relational satisfaction were more likely to

engage in these more aggressive Facebook “stalking” behaviors.

 43

D. Insecurity

H2 Insecurity 1 (I1) Insecurity 2 (I2) Security

How important is r= .143* r=.147* r=-.189**
Facebook in p<.031 p<.026 p<.004
maintaining your
relationship?
Do you and your r=.215** r= .254** r= -.333**
RP ever fight as a p<.001 p<.000 p<.000
result of FB?
Do you and your r= .242** r= .247** r= -.158*
RP ever break up p<.000 p<000 p<.015
as a result of FB?
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table III: INSECURITY & IMPORTANCE OF FACEBOOK

H2, which postulated that respondents who experienced more relational insecurity would

be significantly more likely to place importance on using Facebook in maintaining their romantic

relationships than respondents who experienced less relational insecurity, was moderately

supported by the data. Measures of Insecurity were moderately, positively correlated with the

importance individuals placed on Facebook in maintaining their relationships (I1: r= .143,

p<.031; I2: r=.147, p<.026). The Insecurity Index I1 (α= 0.88) measured a respondent’s insecurity

specifically in relation to how mysterious they perceive their partner to be (e.g. “I have great

difficulty trying to figure X out” and “I often wonder how much X really cares for me”). The

Insecurity Index I2 (α= 0.75) measured how overly insecure the respondent is (e.g. “X has been

the cause of some of my worst depressions” and “I need X more than X needs me”). There was

also a moderate, negative correlation between the Index of Security (α=.80) and the importance

individuals placed on Facebook in maintaining their relationship (r= -.189, p<.004). The index of
 44

Security (α=.81) measured how secure individuals are in their relationships (e.g. “my

relationship with X is stable and quietly satisfying” and “I feel very secure in my relationship”).

Both measures of Insecurity were moderately correlated with fighting as a result of

Facebook (I1: r= .215, p<.001; I2: r= .254, p<.000) and breaking up as a result of Facebook (I1: r=

.242, p<.000; I2: r=.247, p<.000). Relational Security was strongly, negatively correlated with

fighting as a result of Facebook (r=-.333, p<.000). Despite these results, 44% of respondents

indicated that Facebook is extremely unimportant in maintaining their romantic relationships

(16% responded it was moderately important and only 2% said it was extremely important).

E. Dependency

H3, which predicted that respondents who experienced more dependency in their

romantic relationships would be significantly more likely to lurk on Facebook than respondents

who experienced less dependency in their romantic relationships, was not supported. The indices

for Dependency were not significantly correlated with the index for Lurking (D1: r=.080, p<.233;

D2: r=.128, p<.055). The Dependency Index D1 (α=.92) measured the actual dependency

respondents’ report (e.g. “My relationship with X has given my life direction and purpose” and

“X’s presence makes any activity more enjoyable”). The Dependency Index D2 (α=.83)

measured respondents’ perceived dependence on their relationship (e.g. “I want X to confide

mostly in me” and “I’d be extremely depressed for a long time if my relationship with X were to

end”). Interestingly, the Index of Behavioral Jealousy on Facebook was moderately, negatively

correlated with the actual dependency index (D1: r= -.156*, p<.018).

Both actual and perceived dependency were related to many factors associated with the

deepening of a romantic relationship including how long individuals have been in a relationship

(D1: r=.211, p<.000; D2: r=.296, p<.000) and how serious an individual considered their
 45

relationship (D1: r=.507, p<.000; D2: r=.588, p<.000). Only actual dependency was associated

with relational satisfaction (D1: r= .765, p<.000). Thus, as a relationship lasts over time and

deepens, both healthy (actual) and unhealthy (perceived) dependence grow. However, only

actual dependence had a strong correlation with satisfaction. In fact, perceived dependency was

correlated with an index of insecurity measuring overly insecure feelings (e.g. “I need X more

than X needs me,” “X has been the cause of some of my worst depressions”)(D2: r=.339,

p<.000).

F. Jealousy

H4, which predicted that respondents who lurked more on Facebook would be

significantly more likely to experience increases in relational jealousy than respondents who

lurked less on Facebook, was supported by the data. The index of Lurking was significantly

correlated with all the indices of Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) Multidimensional Jealousy Scale.

H4 Cognitive Cognitive Emotional Emotional Behavioral

Jealousy 1 Jealousy 2 Jealousy 1 Jealousy 2 Jealousy
(CJ1) (CJ2) (EJ1) (EJ2)

Lurking r=.192** r= .170** r=.167* r=.266** r=.413**

p<.000 p<.000 p<.012 p<.000 p<.000
BJ r=.430** r=.339** r=.019 r=.227** 1
p<.000 p<.000 p<.775 p<.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table IV: JEALOUSY & LURKING
 46

Lurking was moderately correlated to both measures of cognitive jealousy (CJ1: r= .192,

p<.000; CJ2: r=.170, p<.000). The Cognitive Jealousy index CJ1 (α= 0.93) measured how often

respondents think their significant other is cheating (e.g. “I suspect that X may be physically

intimate with another member of the opposite sex”). The Cognitive Jealousy index CJ2 (α= 0.88)

measured how often respondents believed someone of the opposite sex was making advances on

their partner (e.g. “I am worried that someone of the opposite sex is trying to seduce X”). Thus,

the more frequently individuals had suspicions that their significant other was not being faithful

or that members of the opposite sex were making advances, the more likely they were to engage

in Facebook lurking. Furthermore, both indices of cognitive jealousy were strongly associated

with Facebook “stalking” or Behavioral Jealousy (CJ1: r= .430, p<.000; CJ2: r=.339, p<.000).

Lurking was also moderately correlated with both measures of emotional jealousy (EJ1:

r= .167*, p<.012; EJ2: r=.266, p<.000). The Emotional Jealousy index EJ1 (α= 0.89) measured

respondents’ emotional reactions to their partner outwardly cheating (e.g. “How would you

emotionally react to the following situation: Someone of the opposite sex is dating X”). The

Emotional Jealousy index EJ2 (α= 0.78) measured respondents’ emotional reactions to the

perception that X may be cheating (e.g. “How would you emotionally react to the following

situation: X works very closely with a member of the opposite sex”). Thus, the more respondents

reported having heightened emotional reactions, the more likely they were to lurk on Facebook.

Obviously there was a strong, positive correlation between the index of Behavioral

Jealousy (Facebook “stalking”) and the index of Lurking (r= .413, p<.000). The Behavioral

Jealousy (α= 0.88) index measured how often respondents partake in specific “snooping”

behaviors in regards to their partners’ Facebook usage (e.g. “I question X about his/her wall

posts” and “I walk up behind X to see what he/she is doing on Facebook”). This establishes that
 47

the more individuals engaged in passive Facebook lurking the more likely they were to engage in

Facebook “stalking” (the index of Behavioral Jealousy) and vice versa.

CJ1 CJ2 EJ1 EJ2 BJ

Do you and r=.338** r=.291** r=.042 r=.236** r=.570**

your RP ever
fight as a result p<.000 p<.000 p<.522 p<.000 p<.000
of FB?
Do you and r=.390** r=.266** r=.042 r=.184** r=.413**
your RP ever
break up as a p<.000 p<.000 p<.528 p<.005 p<.000
result of FB?
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table V: JEALOUSY & FIGHTING/BREAKING UP AS A RESULT OF
FACEBOOK

Furthermore, all three components of the Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) Multidimensional

Jealousy Scale were significantly correlated with fighting and breaking up as a result of

Facebook (except EJ1). This indicated that the more jealousy individuals experience on any level

(cognitive, emotional, or behavioral), the more likely they were to fight and break up with their

partner due, in part, to something that was seen or said on Facebook.

G. Additional Findings

1. Fighting & Breaking Up

Despite the fact that support could not be established for all of the hypotheses,

there were many interesting additional findings that did lend support to the idea that Facebook is

impacting the maintenance of romantic relationships.

 48

There was an obvious strong negative correlation between how satisfied individuals were

with their relationship and how often the couple broke up (r= -.433, p<.000). What might be less

obvious is that there was a moderate, positive relationship between how often an individual

engaged in Behavioral Jealousy and how often the couple broke up (r=.272, p<.000). This

finding suggests that the more individuals engage in Facebook “stalking,” the more often they

break up. This would make the converse true as well, the more individuals break up with their

significant other, the more likely they are to engage in Facebook “stalking”.

Do you and Do you and

your RP ever your RP ever
fight as a break up as a
result of result of
Facebook? Facebook?
How often do r=.290** r=.171**
you and your
RP fight? p<.000 p<.008

How often do r=.318** r=.308**

you and your
RP break up? p<.000 p<.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table VI: FIGHTING/BREAKING UP
VS. FIGHTING/BREAKING UP ON FB

Furthermore, how often romantic partners fought and how often they fought as a result of

Facebook were moderately correlated (r=.290, p<.000). A strong correlation also existed

between how often romantic partners broke up and how often they broke up as a result of

Facebook (r=.308, p<.000). More importantly, there is a strong correlation between how often
 49

they fight as a result of Facebook and how often romantic partners break up in general (r=.318,

p<.000). This indicates that Facebook can commonly be the source material for fighting and

break-ups.

2. Insecurity & Lurking

While respondents did not report that Facebook was important to maintaining their

relationship, the following findings indicate that Facebook does have an impact, at least in

regards to lurking and insecurity.

Both indices of Insecurity were moderately correlated with Lurking (I1: r=.167*, p<.012;

I2: r= .206**, p<.002). This indicated that the more insecure individuals were in their

relationship, the more likely they were to lurk on Facebook. The following lurking behaviors

were specifically associated with Insecurity:

Insecurity 1 (I1) Insecurity 2 (I2)

Read X’s wall-to-wall with r=.205** r=.215**
members of the same sex p<.002 p<.000
Read X’s wall-to-wall with r=.172** r=.230**
members of the opposite sex p<.009 p<.000
Look at the profiles of X’s r= .232** r=.247**
friends p<.000 p<.000
Friend a friend of X’s r=.138* r=.167*
p<.036 p<.011
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table VII: INSECURITY & LURKING
 50

Furthermore, the index of Behavioral Jealousy was significantly correlated with all three

indices of Insecurity:

Insecurity 1 Insecurity 2 Security

Behavioral r= .228** r= .342** r= -.321**
Jealousy p<.001 p<.000 p<.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table VIII: INSECURITY & BEHAVIORAL
JEALOUSY

The more Insecurity individuals experienced, the more likely they were to engage in

Facebook “stalking” behaviors such as logging onto their significant others’ Facebook page or

walking up behind them to see what they were doing on Facebook. The more secure individuals

were in their relationship, the less likely they were to engage in such behaviors.
 51

The following Behavioral Jealousy items were specifically associated with Insecurity:

Insecurity 1 (I1) Insecurity 2 (I2)

I log onto X’s Facebook profile to see r= .224**, p<.001 r= .213**, p<.001
what he/she is up to
I walk up behind X to see what he/she is r=.200**, p<.002 r= .286**, p<.000
doing on FB.
I look at X’s previous significant others r= .146*, p<.026 r= .211**, p<.001
on Facebook and ask him/her about
them.
I say something nasty about someone of r= .135*, p<.039 r= .230**, p<.000
the opposite sex who X is friends with to
see if X shows an interest in that person.
I question X about his/her Facebook r= .172**, p<.009 r= .306**, p<.000
chatting.
I question X about his/her wall post. r= .150*, p<.022 r= .353**, p<.000

I write on X’s wall whenever I see r= .200**, p<.002 r= .274**, p<.000

him/her having a conversation with a
member of the opposite sex.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table IX: INSECURITY & SPECIFIC BEHAVIORAL JEALOUSY ITEMS

3. Facebook Usage & Satisfaction

There were also several interesting findings regarding the impact Facebook usage had on

relational satisfaction. For instance, profile reciprocity (both partners publicly articulating the

relationship in equitable ways) was moderately related to relational satisfaction (r= .249,

p<.000). This indicates that the more in sync partners are with their Facebook profiles (both the

frequency and content of posts about each other), the happier they are in their relationships.
 52

Furthermore, a romantic partner using Facebook to publicize the relationship (e.g. status updates

referring to the relationship, profile pictures of the couple) had a moderately positive correlation

with relational satisfaction (r=.232, p<.000). Thus, the more a partner uses Facebook to articulate

or publicize his or her relationship, the more satisfied they are with the relationship.

Interestingly, there was no correlation whatsoever between actual communication with romantic

partner via Facebook (e.g. sending messages, writing on walls) and relational satisfaction. Both

of the above findings indicate that engaging in relationship maintenance via the public functions

of Facebook, rather than the private functions, tends to positively impact how satisfied

individuals are with their relationships.

Although respondents did not overwhelmingly express that Facebook plays an important

role in their romantic relationship, it is clear that Facebook is being utilized in the maintenance

of romantic relationships and that there is a measurable impact occurring.

 VII. DISCUSSION

Although the Interdependence Theory (Kelley, 1979; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) was born

long before the Internet and social networking became everyday fixtures in our lives, the

research demonstrates that it clearly still has applicability. As our lives become ever more public

and visible in our digital culture, it is important to understand how the offline processes of

relationships translate into our online lives. While the ‘how’ may have changed over time, the

guttural emotions involved in relationship development and maintenance have not.

A. Lurking

1. Lurking & Satisfaction

In the pilot study, a moderately negative correlation was established between the

amount of time individuals looked at their partners’ wall-to-walls and their relational satisfaction

(r=-2.54, p<.001). Extrapolating from this finding, it was hypothesized that respondents would

lurk more in general if they were unsatisfied in their relationship. However, a similar correlation

could not be replicated in this study. In fact, there was no significant correlation between any of

the lurking behaviors and relational satisfaction.

Perhaps this is because lurking has become ubiquitous in our digital culture. Facebook

users lurk whether they are happy or sad, satisfied or unsatisfied. They lurk because they want to

know more information about their friends and acquaintances (Ellison, & Steinfield, 2006). In

the course of this social searching, individuals have become accustomed to engaging in

surveillance of their friends and acquaintances on a regular basis. Pempek, Yermolayeva, and

Calvert’s (2009) study supports that lurking is the most prevalent activity on Facebook, with

nearly 70% of respondents indicating that they read others’ profiles often.

53
 54

It has become such a commonplace phenomenon that, in retrospect, it is logical that it

would not be tied to relational satisfaction. It seems that the negative connotations previously

associated with lurking in online communities (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2004; Smith &

Kollock, 1999) have all but disappeared. Lurking is now understood and even encouraged as an

integral part of social networking, especially with developments such as Facebook’s NewsFeed

and MiniFeed. These features assume that lurking is the primary use of Facebook. For example,

the NewsFeed takes up the entire main page of a user’s account and the MiniFeed is present on

every user’s page by default, unless it is disabled. These features provide a constant stream of

information to keep users apprised of their friends’ thoughts, activities, pictures, preferences,

which makes lurking effortless for the user.

2. Lurking & Insecurity

Despite the absence of association between lurking and relational satisfaction, lurking is

not without its caveats. In healthy relationships, lurking on Facebook is nothing more than the

curiosity or boredom. For individuals experiencing jealousy or insecurity in their relationships, it

seems that Facebook becomes a resource, a tool for obtaining information that their romantic

partners may not be forthcoming with (whether real or imagined). When combined with insecure

or jealous tendencies in romantic relationships it seems that this lurking can cause or accelerate

these feelings, which can have real and serious consequences for romantic relationships. This is

evidenced in the finding that insecure individuals were significantly more likely to lurk than

secure individuals. Insecure individuals reported higher incidences of looking at their partners’

profile, reading their partners’ wall-to-wall with others, and friend-ing a friend of their

significant other. These findings are in line with Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher’s (1998)

assertion that the more insecurity an individual reported, the less trust they reported. All of these
 55

behaviors seem to lead insecure individuals to place more importance on Facebook in

maintaining their relationship. Perhaps this is because they rely on Facebook (or at least perceive

that they do) to find out information that they believe their partner may be hiding. This can be

seen in some of the written responses to ‘Why do you look at your partners’ wall to wall?’: “To

see what they talk about and if there is anything suspicious,” “To make sure every conversation

she has is appropriate,” “To make sure he tells me everything there is to be told”.

To these respondents, Facebook represented more than just a casual way to keep in touch.

They used it in a very specific way to ensure that their significant other is being honest with them

and perhaps to catch them doing something he/she should not be doing. It should come as no

surprise that insecurity was also related to how often individuals fight/break-up with their

significant other as a result of Facebook. In lurking or “stalking” on Facebook to feed their

insecurities, individuals find source material for arguments, which leads to fights and eventually

break-ups.

3. Lurking & Jealousy

Much like insecurity, jealousy was also significantly correlated with lurking. Berscheid &

Fei (1977) established that insecurity (combined with uncertainty) typically surfaces in the form

of jealousy, thus it makes sense that both insecurity and jealousy would be related to Facebook

lurking. Jealousy tends to breed anxiety, fear, and distrust, which often lead to individuals spying

on their significant other (Knobloch, Solomon, & Cruz, 2001; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). It has

become apparent that in the digital age, a likely place for individuals to start their investigation is

on Facebook. Lurking on Facebook was significantly correlated to emotional, cognitive, and

behavioral jealousy (Facebook “stalking”). While their insecurities may be increasing their
 56

propensity to lurk to seek out information via Facebook, the information they discover is likely

fueling their jealousy (which will inevitably increase their lurking).

These associations are extremely cyclical and seemingly impossible to extricate from one

another. Insecurity, jealousy, and the channels used to seek confirmation of threats are on a

continuous loop of information that leads to the deterioration of the relationship over time. It is

important to realize that no causal order is being established here. This is because relationships

themselves are organic entities that are very much cyclical. Are people lurking on Facebook to

seek out confirmation of threats because they are insecure and jealous or does the casual lurking

they engage in on Facebook cause them to become insecure and jealous? Likely the answer lies

somewhere in between these scenarios.

B. Behavioral Jealousy

While a relationship could not be established between lurking and satisfaction, a more

interesting correlation was produced that gives us insight into how Facebook habits factor into

relational satisfaction. Individuals who experienced decreases in relational satisfaction were

more likely to engage in Facebook “stalking” behaviors such as logging onto their partners’

Facebook page or questioning them directly about the activities they observed on Facebook. This

is consistent with Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) finding that behavioral jealousy and happiness

were negatively related. Whereas lurking behaviors are more passive and perhaps even

innocuous, the behaviors comprising the Behavioral Jealousy index (Facebook “stalking”) are

much more active and aggressive and are significantly correlated with decreases in relational

satisfaction. Such behaviors are obviously more extreme and are associated with a pathological

jealousy that goes much beyond the normal curiosities of lurking (Mullen & Maack, 1985).
 57

In light of this information, it is not surprising that Facebook “stalking” was also

associated with how often a couple breaks up. While it may not be the direct cause of the break

up, it stands to reason that such Facebook “stalking” behaviors are just symptoms of a deeper rift

in the relationship. This demonstrates that Facebook is a relevant topic in relationship

maintenance and can be the source of fighting or breaking up.

1. Behavioral Jealousy & Insecurity

Similarly, insecurity was also related to behavioral jealousy (“stalking”). It is likely that

the information obtained during passive lurking breeds more insecurity in the individuals as they

find confirmation of threats (real or perceived), which cause them to escalate their behavior to

Facebook “stalking” in order to find out more information.

It is important to note that snooping or engaging in typical behavioral jealousy is not

unique to Facebook. Jealous significant others have been sneaking behind their partners’ backs

trying to confirm their suspicions or fears as long as relationships have existed. What is perhaps

novel about Facebook, and social networking in general, is the ease of access to such information

and the fact that this information also lacks context and cues (Walther & Burgoon, 1992; Yum &

Hara, 2006). For example, a comment or a picture seen on Facebook may be completely

innocuous, but to a partner who is predisposed to jealousy or insecurity this “evidence” becomes

incriminating and causes further suspicion whether or not their fears are grounded in reality.

C. Positive Effects of Facebook Usage on Romantic Relationships

While this study has mostly focused on the potential detriment Facebook can cause a

relationship, it is important to recognize that Facebook can have positive effects on relationships.

Publicizing the relationship on Facebook (via status updates, profile pictures, etc.) was

significantly correlated with increases in satisfaction. Perhaps this increase in satisfaction occurs
 58

because publicizing our relationships on Facebook allows us to receive support from our social

networks. Facebook serves to reinforce the romantic relationships to others. As research on

romantic relationships indicates “…the social reactions of others’ help to cement a couple’s

commitment…[and the] opinions of family and friends [tend to] increase, rather than decrease

relationship stability” (Felmlee, p. 1262, 2001; Lewis, 1973). The very fact that couples are

enacting their relationships in the intensely public sphere of Facebook serves to increase the

stability and also affirms the relationships to strangers and friends alike. The public’s

acknowledgement and approval, which usually begins with the changing of relationship statuses

on Facebook, solidifies that union and seems to have a positive impact on relational satisfaction.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that increases in reciprocity on Facebook profiles are

significantly correlated with increases in relational satisfaction. This likely occurs because

reciprocity in Facebook profiles mirrors the reciprocity of the relationship offline to some

degree. As reciprocity and relational satisfaction offline are positively associated (Cozby, 1972),

it makes sense that online reciprocity would be as well.

Although respondents largely indicated that Facebook was not important in maintaining

their romantic relationships (44% responded that it was extremely unimportant), it has become

clear in the course of this research that they are utilizing it as a tool or resource, most often on a

daily basis, and it is having an impact on their romantic relationships. While they may assume

that Facebook is trivial in the scheme of their relationships, it is unlikely that it is not having any

impact on their romantic relationships, especially given the amount of time individuals spend

using it. Even though they may not believe that their relationships are directly impacted by the

medium, this research demonstrates that the implications for such usage are more significant than

users might assume. The fact that individuals do not regard Facebook as being significant to their
 59

romantic relationships creates a disconnect between what is occurring online and what is

occurring offline. This disconnect, which has become apparent in this research, may ultimately

have offline repercussions, especially as insecure and jealous individuals continue to use

Facebook as a tool to seek confirmation of threats while simultaneously dismissing its

importance.

While the reasons people use the Internet are as wide and varied as the content of the web

itself, the actual uses and gratifications of social networking sites are not as well known (Joinson,

2008). It is commonly assumed that the main reason people use social networking sites is for the

wealth of social capital that is inherent in online social networks (e.g. informational resources

and emotional support) (Joinson, 2008). While these instrumental resources clearly underlie the

decision to join and consistently use social networking sites, it is not sufficient for explaining the

complex ways in which people are using social networking sites. This study highlights the need

for more concentrated efforts to understand how and why people are using social networking

sites and the potential consequences for such usage.

While many individuals do view Facebook as an insignificant tool that they use in their

downtime, it is important to recognize that Facebook has become much more than that. It has

become yet another stage with which we can play out highly cultivated versions of our lives. The

stage that Facebook creates is significant for all individuals who enact their relationships through

it and even those that do not. It elevates the expectations of what is appropriate to be discussed or

shown in public and sets new standards for what behaviors define being a “couple,” because

“network members may influence romantic relationships by helping partners acquire

knowledge…serving as standards of comparison” (Bryant & Conger, 1999, p. 439).

 60

While there is no reason to conclude that Facebook is damaging to romantic

relationships, it is worth evaluating how individuals choose to incorporate this site (and others)

into their relationships. Facebook has the ability to both positively and negatively impact

romantic relationships. What is important to recognize is that this is by no means a condemnation

of Facebook or social networking in general. Rather, this should serve as an impetus to explore

the ways that our technological innovations may be fundamentally altering our relationships,

both with casual acquaintances and, more importantly, with our most intimate relationships.
 VIII. LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the success of this study on the effects of lurking on romantic relationships and

Facebook, there are issues that arose upon implementation that must be addressed. Given the

time constraints and exploratory nature of the project, conducting a questionnaire via was

determined to be the most appropriate way to gather information. However, upon reflection, the

selection of questionnaires may not have been optimal for obtaining the richest data possible.

Romantic relationships are extraordinarily complex and asking individuals to reduce their

deepest relationships to a series of fabricated questionnaire items may have eliminated

fascinating nuances that qualitative research could have revealed. Although the gathered data did

prove fruitful for analysis, it should just be seen as a modest beginning to studying the

intersection of romantic relationship and social networking sites. Furthermore, having more

information about the respondents’ significant others (e.g. demographic information,

work/school status) may have produced meaningful differences.

Also, it is important to recognize the limitations of the study’s sample. While no

significant gender differences were identified in regards to Facebook lurking or “stalking,” it is

possible that this was skewed by the fact that the sample was heavily female (74%).

Furthermore, using college students as subjects may have skewed the results in that they are

Digital Natives and have most likely been using Facebook for most of their formative years.

Different findings may have resulted if an older population had been used. It cannot be said with

certainty how much the demographics of the sample may have biased the results.

It should be noted that this study was conducted prior to the rollout of the new Facebook

interface Timeline, which was rolled out to users in late 2011. The introduction of Timeline does

61
 62

not invalidate this research, as it is primarily a visual restructuring concerning the layout of the

profile and all of functionalities discussed in this study are still in tact. Despite this, it is

important to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental change in the Facebook user

experience. It is unclear if these changes would have any impact on the findings of this study.

To address this and further advance the field’s understanding of the interplay of romantic

relationships on Facebook, more qualitative studies should be conducted to allow for individuals’

spontaneous responses that may give researchers a more accurate picture of how couples are

using Facebook to enact their relationships.

Specifically, interviews with couples that use Facebook would be extremely valuable.

The interviews would ideally be conducted individually and also as couples. These interviews

would allow for a more complete picture of the relationships to be established. In addition to

interviews, there may be other, more appropriate ways to investigate lurking behaviors. For

example, it would be invaluable to have participants keep logs or journals of their Facebook use

(e.g. how long they spend on their significant others page, what emotions arise when they see

certain communication patterns on Facebook).

Despite these suggestions, in considering the practical constraints of researchers,

questionnaires may still be the most efficient way to maximize the response rate as well as the

diversity of the sample. Further methods that may be appropriate could include questionnaires

with open-ended responses. Thus, it would still be utilizing the easiest format while providing a

more detailed insight into the relationships. These questionnaires could be followed up with a

smaller set of one-on-one interviews with respondents who indicate that they do not mind being
 63

contacted for follow-up. This two-pronged approach would be efficient, but would also allow for

a richer and more complete narrative to emerge.

 IX. CONCLUSION

Utilizing various channels to enact romantic relationships is far from a novel concept,

individuals have been mediating their intimacy for centuries through the use of the written word

(e.g. poems) and symbolic gestures (e.g. jewelry). As the avenues for enacting relationships

expand in unimaginable ways in the digital age, it is important to understand how these new and

evolving technologies influence our most integral relationships: our romantic unions. The

capabilities afforded by the Internet have already changed the way that many individuals enact

their relationships and will only continue to do so.

In light of the findings of this study, it seems reasonable to assert that Facebook is

affecting romantic relationships whether or not individuals are acknowledging its impact. The

fact that they may not realize its potential significance in their romantic relationships is

troublesome, especially as the “inconsequential” activities of Facebook can easily affect the

actual relationship.

Just as any technology, Facebook has benefits as well as drawbacks. It is beneficial in

that it makes the relationship concrete and public, possibly more so than ever before. However, it

can also have negative effects by encouraging lurking, which can lead to distrust or jealousy and,

overall, tends to decrease overall relational satisfaction. It is worth remembering that these

effects are nearly completely dependent on how individuals choose to employ them. One thing is

clear; the topic of relational maintenance on Facebook is nearly as complicated as the dynamics

of the romantic relationships themselves. This study should serve as an impetus for other

researchers to investigate this relatively new and understudied subject.

64
 APPENDIX

INDEX CONSTRUCTION

Table X: RELATIONAL SATISFACTION INDEX

Relational Satisfaction (RELSAT) (α= 0.92)
• How well does your partner meet your needs?
• In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
• How good is your relationship compared to most?
• How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?
• To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?
• How much do you love your partner?
• How many problems are there in your relationship?

Table XI: DEPENDENCY INDICES

In performing the factor analysis, there were two distinct factors measuring Dependency:
Dependency 1 (D1)(α= 0.92)
• I am very lucky to be involved in a relationship with X.
• X is close to my ideal as a person.
• X’s presence makes any activity more enjoyable.
• I feel very proud to know X.
• I find myself wanting X when we’re not together.
• I want X.
• My relationship with X has given my life direction and purpose.
Dependency 2 (D2)(α= 0.83)
• I want X to tell me “I love YOU”.
• I am very dependent upon X.
• I’d be extremely depressed for a long time if my relationship with X were to end.
• I want X to confide mostly in me.
• I spend a great deal of time thinking about X.
(The items that did not factor: I spend more time thinking about my career than I do about X. If I couldn’t have X, I’d easily find
someone to replace X. My relationship with X has made me life worthwhile. I don’t really need X.)

65
 66

Table XII: INSECURITY INDICES

In performing the factor analysis, there were three distinct factors measuring Insecurity:
Insecurity 1 (I1)(α= 0.88)
• I often wonder how much X really cares for me.
• I have great difficulty trying to figure X out.
• X is a rather mysterious person.
• Sometimes, I wish I didn’t care so much for X.
• I worry that X doesn’t care as much for me as I do for X.
Insecurity 2 (I2)(α= 0.75):
• I worry about losing X’s affection.
• I feel uneasy if X is making friends with someone of the opposite sex.
• I need X more than X needs me.
• X has been the cause of some of my worst depressions.
Security (Sec)(α= 0.81):
• My relationship with X is stable and quietly satisfying.
• There is little conflict between X and myself.
• I feel very secure in my relationship.
• X pays enough attention to me.
(The items that did not factor: I try to plan out what I want to say before talking to X. I have imagined conversations I would
have with X.)

Table XIII: Cognitive Jealousy Indices

In performing the factor analysis, there were two distinct factors measuring Cognitive Jealousy:
Cognitive Jealousy 1 (CJ1)(α= 0.93)
• I suspect that X may be physically intimate with another member of the opposite sex behind my back.
• I think that X is secretly developing an intimate relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
• I suspect that X is secretly seeing someone of the opposite sex.
• I suspect that X is crazy about members of the opposite sex.
• I suspect that X may be attracted to someone else.
Cognitive Jealousy 2 (CJ2)(α= 0.88)
• I am worried that some member of the opposite sex may be chasing after X.
• I think that some members of the opposite sex may be romantically interested in X.
• I am worried that someone of the opposite sex is trying to seduce X.
(all factored)

Table XIV: Emotional Jealousy Indices

In performing the factor analysis, there were two distinct factors measuring Emotional Jealousy:
Emotional Jealousy 1 (EJ1)(α= 0.89)
• Someone of the opposite sex is dating X.
• X hugs and kisses someone of the opposite sex.
• X is flirting with someone of the opposite sex.
• A member of the opposite sex is trying to get close to X all the time.
Emotional Jealousy 2 (EJ2)(α= 0.78)
• X smiles in a very friendly manner to someone of the opposite sex.
• X works very closely with a member of the opposite sex (in school or office)
• X comments to you on how great looking a particular member of the opposite sex is.
• X shows a great deal of interest or excitement in talking to someone of the opposite sex.
(all factored)
 67

Table XV: COGNITIVE JEALOUSY INDICES

Behavioral Jealousy (BJ)(α= 0.88)
• I log onto X’s Facebook profile to see what he/she is up to.
• I walk up behind X to see what he/she is doing on Facebook.
• I loot at X’s previous significant others on Facebook and ask him/her about them.
• I say something nasty about someone of the opposite sex who X is friends with to see if X shows an
interest in that person.
• I question X about his/her Facebook chatting.
• I question X about his/her wall posts.
• I write on X’s wall whenever I see him/her having a conversation with a member of the opposite sex.
(all factored)

Table XVI: INDICES OF GENERAL FACEBOOK USAGE

General Facebook Usage:
Facebook Usage 1 (FB1)(α= 0.71)
How often do you…
• Update your profile information?
• Create a Facebook group or event?
• Add pictures to an album?
• Join a Facebook group?
Facebook Usage 2 (FB2)(α= 0.71)
How often do you…
• Send a Facebook email message?
• Facebook chat with a friend?
• Poke a friend?
• Write on your friends’ walls?
Romantic Partner’s Facebook Usage 1 (RPFBU1)(α= 0.88)
How often do you estimate your romantic partner…
• Create a Facebook group or event?
• Join a group?
• Add pictures?
• Updates his or her profile information?
• Pokes a friend?
• Changes his or her profile picture?
• Sends a Facebook email message?
• Posts links to news stories?
Romantic Partner’s Facebook Usage 2 (RPFBU2)(α= 0.87)
How often do you estimate your romantic partner…
• Writes on his or her friends’ walls?
• How many minutes per day do you estimate you romantic partner uses Facebook?
• Facebook chats with a friend?
• Changes his or her Facebook status?
 68

Table XVII: INDICES FOR FACEBOOK USAGE AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

MAINTENANCE
Facebook Usage (specifically in regards to relationship)
Facebook Usage for Publicizing the Relationship (FBUPR)(α=0.84)
On Facebook, how often do you…
• Have a profile picture that includes X?
• Post or tag pictures of X?
• Have status updates that refer to X?
• Refer to X in your “About Me” section?
Facebook Usage for Relationship Communication (FBURC)(α=0.78)
On Facebook, how often do you…
• Facebook chat with X?
• Sent X a Facebook email?
• Send a link to X via Facebook?
• Write on X’s wall?
Romantic Partner’s Facebook Usage for Publicizing the Relationship
(RPFBUPR)(α=0.79)
On Facebook, how often does your partner…
• Have a profile picture that includes you?
• Have status updates that refer to you?
• Refer to you in his or her “About Me” section?
• Post or tag pictures of you?
Romantic Partner’s Facebook Usage for Relationship Communication
(RPFBURC)(α=0.82)
On Facebook, how often does your partner…
• Send you a Facebook email?
• Facebook Chat with you?
• Send you a link via Facebook?
• Write on your wall?

Table XVIII: INDICES OF FACEBOOK LURKING

Lurking (LURK1) (α= 0.92)
How often do you…
• Look at X’s Profile?
• Read X’s Mini-Feed?
• Read X’s WallPosts?
• Read X’s wall-to-wall with members of the same sex?
• Read X’s wall-to-wall with members of the opposite sex?
• Look at the profiles of X’s friends?
• “Friend” a friend of X’s?
Lurking Fostering Perception of Secrecy (LURK2)(α=0.723)
• Do you believe your significant other can hide less information from you as a result of Facebook?
• Do you believe you know more about your partner’s life as a result of Facebook?
• Do you believe you know more about your partner’s friends and acquaintances as a result of
Facebook?
 69

Table XIX: INDICES OF FACEBOOK RECIPROCITY

Facebook Reciprocity
Facebook Profile Reciprocity (FBPR)(α=0.89)
How often…
• Do you have a profile picture that includes X?
• Do you post or tag pictures of X?
• Do you have status updates that refer to X?
• Do you refer to X in your “About Me” section?
• Does X have a profile picture that includes you?
• Does X have status updates that refer to you?
• Does X refer to you in his or her “About Me” section?
Facebook Message Reciprocity (FBMR)(α=0.90)
How often…
• Do you Facebook chat with X?
• Do you send X a Facebook email?
• Does X Facebook chat with you?
• Does X send you a Facebook email?
 CITED LITERATURE

Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy
on the Facebook. In 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Robinson College,
Cambridge University, UK, 2006.

Aron, A., Aron, E.N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self-scale and the structure
of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.

Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983) Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies
of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-398.

Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. (1995). Predicting relationship stability from both
partners versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 254-268.

Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). Dependency and insecurity in romantic
relationships: Development and validation of two companion scales. Personal
Relationships, 5, 31-57.

Aune, K.S., Buller, D.B., & Aune, R.K. (1996). Display rule development in romantic
relationships: Emotion management and perceived appropriateness of emotions across
relationship stages. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 115-145.

Bargh, J.A., & McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 573-90.

Baxter, L., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12(4), p. 469-493.

Baxter, L.A., & Weidenmann, S. (1993). Revealing and not revealing the status of romantic
relationships to social networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 321-
337.

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1, 99-112.

Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 79-129.

Berscheid, E., & Fei, J. (1977). Romantic love and sexual jealousy. In G. Clanton & L.G. Smith
(Eds.) Jealousy (p. 101-109). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 193–281).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.

70
 71

Bonebrake, K. (2002). College students’ internet use, relationship formation, and personality,
correlates. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(6), 551-557.

boyd, d.m. (2004). Friendster and publicly articulated social networking. In Conference on
Human Factors and Computing Systems (CHI 2004), April 24-29, Vienna, Austria.

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1).

Brown, B.B., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the love boat: Why researchers
have shied away from adolescent romance in. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, and C.
Feiring, The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescents (p. 1-18).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bryant, C.M., & Conger, R.D. (1999). Marital success and domains of social support in long-
term relationships: Does the influence of network members ever end? Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 437-450.

Collins, W.A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships
during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 1-24.

Coyle, C.L., & Vaughn, H. (2008). Social networking: Communication revolution or evolution?
Bell Labs Technical Journal, 13(2), 13-18.

Cozby, P.C. (1972). Self-disclosure, reciprocity, and liking. Sociometry, 35(1), 151-160.

DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M.Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to
the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4),
626-641.

Dougherty, H. (2010, March 15). Facebook Reaches Top Ranking in US. Message posted to
http://www.weblogs.hitwise.com/

Dholakia, R.R., Dholakia, N., & Kshetri, N. (2003). Gender and internet usage. In H. Bidgoli
(Ed.), The Internet Encyclopedia. New York: Wiley.

Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2005). Lurking: An underestimated human-computer phenomenon.

IEEE MultiMedia, 12(4), 70-75.

Ellison, N., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks and
social capital: The role of Facebook. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, 2006.

Facebook. (2012a). Fact sheet. Retrieved from

http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
 72

Facebook. (2012b). Timeline. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/about/timeline

Fallows, D. (2005). How women and men use the internet. Pew Research Center’s Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-
Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspx

Fei, J., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Perceived dependency, insecurity, and love in heterosexual
relationships: The eternal triangle? Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,
University of Minnesota.

Furukawa, T., Sarason, I.G., & Sarason, B.R. (1998). Social support and adjustment to a
novel social environment. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 44(1), 56-70.

Glanz, K., & Lerman, C. (1992). Psychosocial impact of breast cancer: A

critical review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 14, 204–212.

Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Privacy and information revelation in online social networks.
In Proceedings of the ACM CCS Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society
(WPES).

Hamilton, A. (2007, November 21). Is Facebook overrated? TIME. Retrieved

from http://www.time.com

Henderson, S. (1977). The social network, support and neurosis: The function of attachment in
adult life. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 185–191.

Hendrick, S.S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 50(1), 93-98.

Hirschorn, M. (2007, October). About Facebook. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://theatlantic.com

Ho, Erica. (2011, September 3). Americans Spend over 53 Billion Minutes per Month on
Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.time.com

Johnson, A.J., Haigh, M.M., Becker, J.A.H., Craig, E.A., & Wigley, S. (2008). Long-distance
relationships and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 381-404.

Joinson, A. N., ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up with’ people? Motives and uses of
Facebook. In CHI 2008 Proceedings: Online Social Networks, (Florence, Italy, 2008).
ACM Press.

Jourard, S.M. (1959). Self-disclosure and other-cathexis. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 59, 428-431.
 73

Jung, G., & Lee, B. (2011). How did Facebook outspace Myspace with open innovation? An
analysis of network competition with changes of network topology" In PACIS 2011
Proceedings, (Brisbane, Australia, 2011).

Katz, J. (1998). Luring the lurkers. Retrieved March 21, 2010 from
http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/28/1745252.shtml

Katz, J.E., Rice, R.E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet, 1995–2000. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45, 405–419.

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G.,
McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. In
H.H. Kelley et al., Close Relationships (p. 20-67). New York: W.H. Freeman.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1999). Stress, personal relationships, and immune function: Health

implications. Brain, Behavior & Immunity, 13, 61–72.

Knobloch, L.K., Solomon, D.H., & Cruz, M.G. (2001). The role of relationship development and
attachment in the experience of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8, 205-224.

Ko, M.N., Cheek, G.P., Shehab, M., & Sandhu, R. (2010). Social-networks connect services.
IEEE Computer Society, 43(8), 37-43.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006) A Face(book) in the Crowd: Social Searching vs.
Social Browsing. in ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work, (Banff, Canada), ACM Press.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as
signals in an online social network. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, (San Jose, CA), ACM Press.

Le, B., & Agnew, C.R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in interdependent
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(3), 423-440.

Lindner, K. A. (2009). "Let's be Facebook official!": Enacting romantic relationships through

Facebook. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago.

Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A.D. (2011). College students' Facebook stalking of ex-
partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 711-716.

Mendelson, A.L., & Papacharissi, Z. (2010). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student
Facebook photo galleries. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self: Identity,
community and culture on social network sites. New York: Routledge.
 74

Milardo, R., & Lewis, R. (1985). Social networks, families, and mate selection: A transactional
analysis. In L. L'Abate (Ed.), The handbook of family psychology and therapy, Vol. I
(pp. 258-283). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Mullen, P.E. & Maack, L.H. (1985). Jealousy, pathological jealousy, and aggression. In D.P.
Farrington & J. Gunn, Aggression and Dangerousness, (p. 103-126). New York:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Myers, D., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19.

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Paper
presented at the CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
The Hague, The Netherlands.

Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Paper presented at the Americas
Conference on Information Systems, Boston.

Nonnecke, B., Preece, J., & Andrews, D. (2004) What lurkers and posters think of each other,
Internet and the Digital Economy Track of the Thirty-Seventh Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37).

Nonnecke, B. (2000). Lurking in email-based discussion lists., South Bank University,

London.

Odell, P.M., Korden, K.O., Schumacher, P., & Delucchi, M. (2000). Internet use among female
and male college students. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 855-862.

Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (1), 111-
121.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process:
The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-874.

Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of

Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1-2), 199-220.

Parks, M.R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 1(4).

Pempek, T.A., Yermolayeva, Y.A., & Calvert, S.L. (2009). College students’ social networking
experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.

Pfeiffer, S.M., & Wong. P.T.P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 6, 181-196.
 75

Plunkett, J.W. (2009). Plunkett’s entertainment and media industry almanac. Houston, TX:
Plunkett Research, Ltd.

Prager, K.L. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford.

Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: Improving
community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 201-223.

Quizon, N. (2010). Social change: Women, networks, and technology. Interactions, 17(1), 36-39.

Rafaeli, S., Ravid, G., & Soroka, V. (2004). De-lurking in virtual communities: A social
communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital.
In Proceedings from the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Rau, P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in
online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2757-2770.

Rosenbloom, S. (2008, February 21). Geek chic: Not just for guys--Sorry, boys, this is our
domain. The New York Times, pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,

35, 1-7.

Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, B.E. (1997). Socialization tactics and newcomer information
acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(1), 48-61.

Salovey, P. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New York: Guilford Press.

Schadewitz, N., & Zamenopoulos, T. (2009). Towards an online design studio: A study of social
networking in design distance learning. In: International Association of Societies of
Design Research (IASDR) Conference 2009, 18-22 Oct 2009, Seoul, South Korea.

Schmidt, T.S. (2006, September 8). Facebook’s about-face: Signs of a Gen-Y revolution? TIME.
Retrieved from http://www.time.com

Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Soroka, V., & Rafaeli, S. (2006). Invisible participants: How cultural capital relates to lurking
behavior. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on World Wide Web,
WWW 2006. Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 163–172.

Sprecher, S. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship
commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 5i, 318-328.
 76

Sprecher, S., Metts, S., Burleson, B., Hatfield, E., & Thompson, A. (1995). Domains of
expressive interaction in intimate relationships: Associations with satisfaction and
commitment. Family Relations, 44, 203-210.

Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C. (1993). Gender differences in perceptions of emotionality: The
case of close, heterosexual relationships. Sex Ro1es, 28, 511-530.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
217-242.

Tavani, H. (2000). Privacy and the Internet. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Ethics and
Technology Conference (1999), Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Press, 114-25.

Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Todi, M. (2008). Advertising on social networking websites. Wharton Research Scholars

Journal, 1-34.

Tong, S.T., Van Der Heide, B., Langewell, L., & Walther, J.B. (2008). Too much of a good
thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on
Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531-549.

Vaughn, M.J., & Baier, M.E.M. (1999). Reliability and validity of the relationship assessment
scale. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(2), 137-147.

Walther, J.B., & Burgoon, J.K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated

interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, p. 50-88.

Weiser, E.B. (2000). Gender differences in internet use pattern and internet application
preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(2), 167-178.

Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism confronts technology. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don't
ride alone. In M.A. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (167-
194). London: Routledge.

Wellman, B., & Hampton, K. (1999). Living networking on and off line. Contemporary
Sociology, 28(6), 658-654.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase,
decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community
commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 437-456.
 77

White, G.L. (1981). Jealousy and partner’s perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 44, 24-30.

White, G.L. (1984). Comparison of four jealousy scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 18,
115-130.

Yum, Y-o., & Hara, K. (2006). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-cultural

comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, p. 133-152.
 VITA

NAME: Katherine Allee Lindner

EDUCATION: B.A., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2008

M.A., University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 2012

TEACHING
EXPERIENCE: Communication Department, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Teaching Assistant, 2008-2010

HONORS: Summa Cum Laude, Western Michigan University, 2008

Dean’s List, Western Michigan University, 2004-2008

PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSHIP: Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Lambda Pi Eta

78