My Study - The Effect of Facebook (Now Most Social Media) On Relationships

Wrote this in 2014, but it rings out true more than ever now, especially with the rise of Instagram. Let me know your thoughts! P.S. please excuse the incomplete citations.

The Unsocial Network

With approximately 128 million active users, Facebook connects roughly 1/3 of Americans on a daily basis. To put this massive number in perspective, last year’s most popular show, “Breaking Bad” had only 6 million viewers for the series finale (Reuters.com). 57% of all American adults also use Facebook daily, and of these adults, half of them have over 200 friends in their network. The most common demographic is ages 25 to 34, which make up 29.7% of users (Wolframalpha.com). These astounding statistics are representative of the large role that Facebook plays in contemporary society.

In the midst of this social media frenzy, America is dealing with a historically low marriage rate of 31% according to data from 2012. This means that of all unmarried women, 31 per every 1000 got married that year. Also, there is a drastically high divorce rate in the United States of approximately 50%, which means that half of all marriages fail (apa.org/topics/divorce). Within this 50% divorce rate, 41% occur for first marriages, 60% for second marriages, and 73% for third marriages (divorcestatistics.org).
Internalization of social media may explain falling marriage rates in western society due to young generations having a lack of experience with building strong relationships in a face-to-face setting. Generations raised around technology are hesitant to engage in face-to-face interaction in uncontrolled environments due to increased social media usage, such as Facebook, in their demographic. Social technology reduces the strong ties in a person’s network and increases the prevalence of weak ties, due to a reduction in social involvement that accompanies frequent Internet usage (Kraut, 1998, p. 1018). Facebook usage is a driving factor in the increasing divorce rates across all socio-economic classes throughout the United States due to factors such as jealousy, a lack of intimacy, and low relationship satisfaction.

Facebook is an information-sharing platform, in which users are motivated to provide as much information about themselves as they want, for all of their peers to see. From status updates, to friends, to photos, Facebook can tell you a lot of peripheral and intermediate information about a person. Many people across the world use Facebook to find out about new people without having to physically approach an unfamiliar face. According to the uncertainty reduction theory, this is known as a passive strategy to reduce uncertainty. Due to the nature of Facebook, it is very easy for one to represent him or herself in their manner of choice, given the amount of self-disclosure one decides to put on their profile. With this being possible, people may not be the same person behind the screen as they are in person, when it comes to personality type.

A person’s personality type plays a large role in the extent of his or her Facebook usage, as well as the frequency of usage. As identified by Barbara Caci, the Big Five personality traits are Openness to experience, Conscientious, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. Caci and colleagues (2014) analyzed a person’s personality type in the Big Five categories, and created a model that predicts a person’s likely amount of Facebook usage. They found that “a highly extroverted person uses Facebook more often than a person who is introverted. Openness, extraversion, and neuroticism were positively correlated with both social networking and instant messaging use. This means a wide variety of individuals are on the site at all times. Individuals scoring high on conscientiousness and agreeableness and low on the neuroticism scales were less likely to post negative content on their profiles. Individuals scoring high on conscientiousness who are devoted to work consider Facebook a waste of time and, as a consequence, tend to use Facebook less” (p. 530). Since high neuroticism is correlated with longer and highly frequent site visits, then many people with this personality type are more likely to find dissatisfaction within their relationship. This study shows how different personalities approach Facebook use, which is a useful finding in understanding the psychological profiles of quotidian Facebook users (Caci et al., 2-14, pp. 528-537). It is truly evident that all types of personalities can be found on the site.

Orr and colleagues (2014) have also outlined the personality traits of Facebook users versus non-users. They found that Facebook and other social media usage is able to fulfill the need to belong, by frequent users joining conversations and starting new friendships. When analyzing the type of browsing done by young adults aged 18-29, it was found that people were more inclined to browse the profiles of their “offline friends” rather than strangers met online; in societal terms, this means that many young adults spent their time “Facebook creeping” on people that they want to become acquainted with offline. After examining the Facebook profiles and personality types of 130 college students, Orr also found that the amount of friends and level of self-focused information posted was positively correlated with narcissism and low self-esteem. Along with this, it was found that increased Facebook use was correlated with higher social trust compared to the non-users (Ljepava, 1998, pp. 1602-1607). The combination of narcissism, low levels of trust, and the frequency of browsing offline friends can easily be a concoction for weak relationships being formed over Facebook.

Relationship satisfaction is extremely important when it comes to longevity. Satisfaction is initially developed in the early stages of relationship building (Hand). Doctor Matthew Hand and his colleagues (2013) did an in depth study of the intimacy and satisfaction of relationships formed over Facebook. Their article said that, “excessive attachment to Facebook is associated with increased jealousy and relationship dissatisfaction” (p. 9). They also found that increased Facebook usage is associated with “a tendency to shy away from face-to-face relationships” (p. 9). Through the fundamental assertion of attribution theory, which states, “an individual’s choice of a casual explanation for a behavior will determine that individual’s perception”. This means that when relationships are being made over Facebook, they tend to be a lot weaker and less intimate than face-to-face ones due to people rationalizing suspicious browsing behavior to the other partner. Intimacy and relationship satisfaction were also found to be significantly and positively correlated. Online users found that they tend to view their partner’s posts more negatively than their own, which becomes an attribution bias with a lack of context. This error causes an extreme lack of intimacy, and is very bad for the health of a relationship. Hand also found that an increase in jealousy and romantic dissatisfaction is increased with the excessive use of Facebook through the rationalization of suspicious behavior and the less face-to-face contact (Hand 8-12).

Given a lack of context, jealousy is extremely frequent between partners on Facebook. Jealousy is a “green-eyed monster” that can tear apart a relationship (Muise, 2009, p. 441). According to Muise and colleagues (2009), Facebook contributes to jealousy in romantic relationships. Since Facebook involves a user having several hundred friends on average, the site can be full of superficial relationships. Facebook allows users to connect with long lost friends, people who are barely known to the user, and also publicizes information about a user’s activity with other people within the site. This creates an opportunity for everyone in a person’s social network to see the activities of their fellow users. This transparency can lead to “public scrutiny” (p. xxx). Much of this activity can cause suspicion in a romantic relationship. Relational uncertainty is correlated with this suspicion, and this uncertainty can trigger jealousy within a romantic partner.

Another enhancement of jealousy found by Muise and colleagues was the exposure of Facebook users to mass amounts of information about a romantic partner’s social interactions on the site. Muise defined four ways jealousy can be triggered in a romantic relationship. These four are, “when one’s partner shows interest in another person, when another person shows interest in one’s partner, when one’s partner talks about or interacts with prior relational partners, and ambiguous scenes involving the partner” (p.441). Facebook can evoke jealousy through all four of these means. One example would be when a user (user 1) “likes” another user’s picture (user 2), it shows up on the Facebook feed of all of user 1’s friends. If user 2 is user 1’s ex partner, then jealousy could erupt in either of the user’s current relationships. Another way that jealousy is exemplified on Facebook is if another person leaves a flirty comment on the picture of a user’s current romantic partner.

Many people become nosey due to all of the information available at their fingertips. The data from the study conducted by Muise showed that 78.9% of users have added their previous romantic partner as a friend on Facebook. Also, 92% reported that they have friends on Facebook that they have never met in person (pp. 441-444). When there is an interaction with someone that the romantic partner doesn’t know of, there is a second guess in the back of his or her mind that sparks jealousy. Often times this jealousy has no basis and creates a insecurity and lowered self-esteem. From there, jealousy leads to a habitual monitoring of a partner’s Facebook page with may spark fights, and weaken a relationship.

Facebook also plays a critical role in the maintenance of a relationship. With the feature of private messaging, there is now an entirely new form of maintaining contact in a relationship between romantic partners within the site itself. Another way Facebook has developed new relationship maintenance strategies is through relationship status features. These details include making a relationship “Facebook Official”, or “FBO”. This is a very key part of disclosure in a relationship, as it lets all of a user’s friends know that he or she is now officially dating another person. If a partner is reluctant to want this information on Facebook, then the other partner might jump to certain conclusions and feel insecure (Fox, 2014).

Not only does Facebook affect romantic relationships that are new, but it also has extremely negative results on marital satisfaction. Facebook is becoming an increasingly popular reason for divorce in America. In 2010, four out of five lawyers surveyed reported that the phrase “Facebook” has appeared in an increasing number of divorce appeals. In addition, websites such as FacebookCheating.com help users determine if their spouses are engaging in an affair through the social networking site. Valenzuela (2014) notes that there are seven characteristics to a long-term romantic relationship: “investment in the well-being of the beloved, respect, admiration, sexual desire, intimacy, commitment, exclusivity, and understanding” (p. 1603). When one of more of these characteristics are violated then the other partner is likely to reevaluate the relationship. Facebook contributes in many ways to the violation of one or more of these aspects, as outlined in previous paragraphs.

Another aspect that can lead Facebook to contribute to the violation of one of the characteristics above is the negligence of personal life due to the increased usage of the site. Some psychologists believe that Facebook Addiction Disorder exists, and is present in 350 million of the 1 billion active users. This disorder can cause tolerance, escapism, and mood modifying experiences, along with negligence than can affect a marriage (Valenzuela, YEAR).

The amount of information disclosed on Facebook also impacts marital well-being. Because users have access to a great deal of information about other users in their network, if someone is unhappy in his or her marriage, he or she can use Facebook to find a new partner with shared interests before dropping his or her current relationship. Through Facebook, a user can weigh the costs and benefits of finding satisfaction in a new partner. The search function makes it incredibly easy to do all of this, thus making affairs more frequent. The search function also makes it easy to find people that have had previous relations with a user, such as an ex. Collaborative recommender systems are very common on Facebook. Generated through algorithms, these systems make recommendations to users of people who Facebook believes are a good match for new friendships. Criteria used for this matching system include mutual friends, hometown, hobbies, and other profile information. In addition to all of this, a user is able to create multiple profiles, so that he or she can keep some of this secret searching private from a current spouse. A key explanation for the positive correlation between Facebook use and divorce is the way that Facebook reduces uncertainty about potential partners after the termination of a marriage. It is an efficient way to reduce uncertainty because any user can browse information undercover.

In research conducted by Valenzuela (Year), on a state-level basis, a 20% increase in Facebook penetration, or increase in Facebook users, led to an increase of divorce rate by 2.18%. In a longitudinal sense, the author predicts that an increase of 20% in Facebook penetration over time would lead to a 4.32% increase in divorce rates. In an individual level study conducted by the same author (Year), marriage satisfaction was shown to correlate with the amount of Facebook use as well. On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the worst, 5 being the best) for marriage satisfaction and quality, those without Facebook profiles averaged a 4.22, while those who use Facebook frequently averaged a 3.87. The author’s model also predicts that a Facebook non-user is 11.40% happier with his or her marriage than a Facebook user. The model also predicts that there is a 7% increase in marriage trouble with frequent Facebook users. Finally, while 16.34% of non-users report having considered leaving their spouse, an astounding 31.93% (nearly double) of Facebook users report having entertained the idea of leaving their spouse (pp. 98-101).
A final study conducted by Russell Clayton was done to reaffirm the correlation between Facebook usage and negative relationship outcomes. A 16-question survey was conducted on 205 Facebook users over the age of 18. Survey results indicated that monitoring a spouse’s interactions with others leads to outcomes such as physical cheating, emotional cheating, and divorce. One of the main causes for these negative outcomes was jealousy. He also found that Facebook behaviors were very similar of those that are seen in stalking. These behaviors also were found to lead towards divorce and cheating. Lastly, Clayton found that increased Facebook usage leads to lowered feelings of inclusion, commitment, passion and intimacy while increasing concealment and conflict within romantic relationships (Clayton 717-720). Together, these data suggest a strong, positive correlation between divorce rates and Facebook usage.

In conclusion, there is a significant correlation between the amount of time a user spends on Facebook, and the likelihood of that user becoming divorced. With over 1/3 of the United States being connected to each other, Facebook makes it very easy for people to find new romantic partners that are similar to them. People should know their personality types on the Big Five scale, and they should be aware of the patterns of Facebook browsing that come along with each personality type. With some of the highest divorce rates in history, Facebook users in the United States should be knowledgeable about the risks that come along with this usage. Facebook usage has been linked to an absence in intimacy in relationships due to the constant monitoring of and worry about the actions of a romantic partner on the site. In many of the studies cited above, relationships are not successful if there is an absence of intimacy. This gap in intimacy leads to higher divorce rates as the population of Facebook users grows. From the types of personalities that use Facebook more frequently, to the negative emotions that come from Facebook such as jealousy and betrayal, Facebook can be understood to be a dangerous place for advancing healthy, positive romantic relationship outcomes, such as commitment and satisfaction.

References

Caci, B. (2014). Personality variables as predictors of Facebook usage. Psychological Reports: Relationships & Communication, 114(2), 528-539. doi:10.2466/21.09.PR0.114k23w6

Clayton, B. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame?. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 717-720. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0424

Fox, J. (2014). Retlational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(6), 527-534. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031

Hand, M. M. (2013). Facebook and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 8-13. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0038

Kraut, R,. & Patterson, M. (1998). A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being. American Pyschologist, 53(9), 1017-1031. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017

Ljepava, N. (2013). Personality and social characteristics of Facebook non-users and frequent users. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1602-1607. doi:10.1016/k.chb.2013.01.026

Musie, A. (2009). Moreinformation than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441-444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263

Valenzuela, S. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1602-1607. doi:10.1016/k.chb.2014.03.034