Managing Relational Transgressions As Revealed on Facebook: the Influence of Dependence Power on Verbal Versus Nonverbal Responses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 DOI 10.1007/s10919-014-0197-x ORIGINAL PAPER Managing Relational Transgressions as Revealed on Facebook: The Influence of Dependence Power on Verbal Versus Nonverbal Responses Jennifer A. Samp • Caren E. Palevitz Published online: 9 August 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract Dependence power is defined by the control a less dependent partner is per- ceived to have by the more dependent individual in a close relationship. Guided by assumptions about dependence power, we examined how individuals manage perceived relational transgressions by partners on Facebook, distinguishing between face-to-face responses versus those that are expressed nonverbally (through monitoring or maintenance behaviors) on the site. Participants included 290 females and 210 males in a dating rela- tionship who completed measures of dependence power and Facebook use. Participants then viewed a screenshot reflecting a hypothetical Facebook partner transgression that varied by potential threat (high versus low). Finally, participants completed measures of perceived threat and a measure of responses to the transgression (monitoring and main- tenance). Dependence power was associated with perceptions of the threat of a trans- gression, the likelihood of confronting a partner face-to-face about the perceived transgression, and engaging in Facebook monitoring behavior after a perceived trans- gression. Dependence power was not significantly associated with maintenance responses. Keywords Social networking sites Á Relational transgressions Á Power Introduction The rise in the accessibility of social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook has advanced the processes of relational initiation, maintenance, and monitoring efforts into the electronic sphere (Baym 2010; Bryant et al. 2010; Tokunaga 2011). While the Face- book platform is consistent across users, individuals may vary in how they use Facebook to manage their face-to-face relationships. The affordances allowed by SNS such as Facebook J. A. Samp (&) Á C. E. Palevitz Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Caldwell Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 478 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 may beneficially allow for an opportunity for contact with a partner, as well as to make the relationship public to others (Blair and Holmberg 2008; Sprecher 2011). SNS are also beneficial for relationship functioning because individuals have control over self-presen- tation and feedback (Tong and Walther 2011). Yet, SNS may have relationally-damaging implications. SNS allow for a high degree of surveillance of a relational partner’s activities (Tokunaga 2011). Such monitoring can be problematic for several reasons. For one, that Facebook allows a variety of ‘‘friends’’ to participate in an individuals’ virtual life, postings may draw concern from a relationship partner and may lead to conflict (Fox et al. 2013). Also, what one partner decides to post to Facebook may be concerning to rela- tionship partners (Samp and Palevitz 2008). Guided by assumptions about dependence power, this project examined how individuals in dating relationships manage perceived relational transgressions by partners on Facebook, distinguishing between responses that are traditionally verbal, versus those that are expressed nonverbally on the site. The Darkside of Facebook for Relationship Functioning Relationship maintenance processes over SNS can be strategic, in that users have oppor- tunities to control the information shared with others (Tong and Walther 2011). On Facebook, individuals can engage in relational maintenance by updating their status to indicate shared activities with a partner or feelings about him or her. Postings on a user’s timeline are also a source of relational maintenance, as this is a publicly viewable space on which one can send a message to a partner ranging from the everyday (‘‘Hey, what’s up?’’) to the highly personal and affectionate (‘‘Last night was great. I miss you’’). Other timeline messages may facilitate offline activities that are face-to-face, including but not limited to, setting up dining opportunities, study sessions, gatherings of friends, or ‘‘dates.’’ Facebook also enables users to post pictures reminding a partner of connected times, future events, or to report game play with one another. As Baym (2010) stated, many of these Facebook behaviors operate as tie signs in that they allow for others to see that partners share a relationship and to remind partners that they are together. While Facebook can provide an additional opportunity beyond face-to-face interactions to enhance or maintain a close relationship, individuals may have different expectations about how Facebook should be used as a relationship tool. Indeed, Treem and Leonardi (2012) note that SNS provides users with multiple affordances to communicate with others in new or different ways, yet a challenge arises when individuals may use features dif- ferently or not at all. Also, the current Facebook application allows others to make deci- sions about the public presentation of one’s relationship without explicit permission via ‘‘tagging’’ an individual in photographs, status updates, or ‘‘check-in’’ locations. Fox et al. (2013) found that Facebook may be particularly burdensome for relationship maintenance when partners have different expectations for what relationally-relevant information should be posted. Therefore, it is no surprise that despite their popularity, there is a darker side to SNS for close relationship functioning. Hernandez (2008) reported that college students often do not recognize relationships as being official until stated on Facebook and that not reporting a relationship status can lead to questions about the fidelity of the relationship. Palevitz and Samp (2008) asked undergraduates in dating relationships to report on the types and responses to conflicts they had with partners about SNS use. In that study, 65 % of participants reported some conflict with partners over SNS content, including discomfort with pictures involving the user, comments posted on the timeline, activity by unknown friends, and unknown content. These sources of conflict are not surprising, as assessing Facebook content of another’s timeline can sometimes be laden with ambiguity, potentially 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 479 generating questions like: ‘‘Who is the person in this picture with my partner?’’; ‘‘Who is this friend my partner just added?’’; ‘‘What does this message mean on my partner’s timeline?’’. Although subtle, many conflict-inducing SNS behaviors may be defined as relationship transgressions, which are instances when one person violates or betrays the ‘‘rules’’ for expected behavior in a relationship (Metts and Cupach 2007). These relationship rules may be implicit or explicit, such as assumptions of fidelity or more outward declarations of exclusivity (Guerrero and Bachman 2008). Traditionally, commonly mentioned trans- gressions involve sexual infidelity, dating or flirting with another, and deception about a significant matter. However, there are many opportunities for relational transgressions to occur over Facebook. For example, one partner may think that material on a partner’s profile is inappropriate or disrespectful to the nature of the relationship, while the other may simply view such content as a matter of entertainment and not worthy of concern (Fox et al. 2013). Relational conflict may also occur when individuals intentionally post content that may hurt a significant other. Such instances may include posting suggestive pictures that may offend a partner, writing flirtatious comments on another individual’s timeline, or neglecting to post one’s relationship status. The conflict that is generated by activity on SNS rarely remains in the online sphere for those in romantic relationships involving face- to-face connections (Samp and Palevitz 2008). Responses to Relational Transgressions Via Facebook Relational transgressions can result in a spectrum of emotional responses by the victim, who may feel anger, loss of self-esteem, sadness, and disappointment (Haden and Hojjat 2006). In response to perceived SNS transgressions, some may use SNS as an information gathering tool (Boyd and Ellison 2007). Acquiring information face-to-face about the state of one’s relationship or even how one’s partner feels can be a less than straightforward endeavor, as direct questions about the relationship are often ‘‘taboo’’ (Levine et al. 2006). In face-to-face contexts, Baxter and Wilmot (1984) observed that individuals often stra- tegically use ‘‘secret tests’’ to gather information about the state of a relationship, including as asking a third party about the relationship or hinting to a partner about the state of the relationship. Other tests may be more apparent, such as directness tests which utilize self- disclosure or direct communication about the problem or relationship. Social networking sites may serve as an appealing avenue for performing secret tests, as the medium allows for a unique means of information seeking that does not involve verbal interaction. For example, individuals can engage in the surveillance of a partner, a.k.a. Facebook stalking (Tokunaga 2011). Facebook stalking can function in two ways. A partner concerned about a potential relational transgression either online or in a face-to- face context can use social networking sites to gather evidence to either alleviate or confirm suspicions that a partner is spending