Managing Relational Transgressions As Revealed on Facebook: the Inﬂuence of Dependence Power on Verbal Versus Nonverbal Responses

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 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Dependence power is defined by the control a less dependent partner is perceived 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 relationship 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 maintenance). Dependence power was associated with perceptions of the threat of a transgression, the likelihood of confronting a partner face-to-face about the perceived transgression, and engaging in Facebook monitoring behavior after a perceived transgression. 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-presentation 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 relationship 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 opportunities 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 decisions 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 transgressions 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 time or engaging in questionable conversa- tions and actions with another. Alternatively, stalking may simply be a maintenance mechanism used to keep track of the events and experiences of a significant other and to see how the relationship is reported to others. Palevitz and Samp’s (2008) study revealed several responses to transgressions in the SNS context. Participants indicated that these transgressions were handled by Facebook stalking to gather more information (28 %), confronting a partner for clarification (64 %), and rationalization of the transgression (8 %). This last response to SNS transgressions echoes the sentiment of many respondents, who also perceived the severity of these online transgressions to be somewhat less than that of a face-to-face relational transgression. 123 480 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

Several respondents also indicated that they responded to these online transgressions by defriending their significant other, blocking the significant other temporarily, seeking advice from friends, or disabling one’s account altogether (a.k.a. ‘‘Facebook suicide’’). While some participants did use confrontation as a response to these events, the alternative responses may indicate some sort of inaction or silencing as a means of relational pres- ervation and maintenance. That individuals use SNS to respond to partners’ transgressions as revealed over SNS highlights that SNS affords an expanded means by which to engage in relationship maintenance. In managing transgressions committed via SNS, individuals have the opportunity to utilize the very technology where the transgression was revealed. For example, individuals faced with a partner’s transgression may Facebook stalk a partner’s page for hours, alter information on their own profile in response to a partner’s behaviors, de-friend or block the partner, or in the ultimate case, commit ‘‘Facebook suicide’’ by deleting one’s account (Stieger et al. 2013). However, individuals also have the choice to manage transgressions in the more traditional manner of face-to-face interaction. To account for variations in decisions to confront transgressions committed via Face- book in face-to-face interactions versus nonverbally on Facebook, we suggest that dependence power may be able to predict some communicative responses.

Considering the Potential Inﬂuence of Dependence Power on Perceptions of Verbal Versus Nonverbal Responses to a Partner’s SNS Behavior

Relational transgressions have been examined through the lens of the investment model (Guerrero and Bachman 2008), dependence power (Samp and Solomon 2001), expectancy violations theory (Guerrero and Bachman 2006), and attachment theory (Feeney 2005), yet little research has examined perceptions of and communicative decisions about relational transgressions committed via SNS. We believe that decisions about how to respond to a relational partner’s negative behavior may be influenced by the fear of a negative reaction from one’s partner as well as feelings of powerlessness in a relationship. The concept of dependence power explains why some partners in relationships choose to not report feelings of dissatisfaction or grievances to a partner. Dependence power is not an explicit power, but instead a perceptual phenomenon defined by the perceived control a less dependent partner has over a more dependent individual (Samp and Solomon 2001; Sol- omon and Samp 1998). The interactive impact of three perceptions define dependence power: an individual’s commitment to the relationship, plus his or her perceptions about a partner’s commitment, as well as the partner’s alternatives that could be as good or better to remaining in the current pairing (Samp and Solomon 2001). When an individual is highly committed to a current romantic relationship, perceives the partner is less committed and has significant relational alternatives, that individual will perceive that a partner is high in dependence power. Alternatively, when one perceives that he or she is less committed than a partner and has viable relational alternatives, he or she will deem oneself high in dependence power. The perception of dependence power grants individuals greater agency in managing relationship formation or dissolution (Bradac et al. 1994), attenuates the relational impact of powerful individuals’ negative relational behaviors (Samp and Solomon 2001), and facilitates the expression of displeasure over a partner’s actions (Cloven and Roloff 1993). Individuals who are less committed to relationships than are their partners are less likely to worry about losing or damaging such relationships, as they do not value them highly. This effect is particularly heightened when individuals who lack relational commitment also 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 481 perceive that they have a number of good relational alternatives (Cloven and Roloff 1993). On the other hand, individuals with poor alternatives whose partners are uncommitted or have good alternatives are likely to appraise both their own (Samp and Solomon 2001) and partners’ (Cloven and Roloff 1993) negative relational behaviors more severely. By rationalizing and minimizing the severity of a transgression, dependent individuals may act to preserve the relationship at the cost of communicating concern or hurt.

Dependence Power and Perceptions of Transgressions Via SNS

Perceptions of dependence power have the potential to magnify concerns about the relational consequences of expectancy violating behaviors within a relationship (Samp and Solomon 2001). As an individual feels as though his or her partner is less dependent and committed to the relationship, the implications of an interaction may take on threatening connotations as partners may be seen as being readily willing to terminate a relationship. In the scope of SNS, an individual perceiving that a partner has dependence power may ﬁnd a partner’s ambiguous photos or timeline postings particularly threatening to relational tranquility. In other words, a posting that may seem ‘‘neutral’’ or nonthreatening to some individuals may actually be perceived as quite threatening to others. We argue that the individual who perceives a partner is less committed to the relationship and has relational alternatives, may experience unease about the intentions of their signiﬁcant other as well as the status of the relationship itself. H1 Dependence power will be negatively associated with the perceived threat of a dating partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook.

Dependence Power and Responses to Transgressions Via SNS

Research indicates that the perception of a partner’s dependence power exerts a chilling effect on decisions to use verbal face-to-face behavior to confront a partner about his or her behavior (Cloven and Roloff 1993). Because a partner high in dependence power is seen as having the ability to easily leave the relationship, individuals low in dependence power may elect to downplay concerns or keep complaints to themselves in order to preserve the relationship (Solomon and Samp 1998). This process of rationalization is particularly relevant to SNS, sites such as Facebook all of the opportunity for individuals to avoid confronting a partner about his or her behavior, but allow for individuals to monitor the Facebook activity of the partner, relatively ‘‘beneath the radar.’’ Further, because individuals low in dependence power experience concern for sparking termination of their relationship by communicating complaints or frustrations, these individuals should also be more likely to avoid directly confronting a partner about the behavior, instead preferring to monitor the behavior of the partner on Facebook. Formally: H2 Dependence power will be positively associated with the use of face-to-face communication after a dating partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook. SNS also allows for a variety of means by which to respond to a partner’s content without a face-to-face discussion. With Facebook, one of the frequently used strategies for dealing with problematic relational behaviors is surveillance via Facebook stalking (Samp and Palevitz 2008; Tokunaga 2011). Although it is inherently an information seeking behavior, the use of this tactic as a coping mechanism for relational transgressions over

123 482 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

SNS may serve as a safe means by which to manage a partner’s behavior without the relational risk of discussion. We refer to such actions as monitoring. While Facebook stalking is a passive form of nonconfrontation, Facebook affords other means by which to manage a perceived partner’s transgression without an explicit verbal acknowledgement of the transgression. For example, individuals faced with a partner’s transgression may also alter information on their own profile in response to a partner’s behavior, de-friend or block the partner, or in the ultimate case, commit ‘‘Facebook suicide’’ by deleting their account. When thinking about decisions about face-to-face versus SNS management of transgressions, it seems likely that perceptions of relational power should influence communicative decisions, particularly in ways that allow individuals to address the transgression, with little direct confrontation with the partner. Specifically, H3 Dependence power will be negatively associated with nonverbally monitoring a dating partner’s Facebook profile after a dating partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook. H4 Dependence power will be negatively associated with nonverbally managing Face- book-related behaviors after a dating partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook profile.

Method

Five hundred undergraduates (290 females and 210 males) were recruited from communication courses at a large southeastern university. All were required to use Facebook and to be involved in a romantic relationship at the time of data collection. Data were collected in two phases. In phase one, 250 individuals (168 female and 82 male) completed a paper- and-pencil version of the questionnaire. In phase two, 250 individuals (122 female and 128 male) completed an on-line version of the questionnaire hosted on a private server. The two samples were indistinguishable from one another in terms of age (Sample 1 M = 20.34, SD = 2.18, Sample 2 M = 20.26, SD = 2.11, t (498) = .67, n.s.), relationship length (Sample 1 M = 14.83, SD = 16.64 months, Sample 2 M = 13.98, SD = 14.98 months, t (498) = .60, n.s.), or daily time spent on Facebook (Sample 1 M = 2.32, SD = 2.11 h, Sample 2 M = 2.41, SD = 1.98, t (498) = .29, n.s.). All participants received extra credit in a communication course in exchange for their participation.

Procedures and Measures

After completing consent forms, participants completed demographic items, measures of dependence power, and general Facebook use. To capture variance in participants’ perceived relational transgressions, they viewed one of two randomly-assigned relationally- threatening Facebook behaviors. Threat was conceptually defined as a behavior that would be questioned as potentially challenging the current status quo of a relationship (e.g., suggesting additional meetings, relationship opportunities, a future connection); this definition and examples were pretested with a sample of 100 undergraduates. The high threat condition (n = 130) featured a screenshot of an ambiguous message on a Facebook timeline, reading ‘‘I really enjoyed last night.’’ The low threat condition message (n = 120) contained a screenshot of a message low in ambiguity, reading, ‘‘We have not talked in a while. I hope to catch up soon.’’ All stimuli were pretested with 100 individuals 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 483 drawn from undergraduate communication classes and were deemed to be appropriate to the Facebook context and distinct in threat. Via a paper questionnaire or computer screen, participants were presented with a screenshot of a hypothetical partner’s Facebook page that was high in potential threat to the relationship or low in potential threat. Analyses indicated significant effects for the influence of threat condition on perceptions of threat, F(3, 496) = 29.41, p \ .001, g2 = .15; monitoring F(3,496) = 13.50, p \ .0001, g2 = .08; and face-to-face responses, F(3, 496) = 23.64, p \ .0001, g2 = .13, but not maintenance responses, F(3, 496) = 2.33, n.s. Therefore, tests of hypotheses included the threat condition (high versus low) as a covariate.1 Survey items were completed on a 6-point (1 = strongly disagree;6= strongly agree) Likert-type scale. The two samples were indistinguishable on the variables related to the test of hypotheses.

Dependence Power

A combined effect of respondent commitment, perceived partner commitment, and perceived partner alternatives comprise dependence power (Solomon and Samp 1998). Four items assessed respondent commitment (e.g.: ‘‘I would like this relationship to last for a long time’’; M = 2.29, SD = 1.26, a = .89). Four items measured perceived partner commitment (e.g., ‘‘My partner is very committed to me’’; M = 2.15, SD = 1.130, a = .92). Perceptions of a partner’s alternatives were measured by four items (e.g.: ‘‘Our relationship is a lot better than other relationships my partner could have’’; M = 4.57, SD = 1.07, a = .70).

Facebook Use

Participants completed Ross et al.’s (2009) 9-item measure of Facebook use attitudes (e.g.: ‘‘Facebook is a part of my everyday activity,’’ M = 4.05, SD = 1.19, a = .90).

Judgments About Hypothetical Relational Transgressions

The last section of the survey had participants respond to a scenario presented as a hypothetical screenshot of a partner’s Facebook proﬁle.

Perceived Threat

Six items assessed threat from the transgression (e.g.: ‘‘If I saw this photo/message on my partner’s proﬁle it would be threatening’’; M = 3.46, SD = 1.54, a = .89).

Responses to Perceived Relational Transgressions

We created items to assess responses to perceived Facebook transgressions; items are in Table 1. Using exploratory factor analysis, an assessment of Eigen values, and guided by the

1 A ‘‘medium’’ condition was also included in the study, whereby participants were presented with the hypothetical partner transgression via a posting to a hypothetical timeline or a timeline picture. For the two medium conditions, the high threat condition (n = 124) contained an ambiguous photo that depicted either a male or female partner, with the faces blurred out, laughing together in a social setting, and the lower threat condition (n = 126) depicted two individuals in the same frame. All pictures presented to respondents were cross sex. There were no signiﬁcant effects for medium of presentation. 123 484 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

‘‘60-40’’ rule whereby no one item could load on a factor at less than .60 and could not cross- load on another factor higher than .40, the items loaded onto three factors. The ﬁrst subscale to emerge was maintenance responses, which reﬂected indirect and often nonverbal efforts in addressing the Facebook post (M = 5.07, SD = 1.50, a = .79). A second monitoring factor included items related to ‘‘Facebook stalking’’ (M = 2.90, SD = 1.53, a = .87). Lastly, two items measured face-to-face responses (M = 2.87, SD = 1.82, a = .97).

Results

Examination of Potential Covariates

Bivariate correlations indicated that Facebook use was signiﬁcantly negatively associated with perceived threat, r(498) = -.13, p \ .05 and monitoring after a perceived transgression, r(498) = -.12, p \ .05, therefore, Facebook use was included in examinations of the hypotheses. No differences were observed for participant sex or relationship length.

Examination of Hypotheses

All hypotheses were examined via hierarchical regression, where scenario ambiguity (high = 1, low = 0) was interested as a covariate on the ﬁrst step. The dependence power measures of respondent commitment, perceived partner commitment, perceived partner alternatives, as well as Facebook use were entered on the second step. On the third step, all two-way combinations of the variables entered in step two were entered. Next, all three- way interactions were entered on the fourth step. The three-way interaction between respondent commitment, perceived partner commitment, perceived partner alternatives provides insight into the composite inﬂuence of the dependence power on responses to SNS behavior.

Dependence Power and Perceived Threat

As indicated in Table 2, results were in line with the prediction that dependence power will be negatively associated with the perceived threat of a partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook. In other words, those low in perceived dependence power were more likely to perceive a partner’s transgression as threatening. To evaluate the form of the three- way interaction, procedures described by Aiken and West (1991) were used to compute the slope (via centered mean) for each predictor variable within all possible high and low combinations of the other two independent variables. Based on these procedures the most comprehensive explanation for the pattern of effects regarding perceived transgression threat was indicated in the examination of the slopes for respondent commitment and partner commitment at high levels of perceived partner alternatives. Table 3 summarizes the slopes for this analysis. Speciﬁcally, when perceived partner alternatives to the relationship were high, respondents deemed a partner’s proﬁle content as threatening when they were highly committed to the relationship, no matter what a partner’s level of commitment (low, average, or high). Of note, there was also a main effect for Facebook use, such that those who endorsed more frequent Facebook use perceived that the transgressions where less threatening, however, Facebook use was not associated with significant higher-level interactions.

123 ovra ea 21)3:7–9 485 38:477–493 (2014) Behav Nonverbal J Table 1 Communicative responses to Facebook transgressions Item Maintenance responses Monitoring responses Face-to-face responses

…defriend him/her .95 -.06 -.06 …send him/her a message over Facebook to let my partner know I as unhappy about it .76 .27 .12 …cancel my account .95 -.10 -.09 …block my partner temporarily .95 -.04 -.09 …post a comment on it to let him or her know I was unhappy .84 .11 .06 …restrict his or her ability to see my profile .96 -.05 -.03 …change information on my own profile to see what he or she would do .89 .15 -.02 …no longer want to be on Facebook .87 .02 .07 …send a message asking him or her about it .70 .32 .20 …try and get a response out of him or her by changing my own profile information .87 .17 .01 …no longer be friends with him or her on Facebook .97 -.07 -.04 …take down my own profile .97 -.07 -.08 …change my privacy settings to temporarily not let him or her see my account .96 -.04 -.04 …talk to him of her on Facebook chat about it .73 .32 .07 …terminate my account .96 -.08 -.09 …temporarily block my partner from being able to see my own profile .97 -.06 -.04 …react by no longer being his or her Facebook friend .98 -.07 -.07 …change my status to reflect how I felt about it .81 .29 .05 …Facebook stalk my partner’s profile to try and get more information .03 .83 .13 …probably check the profile of the other person for information -.23 .78 .28 …not say anything to them (reverse scored) -.08 .22 .93 …say something to them the next time that I saw them -.06 .21 .93

123 All items were preceded with the stem ‘‘If I saw this photo/message on my partner’s proﬁle, I would…’’ Underlined values indicate factor loadings per subscale 486 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

Dependence Power and Face-to-Face responses

H2 posited that dependence power will be positively associated with the use of face-to-face responses after a perceived partner’s transgression as revealed on Facebook. As reported in Table 4, dependence power was positively associated with the use of face-to-face responses. In short, those who perceived themselves to be higher in dependence power were more likely to engage a partner face-to-face about his or her Facebook behavior. An evaluation of the three-way interaction, as summarized in Table 5, indicated that the most comprehensive description was summarized when partner alternatives where low; under this circumstance respondents were more likely to confront a partner face-to-face when respondents were low or average in commitment to the relationship and partners were perceived to be committed to the relationship at average or high levels.

Dependence Power and Monitoring

In line with H3, dependence power was negatively associated with monitoring a partner after a perceived transgression (see Table 6). Table 7 summarizes the slopes for the three- way interaction, that were best explained when partner alternatives where high; respondents were more likely to engage in monitoring behaviors when respondents were average or high in commitment to the relationship and partners were perceived to be committed to the relationship at low or average levels.

Dependence Power and Maintenance

Contrary to our prediction, dependence power was not associated with maintenance responses after a transgression. As indicated in Table 8, there was one signiﬁcant main effect: perceived partner commitment was negatively associated with maintenance responses. No other associations were signiﬁcant.

Discussion

Social networking is now an important way of maintaining and fostering relationships, and for some, an integral part of everyday interactions with social circles. Although these sites make maintaining relationships almost as easy as clicking buttons, some members of SNS are experiencing the relational ramiﬁcations of online networking. As SNS affords users multiple ways of utilizing technology to manage their relationships, some SNS users may never experience any form of negative effects from membership, while others can encounter SNS as a new found source of relational uncertainty and conﬂict. This study hoped to explain these disparities by using dependence power to predict perceptions and both face-to-face and nonverbal (via monitoring and maintenance behaviors on the site) responses to relational transgressions committed on Facebook.

Dependence Power and Responses to Transgressions Via SNS

Dependence power, which is deﬁned by the interactive effect of a respondent’s commitment to his or her relationship, perceptions of a partner’s relationship commitment, and perceptions of a partner’s relational alternatives, was associated with perceptions of the threat of a transgression, the likelihood of confronting a partner face-to-face about the 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 487

Table 2 Dependence power and Facebook use on perceived transgression threat RR2 R2D B

Step 1 Covariate: Transgression ambiguity .37 .14 .14*** Step 2 Main effects .41 .17 .03** Commitment .24*** Partner commitment -.19** Partner alternatives .07 Facebook use -.10* Step 3 Two-way interactions .34 .19 .02 Commitment 9 partner commitment .31 Commitment 9 partner alternatives -.23 Commitment 9 Facebook use -.42 Partner commitment 9 partner alternatives .49** Partner commitment 9 Facebook use .34 Partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .08 Step 4 Three-way interactions .47 .22 .04*** Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 partner alternatives -.54** Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 Facebook use .09 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .13 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use -.12

N = 500 * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 3 Slopes for the regression of respondent commitment and partner commitment on perceived transgression threat when perceived partner alternatives are high Perceived partner commitment Respondent commitment

Low Average High

Low .10 .24 .39** Average .04 .23 .36** High .05 .22 .37**

N = 500 perceived transgression, and engaging in Facebook-monitoring behavior after a perceived transgression. Dependence power was not significantly associated with maintenance responses. The finding that respondents low in dependence power (meaning, that they perceived that partners had more dependence power) were more likely to deem a partner’s transgression on Facebook as threatening is counter to prior research on dependence power processes in face-to-face contexts. This suggests that individuals low in dependence power tend to minimize a partner’s irritating behavior, so as to not ‘‘rock the boat’’ and to challenge the continuation of the relationship by confronting the more powerful partner (Solomon and Samp 1998). However, as SNS such as Facebook allow for tangible evidence of a partner’s poor behavior (in this study, via a timeline posting or picture), the potential threat of a partner’s behavior may be more difficult to avoid. Further, because 123 488 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

Table 4 Dependence power and Facebook use on face-to-face transgression responses RR2 R2D B

Step 1 Covariate: Transgression ambiguity .16 .03 .03*** Step 2 Main effects .37 .14 .11*** Commitment .17*** Partner commitment .24** Partner alternatives .07 Facebook use -.06 Step 3 Two-way interactions .43 .19 .05*** Commitment 9 partner commitment .02 Commitment 9 partner alternatives -.13 Commitment 9 Facebook use -.17 Partner commitment 9 partner alternatives .29** Partner commitment 9 Facebook use .22** Partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .09 Step 4 Three-way interactions .45 .20 .01 Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 partner alternatives .17* Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 Facebook use .04 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .04 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use -.11

N = 500 * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 5 Slopes for the regression of respondent commitment and partner commitment on perceived transgression threat when perceived partner alternatives are low Perceived partner commitment Respondent commitment

Low Average High

Low .07 .11 .11 Average .20* .17* .06 High .26** .18* .04

N = 500 evidence of a partner’s behavior is visible to other ‘‘friends,’’ it may also be more challenging to downplay a partner’s actions (Muscanell et al. 2013). The results of this study highlight a distinction in how individuals respond to the perceived transgression of a partner via Facebook based on perceptions of dependence power. Speciﬁcally, those who perceived that they had greater dependence power in their relationship were more likely to directly confront a partner face-to-face. However, when dependence power was reversed (a partner was perceived to have greater dependence power), individuals low in dependence power were likely to use indirect, nonverbal strategies of monitoring the partner’s behavior on the site. Although dependence power was not signiﬁcantly associated with maintenance responses, we did observe that when partners were perceived to be committed, individuals were less likely to respond to a perceived transgression by restricting access to a partner. Overall, these results support the 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 489

Table 6 Dependence power and Facebook use on monitoring transgression responses RR2 R2D B

Step 1 Covariate: Transgression ambiguity .17 .03 .03*** Step 2 Main effects .28 .08 .05*** Commitment .01 Partner commitment -.25*** Partner alternatives -.09 Facebook use -.09 Step 3 Two-way interactions .35 .12 .04** Commitment 9 partner commitment -.26*** Commitment 9 partner alternatives -.12 Commitment 9 Facebook use -.10 Partner commitment 9 partner alternatives .03 Partner commitment 9 Facebook use .10 Partner alternatives 9 Facebook use -.03 Step 4 Three-way interactions .36 .13 .01 Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 partner alternatives -.19* Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 Facebook use .04 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .02 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use -.01

N = 500 * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 7 Slopes for the regression of respondent commitment and partner commitment on monitoring after a transgression when partner alternatives are high Perceived partner commitment Respondent commitment

Low Average High

Low .07 .16* .15* Average .06 .17* .06 High .05 .07 .11

N = 500 notion that dependence power perceptions (or components thereof) inﬂuence whether individuals directly confront a partner or use more indirect, subtle means. In the context of SNS, the indirect means of responding to a partner’s behavior were largely nonverbal, either as observations of the partner’s proﬁle or by restricting access. Here—actions may speak louder than words.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

With its strengths, this study also had some weaknesses. First, although our sample was certainly familiar and enmeshed in the SNS context, a college sample is merely representative of that subsection of the general population. Recently, the fastest growing population of Facebook users is adults over the age of 35 (Facebook 2014). Thus, the responses 123 490 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

Table 8 Dependence power and Facebook use on maintenance transgression responses RR2 R2D B

Step 1 Covariate: Transgression ambiguity .04 .01 .00 Step 2 Main effects .37 .14 .14*** Commitment -.13? Partner commitment -.26*** Partner alternatives .00 Facebook use -.02 Step 3 Two-way interactions .39 .15 .01 Commitment 9 partner commitment -.10 Commitment 9 partner alternatives -.11 Commitment 9 Facebook use .12 Partner commitment 9 partner alternatives -.11 Partner commitment 9 Facebook use -.12 Partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .07 Step 4 Three-way interactions .41 .17 .02? Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 partner alternatives -.14 Commitment 9 partner commitment 9 Facebook use .15 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use .03 Commitment 9 partner alternatives 9 Facebook use -.16?

N = 500 ? p = .05; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001 of this college sample may not be representative of these individuals or even the relationships that are maintained by members of this demographic. Because of the relative significance of these sites to different segments of the general population, the results of this study are hard to apply to relationships across the wide range of Facebook users. We also thought that that high frequency of Facebook users’ interactions may hold a greater significance to interpersonal relationships for them than someone who is limited in time spent on the site. Perhaps the impact of Facebook use was diminished in this study as we required all respondents to use Facebook as a condition of participation. Accordingly, we did not capture those individuals who may have once used Facebook, but had committed Facebook suicide. Also, our sample had a significantly higher than average level of Facebook use (M = 4.05, SD = 1.19, one sample t(499 = 10.3348, p \ .0001). Notably, Hand et al. (2013) found no association between time spent on Facebook and one’s own relational satisfaction and perceptions of intimacy. However, perceptions of relationship intimacy were negatively associated with a partner’s time spent on Facebook. Therefore, particularly when examining relationship judgments that are tied to perceptions of a partner’s relational interest (such in the case of dependence power), future research should consider respondent perceptions of the frequency of a partner’s SNS activity as an important component of relational health and responses to relationship issues. Additionally, an existing measure of both verbal and nonverbal responses to relational transgressions via Facebook was not available at the time of data collection. While the items for face-to-face and monitoring responses were reliable and face valid, our measure of maintenance clearly needs more refinement, as we focused on more extreme types of maintenance such as defriending a partner in the face of a transgression. It is certainly 123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 491 possible that maintenance in the context of SNS may involve more subtle behaviors directed towards relationship partners. For example, we focused on some serious actions such as Facebook stalking or suicide. Indeed, admitting to such behaviors may suffer from a reporting bias, as they may be deemed as extreme or childlike despite being readily employed as responses to SNS transgressions. If there remains a stigma attached to such online behaviors, assessment of such behaviors will continue to be a challenge. Similarly, it is possible that individuals faced with concern about a relational partner’s actions may engage more subtle actions that were undetectable in our study. It is also possible that some of the options for responses to a relational transgression that we presented respondents were too extreme. We assumed that the stimuli we presented participants were reflective of behavior that all would consider to be a transgression. Unfortunately, we do not have measures confirming such judgments. Future research should work to refine variations concerning what people consider transgressions committed via SNS. As well, future studies must not only focus on continuing to account for the conflict that stems from these sites, but also on how to accurately measure these behaviors. Finally, while this marks an important initial examination of how perceived power dynamics impact judgments about and responses to relational transgressions committed via SNS, a host of relational judgments and processes, may impact an understanding of how one responds to relational transgressions, including perceptions of investment (Guerrero and Bachman 2008), attachment (Feeney 2005), and general expectations for appropriate behavior (Guerrero and Bachman 2006). Clearly, this is an area ripe for future research.

Conclusion

This project highlighted that perceptions of a partner’s greater power encourages individuals to utilize Facebook as a means to manage perceived transgressions. Thus, for lower power individuals, Facebook appears to afford users more flexibility in managing their relationships. Yet as research on the effects of SNS on relational maintenance and relational conflict is still lagging (Bryant et al. 2010), many questions remain. In particular, although SNS sites are often hailed as blessings for the maintenance of relationships, a key question concerns how individuals sort through the potentially overwhelming volume of continually growing information about a partner’s activities available via SNS and still maintain a ‘‘healthy’’ face-to-face relationship. Our research suggests that some of the ways that individuals may utilize these sites for maintenance is far more negative, via monitoring behaviors, which could easily be compared to spying or surveillance (Toku- naga 2011). However, the nature of spying may differ depending on context. An important area of future research is to determine if individuals perceive Facebook stalking compa- rable to following a partner around to assess the health of the relationship. Additionally, future research should continue to explore how individuals manage their relationships when one partner believes that it is important to post about his or her daily activities related to the relationship, while a partner does not. Such differences are a serious area of potential conflict that can shape the future of relationships managed both face-to-face and in the electronic sphere. To the extent that this project has illustrated the impact of relational judgments on responses to Facebook behavior, we hope that research will continue in this domain.

123 492 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1984). ‘‘Secret tests’’: Social strategies for acquiring information about the state of the relationship. Human Communication Research, 11, 171–201. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958. 1984.tb00044.x. Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Blair, K. L., & Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 769–791. doi:10. 1177/0265407508096695. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Bradac, J. J., Weimann, J. M., & Schaefer, K. (1994). The language of control in interpersonal communication. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Weimann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 91–108). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bryant, E. M., Marmo, J., & Ramirez, A, Jr. (2010). A functional approach to social networking sites. In L. Webb & K. Wright (Eds.), Interpersonal and computer-mediated communication. New York: Peter Lang. Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1993). The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 199–219. Facebook. (2014). Key facts. Retrieved June 21, 2014, from http://newsroom.fb.com/. Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253–271. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00114.x. Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 30, 772–795. doi:10.1177/0265407512468370. Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2006). Associations among relational maintenance behaviors, attachment-style categories, and attachment dimensions. Communication Studies, 57(3), 341–361. Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. (2008). Communication following relational transgressions in dating relationships: An investment-model explanation. Southern Communication Journal, 73(1), 4–23. doi:10.1080/10417940701815592. Haden, S. C., & Hojjat, M. (2006). Aggressive responses to betrayal: Type of relationship, victim’s sex, and nature of aggression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 101–116. doi:10.1177/ 0265407506060181. Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, 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. Hernandez, M. (2008, April 4). How do you know your love is real? Check Facebook. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/04/facebook.love/index.html?iref=hpmostpop. Levine, T. R., Aune, K. S., & Park, H. S. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships: Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly, 54(4), 465–486. doi:10.1080/ 01463370601036515. Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). Responses to relational transgressions: Hurt, anger, and Sometimes forgiveness. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 243–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Muscanell, N. L., Guadagno, R. E., Rice, L., & Murphy, S. (2013). Don’t it make my brown eyes green? An analysis of Facebook use and romantic jealousy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 237–242. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0411. Ross, C., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., Simmering, R., & Orr, R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 578–586. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2008.12.024. Palevitz, C. E. & Samp (2008). Conflict-inducting SNS behaviors in close friendships and romantic relationships: Implications for relationship maintenance (Unpublished manuscript), Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, GA: Athens. Samp, J. A., & Palevitz, C. E. (2008, November). Dating and romantic relationships: Taking tradition into the future with a computer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego.

123 J Nonverbal Behav (2014) 38:477–493 493

Samp, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2001). Coping with problematic events in dating relationships: The inﬂuence of dependence power on severity appraisals and decisions to communicate. Western Journal of Communication, 65(2), 138–160. doi:10.1080/10570310109374697. Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1998). Power and problem appraisal: Perceptual foundations of the chilling effect in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 191–210. doi:10.1177/ 0265407598152004. Sprecher, S. (2011). The inﬂuence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 17, 1–15. Stieger, S., Burger, C., Bohn, M., & Voracek, M. (2013). Who commits virtual identity suicide? Differences in privacy concerns, Internet addiction, and personality between Facebook users and quitters. Cy- berpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(9), 629–634. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0323. Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705–713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014. Tong, S., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC. In K. B. Wright & L. W. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 98–118). New York: Peter Lang. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the Affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189.

123 Copyright of Journal of Nonverbal Behavior is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.