Social networking infidelity: Understanding the impact and exploring rules and boundaries in intimate partner relationships
by
Jaclyn D. Cravens, B.S., M.S.
A Dissertation
In
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Jason B. Whiting, Ph.D. ---Chair
Doug Smith, Ph. D. Nicole Springer, Ph.D. Katherine Hertlein, Ph.D.
Dominick J. Casadonte, Jr. Interim Dean of the Graduate School
August, 2013
© 2013 Jaclyn D. Cravens Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Acknowledgments
“We don’t accomplish anything in this world alone…and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads from one to another that creates something.”
Sandra Day O’Connor
The completion of this dissertation represents a journey that was five years in the making; I have no doubt however, that this project and what its conclusion represents is something that was a lifetime in the making, influenced by each thread in the tapestry of my life’s journey. This means I have many people to recognize and share my gratitude with for their role in helping me weave this project together.
First and foremost I have to thank my mother, Dana Binder, for teaching me that passion should always be the driving force behind my life pursuits. It is because of you that I was confident in pursuing a career that both challenges and rewards me daily. My hope is that I can influence others’ lives as positively as you have influenced mine. To my family, despite an ever-increasing geographical distance, your love and support has always been felt.
To my major advisor, mentor, and chair, Dr. Jason Whiting, I will forever be grateful for your endless support during my time at Texas Tech--both near and far. Over the past three years you have supported all of my pursuits and helped me establish my career above and beyond your professional obligations. Your support, guidance, and kindness created an environment where I could succeed. Most importantly, thank you for
ii Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013 reminding me that at the most difficult times I need only to breathe. It has been a gift to work for and with someone who shares value in maintaining a balance in life.
To my Texas Tech dissertation committee: Dr. Douglas Smith and Dr. Nicole
Springer thank you both for all the investments you have made in my personal life and professional career. I could not have asked to pursue my doctorate under a more talented, compassionate, and dedicated group of faculty. I have learned so much under both of your instruction and I hope I can recreate the same learning environment that you provided me at Tech with my own students.
Dr. Katherine Hertlein, I am so grateful that you agreed to be a part of this process. Knowing you were right down the hall was a saving reassurance during this process. Additionally, thank you for paving the way into the study of couple and family technology. Not everyone can say that their dissertation committee was made up of one of the founding researchers in their area of study—I feel privileged to be able to say I did.
As this project comes to a close, I have no doubt this will be the first of many future collaboration.
Five years of graduate school are coming to a close and I fail to find the correct words to express thanks to my partner and best friend, Justin Pickens. I have no doubt that Texas Tech was exactly where I was supposed to be, for it brought me to you. Your love, support, and friendship will always outshine any academic accomplishment, for this
I feel truly lucky. Thank you for your willingness to go wherever this journey takes us; I cannot wait to see what the next chapter holds.
iii
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Finally, to Dr. Keeley Pratt, who provided me with my first glimpse into the world of Couple and Family Therapy, and Dr. Mark White, who was the first to entertain and support my pursuit of Facebook research, your friendship and mentorship have far exceeded the obligations of my time at East Carolina University. Thank you for laying the foundation of my success as a CFT. I know a large part of my professional success is the result of your unyielding support.
iv
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...... ii Abstract ...... viii List of Tables ...... x Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter ...... 1 Internet and Relationships...... 1 Theoretical Orientation ...... 5 Ecological influences ...... 6 Changes to structure ...... 6 Changes to process ...... 6 Overview of dissertation ...... 8 Purpose of the Proposed Studies ...... 8 Significance of the Proposed Studies ...... 9 Chapter 2: Clinical Implications of Facebook Infidelity ...... 11 Abstract ...... 11 Introduction ...... 12 Defining Offline and Online Infidelity ...... 14 Defining Facebook Infidelity ...... 15 Internet Infidelity: Is it cheating? ...... 17 Facebook: Does it facilitate affairs? ...... 19 Motivational Factors for Internet Infidelity ...... 20 Motivational Factors for Facebook Infidelity ...... 21 Impact of Internet Infidelity ...... 22 Impact of Facebook Infidelity ...... 24 Online Boundaries and Rules...... 25 Facebook Boundaries and Rules ...... 26 Discussion and Implications ...... 27 Clinical Implications ...... 28
v
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Future Research ...... 31 Chapter 3: Facebook infidelity: A story completion method...... 34 Abstract ...... 34 Introduction ...... 36 Purpose of Study ...... 37 Method ...... 38 Data Collection ...... 38 Sample Characteristics ...... 39 Measures ...... 41 Demographics ...... 41 Story completion method ...... 41 Data Analysis ...... 42 Results ...... 44 Interpretation of cue story ...... 44 Denial ...... 46 Just a friend ...... 46 It’s just online; it’s no big deal ...... 47 It’s just a joke ...... 48 Impact of social networking site on offline relationship ...... 50 Trust ...... 53 Fight or argue ...... 54 Gender differences in interpretation of cue story ...... 57 Discussion ...... 58 Clinical Implications ...... 61 Future Research ...... 63 Limitations ...... 64 Chapter 4: Firewalls for Facebook ...... 66 Abstract ...... 66
vi
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Rules and Guidelines of Relationships ...... 68 Impact of Relational Rules ...... 69 Setting Online Boundaries ...... 70 Purpose of the study ...... 72 Method ...... 73 Data Collection ...... 73 Sample Characteristics ...... 73 Measures ...... 76 Demographics ...... 76 Semi-structured interview ...... 76 Data Analysis ...... 76 Trustworthiness ...... 78 Results ...... 80 Identify online issue ...... 80 Past issue ...... 81 Inappropriate behaviors ...... 81 Online issue appraised ...... 82 Implicit rules ...... 83 Explicit rules ...... 84 Rule consensus ...... 85 Discuss online issue ...... 86 Providing evidence...... 86 Justifying behavior ...... 87 Explaining perspective ...... 88 Consequences ...... 90 Arguing ...... 90 Break-up ...... 90 Monitoring ...... 91
vii
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Resolution ...... 93 Monitoring ...... 93 Successful communication...... 94 Preventative barriers ...... 95 Discussion ...... 97 Comparison of previous literature ...... 97 Clinical Implications ...... 99 Future Research ...... 101 Limitations and conclusion ...... 102 Chapter 5: Conclusion...... 104 Major findings of dissertation ...... 104 Cohesion of dissertation ...... 106 Theoretical conceptualization ...... 107 Clinical and research implications ...... 108 Limitations ...... 110 List of References ...... 113 Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire...... 123 Appendix B: Story Completion Task (Versions A and B) ...... 125 Appendix C: Story completion codebook ...... 126 Appendix D: Semi-structured qualitative interview questions ...... 134 Appendix E: Recruitment Flyer ...... 136
viii
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Abstract
The Internet has become an integral aspect of our daily lives, playing a role in work, leisure and personal relationships. Over the past fifteen years, researchers and clinicians have noted the intricate ways that the Internet impacts our clients’ lives, creating both positive and negative outcomes. Recently, social networking sites, such as
Facebook and Twitter, have become increasingly popular, bringing with their popularity new issues. At this time there is a limited empirical understanding of the role social networking sites play in our clients’ lives and the impact these sites have on offline relationships. These gaps in the literature call attention to the need for research surrounding social networking sites.
The purpose of this dissertation is threefold. First, to review existing literature on
Internet infidelity, providing a discussion of where Facebook infidelity fits into the continuum of infidelity behaviors. Second, to answer four questions related to social networking site infidelity: (1) How do people interpret Facebook activities in regard to their offline intimate relationship? (2) What impact does Facebook have on offline relationships? (3) How might differences in gender impact perceptions of Facebook behaviors? (4) What similarities and differences exist between the proposed study’s findings and previous story completion studies on offline and online infidelity? The third aim was to explore how couples in committed relationships communicate about rules and boundaries for Internet behaviors. The research questions for this study are: (1) What rules and boundaries about social networking site use do couples have? (2) How are these
viii
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
rules and boundaries communicated in the relationship? (3) How are these rules and boundaries monitored? (4) How does age and familiarity with the Internet and social networking sites impact couples’ communication about rules and boundaries?
The format of the dissertation will be three articles corresponding to the three purposes mentioned above. Chapter 1 will introduce the articles and will provide support for the purpose of the studies. Chapter 2 is a conceptual paper that highlights where
Facebook infidelity fits on the continuum of offline and online infidelity behaviors.
Chapters 3 and 4 are empirical studies, with Chapter 3 explored how people interpret
Facebook behaviors in the context of their offline relationship, while Chapter 4 examined what rules and boundaries couples have for online behaviors and how these rules are communicated and monitored. Finally, Chapter 5 offers a concluding chapter highlighting how these three articles combined offer a collective understanding of how Facebook infidelity compares to other forms of infidelity, how people view the impact of Facebook infidelity behaviors in the context of intimate relationships, and how couples communicate rules and boundaries about social networking sites for their intimate partner relationships.
Key words: Facebook infidelity, Internet infidelity, Social networking sites
ix Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
List of Tables
1: Sample Characteristics ...... 39
2: Participating partner’s justification for Facebook behavior not being infidelity ...... 45
3: Explanation of invasion of privacy or snooping ...... 49
4: Interpret as ending relationship...... 52
5: Interpretations of the impact on offline relationship ...... 54
6: Interpretations of both partners’ emotional experience ...... 56
7: Sample Characteristics ...... 74
8: Internet and social networking site use ...... 75
x Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Chapter 1
Introduction
Internet & Relationships
The growth and wide spread availability of the Internet has been rewarding for society. Internet users quickly find information, efficiently send important work, and stay connected with friends and family. However, with rewards have also come risks. The
Internet makes it easy for users to access sexually explicit materials and develop private online relationships that can have damaging effects on offline relationships. A recent survey found that 40% of U.S. adults report using email to engage in flirtatious behavior with people they are attracted to (PEW Internet and American Life Project, 2006).
Another study found that approximately 20% of Internet users report participating in some form of online sexual activities (Cooper, Scherer, & Mathy, 2001). Further, the
Internet has allowed people to easily access material that fuels addictions including gambling, shopping, and pornography (Beutel et al., 2011; Griffiths, 2000; Goodman,
2001; Young, 1998).
The introduction of social networking sites (SNS) has brought additional benefits and challenges to users. Social networking sites have created a format for friends and family members to stay connected online in ways previously unavailable with other online formats. For example, not only can you log on and chat with users, you can visit profiles and find out where they have “checked-in,” view photo albums, “like” their status updates, and post comments on their walls. A recent study conducted by the PEW
1
Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Research Center found additional benefits beyond increased interaction from using
Facebook, such as being more trusting of others, having more close relationships, and getting more social support (PEW Research Center, 2012). For example, Facebook users who log on multiple times a day may in have closer relationships in general. The average
American has two people with whom they can discuss important issues; however, those with Facebook report nine percent more close ties in their social circle (Goo, 2012).
Although these benefits are numerous, social networking sites have also been found to have destructive effects on relationships.
The negative impact of Facebook on couples ranges from inappropriate behaviors to cruel posts between partners (Gershon, 2010; Lumpkin, 2012). In her interviews with individuals about social media and breakups, Gershon (2010) found that some couples reported deactivating their accounts to save their relationship based on their belief that
Facebook had turned them into jealous, distrustful people. Additionally, therapists have reported couples coming in for counseling constantly bringing up issues related to
Facebook, such as reconnecting with an ex to not mentioning the relationship on
Facebook at all (Bindley, 2011). More concerning, the American Academy of
Matrimonial Lawyers has seen a rise in the number of divorces citing the popular SNS
Facebook as a contributing factor. In 2008, 20% of divorce cases made mention of
Facebook, but 2011 saw a 13% increase, up to 33% (Lumpkin, 2012).
Research on Internet addiction has grown over the past fifteen years (e.g., Cooper,
1998; Cooper, Mansoon, Daneback, Tikkanen, & Ross, 2003; Greenfield, 1999;
Schneider, 2000; Young et al, 2000; Young, 1998). Despite this growth, Blumer, 2 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Hertlein, Smith and Allen (2013) report that the area is not substantive. A content analysis of the number of articles published about Internet related problems between the years of 1996 and 2010, found that out of the 17 journals they reviewed, only 79 out of
13,724, or .006% of articles included Internet or cyber issues as a research variable
(Blumer et al., 2013). Although research is still needed in this area, those studies that have been conducted usually highlight the negative impact Internet behaviors can have for individuals and relationships.
One damaging aspect of Internet addiction is the temptation to seek relationships outside of existing offline relationships. Greenfield (1999) found that 42% of compulsive
Internet users engaged in an affair while online. Because of this activity, these individuals are likely to experience problems in their own intimate relationship with diminished time spent together and issues with conflict resolution, emotional support, and intimacy
(Cooper et al., 2003; Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). At the interpersonal level, those who struggle with inappropriate Internet use may experience shame, guilt, rejection, anger, and other negative feelings (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). These issues often spill over and damage relationships.
Researchers have made efforts to explore the impact Internet abuse can have on the spouse, the relationship, and the entire family unit. Young et al. (2000) found that
53% of 396 self-reported Internet addicts reported serious relationship problems in their marriage or dating relationship. Additionally, Cooper, Scherer, Boies, and Gordon (1999) found that 32% of their participants acknowledged their online sexual pursuits had interfered with some aspect of their lives, including intimate relationships. 3 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
The nonparticipating partners of Internet addicts viewed inappropriate online behaviors as a threat to their relationship, believed that trust was violated, and felt that these online affairs were as emotionally damaging as offline affairs (Bridges, Bergner, &
Hesson-McInnis, 2003; Schneider, 2000; and Zitzman & Butler, 2005). Several studies explore the emotional experiences of the nonparticipating partner. Commonly identified emotions include: anger, depression, helplessness, shame, isolation, guilt, betrayal, loss of trust, hurt, rejection, abandonment, devastation, loneliness, humiliation, jealousy, loss of self-esteem, feeling unattractive, and resentment (King, 1999; Schneider, 2003;
Zitzman & Butler, 2005). These findings strongly suggest that online behaviors have a significant negative impact on the nonparticipating partner.
The results of these studies have several limitations. These studies narrowly conceptualize inappropriate Internet use as resulting from an addiction and tend to categorize the person struggling with inappropriate Internet use in a pathologizing way.
In addition, these studies focus on the impact of inappropriate Internet use based on one person’s self-report; either the participating partner (i.e., the one who engaged in inappropriate behaviors) or the non-participating partner (i.e., the partner of the one who engaged in inappropriate behaviors). Although many of these studies discuss the impact of this issue on the relationship as a whole, the researchers rely on one partner’s report to gather this information. For those studies that looked at the experiences of the nonparticipating partner, many studies were limited in generalizability because the majority of their participants were women (King, 1999; Schneider, 2000).
4 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Studies should be conducted that consider a wider range of Internet activities and both their positive and negative impacts at the interpersonal and intrapersonal level, as well as utilizing studies that focus on the relationship as a whole. It is clear that SNS can lead to negative impacts on intimate partner relationships but little empirical research has been conducted on this medium of the Internet. As these websites continue to grow in popularity it is imperative that researchers begin to explore how these sites compare to other forms of Internet activities. Lastly, how couples establish rules and boundaries for social networking site use is currently unknown. The following studies aimed to understand how individuals interpret social networking site (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
LinkedIn) activities in regards to their intimate partner relationship, in addition to exploring how couples communicate rules and boundaries for social networking site use in their intimate partner relationship.
Theoretical orientation
The conceptualization of these studies are based on the Couple and Family
Technology (CFT) Framework, previously titled Multitheoretical Model for understanding technology in couple and family life (Hertlein, 2012). This framework is based on the integration of three theories from the field of family sciences: the family ecological perspective, the structural-functional perspective, and the interaction- constructionist prospective. This model has three main components: ecological influences, changes to structure, and changes to process. These components will be reviewed, followed by a brief review of how the CFT Framework guided the studies.
5 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Ecological Influences
The ecological influences component is based on the family ecological perspective, which focuses on the environments impact on couples and families (Granic,
Dishion & Hollenstein, 2003). For the CFT Framework, ecological influences deal with how elements of the Internet and other technologies inspire the changes that occur in relationships. Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) detail seven factors, known as the “Seven
As” that represent individual ecological vulnerabilities, which were derived from existing studies on Internet infidelity. These seven “As” are: anonymity, accessibility, affordability, approximation, acceptability, accommodation, and ambiguity.
Changes to Structure
The second component of the CFT Framework, changes to structure, was derived from the structural-functional perspective, which focuses on how families organize or structure themselves to meet their needs (Johnson, 1972; Hertlein, 2012). Hertlein (2012) identifies that with the incorporation of technology into families and other relationships, the changes to structure component looks at how rules, boundaries, and communication is redefined and how roles of individuals shift. When conceptualizing how technology causes changes to the structure of relationships, three areas can be evaluated: redefinition of relational rules, redefinition of boundaries, and redefinition of roles.
Changes to Process
The third and final component of the CFT Framework is based on the interaction- constructionist perspective, which focuses on the development of relationships and how people interact with one another through communication, behavior, gestures, and rituals 6 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
(Berger & Kellner, 1970; Hertlein, 2012). In relation to changes to process, technology is something that the individual users define how it is used. Hertlein (2012) identifies specific areas that impact changes to process:
Specific effects on family process include a redefinition of intimacy (self-
disclosures and nature of online communication), it modifies the relationship
formation and initiation processes (projection process), and inspires changes in
how relationships are maintained (timing or tempo of relationship, commitment,
communication with other family, and leisure activities) (p. 376).
In relation to changes to process, three areas can be considered when understanding how technology impacts families and relationships: redefines intimacy, alters relationship formation and initiation, and impacts relationship maintenance.
The Multitheoretical Model was created to provide a theoretical model for couple and family scholars to understand and evaluate the role technology plays in relationships as a result of the existing models and theoretical explanations coming from a variety of different disciplines not related to our field. The researcher selected this theoretical orientation to conceptualize these studies based on its purpose to understand how couples adapt to and integrate technology in their life, its ability to explain the processes related to the impact of technology on relationships, its consideration of multiple factors, and its consideration of rules, roles, and boundaries, which was a specific focus of the second empirical study.
7 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Overview of Dissertation
The dissertation consists of the following three components: chapter two, Clinical implications of Internet Infidelity: Where Facebook fits in, is a conceptual article that addresses the current research on Facebook infidelity and how it compares to other forms of Internet infidelity. Chapter three consists of the first empirical study, Facebook
Infidelity: A story completion method, which focused on exploring how people interpret
Facebook online infidelity and its perceived impact on offline relationships. The fourth chapter consists of the second empirical study, Firewalls for Facebook, which focused on how couples establish rules and boundaries for social networking site use in their relationship. Finally, chapter 5 provides a conclusion of the dissertation, offering a conceptualization of how the three articles connect and what influence they have on clinical practice and future research.
Purpose of Dissertation
The purpose of these studies was twofold. Study one answered four questions related to social networking site infidelity: (1) How do people interpret Facebook activities in regard to their offline intimate relationship? (2) What impact does Facebook have on offline relationships? (3) How might differences in gender impact perceptions of
Facebook behaviors? (4) What similarities and differences exist between the proposed study’s findings and previous story completion studies on offline and online infidelity?
The second study examined how couples in committed relationships communicate about rules and boundaries for Internet behaviors. The research questions for this study were:
(1) What rules and boundaries about social networking site use do couples have? (2) How 8 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
are these rules and boundaries communicated in the relationship? (3) How are these rules and boundaries monitored?
Significance of the Proposed Studies
Although there exists some empirical research that supports the inclusion of
Internet behaviors as acts of infidelity, little research has been conducted on what role
SNS, such as Facebook, play in facilitating these behaviors. Facebook recently reached 1 billion active users as of October 2012 (Time, 2012) and is one of the most popular online websites today. Due to the growing number of divorce cases citing Facebook as a contributing factor, it is imperative that research be conducted to better understand how social networking sites fit in with other online infidelity behaviors. Additionally, a limited number of studies have been conducted examining both partners in the relationship (i.e., the participating partner or the nonparticipating partner is the focus of the research, not the relationship).
These studies sought to understand two important areas related to social networking site behaviors: (1) how people interpret social networking site behaviors and their impact on offline relationships and (2) how couples communicate about rules and boundaries for social networking site use in their relationship. Additionally, this study examines how gender impacts interpretations of social networking site behaviors.
The results of both studies will help mental health providers better understand what role SNS play in facilitating infidelity behaviors and how couples communicate rules and boundaries for Internet use. Clinicians can use these findings to better serve
9 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
clients presenting with issues of online infidelity. Also, these studies fill important gaps in our current understanding of the phenomenon of SNS infidelity.
10 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Chapter 2
Clinical implications of Internet Infidelity: Where Facebook fits in.
Abstract
The Internet can be used as a means to enhance our existing relationships or facilitate the development of new relationships and affairs. Despite increased research in this area, the focus has predominately been on compulsive online sexual behaviors and pornography, without consideration for how social networking sites (SNS), such as Facebook, fit in with this phenomenon. Of existing SNS by far the most popular site is Facebook; boasting 1 billion active users as of October 2012 and will be the SNS this review focuses on. The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on Internet infidelity, focusing on what similarities and differences might exist between other online activities and Facebook specific behaviors. The specific areas of focus are: definitions of Internet infidelity, beliefs around Internet infidelity, motivational factors, the impact it has on relationships, and online boundaries and rules. The results indicate that although several similarities exist (e.g., similarity in impact on relationship, behavior viewed as infidelity, partners disagree about rules), Facebook was found to have some unique differences separating it from other forms of online infidelity (e.g., greater perceived threat of
Facebook behaviors, heightened reaction to privacy violation). Implications for future research and clinical practice are presented. Implications for future research and clinical practice are presented.
Keywords: Internet infidelity, Facebook infidelity, Social Networking Sites
11 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
“I created my own account and sent him a friend request. He denied it. I asked him to change his relationship status to married or at least that he was in a relationship. He refused. I became obsessed with reading the comments.”
“I was with my wife for 15 years. She decided to join Facebook in March 2012. She wanted to contact old friends from School and work to find out about what they have been up to…She knew him when she was 12 years old, met him 20 years later for one night and now says she loves him. Its madness… There is no sign of remorse or forgiveness... Facebook not only changes peoples’ lives it can ruin it.”
-Anonymous postings, Facebookcheating.com
Introduction
Facebook is a website that allows users to create a profile containing self- description, personal likes, hobbies and affiliations. It allows users to interact with one another through viewing profiles, writing posts, sharing pictures, private messages, and online chatting. Created in 2004, Facebook is one of the most popular SNS in the world.
With one billion active users there are about one in every seven people on the planet actively using this site (Smith, Segall & Cowley, 2012). Benefits such as staying updated on friends’ lives and interacting with Facebook users around the world have not come without consequences, as highlighted by the quotes at the start of the paper. The
American Association of Matrimonial Lawyers recently released information on the growing number of divorce cases that cite Facebook as a contributing factor in the dissolution of the marriage (Lumpkin, 2012). In 2011, over one third of divorce cases contained the word Facebook (Time, 2012). It is also no surprise that with the rise of 12 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
relationship issues related to Facebook an entire website has been devoted to the phenomenon of Facebook cheating. Facebookcheating.com allows users to anonymously post stories about their experiences with Facebook infidelity and to receive support from other users.
Despite the attention Facebook infidelity is receiving, few empirical studies are devoted to understanding this phenomenon. A large amount of literature exists on the topic of Internet sexuality (i.e., using the Internet to locate information about sexual issues, use of pornography, purchasing sex related merchandise), with some literature existing on Internet infidelity in general; however, SNS infidelity behaviors are ignored.
Whether it is an assumption that Facebook infidelity is not qualitatively different from use of pornography or a dating website or is just under-researched is not known.
The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature on Internet infidelity focusing on what similarities and differences might exist between other online infidelity behaviors and Facebook specific infidelity behaviors. Articles for review were located using the following combination of the keywords: Internet, cyber, online, social networking, and Facebook with infidelity, affair, and cheating. This article will review literature in the following areas:
1. Defining Infidelity
2. Beliefs about Internet infidelity
3. Motivational Factors for Internet infidelity
4. The impact of Internet infidelity on relationships
5. Online boundaries and rules 13 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Defining Offline and Online Infidelity
One of the main issues with studying online infidelity is the difficulty in defining what behaviors constitute infidelity. It is no surprise that online infidelity is so difficult to define when offline infidelity is such an elusive term. Early definitions of offline infidelity narrowly considered behavior infidelity when one partner engaged in sexual intercourse with someone outside the relationship (Johnson, 1972; Thompson, 1983).
More recent studies on offline infidelity have devised other definitions. Glass and Wright
(1992) categorized infidelity as falling into three different groups of behavior: sexual, emotional, or a combination of the two. In addition to Glass and Wright’s (1992) three categories of infidelity, Wilson, Mattingly, Clark, Weidler, and Bequette (2011) determined that infidelity can be separated into three types: ambiguous, which includes going someplace, buying/receiving gifts, dancing, hugging, talking on the phone/internet, and eating/drinking; deceptive, which consists of lying and withholding information; and explicit, which includes heavy petting/fondling, dating, intercourse, and oral sex. Explicit behaviors directly related to sexual infidelity were identified as the strongest indicators of cheating, while ambiguous and deceptive behaviors fell more in line with emotional infidelity.
In addition to defining or categorizing offline infidelity, several studies have revealed that participants have a diverse range of what behaviors constitute infidelity.
Roscoe, Cavanaugh, and Kennedy (1988) found that undergraduate university students defined three different behaviors being indicative of offline infidelity: dating or spending time with a different partner; having sexual intercourse with someone else; and engaging 14 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
in other sexual interactions with someone else such as kissing, flirting or petting. Yarab,
Sensibaugh, and Allgeier (1998) found an assorted listing of behaviors that participants rated as being infidelity: sexual intercourse, passionately kissing, sexual fantasies, non- sexual fantasies about falling in love, sexual attraction, romantic attraction, flirting, and behaviors in dyads such as studying, having lunch, or going to a movie with someone other than your partner.
Definitions of online infidelity are equally as assorted. Cooper and Griffin-
Shelley (2002) state online infidelity is any sexual activity that “involves sexuality for purposes of recreation entertainment, exploration, support, education, commerce, efforts to attain or secure sexual or romantic partners, and so on” (p. 3). Hertlein and Piercy
(2008) define Internet infidelity “as a romantic or sexual contact facilitated by Internet use that is seen by at least one partner as an unacceptable breach of their marital contract of faithfulness” (p. 484). A critical review of the literature on Internet infidelity revealed that the one element “that remains stable across these definitions is secrecy” (Hertlein &
Piercy, 2006, p. 367). Secrecy can be accomplished with online infidelity through a variety of different methods: closing out of chat windows when a partner walks in the room, deleting the computer history, erasing online interactions, or even pretending to be working on something when you may really be engaging in Internet infidelity behaviors
(Hertlein & Piercy, 2006; Schneider, 2000).
Defining Facebook Infidelity
Similar issues with defining Facebook infidelity exist, largely because individuals in relationships differ in what they view to be infidelity. For example, Cravens, Leckie, 15 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
and Whiting (2013) found that participants in a study on discovering Facebook infidelity struggled to decide whether a behavior was inappropriate or acceptable. Additionally, these participants reported a range of different Facebook specific behaviors that they identified as sometimes being inappropriate: friending an ex-partner or ex-spouse, friending attractive members of the opposite sex, sending private messages to the opposite sex, commenting on attractive users pictures, not having up the correct relationship status on their profile, and not allowing their partner to be their friend on
Facebook. Participants also mentioned that their partners did not always agree with what behaviors constituted infidelity or inappropriate behaviors, which adds to the difficulty of defining Facebook infidelity.
Secrecy, noted as being a major element of Internet infidelity, is also an issue for
Facebook infidelity. Users are able to have their own accounts with passwords that prevent their partners from knowing what they are doing on Facebook. The ability to send other users private messages and to chat with people while logged into their account creates options to engage in inappropriate behaviors while their partner is in the same room. Additionally, Facebook allows for the creation of “fake” accounts or multiple profiles to be created. If a partner has an account that is kept secret, this creates an additional scenario that would allow for infidelity behaviors to occur.
In sum, Facebook infidelity is similar to other forms of Internet infidelity in that it is difficult to define and individuals hold differing opinions about what Facebook behaviors would count as infidelity. What is unique about Facebook infidelity is the opportunities to interact with users in a specific way may look different than what occurs 16 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
in chat rooms or other Internet mediums. Also, some partners may have a stronger reaction to behaviors that involve Facebook friends that users interact with both online and offline. For example, many people use Facebook to maintain existing offline relationships. A partner may be more distraught about a social networking interaction with an offline friend than one with a chat room user that may live on the other side of the globe since the perceived infidelity may continue offline. This hypothesis is supported by findings in Yarab, Sensibaugh, and Allgeier (1998) who found that participants had stronger reactions to interactions that were more likely to be continued offline (e.g., meeting a porn-star offline is less likely than arranging to meet someone met in a chat room).
Internet Infidelity-Is it cheating?
Since the introduction of the Internet researchers questioned to what extent online interactions could facilitate the development of meaningful relationships due to lack of nonverbal interactions (Kraut et al., 1998). Researchers and clinicians have since disproved this belief, finding that individuals can successfully establish or maintain relationships including friendships and romantic partnerships. With the establishment of relationships online, people questioned whether online behaviors could be considered inappropriate or forms of infidelity. Researchers have found that individuals view online infidelity to exist, carrying consequences for those who engage in the behavior (Henline
& Lamke, 2003, Henline, Lamke, & Howardm, 2007; Whitty, 2003, 2005).
Henline & Lamke (2003) aimed to identify what specific online behaviors would be indicative of infidelity for those in a committed relationship. The findings of this study 17 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
revealed that participants considered online infidelity to not only consist of sexual components but emotional as well. Whitty (2003) sought to explore the same question by giving participants 15 pre-determined behaviors to rank from not considered infidelity to extreme infidelity. The study resulted in the creation of three separate categories of infidelity: sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, and pornography use.
Building upon her previous study, Whitty (2005) explored the perceptions of online infidelity and its impact on offline relationships, finding that participants in general identified the online behavior as cheating. In comparison to studies on the impact of offline infidelity, participants reported similar impacts on the offline relationship, such as, guilt over the affair, less time spent with the partner, shame, loss of trust, and ending the relationship. Additionally, these findings mirrored the results of Kitzinger and Powell
(1995) who investigated participants’ views of offline infidelity and its impact on the existing relationship. In both studies the majority of participants viewed the behavior in the cue story to be a form of infidelity; however, in the offline infidelity study participants were more likely to view the behaviors to be sexual in nature. Based on the findings of these two studies, Whitty (2005) hypothesized that online infidelity consists of a large emotional component due to lack of physical contact.
In 2007, Henline, Lamke, and Howard examined what similarities and differences exist between perceptions of online and traditional infidelity using a sample of individuals in a committed partnership. Henline et al., (2007) asked participants “What online behaviors or activities would you consider to be ‘unfaithful’ to a dating partner if the couple is in an exclusive dating relationship?” Results of the study found that there 18 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
were four activities that were rated the highest or most unfaithful: online sex, emotional involvement with an online contact, online dating, and other online sexual interactions.
Additionally 60-82% of the participants identified emotional online behaviors to be more damaging than online sexual behaviors.
Facebook-Does it facilitate affairs?
With the growing number of divorces citing Facebook as a contributing factor, and websites that highlight stories of Facebook cheating, there is little doubt that
Facebook has the ability to facilitate infidelity behaviors and impact offline relationships.
Cravens & Whiting (2013a) replicated two story completion method studies that asked participants to interpret whether or not a specific behavior in a cue story about offline
(Kitzinger & Powell, 1995) and online (Whitty, 2005) behaviors were considered cheating. In this study, participants responded to a cue story specifically identifying
Facebook as the online medium facilitating the behavior. 323 participants (51.4 %) of participants identified the participating partner’s behavior as infidelity. Additionally, the participants identified similar impacts to the offline relationships as have previous studies.
One unique finding of this study was aspects related to the specific functions of
Facebook. For example, participants discussed embarrassment and shame associated with other online users being aware of the infidelity behaviors their partner was committing
(e.g., posts made on their wall, the third party commenting on pictures). Also, despite participating partners being “caught in the act” they played the role of victim stating that their privacy had been invaded since their partner had been on their private account. 19 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Lastly, participants discussed aspects of retaliation that occurred using Facebook, such as blocking the partner, de-friending them, contacting the third party using Facebook, stalking or checking out the third party by viewing their Facebook profile, or writing status updates that discussed the issues in their relationship.
Motivational Factors
Several models have been created to explain Internet infidelity: how it is different from offline infidelity (Cooper, 1998), why it is an addicting medium for establishing relationships (Young, 1998), how it facilitates the development of relationships (Leiblum
& Döring, 2002) or factors that contribute to Internet-related intimacy problems (Hertlein
& Stevenson, 2010). One of the first models to be created was Cooper’s (1998) triple “A” engine that identified three factors that makes online infidelity different from offline. The triple “A” engine denotes accessibility, affordability and anonymity as the three distinctive factors that fuel online infidelity.
Other researchers have added to this model. For example, a fourth “A,” approximation would cover the area of experimentation that the Internet affords users.
The Internet allows users to experiment with sexual fantasies or behaviors that they may not feel comfortable or able to engage in offline to a close enough approximation that it fulfills the needs to try out the behavior (Ross & Kauth, 2002; Ross, Mansson, Daneback,
& Tikkanen, 2005). Both Young (1998) and Leiblum and Döring (2002) created models that mirror Cooper’s (1998) three-factor model. Young (1998) developed the ACE model
(Anonymity, Convenience, Escape), which was created as an attempt to explain why
Internet behaviors become “addicting.” Leiblum & Döring (2002) created the triple C 20 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
engine, which focuses on the interactive components of the Internet: communication, collaboration, and communities. These additionally highlight the importance of considering relational and interactive components that affect Internet infidelity.
Building off of the existing literature, Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) conducted an in-depth review of published empirical studies that examined contributing factors of
Internet related intimacy problems. They identified five “As” (anonymity, accessibility, affordability, approximation, acceptability) cited within published literature, with an additional two “As” (ambiguity, accommodation) they believe are represented in previous studies. Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) point out that if a partner feels confined or restricted in their relationship, the Internet provides them with a forum to pursue their ideal vision of self.
Motivational Factors for Facebook infidelity
No studies to date have been conducted to test whether the existing motivational factor models for Internet infidelity would be valid models for Facebook infidelity. It could be hypothesized that the aspects in Cooper’s (1998) triple “A” engine or the more comprehensive model by Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) could be applied to Facebook infidelity. For example, affordability and accessibility fit in the sense that Facebook and other SNS are free for their users and because of its popularity there is no real stigma associated with accessing this website in public places. There could also be some ambiguity in Facebook behaviors, such as at what point do certain interactive behaviors that are acceptable cross the line of being unacceptable. The anonymity “A” would be an interesting concept, because in some ways Facebook allows its users to engage in 21 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
secretive behavior (i.e., private messaging, chatting with other users if their partner was not around to witness); however, it is not anonymous activity in the sense that who you are, is for the most part known by other users. Most Facebook users create profiles that accurately portray who they are, revealing such information as full name, work or school affiliations, email address, the city or state one lives in, and pictures of themselves.
Future research could empirically validate the 7 “As” model with those individuals who have used Facebook to engage in infidelity behaviors.
Impact of Internet Infidelity
Most empirical studies on the impact of Internet infidelity on the primary relationship have examined the role of pornography or Internet sexual compulsivity, with few studies looking at other forms of Internet infidelity (Bridges, Bergner, & Hesson-
McInnis, 2003; King, 1999; Schneider, 2000; Zitzman & Butler, 2005). Although pornography and Internet sexual compulsivity may not be forms of infidelity where a partner is interacting with another person online, in Bergner & Bridges (2002) participants who were the partners of heavy pornography users stated that they overwhelmingly viewed their partners’ activity as an act of infidelity because it reduced the exclusivity of their relationship. For this reason, studies that examined pornography,
Internet sexual compulsivity, and Internet infidelity will all be reviewed in this section.
One of the first researchers to examine the impact of Internet behaviors on the primary relationship was King (1999), who looked at how the wives of Clergy members who engaged in compulsive sexual behaviors were impacted by their husbands’ online behaviors. Eighty-two percent of the women in the study stated that they interpreted their 22 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
husband’s behavior as a betrayal and there had been loss of trust in the relationship as a result. Additional impacts were the loss of relationship, debt, and loss of identity within their church community.
In 2000, Schneider sought to examine the role cybersex has in relationships, becoming the first empirical study that looked at the impact of Internet infidelity. Ninety- four participants (only 3 men) responded to an online survey about the impact of cyber affairs on their relationship. Partners reported feeling hurt, betrayal, rejection, abandonment, devastation, loneliness, shame, isolation, humiliation, jealousy, and anger as well as loss of self-esteem. Participants noted a change in the relational dynamics, with
68% of the respondents stating that one or both partners had lost interest in relational sex.
Close to one third of the participants (22.3 %) in this study reported that they had either separated or divorced due to the cybersex addiction of their partner. Once again, the issue with this study is the ability to generalize the findings, since this study only represents the experiences women have.
The remainder of empirical studies that examine the impact of Internet behaviors on the relationship focused on pornography as the medium for the behavior. Bergner,
Bridges, & Hesson-McInnis (2003) found that partners of pornography viewers interpreted the behavior as a direct threat to their relationship, with participants reporting feeling loss, betrayal, devastation, anger, and mistrust. Zitzman and Butler (2005) found similar results, with the primary issue reported by participants as the need to regain trust in the relationship. Bergner et al., (2003) findings are similar to the experiences reported by the participants in Schneider (2000) study; however, it is important to recognize that 23 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
although damaging and often interpreted as being a form of infidelity, these behaviors may not have the same impact as an actual online affair with another person. Researchers have yet to examine how pornography and compulsive online sexual behaviors compare to Internet infidelity behaviors that require the emergence of a third person into the relationship.
Over the past twelve years, researchers have begun to examine what impact
Internet infidelity behaviors have on the primary relationship; however, limitations still exist. A large amount of attention has been placed on the impact of pornography or compulsive sexual behaviors, which may be qualitatively different than a couples’ experience with an online affair. Jones and Hertlein (2012) identified four key dimensions that determine the difference between Internet infidelity and Internet sex addiction: (1) involved partners, (2) view of the problem, (3) symptomology, and (4) presence or absence of addictive properties. Although these criteria were created for diagnostic purposes, it highlights that there are distinguishing factors between these two
Internet issues, which may suggest differences in the impact of the differing behaviors on the partner.
The impact of Facebook infidelity
An analysis of the postings on the website Facebookcheating.com suggests that partners who have experienced Facebook infidelity are impacted by this behavior in similar ways as other types of infidelity (Cravens et al., 2013). Common emotional reactions to Facebook infidelity were: hurt, loss of trust, shock, jealousy, embarrassment and anger. Additionally, partners struggled with whether or not to stay together with their 24 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
partner or end the relationship which is also a result of online and offline infidelity behaviors (Schneider, 2000). Cravens and Whiting (2013a) also found that in response to a hypothetical scenario about Facebook infidelity, 65 % of the participants wrote that the relationship ended. Other negative impacts were perceived to be loss of trust, fighting or arguing, retaliation, and negative emotional experiences. Both studies highlight that
Facebook infidelity mirrors the impact of offline and other online mediums on relationships.
A possible difference with Facebook infidelity could be the amount of people who may know about the behavior in one’s social network due to Facebook being such a popular medium for interacting with friends. For example, if a partner is caught cheating on a chat room, those who become aware of it may be limited to friends or family who has been told about the behavior. With Facebook, if the behaviors are displayed on one’s wall or in posted pictures, the infidelity may be suspected or known by the Facebook user’s entire online network work, which could lead to greater levels of embarrassment or anger.
Online Rules and Boundaries
Several of the issues with Internet infidelity revolve around the issue of rules and boundaries. Individuals within a relationship and different couple units have a wide variation in the behaviors they consider to be inappropriate in their relationship, making
Internet infidelity difficult to define. Daines (2006) states that on one end of the spectrum a partner may believe viewing pornography to be sufficient enough betrayal to end the relationship; whereas, on the opposite end of the spectrum you might find a couple that is 25 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
in “acceptance or even encouragement of sexual contact or emotional closeness with others that may not generally be tolerated” (p.48).
A limited number of studies exist on the topic, however, of those that do exist, one looks at the couple unit, and the other looks at rules and boundaries for SNS use.
Helsper and Whitty (2010) were interested in learning whether married couples share similarities in online netiquette, or the rules and assumptions about appropriate online behaviors. 992 couples were asked to rate 10 online activities as an act that would either make them unhappy, not care, or happy if their partner was to engage in the behavior.
The results of the study found that couples had the strongest agreement on infidelity behaviors (i.e., falling in love with someone else online and engaging in cybersex), whereas, they had the most disagreement about other problematic behaviors (i.e., online gaming, gambling, and shopping).
Facebook Rules and Boundaries
Norton (2011) examined how relationship satisfaction, trust, and a history of infidelity influenced couples’ boundaries and rules of SNS. One finding of Norton’s
(2011) study is that the five boundary items were best fit into two broader latent constructs: openness and fidelity. Openness refers to a couples’ belief that “each partner’s social networking accounts should be open for the partner to view” either with password sharing, accessing one another’s accounts, or knowing each other’s online friends (p. 31).
The second construct, fidelity, refers to couples’ belief that emotional fidelity should exist online just as it does offline, by not flirting or having online relationships with former partners. Finally, trust but not relationship satisfaction was significantly related to 26 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
the use of Internet boundaries. An interesting finding was that participants reported having higher levels of trust in their relationship when they shared passwords or had access to their partner’s account. This finding contrasts with the results of a study that found the majority of couples felt that monitoring a partner’s Facebook account is a violation of the relationship, carrying negative consequences for the relationship
(Cravens and Whiting, 2013b).
A more recent study explored whether or not couples communicate about rules and boundaries for SNS, how rules were established, and how rules were monitored
(Cravens & Whiting, 2013b). The results of this study found that couples rarely establish rules or boundaries for Facebook and that the rules that were held were implicit rules that each partner assumed their partner shared. Further, couples would only communicate about Facebook issues once a problem occurred, but these conversations did not result in the development of rules for future behavior. This study highlights that the creation of explicit rules and boundaries rarely occur in intimate partner relationships, despite couples reporting issues with Facebook behaviors.
Discussion and Implications
Almost fifteen years have passed since researchers and clinicians started taking notice of the role the Internet was having on offline lives. This paper reveals that several similarities and unique differences exist between Facebook infidelity and other forms of online infidelity. The following similarities were noted: difficulty in defining both
Facebook and online infidelity, people view online and SNS behaviors as infidelity, they share similar impacts on the offline relationship, and partners often disagree about rules 27 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
related to specific behaviors. A unique finding related to Facebook infidelity is the possibility of greater perceived threat of Facebook interactions due to the likelihood of the relationship occurring offline as well as online. Also, partners reported having a heightened reaction to their SNS being accessed, viewing this as a major violation of privacy., The remainder of the paper shall discuss clinical implications and areas of future research that could be conducted to fill the existing gaps.
Clinical Implications
In terms of clinical implications, what is clear from the existing literature is that working with couples who have experienced Internet infidelity, specifically Facebook infidelity, will need to focus on several areas during therapy: assessment, boundary and rule setting, and processing emotions related to the infidelity. Although these are typical therapeutic tasks, these areas will be discussed in relation to working with Facebook infidelity.
Assessment of Facebook infidelity should focus on several factors, exploring who are the involved parties, how each partner views the behavior, and the motivational factors that exist. Jones and Hertlein (2012) identify four areas that can be assessed when working with online infidelity behaviors to distinguish whether it is Internet infidelity or a compulsive behavior. The first two areas of assessment, involved parties and view of the problem specifically apply to understanding the depth and severity of the Facebook infidelity. With the involved parties, therapists should explore the location of the third party (i.e., where does the third party live in relation to the couple?), whether or not there is an additional offline relationship (i.e., is the online relationship limited to one partner 28 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
or are there multiple relationships?), and what previous relationship the partner might have had with the third party (i.e., did they meet on Facebook? Did they grow up together? Is it a past romantic partner?). Gathering information about the third party is one way to assess the severity of the betrayal. Another way to assess for severity is exploring both partners’ view of the problem. Based on the wide range of definitions of both online and offline infidelity, therapists would benefit from asking each couple they work with what behaviors constitute infidelity and whether or not both partners agree. It is possible that a couple could come in with only the non-participating partner identifying the behavior as infidelity, with the participating partner minimizing the behavior as nothing more than playing around online.
There currently exists a plethora of motivational factor models for Internet infidelity. Although these models are not yet validated for Facebook infidelity, clinicians could refer to Cooper (1998) Triple “A” engine or Hertlein and Stevenson (2010) 7 “As” model as an additional means to assess the behavior. The 7 “As” model is especially helpful in terms of assessing with a relational frame of reference. For example, accommodation and approximation are both motivational factors that are influenced by the primary relationship. If a partner is feeling restrained or constricted in their offline relationship (accommodation) or they either are unable to fulfill some of their fantasies or are afraid to communicate these desires to their partner (approximation), the participating partner may initiate the Facebook affair to meet these needs. The therapist may ask partners questions such as “ How would you describe the state of your relationship at the time you initiated the online relationship?” or “Can you identify ways in which your 29 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
online relationship offered you something different from you offline relationship? Have you ever talked with your partner about these desires?” Therapists can utilize these motivational models to explore the underlying relational factors that may have influenced the decision to cheat. Caution should be advised to not use these factors to excuse the partner or blame the non-participating partner.
Another clinical issue will be to work with couples on defining what Facebook behaviors would be considered infidelity, keeping in mind that existing studies have highlighted that for each individual in the couple and across different couples Internet behaviors can be interpreted through widely different lenses. Thus, therapists will have to work with the couple to determine individually, what behaviors constitute infidelity, and when partners do not agree on their definitions helping the couple to negotiate these differences.
The discussion of defining Facebook infidelity can easily move towards boundary and rule setting. Once the therapist and couple have defined the behaviors they deem to be inappropriate, therapy can focus on communicating rules and boundaries for their SNS use. Therapists should also have couples discuss how these rules and boundaries will be enforced. Will they share passwords to their accounts? Do they allow one another time to be on their personal accounts? Norton (2011) and Cravens and Whiting (2013b) found conflicting results about how monitoring behaviors impact relationships. Due to the need for further research therapists should help couples discuss the possible benefits and consequences of sharing passwords, allowing the couple to ultimately decide what will work best for their relationship. 30 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
The final clinical issue that should be focused on when working with Facebook infidelity deals with processing the varied emotions related to the impact of the behavior on the non-participating partner. Cravens et al. (2013), found similar emotional experiences occur with Facebook infidelity as other forms of online and offline infidelity.
Therapist should assess for each partners’ view on whether Facebook behaviors are crossing a relation boundary. If one partner dismisses Facebook behaviors as cheating it is possible that the non-participating partner may not feel able to express their emotions.
For example, the therapist may ask: “What emotions have you experienced since learning about your partner’s online relationship? How has your partner reacted towards these emotions? Do you think that it is okay to be feeling this way about online behaviors?”
Normalizing the range of emotions felt and providing space for the partner to express them in session will be an important aspect during this stage of treatment, especially if the participating partner believes online behaviors are not cheating. Additionally, the possibility that the Facebook infidelity may be known by all of the couple’s Facebook friends may increase feelings of embarrassment, anger, and shame that might not have been so prominent if the incident was not publically displayed on Facebook. Therapeutic sessions can be dedicated to addressing concerns about the impact of the infidelity on their social support network and how to better manage what is posted on their social networking sites.
Future Research
Future research in the area of Facebook infidelity will help this body of scholarship catch up to the understanding that exists for Internet infidelity and 31 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
compulsive online sexual behaviors. Gaps in the existing literature range from defining
Facebook infidelity, conducting studies that utilize both partners in the relationship to gather couple level data, identifying motivational factors, understanding the differences between Facebook infidelity and other Internet behaviors, and how rules and boundaries are communicated in intimate partner relationships.
Although previous researchers have identified the difficulties inherent in setting one standard definition of offline and online infidelity, research endeavors should still be taken to explore what the general population considers to be Facebook infidelity.
Definitions may come from exploring what behaviors individuals believe to be inappropriate or finding a general definitions that focuses on the process (i.e., secrecy, breaking rules) instead of specific behaviors. Another area that should be considered for future research is to validate the motivational factors models that were reviewed in this article for Facebook infidelity. If these models are not representative of Facebook infidelity, research should be conducted to better understand the factors related to this phenomenon.
Gaps in our understanding of this phenomenon still exist for understanding how couples establish rules and boundaries for Internet use, what factors help couples to be more likely to overtly establish rules for the Internet and how couples resolve disagreement in what behaviors should be off limit. It would be interesting for researchers to better understand the role of monitoring online activities and the development of trust in intimate partner relationships. Future studies would also benefit from understanding what rules and boundaries couples have in their relationship without 32 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
any pre-determined rules to choose from. The next step for researchers would be to understand how couples determine what behaviors are off limits and in what ways they are able to communicate these rules.
Finally, future research should be conducted to explore the differences and similarities between offline infidelity, Internet infidelity, online sexual compulsivity, and
SNS infidelity in terms of the impact each form of infidelity has on the relationship and the individual partners. A comparative study of this nature would help researchers and clinicians not only understand the continuum of infidelity behaviors to a greater extent, but it would also aid in creating models for treatment that focus on specific factors associated with each infidelity type and which factors exist across the spectrum.
33 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Chapter 3
Facebook infidelity: A story completion method
Abstract
Facebook, a social networking site with over one billion active users, has created opportunities for both positive and negative relationship interactions. While Facebook allows for the maintenance of existing offline relationships, recent statistics have highlighted the role Facebook has played as a contributing factor for over 1/3 of the divorce cases filed in 2011. Although we are aware of some of the societal benefits and consequences of Facebook, to date no empirical studies have examined how individuals interpret Facebook behaviors and their possible negative impact on intimate partner relationships. The aim of this study was to explore the following research questions: (1)
How do people interpret Facebook activities in regard to their offline intimate relationship? (2) What impact does Facebook have on offline relationships? (3) How might differences in gender impact perceptions of Facebook behaviors? (4) What similarities and differences exist between the proposed study’s findings and previous story completion studies on offline and online infidelity? Six hundred twenty eight respondents participated in a story completion task. A mixed method analysis was conducted, consisting of content analysis and logistic regression. The results found that
51 % of the participants interpreted the Facebook behavior as infidelity, with only 2.9% indicating that the behavior was not infidelity. Other important findings show that
Facebook behavior negatively impacts offline relationships and that accessing a partner’s
34 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Facebook account is viewed as a major violation of privacy. Clinical implications and future research recommendations are discussed.
35 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Introduction
When the Internet first became popular, researchers debated to what extent these online behaviors were considered acts of infidelity. This debate motivated researchers to explore whether or not online behaviors were interpreted as infidelity, confirming that individuals do interpret certain online behaviors as infidelity (Henline, Lamke, &
Howard, 2007; Parker & Wampler, 2003; Whitty, 2005). Henline et al. (2007) explored connections between participants’ views of online infidelity in comparison to offline infidelity. A significant finding was that 4 common online behaviors (e.g., online sex, emotional involvement with an online contact, online dating, and other online sexual interactions) are similar to offline behaviors that past studies identify as being forms of infidelity (e.g., sexual intercourse, dating or spending time together, and sexual interactions). These findings reveal identifying online behaviors as infidelity is not as easy as categorizing all behaviors as infidelity, but these acts are seen as a multifaceted phenomenon that can have a sexual component (e.g., online sex, flirting, sex chat), an emotional component (e.g., disclosing deeply personal things, saying “I love you” to someone online), or both.
Whitty (2005) explored men’s and women’s perceptions of Internet infidelity using a story completion method, which allows participants to openly voice their views on a topic without asking them to speak about a first person experience. One main reason why avoiding first person is important to this phenomenon is that research conducted on socially unacceptable behaviors, such as online infidelity behaviors, runs the risk of participants not being as honest or open about their thoughts due to social desirability 36 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
(Whisman & Snyder, 2007). Whitty (2005) asked participants to add onto a story about a couple that had recently found out one partner had been using the Internet to meet with other people. Half of the participants wrote that the betrayer would view their own behavior as being ‘unfaithful.’ Stronger support for the theory that people do view online activities as being infidelity behaviors came from the fact that 84% of the participants wrote that the non-participating partner would feel betrayed by their partner’s actions.
Only 9 % of the participants in this study wrote that the event was not a form of betrayal.
Previous studies about both online and offline infidelity have revealed that several differences can be found in the way women and men interpretation infidelity. For example, women more than men tend to rate emotional infidelity behaviors as being more upsetting than sexual infidelity behaviors (Kitzinger & Powell, 1995; Shackelford &
Buss, 1996; Whitty, 2005). In studies where a hypothetical situation was presented to participants, such as a story completion method, participants tend to rate their own gender’s behavior more favorably than when the betrayer is of the opposite sex
(Kitzinger & Powell, 1995; Yarab, Sensibaugh, & Allgeier 1998). Another interesting gender difference consistently found in the literature was that women tended to use more emotional words in their stories and they were more likely to end a relationship or feel that trust was broken by their partner’s behavior (Kitzinger & Powell, 1995; Whitty,
2005).
Purpose of study
The purpose of this study was to understand how people interpret online infidelity, specifically as it occurs on Facebook. This study replicated two previous 37 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
stories of offline (Kitzinger & Powell, 1995) and online (Whity, 2005) infidelity, exploring how participants interpret Facebook behaviors and the impact these behaviors have on offline relationships. Since this is a replication study, the findings of this study will be compared to the previous results to explore what similarities and differences exist between Facebook, online, and offline infidelity. In sum, this study answers the following research questions:
1. How do people interpret Facebook activities in regard to their offline
intimate relationship?
2. What impact does Facebook have on offline relationships?
3. How might differences in gender impact perceptions of Facebook
behaviors?
4. What similarities and differences exist between the proposed study’s
findings and previous story completion studies on offline and online
infidelity?
Methods
Data Collection
Participants for this study were recruited both on campus at a large Southwestern university and online. University participants were recruited through an e-mail based bulletin that is delivered to faculty, staff, and students. This announcement allowed participants to access the survey from any computer with Internet access. Additionally,
Facebook was also utilized as an additional source to recruit participants, which facilitated a more regionally diverse sample. Participants had the opportunity to receive 38 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
one of five $25.00 Visa gift cards that were drawn at the conclusion of data collection.
The inclusion criteria for the study were a minimum age requirement of 18 years, the
ability to read and write in English, and have familiarity with Facebook.
Sample Characteristics
In total there were 628 participants in the final sample (112 were excluded from
the final sample because they did not complete the story, and 2 were excluded from the
final sample due to missing demographic information). Of the participants, 470 were
women (74.8%) and 158 were men (25.1%). The majority of all respondents identified
themselves as Caucasian in ethnicity (74.1%), with the remainder identifying themselves
as Hispanic/Latino (14.1%), Asian or Pacific Islander (7.3%), European (3.7%), African
American (4.0%), Multiracial (3.5%), and American Indian (2.2%). Most had attended
college 428 (58.0%) with one-fourth of the participants having some graduate or post-
doctoral education 177 (23.0%). Additional demographic information is reported in Table
1.
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Variable Sample (N=628)
Gender Female 470 (74.4%) Male 158 (25.1%
Age 18-24 years 378 (60.0%) 25-34 years 183 (29.0%) 39 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
35-44 years 31 (4.9%) 45-54 years 23 (3.7%) 55+ years 15 (2.1%)
Race/Ethnicity American Indian 14 (2.2%) Asian or Pacific Islander 46 (7.3%) African American 25 (4.0%) Caucasian 467 (74.1%) Hispanic/Latino 89 (14.1%) European 23 (3.7%) Multiracial 22 (3.5%)
Education High school/GED 24 (3.8%) Associate/Technical degree 21 (3.3%) Bachelor’s degree 407 (54.7%) Graduate 171 (21.1%) Post-doctoral 6 (1.9%)
Relationship Status Single 206 (32.7%) Dating 225 (35.7%) Married 140 (22.2%) Cohabitating 58 (9.2%)
Social Networking Site Yes 618 (98.1%) No 11 (1.7%)
Social Networking Site Use Rarely ever 14 (2.2%) Several times a month 17 (2.7%) Several times a week 41 (6.5%) Once a day 90 (14.4%) Several times a day 465 (74.2%)
40 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Measures
Demographics. Information regarding age, gender, current relationship status, length of current relationship, education, and SNS use was gathered from a demographic questionnaire at the initial part of the survey.
Story Completion Task. A story completion method is one form of a projective test where participants are given a scenario then asked to write what happens next. This methodology asks participants to respond to the scenario from a third person perspective, which allows the participants to reveal more socially undesirable information than when first person is used because it distances the participant from the behaviors (Crawford,
Kippax, Onyx, Gault, & Benton, 1992; Whitty, 2005). With a story completion task, participants are able to respond to an ambiguous situation assigning their own feelings and beliefs about the phenomenon in question without any anxiety that would be involved in directly assessing their own behaviors or beliefs through self-report
(Kitzinger & Powell, 1995) or the feeling that they are incriminating her/himself
(Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault, & Benton, 1992). Whitty (2005) stresses that projective tests are particularly helpful with issues of Internet infidelity because individuals may not be aware of their beliefs about online behavior and an admission of specific online infidelity behaviors may be viewed as being socially undesirable.
For this study, participants were given one of two versions of a story completion task (Appendix B) devised by Kitzinger and Powell (1995) and replicated by Whitty
(2005). In Whitty (2005), participants were asked to write “what happens next” in response to a cue story exercise that implied a relationship was developed with someone 41 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
else over the Internet. The cue story instructions were slightly changed in the current study to focus the online behavior to an activity specific to Facebook, which read:
Version A: “Jennifer and Mark have been going out for over a year. Jennifer
realizes, after reading Mark’s private messages on his Facebook account, that he
has developed a relationship with someone else.”
Version B: “Mark and Jennifer have been going out for over a year. Mark
realizes, after reading Jennifer’s private messages in her Facebook account, that
she has developed a relationship with someone else.”
In the current study Version A was completed by 244 participants, (38.7%) women and 68 (10.8%) men, while Version B was completed by 226 participants,
(35.9%) women and 90 (14.3%) men.
Data Analysis
This study was analyzed using mixed methods. The participants’ responses
(N=628) to the story completion task were downloaded from the Qualtrics® survey site and complied into two separate documents: responses to Version A and responses to
Version B. The responses were analyzed using a content analysis, which aims to provide knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study through a process of classifying large amounts of text into an efficient number of categories that represent its meaning (Hsiech & Shannon, 2005). An open-ended method of line-by-line coding was used to generate categories from the data, avoiding preconceived sensitizing concepts.
Sensitizing concepts can be used in qualitative research to provide guidelines or starting points for the analysis; however, grounded theory seeks to discover a theory that is data- 42 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
driven, not preconceived. Both the researcher and another graduate student engaged in the line-by-line coding process verifying their codes through a process of constant comparison. Following the line-by-line or initial coding stage, the data was then revisited using focused coding. Examples of the codes created during the focused coding stage are: initiates discussion (which was coded as direct confrontation), blames Jennifer for snooping (which was coded as snooping/invasion of privacy), and needs proof of truth
(which was coded as further investigation). The created categories and subcategories identify the major themes from the participants’ responses; such as, interprets the story as cheating and impact on the offline relationship. The categories and subcategories were then used to create a codebook (Appendix C). The codebook contains the definitions and examples of the categories and subcategories as well as short hand codes for the categories (e.g., direct confrontation is coded as A1). After creating the codebook the data was re-coded into dichotomous data using the codebook.
After the content analysis, the coded data was entered into SPSS® version 21.0
(IBM Corp., 2012). The quantitative data that was entered into SPSS® are: demographic information (i.e., gender, relationship status, ethnicity, education) and the dichotomous data coded through the content analysis (i.e., story interpreted as infidelity, loss of trust, breaking up, invasion of privacy, retaliation). Preliminary analyses were run and assumptions were tested for linearity of the logit and multicollinearity. After completion of the preliminary analyses, logistic regression was run, which produced a chi-square statistic. The predictor variables that were used in the analysis were gender of participant and gender of the perpetrating partner. Results of the study are presented in the same 43 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
format used in the two previous replication studies. The researcher acknowledges that this format is not the traditional format for presenting logistic regression, however, using the same format allows for easier comparison between the two studies.
Results
The results of the current study will be presented in relation to: (1) how the participants interpreted the Facebook behavior in regards to their offline relationship, (2) the perceived impact of Facebook on offline relationships, and (3) how differences in gender impact perceptions of Facebook behaviors. The comparison of the current study to the two previously conducted studies on online and offline infidelity will be presented in the discussion section.
Interpretation of the cue story
In the current study, 321 (51.0%) participants clearly interpreted the cue behavior an act of infidelity, compared to 18 (2.9%) who stated the cue behavior was not infidelity and 289 (46.1%) who made no decision or indication in their story whether the behavior was infidelity or not. During the content analysis, the researcher decided that to code the story as cheating, the participant had to make a statement about the behavior being infidelity or cheating, being a violation of their relationship, or that the participating partner made an admission that they had been having an affair. Despite these strict coding parameters, a little over half of the participants still indicated that the cue story behavior was an act of infidelity. Common explanations given as to why the participant interpreted the online behavior as infidelity were: the participating partner admits the affair, message
44 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
reader specifically states the behavior was cheating but does not give an explanation, and participant says they have seen the evidence.
There were several reasons presented in the participants’ stories explaining why the participating partner did not believe their Facebook messages to be an act of infidelity. Although the participating partner presented these themes, due to the low number of participants that reported the behavior not to be infidelity (4.9%), the researchers coded these responses as being justifications for their behavior. A logistic regression was run to analyze the participant’s gender, the gender of the perpetrator, and the explanation given by the perpetrator for why the Facebook behavior was not cheating.
The logistic regression was not significant for the justifications. These results are summarized in Table 2, along with supporting quotations for the participants’ story completion responses.
Table 2
Participating partner’s justification to Facebook behavior not being infidelity
Female Male Female Male Participating Mark Mark Jennifer Jennifer partner’s Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator justification Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency ��
Denial (lies 27 (11.1%) 11 (16.2%) 18 (8.0%) 6 (6.7%) ns about message)
It is just 14 (5.7%) 4 (5.9%) 8 (3.5%) 3 (3.3%) ns online, it’s no big deal
It is just a 22 (9.0%) 7 (10.2%) 16 (7.1%) 5 (5.6%) ns friend 45 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Refuses to 11 (4.9%) 1 (1.3%) 10 (4.4%) 1 (1.1%) ns talk about Facebook behavior
Facebook 1 (0.4%) 1 (1.3%) 1 (0.4%) 2 (2.2%) ns behavior was a joke
Denial. One of the more common reasons given by the participants for why the perpetrating partner was not cheating was that the partner denied that they wrote the messages or that the messages existed. Some demonstrative quotations illustrate this code:
He approached Jennifer but she denied any such relationship (female, A).
Mark then confronts Jennifer and she denies it (male, B).
He denies it, but she is no fool (female, A).
Mark tries to deny it by Jennifer knows he is lying (female, A).
He denies cheating but the truth is in black and white (female, A).
Just a friend. Another common explanation or justification about the online
Facebook behavior was that the messages were sent to someone that is just a friend, which is illustrated in the quotations below:
Jennifer confronts Mark and asks him what is going on with this other girl. Mark
claims she is an old friend, but Jennifer isn’t sure she believes him… (female, A).
He confronts Jennifer, and Jennifer insists that it is nothing. She says that the
other man is just a friend from high school. (male, B).
46 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
He then confronts Jennifer about this current relationship status and private
messages. She says that they mean nothing and that they are just friends (female,
B).
Mark denies any wrongdoing, saying they are just friends (male, A).
Mark tells Jennifer that she has nothing to worry about and the relationship is not
serious (female, A).
It’s just online; it’s no big deal. A third category of justification was seen by participants stating that the participating partner would state that the behavior is no big deal, because it is just an online interaction. This was discussed as a reason in Whitty
(2005); however, many of the participants framed this perspective as it being a relationship with a computer or inanimate object. In the current study participants highlighted that it was strictly online and not an offline relationship, making the distinction that the behavior was not cheating because the relationship had not been carried out offline or in person. The following quotes exemplify this category:
She confronts him about the messages and he claims that they are just “flirting”
over Facebook, and that it’s no big deal. He goes on to tell her that he hasn’t even
met the girl in person (female, A).
Mark claims that since they only chat through Facebook, there is no way he has a
relationship with her (female, A).
He confronts her about the relationship and she denies that it is anything serious,
“it is only Facebook. It doesn’t mean anything” (male, B).
47 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
It’s just a joke. A last justification for the behavior not being cheating was that the message writer claimed the messages to be a joke. A few of the participants claimed to know their partner was looking on their account and because they clearly did not trust them, they had their friend set up this joke to catch them snooping. Although only a few participants brought up this interpretation, this is an interesting subcategory as it may relate to the category invasion of privacy/snooping, which was a predominant category in this study.
She immediately confronts him about it, but Mark tells her everything was just a
joke and he just wanted to see how far he could count on her for trust (male, A).
Jennifer pulls up more messages to show Mark the full conversation and Mark
sees that it was a running joke (male, B).
A theme that was similar to the interpretation of the cue story as either cheating or not cheating was the conceptualization for the non-participating partner’s behavior being considered snooping or an invasion of privacy. The participants varied in terms of whether or not the participating partner viewed their partner’s behavior as snooping or whether the non-participating partner viewed reading the Facebook messages as snooping. It is clear that more than one fourth of each of the groupings of participants in this study reported that the participating partner reported that they felt their partner had invaded their privacy. The predictor variables for the logistic regression did not have a significant effect on the interpretation of snooping. Table 3 summarizes the category of invasion of privacy.
48 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Table 3
Explanation of invasion of privacy or snooping
Explanation Female Male Female Male of Snooping Mark Mark Jennifer Jennifer or Invasion Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator of privacy Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency ��
Message 71 (29.1%) 16 (23.5%) 67 (29.6%) 14 (15.6%) ns writer sees behavior as snooping
Message 32 (13.1%) 5 (7.4%) 32 (14.2%) 19 (21.1%) ns reader sees behavior as snooping
The following quotations serve as exemplifying statements of both categories, participating partner views reading the messages as a violation of their privacy and the non-participating partner views reading their partner’s messages as a violation of privacy.
Participating partner views their partner’s behavior as snooping. Participants frequently wrote that the participating partner viewed reading their private Facebook message as snooping. The following quotes show this theme:
Mark asks Jennifer why she was looking through his private things (male, B).
…Mark becomes angry at Jennifer for looking at his private messages, … (male,
A).
They get into a fight because Jennifer only found the messages after snooping on
Mark’s page (female, B).
49 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Mark then confronts Jennifer about this other person, and Jennifer then accuses
Mark of invading her privacy (male, B).
Non-participating partner views their own behavior as snooping. Despite the fact that the message reader had discovered their partner’s inappropriate behavior, many of the participants wrote that the non-participating partner was hesitant to confront their partner because they knew they should not have read the private message. For example:
Mark wants to confront Jennifer about the situation, but does not want her to
know that he was snooping through her Facebook messages (male, B).
Jennifer doesn’t know what to do because she can’t confront Mark about it
because then he’ll know she violated his privacy, but at the same time he is
cheating on her (female, B).
Although she doesn’t want him to know that she saw his private messages, there’s
no way she can continue on in the relationship knowing that he’s dating someone
else (female, B).
Impact of social networking sites on offline relationships
The participants’ stories to the cue statement were also analyzed to understand the impact the Facebook behaviors had on the offline relationship. Common categories that were coded from the participants’ stories were ending the relationship, trust being violated, the couple fighting, retaliation, one of the partners apologizing, and emotional reaction.
Nearly three-fourths (408, 65%) of the participants indicated that the offline relationship ended, with 232 (36.8%) of the participants stating that the message reader 50 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
broke up with the message writer. Participants wrote about ending the relationship due to the inappropriate online behavior being considered cheating, that they had lost trust in their partner, or because they felt that their partner was lying about the online behavior. A small percentage of the participants (30, 4.8%) wrote that the message writer ended the relationship due to feeling like their privacy was invaded or because they engaged in the online relationship due to their dissatisfaction in the offline relationship. Another interesting break up discussed by the participants, was that the message writer ended the online relationship either at the request of their partner or to try and save their offline relationship. The logistic regression analysis revealed the predictors were significant X
(2) = 6.23, p < .05. Only the version of cue story made a significant contribution to the model, recording an odds ratio of 1.030, 95% (.015, .994), indicating that Mark being the perpetrating partner significantly increased interpreting the story as a mutual break up.
Further, the analysis was also significant for predicting an interpretation of ending the relationship with the 3rd party. � (2) = 7.955, p < .001. Once again, only the version made a significant contribution to the model, with an odds ratio of 2.487, 95% (1.06,
5.83), indicating that Mark being the perpetrating partner significantly increased interpreting the story as ending the relationship with the 3rd party. Table 4 summarizes the different subcategories of ending the relationship.
51 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Table 4
Interprets story as ending the relationship
Interprets Female Male Female Male story as Mark Mark Jennifer Jennifer ending Perpetrato Perpetrato Perpetrato Perpetrato relationshi r r r r �� p Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Message reader ends 90 (36.9%) 23 (44.8%) 77 (34.1%) 41 (45.6%) ns relationship
Message writer ends 10 (4.1%) 6 (8.8%) 11 (4.9%) 2 (2.2%) ns relationship
Mutual 6 (2.5%) 2 (2.9%) 1 (0.4%) -- 6.39* break up
Unspecified 48 (19.7%) 15 (22.1%) 60 (26.5%) 14 (15.6%) ns break up
Takes a break/ 13 (5.3%) 3 (4.4%) 11 (4.9%) 3 (3.3%) ns questions relationship
Ends relationship 7 (2.9%) 1 (1.5%) 17 (7.5%) 3 (3.3%) 7.955* with online * partner * p < .05., **p < .01
Beyond the dissolution of the offline relationship, participants described several other ways that they felt the offline relationship was impacted by the online behavior.
The logistic regression analysis revealed the predictors were significant X (2) = 5.66, p <
52 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
.05. Only Version number made a significant contribution to the model, recording an odds ratio of 3.615, 95% (.99, 13.12), indicating that Mark being the perpetrating partner significantly increased interpreting the story as the non-participating partner retaliating by contacting the 3rd party through Facebook. Additionally, the logistic regression revealed a statistically significant relationship for predicting an interpretation of dangerous retaliation, X (2) = 6.65, p < .05. The only predictor variable that made a significant contribution to the model was participant gender, odds ratio .25, 95% (.08, .73), indicating that female participants significantly predicted interpreting the story as dangerous retaliation. Table 5 presents the categories related to other impacts to the offline relationship. Two of the most discussed themes dealt with loss of trust in the offline relationship and that when the message reader confronted their partner the couple fought or argued.
Trust. 180 (28.6%) of the participants discussed trust being lost in their cue story responses. An interesting aspect of this study was that due to many participants describing an invasion of privacy for accessing the Facebook message, several of the stories discussed both partners violating the trust in the relationship. For example:
He realizes they both had trust and honesty issues that they needed to work on
(male, B).
As both Jennifer and Mark have broken the trust that should have been holding
their relationship together for the past year, the two decide that their relationship
is not healthy, and therefore, they end it (female, B).
53 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Fight or argue. The second predominant theme of how the Facebook behavior impacted the offline relationship, fight or argue, was typically discussed as occurring after the message reader confronted the message writer. The following quotes illustrate this category:
Mark confronts Jennifer; they get into a big fight and decide to break up (female,
B).
Jennifer confronts Mark about the situation. After a long fight they break up
(female, A).
She then confronts Mark on what she’s found. Mark is outraged that Jennifer was
“snooping” though his Facebook. This leads to a huge blow up (female, A).
The other identified themes related to impact on the offline relationship were: retaliation and apology; either the message writer apologized to their partner for engaging in the online relationship or the message reader apologized for violating privacy. The most frequent retaliatory behavior was contacting the third party, typically through
Facebook and other retaliation, which most commonly included posting inappropriate pictures/messages/videos on Facebook or involving online friends in the break up.
Table 5
Interpretation of how behavior impacts the offline relationship
Female Male Female Male Impact on Mark Mark Jennifer Jennifer offline Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator relationship Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency ��
Trust 81 (33.2%) 14 (20.6%) 62 (27.4%) 23 (25.6%) ns 54 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Fight, yell, 39 (16.0%) 7 (10.3%) 41 (18.1%) 10 (11.1%) ns argue
Apology Message 5 (2.0%) 1 (1.5%) 7 (3.1%) 2 (2.2%) ns reader Message 9 (3.7%) 2 (2.9%) 11 (16.2%) 5 (5.6%) ns writer
Retaliation Contacts 9 (3.7%) 2 (2.9%) 3 (1.3%) -- 5.66* 3rd party Dangerous 1 (0.4%) 5 (7.4%) 5 (2.2%) 3 (3.3%) 6.65* Other 7 (2.9%) 3 (4.4%) 10 (4.4%) 4 (4.4%) ns * p < .05
The final impact to the offline relationship was the emotional impact the online behavior had on both the message reader and writer. From the responses, 7 emotional experiences were reported ranging from feeling betrayed, shocked or surprised, or angry.
Participants distinguished the emotional experiences to each of the partners separately.
The experience of the message reader was more frequently reported, with a wider variety of emotions experienced when compared to the message writer. One thing that stands out most about the emotional experiences reported by participants, is that female participants were more likely than male participants to discuss Mark or Jennifer’s emotions.
Additionally, the grouping that had the least emotional experience codes was the group in which male participants responded to the cue story where Mark was the message writer
(Version A).
The logistic regression analysis revealed three significant models for predicting the interpretation of emotional experiences. For the message reader betrayal and hurt
55 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
were significantly predicted and for the message writer anger. The logistic regression model for betrayal revealed X (2) = 11.56, p < .01. Both predictor variables made a significant contribution to the model, gender of perpetrator odds ratio .34, 95% (.15, .78) and gender of participant odds ratio 3.37, 95% (1.00, 11.35), meaning that Mark being the perpetrator and being female made participants more likely to write about the message reader feeling betrayed. For interpreting the cue story as message reader feeling hurt, the model revealed X (2) = 7.06, p < .05. Gender of the participant was the only predictor to make a significant contribution to the model, with an odds ration of 2.08,
95% (1.12, 3.87). Finally, there was a significant finding for interpreting the cue story as the message writer feeling angry, X (2) = 9.46, p < .01. Gender of the participant was the only predictor to make a significant contribution to the model, with an odds ration of
2.54, 95% (1.28, 5.06), indicating that female participants predicted the interpretation of the message writer feeling angry. Table 6 presents the most frequently reported emotions for each category of participants.
Table 6
Interpretation of both partners’ emotional experience
Female Male Female Male Mark Mark Jennifer Jennifer Emotional Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator Perpetrator experience Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency ��
Message Reader Betrayed 8 (3.3%) -- 19 (8.4%) 3 (3.3%) 11.56** Angry 32 (13.1%) 9 (13.2%) 28 (12.4%) 11 (12.2%) ns Hurt, sad 58 (23.8%) 13 (19.1%) 48 (21.2%) 13 (4.4%) 7.06* 56 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Worried 12 (4.9%) -- 9 (4.0%) 2 (2.2%) ns Jealous 5 (2.0%) -- 9 (4.0%) -- ns
Message Writer Betrayed 1 (0.4%) -- 3 (1.3%) 1 (1.1%) ns Angry 40 (16.4%) 4 (5.9%) 31 (13.7%) 6 (6.7%) 9.80** Hurt, sad 21 (8.6%) 3 (4.4%) 27 (11.9%) 5 (5.6%) ns *p < .05, **p < .01
Gender differences in interpretation of cue story
Differences in interpretation of the cue story can be considered looking at gender of the participant and gender of the participating partner in the cue story. The statistically significant results of the current study highlight that women were more likely than men to write about emotions, specifically betrayal, and anger, engaging in retaliatory behaviors
(contacting the 3rd party, dangerous), and writing about the cue couple having a mutual break up or the participating partner ending their online relationship. Looking at the frequencies and percentages of the participants’ interpretations of the cue story within each group (Version A or B, female or male participant), several trends, although not statistically significant can be mentioned. In the current study, women were more likely to report that the couple in the cue story fought/argued, that one or both partners mentioned snooping, to use emotional language, to discuss ending the relationship and retaliating. Male participants, on the other hand, wrote about justifications for the online behavior more so than female participants. Additionally, when males described the emotions of the partners in the cue story, they described anger twice as much as any other emotional word identified during the content analysis. Once again, the readers are
57 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
cautioned to not interpret these results as statistically significant, but that based on percentages and frequencies some gender differences were found in the current study.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine how people interpret Facebook infidelity, what impact Facebook behaviors have on the offline relationship, and what role gender plays in this phenomenon. Additionally, this study compared the results of the current study to previously conducted studies on offline and online infidelity that used a story completion method.
Results indicated that 321 (51%) of the participants wrote about the online behavior being infidelity with only 18 participants (2.9%) specifically indicating that it was not infidelity. The remaining participants, 290 (46.1%) did not make any clear indication about infidelity. These findings are similar to Whitty (2005), who found that half of the participants wrote that the betrayer believed they had been unfaithful and 89% wrote that the betrayed partner felt it was cheating. Although a large number of participants made no indication of whether or not they interpreted the story as cheating, the fact that 65% of the participants wrote that the offline relationship ended and another
5% took a break or questioned the relationship, in the cue story indicates that many of the participants viewed this behavior to be a violation of the relationship, despite not specifically labeling the behavior as infidelity. While we cannot make assumptions about why the participants ended the offline relationship when they did not indicate their interpretation of the behavior, what we can confidently state is that social networking site behaviors have a multifaceted impact on offline relationships. 58 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
In comparison to the replicated studies, both the current study and Whitty (2005) found that participants interpreted the online behaviors in more complex ways than the participants in Kitzinger and Powell (1995). In Kitzinger and Powell (1995) participants identified the offline behavior to not only be cheating, but that the cue story was about sexual or physical infidelity. In the two online studies, a larger number of participants did not make a distinction between emotional or physical infidelity. Although the difference was marginal, less participants in the current study on Facebook infidelity stated that the online behavior was not cheating compared to Whitty (2005), 2.9% compared to 9%.
The current study highlighted a wide range of ways that the online behavior impacted the offline relationship. Consequences such as loss of trust, ending the relationship, retaliation, and emotional experiences were all identified. These results were similar to what was found in Whitty (2005). Ending the relationship was not a theme in
Kitzinger and Powell (1995) but participants wrote that anger, violence, and revenge/retaliation were common reactions in the offline relationship. Although all three stories had themes of retaliation, the current study had fewer reports of violent retaliation, with most of the retaliation behaviors occurring online to either sabotage the online relationship or post incriminating evidence on their partner’s Facebook wall. Another unique finding in the current study was the theme of snooping or invasion of privacy. Out of the three studies, this was the only study to highlight the impact perceived snooping had on the offline relationship; either it made the message reader hesitant to confront their partner about the message or the message writer used invasion of privacy as a reason to be angry at the non-participating partner. Invasion of privacy was viewed as a 59 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
significant issue for many of the participants, with a smaller percentage (5%) taking this concern as far as shaming or criticizing the message reader more so than the message writer, despite the fact that they were having an affair. It is also possible that more participants reported that the offline relationship ended in the current study than the previous two due to the added complexity of participants’ reactions to reading a private message on Facebook.
Finally, gender of the participant and gender of the perpetrator were used as predictor variables to analyze the interpretation of the cue story. In the current study, seven of the coded interpretations were statistically significant. The statistically significant findings revealed that the predictor variables used in the current study were better at predicting certain behaviors more so than others. For example, women were found to be more likely to write about betrayal and hurt, as well as engaging in retaliation behaviors (contacting the 3rd party, dangerous). All three studies reported that women, more than men used emotional language in their responses, as well as women wrote more about the relationship (e.g., breaking up, loss of trust). The results from the Kitzinger and
Powell (1995) study on offline infidelity were distinct from the two online studies, in that the majority of the male participants wrote about sexual issues (either the female cheated because the male lacked in sexual performance, or wrote about the sexual behaviors with the third party) and that once the infidelity was discovered the stories held high levels of violence and references to feeling angry.
The comparisons of these three studies on offline, online, and Facebook infidelity behaviors highlight the complexity of infidelity, especially when looking at online 60 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
behaviors. It is clear that offline infidelity more so than online infidelity is commonly conceptualized as sexual in nature; whereas, online infidelity tends to focus more on emotional connections. However, in the current study, the participants described a much more complex interpretation of the Facebook infidelity behaviors. Previous researchers have described different categories of online infidelity, consisting of sexual, emotional, and pornography (Henline et al., 2007; Whitty, 2003). Some of the participants discussed that the third party was someone from work, school or their offline network of friends, and in some of the participants’ stories the infidelity behavior was interpreted as both sexual and emotional infidelity. In sum, after more than 15 years of research being conducted on Internet infidelity, what is clear is that this phenomenon has complex and diverse implications for offline relationships.
Clinical Implications
The findings of this study hold several implications for clinicians who work with couples. Currently, 1 billion people in the world actively use Facebook (Associated Press,
2012). Additionally we have seen a rise in the number of divorces that cite Facebook as a contributing factor. In the current study, 465 (74.2%) of the participants stated that they get on Facebook several times a day, with another 90 (14.4%) stating they get on at least once a day; this is 90% of the participants. What these statistics highlight is clinicians will undoubtedly work with couples who spend significant amounts of time on their social networking sites, facing many temptations that can have repercussions on their offline relationship.
61 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Based on the findings of the current study, individuals interpret online behaviors and the subsequent impact the behaviors will have on the offline relationship in a variety of different ways. Due to the complexities associated with this phenomenon it is important that clinicians help each partner explore and define their definition of inappropriate online behaviors. If a couple presents with issues related to the Internet or
SNS, the clinician can help the couple define behaviors that would constitute appropriate or inappropriate behaviors within the context of their relationship. For example, clinicians could instruct each partner to write down a list of online behaviors that they would believe to be problematic. After each partner creates their list the clinician can help explore the rules with the couple looking for similarities or differences in each partners’ list. Because participants offered a variety of different explanations for why they interpreted the Facebook message to be cheating, (e.g. people should not have multiple relationships while in a committed relationship, partners should not keep secrets), using the created list the clinician should ask each partner about why they identified specific behaviors. Some guiding questions might be: “Can you tell me how you selected each behavior? If this behavior was to occur how do you think it would impact your relationship? If you were to rank the behaviors from most concerning to least concerning, which behaviors would be most damaging to the relationship? Least damaging?”
Further, participants gave a diverse range of reasons why the Facebook behavior was not cheating. It is likely that one partner may have an issue with certain online behaviors that their partner may not consider to be inappropriate, or that if the partner 62 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
does not want to give up the online behavior they may minimize the impact the behavior has had on the relationship. Due to these issues it will be important that the clinician listen for justifications such as “It is only online” or “It is just flirting,” that partners may use to excuse inappropriate online behavior. These justifications are likely to invalidate the non-participating partner. If a justification is used, the clinician can help explore where the client developed that perspective.
A unique finding from this study was the category of snooping or invasion of privacy. In comparison to past research on online infidelity, this is the first study where a large majority of the participants wrote about issues of privacy violations. In the current study, some participants were so upset or angered by the perceived invasion of privacy that they ended the offline relationship. Clinicians should consider that when couples are establishing rules and boundaries for their Internet and SNS use issues such as how they plan to monitor or reinforce these rules in their relationship should be part of the discussion.
Future Directions
The findings of the current study demonstrate that after over 15 years of research on Internet and relationships, we still are finding this to be a complex and relevant issue.
One area that is lacking in the existing research is how couples communicate about rules and boundaries in their offline relationships, in regards to the Internet and social networking sites. Due to the diverse interpretations participants offered in relation to the
Facebook behavior, it is clear that partners may come into the relationship with very different ideas about what is appropriate and inappropriate online behavior. An important 63 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
next step in studying this phenomenon would be to explore what rules couples have in their relationship for the Internet or SNS and how often couples share consensus about these rules. Further, for those couples who have established SNS rules, research should study whether or not these rules act as preventative barriers to problems with Facebook.
Research on the preventative role of established rules could translate to the integration of
Technology related issues in pre-union or pre-marital counseling. Finally, in relation to rules and boundaries, future research is also needed to consider how partners monitor or reinforce these online rules. This would include exploring the sharing of passwords, having access to one another’s account, or having a joint account, and whether these behaviors are beneficial to the relationship. Future research could explore how monitoring social networking site accounts relates to trust and the quality of the relationship.
Limitations
The current study had several limitations. One limitation concerns sampling limitations and generalizability. The sample was predominately Caucasian, had a college education or higher, and was largely between the ages of 18-24. Due to these sample characteristics, the current findings may not be generalizable to more diverse populations.
A second limitation is that the cue story portrays a cross-sex relationship and participants were not asked to report their sexual orientation. This limits the results of this study to be about how participants interpret the impact of SNS behaviors on cross-sex relationships.
Readers should be cautioned in applying these findings to same-sex couples, since this study focused on a cross-sex relationship in the cue story. 64 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Finally, although there are several previously discussed benefits from using a projective measure because this study proposed a hypothetical scenario to the participants, it may be difficult to conclude that the interpretations of the participants would be the same if this study had focused on couples who had experienced online infidelity. Although the results were obtained from a hypothetical situation, many of the results of the current study mirrored findings from other empirical studies on offline and online infidelity. For example, confronting the partner, decisions about the offline relationship, and the reported emotional experiences replicate the findings from Cravens,
Leckie, and Whiting’s (2013) study on non-participating partners’ experiences with
Facebook infidelity.
65 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Chapter 4
Firewalls for Facebook: Couples Communication of rules and boundaries for Social
networking site use
Abstract
Researchers and clinicians have found that online behaviors can create potential problems for offline relationships. One struggle is the difficultly in defining online infidelity, since there are diverse ways individuals interpret inappropriate and appropriate online behaviors. This diversity highlights the need for research to understand how couples communicate about or establish rules and boundaries for online behaviors in their intimate partner relationship. The purpose of this study was to explore the following research questions: (1) What rules and boundaries about social networking site use do couples have? (2) How are these rules and boundaries communicated in the relationship?
And (3) How are rules and boundaries monitored? 10 couples participated in semi- structured interviews. Constructivist grounded theory was used to analyze the interviews and create a theory explaining the communication process couples engage in about social networking site behaviors in their relationship. Results of the study indicated that couples rarely discuss rules for online behaviors, but most partners have implicit rules that they expect their partner to follow. In fact, online behaviors were not explicitly communicated unless one partner perceived that a boundary had been crossed. The presented process model highlights the communication process of couples once an online issue has impacted the offline relationship. The stages of the grounded theory model include identifying online issue, appraising online issue, discussing online issue, consequences, 66 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
resolution, and preventative barriers. Clinical implications and future research recommendations are discussed.
Key terms: Social networking sites, Internet, Couples, rules, grounded theory
67 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Rules and Guidelines of Relationships
In day-to-day relationships, be it business, friendship, family, or romantic, various rules guide appropriate and inappropriate interactions. These rules and guidelines can be thought of as ways in which we enhance the quality of our relationship and how we maintain the relationship over time (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). Relational rules specify what most people “think or believe should or should not be performed” (Argyle &
Henderson, 1985, p.63).
Boundary setting is one of the main ways partners inhibit disruptive, exploitative, and unsupportive actions within relationships (Wilson, Roloff, & Carey, 1998). The theory of rule development outlines three characteristic of rules: (1) members must see the rules as relevant (social consensus construction), (2) rules are prescriptive – they specify behaviors that either should or should not be engaged in (prescriptive criterion), and (3) failure to engage in the relevant behavior is a condition for sanctions and/or disruption of the relationship (sanction criterion) (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). In addition to the categories of rules, romantic relationships hold four common categories of rules that help to maintain the relationship. The four categories of maintenance rules created from Argyle and Henderson’s research (1985) are: (1) intimacy regulating, (2) rules concerning 3rd parties, (3) rules for maintaining appropriate relationship hierarchy, and (4) relationship-specific obligations. These two concepts from the theory of rule development help illustrate common purposes and themes of rules developed in romantic relationships.
68 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
The theory of rule development has been enhanced by research that investigated the process that married couples engage in to develop rules about the acceptable or unacceptable behaviors in which they can engage. Often these rules may be unspoken, and assumptions are made that one’s partner shares her or his beliefs about what is appropriate (Murray et al., 2002). To complicate these rules further, Wilson et al., (2011) found that women and men do not always agree on what behaviors are acceptable and what constitutes infidelity. This helps explain partner’s different reactions to infidelity and “suggests that cheating is comprised of more than just breaking the written or unwritten rules of sexual monogamy” (p. 81). The extent to which individuals perceive behaviors as cheating was distinct from the amount of distress that these behaviors caused.
Impact of Relational Rules
To maintain social relationships, rules and boundaries are developed to ensure that a healthy and satisfactory relationship is maintained (Argyle & Henderson, 1985).
These rules and boundaries are successful at enhancing relationships, but only to the extent that couples are able to communicate their rules effectively. In and of itself, poor communication in romantic relationships can have devastating effects on the relationship
(Gottman, 1994). Thus, if couples struggle with communication and have not established clear boundaries for their relationship, they are setting themselves up for negative consequences. Additionally, one of the most frequently reported presenting problem in couple’s therapy is communication (Geiss & O’Leary, 1981; Miller, Yorgason, Sandberg,
& White, 2003; Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). With communication issues being 69 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
such a pervasive issue in couples therapy, it would make sense that exploring different dimensions of how couples communicate, what issues they avoid, and why they are avoiding certain topic areas would benefit clinicians.
Setting online boundaries
Previous studies have confirmed that individuals do consider online activities to be forms of infidelity (Cravens & Whiting, 2013a; Henline & Lamke, 2003; Whitty,
2003). Additionally, many studies have found that both intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences can occur following inappropriate online behaviors (Bridges et al., 2003;
Cooper et al., 2003; King, 1999; Schneider, 2000, 2003; and Zitzman & Butler, 2005).
These findings highlight the need for preventative measures to help avert inappropriate
Internet behaviors. Thus, it is important for researchers and clinicians to have a stronger understanding of how couples define and negotiate online boundaries. Despite this need, a true paucity of research exists for online boundary setting, with only two known studies focusing on this phenomenon (Helsper & Whitty, 2010; Norton, 2011). One reason for the lack of research in this area could be related to how widely couples’ boundaries and rules may vary between partners and other relationships (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006;
Norton, 2011).
Helsper and Whitty (2010) focused on the shared “netiquette” of married couples and online monitoring and surveillance of partner behaviors. Online netiquette is defined as “the unspoken and spoken rules about acceptable and unacceptable online activities”
(Helsper & Whitty, 2010, p. 919). The results of this study found that the highest amount of agreed upon, unacceptable online behavior dealt with those activities considered to be 70 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
infidelity (e.g., falling in love with someone else online, engaging in cybersex). Recall that the first two rules of romantic relationship maintenance deal with intimacy regulation and rules concerning 3rd parties (Argyle & Henderson, 1985). The largest disagreement between married partners came from the issue of whether or not it was acceptable to look at sexual material, followed by online gambling and shopping. In relation to monitoring behaviors, one in three couples reported engaging in this behavior. Of those participants who reported surveillance and monitoring behaviors, reading emails, reading SMS, and checking browser history were the most frequently reported formats.
Norton (2011) conducted a study on Internet boundaries for social networking sites (SNS), exploring the relationship between trust, satisfaction, and boundaries. The results indicated that trust and boundary setting were related, but relationship satisfaction did not relate to SNS boundaries. Additionally, Norton (2011) found that types of boundaries could be grouped into two distinct, but related categories: Openness (sharing passwords and allowing partners to access each other’s SNS) and Fidelity (emotional fidelity should extend to online behaviors).
Although existing literature has enhanced the current state of knowledge, researchers have yet to investigate how couples communicate their boundaries for
Internet use or how they negotiate differences in opinions of rules or boundaries. Due to the rise in reported issues with Internet infidelity, researchers and clinicians would profit from having empirical evidence to explore how couples create rules and boundaries for online behaviors. In conclusion, it is important for researchers and clinicians to be able to bridge the gap in our understanding of what rules about appropriate online behaviors 71 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
couples see as relevant to the maintenance of their relationship as well as how they are able to communicate these rules.
Purpose of Study
The literature on the Internet and relationships is still lacking in thoroughness. At a foundational level, researchers have demonstrated that people in general consider some online activities to be forms of infidelity (Henline & Lamke, 2003; Henline, et al., 2007;
Whitty, 2003, 2005) and these behaviors hold consequences for both the participating and non-participating partner, as well as their relationship (Bridges et al., 2003; King, 1999; and Schneider, 2000). Areas yet to be explored are how individuals view SNS in reference to their offline relationship (i.e. how it enhances or detracts from relationship), couple level research on the phenomenon, and how couples develop rules and boundaries for online behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to explore how couples establish rules and boundaries for SNS use in their relationship. This aim was explored through semi- structured qualitative interviews with couples in committed intimate partner relationships and explored the following questions:
1. What rules and boundaries about social networking site use do couples have?
2. How are these rules and boundaries communicated in the relationship?
3. How are these rules and boundaries monitored?
Methods
To answer the research questions, couples were interviewed and the data was analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology. Since this is an unexplored 72 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
area, grounded theory methodology was appropriate to help understand this phenomenon by building a theory that is data driven, not constructed from pre-existing conceptualizations. The researcher held a subjective, or “not-knowing” stance and operated from a constructivist paradigm. Thus, the final theoretical model was influenced by the interaction between researcher and participants and the final model should be understood as representing one conceptualization of the phenomenon amongst many
(Daly, 2007).
Data Collection
Participants were recruited both in an on campus family therapy clinic at a western university and in the community. Participants had an opportunity to receive one of two $50.00 Visa gift cards that were drawn at the conclusion of data collection. The inclusion criteria for the study were: a minimum age of 18 years, have familiarity and have/had a Facebook account, speaking English, and currently in a committed relationship. For the purposes of this study, committed relationship was defined as a current relationship between two partners who both define their relationship as committed; no specific length of time was required. Additionally, partners could be married, cohabitating, engaged, living separately, or in an LGB committed partnership.
The university Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Sample Characteristics
A sample of 10 couples (20 individuals) were recruited from both the community
(n=6) and a western university couples and family therapy clinic (n= 4).To aid in providing a thorough description of sample characteristics demographics will be reported 73 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
based on each individual within the relationship. Of the participants, 11 were female and
9 were men. The majority of the couples identified themselves as being in a cross-sex relationship, with one couple identifying their relationship as same-sex. Participants reported their relationship status to be dating 4 (20%), cohabitating 10 (50%), and married 6 (30%). The majority of participants identified themselves as Caucasian in ethnicity 17 (85%), with two participants (10%) identifying themselves as Multiracial and one (5%) participant identifying themself as African American/Black. In terms of highest completed education, 7 (35%) had attending college, 7 (35%) completed high school/GED, with 5 (25%) receiving a two year technical or associates degree, and one participant completing junior high/middle school. Additional demographic information is reported in Table 1.
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Variable Sample (N=20)
Gender Female 11 (55%) Male 9 (45%)
Race/Ethnicity African American/Black 1 (5%) Caucasian 17 (85%) Multiracial 2 (10%)
Relationship Status Dating 4 (20%) Cohabitating 10 (50%) Married 6 (30%)
Length of Relationship 74 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Less than a year 10 (50%) 1 – 2 years 2 (10%) 3 – 5 years 6 (30%) 6 – 10 years 2 (10%)
Highest level of completed education Junior High/Middle School 1 (5%) High School/GED 7 (35%) 2 year technical/Associate degree 5 (25%) 4 year college degree or higher 7 (35%)
Since the current study investigated online rules and boundaries, in addition to general demographic information, participants were also asked specific information relevant to technology. All of the participants in the study had a social networking site account, with 11 (55%) of the participants reporting that they use their SNS accounts several times a day and 4 (20%) reporting at least once a day. Participants also varied in the number of SNS accounts that they had, ranging from 1 (n=5, 25%) to 10 (n=4, 20%), with the majority of participants having 2 to 5 sites (n=11, 55%). SNS that were most common were Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Table 2
Internet and social networking site use
Variable Sample (N=20)
Have a social networking site Yes 20 (100%) No 0 (0%)
Frequency of social networking site use Rarely (fewer than once a month) 1 (5%) Several times a month 2 (10%) Several times a week 2 (10%) Once a day 4 (20%) 75 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Several times a day 11 (55%)
Number of social networking sites One 5 (25%) 2-5 accounts 11 (55%) 5-10 accounts 4 (20%)
Measures
Demographics. Information regarding age, gender, current relationship status, length of relationship, education, and SNS use was gathered from a demographic questionnaire given at the beginning of the study.
Semi-structured interview. A semi-structured interview was conducted with the couple participants; both partners had to be present during the interview (Appendix D).
Questions for this study were designed to explore areas related to SNS use and their offline relationship. The semi-structured interview questions asked participants about amount of time spent online, SNS use, how SNS enhances or detracts from their offline relationship, what behaviors they perceive to be appropriate or inappropriate, and what rules and boundaries for online behaviors they had established. Couples who had established rules in their relationship were asked about why they decided to establish rules, how they determined what behaviors were off limits, and how they negotiated differences. For those couples who had not established SNS rules in their relationship, the semi-structured interview focused on having the couples discuss their views on Facebook behaviors, how specific behaviors might impact their relationship, and to allow them the opportunity to discuss rules and boundaries they may want to apply to the relationship.
76 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Data Analysis
The semi-structured interviews were recorded using a hand held recorder and were subsequently transcribed. Each transcription was hand coded by the first author, who was the primary coder. Memos were used extensively in this process to track analytic decisions, code development, and researcher’s reflections. To ensure that the categories stayed true to the data an external auditor was utilized. The demographic information and technology use data were entered into SPPS® to determine the sample characteristics.
Researchers offer different stages for coding when using grounded theory. In the current study, the four stages recommended by Charmaz (2006) were utilized: initial coding, focused coding, axial coding and theoretical coding. During the initial coding stage, the researcher read through each line of the transcript making analytic interpretations that move beyond the participants’ concrete statements and identifying codes. For example, all of the following codes were named during the initial coding stage: no written rule, following norms, no established rules, and obvious rules. These short codes stuck close to the data and show actions related the development of rules. The next stage, focused coding involves a process of refining initial codes by comparing data to data, seeking to find events, interactions, or perspectives. Focused coding allowed for the synthesis of no written rules, following norms, no established rules, and obvious rules into the code implicit rules.
Axial coding, the third stage of coding, is the process of relating categories to subcategories and specifying the dimensions of the categories (Charmaz, 2006). By 77 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
reexamining data from the initial coding stage it was discovered that some couples validated one another’s perspective but the more couples lacked consensus about online rules the more likely they were to justify their online behavior. Further, it was seen that providing evidence was used to communicate that a boundary had been crossed. This process of sorting, synthesizing and organizing the categories revealed that providing examples, justifying behavior, and explaining perspective were actions related to how couples communicated about problematic online behaviors. It was then determined that these codes were specific properties of discussing the online issue, leading to the development of each of these codes as subcategories. The fourth and final stage of coding was the theoretical coding stage. Theoretical coding represents a process of specifying possible relationships between categories, with the aim of telling a coherent analytic story. Prior to finalizing the model, the researcher’s memos and the original data were revisited to ensure that the model reflected the couples’ narratives.
Trustworthiness
An important element to all research is the reliability and validity of the results.
In qualitative research, particularly grounded theory, the trustworthiness of the findings is what is used to maintain the rigor of the study. Several suggestions on ensuring rigor are offered by qualitative researchers (Creswell, 2007). One recommendation is approaching the data with a “beginner’s mind.” This step requires the researcher to analyze the data free of preconceived notions about the construct of interest. Because the researcher cannot fully separate from the analytic process, it is necessary for the researcher to be transparent about how their values and beliefs may have affected analysis. I was reflexive 78 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
in acknowledging that as a researcher I have 4 years of experience studying Facebook and Relationships, which informed the process of coding data from this study. By being attentive to the initial coding stages, I was able to create categories that were reflective of the data, not my beliefs or values. Additionally, the use of memos and reflexivity also helped to increase the rigor of the current study. For example, many of my memos revealed ideas about assumptions of shared rules and that couples did not discuss state rules for the Internet. From these memos the idea that partners’ held implicit rules for the
Internet started to emerge. The early emergence of this theme in my memos allowed me to compare subsequent interviews to this developing idea and although participants did not use the word “implicit,” these memos aided in helping me make sense of the data.
Results
A primary finding of the analysis was that couples rarely communicate about online rules and boundaries; however, when asked to discuss online behaviors in their relationship each partner shared individual rules that they held their partner accountable for. When these rules were violated the couple would be forced to evaluate the behavior and discuss the issue. The discussion of the inappropriate online behavior resulted in consequences, resolutions, or both. Several of the couples experienced multiple online issues, forcing the couple to cycle back through the model. This process is visually shown in Figure 1 and is described below.
79 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Figure 1
Grounded Theory Model
Preventative Barriers
Identify Online Issue
Past Issues Inappropriate Behaviors
Appraise Consequence Online Issue Arguing Implicit Rules Breaking-up Explicit Rules Monitoring Rule Consensus
Discussion Issue Providing Evidence Justifying Behavior Explaining Perspective
Resolution Monitoring Successful Communication
Identify online issue
Couples were asked about whether or not there were specific online behaviors that they would consider appropriate or inappropriate within the context of their relationship.
Two subcategories were revealed: past issues and inappropriate behaviors. Although there was some overlap in the two subcategories, it was clear that almost all participants 80 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
conceptualized to some extent what would constitute an inappropriate behavior but not all of the couples had experienced past issues.
Past issues. The subcategory past issues is defined as an online behavior that at least one partner viewed as being an issue, that had occurred previously in either the current or past relationships. When asked to identify inappropriate online behaviors partners not only shared specific behaviors, they related the behavior back to examples from a past issues. The following example demonstrates an issue that occurred previously in their current relationship.
Partner 6B (male): I have either been contacted or been in contact with pretty
much everyone from every dark corner or dark part of my past, …One was a
friend, the first girlfriend that I ever had [partner interrupts].
Partner 6A (female): That he talked about so much, it drove me f---ing nuts.
Similarly, couple 4AB had concerns about people contacting them through
Facebook and engaging in inappropriate conversations with others.
Partner 4B (male): Messaging, she was starting to get uneasy because there was a
couple people saying, ya know, cutie or something like that, and she didn’t know
all the facts yet. But it got to the point where previous conversations supposedly
got deleted and she would get on my case about things. So I pointed out some
hypocritical points and from there we actually were doing a little better.
In addition to discussing SNS issues within their current relationships, couples also shared issues from previous relationships. For example, one partner (8B) stated “Not our relationship, well we haven’t had any issues with it [SNS], the only issue was when I 81 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
was with my ex-wife.” Another partner (8A) shared that “I did have a joint account with my ex-husband for the sole purpose that I knew he was doing inappropriate things on
Facebook.” Finally, partner (2A) revealed that past relationships issues carried over into her current relationship: “I had issues in the past with other previous lovers where they were doing something behind my back and I kind of carried that into my next relationship. I probably shouldn’t have done that.”
Inappropriate behaviors. Inappropriate behaviors was defined as any online behavior that was identified as being inappropriate by one or both partners, without the requirement that this behavior had occurred in their relationship. Participants’ narratives indicated that each partner had specific behaviors they identified as inappropriate within the context of their relationship. One partner (3A) shared that you shouldn’t post stupid pictures, that there is a boundary of what should be posted online. Another partner (7A) shared similar views about pictures, due to their partner’s privacy rules, stating “Well if I ever put up a picture of him, I feel like that would be crossing a line because he doesn’t want that.” Each couple identified specific inappropriate behaviors that ranged from mirroring inappropriate offline behaviors to looking for another partner online.
Online issue appraised
Individual partners went through a process where the online issue was appraised based on their own rules for appropriate online behavior. A common theme from this category was whether or not couples had established rules for online behaviors. Three subcategories were identified: implicit rules, explicit rules, and rule consensus.
82 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Implicit rules. The subcategory of implicit rules is one partners implied or identified but not expressed rules for what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate online behavior. When one partner engaged in an inappropriate online behavior, the other partner indicated that they should have known the behavior was inappropriate, despite the fact that no rule had been expressed to their partner. For example, one partner (7B) shared that “No we really don’t have any rules…they just mirror our offline rules.” Other partners conveyed that they did not have established rules but there were behaviors that if engaged in, would cross a boundary. Partner (2B) stated, “I haven’t really figured it out yet. I don’t have rules I just have guidelines. And there is stuff I am comfortable with and there is stuff that I am not.” Although the partner had not established a rule, he was communicating to his partner that there are behaviors that he would be uncomfortable with his partner engaging in. Another partner (2A) stated, “To be fair, I know personally what needs to be done and so I just do what feels right.” One couple shared that they were aware of “unwritten rules” but that they had not discussed them:
P6B: No, we just have unwritten rules that we have just, that we just both
probably agreed would be distasteful.
P6A: Maybe there is a list of rules that we should be going over with each other.
Another couple indicated that each partner knew what appropriate and inappropriate behaviors were and that they had tried to tell their partner what they liked.
Partner (9B) shared that: “I know I communicate a lot of what I like and don’t like…so maybe that is why there haven’t been rules laid down.” This couple came close to having
83 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
an actual discussion about rules, but both partners stated that they had not established any concrete rules.
Explicit rules. Although implicit rules were the predominant way that rules were constructed, several couples mentioned that they had formally established a rule for their online behaviors through explicitly identifying and setting a boundary. For example, one couple talked about how a past issue had resulted in establishing an explicit rule:
Partner 1B (male): No there was an event. There was a specific event that
occurred and that is when it happened.
Partner 1A (female): Ah, there was a specific event that occurred. …I didn’t tell
him what I did; he saw it [online]. But then I took it off. I don’t really think you
said I had to.
P1B: Well yeah, so if like she thinks a picture might be too risqué then she has to
send it to me first. …And then I get to make a decision.
Another couple shared that due to previous issues with SNS in their relationship they decided they needed to discuss rules to help create clear boundaries. The couple mentioned:
Partner 10A (female): We are really careful with our account. We set out
expectations before we joined our accounts together, so like different people that
we’d had a relationship before we got together we don’t necessarily friend those
people.
Partner 10B (male): Yeah we had some guidelines beforehand.
84 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Rule Consensus. Regardless of rules being implicit or explicit, partners varied in terms of whether or not both partners agreed with the identified inappropriate behaviors.
This disagreement often led to arguments. One couple disagreed about whether or not it was okay to talk about sexual issues to opposite sex individuals, while another couple was unable to agree about who was an acceptable Facebook friend. The following dialogue exemplifies this subcategory:
Partner 2A (female): I don’t like him doing a lot of talking to other females
…[partner interrupts].
Partner 2B (male): At all, at all!
P2A: [laughs] I don’t like other girls talking to him like…[partner interrupts].
P2B: Not even about sex, just at all. …Of course I don’t follow that rule at all.
Another couple shared that they have argued about refusing to add friends on
Facebook. The discussion resulted in an argument:
Partner 5B (male): Oh, I have gotten mad about her not adding my friends. I ask
her to add my friends and she doesn’t want to.
Partner 5A (female): But then he thinks I should, but [partner interrupts].
P5B: Cause I think that since we are a couple she, cause if I am friends with
someone then she and they are good friends in real life, well …that it is rude for
her to ignore them wanting to be her friend.
P5A: …I don’t know why it matters, but I mean if his friends ask now, I will do
it. I just don’t like, I don’t need a million people on my Facebook….
P5B: I don’t know, I just think it is rude. It is like a slap in the face. 85 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Discussing online issue
One of the most important findings of the current study was that couples did not communicate about rules for online behavior. Despite this lack of communication, the couples revealed that when an issue occurred they were forced to talk about how SNS behaviors may violate individual rules partners have established. Partner (9B) shared that
“The one time one of the examples that I gave happened, eventually we were able to talk about it.” Several subcategories were identified as being related to discussing the online issue: providing evidence, justifying behavior, and explaining perspective.
Providing evidence. The subcategory of providing evidence is defined as any time during the discussion where one partner shared a specific event or behavior that occurred online. Providing evidence typically followed one person denying that a behavior had occurred. For instance, partner (2B) says there was no reason not to trust him; his partner responds stating “Well, that is not necessarily true, because the whole incident with his ex-wife and the incident with [name].” This theme is further demonstrated when one partner provides evidence to the contrary of her partner’s comment that “There was no inappropriate interaction.”
P6A: [partner interrupts] the girl that you told was sexy, [name], then the other
one was the chic who always had her tits hanging out in her profile picture
because I have a big problem with that. Because you know most of the women he
is friends with he actually sought friendships with them on Facebook, he actually
sought them out. Most of them didn’t seek him out. It was going through other
86 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
people’s profiles and looking for women and next thing I know there are just 100s
of good looking women and [partner interrupts]
P6B: That was not actually true.
P6A: I watched him do it.
Justifying behavior. The next subcategory, justifying behavior, occurred when partners would defend or justify an online behavior. For some partners a justification was used to try and reduce the consequences the behavior had on the relationship. In this example, partner (6A) was upset with her partner for commenting about how sexy a women’s photo was and that she thought her profile pictures were inappropriate. He responds with a justification stating “I had no control over that.” Anther partner justified their behavior by stating their partner wanted them to engage in the online behavior, demonstrated in the following excerpt:
P2A: Well, yeah, you have contacted people without my permission before and
just randomly came up with some picture of some girls [partner interrupts].
P2B: You’ve said that you were interested in that.
Other partners engaged in justifications to try and convince their partner that the identified inappropriate online behavior was not an issue. For example, when one partner identified that she had issues with her partner interacting with other women online her partner (6B) stated “Why? They have kids, they have artwork, they do stuff and they like to look at my stuff. You know? My motorcycle and my kids, tattoos and stuff like that I like to see.” The partner continues by stating that his wife would like the women if she got to know them. 87 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Several partners justified their behavior by minimizing it. One partner (9A) shared that she had been curious about an interaction with someone so she checked her partner’s account to read her private messages saying “And that was really the only time that I ever did that.” Another partner tried to justify his behavior by minimizing the impact of the behavior based on impact and frequency.
P6A: A couple of years ago it was a lot more childish because every time we’d
get into a fight he would get online and call me names. And he’d talk s--- [partner
interrupts].
P6B: That was only a couple of times. ...And I didn’t get that extreme.
P6A: 7 times is a lot okay? And I don’t forget these things, so those are just the
ones that are obvious to everybody of what he was talking about.
The same couple went on to minimize an online behavior by stating that it was prior to them being married. The minimization was met with frustration:
P6B: You know you’d had a little innocent message thing going on with someone
once and I found and read it.
P6A: Number one, it was before we were married. Number two it was right after
he told me that he was interested in that, me with somebody else. I actually
thought, well if he doesn’t shut up about that [partner cuts her off].
P6B: LET ME FINISH!
Explaining perspective. When the couples communicated about the problematic online issue, one partner was often put in a position of having to explain why the behavior was problematic; this was especially true when there was not consensus 88 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
between partners on what constitutes inappropriate online behavior. Partner (6A) identified interacting with attractive women as problematic. She explained she would catch herself thinking, “What is he saying about this? What is he saying about that?” She stated that she kept thinking about him writing inappropriate comments to other women:
“But then going through their pictures and commenting on them, that bothers me because then I have a bad taste in my mouth about them.”
Another couple (2AB) struggled with reporting accurate relationship status on
Facebook. One partner shared that it was a requirement of their relationship, but that his partner disagrees.
P2B: Anyone who wants to be, who is claiming to be in a relationship with you,
who is not willing to put it on Facebook they are full of s---. What are they trying
to do?
P2A: See, I don’t necessarily think that you have to list it, that you are in a
relationship with this person.
P2B: …You need to be advertising to the world that you are in a relationship.
Another partner (9A) identified that spending too much time on Facebook was an issue in their relationship, stating “She can be on there [Facebook] for hours. I think if she had the chance she would sit on there all day long. Like she just will stalk people.”
This partner went on to explain her perspective pointing out that her partner’s time on
Facebook detracts away from quality time in their relationship. “Spending less time together even though she is right there next to me, but she is spending her time on
Facebook and I am on Candy Crush.” 89 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Consequences
Although problematic online issues resulted in a dialogue, because the discussions included negative forms of communications (i.e., justification), this frequently led to negative consequences in the relationship. Three subcategories were identified as consequences: arguing, breaking up, and monitoring.
Arguing. Through the process of discussing online issues many of the couples struggled to stay de-escalated. Several couples identified that Facebook had initiated a lot of arguments in their relationship. One partner shared “Yeah we had other reasons for arguments but Facebook has been a big catalyst in our relationship.” Another couple
(9AB) both stated that their Facebook behaviors have resulted in a lot of “bickers.”
Often times couples’ discussions would result in arguments when they disagreed about whether or not an online behavior was inappropriate. One partner shared how she did not want her partner contacting other women to talk to them about their relationship.
Their discussion becomes escalated when the partner says that it is just not a rule that he is going to follow, his partner responds accordingly:
P2A: I don’t find it very appropriate to talk to another female about sex, about
something between our relationships. …When that is NOT normally how I would
feel. And to me, I get a little irritated at that I wouldn’t do that.
Break-up. Although arguing was the most common consequence, several of the couples shared how issues with SNS had resulted in a break up or separation. One partner
(2A) shared how early on in the relationship her online behavior caused her partner to break things off, “…deep down inside it was the thrill of getting caught and being 90 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
punished for it and it back fired on me because it made him leave me.” The couple went on to share how a process of trial and error with online behaviors resulting in them breaking up several times:
P2A: We have haphazardly fallen through on these things.
P2B: And, it tested the water on some things. And…
P2A: Experimented on some things.
P2B: And seeing what happens with some things. It has broken us up a few times
because of the private sex messages with people and then him spying on me.
Another couple shared that in both partners’ previous relationships, issues with
Facebook was one contributing factor to their marriages ending. One of the partners (8A) reported that her partner was doing inappropriate things on Facebook, so she made him get rid of his account, stating, “…which turned out really great because he just ended up getting another account under a name that I wouldn’t find.” Additionally, one couple brought up that issues with previous partners sending private messages had forced them to break up. One partner (10A) shared: “I guess we had a little hiatus where we were separated for a month because of Facebook.”
Monitoring. The subcategory of monitoring came up as being both a consequence of and a resolution to inappropriate online behavior. One couple discussed how in the past they had both participated in monitoring each other’s accounts due to lack of trust; however, they have since recognized that this behavior has caused consequences to their relationship.
91 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
P6A: No, he has used it before when he knew my password. It wasn’t a secret or
anything.
P6B: No, I have, but we both decided that it is in bad taste so we don’t anymore.
P6A: …I think we both grew up about that sort of thing. What is the word,
evolved, because it caused a lot of problems. It would cause arguments and I
would find out information.
The subcategory of monitoring was also a consequence that occurred when partners had suspicion of inappropriate online behaviors occurring. One partner shared how the only reason someone is going to monitor your account is if they have suspicion or they are guilty. He states:
P2B: I had never looked through her phone or on other people’s accounts, before
we met each other. But she went through my phone once when I was in the
bathroom. So I asked her “Why are you doing this?” At which point I saw why
she was doing this, there were four or five d--- picks on her account. I am like
okay the reason you are obviously looking through my phone is that you have a
guilty conscious. And she yelled at me “HOW DARE YOU GO THROUGH MY
PHONE!” …For one she was doing something that she shouldn’t have been doing
and two you were foolish enough to do a classic move of someone who is guilty.
Another couple (9AB) shared how they both get on each other’s accounts, despite not having established any agreement that they could. One of the partners discussed how she would get on her partner’s phone to check her Facebook without asking for permission. She stated, “Which I don’t know if that is a good or bad thing, I am nosey, so 92 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
I just do it.” She goes on to say that “Most of the time it is just out of curiosity or boredom.” The other partner described how she had suspicion once when a friend from her past had come into town to visit. She stated “I wanted to see how they communicated…I was just like why are y’all reconnecting and talking? So I went on
Facebook to see it because it wasn’t on her phone.”
Resolution
After discussing the online issue, couples were sometimes able to arrive at a resolution. Some of the resolutions were arrived at by trial and error. One of the couples mentioned that after realizing that communicating with the opposite sex was problematic, one partner stated that he decided, “If it bothers my wife, then I am just not going to do it.” Another couple highlighted that figuring out a resolution was a process of trial and error, where they had to “test the water” to find what works best. Overall two main subcategories were identified: monitoring and successful communication.
Monitoring. A common theme for resolving the identified online issues was the subcategory monitoring. Couples described the positive aspects of monitoring in two ways. The first way is being responsible for monitoring one’s own online behavior. One partner (2A) shared it was her responsibility to monitor her online behavior: “
…individually it is more of like, I know personally what needs to be done and so I just do what feels right.” Another partner gave the example of how when a woman tries to add him as a friend on Facebook he responds in a way that prevents future problems:
P6B: I monitor my own behavior. If I get a request, I have gotten I guess 6, in the
past couple of months from women that I don’t recognize… I have sent them a 93 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
message back “How do I know you? And if I don’t then I don’t think it is
appropriate that I friend you.” And then I have messages saved.
Another couple shared how Facebook had created previous issues in their relationship and the best way for them to resolve the issue was to create a shared account.
P10A: Us having separate accounts and it not going well, it motivated us to have a
joint account. We were trying to make things better.
P10B: Yeah. It has helped us a lot. I think we had to build up some trust.
Successful communication. By successfully communicating about the SNS issue, couples reported that they were able to prevent the behavior from being repeated. One partner stated that after discussing the issue both partners were able to have more insight on their online issues, “I don’t want to go there and I know he knows this so we have made it an open thing so we can communicate about it.” Another couple shared how they had issues with identifying who should be friended on Facebook but they discussed the issue in a way that resulted in a resolution.
P6B: And you know I let her know immediately that I am happily married and it
looks like she turned out well [partner interrupts].
P6A: And we actually resolved that. You know I told him how I felt and I told
him why I felt that way and then he talked, we talked about it and we didn’t get
into a fight …we have had to do a lot of work on ourselves.
Another couple revealed that having a separate Facebook account created severe enough issues in their marriage that they separated. When they started rebuilding their
94 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
relationship they stated that they had to sit down and discuss issues with Facebook and be clear about their motivations for having the account:
P10A: I think you have to be really careful setting guidelines because obviously
having a joint account takes away each person’s privacy. I think it takes two
people to not really mind that it is a shared account that way it is not you know,
intruding on each other’s personal space. We were both really open with having
this and being careful, knowing what the purpose of having our account is. Not
just using it for social networking but to stay in contact with our friends and
family and that is pretty much it.
Preventative Barriers
Many of the couples identified specific aspects of their relationship that served as preventative barriers to issues with Facebook. The barriers identified were related to trust and honesty. For example one couple indicated that they had not had issues with
Facebook, partner (1B) stated: “No, I mean we pretty much trust each other, we know like, that we trust each other and that’s about it.” Another partner (6B) shared that through all of the Facebook issues that they had encountered earlier in their relationship, they had arrived at a place where they decided to trust each other and move forward. He stated: “I just assume, at this point, it has been a long time since I have worried about it.
You just trust them.”
Another couple offered a comparison of their current relationship with their previous relationship, in which both their exes engaged in inappropriate Facebook behaviors. One of the partners explained: 95 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
P8A: Yeah so I think it just made both of us realize when the trust is there you
don’t have to worry. Cause we were both not trusted by our exes but really they
were the ones doing things that were not trustworthy. And we were not the guilty
party, but we were both made to feel guilty. I think once you’ve gotten into a
healthy relationship you don’t question things.
In addition to trust, one partner shared how she felt they had moved past some of their previous Facebook issues, identifying not only trust, but also their ability to communicate better. She stated the following: “As far as assumptions go, I think we are past that.” She credited counseling and talking as being responsible for the change.
Finally, couples identified that respect and considering the other person before engaging in inappropriate Facebook behaviors. One partner (8B) shared a belief about respecting one another stating: “So I am not going to do it to you so you should not do it to me. And we have been fortunate that we haven’t had to have that be an issue.” Her partner went on to say: “…if I wouldn’t do it with you sitting right next to me then I am not going to do it all.” Another partner (7B) highlighted that respect makes him confident they won’t have Facebook issues, sharing: “I think for the most part just things that would end any relationship would be rules, but in terms of our character…I just don’t see that happening.” One couple summarized the importance of respect as a preventative barrier in the following discussion:
P1A: I think social media can really ruin a relationship but I have actually noticed
that it is pretty okay in our relationship. So it doesn’t really affect ours too much.
P1B: It is just being respectful. 96 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
P1A: [jumps in] Being respectful of each other and he always told me like, put
yourself in my shoes and I like I started to kind of think of that and what he would
like and what he wouldn’t and he is like the same way towards me. …we care so
we try.
Discussion
The results suggest that most couples do not communicate about rules or boundaries for their SNS use as a preventative measure. The findings reveal that couples are forced to communicate about online issues after they occur in their relationship.
Although a few couples reported multiple issues with SNS behaviors, not all of them had.
The model highlights that couples may process back through the cycle or they can find a resolution and prevent repeating the cycle. The implications of the results will be discussed in terms of (1) comparison to previous literature, (2) clinical implications, and
(3) future research directions.
Comparison of previous literature
An additional way to enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of a grounded theory study is to compare the resulting model to previous literature (Charmaz, 2006).
One of the most important findings of the current study was that partners were more likely to have created implicit instead of explicit rules for appropriate SNS behaviors.
These findings mirror Murray et al. (2002) results that found partners rarely develop spoken rules for acceptable behavior, that individual partners assumed that their partner shared similar views. Additionally, many of the couples reported that they did not share consensus with their partner about what online behaviors were inappropriate, which is a 97 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
replication of a previous study result that found men and women tend to disagree about acceptable behaviors (Wilson et al., 2011). Because implicit rules were not communicated, the unshared implicit rules did little to ensure their partner did not engage in inappropriate Facebook behaviors. Argyle and Henderson (1985) stressed that relational rules are only successful at enhancing intimate relationships when rules are communicated effectively. This helps explain why many of the couples had experienced issues with Facebook in their relationship.
Beyond a lack of communication, couples were also impacted by the negative communication skills exhibited when online issues were discussed (i.e., justification, providing further evidence). Gottman (1994) found that poor communication has destructive effects on relationships. As highlighted in the resulting model, discussing the online issues often resulted in consequences for the relationship. One possible explanation for justifying the SNS behavior is a partner needing to avoid feeling guilty for the behavior. In her ethnography study on chat room affairs, Mileham (2007) identified three predominant themes. One of those themes, behavioral rationalization was defined as a process partners engaged in to avoid feeling their behavior was morally wrong. The theme of behavioral rationalization is one way to interpret the subcategory justifying behaviors.
Finally, the subcategory of monitoring was identified as relating to both consequences and a proposed resolution to problematic Facebook behaviors. Many of the couples reported that they had engaged in some form of monitoring behavior during the course of their relationship, whether it was checking Facebook from their partner’s 98 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
smartphone or purposefully logging onto their account from a computer. In Helsper and
Whitty (2010) they found that one in three couples reported having monitored their partner’s online account, but they did not investigate the impact of such behavior. A study on the impact of Facebook infidelity on offline relationships found that even when a partner was engaging in an affair behavior, the non-participating partner was still identified as crossing a boundary due to going on their partners’ Facebook account
(Cravens & Whiting, 2013a). Taken together, these studies highlight that couples have the ability to enhance or detract from their relationship by engaging in monitoring behaviors.
Clinical Implications
The grounded theory model can be used to assist clinicians in understanding the communication process that couples engage in surrounding problematic SNS behaviors.
An important finding from the current study was how rarely couples reported that they had established rules or boundaries, despite the fact that many of them had experienced an issue related to SNS use. Although couples engaged in a conversation about the online issue after it occurred, the conversation did not result in the establishment of rules. It will be important for clinicians to encourage couples to have a conversation about what each partner would consider inappropriate online behavior and to help them establish rules.
Clinicians can facilitate this discussion in session by asking questions similar to those asked in the semi-structured interview. For example, clinicians can initially assess for whether or not SNS have created relationship problems by asking: “Have you had any issues related to social networking sites in your relationship? What impact have these 99 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
issues had on your relationship? And “How were these issues resolved?” After an initial assessment has occurred clinicians can then move into exploring what each partner would consider to be an inappropriate online behavior, asking each partner to share: “What online behaviors would you find problematic if your partner were to engage in that specific behavior?” By exploring with each partner what online behaviors would be problematic it provides an opportunity in session for the clinician and couple to explore implicit rules that they may already have established personally, but not shared with their partner.
Several of the couples reported consensus was not shared on which online behaviors crossed a boundary within the context of their relationship. This was often the catalyst for an argument. The clinician should be prepared to help couples understand one another’s perspective surrounding why they consider a specific behavior to be problematic. Clinicians could ask the partner questions to help them explore their personal values or biases around each identified behavior. The following questions might assist clinicians: “I hear that this specific behavior is a concern for you. Can you please tell your partner about what this behavior signifies to you? What are your concerns about this behavior; specifically what impact do you perceive it will have on you or your relationship if your partner should engage in it? What do you think has motivated you to create this rule?”
After assessing for previous issues with SNS behaviors and helping partners to create explicit rules, the clinician should also focus on helping couples with basic communication skills. Several of the clinical population couples reported that they have 100 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
had fewer issues with Facebook and their relationship since they started couples therapy.
When asked how therapy had influenced the observed changes, couples discussed how they were better able to talk about difficult issues because they had been given the needed tools to bring up problems face-to-face, instead of using Facebook to handle them.
Additionally, couples in the current study who had experienced issues with Facebook mentioned that trust was still an issue. Re-establishing trust will be a necessary step in counseling to help couples move forward after experiencing issues with Facebook.
Future Research
The purpose of the current study was to examine how couples communicated about rules and boundaries for Facebook behaviors in their relationship. This aim required both partners to be present for the interview; however, several of the partners expressed that they did not want to discuss a past issue because it would bring up old problems. Out of respect for these participants, the researcher did not push participants to share these stories. The researcher recognizes that further insight on this phenomenon was missed due to this issue. Although participants were asked if they would like to share anything else without their partner in the room, only one partner took this opportunity to share their story further. One aim of future research would be to replicate this study but require separate and joint interviews, creating specific questions for individual partners.
Researchers could ask participants questions similar to: “What issues surrounding
Facebook would you like to share more about that might not have been comfortable for you with your partner in the room?”
101 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Another area for future research would be to explore the relationship between monitoring online behaviors, trust, and relationship satisfaction. In the current study, monitoring behaviors were related to both positive and negative impacts on the offline relationship. Previous research has found mixed results as well (Cravens & Whiting,
2013a; Norton, 2011). Future research is needed to better understand how these variables are related.
Limitations and Conclusion
One limitation of the current study was that the researcher was unable to utilize theoretical sampling. Participants were asked at the conclusion of their study if the researcher could contact them for further information related to finalizing the results. Of the ten couples, only two agreed. Unfortunately neither of the agreeing couples responded to the researcher’s contact attempts. Had the researcher been able to conduct theoretical sampling this would have created an opportunity to gain further insight from the couples about the developing model and facilitated further collaboration between researcher and participants. A second limitation of the study is the generalizability of the study. The participants were predominately white and in their 20’s and early 30’s. Although constructive grounded theory methodology does not assume that results of the study are representative of everyone’s experience with the phenomenon, the researcher had hoped to recruit a more diverse sample of couples.
Another limitation of the current study is the sample size. Although 20 participants is generally accepted in qualitative research, the data was considered at the couple level which reduces the sample size to 10. Despite the smaller sample size, the 102 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
research notes that saturation of the identified categories and subcategories was accomplished. Finally, the researcher acknowledges that data analysis was driven by the values, bias, and questions of the researcher. The resulting grounded theory model is but one representation of this phenomenon.
Overall, the current study offers clinicians and researchers a way to conceptualize how couples communicate about rules and boundaries for social networking sites in their offline relationship. With couples being less likely to establish rules with their partner, it will be important for clinicians to have a way to understand the process couples engage in to better assist them with issues relating to Facebook. Highlighting the importance of encouraging couples to talk about this issue, the researcher will close with the words of one of the participants: “There are things that you expect married couples to talk about before you get married but they don’t. And now there is Facebook, and it is one of those things.”
103 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The aim of this dissertation was threefold: The first aim of the study was to review the existing literature on Internet and Facebook infidelity to provide a comparison of where on the continuum of online infidelity behaviors Facebook infidelity fits. The second aim of the dissertation was to explore how people interpret Facebook behaviors, the impact these behaviors are perceived to have on offline intimate relationships, and the role gender might play in perceptions of Facebook behaviors. The third and final aim of the dissertation was to explore how couples in committed relationships communicate rules and boundaries for SNS behaviors. These three aims were accomplished through the application of three separate, but connected compositions, one a conceptual work and two empirical studies.
Major Findings
By comparing existing literature on Internet and Facebook specific infidelity,
Chapter 2 highlighted similarities and unique differences between Facebook infidelity and other forms of online infidelity. Similarities between the two forms of infidelity include: the shared difficulty of arriving at a standard definition of these issues, negative impacts on the offline relationships, and that in general both forms of behavior are considered infidelity. Additionally, the comparison of existing literature found that partners tend to have unspoken or implicit rules surrounding inappropriate online/Facebook behaviors and that partners do not always share consensus.
104 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Facebook infidelity was found to also have unique differences that separated it from other forms of online infidelity. For example, interacting with other Facebook users may pose more of a threat than pornography sites or chat rooms due to the fact that many of the user’s Facebook friends are part of both online and offline social networks. This
Internet medium potentially provides more opportunities for inappropriate behaviors to be carried out offline. Also, some non-participating partners impacted by Facebook infidelity reported the shame and embarrassment they felt since the infidelity behaviors occurred in a place where online friends and family could witness the betrayal in a very public way.
In Chapter 3, the story completion task results indicated that a little over half of the participants interpreted the Facebook behavior to be a story about infidelity.
Facebook infidelity was perceived by the participants to have similar impacts as other forms of online and offline infidelity behaviors (i.e., loss of trust, arguing, breaking up, painful emotional experiences). Additionally the results highlighted that Facebook, similar to other online infidelity behaviors, is interpreted in a more complex way than sexual infidelity. Several unique findings of this study were related to monitoring and retaliation. Monitoring a partner’s Facebook account was viewed as a major violation of the relationship, with some participants writing that this violation was enough to end the relationship. Additionally, previous studies of this nature found reports of violent retaliation behaviors; however, in the current study retaliation behaviors were limited to online acts such as posting evidence on a partner’s wall or contacting the 3rd party through Facebook. 105 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Finally, Chapter 4 found important results about how couples communicate about rules and boundaries for SNS behaviors. It was discovered that it is rare for couples to explicitly establish rules and boundaries for Facebook behaviors. Individual partners were found to have implicit or unspoken rules that were used to appraise online behaviors and some couples did not share consensus on what behaviors actually constituted an inappropriate behavior. Results indicate that couples do discuss online behaviors, but only after an issue has occurred. Additionally it was uncommon for these conversations to result in the establishment of rules or boundaries for online behaviors. Finally, monitoring behaviors were related to both positive and negative outcomes in a couple’s relationship.
Cohesion of Dissertation
As a cohesive body of work, many similarities between the results can be highlighted. At the most basic level all three papers indicate that certain Facebook behaviors are identified as being infidelity behaviors and that these behaviors carry negative consequences for the individual and offline relationship. Secondly, these studies all arrived at the fact that monitoring one another’s Facebook accounts can have varied impacts on the relationship. In Chapter 2 it was highlighted that the few studies that had examined this phenomenon had found conflicting results. Chapter 3 results indicated that partners considered reading a partner’s private Facebook messages as snooping or an invasion of privacy that resulted in arguing, ending the relationship, or shaming the partner who snooped. And in Chapter 4 it was found that monitoring behaviors could serve as both a consequence and resolution to problematic Facebook behaviors. Finally, 106 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
each of the separate chapters indicated that partners often lack consensus around what behaviors constitute Facebook infidelity. This was seen most clearly in Chapters 3 (i.e., participants wrote that partners disagreed whether the discovered message was a breach in the relationship) and 4 (i.e. several couples argued about behaviors being inappropriate or appropriate).
Theoretical Orientation
This dissertation used the Couple and Family Technology (CFT) Framework
(Hertlein, 2012) to conceptualize the role technology, specifically Facebook, plays in intimate partner relationships. The CFT Framework informed the review of literature, the research questions, and the methods and analyses of Chapters 2-4, most notably in
Chapter 4. The CFT Framework’s purpose is to provide a theoretical model for understanding or evaluating the role of technology in couple and families, offering an appropriate framework for the dissertation.
The CFT Framework becomes most applicable in terms of the clinical implications. Of the three CFT Framework components the theory most related to the dissertation was the changes to structure and changes to process areas of the model. The semi-structured interviews with couples revealed that all of the couples have Facebook accounts that they access at least once a day. As SNS became more prominent in these couples’ lives, the changes in the structure level of the CFT Framework highlights the need for a redefinition of relational rules, boundaries, and roles. One of the findings from
Chapter 3 revealed the theme of snooping or invasion of privacy. We can conceptualize this theme within the CFT Framework by asking whether Westernized societies are 107 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
seeing a change in the process of relationships due to technology. It is possible that more couples view snooping, or monitoring their partner’s social networking accounts as being a relationship maintenance behavior that is normative. Further, taking into consideration cultural differences this theme could be understood as being a process level change for individualistic societies, whereas, it may not be a theme in relationships that value collectivist traditions.
The results of Chapter 4 revealed further support of the CFT Framework. In this study couples failed to communicate about rules and boundaries and may have increased their susceptibility to negative impacts of SNS. The change to structure element of the
CFT Framework discusses the need for redefinition of rules, boundaries and roles. At an individual level each time the participants go online they are making decisions about what form of online content is being accessed and what behaviors they will engage in.
Each partner revealed that they had their own views of what behaviors would be interpreted as inappropriate but the couples failed to communicate the redefinition of rules, boundaries and roles. Clinical efforts that help couples adapt to these structural changes may serve as an additional protective barrier against problematic Facebook behaviors.
Clinical and Research Implications
The culmination of this dissertation provides clinicians and researchers with valuable information about Facebook behaviors and relationships in several ways. From a clinical standpoint, the combined studies offer clinicians with a foundation for understanding three important areas of this phenomenon: (1) how individuals interpret 108 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Facebook behaviors, (2) the impact Facebook behaviors have on offline relationships, and (3) couples communication process surrounding problematic SNS behaviors.
Independently each chapter provides clinicians with specific questions that can be utilized for working with a presenting problem of SNS infidelity. It was recommended that clinicians ask about views of online behavior, information about the third party and motivational factors for issues of Facebook infidelity. To explore rules and boundaries for SNS, clinicians were offered a range of questions that can be adapted to help each partner identify their implicit rules, the origin of these rules, and if consensus is lacking ways to help couples discuss these differences. This information should translate into specific therapeutic tasks, such as assessment, facilitating conversations focused on establishing online rules and boundaries, processing emotions related to problematic SNS behavior, and resolving past or current issues related to SNS. These recommended therapy tasks will assist clients in establishing rules and boundaries for their online behaviors, resolving past or current issues, and enhancing skills that have been found to create preventative barriers (i.e., communication techniques, regaining trust).
Prior to completing this dissertation, problematic Facebook behaviors and its impact on offline relationship was a largely ignored aspect of the existing Internet and relationship literature. At the research level, these three articles take a major step toward filling this gap in the literature. Chapters 3 and 4 are some of the first studies to specifically focus on Facebook’s impact on offline relationships and how couples conceptualize this phenomenon at the relational level, however, future research efforts are still needed to further understand this phenomenon. Suggestions for future research 109 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
would include a focus on monitoring behaviors and what preventative measure might be taken to decrease the occurrence of Facebook issues in offline relationships.
The contradictory findings of the existing studies on the role of monitoring behaviors highlight the need for more research in this area. One recommendation would be to explore the relationship between monitoring behaviors, trust, and relationship satisfaction. Additionally, since monitoring behaviors can be as small as asking to see a partner’s account to sharing a joint account, had more couples with joint accounts been recruited for Chapter 4’s study, the resulting grounded theory model may have offered more insight about why couples decide to monitor accounts and how this decision impacts their relationship. Finally, because this dissertation has conveyed that problematic Facebook behaviors can have devastating consequences for the offline relationship, it is important for the next step in research efforts to focus on preventative measures. Researchers should ask: “What preventative measures could be taken to reduce the frequency of this occurrence?” Or “Will establishing explicit rules for SNS behaviors early on in a relationship reduce the likelihood that couples will experience such a problem in their relationship?”
Limitations and Conclusion
Several limitations of the current study should be reviewed. Although Chapter 2 makes important linkages between the existing literature on general Internet and
Facebook infidelity, the article is not empirical, and thus is limited to drawing comparisons based on previous studies. The limitations of Chapter 3 were noted as lacking in how these stories might have been perceived if the scenario couple was a 110 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
same-sex couple, as well as the fact that no demographic information was collected about sexual orientation. Further, this study uses a hypothetical scenario to arrive at information about a phenomenon that participants may or may not have experienced. Although this methodology offers a unique way to get at a socially undesirable behavior, the results should be recognized as being derived from a hypothetical scenario. Finally, in Chapter 4 one limitation of the current study was that results are not generalizable to all couples that experience issues with SNS behaviors due to the homogenous sample (i.e., white, cross- sex partnerships, educated). An additional limitation of the study was that although the aim of the study was to interview partners together as a couple, the researcher acknowledges that some valuable information might have been missed due to fear of sharing or partners not wanting to “reopen a can of worms.” Finally, although the intended sample size for this study was 15, only 10 couples were recruited. 20 individuals is an adequate size for grounded theory, however, at the couple level more participants would have strengthened the study.
Despite the limitations of this dissertation, this project culminated in three new works of literature that will greatly enhance the area of Facebook and relationships.
These studies offer insight into how people interpret Facebook behaviors, the impact
Facebook behaviors have on intimate partner relationships, and how couples communicate about rules and boundaries for SNS use. Beyond filling an unattended gap in the literature, Chapter 4 was one of the first studies to explore this phenomenon at the couple level. This dissertation offers a foundation to better understand Facebook and
111 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
relationships, it makes a significant contribution to clinical practice, and it provides direction for future research.
112 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
References
Argyle, M. & Henderson, M. (1985). The Anatomy of relationships: rules and skills
needed to manage them successfully. London: Pelican Books.
Associated Press. (2012, October 04). Facebook reaches 1 billion users. Time. Retrieved
from: http://techland.time.com/2012/10/04/facebook-reaches-1-billion-users/.
Berger, P. L. & Kellner, H. (1970). ‘Marriage and the construction of realtiy’ in H.
Dreitzel (ed.) Recent Sociology No. 2. New York, NY: Macmillian.
Bergner, R. M., & Bridges, A. J. (2002). The significance of heavy pornography
involvement for romantic partners: Research and clinical implications. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 28(3), 193-206. doi:10.1080/00926232760328235.
Beutel, M. E., Brahler, E., Glaesmer, H., Kuss, D. J., Wolfing, K., & Muller, K. W.
(2011). Regular and Problematic leisure-time Internet use in the community:
Results from a German population-based survey. CyberPsychology, Behavior, &
Social Networking, 14, 291-296.
Bindley, K. (2011). Facebook Relationship Problems: How social networking and
jealousy affect your love life. Retrieved on November 27, 2012 from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/09/facebook-relationship-problems-
social-networking_n_955980.html
Blumer, M. L. C., Hertlein, K. M., Smith, J. M., & Allen, H. (2013, in press). How many
bytes does it take? A content analysis of cyber issues in couple and family therapy
journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
0606.2012.00332x 113 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Bridges, A. J., Bergner, R. M., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2003) Romantic partners’ use of
pornography: Its significance for women. Journal of Sex & Martial Therapy, 29,
1-14.
Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., & Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook & infidelity: When
poking becomes problematic. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35, 74-
90.doi:10.1007/s1059101209231-5.
Cravens, J. D. & Whiting, J. B. (2013a). Facebook infidelity: A story completion method.
Manuscript in preparation.
Cravens, J. D. & Whiting, J. B. (2013b). Firewalls for Facebook: Couples
communication of rules and boundaries for social networking site use.
Manuscript in preparation.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cooper, A. (1998). The Internet and sexuality: Surfing into the new millennium.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1, 187-193. doi:10.1089/pb.1998.1.187
Cooper, A., & Griffin-Shelley, E. (2002). Introduction. The Internet: The next sexual
Revolution. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians
(pp. 5-29). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Cooper, A., Mansoon, S., Daneback, K., Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. W. (2003). Predicting
the future of Internet sex: Online sexual activities in Sweden. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 18, 277-291. doi:10.1080/1468199031000153919
114 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Cooper, A. & Scherer, C., Boies, S. C., & Gordon, B. (1999). Sexuality on the Internet:
From sexual exploration to pathological expression. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 30, 154-164.
Cooper, A., Scherer, C., & Mathy, R. M. (2001). Overcoming methodological concerns
in the investigation of online sexual activities. CyperPsychology & Behavior, 4,
437-447.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender:
Constructing meaning from memory. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daines, B. (2006). Violations of agreed and implicit sexual and emotional boundaries in
couple relationships-some thoughts arising from Levine’s ‘A clinical perspective on
couple infidelity.’ Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21, 45-53.
doi:10.1080/14681990500430011.
Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative methods for family studies and human development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Geiss, S. K., & O’Leary, K. D. (1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital
problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7, 515-
520.
Gershon, I. (2010). The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over new media. New York, NY:
Cornell University Press.
115 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Glass, S. P. & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The
association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29,
361-387. doi:10.1080/00224499209551654
Granic, I., Dishion, T. J., & Hollenstein, T. (2003). The family ecology of adolescence: A
dynamic systems perspective on normative development. Blackwell Handbook of
Adolescence, 60-91.
Greenfield, D. N. (1999). Virtual addiction: Sometimes new technology can create new
problems. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from http://www.virtual-
addicition.com/pdf/nature_internet_addiction.pdf
Goo, S. K. (2012). Facebook: A Profile of its ‘Friends.’ Retrieved on November 26, 2012
from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2262/facebook-ipo-friends-profile-social-
networking-habits privacy-online-behavior
Goodman, A. (2001). What’s in a name? Terminology for designating a syndrome of
driven sexual behavior. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 8, 19-23.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital
processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffiths, M. (2000). Does Internet and Computer “Addiction” exist? Some case study
evidence. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 211-218.
Helsper, E. J. & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement
about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 916 926.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.006
116 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Henline, B. H. & Lamke, L. K. (2003, November). The experience of sexual and
emotional online infidelity.
Henline, B. H., Lamke, L. K., and Howard, M. D. (2007). Exploring perceptions of
online infidelity. Personal Relationships, 14, 113-128.
Hertlein, K. M. & Piercy, F. P. (2006). Internet infidelity: A Critical Review of the
literature. The Family Journal: Counseling and therapy for couples and families,
14, 366-371. doi:10.1177/1066480706290508
Hertlein, K. M. & Piercy, F. P. (2008). Therapists’ assessment and treatment of Internet
infidelity cases. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 481-497.
Hertlein, K. M. & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “As” contributing to Internet-related
intimacy problems. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 207-230.
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital Dwelling: Technology in Couple and Family
Relationships. Family Relations, 61, 374-387.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM
Corp.
Johnson, R. E. (1972). Attitudes toward extramarital relationships. Medical Aspects of
Human Sexuality, 6, 168-191.
Jones, & Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Four key dimensions for distinguishing Internet
infidelity from Internet and sex addiction: Concepts and Clinical application.
American Journal of Family Therapy, 40, 115-125. 117 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
King, S. (1999). The impact of compulsive sexual behaviors on clergy marriages:
Perspectives and concerns of the Pastor’s wife. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,
10, 193-199. doi:10.1080/107201603902306307
Kitzinger, C., & Powell, D. (1995). Engendering infidelity: Essentialist and social
Constructionist readings of a story completion task. Feminism and Psychology, 5,
345-372.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, S. K., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).
Internet Paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and
psychological well being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
Leiblum, S. R., & Döring, N. (2002). Internet sexuality: Known risks and fresh chances for
women. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the internet: A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 19-
45). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Lumpkin, S. (2012, May 24). Can Facebook ruin your marriage? ABC World News,
Retrieved from:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebookrelationshipstatus/story?i=16406245#.T
8e02 9PE
Mileham, B. (2007). Online infidelity in Internet chat rooms: An ethnographic exploration.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 11-31. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.033
Miller, J. B., Yorgason, J., Sandberg, J. G., & White, M. B. (2003). Problems that couples
bring to therapy: A view across the family life cycle. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 31, 395-407.
118 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002).
Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and School Psychology, 82, 563-581.
Norton, A. M. (2011). Internet boundaries for social networking: Impact of trust and
satisfaction. Master’s thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Parker, T. S. & Wampler, K. S. (2003). How bad is it? Perceptions of the relationship
impact of different types of Internet sexual activities. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 25, 415-429.
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2006). Online dating. Retrieved March 22,
2012 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Dating.pdf
Pew Research Center (2012). Facebook: A profile of its ‘Friends.’ Retrieved November
26, 2012 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2262/facebook-ipo-friends-profile-
social-networking habits-privacy-online-behavior
Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: behaviors,
reasons, and consequences. Adolescence, 23, 35-43.
Ross, M. W., & Kauth, M. R. (2002). Men who have sex with men and the Internet:
Emerging clinical issues and their management. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the
Internet: A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 47-69). New York, NY: Brunner-
Routledge.
Ross, M. W., Mansson, S., Daneback, M., & Tikkanen, R. (2005). Characteristics of Men
who Have sex with men on the Internet but Identify as heterosexual, compared
119 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
with Heterosexually identified men who have sex with women. CyberPscyhology
& Behavior, 8, 131-139. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.131
Schneider, J. P. (2000). A qualitative study of cybersex participants: Gender differences,
recovery issues, and implications for therapists. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,
7, 249-278.
Schneider, J. P. (2003). The impact of compulsive cybersex on the family. Sexual
Relationship Therapy, 18, 329-354. doi:10.1080/146819903100153946
Shackelford, T. K. & Buss, D. M. (1996). Betrayal in mateships, friendships, and
coalitions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1151-1164.
Smith, A., Segall, L., & Cowley, S. (2012, October 4). Facebook reaches one billion
users. CNNMoney, Retrieved from:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/technology/facebookbillion-users/index.html
Thompson, A. P. (1983). Extramarital sex: A review of the research literature. Journal of
Sex Research, 19, 1-22.
Whisman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., & Johnson, B. (1997). Therapists’ perspectives of couple
problems and treatment issues in couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology,
11, 361 366. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.361.
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of
American women: Differences in prevalence and correlates as a function of
method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 147-154.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.147
120 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Whitty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: Men’s and women’s attitudestoward
online and offline infidelity. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 6, 569-579.
doi:10.1089/109493103322725342
Whitty, M. T. (2005). The realness of cybercheating: Men’s and women’s representations
of unfaithful Internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 57-67.
doi:10.1177/0894439304271536
Whitty, M. T. & Quigley, L. (2008). Emotional and sexual infidelity offline and in
cyberspace. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 461-468.
Wilson, K., Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., & Bequette, A. W. (2011). The
gray area: Exploring attitudes toward infidelity and the development of the
Perceptions of Dating Infidelity Scale. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 151(1),
63-86. doi:10.1080/00224540903366750
Wilson, L. L., Roloff, M. E., & Carey, C. M. (1998). Boundary rules: Factors that inhibit
expressing concerns about another’s romantic relationship. Communication
Research, 25, 618-640.
Yarab, P. E., Sensibaugh, C. C., & Rice Allgeier, E. (1998). More than just sex: Gender
Differences in the incidence of self-defined unfaithful behavior in heterosexual
dating relationships. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 10, 45-57.
Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J. & Buchanan, J. (2000). Online
infidelity: A new dimension in couple relationships with implications for
evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 59-74.
doi:10.1080/10720160008400207 121 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Young, K. (1998). Caught in the Net: How to recognize the signs of Internet addiction
And achieving strategies for recovery. New York, NY: Wiley.
Zitzman, S. T. & Butler, M. H. (2005). Attachment, addiction, and recovery: Conjoint
marital therapy for recovery from a sexual addiction. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity, 12, 311-337.
122 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Appendix A Demographic Questionnaire
1. What is your gender?
2. What is your current age? -24 years old -34 years old -44 years old -54 years old 55+ years old
3. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
-year technical/trade school or Associate’s Degree -year College Degree or higher
4. What is your current relationship status?
5. How long have you been in your current relationship?
6. What is your racial or ethnic origin? (Mark all that apply)
Asian or Pacific Islander -American/Black
7. Do you have a Social Networking Site account (e.g., Facebook)?
123 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
8. How often do you access your Social Networking Site account?
124 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Appendix B Story Completion Versions A-B
Directions: Please read the following sentences carefully. After reading the sentences please add onto the provided sentences to continue telling the story. There is no set length for the additional information you add onto the story, feel free to write until you have covered the rest of the story.
Version A
Jennifer and Mark have been going out for over a year. Jennifer realizes, after reading
Mark’s private messages on his Facebook account, that he has developed a relationship with someone else.
Version B
Mark and Jennifer have been going out for over a year. Mark realizes, after reading
Jennifer’s private messages on her Facebook account, that she has developed a relationship with someone else.
125 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Appendix C Code book A. Confronts partner: Any attempt the partner who read the messages made to
bring up the discovered information with their partner, to inquire further about the
private messages and the relationship with the third party, or an attempt to initiate
a conversation with their partner.
1. Direct confrontation: Informs their partner about the information they
found and how they found it, then directly asking for an explanation or
discussion to occur.
“Curious as to the type of relationship Mark has created, Jennifer
confronts him regarding his private messages.”
“Jennifer calls Mark on the phone and asks him to come over.
Jennifer asks Mark about the other someone that she has seen on
Facebook…”
2. Confronting with evidence: approaching their partner with evidence to
support their confrontation/discussion/accusation/talk.
“Then, she confronts Mark with the evidence and Mark gets angry
at the invasion of his privacy.”
“She confronts Mark that same day. Mark tries to deny it initially,
until Jennifer pulls up his private messages on Facebook.”
“After researching the women’s profile as best she can, Jennifer
confronts Marl about the realization of his affair.”
126 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
3. Passive confrontation or sneak confrontation: Indirectly brings up the
topic of Facebook activities or creating a relationship with other people
without revealing the knowledge they obtained from the private messages.
“Jennifer casually asks Mark is he has added any friends to his
Facebook account and waits for Mark’s reaction. Based on his
reaction she then decides how she will confront or ignore the
situation.”
4. Delayed confrontation: Immediate confrontation is delayed or put on
hold until more information is found, wanting to hide that they read the
person’s Facebook inbox, or for other reasons not discussed.
“Jennifer does not confront Mark immediately about this
development.”
“Jennifer feels confused. Not confused with what she is reading or
the meaning behind it, but whether or not to confront Mark about
what she has seen. Will he be mad or think that she is crazy for
reading his personal messages? And how do you go about
handling the conversation and the events that have now unfolded.”
5. Confronting the third party: The partner who read the Facebook
messages decides to contact the third party involved in the private
messages.
“Jennifer, being the nosy bitch that she is, decides to take it upon
herself to inform the new girl that mark is taken.” 127 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
6. Other
B. Further monitoring or investigating:
“Jennifer stays with Mark but begins checking his phone and
continues checking his Facebook to find solid proof he is
cheating…Jennifer becomes obsessed with trying to prove he is
cheating.”
“Jennifer has continued to notice the private messages on Mark’s
account. The messages start to talk more and more about moving
into a more serious and committed relationship.”
C. Ends relationship or breaks-up: Any description of ending the current
relationship between Mark and Jennifer.
1. Partner who read message E/R:
“I would try to get Mark to go to counseling first and if he
wouldn’t go I would tell him I am through with him.”
“Jennifer breaks up with Mark and decides never to speak to him
again.”
“Jennifer confronts Mark about the relationships and she tells him
it is over.”
2. Partner whose message were read E/R:
“Jennifer confronts Mark about the messages…Mark tells Jennifer
to mind her own business and immediately ends his relationship
with Jennifer.” 128 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
3. Mutual break up: Participant’s story discusses a mutual agreement to
break up
4. Unspecified break up: Cannot infer from the story who ends the
relationship based on the context
5. Takes a break or Questions the state of the relationship
6. Ends the relationship with the 3rd party
D. Trust: a mention of trust being impacted in the couple’s relationship; no longer
being able to rely on their partner, no longer being able to believe with certainty
the things they say
“This is an obvious break of trust by both partners.”
“They both accuse each other of a lack of trust and break up.”
“Jennifer accuses Mark of cheating, saying that he broke her trust.”
“Trust is gone from the relationship.”
“Jennifer questions Mark about the new relationship, but he first
wants to know why she was reading his private messages. Both feel
that their trust has been violated by the other.”
E. Snooping or invasion of privacy: to pry or prowl around through someone’s
private, password protected online account; to cross a boundary set in the
relationship either spoken or unspoken about accessing an individuals’ private
social networking accounts
1. Partner’s messages read sees this as a privacy invasion:
129 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
“Mark yells at Jennifer and tells her that she shouldn’t have been
snooping anyway.”
“Jennifer confronts Mark with this and after initially trying to deny it
and deflect the conversation to her “snooping” into his private
documents, he confesses.”
2. Message reader aware they violated privacy:
“Jennifer feels embarrassed that she looked through is private
account because she did not expect to find this type of
information.”
“Jennifer was apprehensive about confronting Mark because she
had found out this information in a way she knew was wrong.”
“She decides to confess to him what she did and apologizes for it.
She then tells him about what she read and asks for an
explanation.”
“She is quite angry about the realization and his cheating, but also
knows she has violated his trust by going into his account.”
F. Participating partner’s justification: Any reason given by the partner who was
messaging online that explains why they were engaging in those behaviors
1. Denial: Partner denies that anything is going on, that the messages exist,
or that she/he wrote the messages (e.g., someone else was on my account)
2. It’s just online, it’s no big deal
130 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
“…he claims that they are just “flirting” over Facebook, and it’s
no big deal. He goes on to tell her that he hasn’t even met the girl
in person.”
“He insists that the person he is exchanging those messages with is
just “playing around” and that doesn’t mean he does not want to
be with her.”
3. It is just a friend
“…but Mark tell her everything was just a joke and he just wanted
to see how far he could count on her for trust.
4. Admits to the other relationship
G. Interpret the story as cheating: Any explanation given that the behavior of the
person messaging someone else as infidelity, cheating, or an affair.
“She is quite angry about the realization and his cheating,…”
“Whether it is an online relationship or not, emotional connections
can be more heart breaking than physical ones.”
“Jennifer decides to call Mark out on it and ends the relationship.
Cheating is never acceptable.”
“She confronts him for cheating, and he ignores her accusations
by focusing on the fact that she read his private messages.”
“Jennifer confronts Mark about his infidelity and asks that he
come clean about his new relationship.”
131 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
H. Retaliation: taking retributory action by returning the wrongful action to their
partner; to avenge the behavior
1. Dangerous retaliation:
“So she breaks his car windshield with a tire iron and sets his
house on fire. Kidding…but not really.”
“She flips out and stabs Mark in the back with a knife. While he is
dying he informs her that the woman was his long lost sister.”
“Jennifer decides to take matters into her own hands and she plans
an elaborate scheme to get away with the perfect crime, murdering
both Mark and his mistress.”
2. Other: some other form of retaliation that is not “dangerous” or
“reckless”
I. Facebook behaviors: Any mention of behaviors that either Mark or Jennifer
engaged in using Facebook (e.g.: changing relationship status, writing angry wall
posts, de-friending, blocking)
“Jennifer still monitors Mark’s Facebook activity to gauge if he
still has any feelings for her.”
“After researching the women’s profile as best she can, Jennifer
confronts Marl about the realization of his affair.”
“Jennifer probably posts vengeful status updates about how “men
are pigs,” while Mark posts updates about how nosy women are.”
“Mark un-friends Jen and blocks her permanently.” 132 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
“Jennifer dumps Mark and then removes him from her friends list
on Facebook and blocks him from having any further contact with
her through the site.”
J. Emotional experiences:
1. Betrayed
2. Angry, Outraged, Mad, pissed
3. Grieves relationship
4. Hurtful, Sad, Upset
5. Embarrassed
6. Scared, Worried
7. Confused
8. Devastated, Distraught
9. Jealous
10. Shocked, surprised
K. Fight, yell, argue
L. Apology
1. Message reader apologizes
2. Message writer apologizes for behavior
133 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Appendix D Semi Structured Interview 1. Do you have a home computer or lap top? If so, how many and of what type (e.g.,
desktop, laptop, ipad)? Where are they located in the household? Do you and your
partner typically use computers in the same room or away from one another?
2. How much time do you spend online a week? How much of this online time is
devoted to work or job requirements? How much is leisure time?
3. Do you have a personal social networking site, such as Facebook, MySpace,
LinkedIn, or Google Plus?
4. Do you have separate accounts or one joint account as a couple?
5. Do you have access to one another’s social networking sites? Such as, knowing
one another’s passwords or allowing each other to view their personal account.
6. Do you and your partner interact with one another online? In what ways? How
often? Do any of these online interactions bring satisfaction or enhance your
relationship? In what ways?
7. Are there certain online activities that you two enjoy doing together?
8. Have you experienced issues related to social networking sites in your
relationship? If so, are you comfortable discussing the issue(s)?
9. Do you have any rules for social networking sites in your relationship?
a. If yes:
i. Was there an event that brought on the discussion of SNS rules?
ii. Who initiated the discussion?
iii. How did you establish these rules? 134 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
iv. What are these rules?
v. Were there rules or boundaries that you and your partner did not
agree upon? Could you rate how often you and your partner
disagreed about online behaviors (1) being never disagree (7)
always disagree?
vi. Do you believe there are different activities online that your
partner could engage in that would be more damaging than others?
Would you mind maybe ranking or discussing what online
behaviors are most severe and which would be less upsetting?
vii. How did you find a compromise?
viii. How do your online rules mirror or differ from your offline rules?
ix. How do you monitor these rules?
b. If no:
i. What reasons do you have for not having established rules?
ii. Are there certain behaviors that either of you would be
uncomfortable with your partner engaging in?
iii. Do you believe there are different activities online that your
partner could engage in that would be more damaging than others?
Would you mind maybe ranking or discussing what online
behaviors are most severe and which would be less upsetting?
10. Are there any other areas surrounding the topic of the Internet and your
relationship that you would like to share today? 135 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
Appendix E
Recruitment Flyer for Firewalls for Facebook
Would you like to participate in a study on Social Networking Sites and have the opportunity to get paid?
Researchers, Dr. Jason Whiting, and Jaclyn Cravens, PhD candidate in the Department of
Community, Family, and Addictions Studies are asking for your help on a research project “Firewalls for Facebook” they are currently conducting. This project will be conducted in person, on the campus of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
The interview will:
* take approximately 1 hour of your time
* ask about personal information, such as, your age, your relationship, your
Social Networking Site use and rules of Internet use in your relationship
* help to enhance understanding how couples communicate about social
networking sites
You must be 18 years or older to participate, in a committed relationship, and be familiar with social networking sites
Your participation is voluntary. This means you may discontinue or withdraw at any time.
The survey is anonymous (your name is not used) and confidential (your responses are not revealed to anyone other than the researcher). All information gathered will be used as grouped data; no one person’s responses to the survey will be singled out.
136 Texas Tech University, Jaclyn D. Cravens, August 2013
To participate in this study, please contact the primary researcher, Jaclyn Cravens, PhD
Candidate either through email: [email protected] or phone: (702) 895-3696.
Please leave the researcher information on how to best be in contact with you.
There is an opportunity to enter your name in a drawing for a chance to win one of two
$50.00 Visa gift cards that will be selected at random at the end of the study. You will be notified if you are the winner and the gift card will be mailed to you at the provided address. Entering the drawing is voluntary. Chances of winning are 1 in 7.
137