S.No.
Year Author theory
Muise, Christofides &
1 2009 Desmarais
2 2010 Mod G.B.B.A
3 2011 Elphinston & Noller
4 2011 Utz & Beukeboom
Marshall, Bejanyan, Di
5 2013 Castro & Lee
Muscanell, Guadagno,
6 2013 Rice & Murphy
Sample characteristics
N = 308, 75% female, mean
age = 18.7 years (S.D. - 0.97).
Avg daily Fb use = 38.93
minutes (SD = 32.13); 68
responses to open ended
- question
N = 11, 63.6% female, mean
age = n.r, age range = 21-24
- years
Investment model N = 342, 57% female, mean
theory age = 19.75 years (SD = 1.79)
N = 194, 71.1% female, mean
- age = 22 years (SD = 3.54),
study 1: N = 225, 89.3%
female, mean age of male =
21.44 years (SD = 7.02) ,
study 1: attachment mean age of females = 22.53
theory , study 2: (SD = 5.16; Study 2: N = 68,
actor–partner mean age male = 26.93 years
interdependence (S.D = 5.11), mean age female
model (APIM) = 25.36 years (S.D = 4.84)
N = 226, 69.9% female, mean
- age = 19 years (S.D = 1.75)

7 2013 Nitzburg G., Farber B.
8 2013 McAndrew F., Shah S.
Dijkstra P., Barelds,
9 2013 D.P.H, Groothof H.A.K
Muise A., Christofides E.,
10 2014 Desmarais S.
Fleuriet C., Cole M.,
11 2014 Guerrero L.
Drouin M., Miller D.,
12 2014 Dibble J.
N = 339, 63.1% female, mean
Attachment theory age = 21.5 years (S.D =2.95 )
N = 40, 60% female, mean age
- not reported
N = 312, 62.8% female, mean
age: men (homosexual) = 28.1
years (S.D = 12.7),men
(heterosexual) = 29.3 years
(S.D = 11.1), women
(homosexual) = 32.4 years
(S.D = 15.3), women
(heterosexual) = 28.2 years
- (S.D = 12.2)
study 1: N = 160, 48% female,
mean age = 19.16 (S.D =
1.68); study 2: 108 couples,
Attachment theory mean age = 21.05 (S.D = 0.94)
N = 821, 53% female, mean
Attachment theory age = 20.38 years (SD = 3.35)
Attachment theory,
investment model N = 148, 73.6% female, mean
theory age = 20.59 years (SD = 4.66)
 uncertainty
reduction theory,
Stewart M., Dainton M., relational N = 281, 33.6% female, mean
13 2014 Goodboy A. maintenance theory age = 20.05 years (S.D = 1.72)

Cohen E., Bowman N., N = 191, 48.2% female mean

14 2014 Borchert K. - age = 22.7 years (SD = 5.44).

Lucero J., Weisz A.,

Smith-Darden J., Lucero N = 23, 56.5% female, age
15 2014 S. - range 13-18

Uses &
gratifications N = 189, 56.5% female, mean
16 2015 Dainton M. & Stokes, A. framework age =21.36 years (S.D = 2.30)

Orosz G., Szekeres A.,

Kiss Z., Farkas P., N = 292, 78.8% female, mean
17 2015 Roland-Levy C. - age = 24.92 years (S.D = 6.62)

study 1: N = 83, 50.6%

female, mean age = 19.94
years (S.D = 1.80); study 2: N
= 83, 53.1% female, mean age
Hudson B., Nicolas S., = 19.87 years (S.D = 1.52);
Howser M., Lipsett K., study 3: N = 83, 54.05%
Robinson I., Pope L., female, mean age = 20.2 years
18 2015 Hobby A., Friedman D. - (S.D = 1.80)
 Brem M., Spiller L., N = 177, 63.3% female, mean
19 2015 Vandahey M. - age = 20.45 years (SD = 4.14)

N1 = 64, 62.5% female, meana

age = 16.66 years (S.D = 0.8);
N2 = 34 (couples), 50%
Rueda H., Lindsay M., female, mean age = 16.25
20 2015 Wiliams L. (S.D = 0.8)

Utz S., Muscanell N., N = 77, female = 76.6% mean

21 2015 Khalid C. - age = 22.5 years (S.D = 4.21)

N = 44, 61.3% female, mean

22 2015 Fox J., Moreland J. - age = 23.36 (S.D = 6.79)
 N = 272, 68.75% female,
Billedo C., Kerkhof P., mean age = 23 years (S.D =
23 2015 Finkenauer C. - 4.37)

N = 145, 69.7 % females,

mean age = 20.81 years (S.D =
24 2015 Zandbergen D., Brown S. - 6.04)

van Ouytsel J., van Gool N = 57, 66.7% females, mean

E., Walrave M., Ponnet age = n.r, age range = 15-18
25 2016 K., Peeters, E. - years

Nongpong S., N = 256, 72% females, mean

26 2016 Charoensukmongkol P. - age = 36 years (S.D = 6.886 )

Macapagal K., Coventry

R., Puckett J., Phillips G., N = 323, 0% females, mean
27 2016 Mustanski B. - age = 40.1 years (S.D = 10.8)

N = 39, 46 % females, mean

age = n.r, age range 14 - 19
28 2016 Baker C., Carreno P. - years

29 2016 Carpenter C.J
Moyano N., Sanchez-
Fuentes M., Chiriboga A.,
30 2017 Florez-Donado J.
31 2017 Iqbal F., Jami H.
32 2017 Holmgren G., Coyne S.
33 2017* Dunn M., Billett G.
White and N = 196, 86.8 % female,
Mullen’s jealousy mean age = 25.65 years (S.D
model = 7.69)
N = 1144; n (spain) = 393,
65.1 % females, mean age =
25 years (S.D = 7.44); n
(columbia) = 600, 64.5%
females, mean age = 24.7
years (S.D = 7.50); n
(ecuador) = 151, 58.9%
females, mean age = 22.3
- years (S.D = 3.03)
N = 200, 50% females, mean
- age = 31.24 years (S.D = 5.18)
general theory of N = 442, 51.6% females, mean
addiction age = 18.86 years (S.D = )1.00
parental investment N = 44, 52.2% females, mean
(PI) theory age = 21.3 years (S.D = 4.06)
 N = 305, 51.3 % female,
Halpern D., Katz J.E. & self affirmation mean age = n.r, age range 18 -
34 2017 Carril C theory 65+, 55% aged 18–34 years

N1 = 1508, 86.14% females,

mean age = 20.51 years (S.D =
Daspe M-E., Actor–partner 2.54); N2 = 92, 50 % females,
Vaillancourt-Morel M-P., interdependence mean age = 20.14 years (S.D =
35 2018 Lussier Y., Sabourin S. model 2.16)

power perspective,
evolutionary
perspective of
gender differences,
theory of evolved
gender differences,
cognitive theory N = 846, 61% females, mean
36 2018 Demirtaş-Madran H. of jealousy age = 27.34 years (S.D = 9.12)

N = 240, 50% females, mean

Altakhaineh A., Alnamer age = n.r, age range = 17 - 60+
37 2018 S. - years
 hyperpersonal
model, grounded
theory approach,
social comparison
theory , theory of
motivated
information N = 36, 58.3% females, mean
38 2018 Frampton R., Fox J. management age = 20.06 years (S.D = 1.29)

N = 474, 78.06 % female,

mean age = 22.78 years (S.D =
39 2018 Bevan J.L - 5.24)

Attachment theory, N = 1053 , 59.1% females,

goal cognition mean age = 21.94 years (S.D =
40 2019 Chang C. theory 3.67)
negative affect
hypothesis, self-
selection N = 302, 51.3% females, mean
41 2019 Iqbal F., Jami H. hypothesis age = 31.14 years (S.D = 5.45)
 N = 257, 58.57% females,
five factor mean age = 32.77 years (S.D =
42 2019 Seidman G. personalilty model 9.18)

parental investment
(PI) theory,
inclusive fitness N = 76, 57.9% female, mean
43 2019 Dunn M., Ward K. theory age = 21.5years (S.D = 4.01)

González-Rivera, J. A, N = 300, 50% female, mean

44 2019 Hernández-Gato, I - age = 32.87 (SD = 7.096)

Dual-factor model
(need to belong N1 = 93, 75.3% females, mean
&self- age = 26.91 years (S.D =
presentation), 9.57), N2 = 255, 58.8 %
Seidman G., Langlais M., belongingness/con females, mean age = 32.87
45 2019 Havens A. nection framework years (S.D = 9.25)
 Study design platform Investigated variables DV

Time spend on Fb, Trust,

survey facebook trait jealousy facebook jealousy
themes: relationship
status, publics display of
interview facebook affection -

Romantic jealousy
(cognitive, surveillance
behaviour), age, gender,
FB intrusion, length of
relationship, length of fb
membership, time spent Relational
survey facebook on fb (hours/week), satisfaction

monitoring behaviour,
trait jealousy, need for
popularity, SNS use
(profile maintenance,
grooming), relationship SNS jealousy, SNS
satisfaction, login relationship
survey social media frequency, SNS intensity happiness

Study 1: anxious
attachment, avoidance
attachment, gender;
ethnicity; study 2:
attachment, anxiety,
avoidance, Global (trust,
satisfaction, comittment,
study 1: cross-sectional intimacy, passion, love),
survey, study 2: survey fb minutes, fb checking, FB jealousy,
& diary facebook ethnicity survelliance
gender, Fb privacy emotions
settings, presence of (jealousy, anger,
experiment facebook couple photos hurt, disgust)
 face to face
communication
avoidance, feeling
socio-demographics, intimate with
attachment style, jealousy, others during SNS
survey social media envy, survelliance use

mate gaurding, distressing

partner activities, jealous
feelings, relationship self vs.
confidence, fear of rivals, partners'hypothetic
fear of poachers, fear of al responses to
survey facebook leaving, spying jealousy

ten jealousy
evoking scenarios
jealousy emotions (threat, of partner
survey internet betrayal-anger), gender behaviour

gender, condition of
relationship, fb search jealousy, search
study 1: experiment, behaviour, trait jealousy, behaviour,
study 2: daily trust, simulated fb site use, attachment
experience study fb jealousy (in two anxiety, partner
(diary) facebook studies) monitoring

non-verbal cues (photos,

physical attractiveness,
emoticons, capitalization,
hyperbolic punctuation), negative emotion
attachment style, jealousy experienced after
provoking post, gender, seeing a jealousy
experiment facebook relationship type provoking fb post
attachment anxiety,
commitment, romantic
alternatives on friend list,
survey facebook no. of friends fb solicitation
 relational satisfaction,
uncertainty (behavioural,
mutual, definitional,
future), fb jealousy,
relational maintenance relational
(positivity, openess, maintenance,
survey facebook assurances, monitoring ) online monitoring
emotional and
message access behavioral
exclusivity, negative response
experiment facebook emotion, threat perception (confrontation)

emergent themes: type of

Socially Interactive
Technology, abusive
action (monitoring),
consequence, gender
focus group - differences -

relationship
maintenance
behaviour
(facebook
jealousy (trait, emotional, openness,
cognitive, facebook), positivity,
maintenance motive, assurance,
survey facebook facebook use monitoring)

facebook status, length of jealousy, romantic

survey facebook relationship, use intensity love

survey facebook emoticon presence, gender facebook jealousy

 Facebook Mate-retention
tactics (care & affection,
jealousy & surviellance,
possession signals, intimate partner
punishment of infidelity aggression
threat), offline mate (psychological
retention tactics, gender, aggression,
survey facebook time spent on fb physical abuse)

N1 themes: Technology
contributed to romantic
jealousy, Mistrust
propagated partner
monitoring, surveillance,
and controlling behaviors,
technology alerted others
to unhealthy romantic
relationships, N2 themes:
Jealousy & mistrust,
instant communication &
harrasment, platforms
focus group, contributed to
observation ICT misunderstanding -

need for popularity, need

for self - esteem, snapchat
jealousy, facebook
jealousy, social media use
facebook, characteristics, motives
survey snapchat for use -

themes: managing
inappropriate or annoying
content, being
tethered, lack of privacy
and control, social
comparison and jealousy,
relationship tension and
focus group facebook conflict. -
 Fb use intensity,
relational
certainity, SNS
strategic
maintenance, SNS
routine
maintenance,
partner
survellience, Fb
jealousy,commitm
long distance relationship, ent, relationship
grographically close satisfaction, and
survey facebook relationship, gender trust

gender, individualism,
collectivism; Jealousy
casual themes: Infidelity,
Expectations of time and
commitment, Social emotional &
mixed method social media Media Self-Esteem sexual infidelity

themes: use of SNS when

initiating a romantic
relationship, during a
romantic
relationship, relationship
focus group social media dissolution -
jealousy, lack of caring,
loneliness, own social
media use, partner's social intention to break
survey facebook media use up /divorce

themes: relationship
characteristics, app usage,
percieved benefits and
drawbacks to app usage,
app usage in relationship
survey social media agreements -

themes: getting in
(initiating contact),
jealousy, monitoring,
partner imposed isolation,
focus group social media breaking off contact, -
 user behaviour
(participants' fb use
extent, partner
surveillance), partner relational
behavior (frequency of maintenance
status updates, interaction behaviour (social
with attractive people, contact, response-
posts on walls, becoming seeking, and
friends with attractive relational
people unknown to assurances),
participant), rival negative coping
behvaiour (frequency of mechanisms
posts from unknown (intention to end,
attractive people, willingness for
interaction with ex- extra-dyadic casual
partners), Fb jealousy sex), cognitive
survey facebook inducing behaviour jealousy

self-esteem, partner
conflicts and coping
strategies (compromise,
avoidance, interactional
reactivity, separation,
donination, submission)
romantic partner jealousy,
survey facebook age, length of relationship Facebook jealousy

fb jealousy (validated
structure with three factors
- Insecurity, Inquisition,
and Infidelity), marital
survey facebook satisfaction -
depression,
pathological social media relational
survey social media use, social media use aggression

content of the message

(message type -
emotional/ sexual
infidelity), message
direction (sent/ received), level of distress
participant gender (same due to message
experiment facebook sex rival/ other sex) content & direction
 perceived
survey social media frequency of selfie posting relationship quality

Fb use, relationship length

(for both partners of a intimate partner
survey facebook couple in study 2) violence (IPV)

agression (physical, verbal

aggression, hostility,
anger), age, self-esteem,
gender, relational
duration, length, relational
survey facebook satisfaction fb jealousy

gender, attitude towards

Fb posts, age, duration of
Fb use,reasons for sharing
posts, negative emotions
evoked (jealousy,hate,
annoyance, demotivation,
mixed method facebook inferiority, sadness) -
 factors leading to
retroactive jealousy: social
comparison, digital
remnants, relational
uncertainty; managing
jealousy - offensive
strategy (information
gathering purposes:
disparage a partner’s exes;
avoid direct, interactive
information seeking; and
digitally fact-check),
defensive strategy
(reframing/ cognitive
appraisal, avoidance);
contextual conditions:
focus group social media accessibility, social norms

password sharing, online

surveillance, SNS
jealousy, account
monitoring, relationship
length & status, no. of
SNS accounts, daily time
spent on SNS, age,
survey social media relationship satisfaction -

quiescent–agitated
Anxious/ avoidant ambivalence,
attachment, time spent on happy–dejected
survey facebook internet, age, gender ambivalence

survey facebook trust, fb use intensity marital satisfaction

 Fb related
Big 5 (agreeableness, relationship
extraversion, neuroticism, difficulties
conscientiousness, (conflict and
survey facebook openness) jealousy).

message content (Sexual

and emotional infidelity),
third party rival (same sex respondents'
sibling, friend, stranger), imagined level of
experiment snapchat gender (male/female) jealousy
validated structure:
Partner Fb intrusion,
Conflict over Fb use, and
survey facebook Jealousy over Fb use -

Fb oriented relationship
behaviour (monitoring,
public display, excessive percieved
public display, private increased in
exchange), jealousy, relationship
survey facebook relationship satisfaction closeness,
 mediator/
control
moderator

gender, personality factors

(trait jealousy, trust, self-
esteem) & relationship
factors (relational uncertainty
- and commitment)

- -

me: romantic
jealousy,
survelliance
behaviour -

mo: self-esteem gender

study 1 me:
relationship
quality
(intimacy,
satisfaction,
commitment,
passion, love,
trust). Trust
significant ;
Study 2: me:
trust; actor's study 1: relationship status;
daily jealousy study 2: trait neuroticism

- -
- -

- -

- -

mo: gender; me:

attachment
anxiety -

- -

fb jealousy -
- -

me: threat
perception,
emotions -

- -

for jealousy: intensity of

facebook use, gender, love,
for love: jealousy,
length of relationship, Fb use
- intensity, gender, and age

- -
 gender, amount of time spent
me: Fb mate on Facebook during a typical
retention tactics day

- -

- -

- -
- -

- -

- -

mo: partners'
social media use releationship characteristics

- -

- -
mo: partner trust -

- -

me: self-
regulation general social media use

- -
me: jealousy,
online idealized
persona, SNS
photo related age, gender, relatioship
conflicts length, selfies with partners

me: fb jealousy -

- -

- -
- -

- -

me: motive to
belong (directive
function), social
vigilance
(regulatory
function), fear of
being excluded
(control
function) -

me: online
surveillance, fb
realted jealousy
me: relationship
maintenance
activities
(excessive
public displays,
public displays Facebook-posting frequency,
and partner age, gender,relationship
surveillance) length

- -

- -

Weekly hours spent on Fb,

frequency
of checking Fb, frequency of
posting on Fb, length of
mo: Fb induced romantic involvement,
jealousy age, gender
 Year Author
S.No.
Muise, Christofides &
1 2009 Desmarais
2 2010 Mod G.B.B.A
3 2011 Elphinston & Noller
4 2011 Utz & Beukeboom
Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Fb jealousy and
5 2013 Castro & Lee
study focus geographic scope
conceptualize and
validate the Facebook
(Fb) Jealousy scale Canada
Evaluate Facebook
features and user
behaviours on Fb that
can adversely impact a
romantic relationship Ireland
Examine intrusive
nature of Facebook and
its inducement of
negative relational
outcomes Australia
Explore association of
self-esteem with
negative and postive
effects of SMP use the Netherlands
investigate correlation
of attachment style with
survelliance UK
 Utilise hypothetical
scenario to discern
gender differences in
experience of Fb
Muscanell, Guadagno, jealousy and associated
6 2013 Rice & Murphy emotions USA

investigate correlation
of attachment style with
SMP use, jealousy and
7 2013 Nitzburg G., Farber B. emotions expereinced USA

explore gender
differences in Fb
8 2013 McAndrew F., Shah S. jealousy USA

investiagte intensity of
and emotions associated
with jeaousy in context
Dijkstra P., Barelds, of SMP and offline
9 2013 D.P.H, Groothof H.A.K infidelity the Netherlands

examine gender
differences in partner
Muise A., Christofides survelliance as response
10 2014 E., Desmarais S. to Fb jealousy Canada

explore association of
attachement style, non-
verbal cues and
negative emotions
Fleuriet C., Cole M., associated with jealousy
11 2014 Guerrero L. due to fb content USA
 investigate Fb
solicitation, making /
accepting friends on Fb
Drouin M., Miller D., as potential predictors
12 2014 Dibble J. of jealousy USA

Study associations
among relational
maintenance behaviors,
uncertainity,
Stewart M., Dainton satisfaction and Fb
13 2014 M., Goodboy A. jealousy USA
investigate influence of
ambigious message and
Cohen E., Bowman N., access exclusivity on Fb
14 2014 Borchert K. jealousy USA

Study jealousy as a
consequence of
Lucero J., Weisz A., socially-interactive
Smith-Darden J., technology (SMP)
15 2014 Lucero S. abuse USA

Study link between Fb

jealousy and use of Fb
Dainton M. & Stokes, for relational
16 2015 A. maintainence USA

Study effect of
declaring relational
Orosz G., Szekeres A., status on Fb on
Kiss Z., Farkas P., satisafaction and
17 2015 Roland-Levy C. jealousy Hungary
 Study gender difference
Hudson B., Nicolas S., in expereince of Fb
Howser M., Lipsett K., jealousy due to use of
Robinson I., Pope L., emotions as non-verbal
18 2015 Hobby A., Friedman D. cues USA

Brem M., Spiller L.,
19 2015 Vandahey M.
Study associations
among Fb jealousy,
online mate retention/
gaurding and
consequential
aggressive behaviour USA

Explore SMP related

conflicts and gender
difference in relational
Rueda H., Lindsay M., behavior within a
20 2015 Wiliams L. cultural context USA

investiagte cross-SMP
Utz S., Muscanell N., capacity to elicit
21 2015 Khalid C. jealousy Europe

Address social media

jealousy as a relational
and psychological
stressor associated with
22 2015 Fox J., Moreland J. Fb use USA
 exmaine impact of
geographical distance
on relational
Billedo C., Kerkhof P., minatainance and social
23 2015 Finkenauer C. media jealousy Netherlands

Explore cultural and

gender differences in
Zandbergen D., Brown causal attributes of
24 2015 S. social mdia jealousy USA

Investigate effect of
SMPs on relationship
van Ouytsel J., van and consequences such
Gool E., Walrave M., as jealousy, monitoring
25 2016 Ponnet K., Peeters, E. and survelliance Belgium
Examine individuals'
perception of relational
Nongpong S., problems due to SMP
26 2016 Charoensukmongkol P. (Fb) use and activities Thailand

Macapagal K., Study influence of SMP

Coventry R., Puckett J., apps on relational
Phillips G., Mustanski parameters for specific
27 2016 B. sexual orientation USA
Examine role of SMPs
(and other technologies)
on dating abuse/
28 2016 Baker C., Carreno P. violence USA
 Investigate causes and
29 2016 Carpenter C.J effects of Fb jealousy USA

Cross-country study of
Moyano N., Sanchez- individual and relational
Fuentes M., Chiriboga factors associated with Spain, Columbia,
30 2017 A., Florez-Donado J. Fb jealousy Ecuador

31 2017 Iqbal F., Jami H. Pakistan

32 2017 Holmgren G., Coyne S. USA

33 2017* Dunn M., Billett G. UK

Halpern D., Katz J.E. &

34 2017 Carril C Chile
 Daspe M-E.,
Vaillancourt-Morel M-
P., Lussier Y., Sabourin
35 2018 S. Canada

36 2018 Demirtaş-Madran H. Turkey

Altakhaineh A.,
37 2018 Alnamer S. UAE

38 2018 Frampton R., Fox J. USA

39 2018 Bevan J.L USA

40 2019 Chang C. Taiwan

41 2019 Iqbal F., Jami H. Pakistan

42 2019 Seidman G. USA

43 2019 Dunn M., Ward K. UK

González-Rivera, J. A,
44 2019 Hernández-Gato, I Puerto Rico

Seidman G., Langlais

45 2019 M., Havens A. USA
* published online in
2017

Jealousy is a very complicated, multidimensional and multifactorial experience that must be handled as a
fear, envy) and reactions (aggression, violence)- Demirtaş-Madran
Jealousy is defined as the emotional reaction on a threat to the relationship - Pfeiffer & Wong, Utz & Beu
Jealousy, often defined as distrust or resentful- ness towards significant others due to suspected or know
with a rival or interloper, is inextricably linked with infidelity - Dunn & Ward 2019
Jealousy is defined, in part, by its relationship-threatening nature (Hupka, 1991; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989),
directly undermines belonging needs. - Seidman et al 2019
 Study
theory Sample characteristics gender data collection
design

N = 308, 75% female,

mean age = 18.7 years
(S.D. - 0.97). Avg daily
Fb use = 38.93 minutes
(SD = 32.13); 68
responses to open
- ended question survey female university

N = 11, 63.6% female,

mean age = n.r, age
- range = 21-24 years interview female university

N = 342, 57% female,

Investment model mean age = 19.75 years
theory (SD = 1.79) survey female university

N = 194, 71.1% female,

mean age = 22 years
- (SD = 3.54), survey female university

study 1: N = 225,
89.3% female, mean
age of male = 21.44
years (SD = 7.02) ,
mean age of females =
22.53 (SD = 5.16; study 1:
Study 2: N = 68, mean cross-
study 1: attachment age male = 26.93 years sectional
theory , study 2: actor– (S.D = 5.11), mean age survey, study study 1: female,
partner interdependence female = 25.36 years 2: survey & study 2: online survey
model (APIM) (S.D = 4.84) diary balanced websites
 N = 226, 69.9% female,
mean age = 19 years
- (S.D = 1.75) experiment female university

N = 339, 63.1% female, online survey

mean age = 21.5 years website, general
Attachment theory (S.D =2.95 ) survey female participants

N = 40, 60% female,

- mean age not reported survey female university

N = 312, 62.8%
female, mean age: men
(homosexual) = 28.1
years (S.D = 12.7),men
(heterosexual) = 29.3
years (S.D = 11.1),
women (homosexual) =
32.4 years (S.D = 15.3),
women (heterosexual)
= 28.2 years (S.D = social media,
- 12.2) survey female general

study 1: N = 160, 48%

female, mean age = study 1:
19.16 (S.D = 1.68); experiment,
study 2: 108 couples, study 2: daily
mean age = 21.05 (S.D experience
Attachment theory = 0.94) study (diary) balanced university

N = 821, 53% female,

mean age = 20.38 years
Attachment theory (SD = 3.35) experiment female university
 N = 148, 73.6% female,
Attachment theory, mean age = 20.59 years
investment model theory (SD = 4.66) survey female university

uncertainty reduction N = 281, 33.6% female,

theory, relational mean age = 20.05 years
maintenance theory (S.D = 1.72) survey male university

N = 191, 48.2% female

mean age = 22.7 years
- (SD = 5.44). experiment male university

N = 23, 56.5% female,

- age range 13-18 focus group female school

N = 189, 56.5% female,

Uses & gratifications mean age =21.36 years
framework (S.D = 2.30) survey female university

N = 292, 78.8% female,

mean age = 24.92 years
- (S.D = 6.62) survey female facebook
 study 1: N = 83, 50.6%
female, mean age =
19.94 years (S.D =
1.80); study 2: N = 83,
53.1% female, mean
age = 19.87 years (S.D
= 1.52); study 3: N =
83, 54.05% female,
mean age = 20.2 years
- (S.D = 1.80) survey female university

N = 177, 63.3% female,

mean age = 20.45 years
- (SD = 4.14) survey female university

N1 = 64, 62.5% female,

meana age = 16.66
years (S.D = 0.8); N2 = school,
34 (couples), 50% community
female, mean age = focus group, N1 = female, centers and city
16.25 (S.D = 0.8) observation N2 = balanced events,

N = 77, female = 76.6%

mean age = 22.5 years social media
- (S.D = 4.21) survey female sites

N = 44, 61.3% female,

mean age = 23.36 (S.D
- = 6.79) focus group female university
 N = 272, 68.75%
female, mean age = 23
- years (S.D = 4.37) survey female facebook

N = 145, 69.7 %
females, mean age =
20.81 years (S.D = mixed
- 6.04) method female university

N = 57, 66.7% females,

mean age = n.r, age
- range = 15-18 years focus group female school

N = 256, 72% females,

mean age = 36 years
- (S.D = 6.886 ) survey female general

N = 323, 0% females,
mean age = 40.1 years
- (S.D = 10.8) survey male general

N = 39, 46 % females,
mean age = n.r, age community
- range 14 - 19 years focus group male organizations
 N = 196, 86.8 %
female, mean age =
White and Mullen’s 25.65 years (S.D =
jealousy model 7.69) survey female social media

N = 1144; n (spain) =
393, 65.1 % females,
mean age = 25 years
(S.D = 7.44); n
(columbia) = 600,
64.5% females, mean
age = 24.7 years (S.D =
7.50); n (ecuador) =
151, 58.9% females, social media
mean age = 22.3 years sites, university
- (S.D = 3.03) survey female website

N = 200, 50% females,

mean age = 31.24 years
- (S.D = 5.18) survey balanced general
N = 442, 51.6% general
females, mean age = (Flourishing
general theory of 18.86 years (S.D Families
addiction = )1.00 survey balanced Project)

N = 44, 52.2% females,

parental investment (PI) mean age = 21.3 years
theory (S.D = 4.06) experiment female university

N = 305, 51.3 %
female, mean age = n.r,
age range 18 - 65+,
self affirmation theory 55% aged 18–34 years survey balanced general
 N1 = 1508, 86.14%
females, mean age =
20.51 years (S.D =
2.54); N2 = 92, 50 %
females, mean age =
Actor–partner 20.14 years (S.D = N1 = female,
interdependence model 2.16) survey N2 = balanced online platform

power perspective,
evolutionary perspective
of gender differences,
theory of evolved
gender differences, N = 846, 61% females, university,
cognitive theory of mean age = 27.34 years general,
jealousy (S.D = 9.12) survey female facebook

N = 240, 50% females,

mean age = n.r, age mixed
- range = 17 - 60+ years method balanced university

hyperpersonal model,
grounded theory
approach, social
comparison theory ,
theory of motivated N = 36, 58.3% females,
information mean age = 20.06 years
management (S.D = 1.29) focus group female university

N = 474, 78.06 %
female, mean age =
22.78 years (S.D =
- 5.24) survey female social media
 N = 1053 , 59.1%
females, mean age =
Attachment theory, goal 21.94 years (S.D =
cognition theory 3.67) survey female university

N = 302, 51.3%
negative affect females, mean age =
hypothesis, self- 31.14 years (S.D =
selection hypothesis 5.45) survey balanced general

N = 257, 58.57%
females, mean age =
five factor personalilty 32.77 years (S.D =
model 9.18) survey female Mturk

parental investment (PI) N = 76, 57.9% female,

theory, inclusive fitness mean age = 21.5years
theory (S.D = 4.01) experiment female university
N = 300, 50% female,
mean age = 32.87 (SD
- = 7.096) survey balanced general

N1 = 93, 75.3%
females, mean age =
Dual-factor model (need 26.91 years (S.D =
to belong &self- 9.57), N2 = 255, 58.8
presentation), % females, mean age =
belongingness/connectio 32.87 years (S.D = mTurk,
n framework 9.25) survey female university

torial experience that must be handled as a combination of emotions (anger,

dran
e relationship - Pfeiffer & Wong, Utz & Beukeboom
significant others due to suspected or known romantic contact
Dunn & Ward 2019
ure (Hupka, 1991; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), and therefore,
 sample focus Technique Instrument platform

Facebook jealousy scale,

young adult EFA, HMRA Rosenberg self-esteem scale facebook

young adult content analysis - facebook

descriptive
statistics, Facebook intrusion questionnaire,
correlation, Short-Form Multidimensional
young adult HMRA Jealousy Scale facebook

SNS intensity scale, facebook

jealousy scale , SNS relationship
descriptive happiness scale, behavioural
statistics, jealousy sub-scale, popularity
young adult regression scale, Rosenberg scale social media

Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale–Revised
(ECR-R), Rosenberg' self -
esteem inventory, Perceived
Relationship Quality
Components (PRQC), Facebook
Study 1: (Fb) jealousy scale, facebok
descriptive surveillance (single item); study
statistics, 2: The Self-Liking Self-
correlation, Competence
study 1: young HMRA; Study 2: Scale, PRQC, ECR-R, Berkeley
adult, study 2: hierarchical linear Personality Profile; Fb jealousy
partner dyad modeling scale, facebook
young adult ANOVA 2 x 3 x 3 conditions facebook

Technology & communication

not reported, case survey, Relationship
young adult narrative questionnaire social media

facebook jealousy scale

young adult PCA, paired t test (modified) facebook

ANOVA,
Kruskal-wallis,
descriptive
adult statistics Betrayal/Anger and Threat internet

Multidimensional Jealousy Scale,

Facebook jealousy scale,
t-test, Experiences in Close
MANCOVA, Relationship–Short Form, Trust
young adult regression scale facebook

young adult, EFA, ANOVA, Infrequency Index, attachment

adult ANCOVA style facebook
 correlation, Fb jealousy scale, commitment
paired t test, sub-scale of investment model
young adult HMRA scale facebook

pearson's fb jealousy, relational

correlation, maintenance strategies on fb,
canonical quality marriage index,
young adult correlation relationship uncertainty measure facebook

young adult t-test, SEM - facebook

young adult thematic analysis - -

Facebook positivity and

openness, Facebook assurances,
facebook jealousy scale,
emotional jealousy scale, jealousy
young adult ANOVA, SEM measure (trait) facebook

romantic love scale, interpersonal

young adult, jealousy scale, facebook intensity
adult t-test, HMRA scale facebook
young adult ANOVA facebok jealousy scale facebook

facebook mate-retention tactics,

offline mate retention tactics,
descriptive facebok jealousy, facebook
statistics, EFA, surveillance, Revised Conflict
young adult HMRA Tactics Scales facebook

Conflict in Adolescent Dating

Relationships Inventory,
Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans–Short Form,
thematic content mexican and Anglo orientation,
adolescent analysis Partner Issues Checklist ICT

popularity scale, facebook

cronbach's alpha, jealousy scale, rosenberg's self- facebook,
young adult correlation esteem scale snapchat

young adult thematic analysis facebook

 facebook intensity scale, measure
of maintenance behaviors,
facebook jealousy scale,
Interpersonal
young adult, Electronic Surveillance for SNS,
adult t test relationship quality facebook

Horizontal and Vertical

Individualism and Collectivism
Scale, Self-Report Jealousy
HMRA, t test, Scale, modified Emotional and
young adult ANOVA Sexual Jealousy Scale social media

adolescent thematic analysis - social media

adult SEM self-developed facebook

t test,
ANOVA,chi
square,
descriptive
analytics,
adult thematic analysis - social media

adolescent thematic analysis - social media

 CFA, correlation, Couch et al. (1996) partner trust
equivalence scale, Elphinston et al (2011)
testing, short-form of multidimensional
adult regression jealousy scale facebook

descriptive
statistics, facebok jealousy scale, romantic
pearsons jealousy scale, Rosenberg self-
young adult, correlations, esteem scale, romantic partner
adult regression conflict scale facebook

facebook jealousy scale,

comprehensive marital
adult EFA, correlation satisfaction scale facebook

correlation, problematic
descriptive use of mobile phones scale, self-
young adult statistics, regulation scale social media

young adults ANOVA - facebook

young adult - Perceived Relationship Quality

adult SEM Components social media
 correlation, t test,
SEM, paired Facebook jealousy scale, revised
young adults samplle t test conflict tactics scale facebook

Facebook jealousy scale,

young adults, chi square, Rosenberg self-esteem scale,
adults regression Buss-Perry aggression scale facebook

young adult,
adult t test - facebook

young adult thematic analysis - social media

FMRTI jealousy and surveillance

Likert-type subscale, Facebook
mate retention tactics jealousy
PCA, and surveillance subscale, self -
young adult correlations, t test developed social media
 secure attachment scale, avoidant
attachment scale, anxious
attachement scale, goal to belong
scale (leary et al 2005), goal to be
well-liked (Santor et al 2000),
young adults, self develoed scales for some
adults HMRA, SEM measures, Griffin’s formula facebook

Interpersonal Electronic
Surveillance Scale, Trust in Close
Relationships Scale, Facebook
pearson's Jealousy Scale, Comprehensive
young adult, correlation, t test, Marital Satisfaction Scale,
adult SEM Facebook Use Intensity facebook

Seidman et al. (2019) -

relationship oriented fb
behvaiour, Facebook-related
relationship difficulties (Clayton
et al 2013); Saucier’s (1994)
adult regression, SEM Minimarkers scale facebook

young adult ANOVA - snapchat

Conflicts in Romantic
adult CFA Relationships Over FB Use Scale facebook

EFA, regression,
young adult HMRA - facebook
 mediator/
Investigated variables DV control
moderator

Time spend on Fb, Trust, trait
jealousy,
gender, personality
factors (trait
jealousy, trust, self-
esteem) &
relationship factors
(relational
uncertainty
facebook jealousy - and commitment)

themes: relationship status,

publics display of affection, - - -

Romantic jealousy (cognitive,

surveillance behaviour), age,
gender, FB intrusion, length of
relationship, length of fb me: romantic
membership, time spent on fb jealousy, survelliance
(hours/week), Relational satisfaction behaviour -

monitoring behaviour, trait

jealousy, need for popularity,
SNS use (profile maintenance,
grooming), relationship
satisfaction, login frequency, SNS jealousy, SNS
SNS intensity relationship happiness mo: self-esteem gender

study 1 me:
relationship quality
Study 1: anxious attachment, (intimacy,
avoidance attachment, gender; satisfaction,
ethnicity; study 2: attachment, commitment,
anxiety, avoidance, Global passion, love, trust).
(trust, satisfaction, comittment, Trust significant ; study 1: relationship
intimacy, passion, love), fb Study 2: me: trust; status; study 2: trait
minutes, fb checking, ethnicity FB jealousy, survelliance actor's daily jealousy neuroticism
gender, Fb privacy settings, emotions (jealousy, anger,
presence of couple photos, hurt, disgust) - -

face to face
communication
socio-demographics, attachment avoidance, feeling
style, jealousy, envy, intimate with others
survelliance during SNS use - -

mate gaurding, distressing

partner activities, jealous
feelings, relationship confidence, self vs.
fear of rivals, fear of poachers, partners'hypothetical
fear of leaving, spying responses to jealousy - -

ten jealousy evoking

jealousy emotions (threat, scenarios of partner
betrayal-anger), gender behaviour - -

gender, condition of
relationship, fb search jealousy, search
behaviour, trait jealousy, trust, behaviour, attachment
simulated fb site use, fb jealousy anxiety, partner mo: gender; me:
(in two studies) monitoring attachment anxiety -

non-verbal cues (photos,

physical attractiveness,
emoticons, capitalization,
hyperbolic punctuation),
attachment style, jealousy
provoking post, gender,
relationship type
negative emotion
experienced after seeing a
jealousy provoking fb
post - -
attachment anxiety,
commitment, romantic
alternatives on friend list, no. of
friends fb solicitation fb jealousy -

relational satisfaction,
uncertainty (behavioural,
mutual, definitional, future), fb
jealousy, relational maintenance
(positivity, openess, assurances, relational maintenance,
monitoring ) online monitoring - -

message access exclusivity,

negative emotion, threat emotional and behavioral me: threat perception,
perception response (confrontation) emotions -

emergent themes: type of

Socially Interactive Technology,
abusive action (monitoring),
consequence, gender differences - - -

jealousy (trait, emotional, relationship maintenance

cognitive, facebook), behaviour (facebook
maintenance motive, facebook openness, positivity,
use assurance, monitoring) -

for jealousy:
intensity of
facebook use,
gender, love, for
love: jealousy,
length of
relationship, Fb use
facebook status, length of intensity, gender,
relationship, use intensity jealousy, romantic love - and age
emoticon presence, gender facebook jealousy - -

Facebook Mate-retention tactics

(care & affection, jealousy &
surviellance, possession signals, intimate partner gender, amount of
punishment of infidelity threat), aggression (psychological time spent on
offline mate retention tactics, aggression, physical me: Fb mate Facebook during a
gender, time spent on fb abuse) retention tactics typical day

N1 themes: Technology
contributed to romantic jealousy,
Mistrust propagated partner
monitoring, surveillance,
and controlling behaviors,
technology alerted others to
unhealthy romantic
relationships, N2 themes:
Jealousy & mistrust, instant
communication & harrasment,
platforms contributed to
misunderstanding - - -

need for popularity, need for self

- esteem, snapchat jealousy,
facebook jealousy, social media
use characteristics, motives for
use - - -

themes: managing inappropriate

or annoying content, being
tethered, lack of privacy and
control, social comparison and
jealousy, relationship tension
and conflict. - - -

long distance relationship,
grographically close
relationship, gender
Fb use intensity,
relational certainity, SNS
strategic
maintenance, SNS routine
maintenance, partner
survellience, Fb
jealousy,commitment,
relationship satisfaction,
and trust - -

gender, individualism,
collectivism; Jealousy casual
themes: Infidelity, Expectations
of time and commitment, Social emotional & sexual
Media Self-Esteem infidelity - -

themes: use of SNS when

initiating a romantic
relationship, during a romantic
relationship, relationship
dissolution - - -

jealousy, lack of caring,

loneliness, own social media intention to break up mo: partners' social releationship
use, partner's social media use /divorce media use characteristics

themes: relationship
characteristics, app usage,
percieved benefits and
drawbacks to app usage, app
usage in relationship agreements - - -
themes: getting in (initiating
contact), jealousy, monitoring,
partner imposed isolation,
breaking off contact, - - -
user behaviour (participants' fb
use extent, partner surveillance),
partner behavior (frequency of
status updates, interaction with
attractive people, posts on walls,
becoming friends with attractive
people unknown to participant),
rival behvaiour (frequency of
posts from unknown attractive
people, interaction with ex-
partners), Fb jealousy inducing
behaviour
relational maintenance
behaviour (social contact,
response-seeking, and
relational assurances),
negative coping
mechanisms (intention to
end, willingness for extra-
dyadic casual sex),
cognitive jealousy mo: partner trust -

self-esteem, partner conflicts and

coping strategies (compromise,
avoidance, interactional
reactivity, separation,
donination, submission)
romantic partner jealousy, age,
length of relationship Facebook jealousy
fb jealousy (validated structure
with three factors - Insecurity,
Inquisition, and Infidelity),
marital satisfaction - - -

pathological social media use, depression, relational general social

social media use aggression me: self-regulation media use

content of the message (message

type - emotional/ sexual
infidelity), message direction
(sent/ received), participant
gender (same sex rival/ other
sex)
level of distress due to
message content &
direction - -

me: jealousy, online

idealized persona, age, gender,
perceived relationship SNS photo related relatioship length,
frequency of selfie posting quality conflicts selfies with partners
Fb use, relationship length (for
both partners of a couple in intimate partner violence
study 2) (IPV) me: fb jealousy -

agression (physical, verbal

aggression, hostility, anger), age,
self-esteem, gender, relational
duration, length, relational
satisfaction fb jealousy - -

gender, attitude towards Fb

posts, age, duration of Fb
use,reasons for sharing posts,
negative emotions evoked
(jealousy,hate, annoyance,
demotivation, inferiority,
sadness) - - -

factors leading to retroactive

jealousy: social comparison,
digital remnants, relational
uncertainty; managing jealousy -
offensive strategy (information
gathering purposes: disparage a
partner’s exes; avoid direct,
interactive information seeking;
and digitally fact-check),
defensive strategy (reframing/
cognitive appraisal, avoidance);
contextual conditions:
accessibility, social norms - -

password sharing, online

surveillance, SNS jealousy,
account monitoring, relationship
length & status, no. of SNS
accounts, daily time spent on
SNS, age, relationship
satisfaction - - -

Anxious/ avoidant attachment,
time spent on internet, age,
gender
me: motive to belong
(directive function),
social vigilance
(regulatory function),
quiescent–agitated fear of being
ambivalence, happy– excluded (control
dejected ambivalence function) -

me: online
surveillance, fb
trust, fb use intensity marital satisfaction realted jealousy

me: relationship
maintenance
activities (excessive Facebook-posting
Big 5 (agreeableness, Fb related relationship public displays, frequency, age,
extraversion, neuroticism, difficulties (conflict and public displays and gender,relationship
conscientiousness, openness) jealousy). partner surveillance) length
message content (Sexual and
emotional infidelity), third party
rival (same sex sibling, friend, respondents' imagined
stranger), gender (male/female) level of jealousy - -
validated structure: Partner Fb
intrusion, Conflict over Fb use,
and Jealousy over Fb use - - -

Weekly hours spent

on Fb, frequency
Fb oriented relationship of checking Fb,
behaviour (monitoring, public frequency of
display, excessive public posting on Fb,
display, private exchange), length of romantic
jealousy, relationship percieved increased in mo: Fb induced involvement,
satisfaction relationship closeness, jealousy age, gender
 Author

Muise, Christofides &

Desmarais

Mod G.B.B.A

Elphinston & Noller

Utz & Beukeboom

Marshall, Bejanyan, Di
Castro & Lee
Muscanell, Guadagno,
Rice & Murphy

Nitzburg G., Farber B.

McAndrew F., Shah S.

Dijkstra P., Barelds,

D.P.H, Groothof H.A.K

Muise A., Christofides

E., Desmarais S.

Fleuriet C., Cole M.,

Guerrero L.
Drouin M., Miller D.,
Dibble J.

Stewart M., Dainton

M., Goodboy A.

Cohen E., Bowman N.,

Borchert K.

Lucero J., Weisz A.,

Smith-Darden J.,
Lucero S.

Dainton M. & Stokes,

A.

Orosz G., Szekeres A.,

Kiss Z., Farkas P.,
Roland-Levy C.
Hudson B., Nicolas S.,
Howser M., Lipsett K.,
Robinson I., Pope L.,
Hobby A., Friedman D.

Brem M., Spiller L.,

Vandahey M.

Rueda H., Lindsay M.,

Wiliams L.

Utz S., Muscanell N.,

Khalid C.

Fox J., Moreland J.

Billedo C., Kerkhof P.,
Finkenauer C.

Zandbergen D., Brown

S.

van Ouytsel J., van

Gool E., Walrave M.,
Ponnet K., Peeters, E.

Nongpong S.,
Charoensukmongkol P.

Macapagal K.,
Coventry R., Puckett J.,
Phillips G., Mustanski
B.

Baker C., Carreno P.

Carpenter C.J

Moyano N., Sanchez-

Fuentes M., Chiriboga
A., Florez-Donado J.

Iqbal F., Jami H.

Holmgren G., Coyne S.

Dunn M., Billett G.

Halpern D., Katz J.E. &

Carril C
Daspe M-E.,
Vaillancourt-Morel M-
P., Lussier Y., Sabourin
S.

Demirtaş-Madran H.

Altakhaineh A.,
Alnamer S.

Frampton R., Fox J.

Bevan J.L
Chang C.

Iqbal F., Jami H.

Seidman G.

Dunn M., Ward K.

González-Rivera, J. A,
Hernández-Gato, I

Seidman G., Langlais

M., Havens A.
 Year Author geographic scope theory
S.No.

Muise, Christofides &

1 2009 Desmarais Canada -

Rogers, Griffin, Wykle &

2 2009 Fitzpatrick USA -

3 2011 Elphinston & Noller Australia Investment model theory

4 2011 Utz & Beukeboom the Netherlands -

 study 1: attachment
theory , study 2: actor–
Marshall, Bejanyan, Di partner interdependence
5 2013 Castro & Lee UK model (APIM)

Muscanell, Guadagno,
6 2013 Rice & Murphy USA -

7 2013 Nitzburg G., Farber B. USA Attachment theory

8 2013 McAndrew F., Shah S. USA -

Strawhun J., Adams N.,

9 2013 Huss M. USA -
 Muise A., Christofides E.,
10 2014 Desmarais S. Canada Attachment theory

Fleuriet C., Cole M.,

11 2014 Guerrero L. USA Attachment theory

Drouin M., Miller D., Attachment theory,

12 2014 Dibble J. USA investment model theory

uncertainty reduction
Stewart M., Dainton M., theory, relational
13 2014 Goodboy A. USA maintenance theory
 Cohen E., Bowman N.,
14 2014 Borchert K. USA -
Miller M., Denes A., Diaz
15 2014 B., Buck R. Attachment theory

Lucero J., Weisz A., Smith-

16 2014 Darden J., Lucero S. USA -

Uses & gratifications

17 2015 Dainton M. & Stokes, A. USA framework

Orosz G., Szekeres A., Kiss

Z., Farkas P., Roland-Levy
18 2015 C. Hungary -
 Hudson B., Nicolas S.,
Howser M., Lipsett K.,
Robinson I., Pope L.,
19 2015 Hobby A., Friedman D. USA -

Lup K., Trub L., Rosenthal

20 2015 L. USA -

Brem M., Spiller L.,

21 2015 Vandahey M. USA -

Rueda H., Lindsay M.,

22 2015 Wiliams L. USA
 Utz S., Muscanell N.,
23 2015 Khalid C. Europe -

24 2015 Fox J., Moreland J. USA -

Billedo C., Kerkhof P.,

25 2015 Finkenauer C. Netherlands -

26 2015 Zandbergen D., Brown S. USA -

 Ouytsel J., Gool E.,
Walrave M., Ponnet K.,
27 2016 Peeters, E. Belgium -

Nongpong S.,
28 2016 Charoensukmongkol P. Thailand -

Macapagal K., Coventry

R., Puckett J., Phillips G.,
29 2016 Mustanski B. USA -
30 2016 Baker C., Carreno P. USA -

Moyano N., Sanchez-

Fuentes M., Chiriboga A.,
31 2017 Florez-Donado J. Spain, Columbia, Ecuador -

Dual-factor model (need

to belong &self-
presentation),
Seidman G., Langlais M., belongingness/connection
32 2017 Havens A. USA framework

33 2017 Iqbal F., Jami H. Pakistan -

34 2017 Rus H., Tiemensma J. USA -

 general theory of
35 2017 Holmgren G., Coyne S. USA addiction

parental investment (PI)

36 2017 Dunn M., Billett G. UK theory

Daspe M-E., Vaillancourt-

Morel M-P., Lussier Y., Actor–partner
37 2018 Sabourin S. Canada interdependence model

power perspective,
evolutionary perspective
of gender differences,
theory of evolved gender
differences, cognitive
38 2018 Demirtaş-Madran H. Turkey theory of jealousy

Altakhaineh A., Alnamer

39 2018 S. UAE
 hyperpersonal model,
grounded theory
approach, social
comparison theory ,
theory of motivated
40 2018 Frampton R., Fox J. USA information management

Attachment theory, goal

41 2019 Chang C. Taiwan cognition theory
González-Rivera J.,
42 2019 Hernández-Gato I. scale validation study

negative affect
hypothesis, self-selection
43 2019 Iqbal F., Jami H. Pakistan hypothesis
 Rozgonjuk D., Ryan T., jealousy not studied
44 2019 Kuljus J., Täht K., Scott G. Estonia empirically

five factr personalilty

45 2019 Seidman G. USA model

39 2018 Bevan J.L USA -

White and Mullen’s

40 2016 Carpenter C.J USA jealousy model

parental investment (PI)

theory, inclusive fitness
41 2019 Dunn M., Ward K. UK theory
 Dijkstra P., Barelds, D.P.H,
42 2013 Groothof H.A.K the Netherlands -

Halpern D., Katz J.E. &

43 2017 Carril C Chile self affirmation theory

44 2010 Mod G.B.B.A Ireland -

González-Rivera, J. A,
45 2019 Hernández-Gato, I Puerto Rico -

Acronyms used: principal components analysis (PCA), structural equation modeling (SEM), hierarchical multiple regression ana
 Sample characteristics Study design gender data collection sample focus

N = 308, 75% female,

mean age = 18.7 years
(S.D. - 0.97). Avg daily Fb
use = 38.93 minutes (SD = survey + open
32.13); 68 responses to ended
open ended question question female university young adult

N = 328, 73.5% female,

group 1 (F2F) mean age =
24 (SD = 2.68); group 2
(IT) mean age = 24.2 (SD
= 2.60) survey female facebook young adult

N = 342, 57% female,

mean age = 19.75 years
(SD = 1.79) survey female university young adult

N = 194, 71.1% female,

mean age = 22 years (SD
= 3.54), survey female university young adult
study 1: N = 225, 89.3%
female, mean age of
male = 21.44 years (SD =
7.02) , mean age of
females = 22.53 (SD =
5.16; Study 2: N = 68, study 1: cross-
mean age male = 26.93 sectional
years (S.D = 5.11), mean survey, study study 1: young
age female = 25.36 years 2: survey & study 1: female, online survey adult, study 2:
(S.D = 4.84) diary study 2: balanced websites partner dyad

N = 226, 69.9% female,

mean age = 19 years (S.D
= 1.75) experiment female university young adult

N = 339, 63.1% female, online survey

mean age = 21.5 years website, general
(S.D =2.95 ) survey female participants young adult

N = 40, 60% female,

mean age not reported survey female university young adult

N = 248, 64.1% female,

mean age = 19.18 years
(SD = 2.70) survey female university young adult
study 1: N = 160, 48% study 1:
female, mean age = 19.16 experiment,
(S.D = 1.68); study 2: 108 study 2: daily
couples, mean age = experience
21.05 (S.D = 0.94) study (diary) balanced university young adult

N = 821, 53% female, survey

mean age = 20.38 years (experimental young adult,
(SD = 3.35) condition) female university adult

N = 148, 73.6% female,

mean age = 20.59 years
(SD = 4.66) survey female university young adult

N = 281, 33.6% female,

mean age = 20.05 years
(S.D = 1.72) survey male university young adult
N = 191, 48.2% female survey
mean age = 22.7 years (experimental
(SD = 5.44). condition) male university young adult

N = 23, 56.5% female, age qualitative

range 13-18 (focus group) female school young adult

N = 189, 56.5% female,

mean age =21.36 years
(S.D = 2.30) survey female university young adult

N = 292, 78.8% female,

mean age = 24.92 years young adult,
(S.D = 6.62) survey female facebook adult
study 1: N = 83, 50.6%
female, mean age = 19.94
years (S.D = 1.80); study
2: N = 83, 53.1% female,
mean age = 19.87 years
(S.D = 1.52); study 3: N =
83, 54.05% female, mean survey + open
age = 20.2 years (S.D = ended
1.80) question female university young adult

N =117, 84% female;

mean age = 24.81 years
(S.D = 2.54) survey female facebook young adult

N = 177, 63.3% female,

mean age = 20.45 years
(SD = 4.14) survey female university young adult

N1 = 64, 62.5% female,

meana age = 16.66 years qualitative
(S.D = 0.8); N2 = 34 mixed method school,
(couples), 50% female, (focus group community
mean age = 16.25 (S.D = & N1 = female, N2 = centers and city
0.8) observation) balanced events, adolescent
N = 77, female = 76.6%
mean age = 22.5 years
(S.D = 4.21) survey female social media sites young adult

N = 44, 61.3% female,

mean age = 23.36 (S.D = qualitative
6.79) (focus group) female university young adult

N = 272, 68.75% female,

mean age = 23 years (S.D young adult,
= 4.37) survey female facebook adult

N = 145, 69.7 % females,

mean age = 20.81 years
(S.D = 6.04) mixed method female university young adult
N = 57, 66.7% females,
mean age = n.r, age range qualitative
= 15-18 years (focus group) female school adolescent

N = 256, 72% females,

mean age = 36 years (S.D
= 6.886 ) survey female general adult

N = 323, 0% females,
mean age = 40.1 years
(S.D = 10.8) survey male general adult
N = 39, 46 % females,
mean age = n.r, age range qualitative community
14 - 19 years (focus group) male organizations adolescent

N = 1144; n (spain) = 393,

65.1 % females, mean
age = 25 years (S.D =
7.44); n (columbia) = 600,
64.5% females, mean age
= 24.7 years (S.D = 7.50);
n (ecuador) = 151, 58.9% social media
females, mean age = 22.3 sites, university young adult,
years (S.D = 3.03) survey female website adult

N1 = 93, 75.3% females,

mean age = 26.91 years
(S.D = 9.57), N2 = 255,
58.8 % females, mean
age = 32.87 years (S.D =
9.25) survey female mTurk, university young adult

N = 200, 50% females,

mean age = 31.24 years
(S.D = 5.18) survey balanced general adult

not applicable SLR - - -

N = 442, 51.6% females, general
mean age = 18.86 years (Flourishing
(S.D = )1.00 survey balanced Families Project) young adult

N = 44, 52.2% females,

mean age = 21.3 years
(S.D = 4.06) experiment female university young adults

N1 = 1508, 86.14%
females, mean age =
20.51 years (S.D = 2.54);
N2 = 92, 50 % females,
mean age = 20.14 years N1 = female, N2 =
(S.D = 2.16) survey balanced online platform young adults

N = 846, 61% females,

mean age = 27.34 years university, young adults,
(S.D = 9.12) survey female general, facebook adults

N = 240, 50% females,

mean age = n.r, age range young adult,
= 17 - 60+ years mixed method balanced university adult
N = 36, 58.3% females,
mean age = 20.06 years qualitative
(S.D = 1.29) (focus group) female university young adult

N = 1053 , 59.1% females,

mean age = 21.94 years young adults,
(S.D = 3.67) survey female university adults
N = , % females, mean
age = years (S.D = )

N = 302, 51.3% females,

mean age = 31.14 years young adult,
(S.D = 5.45) survey balanced general adult
N = 318, % females, mean
age = years (S.D = )

N = 257, 58.57% females,

mean age = years 32.77
(S.D = 9.18) survey female Mturk adult

N = 474, 78.06 % female,

mean age = 22.78 years
(S.D = 5.24) survey female social media young adult

N = 196, 86.8 % female,

mean age = 25.65 years
(S.D = 7.69) survey female social media adult

N = 76, 57.9% female,

mean age = 21.5years
(S.D = 4.01) experiment female university young adult
 N = 312, 62.8% female,
mean age: men
(homosexual) = 28.1
years (S.D = 12.7),men
(heterosexual) = 29.3
years (S.D = 11.1),
women (homosexual) =
32.4 years (S.D = 15.3),
women (heterosexual) = social media,
28.2 years (S.D = 12.2) survey female general adult

N = 305, 51.3 % female,

mean age = n.r, age
range 18 - 65+, 55% aged young adult -
18–34 years longitudinal balanced general adult

N = 11, 63.6% female,

mean age = n.r, age qualitative
range = 21-24 years (interviews) female university young adult

N = 300, 50% female,

mean age = 32.87 (SD =
7.096) survey balanced general adult

hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), socially interactive t
 Technique Instrument platform constructs

Facebook jealousy scale, Rosenberg Time spend on Fb, Trust, trait

EFA, HMRA self-esteem scale facebook jealousy,

t test, Chi sqaure,

descriptive
analytics Emotional self-disclosure scale

FB intrusion, time spent on fb

(hours/week), romantic jealousy
descriptive Facebook intrusion questionnaire, (cognitive, surveillance behaviour);
statistics, Short-Form Multidimensional age, gender, length of relationship,
correlation, HMRA Jealousy Scale facebook length of fb membership

SNS intensity scale, facebook
jealousy scale , SNS relationship
descriptive happiness scale, behavioural
statistics, jealousy sub-scale, popularity scale,
regression Rosenberg scale
relationship
satisfaction,monitoring behaviour
trait jealousy, login frequency, SNS
use profile, use grooming, need for
popularity, length of relationship,
social media gender
 Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale–Revised (ECR-
R), Rosenberg' self - esteem
inventory, Perceived Relationship
Quality
Study 1: Components (PRQC), Facebook (Fb)
descriptive jealousy scale, facebok surveillance
statistics, (single item); study 2: The Self-Liking
correlation, HMRA; Self-Competence
Study 2: Scale, PRQC, ECR-R, Berkeley
hierarchical linear Personality Profile; Fb jealousy
modeling scale,
ANOVA 2 x 3 x 3 conditions
not reported, case Technology & communication
narrative survey, Relationship questionnaire
PCA, paired t test facebook jealousy scale (modified)
Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding Version 6 (BIDR),
Interpersonal jealousy scale, Novaco
Anger Inventory-Short Form,
Relationships Scales Questionnaire,
Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral
Index, cyber-pursuit, Obsessive
correlation, Relational Intrusion (ORI), Modified
regression Conflict Tactics Scale-II
Study 1: anxious attachment,
avoidance attachment, gender;
ethnicity; study 2: attachment,
anxiety, avoidance, Global (trust,
satisfaction, comittment, intimacy,
passion, love), fb minutes, fb
facebook checking, ethnicity
gender, Fb privacy settings,
facebook presence of couple photos,
socio-demographics, attachment
social media style
mate gaurding, distressing partner
activities, jealous feelings,
relationship confidence, fear of
rivals, fear of poachers, fear of
facebook leaving, spying
cyberstalking victimization,
perpetration, ORI, fear, physical
agression, sexual aggression,
interpersonal jealousy, anger,
attachment styles,
 Multidimensional Jealousy Scale,
Facebook jealousy scale,
Experiences in Close
t-test, MANCOVA, Relationship–Short Form, Trust
regression scale
study 1: gender, condition of
relationship, fb search behaviour,
jealousy; study 2: fb jealousy,fb
use, trait jealousy, trust,
facebook attachment style

non-verbal cues (photos, physical

attractiveness, emoticons,
capitalization, hyperbolic
EFA, ANOVA, punctuation), attachment styles,
ANCOVA Infrequency Index, attachment style facebook jealousy provoking post

attachment anxiety, commitment,

correlation, paired Fb jealousy scale, commitment sub- romantic alternatives on friend list,
t test, HMRA scale of investment model scale facebook no. of friends, ethnicity,

relational satisfaction, uncertainty

pearson's fb jealousy, relational maintenance (behavioural, mutual, definitional,
correlation, strategies on fb, quality marriage future), fb jealousy, relational
canonical index, relationship uncertainty maintenance (positivity, openess,
correlation measure facebook assurances, monitoring )
 message access exclusivity,
t-test, SEM - facebook negative emotion

emergent themes: type of SIT,

thematic analysis - - action & consequence

Facebook positivity and openness,

Facebook assurances, facebook jealousy (trait, emotional,
jealousy scale, emotional jealousy cognitive, facebook), motive,
ANOVA, SEM scale, jealousy measure (trait) facebook facebook use

romantic love scale, interpersonal

jealousy scale, facebook intensity facebook status, length of
t-test, HMRA scale facebook relationship
ANOVA facebok jealousy scale
social comparison rating scale,
epidemiological studies
SEM Depression scale
facebook mate-retention tactics,
offline mate retention tactics,
descriptive facebok healousy, facebook
statistics, EFA, surveillance, Revised Conflict Tactics
HMRA Scales
Conflict in Adolescent Dating
Relationships Inventory,
Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans–Short Form,
thematic content mexican and Anglo orientation,
analysis Partner Issues Checklist
facebook emoticon presence, gender
Instagram frequency of use
online and
offline mate-retention tactics,
Facebook jealousy, Facebook
facebook surveillance
N1 themes: Technology
contributed to romantic jealousy,
Mistrust propagated partner
monitoring, surveillance,
and controlling behaviors,
technology alerted others to
unhealthy romantic relationships,
N2 themes: Jealousy & mistrust,
instant communication &
harrasment, platforms contributed
ICT to misunderstanding

cronbach's alpha, popularity scale, facebook jealousy facebook,
correlation scale, rosenberg's self-esteem scale snapchat
thematic analysis facebook
facebook intensity scale, measure of
maintenance behaviors, facebook
jealousy scale, Interpersonal
Electronic Surveillance for SNS,
t test relationship quality facebook
Horizontal and Vertical
Individualism and Collectivism Scale,
HMRA, t test, Self-Report Jealousy Scale, modified
ANOVA Emotional and Sexual Jealousy Scale social media
need for popularity, need for self -
esteem, snapchat jealousy,
facebook jealousy, social media
use characteristics, motives for use
themes: managing inappropriate or
annoying content, being
tethered, lack of privacy and
control, social comparison and
jealousy, and relationship tension
and conflict.
long distance relationship,
geographically close relationship,
SNS use
intensity, strategic
maintenance, routine
maintenance, partner survellience
jealousy
quality: gender, individualism,
collectivism; themes: Infidelity,
Expectations of Time and
Commitment, Social Media and
Self-Esteem,
 themes: use of SNS when initiating
a romantic
relationship, during a romantic
relationship, relationship
thematic analysis - social media dissolution,

jealousy, lack of caring, loneliness,

self social media use, partner's
SEM self-developed facebook social media use

t test, ANOVA,chi themes: relationship

square, characteristics, app usage,
descriptive percieved benefits and drawbacks
analytics, thematic to app usage, app usage in
analysis - social media relationship agreements
 themes: getting in (initiating
contact), jealousy, monitoring,
partner imposed isolation,
thematic analysis - social media breaking off contact,

descriptive facebok jealousy scale, romantic

statistics, pearsons jealousy scale, Rosenberg self- self-esteem, partner conflicts and
correlations, esteem scale, romantic partner coping strategies, romantic
regression conflict scale facebook jealousy

Fb oriented relationship behaviour

(monitoring, Public display,
excessive public display, private
exchange, dyadic photograph
EFA, regression, activity), perceived relational
HMRA - facebook closeness,

facebook jealousy scale,

EFA, CFA, comprehensive marital satisfaction
correlation scale, facebook fb jealousy

- - social media -
correlation, problematic
descriptive use of mobile phones scale, self- pathological social media use,
statistics, regulation scale social media social media use, self-regulation

content of the message (message

type - emotional/ sexual infidelity),
message direction (sent/ received),
participant gender (same sex rival/
ANOVA - facebook other sex)

correlation, t test,
SEM, paired Facebook jealousy scale, revised facebook use, relationship length,
samplle t test conflict tactics scale facebook for both partners in study two

agression (physical, verbal

aggression, hostility, anger), age,
Facebook jealousy scale, Rosenberg self-esteem, gender, relational
chi square, self-esteem scale, Buss-Perry duration, length, relational
regression aggression scale facebook satisfaction

t test - facebook gender, age, duration of Fb use,


thematic analysis - social media
secure attachment scale, avoidant
attachment scale, anxious
attachement scale, goal to belong
scale (leary et al 2005), goal to be
well-liked (Santor et al 2000), self
develoed scales for some measures,
HMRA, SEM Griffin’s formula facebook
Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance
Scale, Trust in Close Relationships
pearson's Scale, Facebook Jealousy Scale,
correlation, t test, Comprehensive Marital Satisfaction
SEM Scale, Facebook Use Intensity facebook
themes: social comparison, digital
remnants, relational uncertainty,
managing jealousy - offensive
strategy (information gathering
purposes: disparage a partner’s
exes; avoid direct, interactive
information seeking; and digitally
fact-check), defensive strategy
(reframing/ cognitive appraisal,
avoidance); contextual conditions:
accessibility, social norms
social goals (being well-liked,
belongingness), goal cognition
functions - well-liked (directive
function), social vigilance
(regulatory function), social
jealousy (control function),
quiescent–agitated/happy–
dejected ambivalent feelings
(arousal function), time spent on
Fb, no. of friends on Fb, no. of
percieved good friends on Fb,
anxious attachment
trust, facebook use intensity
 Multidimensional Scale of Facebook
Use, Extra Short Big Five Personality
Inventory, Iowa-Netherlands
Comparison Orientation Scale facebook
Seidman et al. (2017) - relationship
oriented fb behvaiour, Facebook-
related relationship difficulties
(Clayton et al 2013); Saucier’s
regression, SEM (1994) Minimarkers scale facebook
FMRTI jealousy and surveillance
Likert-type subscale, Facebook mate
retention tactics jealousy and
PCA, correlations, t surveillance subscale, self -
test developed social media
Couch et al. (1996) partner trust
CFA, correlation, scale, Elphinston et al (2011) short-
equivalence form of multidimensional jealousy
testing, regression scale facebook
ANOVA - snapchat
passive Facebook use, neuroticism,
social comparison orientation
(SCO)
Big 5, relationship maintenance
activities (mate retention
strategies - public displays and
partner surveillance)
password sharing, online
surveillance, SNS jealousy, account
monitoring, relationship length &
status, no. of SNS accounts, daily
time spent on SNS, age,
relationship satisfaction
user behaviour, partner behavior,
rival behvaiour, congitive jealousy,
surveillance, willingness for
infidelity, Fb use
message content (Sexual and
emotional infidelity), third party
rival (same sex sibling, friend,
stranger), respondent gender
(male/female)
 jealousy emotions (threat,
ANOVA, Kruskal- betrayal-anger), ten jealousy
wallis, descriptive evoking scenarios of partner
statistics Betrayal/Anger and Threat internet behaviour

Perceived Relationship Quality frequency of selfie posting,

SEM Components social media jealousy, ideal persona

themes: relationship status, publics

content analysis - facebook display of affection,

Conflicts in Romantic Relationships Partner FB intrusion, Conflict over

CFA Over FB Use Scale facebook FB use, and Jealousy over FB use

factor analysis (CFA), socially interactive technologies (SIT), n.r = not reported, mediator (me), moderator (mo)
 mediator/
DV control findings
moderator

gender, personality
factors (trait jealousy,
trust, self-esteem) &
relationship factors Fb use predicts jealousy in romantic
(relational relationships, four themses from wualitatiev
uncertainty data: accessibility to information, relatonship
relational jealousy - and commitment) jealosy, fb addiction, lack of context

differences in
emotions of self-
disclosure in F2F vs.
Internet based
therapy

me: romantic
jealousy,
survelliance Fb intrusion appears to inculcate
Relational satisfaction behaviour - disatisfaction through romantic jealousy

gender difference. women feel more SNS

relationship happiness than men;SNS use for
grooming contributed only to SNS happiness
of the high-self-esteem individuals. For the
low-self-esteem individuals, need for
SNS jealousy, SNS popularity was important, frequency of login
relationship happiness mo: self-esteem gender was the significant SNS use variable.
 study 1 me:
relationship
quality
(intimacy,
satisfaction,
commitment,
passion, love, gender difference. Higher Fb jealousy for
trust). Trust women, users with less self-esteem & lower
significant ; commitment, trust significant, attachement
Study 2: Trust as anxiety or avoidances determined checking
mediator; study 1: relationship of partner's profile, survelliance more
actor's daily status; study 2: trait prevalent in less committed as well as loving
FB jealousy, survelliance jealousy neuroticism relationships

gender differences in intensity of negative

emotion felt. Women feel more anger,
jealousy (photoprivacy & gender 2 way
interaction) and hurt (three ay interaction,
privacy settings, couple photos & gender).
emotions (jealousy, Disgust felt with privacy photo settings. All
anger, hurt, disgust) - - constructs significant predictors

demographic differences in use, disorganized

and anxious attachment styles significant
jealousy, envy, predictors, attachement style may be
survelliance, - - reflected in SNS engagement styles

gender difference in evoked feelings, females

more jealous & unaware of mens' lesser
jealousy as well as own level of jealousy,
- - - males sensitive to females jealousy,

interpersonal jealousy significant predictor of

cyberstalking/ stalking - - cyberstalking
 main effect of gender on jealousy, gender
differences in emotional (jealousy) and
behavioural response (search) to fb
information, study 2 aimed at understanding
mechanism of effect;mediated moderation
mo: gender; me: shows possible impact of attachment as
attachment mechanism of effect (with different
partner monitoring anxiety - enactment between genders)

obtain and use factor of interpersonal

negative emotion as outcome, significance of
nonverbal cues, attractive photos (gender
difference), attachment style partially
negative emotion - - significant

fb solicitation & potential romantic interests

in fb friend list significant, commitment level ,
gender not considered, relational
fb solicitation fb jealousy - commitment significant,

relational maintenance,
online monitoring - - fb jealousy related to relational maintenace,
 consider ethnicity, sexual orientation &
relationship in demographics, find message
me: threat exclusivity (percieved intimacy or secrecy)to
behavioral response perception, affect negative emotions and motivation to
(confrontation) emotions - confront partners

gender difference in characterizing dating

- -
cyber abuse (monitoring), SNS emergent for
abuse - MySpace, facebook, action: password
sharing, monitoring - -not considered abuse;
consequence: distrust, jealousy, damage to
relationship, women more prone to
monitoring & password sharing and males
- aware of partners' constant monitoring

relationship consider ethnicity and relationship

maintenance behaviour parameters, positivity and openness
(facebook openness, significant predictor, openness and
positivity, assurance, monitoring linked to all four forms of
monitoring) - jealousy,

impact of going official on fb on love and

jealousy,women, intensive Facebook
intensity of facebook users,and individuals declaring status, and
jealousy - use, gender, love experiencing elevated love are more jealous.
 males jealous with winking emoticons,
females without emoticons, women generaly
more jealous, women may share reactions
with other and confront partner, males
facebook jealousy - - exhibit more aggressive responses

me: social
comparison; mo:
percentage of
strangers
depressive symptoms followed -

intimate partner consider relationship and enthinicty

aggression parameters, mate-retention behaviors
(psychological displayed on Facebook: Care and Affection,
aggression, physical Jealousy and Surveillance, Possession Signals,
abuse) me: surveillance - and Punishment of Infidelity Threat

social media grants visibility ino

- -
partners'peer-to-peer interactions, females
more affected, jealousy may invoke
immediate expecttaion f tech facilitated
contfact and text harrasment, majority of
respondents either victims or perpetrators of
dating abuse, gender and acculturation
difference, males more prone to rule setting
and jealousy, dyadic investigation insights
- into non - causasian respondents
 difference in jealousy across social media
platforms , SNS provide possibility of
idealized self - presentation through editable
pictures, no difference of gender or self
esteem, snapchat evokes more jealousy, top
three motives: distraction or procastination,
seeing what others were upto, keeping in
touch with friends and family, being part of
- - - information loop.

report ethnicity and sexual orientation,

avergae use of fb = approx 2 hours, FoMO
and relational maintainence demands
determinant of usage frequency. Social
- - - comparision as trigger for negative emotions.

study geographic distance/ proximity of

relationship's impact on SNS use & Jealousy.
Long distance relational maintenance found
- - - to have more dependency and SNS jealousy

report gender, ethnicity, age,

relationship status, and sexual orientation.
gender ( for emotional infidelity) better
predictor than culture (culture better
predictor of jealousy due to sexual infidelity),
emotional & sexual individual's past history with infidelity affects
infidelity - - present results

- -
intention to break up mo: partners'
/divorce social media use characteristics
- -
important role in relational information
seeking, features for information - pictures,
status, updates. Looks at stages of
relationship from initiation onwards. Use of
SNS for evaluating a potential partner,
emoticons as signficant contextual cue,
facebook official not considered significant -
potential trigger for jealousy among friends
- and as signal of unavailability,
study impact of excessive social media use by
individual and partner on three aspects of
relationship: loneliness, lack of caring,
jealousy - and intention to
releationship breakup,percieved relationship problems
related to social media use of partners
geosocial networking mobile applications.
conflict, jealousy, reductions in trust, and a
belief that app use decreased their partner’s
- focus on their relationship

- -
Facebook jealousy
relationship satisfaction,
jealousy - age, and gender
marital satisfaction - inquisition and infidelity.
- -
Gender differences in technology use and
dating violence intersect - controlling
behavior - isolation, monitoring and
jealousy.technology to initiate and dissolve
dating relationships, often with text
- messages or posts to SNS
cross-cultural differences in predictors,
individual tendency for jealousy and lower
self - esteem strongest predictors, conflict
resolution and coping important for spanish
and columbian respondents (low
negotiation, solution finding, individual level
of dominance),
Weekly hours spent
on Facebook,
frequency
of checking
Facebook, frequency balance between public and personal display
of of affection & communication, publiic display
posting on Facebook, predicts relational satisfaction, level of
length of romantic jealousy determined whether monitoring
involvement, behvaiour was perceived to be helpful,
contextual and situational factors
validate urdu version of fb jealousy scale: not
single scale: three factors - insecurity,
- list possible theories that can be used
 Pathological use of SNS = addictive
depression, relational me: self- general social media behaviour, tie to negative outcomes -
aggression regulation use depression & aggression.

significant distress scores difference

according to gender. Sexual infidelity= more
distress for males (higher for sent), emotional
and sexual both seem equally distressing for
females (slightly higher distress scores for
msgs received), direction of venting as
level of distress due to indicated through evolutionary theories
message content & supported - females blame rival rather than
direction - - partner

no gender difference, fb jealousy as

mediator, significant relationship between fb
use, relationship length and IPV
throughdirect and mediational effect of fb
jealousy. Dyadic investigation of heterosexual
intimate partner couples only, age and relationship unrelated
violence (IPV) me: fb jealousy in dyadic investigation

gender difference in jealousy type, no gender

difference in fb jealousy scores, age and self-
esteem negative predictors for fb jealousy,
agression also predictor, males - balanced for
both infidelity, females - emotional infidelity,
fb jealousy - - cultural considerations,

negative feelings - jealousy, hate, annoyance,

- -
demotivation, inferiority, sadness - more
among female and younger respondents on
reading negative posts. Sharing posts on fb
for daily acitivities considered trivial by
males, female seek prestige and positive self-
presentation. Respondents Annoyed by posts
of food (male), politics and religion (female).
Older respondents unaware of many SNS
- features
 SNS for informaton gathering and monitoring
- espe for ex partners, consider ethnicity ,
determinants - evidence of prior relationships
may present more idealized version than
actual relationship and may thus b perceived
as more of threat than normal - active threat
from previous parameters, SNS affordance =
multimodal SNS features and affordance
(searchability, persistence, visibility, network
association), efficacy of information gathering
retroactive jealousy - - dependent on visibility of information

me: motive to
quiescent–agitated/ belong, social study psyhological process of social goals
happy–dejected vigilance on FB, driving fb use for anxious attachement users,
ambivalent fear of being anxious orientation inculcates ambivalence
feelings, excluded - towards rellationships

males report more satisfaction and less

partner surveillance , gender difference
insignificant for fb use intensity but
significant for others, trust as protetctive
me: Facebook factor , surveliance mediates for fb jealousy
related jealousy, not for marital satisfaction, fb jealousy
marital satisfaction, fb online preducted by trst, surveillance and use
related jealousy surveillance intensity
 me: SCO

survelliance mediates between extraversion,

neuroticsm and negative outcomes - jealousy
and conflict. High extraversion, low
openness, and low conscientiousness were
associated with engaging in excessive public
weekly hours on displays on Facebook. High extraversion and
Facebook, Facebook- neuroticism were associated with greater
checking frequency, partner surveillance and Facebook-related
Facebook-posting conflict. Neuroticism was also associated
Facebook-related me: surveillance, frequency, age, with more Facebook-induced
relationship difficulties excessive gender,relationship jealousy.Openness and conscientiousness =
(conflict and jealousy). displays length less negtaive consequences

password sharing and account monitoring

distinct from online survelliance, age
correlations diverse, account monitoring
related to SNS jealousy and online
- - - surveillance

response seeking may be primary coping

relational maintenance
(social contact,
response-seeking, and mo: partner
relational assurances) trust
strategy for relational maintenance, infidelity
willignness not related to cognitive jealousy
but related to jealousy inducing fb behavior,
trust moderated for percived partner
- interaction with an attractive rival only

Women were significantly more jealous when

the imagined infidelity occurred between
their sister compared to both a best friend
and a stranger with males showing
significantly lower jealousy directed towards
their brother compared to a stranger. Men
respondents' imagined more tolerant of infidelity with sibling than
level of jealousy - - stranger or friend

- -
consider gender and sexual orientation in
study + online & offline behaviour, betrayal-
anger threat scores in descending order -
hetero women, homo women, hetero men,
homo men. Most jealousy evoked - sexual
infidelity & partner falls in love with someone
- else - whether offline or online

consider chronotype by collecting data in two

waves - -longitudinal, indirect effect between
taking selfies and perceptions of lower
quality in romantic relationships, causal
relationship between this specific SNS usage
me1: jealousy, and lower perception of romantic
idealized age, gender, relationships, constant availability of
perceived relationship persona, photo relatioship length, information about the partner via the SNS
quality related conflicts selfies with partners contributes to jealousy,

facebook official - warn off rivals, protecting

- -
relationship, photographs, design and
features of Facebook can have an emotional
impact on its users and the format of online
presentation can intensify feelings of
possession and jealousy in an intimate
- relationship.

develop and validate scale for localized

- - - rspondents measurement (latin american)

)
 implication Limitation future scope

suggest fb to provide
information which may induced time spent, triggers of jealousy, adults
jealousy and increase partner outside of university context, mechanism
survellience not reported of effect

link between fb intrusions and other

Fb as an environment, intrusion
scale as assessment tool,
intervention & treatment
approaches,
consequences (personal distress, daily
functioning); study respondents with
high score of fb intrusion, partner's
involvement with fb; outside university
context; younger respondents with long
generalizability (student term exposure to social media,underlying
sample) mechanisms, other allied variables

self - reported measures

(social desirability),
imply importance of individual observing emotions and
factors, happiness on SNS monitoring behavior, explore other forms of jealousy, type of
display of affection, social measurement issues (use function that SNS is used for, social
acceptability of SNS monitoring of different scales) acceptance as a predictor of monitoring,
 study benign and negative forms of fb
survelliance, additional investigation into
reciprocity findings, use of alternative
males underrepresented, measures to determine mediating effect,
restrospective monitoring or attachment with ex-
measurement, partner's partners and potential for cyberstalking/
relationship relational intrusion and attention-seeking
significant gender differences in characteristics, direction fb use behaviour for high anxiety
fb use for various purposes, of causality, highdegree of individuals, apply longitudinal research
reciprocity of feelings (passion) ocrrelatio between some design ,experimental design for
between partners may also variables manipulating anxiety levels to study
determine checking behaviour (multicollinearity), observations

longitudinal impact n actual relationship,

real-life interpersonal self-reported emotions, effect of age and sexual orientation on
interactions may be affected due imagined scenario, direct interactions, behvaioural response to
to online context of jealousy impact untested, emotions

maintaining emotional balance users' attachment strategies with tech,

with large amounts of social motivations, social media reinforcements
media information , clinicians given to users with special needs ,
understanding of tech driven adolescents' development of sense of
emotions "single case" identity in the driven world

females more prone to fb sample: limited scope & gender differences in fb induced
evoked jealousy small size emotions and jealousy
 examine phenomenon for older couples,
women more prone to jealousy explore other fb information as potential
induced stalking, impact on trigger (fb information) for triggers, partners' reactions to fb info
relationship quality jealousy and impact on relationship qualilty

understand text connotations in

terms of what constitutes
flirtatious behaviour. Gender
difference in terms of
evolutionary psychology. explore other forms of emotions, ways of
Difference in attachment styles. simulated environment, expressing emotions, role of time
Consider diiferent theories to hypothetical future, (chronemics), mechanism of effect,
explain this phenomenon sexual orientation, moderators

use of fb to incite jealousy in partners

individual motive and activity on
social media as predictor,
commitment doesn’t affect no
of potential interests in list,
negative connotations for
maintaining relationships
and arrange potential future partners,
generalizability (sample - study older adults with longer committed
student, heterosexual, relaionshups and lesser exposure to
caucasian), limited social media, other sexual orientations
behavioural indicators and ethnicities, explore impact on real-
studied world fidelity

fb's impact on maintenance of
romantic vis a vis other
relationships
directionality of
relationship, sample
focus, self-reported (social
desirability bias), impact of use of fb to share private
geographical distance thoughts, self -reported motives, fb
between partners, behaviour integral to relationship
efficacy of traditional maintenance and uncertainty reduction,
theoretical frameworks use of new frameworks and measures

the receipt of message being
percieved as romantic rival,
indirect impact of exclusivity and limited investigation of
ambiguity through emotions
threshold of acceptable and
unacceptable behaviour - for
digital natives vs older sNs users,
SNS act as platform for public
scrutiny, possible harm after
breakup from SNS sharing
particular gratifications from fb
may trigger negtaive emotions
such as information content,
worries about relationship may
decrease positive maintenance
behaviour
individual user and partners'
perception, personality and
relationship factors may affect
the mechanism of invoked
jealousy , dual -edged nature of
fb on jealousy
jealousy decreases with age? Impact of
social tech integration with
communication norms and subsequent
changes in commnication connotations,
observational and retrospectie studies to
causality, response to aim for ecological validation of
hypothetical situation, hypothetical scenario, impact of message
content as well as context on relational
personalization outcomes
group differences within a focus group
sample (socio-economics,
demographics), theory building and
measurement building for SIT abuse
conceptualization according to
small sample size, selef respondent perspective, awareness
selected respondents, about acceptable SIT behaviour &
social desirability bias thresholds
large number of
correlations - increased
chance of error, single
measure items, use of
pre-validated measures, mechanism of effect
causality,
unrepresentative temporal dynamics of jealousy,
sampling, self - reported additional control variables, alternative
data, lack of information scales for different dimensions of love,
on partners, small effect epectations of partners, peer group
size norms, individual differences
contextual cues processed
differently by gender, suggest
importance of different types of limited scope of sample, use of mixed method research, examine
infidelity for women (emotional) generalizability, singluar other variables such as GPA, other SNS
and men (sexual) scale features, effect on relationship and peers

motivators of online behaviour, online

partners' percieved fidelity,
information gathered online, or
post - breakup activity of partner
may invoke aggressive
behaviours. Motive -
uncertainity reduction
survelliance, longitudinal research, online
predictors of partner violence, online
communication patterns, gender
difference in way of using online mate
retention tactics, adolescents', married
causality, non-inclusion of or lng term partners' use of fb in
partners, social relationships, new SNS, partners'reports,
desirability bias, behvaiour of prior victims

cultural considerations
(acculturation), technology as
platform for creating and
resolving conflict, tonality of
communication lost, jealousy as
significant outcome,
mechanism of effect for trust and
formation of relationships, difference of
relationships boundaries, observational
limited low acculturation, studies, youth population,
need for popularity, different
psychological impacts from
different social media, snapchat
may be chosen for more privacy
- smaller network. Private
commnications seen as threat to
relationship. Higher jealousy for
receiving post for unknown post
on facebook, affordances of SNS
characteristics
pressure to stay connected to
Fb. Users should be aware of the
consequences
of the affordances of visibility,
connectivity, persistence,
accessibility,
and social feedback as there are
implications for both
psychological
and social well-being
geographic proximity as
detriment for relationship, SNS
used for relationship
maintenance, intentional/
unintentional survelliance,
both individual and culutral
characteristics may affect
different forms of jealousy's
reasons, social media as tigger
for invoking jealousy (due to
information available on social
media)
unbalanced gender
population, small sample underlying processes, longitudinal
size, appropriate studies, other interpersonal
respondents, consequences
privacy maintenance rules for social
media, more qualitative studie sneeded
for in depth insights, moderators of both
genders, cross cultural studies, older/
college based sample, adult SNS users,
convenience sampling,
college students only, systematic investigation of relationship
generalizability, quality parameters, longitudinal and
relationship parameters, experimental study, dyadic analysis
adpated measures - (partner's reports also to be considered),
limited comparability of domestic/ international proximity, more
results, nuanced SNS functions characteristics
intersexual and intrasexual differences in
jealousy, impact of SNS on relationship
expectations, create a culutural value
skewed sample, modified universal measure, time allocation and
scales commitment expectations of users
 use of warranting theory to explre role of
fb pictures in relational maintenance,
comparative impact of SNS cues, impact
of low emotional feedback , impact of
personalities that benefit from digital
media oriented relationships, impact of
SNS on social steganography, impact of
facebook official not considered online jealousy on control and abuse and
important, adolescents convenience sampl, self - offilne dating abuse, post-break up
recognize SNS potential for report data, selection digital coping strategies, covert
causing jealousy and controlling bias, generalizability, non - provocation by posting online content to
behaviour, information inclusion of partners' evoke reaction from ex-partners,
gathering in relationships reports and sexual alternative research methods, dyadic
through SNS significant, online orientation, social interviews (parnetrs' reports), scope of
reputation/ image management, desirability bias use of dating websites and apps

partners' use of social media
compared to respondents, social
media impact on interpersonal
communication, individual
characteritics (control variables)
significant in some ways
non-probability sampling,
cross-sectional study
(causality), unvalidated
scales, self-report
measures (subjective
bais), cultural
considerations corss-cultural replication

social and sexual lives impacted,

health risks - casual relationships
in homosexual community. how apps are used in relationship stages
Sexual benefits more prominent - social, sexual and relational benefits
in homosexual community, sample unrepresentative, consider monogomous nature and
implications for health relationship parameters, seriousness of relationship, sexual risks
management _ HIV preventation participant characteristics associated with app usage
Facebook official considered imp
for signalling unavailability,
jealousy significant from both
genders in different ways, boys
consider monitoring as way to
sustain relationship (possible
insecurity?), gender difference
in motive for act, prevalence of
tech use in dating , threshold -
monitoring - stalking, risk of
offline violence / harrasment,
rigid gender roles acoording to
cultural norms may impact
relationship maintenance,
conflict resultion strategy may
be important in different
contexts - hofstede?
disconnect with partner may
lead to excessive fb display,
monitoring may have either
positive or negative impact
depending upon the relationship
quality and strength
jealousy impacts marital
satisfaction
relationship duration not
included, sample
representativeness, focus
group as methodology,
repondents withh history
of problematic technology use impact on adolescent
relationship & community relationships, peer involvment in
service - impact on relationsips, bystsnder intervention
experience and effectiveness, multi-format/ method
evaluation, information gathering,
sample: high education,
mostly young - compare manifestation of real vs. virtual
generalization, sexuality
self-reported, cross-
sectional, chronological longitudinal impact of excessive/ publilc
changes, individual displays and relationship queality, esp
responses only - partners partners' affection levels, parters' reports
not included on behavioiur
sampling technique -
convenience + snowball, -
romantic relationships
only
implicate direction of
comparison to affect self-
esteem and consequently -
depression,
individual differences in
jealousy evocation - gender
possibility of IPV in young
couples due to fb jealousy,
feelings of betrayal or threat
may induce violent/ coercive
behaviours to reduce distress,
increase partner proximity
for males: difficulty of separating representativeness, low
the sources of sexual and
emotional jealousy in real-life, reported, single item
reciprocal relation between
jealousy and agression.
community prestige norms and
social comparison imapct by
gender and age, implication for
online and offline social
relationships, show pretence
online, Feature awareness - age?
Gender? Jealousy - photos,
achievements and relationship
status,
alternate models. Longitudinal study,
cross-sectional, causality empirical analysis of constructs - social
direction, moderate comparison, jealousy,
model fit and feelings of inadequacy,
mutual exclusivity and manner in which
messages or scenarios are presented to
participants, between-subject design,
mechanism fo effect for jealousy,
evolutionary perspective to
understanding jealousy and relational
methodology outcomes,
limited measurement, relational risks stemming from Facebook
self-reported, unbalanced use, comprehensive reexamination of
& skewed sample, small used construct, larger sample for more
sample in study 2 definitive results
longitudinal & experimental studies,
generalizability, lack of aggression, related tendencies, and SNS
jealousy and sociological, cultural and
external validity, self- universal importance, new types of SNS
related infidelity such as cybersex, or
measure, cultural pornography, different social, financial
generalizability and geographical areas
- -

jealousy as a process,
comparitive parameters include
academic history,
employment, hobbies, and
grammar, physical
attractiveness, SNS
multimodality, respondent
awareness of self - presentation
yet use of such filtered pictures
as caliberation point for
comparison of own relational
stability and partner happiness,
no impact of past relationship
information on current
relationship
psychological process and
mechanism of effect for fb use
to attain social goals, Fb can
provide positive and negative
outcomes
fb use not detrimental - its
activities and motives - such as
surveillance, of use that cause
problems, jealousy may be
protetcive in right forms
motives for information seeking and
subsequent impact on jealousy, efficacy
of SNS affordances, moderating impact
of valence of the
information and the threat associated
with the information, culturual
differences in processes, other factors:
interpersonal communication with a
romantic partner, direct relationship
college based sample, between information seeking and
only consider social jealousy management across different
media' role, limited to commnication channels, other SNS
retrospective jealousy channels and their unique affordances -
(R.J) not different Insta, twitter etc., self-presentation of
experiences pertaining to past relationships, jealousy for current
R.J vis. a vis past rival
other personalities or orientations and
their goal cognition processes, more
emotional orientations and cognitions
while using Fb, different mechnisms
accrding to individual differences and
cross-sectional, causality contexts, impact of goal cognitions on fb
direction, self-developed activities, relationships between social
scales - low validity, data efficacy and anxious attachment, scale
collection limitation development for time spent on fb
weak effect size, fb
juealousy scale measures
reacve and anxious longitudinal study, additional imapct of
jealousy only, cross fb use, moderating role of gender, other
sectional SNS, dyadic responses,

personality differences affect
public display of relationships
and negative outcomes ,
intoverts may use fb for info
gathering to avoid direct
potential conflict wth partner,
men show more ecessive
displays
intrasexual mate retention strrategies,
surveillance motives for extroverts,
causality, self reported impact of commitment level,
data, non inclusion of longitudinal, experimental research,
partners', cross-sectional, objective data, dyadic data, other mate
single item measures, retention strategies to be studied, wider
smaller effect sizes, data range of consequences comparision of
collection tactic - online and offline mate retention
generalizability strategy depllayment and consequences,

password sharing also seems to attribution theory, the investment

be amultidimensional construct young respondents- model, or an interpersonal goal theory
with separate connotations from generalizability, self may be helpful
surveillance developed scale framework, older sample, Bevan J.L

imply importance of percived Facbook impact on secondary appraisals

communication between of partner motivations and comparison
partners and perceived rivals, to rivals, impact of non-verbal cues in fb
individual motives for engaging vs. F2F scenarios, partner interctaion
in jealousy inducing behvaiour - cross-sectional, self-report withh attractive others, maintenance
terminating relationship or survey, unbalanced behvaiour as coping strategy, balanced Carpenter
casual sex sample sample C.J

gender difference in type of

content which evoked jealousy
and extent of jealousy. the
enhanced opportunity to engage
in online infidelity has resulted ecological validity of contexts and
in both sexes becoming extra- differences between sexual and Dunn M.,
vigilant of sexual betrayal. opportunity sampling emotional infidelity Ward K.
emotions felt differ according to
gender & sexual orientation -
sociocultural norms within
cultural subsets may be Dijkstra P.,
important. Identification of sample Barelds,
emotional triggers need for representativeness, further study of LGBTQ community, D.P.H,
different therapeutic respondent recruitment, jealousy-evoking effect of partner Groothof
interventions, scale validity behaviors H.A.K

self-presentation significant as a
significant characteristic of
media use, jealousy and self -
idealization as a mechnism of Halpern
effect, detrimental effect of self-reported, impact of cross-cultural generalizability, impact of D., Katz
visual communication modalities social desirability, mood, youth culture and local practices, direct J.E. &
on relationships memory, and motive observation of emotions Carril C

public display of unity -

significant, promulgate socio-economic strata diversity, rituals Mod
possession and ownership, small sample and norms of different social media sites, G.B.B.A
 2018

2016

2019
2013

2017

2010
sample focus theory
adult goal cognition theory

partner dyad inclusive fitness theory

adolescent Actor–partner interdependence model (APIM)

adolescent actor–partner interdependence model (APIM)

adolescent Attachment theory

adult Attachment theory

adult Attachment theory

adult Attachment theory

adult Attachment theory

adult Attachment theory

adult belongingness/connection framework

adult cognitive theory of jealousy

adult Dual-factor model (need to belong &self-presentation)

adult evolutionary perspective of gender differences

adult five factor personalilty model

adult general theory of addiction

adult grounded theory approach

adult hyperpersonal model
adult investment model
adults Investment model
young adult negative affect hypothesis
young adult parental investment (PI) theory
young adult parental investment (PI) theory
young adult power perspective
young adult relational maintenance theory
young adult self affirmation theory
young adult self-selection hypothesis
young adult social comparison theory
young adult theory of evolved gender differences
young adult theory of motivated information management
young adult uncertainty reduction theory
young adult Uses & gratifications framework
young adult White and Mullen’s jealousy model
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
young adult
 geographic scope
fb jealousy Australia

me: Facebook
related jealousy,
online
surveillance Belgium

me: fb jealousy Canada

me: motive to
belong, social
vigilance on FB,
fear of being
excluded Canada

me: romantic
jealousy,
survelliance
behaviour Canada
me: SCO Chile
me: self-
regulation Europe

me: social
comparison; mo:
percentage of
strangers
followed Hungary

me: surveillance Ireland

me: surveillance,
excessive
displays Pakistan

me: threat
perception,
emotions Pakistan

me1: jealousy,
idealized
persona, photo
related conflicts Puerto Rico
mo: gender; me:
attachment Spain, Columbia,
anxiety Ecuador
mo: partner
trust Taiwan

mo: partners'
social media use Thailand

mo: self-esteem the Netherlands

study 1 me:
relationship
quality
(intimacy,
satisfaction,
commitment,
passion, love,
trust). Trust
significant ;
Study 2: Trust as
mediator;
actor's daily
jealousy the Netherlands
the Netherlands
Turkey
UAE
UK
UK
UK
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
S.No. Year Author Journal 2009
Altakhaineh A., Alnamer
1 2018 S. Social Sciences 0
2 2016 Baker C., Carreno P. Journal of Child and Family Studies 0
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
3 2018 Bevan J.L Networking 0
Billedo C., Kerkhof P., Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
4 2015 Finkenauer C. Networking 0
Brem M., Spiller L.,
5 2015 Vandahey M. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 0

International Journal of Interactive

6 2016 Carpenter C.J Communication Systems and Technologies 0

7 2019 Chang C. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 0

Cohen E., Bowman N.,
8 2014 Borchert K. Computers in Human Behavior 0

9 2015 Dainton M. & Stokes, A. Communication Quarterly 0

Daspe M-E., Vaillancourt-

Morel M-P., Lussier Y., Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
10 2018 Sabourin S. Networking 0
11 2018 Demirtaş-Madran H. Behaviour and Information Technology 0
Dijkstra P., Barelds, D.P.H,
12 2013 Groothof H.A.K Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 0
Drouin M., Miller D.,
13 2014 Dibble J. Computers in Human Behavior 0
14 2017 Dunn M., Billett G. Evolutionary Psychological Science 0
15 2019 Dunn M., Ward K. Evolutionary Psychological Science 0
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
16 2011 Elphinston & Noller Networking 0
Fleuriet C., Cole M.,
17 2014 Guerrero L. Journal of nonverbal behavior 0
18 2015 Fox J., Moreland J. Computers in Human Behavior 0
19 2018 Frampton R., Fox J. Social media and Society 0
González-Rivera, J. A,
20 2019 Hernández-Gato, I Behavioral sciences 0
Halpern D., Katz J.E. &
21 2017 Carril C Telematics & Informatics 0
22 2017 Holmgren G., Coyne S. Addiction research & theory 0

Hudson B., Nicolas S.,

Howser M., Lipsett K.,
Robinson I., Pope L., Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
23 2015 Hobby A., Friedman D. Networking 0
24 2017 Iqbal F., Jami H. Journal of behavioral sciences 0

25 2019 Iqbal F., Jami H. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 0

Lucero J., Weisz A., Smith-

26 2014 Darden J., Lucero S. Affilia - Journal of Women and Social Work 0

Macapagal K., Coventry

R., Puckett J., Phillips G.,
27 2016 Mustanski B. Archives of Sexual Behavior 0
Marshall, Bejanyan, Di
28 2013 Castro & Lee Personal Relationships 0
29 2013 McAndrew F., Shah S. Computers in Human Behavior 0
Journal of Comparative Research in
30 2010 Mod G.B.B.A Anthropology and Sociology

Moyano N., Sanchez-

Fuentes M., Chiriboga A.,
31 2017 Florez-Donado J. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 0
Muise A., Christofides E.,
32 2014 Desmarais S. Personal Relationships 0
Muise, Christofides &
33 2009 Desmarais Cyberpsychology and Behavior 3
Muscanell, Guadagno, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
34 2013 Rice & Murphy Networking 0
35 2013 Nitzburg G., Farber B. Journal of Clinical Psychology 0

Nongpong S.,
36 2016 Charoensukmongkol P. Family journal 0

Orosz G., Szekeres A., Kiss

Z., Farkas P., Roland-Levy
37 2015 C. frontiers in psychology 0

van Ouytsel J., van Gool

E., Walrave M., Ponnet K.,
38 2016 Peeters, E. Computers in Human Behavior 0
Rueda H., Lindsay M.,
39 2015 Wiliams L. Journal of Adolescent Research 0

40 2019 Seidman G. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 0

Seidman G., Langlais M.,
41 2019 Havens A. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 0
Stewart M., Dainton M.,
42 2014 Goodboy A. Communication Reports 0
Journal of Computer-Mediated
43 2011 Utz & Beukeboom Communication 0
 Utz S., Muscanell N., Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
44 2015 Khalid C. Networking 0

45 2015 Zandbergen D., Brown S. Personality and Individual Differences 0

Total citations per year 3
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 22 19

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

0 0 0 0 0 3 10 12 27 19

0 0 0 0 0 1 3 9 12 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 3 5 12 1 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 9 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 1 2 2 9 7 6 12

0 0 0 0 1 4 5 8 9 15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 6 33 37 54 67 77 88 73

0 0 0 0 1 1 11 5 12 6
0 0 0 0 0 16 53 65 102 126
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22

0 0 0 0 0 1 5 14 15 13
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 10 13 13 25

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 9

0 0 2 14 19 26 39 27 31 26
0 0 0 0 7 3 6 14 4 5

3 7 10 16 10 15 14 12 14 9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 6 14 11 13 12

13 37 54 74 101 93 75 95 70 72

0 0 0 2 8 17 10 11 7 6
0 0 0 1 9 10 18 18 6 15

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4

0 0 0 0 0 2 6 11 9 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 16 17

0 0 0 0 0 2 10 14 16 11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4

0 0 0 0 3 7 10 10 11 6

2 2 12 24 33 42 47 53 31 40
 0 0 0 0 0 4 23 55 59 63

0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 4 11
18 46 84 165 233 313 470 602 637 698
2020

0
4

2
1

3
0
0

12

1
19
1

3
4

1
 0

6
1

12

2
2

5
 10

0
123
Journal
Social Sciences

International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies

Addiction research & theory
Affilia - Journal of Women and Social Work
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Behavioral sciences
Behaviour and Information Technology
Communication Quarterly
Communication Reports
Computers in Human Behavior
Cyberpsychology and Behavior
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Family journal
frontiers in psychology
Journal of Adolescent Research
Journal of behavioral sciences
Journal of Child and Family Studies
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Journal of nonverbal behavior
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research
Personal Relationships
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychology of Popular Media Culture
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Sexual and Relationship Therapy

Social media and Society

Telematics & Informatics
Discipline -
multi-disciplinary facebook
Internet-based social interaction technologies,
human communication facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
facebook
, 31
ICT
internet
snapchat 2
snapchat 10
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
social
media
2009 1
2010 1 Publication trend
2011 2
2012 0 9
2013 5
2014 6
2015 9 6 6
2016 5 5 5 5 5
2017 5
2018 5
2019 6 2
1 1
0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
 2009 0.1
2010 0.4
Average citations per annum
2011 1.0
2012 1.9 15.5
2013 3.7 14.2
13.4
2014 5.2
6 2015 7.0 10.4
5 5 5 2016 10.4
2017 13.4
7.0
2018 14.2
5.2
2019 15.5
3.7
2020 2.7 2.7
1.9
1.0
0.1 0.4

016 2017 2018 2019 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020