Received: 10 June 2020 Revised: 14 July 2020 Accepted: 25 July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2331

ACADEMIC PAPER

Evaluating the use of social media in escalating conflicts

in romantic relationships

Abdulgaffar Olawale Arikewuyo Ph.D.1 | Taiwo Temitope Lasisi Ph.D.2,3 |

Saudat Salah Abdulbaqi Ph.D.1 | Aisha Imam Omoloso Ph.D.1 |
Halima Oluwaseyi Arikewuyo MD.4

1
Department of Mass Communication, Faculty
of Communication and Information Sciences, Conflict in romantic relationships is a natural phenomenon. However, the use of
University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria
social media by romantic partners has been described as a means of escalating con-
2
South Ural State University (National
Research University), Management, Prospekt flicts in romantic relationships. This study sought to find out the effects of social
Lenina, Russia media use on conflict in romantic relationships through the mediating variables of
3
Eastern Mediterranean University, Tourism
jealousy, infidelity, and monitoring The study recruited 373 individuals who are in
Famagusta, Famagusta, Turkey
4
Department of Epidemiology and Community
romantic relationships. The findings of this study revealed a significant relationship
Medicine, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria between social media use and conflict in romantic relationships. This study also affi-

Correspondence
rmed that jealousy, infidelity, and monitoring romantic partners are significant media-
Abdulgaffar Olawale Arikewuyo, Department tors between social media use and conflict in romantic relationships. Importantly, the
of Mass Communication, Faculty of
Communication and Information Sciences,
study revealed that social media use is not a predictor of infidelity in romantic
University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. relationships.
Email: arikewuyo.oa@unilorin.edu.ng

Conflict may be classified as a form of disagreement or contradiction
that exists due to difference in goals, aspirations, values, and everyday
life issues (Azim, 2017). Conflict may arise due to many natural and
artificial reasons (Humphreys, 2005). For instance, natural resources
like oil may infuse conflict among the people of a community while
inappropriate or ineffective communication may spring up a conflict
between two people. Nonetheless, conflict has been ascribed to influ-
ence people's attitude, lifestyle, comportment, and societal associa-
tions/interactions (Desender, Opstal, & Bussche, 2014). The degree,
approach, and skills in handling conflict, however, vary from person to
person (Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008). Furthermore, when two people
experience a form of disagreement, or variance in opinion and none of
the individuals involved is ready to give in, interpersonal conflict may
occur (Huang, 2010).
Interpersonal conflict may occur between colleagues at work, within a
family, community, or romantic partners. Meanwhile, the conflict that
occurs among partners in romantic relationships is one of the most com-
mon types of interpersonal conflict. When individuals in a relationship
become unduly suspicious, jealous, or sensitive to their romantic partner or
close ally's activities, conflict may arise. However, romantic relationships
may thrive when individuals involved are able to manage the disagree-
ments and contradictions therein (Yarnell & Neff, 2013).
Therefore, conflict in romantic relationships may be classified as
the existence of dialectic opinion, views, belief, and ideology, which
may generate disagreement between the romantic partners. However,
suspicion and doubt in romantic relationships may also be increased
through the partner's use of social media. As such, the ultimate aim of
this study is to investigate how social media use may exacerbate con-
flict in romantic relationships.
1 | LI T E RA T U R E RE V I E W
1.1 | Social media use and conflict in romantic
relationships
Over the years, romantic relationships have been conceptually
defined in many different ways (Arikewuyo, Bahire, & Lasisi, 2019;
Arikewuyo, Efe-Özad, & Owolabi, 2020; Arikewuyo, Eluwole, &
Ozad, 2020). However, a romantic relationship may be classified as
the sexual, emotional, physical, and psychological attraction between
two people with mutual consent (Len-Ríos et al., 2016; (Arikewuyo,
Efe-Özad, Dambo, Abdulbaqi, & Arikewuyo, 2020; Arikewuyo, Ozad, &
Saidu, 2018). Individuals may develop from mere friendship, grow to

J Public Affairs. 2020;e2331. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 10
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2331
2 of 10
become close allies, and then physical, psychological, emotional, and
sexual attraction gradually sets in until it fully becomes a romantic
relationship (O'Mahen, Beach, & Tesser, 2000).
Communication may be described as an essential part of romantic
relationships as it may enhance the relationship or otherwise
(Abdulbaqi & Arikewuyo, 2015; Burke & Segrin, 2014). For instance,
romantic partners must be able to know when, where, and how to
communicate with their partners to achieve desired and purposeful
results (Abdulbaqi & Arikewuyo, 2013; Alola, Arikewuyo, Ozad,
Alola, & Arikewuyo, 2019; Kwol, Eluwole, Avci, & Lasisi, 2020). This
has over the time, become quite important as romantic partners
expect a required level of decorum for their relationship to thrive
(Bippus, Boren, & Worsham, 2008). Additionally, technological devel-
opments have further strengthened the bond between romantic part-
ners, most especially in long-distance romantic relationships
(Arikewuyo & Udende, 2017; Eluwole, Lasisi, Elidemir, & Guzel, 2019;
Janning, Gao, & Snyder, 2018; Lasisi, Eluwole, Ozturen, & Avci, 2019).
This is due to its ability to facilitate ease in communication and inter-
action between romantic partners.
The role of social media in romantic relationships cannot be over-
emphasized (Arikewuyo, Ozad, Abdulbaki, Okoji, & Oloyede, 2019).
Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, and Westerman (2013) state
that the dynamism in technology and most importantly social media
has facilitated effective communication in romantic relationships.
However, the online presence of romantic partners may cause more
conflict in the relationship (Halpern, Katz, & Carril, 2017; Ogunmokun,
Unverdi-Creig, Said, Avci, & Eluwole, 2020; Rahimizhian, Avci, &
Eluwole, 2019).
1.2 | Relational dialectics theory
Relational dialectics theory expounds the communication pattern
adopted by individuals in a relationship (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
The theory explicates the issues of tension, conflicts, and differences
that exist between individuals in a relationship (Sing-Bik Ngai &
Singh, 2018). For example, it explains how conflict arises or is esca-
lated between romantic partners. The RDT further elucidates the
importance of communication in a relationship as well as its negative
effects if not essentially managed. As such, it recognizes that commu-
nication is one of the most important attributes of a prosperous rela-
tionship, however, communication may also become the cause of a
conflict driven relationship (Fox, Osborn, & Warber, 2014).
wThe RDT classifies its dialectics into internal and external. The
internal dialectics may be categorized as the state of tension
between two individuals' that is, romantic partners, while the exter-
nal dialectics is the tension between an individual and a larger circle
that is, the society (Suter & Norwood, 2017). The theory further
explains that difference in communication attributes and skills
between individuals in a relationship my facilitate tension and con-
flict. One of the arguments of the RDT states that the individuals in
the relationship are from an entirely different background and are
bound to see things from different perspectives (Baxter &
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
Montgomery, 1997). As such, tension may arise from the variance in
opinion or ideology.
RDT illuminates our understanding of personal relationships, stat-
ing that relationships may not be categorized as a straight jacket, as
such, there is no relationship without hiccups (Rogan, Piacentini, &
Hopkinson, 2018). Interestingly, this facilitates our understanding that
romantic partners are bound to experience a certain form of tension
in their relationship at one point or another. When ideas, opinions,
and perceptions to issues contradict one another, most especially in a
relationship, relational dialectics may to occur (Linton & Budds, 2014).
However, the tension that arises from the dialectics may sometimes
lead to a breakup in the relationship if not well managed.
The RDT may also be categorized into four concepts
(Montgomery & Baxter, 2013). The first is “contradiction,” which may
be classified as a process of opposition (Suter, Baxter, Seurer, &
Thomas, 2014). This occurs when individuals in the relationship have
entirely opposing views, opinions, and perceptions about certain
issues. For example, while a romantic partner believes there is nothing
wrong in posting sexually explicit pictures on social media, the other
partner may be entirely opposing to such.
The second concept of RDT is “totality”; this involves the process
where individuals in the relationship unite even though they are of dif-
ferent opinion (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). In the third concept,
which is classified as “process,” it explains that relationships may thrive
based on different social processes (Baxter & Montgomery, 1997). This
processes, though presents itself in different forms, however, they may
facilitate understanding in the relationship. Even though tension in a
relationship may be inevitable, the fourth concept of the RDT, which is
called “praxis,” explains that the longer the relationship, the more likely
the relationship will progress based on experience (Baxter, 2004). As
such, individuals in the relationship may be opportune to learn how to
manage each other over time, thereby reducing the frequency of ten-
sion or conflict as the case may be.
The relational dialectics theory focuses on contradictions and
conflicts (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006). This is a process where two
individuals are of a different opinion, however, they remain a single
entity.
The RDT is premised on four basic concepts. First, contradiction;
which is the main course of the theory and states that views in rela-
tionships exist at its opposing ends (Baxter et al., 1997). For instance,
with the use of social media in romantic relationships, individuals may
develop an opposing view, opinion, or perception on certain issues
and actions, which may invariably result to conflicts. Second, totality
states that relationships become stronger after a disagreement has
been resolved, as such; it reaches its totality (Baxter, Braithwaite,
Golish, & Olson, 2002). Third, process; this explains that social pro-
cesses help create a clearer understanding of relational dialectics
(Baxter, Braithwaite, & Nicholson, 1999). Fourth, praxis; this enhances
our knowledge that when individuals in a relationship have the
required knowledge and understanding about each other, communica-
tion will most likely be seamless (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Based
on the concept of contradictions, this study, therefore, formulates the
following hypothesis:
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
H1: Social media use will be positively associated with conflicts in
romantic relationships.
Furthermore, social media has further progressed from a mere tool
of communication and information to a platform that facilitate infidelity,
jealousy, and monitoring online and offline activities of romantic part-
ners (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). Quite a number of studies have inves-
tigated the relationship between social media use and conflict in
romantic relationships (Fox & Moreland, 2015; McDanie, Drouin, &
Cravens, 2017; Rueda, Lindsay, & Williams, 2015). This research, there-
fore, formulates the following hypothesis:
H2: Social media use in romantic relationships will be positively asso-
ciated with (a) jealousy, (b) monitoring romantic partner, and (c) infidelity.
1.3 | Relational dialectics on social media and
conflicts in romantic relationships
Conflict in romantic relationship originates due to various reasons. For
instance, when romantic partners exhibit less concern, care, love, and
empathy towards each other, conflict may set in (Gordon &
Chen, 2014). These factors may arise when romantic partners become
less attracted or interested in each other, as such, becoming dissatis-
fied with their relationship (Sinclair & Fehr, 2005).
Nonetheless, dissatisfaction in a romantic relationship may occur
when either of the romantic partners begin to exhibit insecurity or
jealousy (DiBello, Rodriguez, Hadden, & Neighbors, 2015), monitor
partner's activities (Darvell, Walsh, & White, 2011), or begin to indulge
in infidelity (Hall & Fincham, 2006). As such, relationship dissatisfac-
tion may be associated with conflict (Vanhee, Lemmens, Stas, Loeys, &
FIGURE 1 Proposed research model
3 of 10
Verhofstadt, 2018). This infers that when romantic partners are not
satisfied with their relationship, they tend to engage in various forms
of conflict-driven activities.
According to Moyano, Sánchez-Fuentes, Chiriboga, and Flórez-
Donado (2017) jealousy may be attributed to facilitating conflict in
romantic relationships. Rueda et al. (2015) further affirm that females
though are quite seductive on social media, they are mostly jealous
when their partners interact with the opposite sex on social media.
Facebook, for instance, is a major social media platform that contrib-
utes to the development and escalation of social media violence
among romantic partners (Fox et al., 2014).
Jealousy in romantic relationships is a product of various factors
such as insecurity and lack of trust; however, due to the mode in
which it presents itself in relationships, it usually evolves conflict
(Bevan & Hale, 2006). As such, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3: Jealousy over partner's activities on social media will be posi-
tively associated with conflict in romantic relationships.
Various factors such as unpleasant experience with a previous
romantic partner or conflict-driven relationship may also contribute to
individuals monitoring their romantic partner on social media (Reed,
Tolman, & Ward, 2017). Muıse (2014) elucidates that partner monitor-
ing on social media may also occur due to jealousy and insecurity
issues, stating that this has significantly contributed to conflict in
romantic relationships. In an attempt to monitor romantic partner's
social media activities, individuals, sometimes open fake social media
account, this is in order to avoid suspicion by their partner
(Nongpong & Charoensukmongkol, 2016). However, this trend has
caused a series of conflict in relationships. Therefore, this study for-
mulates the following hypothesis:
4 of 10 ARIKEWUYO ET AL.

H4: Monitoring romantic partner on social media will be positively
associated with conflicts in romantic relationships.
Nelson and Salawu (2017) argue that infidelity is one of the major
causes of conflict in romantic relationships, and this often lead to divorce
or break up in such relationships. When individuals become active users
of social media, they may also begin to engage in sexually explicit activi-
ties with other users other than their partners (Schneider, Weiss, &
Sam, 2012). This has become a major cause of emotional trauma as it
may elicit conflict between romantic partners (Clayton, 2014). The study,
therefore, postulated the following hypothesis:
H5: Infidelity on social media will be positively associated with con-
flict in romantic relationships.
Over time, social media use has been associated with jealousy in
romantic relationships, which apparently may lead to different forms
of disagreements or conflict (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). When indi-
viduals become jealous of their partner's social media presence and
activities, it may facilitate some form of insecurity and dissatisfaction
in the relationship. Literature has also attenuated that jealousy
(Moyano et al., 2017), infidelity (Clayton, 2014), and monitoring
romantic partners (Muıse, 2014), are activities on social media that
escalate conflict in romantic relationships. Therefore, this following
hypothesis is postulated:
H6: (a) Jealousy, (b) monitoring, and (c) infidelity mediate the associa-
tion between social media use and conflict in romantic relationships.
SD = 0.73). Participants' relationship status varied between single
but in a romantic relationship (67.37%) and Engaged (32.63%).
2.2 | Measures
The measures of the variables understudied in this study were adopted
from previous studies. The measures adopted were reported to be reli-
able and valid however, further tests were carried out on them. The fol-
lowing sections present the individual measures for each variable.
2.2.1 | Social media use in romantic relationships
The study adopted a nine-item scale to measure social media use. Sample
items were adopted from the study of (Song, Larose, Eastın, & Lın, 2004).
The subscale included, “Use social media to develop a romantic relation-
ship”, “To facilitate meeting someone in person whom I met on the Inter-
net”, “ Find more interesting people than in real life.” Likert scale ranged
from (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”).
2.2.2 | Jealousy over partner's social media
activities

To measure jealousy in romantic relationships, the study adopted a

2 | METHOD
2.1 | Participants
All questionnaires were written in English and were filled online by
373 undergraduate students using Survey Monkey. The question-
naire began with clear instructions stating that respondent must
currently be in a romantic relationship. Participants were then
asked, “Are you in a romantic relationship” only respondents who
answer “yes” could continue with answering the main questions. In
all, 567 students attempted to fill the questionnaire however, only
373 were currently in a relationship. Respondents' length of rela-
tionship ranged between within 8 and 60 months. The study con-
sisted of female 221 (59.2%) and male 152 (40.8%). The
respondents' age group ranged within 18–35 years (M = 1.93;
27-item scale developed by (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). The
Likert scale ranged from (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely). The items
helped measure the activates of romantic partners on social media and its
likelihood of eliciting jealousy in the relationship. Sample items included
“Jealous over partner posting message on the page of the opposite-sex
friend,” “Partner posts picture with previous boyfriend/girlfriend.”
2.2.3 | Monitoring partner on social media
Monitoring in romantic relationships was assessed by using the scales
developed by Tokunaga (2011). Likert scale for the 15-items scale
ranged from (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). Sample
items from the Monitoring subscale included “When visiting my part-
ner's social media page, I read the new posts of his/her friends”, “I

TABLE 1 Correlations among social media use, jealousy, monitoring, infidelity, and conflict in romantic relationships

Social media use Jealousy Monitoring Infidelity Conflict Mean SD

Social media use 1 0.501** 0.406** 0.057 0.586** 3.32 0.692
Jealousy 1 0.682** 0.425** 0.665** 3.00 1.045
Monitoring 1 0.399** 0.520** 2.87 0.779
Infidelity 1 0.556** 3.71 0.936
Conflict 1 2.50 0.988

Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CONF: conflicts in romantic relationship; CR, composite reliability; INF: infidelity; JEL: jealousy; MON:
monitoring; OL: outer loading; SD, standard deviation; SMU: social media use; α, Cronbach's alpha.
Note: **p < .001.
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
notice when my partner updates his/her social media page,” “I peruse
my partner's social media page to see what s/he's up to.”
2.2.4 | Infidelity in romantic relationships
The study adopted Whıtty's (2003) 14-item scale in measuring infidel-
ity in romantic relationships. The Likert scale ranged from (1 = very
unlikely to 7 = very likely). Sample items from the Infidelity subscale
included “Engaging in hot chat with a stranger,” “Sharing deep emo-
tional and or intimate information with a person of the opposite sex
(same sex if homosexual) online,” “Just the once, engaging in cybersex
with strangers online.”
2.2.5 | Conflicts in romantic relationships
To measure conflicts in romantic relationships, the study adopted a six-
item scale, which was developed by (Creasey, Kershaw,
Boston, 1999). Items are answered on a five-point scale (1 = “strongly
disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). Sample items included “My partner
and I have frequent conflicts,” “I suffer a lot from conflict with my
partner,” “My partner and I often argue because I do not trust him/her.”
2.3 | Measurement model
We used SmartPLS 3 to conduct a factor-focused consistent boot-
strap; this was used in accessing the measurement model of the data.
Much relevance has been accorded this approach due to its relevance
in scholarly literature, as it has proved to be highly reliable in estimat-
ing data set of varying qualities such as sample size, model complexi-
ties among others (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). Convergent
validity of our data were carried out as all items were loaded under
their corresponding constructs, and loadings were above 0.6 (Chin,
Peterson, & Brown, 2008). Composite reliability, average variance
extracted, and Cronbach's alpha were all greater than their rec-
ommended thresholds. (See Table 1).
2.4 | Hypotheses testing
Haye's (2013) Process Model 4 was run in order to test our hypo-
thesised relationships. All constructs were entered together as a par-
allel mediation model. Social media use served as a significant
predictor of conflicts in romantic relationships (β = .837, SE = 0.060,
p < .001), thereby confirming H1. Result also confirms a direct effect
of social media use in romantic relationships with (a) jealousy
(β = .757, SE = 0.068, p < .001) and (b) monitoring romantic partner
(β = .457, SE = 0.053, p < .001). However and quite interestingly,
result did not show any direct relationship between social media use
and infidelity in romantic relationships (β = .076, SE = 0.070,
p = .269) Figures 1 and 2.
5 of 10
Jealousy over partner's activities on social media was positively asso-
ciated with conflicts in romantic relationship (β = .442, SE = 0.030,
p < .001), monitoring romantic partner on social media had a direct effect
with conflicts in romantic relationship (β = .289, SE = 0.066, p < .001),
while infidelity on social media also had a direct effect with conflicts in
romantic relationship (β = .160, SE = 0.054, p < .001) (Table 2).
Moreover, H6a, H6b, and H6c proposed that the relationship
between social media use and conflicts in romantic relationships would
be mediated by jealousy, monitoring, and infidelity respectively. A 95%
bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval (BCa CI) bootstrap
with 5,000 resamples provided statistical significance for the indirect
effects. As reported in Table 3, the direct path between social media use
and conflicts in romantic relationships remain significant in the presence
of the mediating variables and the indirect effects were also signification,
indicating a partial mediation, thus providing support for H6.
In addition, we used variance accounted for (VAF), which is the
ratio for indirect-to-total effects in scrutinizing the magnitude of the
indirect effects. Particularly, jealousy in romantic relationships
& explained 14.4% of the effect of social media use and conflicts in
romantic relationships, monitoring romantic partner explained 15.8%
of the effect of social media use and conflicts in romantic relation-
ships while infidelity explained 4.0% of the effect.
2.5 | Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate if there is a signifi-
cant relationship between social media use and conflict in romantic
relationships. Furthermore, the study explored if jealousy, monitoring
romantic partner and infidelity serve as mediating mechanisms that
provide a clearer explanation of the negative effects of social media
use in romantic relationships, which may result in conflicts. Interest-
ingly, findings in this study also shed more light on the Relational Dia-
lectics Theory, based on the concept of contradiction. This study has
been able to establish a further understanding that social media use in
romantic relationships may bring about a contradiction between
romantic partners and ultimately lead to conflicts. For example,
expression and privacy may be associated with the level of informa-
tion an individual shares on social media. While a romantic partner
sees such as normal or an individual choice, the other may begin to
infer certain negative interpretations to the act. In this case, their
views, opinion, and perception may contradict each other thereby
leading to conflict. Also while one of the partners may decide to keep
his/her Facebook status as “single/not in a relationship” or not share
romantic pictures of their partners online, the other partner may view
such action as a means of attracting the opposite sex, which may ulti-
mately escalate conflict in the relationship. In this case, there is a con-
tradiction in their perception of the use of social media as well as
what information they share with the public.
According to findings in the study, when romantic partners use
social media there is a high tendency of engaging in various activities
that may lead to conflict in such relationships. Individuals may become
distracted and pay significant attention to activities and events on
6 of 10 ARIKEWUYO ET AL.

TABLE 2 Indicator outer loading and construct reliability TABLE 2 (Continued)

OL CR α AVE OL CR α AVE
SMU 0.87 0.97 0.790 JEL_20 0.768
SMU_1 0.937 JEL_21 0.765
SMU_2 0.906 JEL_22 0.762
SMU_3 0.905 JEL_23 0.761
SMU_4 0.883 JEL_24 0.753
SMU_5 0.876 JEL_25 0.746
SMU_6 0.758 JEL_26 0.732
SMU_7 0.874 JEL_27 0.718
SMU_8 0.885 INF_1 0.849
SMU_9 0.869 INF_2 0.748
MON 0.94 0.97 0.783 INF_3 0.700
MON_1 0.875 INF_4 0.841
MON_2 0.863 INF_5 0.791
MON_3 0.861 INF_6 0.798
MON_4 0.861 INF_7 0.688
MON_5 0.851 INF_8 0.858
MON_6 0.846 INF_9 0.796
MON_7 0.842 INF_10 0.795
MON_8 0.835 INF_11 0.745
MON_9 0.833 INF_12 0.759
MON_10 0.824 INF_13 0.714
MON_11 0.807 INF_14 0.779
MON_12 0.801 CONF 0.90 0.91 0.985
MON_13 0.798 CONF_1 0.788
MON_14 0.793 CONF_2 0.675
MON_15 0.788 CONF_3 0.874
JEL 0.87 0.92 0.795 CONF_4 0.886
JEL_1 0.717 CONF_5 0.821
JEL_2 0.714 CONF_6 0.701
JEL_3 0.802 Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CONF: conflicts in
JEL_4 0.792 romantic relationship; CR, composite reliability; INF: infidelity; JEL: jeal-
ousy; MON: monitoring; OL: outer loading; SMU: social media use; α,
JEL_5 0.782
Cronbach's alpha.
JEL_6 0.782
JEL_7 0.780
JEL_8 0.780 social media such as chatting, reading news feeds, and commenting
JEL_9 0.812 on pictures. Some individuals may also become attached to their social
JEL_10 0.785 media platforms, as such pay little or no attention to their partner's

JEL_11 0.752 emotional, physical, and psychological needs. This ultimately may
result in conflicts. In addition, the dialectic interpretation of contents
JEL_12 0.741
on social media may also generate a significant increase in conflicts.
JEL_13 0.916
As corroborated by Fox et al. (2014), when individuals for instance like
JEL_14 0.835
the pictures of the opposite sex, it may create a dialectic meaning with
JEL_15 0.800
conflict as its result.
JEL_16 0.758
Findings in this study established that social media use in roman-
JEL_17 0.780 tic relationships might facilitate individuals becoming jealous of their
JEL_18 0.778 partners' activities on social media. For instance, when an individual
JEL_19 0.778 does not post his/her partner's pictures on Instagram with attractive
comments, such partner may become jealous. This finding is also
ARIKEWUYO ET AL. 7 of 10

supported by (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015). The study also found
out that when individuals in a romantic relationship use social media,
it might also facilitate monitoring by their romantic partner. Such indi-
viduals may spend significant time scrolling through their partner's
social media page to read and interpret messages, look out for whose
pictures their partners like as well as monitor the friends their partners
keep on social media. These findings are consistent with other litera-
ture in these areas (Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Fox et al., 2014; Muise
et al., 2009; Papp, Danielewicz, & Cayemberg, 2012).
One of the most important findings in the study reveals that
social media use in romantic relationships also is not necessarily a
predictor of infidelity by romantic partners. Therefore, the use social
media by individuals in a romantic relationship does not necessarily
mean it will lead to infidelity. This also infers that though individuals
may interact with the opposite sex online, it may not necessarily bring
about infidelity. This finding is quite important as it is contrast with
the findings of (McDanie et al., 2017; Nelson & Salawu, 2017). How-
ever, infidelity was a partial mediator between social media use and
conflict in romantic relationships.
Furthermore, findings revealed that jealousy significantly medi-
ated between social media use and conflict in romantic relationships.
As such, if a romantic partner exhibit a high level of jealousy in the

TABLE 3 Effect of social media use on conflicts in romantic relationship (Direct paths, indirect paths, total, and direct effects)

β SE t p Conclusion
Direct paths
a1 SMU!JEL .757 0.068 11.159 .000 R2 = .251, F = 124.527, p = .000 H2a: Supported
a2 SMU!MON .457 0.053 8.563 .000 R2 = .165, F = 73.318, p = .000 H2b: Supported
2
a3 SMU!INF .076 0.070 1.106 .269 R = .003, F = 1.224, p = .269 H2c: Not supported
b1 JEL!CONF .442 0.030 14.535 .000 R2 = .780, F = 325.893, p = .000 H3: Supported
b1 MON!CONF .289 0.066 4.357 .000 H4: Supported
b1 INF!CONF .160 0.054 2.944 .000 H5: Supported
Total effect
c - SMU!CONF .837 0.060 13.945 .000 H1: Supported
1
c - SMU!CONF .619 0.043 14.348 .000
Indirect effect Coeff Boot SE LLCI ULCI VAF
(M1) SMU!JEL!CONF .1210 0.047 0.022 0.205 14.4%
(M2) SMU!MON!CONF .1329 0.037 0.068 0.211 15.8%
(M3) SMU!INF!CONF .0343 0.031 0.099 0.022 4.0%

Abbreviations: 95%BcaCI, bias-corrected confidence interval; CONF, conflicts in romantic relationship; INF, infidelity; JEL, jealousy; LLCI, lower level confi-
dence interval; MON, monitoring; SMU, social media use; ULCI, upper level confidence interval.
Note: p < .001.

FIGURE 2 Proposed model with result of empirical analysis. Note: Variables that are nonsignificant are broken lines
8 of 10
relationship, it can enhance conflict in the relationship due to social
media use. However, romantic partners may become jealous due to
various reasons such as insecurity and lack of trust among others.
However, jealousy in romantic relationships may be online or offline,
with the aid of social media platforms, individuals may consciously or
unconsciously receive updates about the online activities of their
romantic partners. Ultimately, jealousy is a major factor that triggers
conflict in romantic relationships and this has been supported by
other studies (Montes-Berges, 2008).
This study has been able to verify that when romantic partners
monitor the activities of their partner on social media, we can predict
that there will be conflict in such relationships. Therefore, stating that
monitoring has an indirect relationship between social media use and
conflict in relationships. Sometimes, romantic partners open fake
social media accounts in order to hide their identity, avoid suspicion,
and intensify the level at which they monitor the activities of their
partners. Individuals thereby monitor what messages, pictures, videos,
and graphics their partner post. However, messages may be mis-
interpreted and ultimately this may result in conflict in the relation-
ships. Lack of privacy on social media has also facilitated ease in the
level at which romantic partners monitor each other. Findings in this
study have shown that monitoring romantic partners on social media
is a cause of conflicts in romantic relationships; this is also corrobo-
rated by Muıse (2014).
3 | CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION
Ultimately, this study has been able to verify that the higher the jeal-
ousy, infidelity, and monitoring of romantic partners the higher the
conflict in a romantic relationship due to social media use. Although
this study consists of a majority of single participants who are in a
relationship that is regarded as a limitation, however, further studies
may focus on romantic partners who are married. This will provide
further findings on the conflicts that arise due to social media use in
marriages. Mediating variables were limited to jealousy, infidelity, and
monitoring romantic partners, future studies may look at more general
issues such as resentment, uncertainty, religious, and cultural
differences. Despite the limitations, however, this study reports con-
structive findings concerning social media use and conflict in romantic
relationships. The study also enhances the understanding of the dia-
lectic relational theory, most especially with the use of social media
for romantic relationships.
ORCID
Abdulgaffar Olawale Arikewuyo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5266-
6478
Taiwo Temitope Lasisi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1912-5391
RE FE R ENC E S
Abdulbaqi, S. S., & Arikewuyo, A. O. (2013). The broadcast media and sus-
tainability of peace in ılorin: An assessment of the ımpact of radio and
television. ın Ilorin. In A. A. Oladosu, Z. I. Oseni, M. A. Adedimeji, et al.
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
(Eds.), History, culture and lessons of peaceful co-existence, Ilorin: Centre
for Ilorin Studies.
Abdulbaqi, S. S., & Arikewuyo, A. O. (2015). ICT as vehicles for interaction
among Muslim women in Ilorin: An appraisal of social media for Islamic
propagation. In Z. I. Oseni, A. G. A. S. Oladosu, & M. A. Adedimeji
(Eds.), ILORIN: As a Beacon of learning and culture in West Africa
(pp. 149–166). Ilorin: Centre for Ilorin Studies.
Alola, A. A., Arikewuyo, A. O., Ozad, B., Alola, U. V., & Arikewuyo, H. O.
(2019). A drain or drench on biocapacity? Environmental account of
fertility, marriage, and ICT in the USA and Canada. Environmental Sci-
ence and Pollution Research, 1(45), 1–12.
Arikewuyo, A., Ozad, B., Abdulbaki, S. S., Okoji, T., & Oloyede, D. (2019).
Social media pornography consumption in achieving satisfaction in
romantic relationships. International Journal of Information Processing
and Communication, 7(1), 60–71. Available from. https://www.ijipc.
com.ng/index.php/ijipc/article/view/260/149
Arikewuyo, A. O., Bahire, O., & Lasisi, T. (2019). Erotic use of social media
pornography in gratifying romantic relationship desires. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 1–20.
Arikewuyo, A. O., Efe-Özad, B., Dambo, T. H., Abdulbaqi, S. S., &
Arikewuyo, H. O. (2020). An examination of how multiple social media
platforms influence romantic relationships. Journal of Public Affairs.
Arikewuyo, A. O., Efe-Özad, B., & Owolabi, A. S. (2020) 9:‘I U’: A semiotic
analysis of romantic relationship Bitmojis on social media. It Hap-
pened, 134.
Arikewuyo, A. O., Eluwole, K. K., & Ozad, B. (2020). Influence of lack of
trust on romantic relationship problems: The mediating role of partner
cell phone snooping. Psychological Reports, 12(10), 1–10.
Arikewuyo, A. O., Ozad, B., & Saidu, A. (2018). Use of social Media in Esta-
blishing Virtual Relationship among select university students. Novena
Journal of Communication, 6, 30–43. https://www.njc.com.ng/
reviewed/volume6-255173983.pdf
Arikewuyo, A. O., & Udende, P. (2017). (In) validating Cohen's assertion on
agenda setting theory using media coverage and what people think
about Muhammadu Buhari's 2015. Novena Journal of Communication,
3, 64–77. Available from. https://www.njc.com.ng/reviewed/
volume3-1279092698.pdf
Azim, M. T. (2017). Interpersonal conflict-handling styles: An Islamic per-
spective. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 4(2),
225–234.
Baxter, L. A. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Jour-
nal of Family Communication, 4(3–4), 181–192.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2002). Con-
tradictions of interaction for wives of elderly husbands with adult
dementia. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 1–26.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. H. (1999). Turning points
in the development of blended families. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 16(3), 291–313.
Baxter, L. A., Mazanec, M., Nicholson, J., Pittman, G., Smith, K., & West, L.
(1997). Everyday loyalties and betrayals in personal relationships. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 655–678.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialec-
tics. New York City: Guilford Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1997). Rethinking communication in
personal relationships from a dialectical perspective. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions
(pp. 325–349). NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bevan, J. L., & Hale, J. L. (2006). Negative jealousy-related emotion rumi-
nation as consequences of romantic partner, cross-sex friend, and sib-
ling jealousy expression. Communication Studies, 57(4), 363–379.
Bippus, A. M., Boren, J. P., & Worsham, S. (2008). Social exchange orienta-
tion and conflict communication in romantic relationships. Communica-
tion Research Reports, 25(3), 227–234.
Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (2006). “You're my parent but you're
not”: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren's perceptions about
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Com-
munication Research, 34(1), 30–48.
Burke, T. J., & Segrin, C. (2014). Examining diet- and exercise-related com-
munication in romantic relationships: Associations with health behav-
iors. Health Communication, 29, 877–887.
Chin, W. W., Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2008). Structural equation
modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders. Journal of marketing
theory and practice, 16(4), 287–298.
Clayton, R. B. (2014). The third wheel: The impact of twitter use on rela-
tionship infidelity and divorce. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 17(7), 245–430.
Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management with
friends and romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative
mood regulation expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(5),
523–543.
Darvell, M. J., Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Facebook tells me so:
Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-
monitoring behavior on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 14(12), 717–722.
Desender, K., Opstal, F. V., & Bussche, E. (2014). Feeling the conflict: The
crucial role of conflict experience in adaptation. Psychological Science,
25(3), 675–683.
DiBello, A. M., Rodriguez, L. M., Hadden, B. W., & Neighbors, C. (2015).
The green-eyed monster in the bottle: Relationship contingent self-
esteem, romantic jealousy, and alcohol-related problems. Addictive
Behaviors, 49, 52–58.
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion
and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfac-
tion. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11),
631–635.
Eluwole, K. K., Lasisi, T. T., Elidemir, S. N., & Guzel, E. (2019). Qualitative
investigation of the impact of internationalization of education on host
community's eating habit. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(2), e2036.
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites:
An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated
with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45,
168–176.
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and
social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship
escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 527–534.
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2014). The role of sleep in interpersonal con-
flict: Do sleepless nights mean worse fights? Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 5(2), 168–175.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation a
longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types
of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution.
Small Group Research, 39(3), 278–302.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage
publications.
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infi-
delity: The roles of attributions and forgiveness. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 508–522.
Halpern, D., Katz, J. E., & Carril, C. (2017). The online ideal persona vs. the
jealousy effect: Two explanations of why selfies are associated with
lower-quality romantic relationships. Telematics and Informatics, 34,
114–123.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Model templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS.
Huang, J.-C. (2010). Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The
moderating role of team goal orientation and conflict management.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(3), 334–355.
Humphreys, M. (2005). Natural resources, conflict, and conflict resolution:
Uncovering the mechanisms. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4),
508–537.
9 of 10
Janning, M., Gao, W., & Snyder, E. (2018). Constructing shared “space”:
Meaningfulness in long-distance romantic relationship communication
formats. Journal of Family Issues, 39(5), 1281–1303.
Kwol, V. S., Eluwole, K. K., Avci, T., & Lasisi, T. T. (2020). Another look into
the knowledge attitude practice (KAP) model for food control: An
investigation of the mediating role of food handlers' attitudes. Food
Control, 110, 107025.
Lasisi, T. T., Eluwole, K. K., Ozturen, A., & Avci, T. (2019). Explanatory
investigation of the moderating role of employee proactivity on the
causal relationship between innovation-based human resource man-
agement and employee satisfaction. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(2),
e2051.
Len-Ríos, M. E., Streit, C., Killoren, S., Deutsch, A., Cooper, M. L., &
Carlo, G. (2016). US Latino adolescents' use of mass media and medi-
ated communication in romantic relationships. Journal of Children and
Media, 10(4), 395–410.
Linton, J., & Budds, J. (2014). The Hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobiliz-
ing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170–180.
McDanie, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. D. (2017). Do you have anything
to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital
satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95.
Montes-Berges, B. (2008). Conflict solving strategies and romantic jeal-
ousy in intimate relationships: Adaptation and analysis of CTS2 and
CR scales. Estudios de Psicología: Studies in Psychology, 29(2), 221–234.
Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (2013). Dialectical approaches to study-
ing personal relationships. NYC: Psychology Press.
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., &
Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults' use of communication technol-
ogy within their romantic relationships and associations with attach-
ment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1771–1778.
Moyano, N., Sánchez-Fuentes, M., Chiriboga, A., & Flórez-Donado, J.
(2017). Factors associated with Facebook jealousy in three Spanish-
speaking countries. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3–4), 309–322.
Muıse, A. (2014). "Creeping" or just _Information seeking? Gender differ-
ences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Per-
sonal Relationships, 21(1), 35–50.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than
you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster
of jealousy? Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 441–444.
Nelson, O., & Salawu, A. (2017). Can my wife be virtual-adulterous? An
experiential study on Facebook, emotional infidelity and self-disclo-
sure. Journal of International Women's Studies, 18(2), 166–179.
Nongpong, S., & Charoensukmongkol, P. (2016). I Don't care much as long
as I am also on Facebook: Impacts of social media use of both partners
on romantic relationship problems. The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(4), 351–358.
O'Mahen, H. A., Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Relationship ecology and
negative communication in romantic relationships: A self-evaluation
maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26
(11), 1343–1352.
Ogunmokun, O. A., Unverdi-Creig, G. I., Said, H., Avci, T., & Eluwole, K. K.
(2020). Consumer well-being through engagement and innovation in
higher education: A conceptual model and research propositions. Jour-
nal of Public Affairs, e2100.
Papp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., & Cayemberg, C. (2012). “Are we Facebook
official?” implications of dating partners' Facebook use and profiles for
intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 15(2), 85–90.
Rahimizhian, S., Avci, T., & Eluwole, K. K. (2019). A conceptual model
development of the impact of higher education service quality in
guaranteeing edu-tourists' satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Jour-
nal of Public Affairs, e2085.
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: Experi-
ences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in ado-
lescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 79–89.
10 of 10
Rogan, D., Piacentini, M., & Hopkinson, G. (2018). Intercultural house-
hold food tensions: A relational dialectics analysis. European Journal
of Marketing, 52, 2289–2311. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-10-
2017-0778
Rueda, H. A., Lindsay, M., & Williams, L. R. (2015). “She posted it on
Facebook”: Mexican American adolescents' experiences with technol-
ogy and romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Adolescent Research,
30(4), 419–445.
Schneider, J. P., Weiss, R., & Sam, C. (2012). Is it really cheating? Under-
standing the emotional reactions and clinical treatment of spouses and
partners affected by cybersex infidelity. Sexual Addiction & Compulsiv-
ity, 19, 123–139.
Sinclair, L., & Fehr, B. (2005). Voice versus loyalty: Self-Construals and
responses to dissatisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 41, 298–304.
Sing-Bik Ngai, C., & Singh, R. G. (2018). Using dialectics to build leader-
stakeholder relationships: An exploratory study on relational dialectics
in Chinese corporate leaders' web-based messages. International Jour-
nal of Business Communication, 55(1), 3–29.
Song, I., Larose, R., Eastın, M. S., & Lın, C. A. (2004). Internet gratifications
and internet addiction: On the uses and abuses of new media.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 7(4), 384–394.
Suter, E. A., Baxter, L. A., Seurer, L. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2014). Discursive
constructions of the meaning of “family” in online narratives of foster
adoptive parents. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 59–78. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.880791
Suter, E. A., & Norwood, K. M. (2017). Critical theorizing in family commu-
nication studies: (re)Reading relational dialectics theory 2.0. Communi-
cation Theory, 27(3), 290–308.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site?
Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in
romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 705–713.
Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy
than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(3), 141–146.
Vanhee, G., Lemmens, G. M., Stas, L., Loeys, T., & Verhofstadt, L. L. (2018).
Why are couples fighting? A need frustration perspective on relation-
ship conflict and dissatisfaction. Journal of Family Therapy, 40, S4–S23.
Whıtty, M. T. (2003). Pushing the wrong buttons: men's and women's atti-
tudes toward online and offline infidelity. Cyberpsychology and Behav-
ior, 6(6), 569–579.
Yarnell, L. M., & Neff, K. D. (2013). Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict
resolutions, and well-being. Self and Identity, 12, 146–159.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Abdulgaffar Olawale Arikewuyo holds a Ph.D. in Communication
and Media Studies at Eastern Mediterranean University, Northern
Cyprus. His research combines aspects of Communication Psy-
chology, Interpersonal Communication, Romantic Relationships,
Sexual Communication and Gratification, Family Relations while
focusing on communication patterns individuals in intimate (sex-
ual and romantic) relationships. He also examines the impact of
communication apparatus such as mainstream and social media
on human relationships, with emphasis on how social media
ARIKEWUYO ET AL.
platforms facilitate satisfaction and dissatisfaction in romantic
relationships. He is currently a researcher at the Department of
Mass Communication, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
Taiwo Temitope Lasisi is a Ph.D. graduate of Faculty of Tourism
Eastern Mediterranean University (Gazimagusa, TRNC, via Mersin
10, 99628, TURKEY) and a senior researcher at South Ural State
University, Russia. Her research interest includes brand manage-
ment, organization behavior, human resource management, crea-
tive working environment, environmental sustainability, economic
modeling, and policies. She has published in several journals like
Current Issues in Tourism, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, among others. Email is taiwo.lasisi@emu.edu.tr
Dr. Saudat Salah AbdulBaqi is an Associate Professor of Mass
Communication, University of Ilorin. She has close to three
decades of experience in teaching and researching communication
courses as well as industry-based experiences in broadcasting and
public relation practices. Her research interests cover health com-
munication, emotional communication, gender communication,
public relations, and public speaking. She is well known for her
communication skills in solving marital crises and abating domestic
violence. She is currently the ag. Chairman of the Nigerian Insti-
tute of Public Relations. Kwara State Chapter.
Dr. Aisha Imam Omoloso is a lecturer at the department of mass
communication, University of Ilorin, Nigeria. Her research inter-
ests include health communication, audience research, and media
impact. She has authored and co-authored research articles in
local and international journals. She also has journalism and broad-
cast production experience as reporter, newscaster, and pro-
gramme anchor with the Kwara Television Service and Taraba
Television both in Nigeria.
Dr. Halima Arikewuyo is a community health physician and
researcher. She has an interest in women's health-related studies
including rape. She is a well-practiced practitioner and has
attended conferences in deferent capacities. She is well known
for her communication skills and ability to counsel patients who
need help.
How to cite this article: Arikewuyo AO, Lasisi TT,
Abdulbaqi SS, Omoloso AI, Arikewuyo HO MD.. Evaluating
the use of social media in escalating conflicts in romantic
relationships. J Public Affairs. 2020;e2331. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pa.2331