Sexuality & Culture (2021) 25:1041–1057

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09808-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

#Couplegoals: Self‑Esteem, Relationship Outcomes,

and the Visibility of Romantic Relationships on Social
Media

Shelby Hughes1 · Amanda Champion2 · Kailie Brown3 · Cory L. Pedersen3

Accepted: 27 December 2020 / Published online: 5 January 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Social media plays an important role in the development and maintenance of mod-
ern relationships. Previous research has investigated why dyadic couples may
choose to display their relationships online, and the individual and relational cor-
relates of these visibility decisions. The current study (N = 669) is one of the first
to examine specific outcomes of such visibility—in particular, how online relation-
ship visibility influences self-esteem and relationship termination decision-making
following a breach of trust. Although overall social media use was related to low
levels of self-esteem, online relationship visibility was not, suggesting that seeking
validation on social media is unrelated to relationship maintenance. Further, partici-
pant decisions regarding relationship termination were unaffected by reported levels
of social media visibility, suggesting that members of a dyad will not stay in rela-
tionships to maintain a social media presence or avoid social consequences online.
Finally, there was a negative correlation between social media use and relationship
issue disclosure to family or friends; the more time individuals spent using social
media, the less likely they were to confide in others about problems in their romantic
relationship. The utility of online relationship visibility as a predictor of relationship
outcomes is discussed, as well as potential antecedents of visibility decisions.

Keywords Social media · Self-esteem · Relationship visibility · Relationship

maintenance · Impression management · Relationship satisfaction

Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of
Sexuality, Denver, CO, 2019.

* Cory L. Pedersen
cory.pedersen@kpu.ca
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1042 S. Hughes et al.

Introduction

Throughout history, monogamous romantic relationships have followed an exceed-

ingly performative cultural narrative. Goffman (1971) coined the term tie-signs in
reference to behaviours (e.g., handholding), objects (e.g., wedding rings), or other
expressions (e.g., anniversary celebrations) that publicly denote a romantic relation-
ship. The presentation of dyadic relationships in the public sphere affords individu-
als a level of social status, acceptance, resources, and access to broader social net-
works (Lane et al. 2016; Robards and Lincoln 2016). In recent years, the Internet
has provided a new platform for these dyadic displays—primarily through social
media platforms. Approximately 70% of people report sharing a Facebook status
concerning their romantic relationship (Krueger and Forest 2020), while Instagram
boasts nearly 22 million posts with the hashtag “#couplegoals”.
Online relationship visibility (ORV; the extent to which one makes their romantic
relationship public on social media) may have important implications for members
of a romantic dyad. Although previous research has examined potential motiva-
tions for ORV, and its association with individual and relational characteristics (e.g.,
Emery et al. 2014; Krueger and Forest 2020; Lane et al. 2016; Rus and Tiemensma
2017), potential outcomes are less understood. Although the potential negative
impact of social media and social comparison on self-esteem is well-documented
(see Errasti et al. 2017; Vogel et al. 2014), the role ORV plays in shaping self-esteem
remains unknown. Further, it is unclear whether ORV influences decisions about
relationship termination, given the social commitment of publicizing one’s relation-
ship online (Orosz et al. 2015; Robards and Lincoln 2016).

Predictors of Relationship Visibility

Relationship Satisfaction

The decision to make one’s relationship visible online has consistently been associ-
ated with high relationship satisfaction, both in terms or self-reports and third-party
perceptions (Carpenter and Sprottswood 2013; Emery et al. 2015; Orosz et al. 2015;
Saslow et al. 2013). It is also linked to relational commitment (Lane et al. 2016;
Saslow et al. 2013). Essentially, the more “in love” a couple reports to be, the more
likely they are to broadcast their happiness online (Orosz et al. 2015).

Impression Management

Romantic relationships are subject to external influence. Approval from family and
friends, for instance, strongly predicts the persistence of romantic relationships, as
well as individual satisfaction within those relationships (Etcheverry et al. 2008;
Sprecher et al. 2001). Unsurprisingly, individuals frequently attempt to shape others’
impressions of their relationships (Emery et al. 2014; Lane et al. 2016; Loving and

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1043

Agnew 2001; Robards and Lincoln 2016). Impression management theory (Leary
and Kowalski 1990)—which posits that personal information is selectively dissemi-
nated to control other’s perceptions—has been used as a framework for explaining
the personal information individuals choose to share online. Social media platforms
such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter theoretically fulfill a variety of social and
psychological functions, broadly enabling users to engage in self-expression, seek
social acceptance/belonging, and/or develop relationships (Errasti et al. 2017; Fox
and Anderegg 2014; Hart et al. 2015; Seidman 2013; Zhang et al. 2018). Individuals
strategically construct an online persona to achieve these goals.
Regarding self-portrayals of romantic relationships, ORV may serve as a means
of acquiring social status, self-esteem, and/or public validation of a relationship
(Emery et al. 2014; Robards and Lincoln 2016). Engagement in ORV appears to
be largely driven by self-esteem goals. Individuals report concerns about how oth-
ers perceive their relationships, and how this can, in turn, affect their self-esteem
(Emery et al. 2014). However, the goals of ORV may vary amongst individu-
als; some use ORV to improve their self-esteem (i.e., through external validation),
whereas others believe such publicity decreases their self-esteem (i.e., through
external disapproval; Emery et al. 2014). This suggests that decisions regarding the
publication of a dyadic relationship are largely influenced by perceived social conse-
quences—positive or negative—as well as impacts on self-perception.

Connection‑Seeking and Constructions of Self

In addition, ORV can function as a method of self-expression. Individuals perceive

a high degree of accuracy in what they post online, believing it is reflective of their
authentic self and the true nature of their relationships (Lane et al. 2016). If online
platforms are used to create a construction of the self, the presence of a partner in
personal online content implies greater incorporation of that partner into one’s own
identity. Indeed, research has shown that the more important a relationship is to
one’s sense of identity, the more overlap is observed between the Facebook profiles
of the dyad members; partners who report greater centrality of their relationship to
identity tend to have more mutual online friends, posted mutual interests, and more
dyadic photos on display (Carpenter and Sprottswood 2013; Casteñeda et al. 2015;
Rus and Tiemensma 2017).
Research on optimal distinctiveness theory—the idea that humans strive to bal-
ance their desires for autonomy/agency with their desires for connectedness/belong-
ing—has illustrated the balance of relational versus individual identity concern-
ing dyadic romantic relationships (Slotter et al. 2014). Several studies report that
members of a dyad seek out greater individual identification (i.e., time spent without
their partner) when they feel highly embedded in the relationship, and want greater
relational affiliation (i.e., acknowledgment of the relationship) when they feel dis-
tinct from their partner (Slotter et al. 2014). In other words, those who feel their
relationship is central to their public identity seek to establish themselves as unique
individuals, rather than as part of a unit, whereas those who feel a strong sense of
individual (but not partner) identity want to emphasize their role as part of a dyadic

13
1044 S. Hughes et al.

unit. Regarding social media, this may imply that high levels of ORV reflect an indi-
vidual’s desire for stronger affiliation or connectedness with their partner.
Further, people who do not feel sufficiently connected to their partner are more
likely to seek external validation (Emery et al. 2014; Robards and Lincoln 2016; Rus
and Tiemensma 2017)—such as likes/attention from social media. Individuals who
disclose information about their relationship on Facebook also report increased lev-
els of jealousy (Orosz et al. 2015), as well as greater relationship-protection motiva-
tions (i.e., to prevent advances from a sexual rival) (Krueger and Forest 2020). This
may imply that people who post more relationship-related content do so because
they feel uncertain in their relationship or fear their relationship may be under threat.

The Present Study

Currently, most research in this area has examined antecedents to ORV; what is less
understood is the extent to which visibility on social media may influence specific
relationship outcomes. Although high ORV may be indicative of greater initial sat-
isfaction, what happens when relationship satisfaction declines? Does an increased
social commitment of ORV influence decisions to terminate a relationship? Research
indicates that social embarrassment, associated with self-esteem, is an important
factor in individuals’ decisions to stay or leave a relationship (Hendy et al. 2013). As
such, the resulting loss of status and social desirability from relationship termination
may factor in termination and/or disclosure decisions, particularly if a partner is cen-
tral to one’s online identity; people may be less likely to leave a relationship or dis-
close information about relationship issues due to social pressures from high ORV.
From this perspective, we expand on existing literature regarding the relationships
between ORV, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction. We examine the impact of
these factors in the context of several different types of relationship conflicts.
First, we hypothesized (H1) that a breach of trust would be positively related to
relationship termination, and more so among participants in a physical confronta-
tion (slapped) condition or infidelity (cheated) condition than a verbal confrontation
(yelled) condition given the social intolerance associated with infidelity (Stein 2020;
van Hooff 2017) and perceptions of physical partner violence as more severe than
emotional/psychological abuse (Dardis et al.2017 ; Sheridan and Scott 2010; Wil-
son and Smirles 2020). Due to the social implications of relationship termination
(e.g. Emery et al. 2014; Hendy et al. 2013; Robards and Lincoln 2016), we expected
ORV to moderate the effect of breach of trust on relationship termination, with those
who report greater ORV being less likely to terminate a relationship (H2).
We further hypothesized that self-esteem would moderate the effect of breach of
trust on relationship termination, with participants reporting higher self-esteem more
likely to terminate a relationship after a breach of trust (H3). This hypothesis was based
on the finding that lower self-esteem predicts greater social embarrassment regarding
the termination of a relationship (Hendy et al. 2013). As such, we also anticipated that
ORV would moderate the effect of breach of trust on disclosure of the incident to a
family member or friend, with participants reporting greater ORV less likely to disclose
a breach of trust (H4). Finally, we hypothesized self-esteem to moderate the effect of

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1045

breach of trust on disclosure of the incident to a family member or friend; participants

reporting higher self-esteem being more likely to disclose a breach of trust (H5).

Methods

Participants

The initial sample was comprised of 833 participants; 160 surveys with insufficient
completion rates (< 70%) were excluded, and an additional 4 were removed on suspi-
cion of trolling, leaving a final sample of 669 participants. The sample ranged in age
from 16 to 65 years (Mage = 26.09, SDage = 8.97). Most identified as female (71.6%),
heterosexual (70.7%), and White (65.8%). Table 1 provides further demographic infor-
mation. Participants were recruited from a variety of sources including a psychology
research participant pool at a large Western Canadian university and online via Face-
book, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, and several online participant recruitment sites. Only
participants recruited through the university research pool were provided compensation
for their participation in the form of bonus credit for eligible courses. Eligible partici-
pants had to be currently involved in a committed, romantic relationship (e.g., dating,
engaged, married/civil union) and use social media for either personal, or personal and
professional usage; those who only used social media for professional purposes were
excluded from the sample.

Materials

Demographics

Participants were asked eight questions relating to their age, gender identity, ethnicity,
educational attainment, sexual orientation, relationship status, relationship length, and
frequency of social media usage.

The Rosenberg Self‑Esteem Scale

The Rosenberg SES (Rosenberg 1965) is a 10-item measure that assesses self-ascribed
self esteem. Higher scores reflect a greater self-esteem. The measure utilizes a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) and includes items
such as “on the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I feel I have a number of good
qualities”. The current study established a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89.

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendrick 1988) is a 7-item measure

that assesses general relationship satisfaction. Higher scores reflect greater

13
1046 S. Hughes et al.

Table 1  Distribution of demographic characteristics by breach of trust scenario condition

Cheat condition Yell condition Slap condition
n = 226 n = 240 n = 203

Individual factors
Age M = 25.73 M = 26.20 M = 26.33
(SD = 8.76) (SD = 8.92) (SD = 9.29)
Gender
Male (0) 58 (25.7%) 71 (29.6%) 61 (30%)
Female (1) 168 (74.3%) 169 (70.4%) 142 (70%)
Ethnicity
White (0) 158 (69.9%) 160 (66.7%) 122 (60.1%)
Non-White (1) 68 (30.1%) 80 (33.3%) 81 (39.9%)
Educational attainment
Some university or lower (0) 135 (59.7%) 147 (61.3%) 120 (59.1%)
Completed university or higher (1) 91 (40.3%) 93 (38.8%) 83 (40.9%)
Sexual orientation
Non-sexual minority (0) 159 (70.4%) 174 (72.5%) 140 (69%)
Sexual minority (1) 67 (29.6%) 66 (27.5%) 63 (31%)
Social media usage frequency M = 4.51 M = 4.11 M = 4.40
(SD = 2.78) (SD = 2.71) (SD = 2.75)
Relationship factors
Relationship status
Dating (0) 63 (27.9%) 66 (27.5%) 51 (25.1%)
Committed (1) 163 (72.1%) 174 (72.5%) 152 (74.9%)
Relationship length M = 3.08 M = 3.06 M = 3.10
(SD = 1.14) (SD = 1.06) (SD = 1.12)
Relationship satisfaction M = 28.72 M = 28.95 M = 28.41
(SD = 4.84) (SD = 4.72) (SD = 5.30)
Main independent variables
Global self-esteem M = 25.43 M = 25.67 M = 25.30
(SD = 5.46) (SD = 5.10) (SD = 4.91)
Social media relationship visibility M = 3.11 M = 2.92 M = 3.10
(SD = 2.79) (SD = 2.65) (SD = 3.27)
Outcome variables
Break-up likelihood M = 3.73 M = 1.68 M = 3.27
(SD = 1.26) (SD = .91) (SD = 1.26)

relationship satisfaction. The measure utilizes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (very poorly; never; very few) to 5 (extremely well; always; very many) and
includes items such as “how well does your partner meet your needs” and “how
good is your relationship compared to most others”. The current study established
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 for this scale.

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1047

Social Media Relationship Visibility

For the purposes of the present study, two questions were developed to assess ORV.
These included “how often do you post pictures of you and your partner together on
social media accounts” and “how often do you make posts relating to your relationship
(e.g., dates you’ve been on, how long you’ve been together, partner appreciation posts,
etc.)”. Response options ranged from 0 (never) to 11 (all the time); items were summed
to give a total score ranging from 0 to 22, where higher scores indicated greater ORV.
We measured internal consistency using a correlation coefficient for the two relation-
ship visibility items (r = 0.67).

Relationship Transgression Scenario

For the purposes of the present study, a set of relationship scenario vignettes, along
with a series of related questions, were created to incite feelings of a breach of trust
within the participants’ current relationship. The vignettes described a scenario where
participants were asked to imagine their partner committing a specific transgression.
The first scenario involved imagining their partner cheated (had sex) with another per-
son; the second involved imagining their partner yelled at them during an argument; the
third asked them to imagine their partner slapped their face during an argument. Fol-
lowing each scenario, participants were asked two questions assessing how they would
feel about the transgression and how likely they would be to terminate the relationship.
Questions included “how angry would you be,” and “how likely would you be to break
up with your partner because of this incident.” Responses were scored on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all angry; extremely likely; definitely not) to 5
(extremely angry; extremely unlikely; definitely), with higher scores indicating a greater
likelihood to terminate the relationship. A final question queried how likely participants
would be to disclose the incident to friends and/or family, using the same 5-point rating
scale, with higher scores indicating greater disclosure intentions.

Procedure

Participants completed the survey using an anonymous online link through the sur-
vey website Qualtrics. They first completed informed consent to indicate their will-
ingness and eligibility for participation in the survey. Following this, they completed
demographics, followed by the measures of self-esteem, relationship satisfaction,
social media visibility, and finally, the relationship transgression scenario (randomly
assigned). Study completion took approximately 20 min.

13
1048 S. Hughes et al.

Results

The Effects of Breach of Trust on Relationship Termination

We conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to examine the effects of

individual factors, relationship factors, self-esteem, ORV, and moderating variables
on predicting relationship termination after receiving a randomized breach of trust
scenario (i.e., your partner cheated on you, yelled at you, or slapped you in the face).
Bivariate correlations for all independent variables entered in the model are reported
in Table 2. The experimental conditions, self-esteem, and ORV variables were cen-
tered to avoid multicollinearity with the inclusion of calculated interaction varia-
bles (Aiken and West 1991). To determine the unique contributions, factors were
entered sequentially; the model included covariate (i.e., individual) factors (in block
1), relationship factors (in block 2), self-esteem and ORV (block 3), and the breach
of trust scenario (block 4), and interaction effects/moderating variables (i.e., condi-
tion × ORV and condition × self-esteem; block 5), to predict relationship termination
(see Table 3).
Two covariates in Model 1 had a significant effect on relationship termination,
that is, being younger in age and using social media at a higher rate. With the
addition of relationship factors in Model 2, age, social media usage, and relation-
ship satisfaction were found to be significant predictors of relationship termina-
tion. Model 3, with the sequential addition of self-esteem and ORV, showed no
significant improvement to the model. With the inclusion of the experimental sce-
nario conditions (i.e., breaches of trust) entered into Model 4, age, relationship
length, relationship satisfaction, and global self-esteem, were significant. Further-
more, Model 4 revealed a significant relationship between receiving the cheated
breach of trust experimental scenario versus the slapped experimental scenario
in predicting relationship termination. Also, the yelled breach of trust experi-
mental scenario versus the slapped experimental scenario negatively predicted

Table 2  Bivariate correlations: continuous variables and experimental conditions

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Age –
2. Social media usage .09* –
3. Relationship length .38*** −.01 –
4. Relationship satisfaction −.11** −.02 .08* –
5. Relationship visibility .03 .40*** .10* .15*** –
6. Global self-esteem .23*** −.07 .10* .19*** .07 –
7. Yell .01 −.06 −.01 .04 −.03 .03 –
8. Cheat −.03 .05 .00 .00 .02 −.01 -.53*** –
9. Slap .02 .02 .01 −.04 .01 −.02 −.49*** −.47*** –
*
p < .05,;**p < .01,;***p < .001. Age, social media usage, relationship length, relationship satisfaction,
relationship visibility, and global self-esteem are continuous variables. Experimental conditions are
dummy coded

13
 Table 3  Hierarchical multiple regression predicting relationship termination from individual covariates, relationship factors, global self-esteem, social media visibility,
breach of trust scenarios, and interaction variables
Relationship termination

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

β t β t β t β t β t

Step 1: Individual factors

Age −.20 −5.29*** −.20 −4.76*** −.21 −4.99*** −.19 −5.84*** −.19 −5.87***
Social media usage .08 2.19* .08 2.12* .06 1.57 .03 0.86 .03 0.93
Step 2: Relationship factors
Relationship length −.06 −1.52 −.07 −1.63 −.08 −2.62** −.08 −2.56*
Relationship satisfaction −.17 4.53*** −.19 −4.98*** −.17 −5.72*** −.17 −5.74***
Step 3: Main effects
Global self-esteem .06 1.61 .07 2.30* .07 2.41*
Relationship visibility .06 1.49 .05 1.67 .05 1.59
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the…

Step 4: Experimental conditions

Yell −.52 −15.20*** −.52 −15.21***
Cheat .15 4.31*** .15 4.31***
Step 5: Interaction effects
Yelled × global self-esteem .02 0.67
Yelled × relationship visibility −.01 −0.07
Cheated × global self-esteem −.03 −0.86
Cheated relationship visibility −.02 −0.59
R2 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.46 0.46
R2change 0.04 0.01 0.37 0.00
*
p < .05;;**p < .01;;***p < .001. Experimental conditions are dummy coded; reference condition is slapped. Age, social media usage, relationship length, relationship sat-
isfaction, global self-esteem, and social media relationship visibility are continuous variables. F values for Model 1 = 15.49***; Model 2 = 14.27***; Model 3 = 10.42***;
Model 4 = 68.88***; Model 5 = 46.15***
1049

13
1050 S. Hughes et al.

relationship termination. These results provide partial support for our H1; par-
ticipants in the slapped breach of trust scenario were more likely to terminate the
relationship compared to the yelled experimental scenario. However, those in the
cheated scenario were more likely to terminate their relationship relative to the
slapped scenario.
Model 5 introduced the interaction terms, which were not significant. The full
model was statistically significant, R2 = 0.46, F(12, 656) = 46.15, p < 0.001. No sup-
port for our H2 or H3 were found; ORV and self-esteem (i.e., interaction terms)
did not moderate the effect of breach of trust on relationship termination, although,
global self-esteem contributed to relationship termination independently. Therefore,
those with higher global self-esteem were more likely to terminate their relationship
than those with lower global self-esteem, but self-esteem did not facilitate the asso-
ciation between breach of trust scenario and termination likelihood.
Overall then, six predictor variables were found to be significant in predict-
ing relationship termination: age, relationship length, relationship satisfac-
tion, global self-esteem, receiving the cheated breach of trust scenario versus
the slapped scenario, and receiving the yelled versus slapped scenario. The full
model thus revealed that individuals who were younger in age, had shorter rela-
tionship lengths, and who scored lower in relationship satisfaction and higher in
self-esteem were most likely to terminate their relationship after being cheated on
versus being yelled at or slapped in the face by their partner.

The Effects of Breach of Trust on Disclosure of the Incident

We conducted a second hierarchical multiple regression to determine the effects

of individual factors, relationship factors, self-esteem, ORV, and moderating vari-
ables on predicting disclosure after receiving a randomized breach of trust scenario
(i.e., your partner cheated on you, yelled at you, or slapped you in the face). Simi-
lar sequential modelling was applied, with variables entered in steps (see Table 4).
Model 1 revealed that covariates age and social media usage had a significant effect
on disclosure. In Model 2, age, social media usage, and relationship length were
found to be significant predictors of disclosure. Model 3 showed similar findings as
Model 2 with the inclusion of self-esteem and ORV. With the addition of the exper-
imental scenario conditions (i.e., breaches of trust) Model 4 showed a significant
relationship between receiving the yelled breach of trust experimental scenario ver-
sus the slapped scenario in predicting disclosure. Next, interaction/moderating vari-
ables were entered in Model 5; these were not significant. Thus, statistical support
for H4 and H5 were not found. The full model was statistically significant, R2 = 0.12,
F(12, 652) = 6.90, p < 0.001. Four predictors were significant in predicting disclo-
sure: age, social media usage, relationship length, receiving the yelled breach of trust
experimental scenario versus the slapped scenario. Thus, the full model revealed
that individuals who were older in age and in longer relationship lengths were more
likely to disclose their relationship transgression after being yelled at compared to
being slapped in the face by their partner.

13
 Table 4  Hierarchical multiple regression predicting disclosure from individual covariates, relationship factors, global self-esteem, social media visibility, breach of trust
scenarios, and interaction variables
Disclosure

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

β t β t β t β t β t

Step 1: Individual factors

Age .16 4.09*** .13 3.14** .14 3.23** .13 3.17** .13 3.19**
Social media usage −.18 −4.63*** −.17 −4.54*** −.16 −3.84*** −.15 −3.62*** −.14 −3.56***
Step 2: Relationship factors
Relationship length .10 1.80+ .08 1.89+ .08 2.05* .10 2.05*
Relationship satisfaction .04 0.93 .05 1.27 .04 1.06 .04 1.01
Step 3: Main effects
Global self-esteem −.04 −0.87 −.04 −0.95 −.04 −0.97
Relationship visibility −.05 −1.20 −.05 −1.16 −.05 −1.31
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the…

Step 4: Experimental conditions

Yelled .21 4.89*** .22 4.90***
Cheated −.01 −0.13 −.01 −0.07
Step 5: Interaction effects
Yelled × global self-esteem .07 1.51
Yelled × relationship visibility −.03 −0.72
Cheated × global self-esteem .04 0.80
Cheated × relationship visibility −.06 −1.36
R2 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11
R2change 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00
+
p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Experimental conditions are dummy coded; reference condition is slapped. Age, Social Media Usage, Relationship Length,
Relationship Satisfaction, Global Self-Esteem, and Social Media Relationship Visibility are continuous variables. F values for Model 1 = 17.61***; Model 2 = 9.98***;
Model 3 = 7.05***; Model 4 = 9.85***; Model 5 = 6.90***
1051

13
1052 S. Hughes et al.

Discussion

The present study sought to identify how online relationship visibility influences
decision-making following a breach of trust in dyadic romantic relationships. We
hypothesized that the impression management function of social media would
deter individuals from terminating romantic relationships despite dissatisfaction
or conflict, and that these outcomes would be mediated by individual self-esteem.
Although self-esteem did indeed predict likelihood of relationship termination, ORV
did not influence relationship termination decisions, regardless of the type of trans-
gression committed by a partner. Although dyadic relationships are vulnerable to
external influences (Etcheverry and Agnew 2016; Etcheverry et al. 2008; Sprecher
et al. 2001), it appears that the presence of an online audience does not influence
decision-making in relationship termination. This is a particularly encouraging find-
ing, suggesting that people will not stay in relationship for the sake of maintaining
an online image following the transgressions examined in this study.

Are They Really That Happy?

Another notable finding is that captions such as #couplegoals may indeed reflect
relational happiness; ORV was positively related to relationship satisfaction, with
participants who self-reported greater satisfaction in their relationships also report-
ing greater ORV. This supports previous research linking relationship satisfaction
to relationship visibility (e.g. Carpenter and Sprottswood 2013; Saslow et al. 2013),
and suggests that the couples who broadcast their happiness online may indeed
happy offline, in the “real world”.
Further, decisions to engage in ORV appear to be an outcome of relationship
quality rather than an antecedent to it (Lane et al. 2016)—meaning that people who
post about their relationships online are already satisfied, rather than using social
media to increase their satisfaction. However, social media use in general was asso-
ciated with lower relationship satisfaction, and predicted increased likelihood of
relationship termination. This may imply that the more time one spends on social
media, the less time they are devoting to relationship maintenance—and therefore,
the more likely it is that the relationship will terminate.
Although ORV did not predict disclosure of a transgression, participants who
spent more time on social media indicated they were less likely to disclose their rela-
tionship issues to family and friends. This is a conflicting finding, given that these
are arguably the most social individuals (at least in terms of online communica-
tion). It may be that people who spend more time on social media are more likely to
engage in impression management, perhaps in reality as well as online. Further, par-
ticipants who envisioned their partner yelling at them were more likely to disclose
the conflict than those who imagined their partner cheating or slapping them in the
face; this implies that disclosure depends to some extent on severity of the conflict,
and perhaps relates to impression management (i.e., a more severe relational conflict
could be experienced as more shameful, and therefore less likely to be disclosed.)

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1053

It is also interesting to note that men showed greater intent to disclose relation-
ship issues. This is in direct contrast to conventional cultural scripts, which encour-
age men to only engage in emotionality or emotional bonding with their primary
romantic partner rather than friends or peers (e.g. Connell et al. 2005; Gerstel et al.
1985; Messner 2002). Although the gender differences in impression management
are beyond the scope of the current investigation, this finding poses interesting ques-
tions about gendered approaches to relationship conflict and social support seeking.

Does Visibility Effect Self‑Esteem?

Participants who were highly satisfied in their relationships (and more likely to
engage in ORV) also reported higher self-esteem. It is therefore surprising that high
ORV did not predict greater levels of self-esteem, particularly given previous obser-
vations about individual’s high level of concern regarding how others perceived
their relationships online (Emery et al. 2014). Again, this may suggest that ORV is
an outcome of existing individual and relational characteristics rather than a predic-
tor; those with low self-esteem do not necessarily seek out validation online, and
those who do seek visibility do not necessarily have low self-esteem. Regardless,
it is evident that the quality of a relationship is more important to self-esteem than
how others perceive that relationship; ORV does not seem to be effective at either
damaging or bolstering one’s self-image.
However, there may be differences between ORV and other behaviours on social
media platforms. In accord with previous research (e.g. Errasti et al. 2017), greater
social media use was associated with lower levels of self-esteem. However, although
greater social media use predicted greater ORV, ORV itself was not associated
with self-esteem. Perhaps involvement in a romantic relationship—which consti-
tutes a highly valued and privileged position in Western culture—allows individu-
als to maintain self-esteem despite the negative effects of social comparison online;
indeed, relationship status was a significant predictor of higher self-esteem. It is also
possible that people who make their relationships highly visible spend more time
creating/posting such content, rather than viewing other content and engaging in
social comparison.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our finding that ORV was unrelated to termination decisions does not necessarily
discount possible influences of ORV on relationship outcomes. Research concerning
motivations and implications of relationship visibility are contradictory; for exam-
ple, while some evidence indicates that ORV reflects the centrality of a relationship
to one’s identity (Carpenter and Spottswood 20132013; Castañeda et al. 2015; Rus
and Tiemensma 2017), other evidence suggests that ORV arises from a lack of suf-
ficient identification with one’s partner (Slotter et al. 2014). The current findings
cannot discount either of these possibilities—ather, we argue that both may be true,

13
1054 S. Hughes et al.

and that the motivations and outcomes of ORV are likely dependent on individual
and relational variables.
The current lack of an observable relationship could also reflect a discrepancy
in participant’s motivations for ORV; while some may use ORV to seek increased
identification with their partners (Slotter et al. 2014), those already highly identified
with their partners may use it primarily as a means of self-expression and appre-
ciation. Possible effects of ORV on relationship outcomes—if there are any—likely
vary based on these goals of use. Future research should attempt to account for the
motivations behind ORV when investigating relationship outcomes.
Further, it is possible that our findings were skewed by social desirability bias.
Participants were asked about their romantic relationships and social media profiles,
both of which are highly important to individuals’ identity and self-expression. As
such, it is possible that impression management motivations influenced participants’
responses, although the anonymity of our online survey was intended to mitigate
such effects.
Finally, the present study may not reflect actual behaviours in romantic relation-
ships. We asked participants to imagine a hypothetical situation in which their part-
ner committed a transgression, either yelling, slapping, or cheating on the partici-
pant. Given that participants may or may not have ever encountered this behaviour
personally, they may have limited accuracy in assessing how they would actually
respond to such events. Further, our findings may not be applicable to all forms
of romantic relationships. For example, individuals engaged in consensually non-
monogamous, polyamorous, or polygamist relationships—who still consider them-
selves to be in serious committed relationships—may have different responses to our
definitions of infidelity, for example. They may also be less inclined to engage in
ORV, due to stigmatization about the nature of their relationships; this could poten-
tially have influenced our findings.

Conclusions

This study was, to our knowledge, the first quantitative examination of the influ-
ence of online relationship visibility on relationship termination decisions and dis-
closure of relationship issues. Our results indicated that ORV is likely a by-product
of relationship satisfaction in dyadic relationships, rather than a predictor of specific
outcomes. Despite the desire to maintain a curated, idealized self-presentation on
social media, individuals do not allow concerns about online perceptions to sway
their decisions after a breach of trust by their partner. Further, the results of this
study contrast with research highlighting the negative impact of social media on
self-esteem, demonstrating the need for further critical inquiry into how online self-
presentations influence self-perception.

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1055

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants All procedures performed in studies involving human participants
were in accordance with ethical standards of the KPU Research Ethics Board and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York:
Sage Publications Inc.
Carpenter, C. J., & Spottswood, E. L. (2013). Exploring romantic relationships on social networking
sites using the self-expansion model. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1531–1537. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.021.
Castañeda, A. M., Wendel, M. L., & Crockett, E. E. (2015). Overlap in Facebook profiles reflects relation-
ship closeness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(4), 395–401. https​://doi.org/10.1080/00224​
545.2015.10089​68.
Connell, R. W., Hearn, J., & Kimmel, M. (2005). Handbook of studies on men and masculinities. New
York: Sage Publications Inc.
Dardis, C. M., Edwards, K. M., Kelley, E. L., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017). Perceptions of dating violence and
associated correlates: A study of college young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21),
3245–3271. https​://doi.org/10.1177/08862​60515​59743​9.
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Alpert, E., & Le, B. (2015). Do we look happy? Perceptions of romantic relation-
ship quality on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 1–7. https​://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12059​.
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Dix, E. L., & Le, B. (2014). Can you tell that I’m in a relationship? Attach-
ment and relationship visibility on Facebook. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11),
1466–1479. https​://doi.org/10.1177/01461​67214​54994​4.
Errasti, J., Amigo, I., & Villadangos, M. (2017). Emotional uses of Facebook and twitter: Its relation with
empathy, narcissism, and self-esteem in adolescence. Psychological Reports, 120(6), 997–1018.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/00332​94117​71349​6.
Etcheverry, P. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2016). Predictors of motivation to comply with social referents regard-
ing one’s romantic relationship. Personal Relationships, 23(2), 214–233. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
pere.12121​.
Etcheverry, P. E., Le, B., & Charania, M. R. (2008). Perceived versus reported social referent approval
and romantic relationship commitment and persistence. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 281–295.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00199​.x.
Fox, J., & Anderegg, C. (2014). Romantic relationship stages and social networking sites: Uncertainty
reduction strategies and perceived relational norms on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 17(11), 685–691. https​://doi.org/10.1089/cyber​.2014.0232.
Gerstel, N., Riessman, C. K., & Rosenfield, S. (1985). Explaining the symptomology of separated and
divorced women and men: The role of material conditions and social networks. Social Forces, 64,
84–101. https​://doi.org/10.2307/25789​73.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
Hart, J., Nailling, E., Bizer, G. Y., & Collins, C. K. (2015). Attachment theory as a framework for
explaining engagement with Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 33–40. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.016.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 50, 93–98.
Hendy, H. M., Can, S. H., Joseph, L. J., & Scherer, C. R. (2013). University students leaving relationships
(USLR): Scale development and gender differences in decisions to leave romantic relationships.

13
1056 S. Hughes et al.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(3), 232–242. https​://doi.

org/10.1177/07481​75613​48197​9.
Krueger, K. L., & Forest, A. L. (2020). Communicating commitment: A relationship-protection account
of dyadic displays on social media. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/01461​67219​89399​8.
Lane, B. L., Piercy, C. W., & Carr, C. T. (2016). Making it Facebook official: The warranting value of
online relationship status disclosures on relational characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior,
56, 1–8. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.016.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-compo-
nent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47. https​://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34.
Loving, T. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Socially desirable responding in close relationships: A dual-com-
ponent approach and measure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 551–573. https​
://doi.org/10.1177/02654​07501​18400​7.
Messner, M. (2002). Politics of masculinities. Lanham: Alta Mira Press.
Orosz, G., Szekeres, Á., Kiss, Z. G., Farkas, P., & Roland-Lévy, C. (2015). Elevated romantic love and
jealousy if relationship status is declared on Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–6. https​://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg​.2015.00214​.
Robards, B., & Lincoln, S. (2016). Making it “Facebook official”: Reflecting on romantic relationships
through sustained Facebook use. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 205630511667289. https​://doi.
org/10.1177/20563​05116​67289​0.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rus, H. M., & Tiemensma, J. (2017). “It’s complicated”. A systematic review of associations between
social network site use and romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 684–703.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.004.
Saslow, L. R., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Dubin, M. (2013). Can you see how happy we are? Facebook
images and relationship satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 411–418.
https​://doi.org/10.1177/19485​50612​46005​9.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social
media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009.
Sheridan, L., & Scott, A. J. (2010). Perceptions of harm: Verbal versus physical abuse in stalking sce-
narios. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 400–416. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00938​54809​35974​3.
Slotter, E. B., Duffy, C. W., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me” with the need
to be “we”: Applying optimal distinctiveness theory to the understanding of multiple motives
within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71–81. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.001.
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2001). Social networks and change in per-
sonal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti, H. T. Reis, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Stability and change
in relationships. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 257–284). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Stein, E. (2020). Adultery, infidelity, and consensual non-monogamy. Wake Forest Law Review, 55(1),
147–187.
van Hooff, J. (2017). An everyday affair: Deciphering the sociological significance of women’s attitudes
towards infidelity. The Sociological Review (Keele), 65(4), 850–864. https​://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
954X.12417​.
Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-
esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. https​://doi.org/10.1037/ppm00​00047​.
Wilson, J. M., & Smirles, K. (2020). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner violence: The
effects of type of abuse and perpetrator gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence., 23, 33. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/08862​60520​90802​5.
Zhang, D., Feng, X., & Chen, P. (2018). Examining microbloggers’ individual differences in motivation
for social media use. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(4), 667–681.
https​://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6539.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13
#Couplegoals: Self-Esteem, Relationship Outcomes, and the… 1057

Affiliations

Shelby Hughes1 · Amanda Champion2 · Kailie Brown3 · Cory L. Pedersen3

Shelby Hughes
shelby.hughes@hotmail.com
Amanda Champion
amanda.champion84@gmail.com
Kailie Brown
kailie.brown@hotmail.com
1
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
2
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
3
Department of Psychology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 12666 72nd Avenue, Surrey,
BC V3W 2M8, Canada

13