Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy

ISSN: 0092-623X (Print) 1521-0715 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usmt20

The Pursuit of Romantic Alternatives Online: Social

Media Friends as Potential Romantic Alternatives

Irum Saeed Abbasi & Nawal G. Alghamdi

To cite this article: Irum Saeed Abbasi & Nawal G. Alghamdi (2017): The Pursuit of Romantic
Alternatives Online: Social Media Friends as Potential Romantic Alternatives, Journal of Sex &
Marital Therapy, DOI: 10.1080/0092623X.2017.1308450

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1308450

Accepted author version posted online: 20

Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=usmt20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 28 March 2017, At: 06:34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

THE PURSUIT OF ROMANTIC ALTERNATIVES ONLINE

The Pursuit of Romantic Alternatives Online: Social Media Friends as Potential Romantic

Alternatives

Irum Saeed Abbasi1, Nawal G. Alghamdi2

1
Psychology Department, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA
2
Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational Graduate Studies, King Abdul Aziz

University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Corresponding Author E-mail: irum.abbasi@gmail.com

Abstract

What causes some marriages to stand the test of time while others fail? Marital commitment is

the key force underlying the stability, quality, and longevity of the romantic relationship.

Commitment is strengthened in the presence of marital satisfaction, the absence of alternative

attractions, and steady investments made in the relationship. Commitment is also a consequence

of increasing dependence such that when partners are emotionally engaged with their virtual

connections, their dependence on their significant other weakens resulting in low commitment.

Dependence on the partner increases when people feel satisfied in their relationship, think

unfavorably about the quality of available alternatives and feel that they have made great

investments in their relationship. Technological advancements and the ever-evolving

communication mediums contribute to relationship troubles by providing access to alternatives

that substantially reduce shared family time. The boastfully curated profiles of virtual

connections and their overly glossed pictures may lead partners to feel deficient in their life.

Previous research showed that Facebook can reduce relationship satisfaction by providing

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

alternatives and deflecting time and emotional investments away from the committed

relationship. This article examines the commitment literature and discusses how commitment is

undermined in the contemporary era. Finally, marital therapy is addressed with suggestions for

future areas of exploration.

Keywords

alternative attractions, commitment theories, Facebook, marital therapy

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Internet offers the ever-evolving computer mediated communication platforms that allow

individuals to connect with casual, professional, and romantic interests. One such platform

consists of social networking sites (SNSs) and applications. In the 2015 report of Pew Internet

Research, the individual estimates of United States social media users were 72% for Facebook,

31% for Pinterest, 28% for Instagram, 25% for LinkedIn, and 23% for Twitter (Duggan, 2015).

Most of the social media users have two or more SNSs integrated in their daily activities

(Davenport, Bergman, Bergman, & Fearrington, 2014). The phenomenal growth of SNSs has led

scholars to examine the motivations underlying the use of social networking, the procured

gratifications, and how the users’ lives and society as a whole are affected by SNSs (Liu, Ho, &

Lu, 2017). The uses and gratifications approach (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974) is a model

that explains how and why individuals actively seek out and engage in specific types of media.

This model is now employed in the social media research. This methodological research

demarcates between concepts that are antecedents to behavior (desired uses) and the consequents

of behavior (gratifications; Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). In a sample of participants who had

concurrent Snapchat and Facebook accounts, the reported common motivations for the social

media use were procrastination, keeping in touch with the family, seeing what others are up to,

and communicating with the romantic partner (Utz, Muscanell, & Khalid, 2015). Other

researchers also found that the need for popularity was another motive for using social

networking (Utz, Tanis, & Vermeulen, 2012)

Some social mediums are population specific; for example, LinkedIn caters to

professionals and job seekers, Grindr caters to homosexuals, Tinder caters to singles, and

Snapchat caters mostly to the young population. Snapchat is the third most used application

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

among millennials (18--34 year olds) after Facebook and Instagram (Perez, 2014). Snapchat

provides a more private medium for interaction, than Facebook, as the messages and pictures are

ephemeral and not persistent, Resultantly, Snapchat users experience diminished need for self-

censorship and tend to share more intimate pictures and messages. However, Facebook has

added many Snapchat features to win the millennials and be more private (Kelly, 2016).

Furthermore, the various social media platforms differ in four major affordances: visibility,

persistence, editability, and association (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Therefore, scholars focus

their interests on specific areas for each social media site. For example, Twitter research focuses

mainly on journalism, politics, and sentiment; Linkedin research focuses mainly on examination

of human resource management issue (Liu, Ho, & Lu, 2017), and Facebook focuses on self-

expression, privacy, and romantic relationships. While the research examining the influence of

other social media on romantic relationship is sparse, Facebook has received the most attention

in terms of its adverse effects on romantic relationships (Carter, 2015). This may in part be

because Facebook is the most popular and dominant hedonic SNS worldwide and is the second

most accessed website after Google, and has more users than all the rest of SNSs combined

(Alexa, 2015; Duggan & Smith, 2014; Stenovec, 2015).

Earlier studies have suggested that complete commitment is the basic factor in long-term

marital relationships, irrespective of gender or marital satisfaction (Fenell, 1993; Harley, 1994;

Kaslow & Robison, 1996; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999). Strong commitment is a

consequence of increasing dependence (Rusbult et al., 1998), which is the characteristic and

structural state of a relationship that represents the extent to which an individual relies on a

specific relationship for desired outcomes (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult et al., 1998; Rusbult et

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al., 2011). In the Facebook paradigm, when the partners turn to Facebook connections for the

basic needs to be met, their dependence on the significant other may weaken resulting in low

commitment. The current article sheds light on the link between Facebook use and poor

relationship outcomes and argues that it is the easy accessibility of online alternative attractions

that deprive the primary dyadic relationships of time and emotional investments, and eventually

weaken the dependence on the primary relationship.

Facebook

Facebook allows people to communicate with friends, family, colleagues, and even

strangers. Facebook users can share feelings, thoughts, and personal information (education,

relationship status, interests, sexual preference) through wall posts, status updates, picture

tagging, friend requests, live streaming of videos, private messages, and video/audio calls.

People use Facebook for different purposes. Although, the primary reason for using Facebook is

to maintain relationships (Craig & Wright, 2012), many individuals use Facebook to connect

with sexual or romantic interests (Drouin et al., 2014). Six unique uses and gratifications of

Facebook use have been identified through factor analysis, which include information seeking,

entertainment, communication, social relations, escape, and Facebook applications (Kwon,

D’Angelo, & McLeod, 2013). The strongest gratification factor for Facebook use was found to

be the interpersonal habitual entertainment, which represents a mix of relationship maintenance,

entertainment, and the habit motive (Valentine, 2012).

A significant impact of Facebook use on the user’s psychological, social, and personal

life is revealed through research. Social media use offers social benefits; for example, it

facilitates users in developing and maintaining social capital and social connectedness (Barker,

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dozier, Weiss, & Borden, 2015) through participation in civic and political activities (Hyun &

Kim, 2014), and health support discussions (Phua, 2013). Building social capital on SNS can

have desirable effects and increase the user’s subjective well-being; nevertheless, maintaining

social capital online is found to reduce life satisfaction and happiness while also brining out the

feelings of envy due to the ostentatious display by online friends (Mukesh, Mayo, & Gonçalves,

2016). Other negative implications emanating from the social media use are blatantly obvious.

There is a significant association between Facebook use and personality disorders (Rosen,

Whaling, Rab, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013), depression (Moreno et al., 2011; Rosen et al., 2013),

compulsive disorder (Rosen et al., 2013), and eating disorder (Smith, Hames, & Joiner, 2013). A

growing body of research has found that Facebook use is related to relationship conflicts,

compulsive Internet use, physical and emotional infidelity, online portrayals of intimate

relationships, increase in romantic jealousy, relationship dissatisfaction, low commitment levels,

breakups, and divorce (Abbasi & AlGhamdi, 2017; Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2013; Drouin,

Miller, & Dibble, 2014; Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Goldwert, 2012; Kerkhof, Finkenauer, &

Muusses, 2011; Muise et al., 2009; Marshall, 2012; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). Facebook use

showed a negative correlation with marriage quality and happiness and a positively correlation

with the experience of troubled relationship as well as with the thoughts of separation

(Valenzuela et al., 2014). Negative implications of Facebook use (such as relationship conflicts)

were more apparent in shorter duration marriages (three years or less; Clayton et al., 2013).

Facebook is also known to facilitate infidelity behaviors such as flirting, emotional

intimacy, and sexual affairs (Clayton et al., 2013). The most consistently reported online

infidelity behaviors include emotional disclosure, cybersex, hot chatting, and viewing

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

pornography (Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2010). Infidelity behaviors that are specific to

Facebook include friending one’s ex-partner, commenting on attractive users’ pictures, sending

private messages, and posting an incorrect relationship status (Clayton et al., 2013; Cravens,

Leckie, & Whiting, 2013). Facebook infidelity causes arguments, fights, retaliatory behaviors,

negative emotional experiences, loss of trust, and termination of the relationship (Cravens &

Whiting, 2015). In the United Kingdom, one third of all online divorce filing mentioned

Facebook as the cause of breakup (Moscaritolo, 2012). Similarly, in the United States, a positive

correlation was found between increasing Facebook use and a corresponding increase in divorce

rate (Valenzuela, Halpern, & Katz, 2014). These adverse relationship consequences have

intrigued many researchers to devise constructs and scales that can measure the daily Facebook

use and its implications on the users’ lives. A specific construct called the Facebook-related

conflict is devised that examines “whether Facebook use increases relationship complications in

intimate romantic relationships” (Clayton et al., 2013, p. 718). Research also suggested that

Facebook-related conflict acts as a mediator in the relationship between relationship length and

perceived relationship satisfaction, commitment, and love (Rahaman, 2015). Furthermore, the

excessive use of Facebook has showed an association with relationship dissatisfaction due to

jealousy and invasive monitoring; females were found more likely to engage in invasive

monitoring than males (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011).

The excessive use of Facebook is interchangeably referred to as Facebook intrusion or

Facebook addiction signifying an extreme attachment to Facebook that interferes with

relationship functioning and everyday activities (Andreassen, Torsheim, Brunborg, & Pallesen,

2012; Elphinston & Noller, 2011). Facebook intrusion signifies elements of addiction such as

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse (Elphinston & Noller,

2011). Facebook specific scales that measure Facebook jealousy and excessive use include

Facebook jealousy scale (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009), Bergen Facebook addiction

scale (Andreassen, Torsheim, Brunborg, & Pallesen, 2012), and Facebook intrusion scale

(Elphinston & Noller, 2011). A recent study found that Facebook intrusion, as measured by the

Facebook intrusion scale, is linked with marital disaffection (Abbasi, 2017). Marital disaffection

is a gradual loss of love and emotional attachment with the romantic partner and significantly

contributes to the marital breakdown (Kayser, 1993; for a review see Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017).

A significant relationship between Facebook use and relationship satisfaction as well as

dissatisfaction is also found (Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch, 2011). Satisfaction level is the extent to

which individuals experience positive versus negative affect based on their relationship

involvement (Rusbult et al., 1998). Relationship satisfaction increases when a relationship

gratifies an individual’s core needs such as companionship, security, intimacy, sexuality, and a

sense of belonging (Rusbult et al., 1998). However, when core relationship needs are fulfilled in

a specific alternate relationship, the relationship satisfaction may decline.

Commitment

Commitment is a multi-dimensional relationship skill and an interpersonal force that is

linked with the relationship quality, stability, and breakup (Agnew, 2009; Wallace, 2007). Lauer

and Lauer (1986) define commitment as the “willingness and determination to work through

troubled times” (p. 57). It is characterized by the intention to remain in a relationship

(persistence), a psychological attachment to the partner, and a long-term orientation toward the

relationship (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Commitment theories. Many theories have been forwarded to explain the processes

underlying marital commitment (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Levinger, 1965; Rusbult, 1980,

Johnson, 1991), which easily translate into each another (Stanley, Rhoades, & Whitton, 2010).

Levinger’s cohesiveness model (1965) held that two social forces (attractive forces and barriers)

determine the strength of relationship commitment. The attractive forces are further divided into

present and alternative attractions. Present attractions forces (need fulfillment and love) bring the

partners close, while alternative attractions move them apart.

Barriers forces (internal and external) constrain partners from quitting the primary relationship.

The attractive and barrier forces are subject to change over time. Resultantly, a partner’s

commitment may fluctuate to reflect these changing dynamics (Agnew, 2009).

Interdependence theory of commitment (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) holds that a

relationship persists when the relationship outcomes are beneficial and satisfying to the partners.

The interdependence theory forwarded two concepts: commitment is strengthened by the amount

of satisfaction that one gains from a relationship and commitment is weakened in the presence of

potential alternatives to the relationship (such as other potential partners, preference for being

single). Through the investment model, Rusbult (1980) introduced the third concept that holds

that the relationships not only persist because of the positive qualities that are attracting partners

towards each other (i.e., their mutual satisfaction) and the absence of alternatives outside the

relationship, but also due to the mutual ties that bind partners together (i.e., investment size). The

investment size is the magnitude and importance of the concrete resources that are afforded by

the relationship, which would be lost or diminished if the relationship ends. A meta-analysis of

Rusbult’s investment model by Le and Agnew (2003) showed that commitment to a relationship

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

was significantly correlated with each of the three constructs: satisfaction with the relationship,

alternatives to the relationship, and investments in the relationship.

Psychological Attachment and Commitment

When partners feel satisfied, lack better alternatives, and have heavily invested in a

relationship, they form a conviction to stay together, and harbor feelings of a psychological

attachment to the significant other (Rusbult et al., 2011). According to Caldwell (2013),

attachment styles are not only seen in verbal and behavioral communications but are also likely

seen in the romantic behaviors exhibited on the social networking sites. Attachment theory holds

that humans are prone to developing and maintaining a deep affectional bond with their

significant other (Bowlby, 1988). This emotional bond is called ‘attachment’ and is defined as

“any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to some clearly

identified individual, who is conceived as better able to cope with the world" (Bowlby, 1982, p.

668).

Attachment consists of two independent and continuous dimensions: attachment anxiety

and attachment avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Individuals who experience high

attachment anxiety also fear rejection and abandonment. The individuals who are high in

attachment avoidance are believed to have had unavailable and rejecting caregivers (Bailey,

Holmberg, McWilliams, & Hobson, 2015). The partner’s desire for closeness, intimacy, and

commitment with the significant other lowers his/her interest in alternatives and proneness to

infidelity. The avoidantly attached individuals are chronically discomforted with intimacy,

therefore, they maintain a psychological distance by behaviorally distancing themselves from

their partner (Bowlby, 1988). DeWall et al. (2011) examined how attachment styles are related to

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

commitment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. They found that partners who had

dispositional avoidant attachment style exhibited an attitudinal, attentional, and behavioral

outlook that reflected greater interest in alternatives and an inclination towards infidelity.

Therefore, avoidantly attached individuals may be at a higher risk for alternative monitoring and

infidelity because they are quick to notice attractive alternatives in their environment. It is

interesting to note that partners continually monitor relationship alternatives irrespective of

whether they were in a committed relationship or not (Fletcher, 2002).

Facebook Alternatives

The mindset of being in the market for a new partner whose potential best is compared

with the current partner’s worst may be at the root of relationship problems (Wallace, 2007).

Researchers have found that merely thinking about potential alternatives in one’s social circle

reduced relationship satisfaction and commitment with the current partner (Drouin, Miller, &

Dibble, 2015). As mentioned earlier, one of the factor that pull romantic partners away from each

other is the availability and quality of the potential alternatives or other relationship forms. The

social exchange perspectives (investment model and interdependence theory) argue that

individuals develop relationships in part by identifying available alternate partners for another

potential relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Committed partners are less

likely to approach or allow others to approach them with romantic interests; they tend to dismiss

or devalue potential romantic alternatives to protect themselves, deny negative qualities of the

partner during periods of uncertainty, develop unrealistic positive thoughts about their

relationship and/or partner, and consider others’ relationships as less favorable (Johnson &

Rusbult, 1989; Rusbult et al., 2011). However, Facebook is set up such that others’ lives are

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

glossed to create an impression of an ideal partnership, which may make some individuals feel

inadequate in their relationship (lowering present attractions, Levinger, 1965) or may even make

it harder for them to dismiss tempting alternatives. West (2013) measured Facebook use,

relationship commitment, and attention to relationship alternatives in a sample of unmarried

dating partners. The results showed that low levels of satisfaction and high levels of Facebook

use predicted high alternative monitoring. Interestingly, the participants’ monitoring of

alternatives did not predict significant differences in their commitment to the present

relationship. Gender differences in the monitoring of alternatives were seen; males reported

higher online monitoring of alternatives than females. Even before the Facebook era, researchers

found that men were more attentive and focused on alternatives than women (Miller, 1997;

Rusbult et al., 1998).

Individuals use Facebook to solicit romantic interests not only when they are single but

also when they are in a committed relationship (Drouin et al., 2014). The perceived quality of

available alternatives is positively associated with the number of romantic connections on

Facebook. Drouin et al. (2014) found that partners who exhibited lower relationship commitment

showed more keenness in sending and accepting ‘friend’ requests with romantic interests.

Interestingly, the frequency of friending attractive alternatives during the relationship was linked

with lower levels of relationship commitment rather than the total number of available

connections (Drouin et al., 2014). These researchers contend that it is far more important to

consider the number of ‘friend’ requests that are sent and received during a relationship than the

total number of Facebook friends. In another study, Drouin et al. (2015) asked Facebook users to

identify potential alternatives from either their Facebook ‘friends’ list or their memory. They

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

found that those who identified alternatives from their ‘friends’ list recognized more alternatives,

especially sexual alternatives, than those who were in the memory recall condition. These

researchers inferred that Facebook connections can act as a memory primer for recognition of

potential sexual alternatives, especially for men.

Facebook Investments

Each partner in a healthy relationship must invest an intentional effort to work on the

relationship with resolution, acceptance, understanding, and a willingness to be creative, rather

than investing half-heartedly or sporadically (Wallace, 2007). When both partners equally

possess a strong commitment, the couple as a whole exhibits a sense of emotional security, trust,

and other qualities that promote mutual investments (Brines & Joyner, 1999; Wilcox & Nock,

2006). These relationship investments represent the barriers described by Levinger (cohesiveness

model, 1965) and Rusbult (investment model, 1980), which constrains the partner from quitting.

Partner who invest in their relationship are also more likely to enjoy their relationship (Wallace,

2007). In the contemporary times, a typical day of a social media active user can be inundated

with an over load of information that overwhelm the user. The time required to follow the virtual

friends’ incessant updates of their mundane activities can take a toll on the relationship. The time

displacement hypothesis suggests that time is inelastic and is non-expandable (Nie, 2001; Nie &

Hillygus, 2002). Therefore, the time invested with the virtual fiends trades off with the time that

could be invested in the relationship to strengthen the barriers. The time spent on Facebook is

found to have a strong positive correlation with the feelings of jealousy (Muise et al., 2009).

Jealousy and commitment may go hand in hand as White (1981) asserted that partners who are

relatively more committed to their relationship are likely to be more jealous.

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Implications for Family Therapy/Practice

Facebook provides a platform to individuals to communicate with other users, privately

or publicly. The online interactions have increasingly caused concerns among couples and

clinicians. The secrecy afforded by the Facebook and the option of securing multiple Facebook

accounts (representing fake identities) can facilitate behaviors that can be destructive to the

offline primary relationships. A qualitative study by Carter (2015) found that heterosexual

married men and women who engaged in extra-marital sexual and emotional interactions on

Facebook jeopardized their marital relationship. Both genders were prone to initiating

communication with the extra dyadic individual (s) on Facebook, especially from their past.

Online interaction rules (spoken or unspoken) that distinguish between acceptable and

unacceptable behaviors are referred to as ‘netiquette’ (Helsper & whitty, 2010). According to

Cravens (2013), married couples rarely establish limitations around Facebook use despite prior

issues with Facebook behaviors. If any rules existed, they were implicit and presumed to be

shared. The couples communicated their reservations regarding the Facebook use only after the

problems surfaced. However, they still did not establish clear rules for future reference.

Generally, couples have shown a lack of consensus on what behaviors cross the boundary

within their relationship context. Therefore, the therapists can explore each partner’s implicit

rules and encourage sharing them with each other. The therapists should be prepared to help the

couples decipher each other’s perspectives regarding problematic behaviors (Cravens, 2013).

The therapists can also directly ask the partners to examine their personal values and biases

regarding the problematic behaviors. After the couple has mutually established the rules around

Facebook use, the therapist should discuss how those rules will be enforced and should also

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

encourage discussion of the consequences in case the rules are breached (Cravens, 2013). In a

study comprising of married parents of university students, Norton (2011) found that couples

reported higher levels of trust when their social networking account passwords were shared or

when each partner had an access to the other partner’s account. However, Cravens (2013) found

contradictory findings where the majority of the participating couples felt that Facebook account

monitoring by the partner was a violation of their relationship. Cravens recommends that the

therapist should discuss if the account passwords can be shared or if both partners can be given

access to each other’s Facebook account (Cravens, 2013). However, the decision of sharing

passwords should be made by the couple, not the therapist.

Gunzburg (2016), an expert marriage counselor, urges couples to be cautious when using

social media and suggests to develop couple specific marriage boundaries, instead of looking at

the society for guidelines. He recommends protecting the romantic relationship by sharing

passwords for every social media site, identifying themselves as a happy couple on all the online

profiles, avoiding lengthy or short communication with opposite sex, and not complaining about

the spouse on social media. Having one Facebook account for the couple may also help curb the

negative implications from the Facebook use (Gunzburg, 2016). The couple should propagate

unity online and forego interests in alternatives. In the event that an ex-lover approaches a

committed partner, the ex should be informed that the individual is currently in a committed

happy relationship. Further contact should be avoided so that the old flames of love are not

stoked. To ward off threats, couples can use pro-relationship and inclusive terms to describe

themselves (such as we, us, our) instead of singular pronouns (I, he, or she; Agnew, 2009). In

essence, couples should demonstrate cohesion, which is a uniting force (Piper, Marrache,

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lacroix, Richardsen, & Jones, 1983) or may signify a resistance against disruptive forces (Gross

& Martin (1952). The disruptive forces, online connections in this case, can steal investments

and lower commitment, but the couple’s cohesion can ward off threats to the relationship.

Commitment is making a choice to forego other choices (Stanley, 2005), so renouncing

alternatives to the relationship is an essential step in building commitment. Having a belief in an

idealized romantic view of marriage (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1995) and viewing the partner

through rose-colored glasses (Gottman & Silver, 2000) can protect the relationship against

tempting online alternatives.

Limitations and Future Directions

Facebook use has increasingly been studied in research to explore how its use causes

jealousy, suspicion, compulsive Internet use, partner surveillance, and relationships conflicts.

Although most of the research points to an association between negative marital outcomes and

Facebook use, it is pertinent to note that causal inferences cannot be made from this research.

The correlational studies do not provide the direction of the relationship. It is plausible that

dissatisfied and uncommitted partners may turn to the Internet to find what they presume they

are missing in their life. In such a case, Facebook may be one of the easily available platforms

that dissatisfied partners use to find social connections. There is an increasing need for

longitudinal qualitative and intervention studies to help decipher the direction of the relationship.

For example, the longitudinal panel designs can explore if Facebook use at Time 1 predicts

change in relationship status at Time 2. Intervention studies can also be very helpful; however,

these studies have to be carefully designed to ensure that experimental manipulation does not

exacerbate the relationship problems. Another limitation of the Facebook research is that most of

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the studies are conducted on young adults while studies on married couples’ problematic use of

social media are sparse (Cravens, 2013). Therefore, the results gathered from the sample of

convenience (college students) may not fully reflect the fluctuations that married couples go

through during their relationship. Consequently, these results cannot be generalized to all

populations and new studies encompassing older adults can lend further insights.

In the future studies, researchers can consider theories such as the mutually reinforcing

spirals model (Slater, 2007), which is comparable to the positive feedback loop theory to explore

whether social media and commitment affect each other in a reinforcing spirals modus. Does

Facebook undermine commitment or vice versa, or both? Moreover, the role of other social

media should be examined to study the plethora of evolving social media applications that are

targeting specific populations. Researchers can see if there are specific traits associated with each

social media site and application. It would also be interesting to see how individualistic and

collectivistic cultures view social media related infidelity and if the consequences differ between

the two cultures. Future research will help marital therapists who have to take the role of

educators and teach partners effective way of warding off relationship threats online and be

cognizant of behaviors that precede interests in alternatives.

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Abbasi, I. S., & AlGhamdi, N. G. (2017). When Flirting Turns Into Infidelity: The Facebook

Dilemma. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 45 (1), 1-14..

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2016.1277804

Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. (2017). Polarized couples in therapy: Recognizing indifference as

the opposite of love. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 43 (1), 40- 48. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1113596

Abbasi, I. S. (2017). The lost love and the pursuit of alternatives: A Facebook case study.

Manuscript submitted for review.

Adams. J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An

integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1177- 1196. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1177

Agnew, C. (2009). Commitment, theories and typologies. Department of Psychological Sciences

Faculty Publications. Paper 28. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/psychpubs/28 Andreassen, C. S.,

Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction

scale. Psychological Reports, 110 (2), 501-517. doi:10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517

Alexa.com (2015) How popular is Facebook.com? Retrieved from

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com

Bailey, K. M., Holmberg, D., McWilliams, L. A., & Hobson, K. (2015). Wanting and

providing solicitous pain-related support: The roles of both relationship partners' attachment

styles. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(4), 272-281. doi:10.1037/cbs0000017

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Barker, V., Dozier, D. M., Weiss, A. S., & Borden, D. L. (2015). Harnessing peer potency:

Predicting positive outcomes from social capital affinity and online engagement with

participatory websites. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1603-1623.

doi:10.1177/1461444814530291

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0 025.1982.tb01456.x

Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment

theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford.

Brines, J., & Joyner, K. (1999). The ties that bind: Principles of cohesion in cohabitation and

marriage. American Sociological Review, 64, 3, 333-355. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657490

Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control

intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human

Behavior, 27(3), 1162–1167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010.

Caldwell, J. M. (2013). The attachment-satisfaction relationship on Facebook: Emotional

intelligence and conflict. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/3

 Carter, Z. A. (2015). Married and previously married men and women perceptions of

communication on Facebook with the opposite sex: How communicating through facebook can

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

be damaging to marriages. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://gradworks.umi.com/37/00/3700817.html. (3700817)

 Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is

Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 717- 720.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0424

Craig, E., & Wright, K. B. (2012). Computer-mediated relational development and maintenance

on Facebook. Communication Research Reports, 29, 119–129. doi:10.1080/08824096.

2012.667777

Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., & Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook infidelity: When poking

becomes problematic. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35 (1), 74–90. doi:10.1007/s10591-012-

9231-5.

Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2015). Fooling around on Facebook: The perceptions of

infidelity behavior on social networking sites. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 15(3),

213-231. doi:10.1080/15332691.2014.1003670

Cravens, J. D. (2013). Social networking infidelity: Understanding the impact and exploring

rules and boundaries in intimate partner relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

fromhttps://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/58640/CRAVENS- DISSERTATION-

2013.pdf?sequence=1

Davenport, S. W., Bergman, S. M., Bergman, J. Z., & Fearrington, M. E. (2014). Twitter versus

Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media

platforms. Computers In Human Behavior, 32212-220. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.011

DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Finkel, E. J., . . .

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fincham, F. D. (2011). So far away from one's partner, yet so close to romantic alternatives:

Avoidant attachment, interest in alternatives, and infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 101(6), 1302-1316. doi:10.1037/a0025497 Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., &

Groothof, H. A. K. (2010). Jealousy in response to online and offline infidelity: The role of sex

and sexual orientation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 328–336. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12055

Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ current Facebook

friends; beware the ones they add! Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483-488.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.032

Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2015). Facebook or memory: Which is the real threat

to your relationship? Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 18(10), 561-566.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0259

Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2014). Social media update 2013. Pew Internet Research. Retrieved

from. Duggan, M (2015). Mobile messaging and social media 2015. Pew Research Center.

Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to Face It! Facebook intrusion and the implications

for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyber Psychology, Behavior, & Social

Networking, 14(11), 631-635 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0318

Fenell, D. L. (1993). Characteristics of long-term first marriages. Journal of Mental Health

Counseling. 15, 446-460.

Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). The new science of intimate relationships. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Goldwert, L. (2012, May). Facebook named in a third of divorce filings in 2011..

Gottman, J. & Silver, N. (2000). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York,

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Gunzburg, F. (2016). Facebook and infidelity: Social media can lead to divorce -Be careful on

Facebook! Retrieved from http://marriage-counselor-doctor.com/facebook-and- infidelity

Harley, Jr., W. (1994). His needs her needs: Building a divorce proof marriage. (2nd ed.).

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company.

 Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement

about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in Human

Behavior, 26, 916-926. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.006

 Hyun, K. D., & Kim, J. (2015). Differential and interactive influences on political

participation by different types of news activities and political conversation through social

media. Computers In Human Behavior, 45328-334. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.031

Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative

partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 57, 967–980. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.57.6.967.

Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment to personal relationships. In W.H. Jones & D.W. Perlman

(3rd Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, (pp. 117-143). London: J Jessica Kingsley.

Kaslow, F. & Robison, J. A. (1996). Long-term satisfying marriages: Perceptions of

contributing factors. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 24(2), 153-168. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926189608251028

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilisation of mass communication by the

individual. In J.G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current

perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19-32). Beverly Hills: Sage.

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kayser, K. (1993). When love dies: The process of marital disaffection. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Kelly, H. (August, 2016). Facebook's new feature is yet another Snapchat ripoff. Retrieved

from http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/05/technology/facebook-snapchat-video/

Kerkhof, P., Finkenauer, C., & Muusses, L. D. (2011). Relational consequences of compulsive

Internet use: A longitudinal study among newlyweds. Human Communication Research, 37(2),

147-173. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01397.x

Kwon, M., D’Angelo, J., & McLeod, D. M. (2013). Facebook use and social capital: To bond, to

bridge, or to escape. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33(1/2), 35- 43.

doi:10.1177/0270467613496767

Lauer, J. C. & Lauer, R. H. (1986). ‘Til death do us part. New York, NY: Harrington Park

Press, Inc.

Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 27, 19-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/349801

Levinger, G. (1999). Duty toward whom? Reconsidering attractions and barriers as determinants

of commitment in a relationship. In W. H. Jones & J. M. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of

interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 37- 52). New York: Plenum.

Le, B., Dove, N., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting non-marital

romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3),

377–390. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of

the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37–57. doi:10.1111/1475- 6811.00035.

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Liu, J. S., Ho, M. H., & Lu, L. Y. (2017). Recent themes in social networking service research.

Plos ONE, 12(1), 1-17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0170293

Marshall, P. (2012). What you say on facebook may be used against you in a court of family law:

Analysis of this new form of electronic evidence and why it should be on every matrimonial

attorney’s radar. Alabama Law Review, 63, 5, 1115-1132.

Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to

alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.73.4.758

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Egan, K. G., Cox, E., Young, H., Gannon, K. E., & Becker,

T. (2011). Feeling bad on Facebook: Depression disclosures by college students on a social

networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 447-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.20805

Moscaritolo, A. (2012). Facebook Cited in Third of U.K. Divorces. PC Magazine, 1-1.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted:

Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology & Behavior,

12(4), 441-444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263

Mukesh, M., Mayo, M., & Gonçalves, D. (2016). When Friends Show Off: Facebook and Well-

Being. AMA Winter Educators' Conference Proceedings, 27C-8-C-9

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

 Nie N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling

conflicting findings. The American Behavioral Scientist; 45:420–435. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957277

 Nie N.H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). Where does Internet time come from? A

reconnaissance. IT & Society, 1, 1–20.

Norton, A. M. (2011). Internet boundaries for social networking: Impact of trust and

satisfaction. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://krex.k-

state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/13163/AaronMNorton2011.pdf?sequence=3

Perez S. (2014). Snapchat is now the #3 social app among millennials. Retrieved from

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/11/snapchat-is-now- the-3-social-app-among-m millennials

Phua, J. (2013). Participating in health issue‐ specific social networking sites to quit smoking:

How does online social interconnectedness influence smoking cessation self‐ efficacy?. Journal

Of Communication, 63(5), 933-952. doi:10.1111/jcom.12054

Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M, Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a

basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93-108.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and

gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(2),

169-174. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056

Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A. (2013). Is Facebook creating

“iDisorder”? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use,

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1243- 1254.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.012

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the

investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and

deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in hetero- sexual involvement. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.

Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An

interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175– 204.

doi:10.1177/026540759301000202.

Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The Investment Model: An

interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In

D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115-139).

San Diego: Academic Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring

commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal

Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111/j.1475- 6811.1998.tb00177.x.

Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C., & Ximena, A. (2011). The investment model of commitment

processes. Department of Psychological Sciences Faculty Publications. Paper 26.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/psychpubs/26

Saidur- Rahaman, H. M. (2015). Romantic relationship length and its perceived quality:

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mediating role of Facebook-related conflict. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 395-405.

doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i3.932

Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and

relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 766–775. doi:10.1037/a0022407

Smith, A. R., Hames, J. L., & Joiner Jr, T. E. (2013). Status update: Maladaptive Facebook

usage predicts increases in body dissatisfaction and bulimic symptoms. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 149, 235-240. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.032

Slater, M. D. ( 2007). Reinforcing Spirals: The Mutual Influence of Media Selectivity and

Media Effects and Their Impact on Individual Behavior and Social Identity. Communication

Theory, 17(3), 281 – 303. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x

Stanley, S. M. (2005). The power of commitment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., & Whitton, S. W. (2010). Commitment: Functions, formation,

and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2(4), 243-257.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x

Stenovec, T. (2015). Facebook is now bigger than the largest country on earth. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/facebook-biggest- country_n_6565428.html

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Treem J., Leonardi P. (2012) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of

visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36,143–189.

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Utz S., Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic relationships:

Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication,

16 (4), 511-527. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x

Valentine, A. (2012). Uses and gratifications of facebook members 35 years and older.

(Master’s Thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.

1511466)

Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being and

divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Computers in Human

Behavior, 36, 94-101. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034

Wallace, G. H. (2007). Commitment in healthy relationships. The Forum for Family and

Consumer Issues, 12 (1).

Wallerstein, J. S. & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The good marriage: How and why love lasts. New

York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.

Weigel, D J. & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). The influence of marital duration on the use of

relationship maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 12(2), 59-70.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08934219909367711

West, A. R. (2013). Relationship commitment and monitoring alternatives using facebook in

unmarried romantic relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/21578/WEST- DISSERTATION-

2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

White, G. L. (1981). Some correlates of romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality, 49(2), 129.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wilcox, W. B., Nock, S. L. (2006). What’s love got to do with it?: Equality, equity,

commitment, and women’s marital quality. Social Forces, 84 (3), 1321-45.

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT