Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Can insecurely attached dating couples get compensated on social

network sites? dThe effect of surveillance
Kexin Wang a, Mingjie Zhou b, Zheng Zhang a, *
a
School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, China
b
Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Insecure attachment is detrimental to romantic relationships. However, surveillance through Social
Received 21 December 2016 Networking Sites (SNSs) is assumed to be beneficial for romantic relationships in prior studies. Does
Received in revised form surveillance offer a compensatory effect for insecure couples? The present study aims to explore the
17 March 2017
combined effect of romantic attachment and surveillance on relationships for college dating couples. The
Accepted 20 March 2017
Available online 20 March 2017
actor and partner interpersonal model (APIM) was introduced to deal with mutual influences between
both parts of the couples. We recruited 250 dating couples for this research. Our study revealed that both
anxiety and avoidance have negative effects on one's own and one's partner's perceived relationship
Keywords:
Romantic attachment
quality. Furthermore, surveillance may offset males' lower perceived relationship quality when this
Surveillance perception is caused by partners' avoidance. Although surveillance may not compensate for lower
Relationship quality perceived relationship quality caused by one's own insecure attachment, it may help mitigate the effects
Compensating effect of an avoidant partner.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Establishing and maintaining romantic relationships is highly
significant for college students (Berscheid, 1999). Each stage of a
dating relationship entails numerous opportunities for the
perfection of personality and emotional intelligence, the develop-
ment of self-concept and values, and improvements in mental
health. What shapes one's perceived relationship quality? Ac-
cording to the relevant literature, past dating experiences,
communication style, bonding with original family, and other so-
cioeconomic factors greatly impact one's relationship quality
(Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007; Jang, Smith,
& Levine, 2002; Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992; Donnellan, Larsen-Rife,
& Conger, 2005;). Particularly, romantic attachment, which
fundamentally shapes one's expectations and interactions, is one of
the most predictive indicators in romantic relationship (Fraley &
Shaver, 2000; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Romantic attachment is
conceptualized as consisting of two dimensions, avoidance and
anxiety. The former reflects the extent to which one feels
comfortable with intimacy. Individuals who score high on
* Corresponding author. School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua
University, Omnicom Building, Haidian District, Beijing 100084, China.
E-mail address: zhangzheng@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (Z. Zhang).
avoidance tend to invest less emotion into relationships and are
more prone to keep distance from partners, both physically and
mentally. For its part, the latter refers to an individual's sense of
security in an intimate relationship. Individuals who score high on
anxiety always worry about being abandoned (Bowlby, 1976, 1980).
Prototypically securely attached individuals tend to score low on
both of these dimensions, whereas insecurely attached individuals
probably score high on at least one dimension. In the past decade,
the advent of social networking sites (SNSs) has substantially
changed the way people communicate and connect and how dating
couples interact (Hand, Thomas, Buboltz, Deemer, & Buyanjargal,
2013; Stern & Willis, 2007).
A noteworthy change provided by SNSs is that a person can
discover his or her partner's online and offline behaviors by simply
clicking on a profile page. With an increasing number of couples
engaging in monitoring or stalking of partners over SNSs, re-
searchers began to conceptualize it as surveillance, which led to the
investigation of this phenomenon's psychological effects and the
relational outcomes (Fox & Tokunaga, 2015; Marshall, 2012;
Tokunaga, 2011; Tong, 2013; WarberKatie, 2014). Though prior
research has enriched our understanding of surveillance, little is
known about its impact on ongoing relationships. There are several
reasons for this lack of in-depth knowledge. First, many studies
have been conducted on couples that were no long together or at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.046
0747-5632/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
304 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
the relationship termination stage (Fox & Tokunaga, 2015; Lyndon,
Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011; Marshall, 2012; Tong, 2013). Data
gleaned from broken relationships cannot be generalized to
ongoing relationships. Second, although several studies have been
conducted on ongoing relationships and revealed the motivation
behind surveillance, these studies did not address the gap between
the motive behind surveillance and the outcomes of surveillance
(Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2013; Muise, Christofides, &
Desmarais, 2009). Third, despite the fact that surveillance con-
jures a negative picture of looking into someone else's life without
permission, some scholars have asserted that, given the conve-
nience and affordance of SNSs, surveillance may not be associated
with jealousy or detrimental outcomes in romantic relationships.
Rather, it may foster the newly formed relationship by helping the
individual who engages in surveillance get to know his or her
partner as well as promote intimacy between couples with insuf-
ficient interactions because of geographical separation or psycho-
logical reasons (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998; Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield,
2006; Marshall et al., 2013; Tokunaga, 2011).
Both anxiety and avoidance have maladaptive impacts on
romantic relationships. Perhaps highly anxious individuals worry
about being abandoned and/or have a strong desire to maintain
proximity. As a result, for such individuals, being apart from one's
partner decreases relationship satisfaction. With the help of SNSs,
anxious individuals can access their partners by visiting their per-
sonal profiles whenever needed. That is, surveillance may offer
anxious individuals a way to engage with the partners regardless of
geographical separation or even partner permission. In contrast,
avoidant individuals' relationship dissatisfaction comes from
discomfort over closeness and fear of rejection. Given that the set
goal of attachment system is to feel secure (Collins & Read, 1990),
avoidant individuals still desire proximity though they suppress
their feelings and deny their needs. Exercising surveillance in a
remote way may help fulfill the needs of proximity while avoiding
discomfort and fear of rejection. Most importantly, surveillance
over SNSs may help avoidant individuals learn more about their
partners and reduce the psychological distance caused by avoid-
ance. A more detailed literature review about the interplay be-
tween attachment theory, surveillance, and relationship quality is
needed before carrying out the research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Romantic attachment and intimate relationship
2.1.1. Anxiety and avoidance
Romantic attachment theory stems from adult attachment
theory, and it is defined as the connection between intimate part-
ners (both for dating couples and married couples). It is established
on the basis of one's stable notions of self as well as one's stable
notions of his or her intimate partner. It determines an individual's
reactive mode toward stimuli and continuously shapes his or her
interactions with the partner. In 1987, Hazan and Shaver coined the
phrase in the article “Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attach-
ment Process”. Since then, it has become a major theoretical
framework for the study of intimate relationships. The formation of
romantic attachment traces back to the development of adult
attachment style, which is the bonding between baby and caregiver
(often the mother). The mental mechanism for adult attachment is
called the internal working model. When the baby perceives the
caregiver as available and responsible, he or she develops a positive
internal working model and a secure attachment style
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Securely attached individuals
believe that they are worthy of being loved and that the attachment
figure is reliable. This sense of safety encourages them to seek and
maintain proximity, and they do not worry about being abandoned
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). Relative to secure attachment, anxious
individuals are characterized by hyper-activation of seeking and
maintaining proximity. In other words, anxious individuals tend to
require high-level responsiveness from attachment figures. They
are so dependent on their partners that they cannot bear separation
from them. Moreover, they always doubt whether they are worthy
of being loved and are over-activated to potential threats to the
relationship. Anxious individuals exhibit high-level emotional
expressiveness and impulsiveness as well as low-level security and
poor relationship quality (Main, 1990; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002).
Avoidant individuals are characterized by deactivation of proximity
seeking. They tend to deny the need for intimate relationships and
treat proximity as trivial. They always try to keep a distance from
attachment figures to maintain physical and emotional indepen-
dence. They even feel uncomfortable with intimacy. Hence, avoi-
dant individuals are inclined to suppress and hide their feelings and
exhibit low-level emotional expressiveness, and they perceive their
relationships with others as less satisfying and less intimate
(Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Previous studies have found consis-
tent negative association between attachment styles and relation-
ship quality in romantic relationships (Butzer & Campbell, 2008;
Collins & Read, 1990; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Karantzas, Feeney,
Goncalves, & McCabe, 2014; Molero, Shaver, Fernandez, Alonso-
Arbiol, & Recio, 2016).
2.1.2. Mutual influences and gender differences
Relationship quality is not only affected by one's own attach-
ment styles but also those of one's partner. Generally, partners of
insecurely attached individuals are less satisfied with the rela-
tionship than with partners of securely attached individuals
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Scholars are increasingly adopting a
dyadic approach and providing more nuanced evidence of the
mutual influences between attachment of both parts of a couple
and relationship quality.
Moreover, gender differences are found in heterosexual dyads
(Collins & Read, 1990; J. A.; Simpson, 1990). In earlier studies, males
and females have been found to have partner effects on different
dimensions. Females' anxiety has been shown to have greater in-
fluence on partners' relationship quality and males' level of
avoidance has been shown to have greater influence on partners'
relationship quality (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990). How-
ever, Banse (2004) found that males (though not females) with
avoidant partners were less satisfied with their relationships than
those with less avoidant partners. Another study found that males'
anxiety was negatively correlated with females' relationship qual-
ity, whereas females' anxiety had no partner effect (Kane et al.,
2007). Overall, females' partner effect has been shown to be
greater than that of males, especially with respect to the anxiety
dimension. Studies on other traits have yielded similar findings:
Females' possessiveness has been found to have greater partner
effects than males' possessiveness in terms of relational outcomes
(Davis & Oathout, 1987). Thus, it seems that females' attachment
style has consistent and greater (relative to males) influencing
power than that of males. However, males have been shown to be
influential in terms of avoidance.
2.2. Surveillance and intimate relationship
As mentioned, surveillance through SNSs is quite common
among college students (Joinson, 2008; Stern & Willis, 2007). Yet,
the definitions of surveillance vary in different studies. Generally,
the definition of surveillance adopted by researchers can be cate-
gorized into two kinds. First, surveillance can be based on a certain
platform, as in the case of Facebook surveillance (Marshall et al.,
 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
2013); second, per Tokunaga (2011), surveillance can be viewed
from a universal perspective to cover various platforms or media, as
in the case of interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES). Similar
terminologies includes social surveillance (Steinfield, Ellison, &
Lampe, 2008), social searching (Lampe et al., 2006) and cyber-
stalking (Chaulk & Jones, 2011). We adopted the most frequently
used definition, which was put forward by Tokunaga (2011): Sur-
veillance refers to individual uses of communication technologies
to gain awareness of another user's off-line and/or online behavior;
it is characterized as a mindful and goal-oriented behavior in which
contacts of all sorts, including close friends, romantic partners,
business associates, or family members, can be placed under sur-
veillance (Tokunaga, 2011). Specifically, surveillance in our research
refers to IES through Chinese SNSs, such as Renren.com (considered
the Chinese version of Facebook), QQ space (similar to Myspace),
and Moments of WeChat (an integrated SNS platform). SNSs users
have profiles with personal information, contacts, status updates,
photos, audio or video clips, shared links, and messages exchanged
with other users. Platforms are equipped with privacy settings that
allow users to decide the extent of sharing profile information.
Normally, couples are SNS friends on at least one of the three
platforms; their SNS profiles tend to be open to their partners.
Accordingly, surveillance between partners refers to the moni-
toring of the partner by visiting the partner's SNS profile(s). It is
characterized as surreptitious and non-interactive engagement
with easily accessible information. SNS archives allows users to
view a person's past photos, status updates, and interactions with
other people (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong,
2008). In addition, the person performing surveillance can simply
click on the target's SNS profile(s) without any third-party
involvement. The target under surveillance may never know he
or she is under surveillance by his or her partner. Thus, surveillance
for the current research is rooted in the target's SNS profile(s) page
and does not spill over into any other electronic information plat-
forms. To reiterate, as understood in our research, surveillance is a
unidirectional online behavior without any face-to-face contact or
feedback from the person under surveillance.
We mentioned that many surveillance studies have been con-
ducted on broken relationships. Overall, surveillance after a
breakup is more a destructive force than a constructive one (Fox &
Tokunaga, 2015). It serves as an obstacle to emotional healing and
personal growth (Marshall, 2012) and increases conflict, occasion-
ally leading to harassment behaviors (Lyndon et al., 2011). Tong
(2013) found that individuals try to mitigate their feelings of un-
certainty through surveillance after a breakup, but the author did
not discuss the consequences of surveillance (Tong, 2013). Studies
consistently show that surveillance does more harm than good to
an individual if the relationship has already ended. In the literature,
there have also been studies on ongoing romantic relationships,
and these studies have been relatively insufficient. Marshall et al.
(2013) found that individuals with higher levels of attachment
anxiety exercise more surveillance on partners, though links be-
tween anxiety and surveillance were found to be partially related to
jealousy or trust. And individuals with higher levels of avoidance
have been shown to less likely to monitor partners through SNSs
(Marshall et al., 2013). Yet, whether surveillance provides satis-
faction or dissatisfaction to the surveillance actor is unclear.
Moreover, studies conducted on ongoing romantic relationships
have been built on ambiguous definitions or inaccurate measure-
ments. For example, one study operationalized surveillance as an
online obsessive relational intrusion (ORI), finding that surveillance
is associated with dissatisfaction (Elphinston & Noller, 2011).
However, surveillance has some noteworthy differences with on-
line ORI (Tokunaga, 2011). A study based on the concept of ORI
cannot be generalized to surveillance. Muise et al. (2009) concluded
305
that surveillance of a partner's Facebook profile incites jealousy,
though a major problem is that surveillance is measured by simply
asking an individual how much time he or she spent on SNSs.
Obviously, there is no necessary link between time spent on SNSs
and time lingering on a partner's profile (Tokunaga, 2011). Whether
surveillance has a positive or negative influence on relationship
quality after evoking jealousy is not clear yet, for jealousy can be
protective or destructive (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). To wit,
even the link between jealousy and surveillance is dubious.
Tokunaga (2011) assumed that if jealousy triggers surveillance,
then individuals who have experienced infidelity with their current
partner would exercise more surveillance than those who had not
experienced infidelity. However, the results did not substantiate
the assumption. It implies that surveillance may not be triggered by
jealousy. The research also suggested several beneficial character-
istics of surveillance over SNSs despite the fact that it conjures
negative notions (Tokunaga, 2011). Likewise, surveillance is
assumed to be dually motivated: Looking at a partner's Facebook
profile may not be driven exclusively by jealousy, for individuals
may simply find it rewarding to see a partner's status updates, news
feeds, and messages. As such, surveillance may also demonstrate
novel proximity-seeking behavior (Marshall et al., 2013). Compared
with offline surveillance, which requires extensive efforts, online
surveillance can be easily performed, and it is not necessarily
driven by negative intentions. Further still, it may not result in
unfavorable outcomes. Marshall et al. (2013) suggested that the
adaptive side of Facebook surveillance should be further investi-
gated. Surveillance can also be used in the early phases of a new
relationship to obtain information from others (Tokunaga, 2011).
Lampe at al. (2006) argued that surveillance may foster healthy
interpersonal relationships by allowing people to stay in touch.
Previous studies have suggested that surveillance has both
benign and vicious potential related to the phrases of romantic
relationships. During or after relationship termination, it is asso-
ciated with negative effects, whereas, in ongoing relationships, it
may be linked with positive effects, especially for individuals who
have inadequate information or infrequent connections with
romantic partners because of geographical separation or psycho-
logical reasons. Overall, researchers have proposed an adaptive
perspective concerning surveillance in ongoing romantic
relationships.
Our literature review revealed that an individual's attachment
styles (anxiety and/or avoidance) have consistent and negative
associations not only with his or her own relationship satisfaction
but also with his or her partner's relationship satisfaction. With
regard to this issue, gender differences were encountered. Females
seems to be more influential in affecting partners' relationship
quality, especially as pertains to anxiety. Highly avoidant males,
however, greatly decrease their partners' satisfaction. By tracking
the formation of attachment, we determined that the detrimental
effects of attachment (anxiety and/or avoidance) on relationships
are partly due to maladaptive coping with separation (anxiety) or
with intimacy (avoidance). In addition, surveillance over SNSs in
ongoing relationships is deemed benign because it provides a way
of approaching the partner in a convenient and remote way.
Anxious individuals can access the online and offline activities of
their partners when they are separated, and avoidant individuals
may find it easier to get to know more about their partners in this
way. A recent study found that avoidant individuals were less likely
to use communication methods that are perceived as close (phone
calls, text messages); instead, they were shown to favor email for
communicating and resolving conflicts with their partners
(Wardecker, Chopik, Boyer, & Edelstein, 2016). Wardecker et al.
(2016) argued that, despite being ostensibly distant, avoidant
people may use strategies that serve to maintain relationships.
306 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
Surveillance may be one such strategydthat is, it may compensate
inadequate interactions resulting from avoidant behavior
(Wardecker et al., 2016). In this sense, surveillance may help alle-
viate the decline of relationship quality caused by insecure
attachment, or a surveillance actor may receive compensation by
visiting his or her partner's SNS profile(s). It seems promising if we
investigate the adaptive perspective concerning surveillance in the
framework of attachment. Therefore, our research identifies the
compensating effect of surveillance in the process of attachment,
namely as a predictor of relationship quality.
3. The current study
In accordance with prior research showing that relationship
quality is affected by one's own attachment styles and those of
one's partner (Kane et al., 2007; Karantzas et al., 2014; Molero et al.,
2016; Simpson, 1990), we hypothesize that both anxiety and
avoidance would be negatively associated with the individual's
own as well as his or her partner's relationship quality. Gender
differences regard to attachment and its influential power show
that female's anxiety is more decisive to her partner's relationship
quality (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990), whereas males'
avoidance is more influential for their partner's relationship quality
(Collins & Read, 1990; Kane et al., 2007). Thus:
H1. Both anxiety and avoidance are negatively associated with an
individual's relationship quality and that of his or her partner.
H2. Females' anxiety has a greater partner effect than males'
anxiety.
H3. Males' avoidance has a greater partner effect than females'
avoidance.
Surveillance over SNSs can be regarded as an information-
seeking strategy in ongoing romantic relationships (Tokunaga,
2011). SNSs allow individuals convenient opportunities to gather
online and offline information in an easy and controllable way. Such
surveillance helps reduce uncertainty and enhance understanding
of one's partner (Lampe et al., 2006). As such, we assume that:
H4. Surveillance over SNSs is positively associated with self-
perceived relationship quality.
Moreover, surveillance may have potential benign effects for
insecurely attached individuals who score high on at least one
dimension of attachment. On one hand, anxious individuals may
feel less worried if they can keep track of the partners through SNSs
whenever they want. On the other, for avoidant individuals, who
prefer less intimate communication strategies (e.g., emails) over
more intimate communication strategies (e.g., phone calls) for
relationship maintenance (Wardecker et al., 2016), surveillance
may compensate inadequate interactions caused by avoidance. As
such, we assume that
H5. Surveillance has a moderating effect in the process of one's
own attachment (anxiety and/or avoidance) predicting relationship
quality. That is, anxious or avoidant individuals perceive better
relationship quality when exercising more surveillance.
Considering the mutual influences between the partners, we
assume that:
H6. Surveillance has a moderating effect in the process of part-
ner's attachment (anxiety and/or avoidance) influencing one's own
relationship quality. That is, individuals with anxious or avoidant
partners perceive better relationship quality when exercising more
surveillance.
Surveillance is exercised privately, so it may never be discovered
by one's partner. Thus, surveillance may not impact the relationship
quality of one's partner.
4. Methods
4.1. Participants
Our sample consisted of 250 dating couples from 4 universities
in Beijing, Shanghai, Henan, and Hebei. We invited dating couples
to participate in the research on campus, recruiting participants in
places such as open libraries, playgrounds, cafe s, and school
canteen. Each member of a couple was asked to separately (though
simultaneously) fill out a questionnaire on-site, without referring
to a partner's answers. To prevent interference, researchers sat or
walked near each member to collect questionnaires as soon as they
were completed. Researchers reminded the participants not to
communicate with their partners during questionnaire completion.
To ensure the independence of each person's responses, 3 or 4 re-
searchers assisted with data collection. Each couple received a pair
of gifts as a reward for participation. The average age of participants
was 22.30 for males (range ¼ 17e28, SD ¼ 1.92) and 20.92 for fe-
males (range ¼ 17e30, SD ¼ 2.03).
4.2. Materials
4.2.1. Romantic attachment style
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale-Short Form (ECR-R)
was adopted for the current research (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, &
Vogel, 2007). The two-dimension scale consists of 12 items, and
Cronbach a of anxiety and avoidance subscales was 0.79 and 0.83,
respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
examine the validity of the measurement. The fit indices were: c2
(42) ¼ 132.96, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.936, NFI ¼ 0.910, RMSEA ¼ 0.006.
These results demonstrated the acceptable validity of the
measurement.
4.2.2. Surveillance on social networking sites
The IES scale was used to assess an individual's surveillance of
his or her partner on SNSs (Tokunaga, 2011). The single-dimension
scale consists of 12 items, and Cronbach a coefficient was 0.82 for
the current research. The indicators of construct validity for the
measurement were: c2 (36) ¼ 132.97, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.971,
NFI ¼ 0.971, RMSEA ¼ 0.073.
4.2.3. Relationship quality
Perceived Relationship Quality Components (PROC) Short Form
was administered to evaluate an individual's perceived relationship
quality with current partner (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000).
Participants in the research were recruited in the field, and they
were asked about their current relationship status for confirmation.
All participants were recruited as a dyad (i.e., with their partners)
and asked to evaluate their current relationships. The scale consists
of six items, and Cronbach a coefficient was 0.80 in the current
research. CFA verified the construct validity of the measurement: c2
(3) ¼ 11.38, p < 0.01, CFI ¼ 0.994, NFI ¼ 0.992, RMSEA ¼ 0.075.
4.3. Analysis strategy
We adopted the actor and partner interdependence model
(APIM) to analyze the mutual effects of one's romantic attachment
style on one's own relationship quality as well as that of one's
partner. This statistical method is applicable for the analysis of
dyadic data; it has been widely used in intimate-relationship
studies (Campbell & Kashy, 2002; Rayens & Svavarsdottir, 2003).
 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310 307

Specifically, actor effect refers to the influences of an individual's

traits on one's own outcome variables, whereas partner effect refers
to the influences of an individual's traits on his or her partner's
outcome variables.

5. Results

As shown in Table 1, for both males and females, perceived

relationship quality was not only correlated with one's own
attachment style (anxiety and/or avoidance) but it was also
significantly correlated with one's partner's attachment style
(anxiety and/or avoidance). Moreover, the correlation coefficients
for females' attachment styles and males' relationship quality
(r ¼ 0.19, p < 0.01; r ¼ 0.46, p < 0.01; for anxiety and avoidance,
respectively) were greater than those for males' attachment styles
and females' relationship quality (r ¼ 0.18, p < 0.01; r ¼ 0.38,
p < 0.01; for anxiety and avoidance, respectively). Both females' and Fig. 1. APIM for dating couple's anxiety to relationship quality, the moderating effect of
males' surveillance scores were positively correlated with their surveillance. Note: e1 and e2 represents residuals.
own relationship quality.
Furthermore, we adopted APIM to analyze the mutual influence
of romantic attachment and relationship quality through the lens of Table 2
APIM for dating couple's anxiety to relationship quality, the moderating effect of
surveillance's moderating effect. As mentioned, surveillance do not
surveillance (only significant paths were included).
affect partners' relationship quality precisely because surveillance
is supposed to remain unknown to one's partner. Accordingly, the Estimate S.E. P
***
following moderating paths were considered. First, males' sur- Actor Effect RQ (F) ) ANX (F) 0.426 0.097
***
veillance moderates the effect of their attachment style (anxiety Actor Effect RQ (F) ) SUR (F) 0.205 0.046
***
Actor Effect RQ (M) ) ANX (M) 0.350 0.087
and/or avoidance) on their own relationship quality. Second, fe- ***
Actor Effect RQ (M) ) SUR (M) 0.193 0.042
males' surveillance moderates the effect of attachment style (anx- Partner Effect RQ (M) ) ANX (F) 0.205 0.090 0.022
iety and/or avoidance) on their own relationship quality. Third, Partner Effect RQ (F) ) ANX (M) 0.160 0.092 0.083
males' surveillance moderates the effect of females' attachment Note: ***, p < 0.001; N ¼ 250 couples; F: female, M: male; ANX: Anxiety, SUR:
style (anxiety and/or avoidance) on males' relationship quality. Surveillance, RQ: Relationship Quality.
Fourth, females' surveillance moderates the effect of males'
attachment style (anxiety and/or avoidance) on females' relation-
ship quality. The model plot (Fig. 1) provides a clear presentation of Table 3
APIM for dating couple's avoidance to relationship quality, the moderating effect of
the paths. All paths were examined twicedonce in the anxiety
surveillance (only significant paths were included).
model and once in the avoidance model.
For the anxiety model, we established a full model containing all Estimate S.E. P
theoretically valid paths. Then, insignificant paths were deleted ***
Actor Effect RQ (F) ) AVO (F) 0.885 0.092
***
before continuing. The simplified model and regression coefficients Actor Effect RQ (F) ) SUR (F) 0.150 0.041
***
are shown in Table 2. Actor Effect RQ (M) ) AVO (M) 0.647 0.083
***
Actor Effect RQ (M) ) SUR (M) 0.133 0.037
As shown in Table 2, actor and partner effects were both sig- Partner Effect RQ (M) ) AVO (F)* SUR (M) 0.120 0.045 0.042

nificant for females and males in the anxiety model. Also, actor Partner Effect RQ (M) ) AVO (F) 0.447 0.090 ***0.007
effects were stronger than partner effects. In addition, females' Partner Effect RQ (F) ) AVO (M) 0.218 0.092 ***0.083
partner effect was stronger than males' (B ¼ 0.205, p < 0.05; Note: ***, p < 0.001; N ¼ 250 couples; F: female, M: male;
B ¼ 0.160, p ¼ 0.083), and males' partner effect of surveillance AVO: Avoidance, SUR: Surveillance, RQ: Relationship Quality.
reached only marginal significance. The actor effect of surveillance
was significant for females and males (B ¼ 0.193, p < 0.001;
B ¼ 0.205, p < 0.001). males (B ¼ 0.447, p < 0.001; B ¼ 0.218, p < 0.001). The effects of
Table 3 displays the avoidance model. The actor and partner surveillance reached significance for both females and males
effects of avoidance were significant for both females and males. (B ¼ 0.133, p < 0.001; B ¼ 0.150, p < 0.001). Additionally, surveil-
However, partner effects for females were far stronger than those of lance moderated the partner effect of females' avoidance on males'

Table 1
Mean, Standard, Deviation, and Correlations among variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Anxiety (F) 2.61 0.66 1

2. Avoidance (F) 2.27 0.61 0.46** 1
3. Surveillance (F) 4.33 1.29 0.22** 0.07 1
4. Anxiety (M) 2.53 0.68 0.29** 0.38** 0.04 1
5. Avoidance (M) 2.22 0.63 0.29** 0.45** 0.06 0.52** 1
6. Surveillance (M) 4.47 1.34 0.10 0.00 0.43** 0.14 0.19* 1
7. RQ (F) 5.59 1.07 0.25** 0.60** 0.25** 0.18** 0.38** 0.15* 1
8. RQ (M) 5.81 0.97 0.19** 0.46** 0.17* 0.26** 0.58** 0.28** 0.56**

Note: *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; N ¼ 250 Couples.

F: female; M: male; RQ: relationship quality.
308 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
relationship quality (B ¼ 0.120, p < 0.05). The moderation plot is
shown in Fig. 2.
As shown in Fig. 2, males' surveillance was divided into two
groups (high-surveillance group and low-surveillance group)
depending on surveillance. The high-surveillance group and the
low-surveillance group were distinguished by surveillance score.
For the former, scores were more than one standard deviation from
the mean; for the latter, scores were less than one standard devi-
ation from the mean. This figure clearly depicts surveillance's
moderating effects.
The black line represents the high-surveillance group, and the
gray line represents the low-surveillance group. In general, in-
creases in females' avoidance led to significant decreases in males'
relationship quality. Nevertheless, the decline rate of the high-
surveillance group was lower than that of the low-surveillance
group. Under the condition of females' low avoidance, the differ-
ence between the high- and low-surveillance groups was quite
small, whereas under the condition of females' high avoidance, the
difference between the two groups was significant. That is, females'
avoidance negatively impacted males' perceived relationship
quality, whereas males' surveillance behavior alleviated the decline
of males' perceived relationship quality.
6. Discussion
This study was conducted to examine the adaptive effect of
surveillance over SNSs on dating couples, namely to determine if
exercising surveillance offsets lower perception of relationship
quality caused by insecure romantic attachment.
6.1. Romantic attachment and intimate relationship
The results supported our hypothesis that both anxiety and
avoidance are negatively associated with relationship quality. The
higher an individual's anxiety or avoidance, the lower the rela-
tionship quality. Additionally, avoidance does more harm to rela-
tionship than anxiety, which is not proposed in our hypotheses but
was found to match the findings of previous research (Li & Chan,
2012; Molero et al., 2016). This did not surprise us given that
dating relationships are based on closeness and interaction.
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of male's surveillance in female's avoidance attachment
affecting male's relationship quality. N ¼ 250 couples; F: female, M: male.
Intimacy is a core component for measuring relationship quality.
High avoidance inevitably leads to estrangement and indifference,
both physically and mentally. As for anxiety, its adverse effect on
relationships is related to negative interactions, which are aroused
by the feelings of uncertainty as well as fears of being abandoned
(Simpson & Rholes, 1998).
We also examined the mutual effect in couples by including
partner effect. Given that partner effect is an indicator of the rela-
tively influential power of each member in a dating couple, this
variable allows us to determine which person plays a more domi-
nant role in the relationship (Kenny & Cook, 1999). Our results
showed that females' attachment styles are more influential in
determining partners' relationship satisfaction than males'
attachment styles. The findings essentially match those of prior
research, which showed that females' anxiety has a greater partner
effect than males' anxiety (Collins & Read, 1990; Davis & Oathout,
1987; Simpson, 1990). However, males' avoidance was not found
to be more influential than females' avoidance that had showed in
prior research (Collins & Read, 1990; Kane et al., 2007; Simpson,
1990). Rather, females' avoidance also exerted greater partner ef-
fects than males' avoidance. The strong association between fe-
males' anxiety and partners' relationship satisfaction has already
been discussed. Collins and Read (1990) argued that anxious fe-
males are less trusting and that these females' behavior tends to
express a lack of confidence in their partners. Consequently, part-
ners of anxious females may treat the distrust as a restriction or
even a threat to their freedom. Another question is why does fe-
males' avoidance also have a greater partner effect? This may be
related to socially assigned gender roles. Gilligan (1982) posited
that traditional female gender roles encourage warmth and sup-
portiveness more than traditional male gender roles. Furthermore,
females are deemed to have greater responsibility when it comes to
maintaining and repairing relationships (Cancian & Gordon, 1988;
Surra & Longstreth, 1990). Accordingly, male partners are particu-
larly sensitive to their females' avoidance and become frustrated,
especially when males expect more care and closeness from the
partners. Taking a different perspective, we can ask why avoidant
males have less negative influence on their partners' relationship
quality than avoidant females. This may have something to do with
different coping strategies adopted by avoidant males and avoidant
females in conflict. Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy (1985) found that
avoidant males are skilled at minimizing their psychological and
emotional involvement in stressful situations, whereas females are
not. Thus, avoidant males initiate less negative interactions than
avoidant females. Either or both explanation may explain why
avoidant females are associated with greater partner dissatisfac-
tion. However, there may be another reason for the greater influ-
ential power of females in our current sample. Dating couples were
recruited from universities those are well-known for science de-
partments. At these schools, there are more male than female
students. In other words, female students are in high demand, so
they are more likely to hold the leading position in a relationship
and to control partners' feelings.
6.2. Surveillance and intimate relationships
In addition, as we hypothesized, surveillance over SNSs can
positively predict one's relationship quality. That is, the more an
individual monitors his or her partner over SNSs, the higher he or
she perceives relationship quality. Surveillance serves as an indi-
cator of one's concern about his or her partner's online trace. Some
SNSs platforms even add function buttons to make it easier to
engage in surveillance. For example, Renren.com, which used to be
the most popular SNS in China, has a customizable special-
attention button, which allows users to drag friends into the
 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
special-attention group. Users can then trace all information up-
dates for these friends without visiting their personal pages, and
their friends' updates will be pushed to users' smartphones.
Although our participants were not involved in long-distance re-
lationships, they still experienced occasional separation from their
partners. SNS surveillance helps them stay in touch with their
partners' during separation.
Moreover, we examined the compensating effect of surveillance.
The results only partially supported our hypotheses. Based on the
fact that anxiety undermines relationship quality, we assumed that
surveillance served as a parasocial interaction behavior that alle-
viates separation-related anxiety. That is, we assumed that in-
dividuals with high-level anxiety perceive a higher level of
relationship quality when monitoring their partners more
frequently. However, the results imply that lower relationship
quality caused by anxiety may not be compensated by surveillance,
which has no feedback from the partner. According to the literature,
romantic attachment is been deeply rooted in one's reaction mode.
It seems difficult to mitigate one's anxiety even through face-to-
face interactions (Bowlby, 1976). This may explain why surveil-
lance was observed to have no effect on highly anxious individuals
in terms of improving relational evaluation. Also, surveillance was
found to offset lower perceived relationship quality caused by one's
own avoidance. These results imply that surveillance has little ef-
fect on easing anxiety or reducing psychological distance for inse-
cure individuals.
However, surveillance did offset the decrease of perceived
relationship quality caused by partners' avoidance for males. That
is, males with avoidant partners reported better relationship
quality when exercising more surveillance, whereas females with
avoidant partners did not perceive better relationship quality even
when exercising more surveillance over SNSs. Why are males
compensated by this behavior but females not? One possible
reason is gender differences related to preference for companion-
ship and support between females and males. Males are less likely
than females to seek emotional support or express emotion when
coping with stress. Conversely, females have a higher preference for
companionship, emotional support, and intimate disclosure than
males (Surra & Longstreth, 1990; Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson,
2002). As a result, females may perceive surveillance as less
meaningful. Males, however, consider it a method for following
partners' recent situations, which leads them to treat surveillance
as a way to reduce feelings of estrangement.
6.3. Implications and limitations
Through compensated effect of surveillance on insecure
attachment is conditional that only males with avoidant partners
get compensated. It is still inspiring that surveillance consistently
shows mostly positive effects with regard to perceived relationship
quality. We adopted the APIM to help us analyze the mutual effects
of romantic attachment style on one's own relationship quality as
well as the compensating effect of surveillance. Although this is a
major innovation of the present research, it can also be regarded as
a limitation. A growing body of research has found that the
matching (fit) effect of couples' traits is more predicative than in-
dividual’ trait regarding relational outcomes (Dyrenforth, Kashy,
Donnellan, & Lucas, 2010; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen,
2004; Gonzaga, Campos, & Bradbury, 2007). In terms of romantic
attachment, individuals tend to date or even marry to someone
who is similar. Obviously, we cannot investigate matching (fit) ef-
fects of romantic attachment within each couple using the current
approach. Future studies should advance research on intimate re-
lationships from a mutual perspective to a matching perspective. In
addition, nonstudent samples should be included to examine the
309
generalizability of the results obtained using a student-based
sample. Furthermore, future studies should investigate why only
males benefit from SNS surveillance.
7. Conclusion
An increasing body of research shows that surveillance is not
necessarily associated with negative motivations and negative
consequences. We expand on this research by showing that sur-
veillance over SNSs is beneficial for dating couples. Surveillance
may do little to offset the harm caused by one's own anxiety or
avoidance in terms of one's own perceived relationship quality.
However, it has the potential to make males feel better about their
relationships if they are coupled with avoidant partners. These
findings encourage us to further explore the potential of SNSs in
regard to improving relationship satisfaction as well as overall
well-being. In addition, the Internet provides researchers with a
new context in which they can build on the existing theoretical
framework. SNSs are transforming social interactions, and inse-
curely attached individuals may exploit this transformation to
develop new coping strategies.
Author disclosure statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous support from
Social and Liberal Sciences Revitalization Foundation of Tsinghua
University (Grant No. 2011WKYB006).
References
Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic
configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2),
273e282.
Barelds, D. P., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of
jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psy-
chology & Psychotherapy, 14(3), 176e188.
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). The
role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to
relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482e500.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 226e244.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist,
54(4), 260e266.
Bowlby, J. (1976). Separation: Anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). , New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss (Vol. 3). New York Basic books.
Butzer, B., & Campbell, L. (2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and rela-
tionship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1),
141e154.
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects
for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A userefriendly guide. Personal
Relationships, 9(3), 327e342.
Cancian, F. M., & Gordon, S. L. (1988). Changing emotion norms in marriage: Love
and anger in US women's magazines since 1900. Gender & Society, 2(3),
308e342.
Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns
about Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 245e254.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and rela-
tionship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58(4), 644e663.
Davis, M. H., & Oathout, H. A. (1987). Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic re-
lationships: Empathy and relational competence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53(2), 397e410.
Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history,
and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88(3), 562e576.
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting
relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative
samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and
similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690e702.
310 K. Wang et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 73 (2017) 303e310
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the
implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberp-
sychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(11), 631e635.
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived
relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340e354.
Fox, J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Romantic partner monitoring after breakups:
Attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via
social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9),
491e498.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical de-
velopments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of
General Psychology, 4(2), 132e154.
Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or
strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital
quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564e574.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and
relationship satisfaction in dating and married couples. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93(1), 34e48.
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1998). Communicative responses to jealousy as a
function of self-esteem and relationship maintenance goals: A test of Bryson's
dual motivation model. Communication Reports, 11(2), 111e122.
Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, M. (2013).
Facebook and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associ-
ated with online social network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 16(1), 8e13.
Jang, S. A., Smith, S., & Levine, T. (2002). To stay or to leave? The role of attachment
styles in communication patterns and potential termination of romantic re-
lationships following discovery of deception. Communication Monographs,
69(3), 236e252.
Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives
and use of facebook. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI con-
ference on human factors in computing systems.
Kane, H. S., Jaremka, L. M., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C.
(2007). Feeling supported and feeling satisfied: How one partner's attachment
style predicts the other partner's relationship experiences. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 24(4), 535e555.
Karantzas, G. C., Feeney, J. A., Goncalves, C. V., & McCabe, M. P. (2014). Towards an
integrative attachment-based model of relationship functioning. British Journal
of Psychology, 105(3), 413e434.
Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual
issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6(4),
433e448.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face (book) in the crowd: Social
searching vs. social browsing. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006
20th anniversary conference on computer supported cooperative work.
Li, T., & Chan, D. K. S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic
relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 42(4), 406e419.
Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students' Facebook
stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14,
711e716.
Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies,
changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human
Development, 33(1), 48e61.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 66e104.
Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associ-
ations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), 521e526.
Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as
predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relation-
ships. Personal Relationships, 20(1), 1e22.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,
and change. Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,
and change. Guilford Press.
Molero, F., Shaver, P. R., Fernandez, I., Alonso-Arbiol, & Recio, P. (2016). Long-term
partners' relationship satisfaction and their perceptions of each other's
attachment insecurities. Personal Relationships, 23, 159e171.
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), 441e444.
Rayens, M. K., & Svavarsdottir, E. K. (2003). A new methodological approach in
nursing research: An actor, partner, and interaction effect model for family
outcomes. Research in Nursing & Health, 26(5), 409e419.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics.
Attachment & Human Development, 4(2), 133e161.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971e980.
Simpson, & Rholes. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford Press.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the
quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal
investigation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 888e900.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of
online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Devel-
opmental Psychology, 29(6), 434e445.
Stern, S. R., & Willis, T. J. (2007). In S. R. Mazarella (Ed.), What are teenagers up to
online (Vol. 20, pp. 211e224).
Surra, C. A., & Longstreth, M. (1990). Similarity of outcomes, interdependence, and
conflict in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59(3), 501e516.
Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping
behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2e30.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Under-
standing the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relation-
ships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705e713.
Tong, S. T. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: Uncertainty
reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
16(11), 788e793.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The
role of friends' appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on
Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human communication
research, 34(1), 28e49.
WarberKatie, M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships:
Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychol-
ogy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(1), 3e7.
Wardecker, B. M., Chopik, W. J., Boyer, M. P., & Edelstein, R. S. (2016). Individual
differences in attachment are associated with usage and perceived intimacy of
different communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 18e27.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in
close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor
structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187e204.