The Harm of Social Media on Intimate Romantic Relationships
Sources:
Social Media and Relationships (Butler & Matook, 2015)





Social media can have different effects depending on the nature of the relationship
o Friendships, kinships, professional relationships, consumer relationships
o Article doesn’t discuss romantic relationships
Social media systems change the conditions under which relationships form
Relationship formation
o Depends on factors like:
 Proximity
 Less important in the online environment of social media
 By reducing the need for physical proximity, these systems support
faster, broader relationship formation
 First impressions
 Social media platforms allow individuals much finer grained control of
what they wish to reveal about themselves
 Walther’s (1992) social information processing theory argued that
people needed more time to reduce the uncertainty about the potential
relationship partner because limited cues are available
 Similarity
 Whether it is based on surface characteristics, such as race, gender, or
ethnicity, or deep characteristics, such as values and beliefs, individuals
often seek out and form relationships with others who are like
themselves
 Complementarity
 Homophily is counterbalanced by a need for complementarity. Because
exchanges play a significant role, viable relationships often involve
individuals whose interests
Relationship maintenance and development
o Social media systems provide features that facilitate the exchange of rewards among
relationship partners
o Relationships develop when the partners share gradually more personal information
o Based on generalized reciprocity, increased self-disclosure of one individual is likely to
lead to higher self-disclosure by the other, strengthening the relationship. Users disclose
personal information in social networking sites for a variety of reasons, including
convenience, the ability to build relationships and received value from them,
recognition, and enjoyment of interpersonal relationships (Krasnova et al., 2010)
Relationship dissolution
o Relationships that have grown close over time are characterized by increased selfdisclosure and the sharing of personal details. Yet the absence of face-to-face
interaction complicates verification of the exchanged information
o
o
easy for individuals to create representations of themselves, provide false or misleading
information, or purposefully omit certain information to gain personal benefits
Ending a relationship in the social media environment can be done without much effort
or personal involvement
 Yet the reasons to end a relationship in the virtual space are often less likely to
relate to conflicts between relationship partners
 Conflicts over personal disposition (e.g., one of the parties being inconsiderate)
or specific behaviors (e.g., being late) may matter less in social media systems,
while too much interaction can be perceived as disturbing and result in a
relationship being dissolved
 Individuals are also more likely to formally end a relationship because of the
information overload caused by a partner’s extensive communication activities,
such as a constant stream of Twitter messages or Facebook postings. Under
these conditions, the individual wants the stream of uninteresting, boring, or
otherwise undesirable communication to stop and achieves this by withdrawing
from the relationship
Random Website:





Decreased time with partner
Negative comparisons
Missed bids
o Bids for connection  reaching for a hand, asking a question, seeking emotional
support from your partner
o Partner can respond positively, ignore the bid (intentionally or unintentionally), or
respond negatively
o Social media acts as a distractor
o Many missed bids = making a habit = negative effect on the relationship
Jealousy
o Digital remnants of ex partners
o Social comparison
Relationship conflict around differing beliefs about what is acceptable on social media
Social Media and Well-Being: A methodological perspective (Parry et al., 2022)

Parry, D. A., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., Sewall, C. J., & Davidson, B. I. (2021). Social media
and well-being: A methodological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology.
Love Influences Reproductive Success in Humans (Sorokowski et al., 2017)

Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Wojciszke, B., &
Pawłowski, B. (2017). Love influences reproductive success in humans. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1922.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563221003733
DataReportal (2022), “Digital 2022 Global Digital Overview,”
retrieved from
https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-globaloverview-report
DataReportal (2022), “Digital 2022 Global Digital Overview”, retrieved from
https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125
Can start it by saying something like:
Interactions on social media are some of the most definitive for relationships.
Self-worth is determined by social media
Some useful things from lecture:

Relationship Attribution Model
o

Happy/unhappy relationship  expectation  partner behaviour  interpretation
Interdependence Theory (Thibault & Kelley, 1959)
o
Comparison Level, Comparison Level Alternatives, Perceived Rewards

I think social media could really raise the comparison level of alternatives

o
More exposure to alternatives
Commitment to the romantic partner is strengthened when partners are satisfied with
their relationship, and commitment is weakened when alternatives to the partner or
relationship status are present (e.g., potential partners, preference to be single).

Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980)
o
highlighted the importance of investments made by partners to maintain their
relationship. These investments include intrinsic and extrinsic resources. The intrinsic
resources include time and effort, disclosure of personal details, experienced emotions,
and importance of relationship linked to self-identity. The extrinsic resources include
social status afforded by the relationship, mutual social connections, and material
possessions offered by the relationship
Outline:

Intro
o
Discuss social media in general
o
Discuss importance of romantic relationships
o
Discuss that social media has the power to positively affect newly forming relationships
(e.g., connecting people more easily across distance and cultures) but has a more negative
net effect on committed romantic relationships
o

Roadmap?
Jealousy (could include monitoring here 
o
How social media increases jealousy
o
Access to more information
o
Great Article: The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships (Effects on
Jealousy and Relationship Happiness)

(Utz and Beukeboom, 2011)

Monitoring behaviours

Trait jealousy

Need for popularity

Relationship satisfaction negatively related to jealousy

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic
relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happinesss. Journal of
computer-mediated communication, 16(4), 511-527.
o
, witnessing that a loved one uses social media to interact with other people too much
can engender distrust and jealousy, thereby triggering a partner to engage in unhealthy
behaviors, such as spying or monitoring social media activities of the loved one (Muise
et al., 2009; Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2014).


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1066480716663199
Threat of Alternatives and Relationship Commitment (Comparison)
o
More available alternatives on social media
o
“ideal” self-portrayals rather than “actual” self-portrayals of alternatives
o
Article: Romantic Relationship Commitment and the Threat of Alternatives on Social
Media

(de Lenne et al., 2018)

De Lenne, O., Wittevronghel, L., Vandenbosch, L., & Eggermont, S. (2019).
Romantic relationship commitment and the threat of alternatives on social
media. Personal Relationships, 26(4), 680-693.
o
Investment model (Rusbult, 1980) holds that, in addition to relationship
satisfaction and absence of alternatives, steady investments (e.g., time,
emotional, financial) advanced in the primary relationship are essential for
strengthening commitment. Time spent with online friends is traded off with the
time that could have been spent with the significant other.

https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/01918869/v139icomplete/277_sma
irrivtsmi.xml


Lack of Self-Inhibition Online?
o
https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/01918869/v139icomplete/277_smairrivts
mi.xml
o
Can cause people to behave in ways they wouldn’t in person

May cheat emotionally or physically

Easier to hide infidelity


Technoference (everyday technological intrusions in couple interactions)?
o
Createsdistractions

https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/01918869/v139icomplete/277_sma
irrivtsmi.xml

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1066480716663199

A partner’s use of social media positively associates with the perception
of (a) loneliness, (b) lack of caring, and (c) jealousy that the respondent
experiences.

Lack of caring positively associated with the intention to break up
Overall, mention that most studies are done with heterosexual relationships (probably at the end).
Title
The episode “Nosedive” of acclaimed science fiction series Black Mirror depicts a
society in which individuals’ lives and wellbeing are dictated by a social media rating. Despite
seeming dystopian in nature, the premise of this fictional storyline may hit closer to home than
many of us care to admit. In today’s technologically-dense climate, social media holds legitimate
power to affect our mental health, emotional wellbeing, and consequentially, our social
relationships. The term social media constitutes a wide spectrum of networks, apps, and
websites, ranging from dating apps (e.g., Tinder), to photo and video sharing sites (e.g.,
Instagram). Each social media platform is unique in its features and practices (which are, one
might add, constantly evolving), and the user experience is made even more unique considering
the relevant subjective and cultural contexts in which use occurs (Parry et al., 2022). Thus, it is
difficult to deem social media as inherently good or bad. However, considering that there are
4.62 billion social media users worldwide (DataReportal, 2022), it would be senseless to ignore
the role of social media use in our interpersonal interactions with others.
A particularly interesting interaction when discussing effects of social media is that of
romantic relationships. Many of us are already in a romantic relationship, have been in one, or
hope to be in one, making this topic both interesting and relevant. In fact, a study by Sorokowski
and colleagues (2017) have found that being in love (subjectively) positively influences
reproductive success, suggesting that humans have evolved to fall in love and create romantic
bonds with each other. This evolutionary aspect of love and romance further suggests that
romantic relationships are essential to our overall wellbeing as a species, so investigating the
factors that may lead to their demise is equally as important.
While social networks provide unique and positive opportunities for relationship
formation (e.g., dating apps allow relationships to form across distance and cultures), research
has shown that there is a net negative effect on the welfare of established and committed
romantic, monogamous relationships. Those familiar with TikTok may recall “Couch Guy”, a
young man scrutinized and accused of infidelity as a result of a passionless reaction to a surprise
visit from his long-distance girlfriend caught on video. This is just one of many examples of how
short, and often out-of-context portrayals of the self and personal relationships on social media
may be negatively perceived. Even if our personal relationships are not the direct target of such
social ridicule, many of us observe and play into the toxic culture of social media due to the
highly public nature of these platforms. The negative impact of social media use on romantic
relationships can be explained by breaking it down into three core arguments. First, and most
fundamental, is that consistent use of social media increases jealousy and exacerbates existing
jealousy between romantic partners. Secondly, excessive social media use poses a distractor that
may diminish the quantity and quality of time spent together, impacting relationship satisfaction.
Finally, social media provides access to increased available alternatives, threatening the stability
of the relationship and decreasing existing commitment. Overall, the interaction or accumulation
of these three factors has a likelihood of bringing a romantic relationship to a dissolution. To
support this argument, I will be going over key studies within the research field of romantic
relationships.
Jealousy
Jealousy, or as it is otherwise known, the green-eyed monster, is an unpleasant, yet
natural emotion. Regardless of the stability of a relationship, jealousy can get to the best of us. A
lingering glance at someone other than the primary partner, or a flirty comment can be enough to
send a person into a spiral of envy and even insecurity. Where such subtle signs of disregard for
one’s relationship (even if unintentional) were once in our control and kept private, the
development of social media sites has opened our lives up to the public. Networks such as
Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat provide and promote easy access to others’
information and activity. Anyone who is a user of any of the aforementioned social platforms
knows the damage a single misplaced ‘like’ on another’s picture can do to a relationship’s
stability. In today’s social climate, a like or comment is a currency, where affording it to the
wrong individuals can cause serious damage to both personal relationships and personal feelings
of self-worth.
A study done by Muise and colleagues (2009) examined the relationship between the
time spent on Facebook and jealousy in committed relationships. Using a survey, these authors
collected measures of time spent on Facebook and personal accounts of experienced jealousy.
They developed their own scale to measure this idea of “Facebook jealousy” (jealousy that arises
from use of Facebook). They found that there was a significant association between time spent
on Facebook and jealousy-related feelings experienced on Facebook. Interestingly, these results
accounted for baseline levels of jealousy and self-esteem attributed to personality. In other
words, the jealousy these participants felt from using Facebook and seeing their partner’s activity
on Facebook had nothing to do with how jealous they were as a person. Participants in this study
emphasized that Facebook creates a problem when there really isn’t one: “It definitely invokes a
false sense of jealousy”, or “I have enough confidence in her to know my partner is faithful, yet I
can’t help but second-guess myself when someone posts on her wall” (Muise et al., 2009). We
can see from this evidence and such statements that social media like Facebook exposes
individuals to a greater amount of jealousy-provoking information about their partner that in the
context of real life would not be so accessible. Moreover, this study has shown that these
jealousy-provoking interactions are often ambiguous and may lack appropriate context. For
instance, the term friend on Facebook has a broad meaning and is open to interpretation by a
viewer. This can trigger a number of unhealthy behaviours such as persistent surveillance and
spying on the online activities of one’s partner. Consistently monitoring social media has also
been found to foster negative social comparison to a partner’s exes or potential alternatives
(Frampton & Fox, 2018). Although this study does not delve into how such jealousy can directly
affect the relationship, we can assume that this vicious cycle can hurt the mental health of both
partners and cause issues on either side of the relationship. On one hand, the ‘perpetrator’ can
become defensive and closed off to their significant other if they uncover their activities are
being watched. On the other hand, the ‘surveyor’ may become withdrawn from the relationship,
experience low self esteem, or even retaliate, initiating yet another toxic cycle.
To establish whether social media induced jealousy actually has a negative effect on the
relationship, we can turn to an article by Clayton and colleagues (2013). Similar to that of Muise
et al., this study used a sample of Facebook users, surveying them on their relationship status,
Facebook use, and Facebook-related relationship outcomes. Unsurprisingly, the results showed
that Facebook usage predicted Facebook-related conflict (e.g., having an argument with your
partner about viewing others’ profiles on Facebook), and this conflict predicted negative
relationship outcomes. Cheating (emotional and physical), break-up, and divorce were all found
to be associated with Facebook use, moderated by conflict that ensues from jealousy.
Given the rapidly evolving nature of social media networks, many of you might be
thinking, “Who even uses Facebook anymore?”. Most established and peer reviewed studies on
the effects of social media are from the 2000s and early 2010s, when Facebook ruled the internet.
Although there is limited supporting evidence for negative effects of other, more modern
platforms (e.g., Instagram), we can assume that the jealousy effects are similar, if not the same.
Instagram is reminiscent of Facebook in its features such as photo and video sharing, liking and
commenting, and easy, open access to others’ online activity. These shared features provide
users very similar opportunities to engage in monitoring of others, leading to feelings of
jealousy.
Interestingly, feelings of jealousy may also arise when one’s partner spends more time on
social media than on their relationship. When interactions with social media become a
compulsory habit and overtake one’s personal life, it becomes a problem. In fact, this has
become such a widespread phenomenon that it has received a formal name, known as “Facebook
intrusion” (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). In the next paragraph, I will discuss the epidemic of
Facebook intrusion and associated “technoferences” that plague romantic relationships.
“Technoference” in Relationships
The aforementioned “technoferences”, as coined by McDaniel and Coyne (2016) refer to
the everyday technological intrusions in couple interactions or time spent together. To
conceptualize the impact of these intrusions, imagine for a second how you would feel if, during
an intimate dinner with your partner, they checked their phone every five minutes rather than
devoting all their attention to you. Guaranteed, this would detract from the quality of the time
spent with your partner. It is clear that technology has invaded our everyday lives to an extent
where majority of us spend as much time with our phones and our social media as we do with
our loved ones. Evidence supports this claim, showing that individuals struggle to control their
use of technology in face-to-face interactions even if they do not experience pathological levels
of technology use (e.g., Lang & Jarvenpaa, 2005; Middleton & Cukier, 2006). Given the sheer
amount of people who use social media, we can assume that a large portion of screen time is
allotted to checking social networks.
In order to understand how exactly these technoferences impact our romantic
relationships, we first have to look at Rusbult’s (1980) Investment Model. According to Rusbult,
satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, and investment size maintain commitment in
relationships. Here, we will focus on satisfaction level and investment size. Strong feelings of
commitment arise when individuals feel high relational satisfaction and feel both they and their
partner have substantially invested into the relationship. These investments include, but are not
limited to, money, effort, and happy memories. One way in which we feel our partner is putting
in effort and maintaining happy memories is through quality time and attentiveness. When a
person cannot put down their phone long enough to have a conversation with their significant
other, they fail to invest adequate time and attention into the relationship, decreasing overall
relationship satisfaction (Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2018). The accumulation of these technoferences
then leads to a decline in relationship commitment, which is when relational issues may begin.
This idea is supported by a study that once again used a survey method to measure
Facebook intrusion and infidelity-related behaviours among couples that were either casually
dating, in a committed relationship, or married (Abbasi, 2019). Their results showed that
excessive social media use (they measured a range of social media, not just Facebook) was
significantly associated with infidelity behaviours related to social media. An example of such a
behaviour is messaging an old ex over Snapchat. This connection can be explained once again
through the Investment Model; time spent with online friends is traded off for time that could
have been spent with the significant other (Abbasi, 2019). Moreover, the authors found that this
relationship is stronger in younger people. This makes sense, as older people are typically less
familiar with and less inclined to use new technology and networks.
To look more in depth at the specific feelings that result in decreased commitment in
response to a partner’s social media dependence, we can turn to Nongpong and
Charoensukmongkol (2016) study.
Along with jealousy, the ease with which information can be viewed on social media presents a
wider range of available alternatives for one to seek and contact outside of their primary
relationship. We will look at this facet of social media and its effects on relationships next. (need
to put this somewhere)
Increased Threat of Available Alternatives
In order to understand to how available alternatives are enhanced by social media and
how this harms relationships, we must first think about when and why one may invest their time
in alternatives over their primary partner. To do so, we can discuss Rusbult’s (1980) Investment
Model
References
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2018). The pursuit of romantic alternatives online: Social
media friends as potential alternatives. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(1), 16-28.
Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is
Facebook use to blame?. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 717-720.
DataReportal (2022). “Digital 2022 Global Digital Overview”, retrieved from
https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications
for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social
networking, 14(11), 631-635.
Frampton, J. R., & Fox, J. (2018). Social media’s role in romantic partners’ retroactive jealousy:
Social comparison, uncertainty, and information seeking. Social Media+ Society, 4(3),
2056305118800317.
Lang, K. R., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information
systems management, 22(4), 7-23.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in
couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational wellbeing. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85.
Middleton, C. A., & Cukier, W. (2006). Is mobile email functional or dysfunctional? Two
perspectives on mobile email usage. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 252-260.
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.
Parry, D. A., Fisher, J. T., Mieczkowski, H., Sewall, C. J., & Davidson, B. I. (2021). Social
media and well-being: A methodological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of experimental social psychology, 16(2), 172-186.
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Wojciszke, B.,
& Pawłowski, B. (2017). Love influences reproductive success in humans. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1922.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.