UNIVERSITY OF KENT

Sexual Orientation &

Social Networking Sites
A study into Privacy, Interaction &
Relationships
Richard Dawson

This study builds upon existing literature concerning sexual orientation and its relationship
to social networking sites, furthering research into the areas of privacy, interaction and
relationships. Homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual social networking site users all had
similar attitudes to privacy, producing no significant results when statistically analysed.
Also, no significant results were produced to support a correlation between social
networking site use and a detrimental effect on the perceived quality of a romantic
relationship. The issue of interaction was the only topic that yielded significant results,
supporting the hypotheses that non-heterosexuals are more likely to network with users
with the aim of a sexual encounter than heterosexuals and homosexuals are more likely to
meet someone they have met on a social networking site than heterosexuals.
CONTENTS

Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

Literature Review.....................................................................................................................5

Privacy..................................................................................................................................5

Interaction.............................................................................................................................6

Homosexuals........................................................................................................................9

Hypotheses.........................................................................................................................12

Methodology..........................................................................................................................13

Respondents........................................................................................................................13

Administration and Procedure............................................................................................13

Research Instrument Design...............................................................................................14

Measures of social networking site use and privacy...........................................................15

Measures of relationships and interaction...........................................................................16

Measures of perceived romantic relationship quality..........................................................17

Data Processing and Analysis.............................................................................................17

Results....................................................................................................................................18

1) Whether non-heterosexuals are more likely to provide false personal information on

social networking sites than heterosexuals..........................................................................18

2) Whether non-heterosexuals are less likely to reveal personal information about

themselves than heterosexuals............................................................................................19

3) Whether non-heterosexuals are more likely to list their social networking profiles
privately compared to heterosexuals...................................................................................20

4) Whether homosexuals are more likely to meet someone they have met on a social
networking site than heterosexuals.....................................................................................21

1
 5) Whether non-heterosexuals are more likely to network with users with the aim of a
sexual encounter than heterosexuals...................................................................................23

6) Whether excessive use of social networking sites has a detrimental effect on the
perceived quality of a romantic relationship.......................................................................24

Discussion..............................................................................................................................25

Privacy................................................................................................................................25

Interaction...........................................................................................................................27

Perceived Relationship Quality...........................................................................................28

Limitations and Possible Objections...................................................................................28

Threats to validity and further research..............................................................................29

Conclusion..............................................................................................................................30

Bibliography...........................................................................................................................32

2
INTRODUCTION

Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, have quickly become some
of the most popular destinations on the Internet (Forrester, 2009) with four appearing in the
top twenty most visited websites online (Alexa, 2009). Since 2007, the number of social
networking site users has doubled (Anderson, Liackman & Reitsma, 2009) with 55.6 million
adults in the US now visiting at least one of them per month, showing a level of use that has
now surpassed that of personal e-mail (Nielsen, 2009). As well as being extremely popular,
social networking sites have proven to be a deeply profitable market; Facebook is currently
said to be worth $11.5 billion with other social networking sites such as Twitter and LinkedIn
both worth over $1 billion (Tsang, 2010).

According to Boyd and Ellison’s (2007) research essay, a social networking site is “a web-
based service that allows individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a
bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and
(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system”.
When joining a social networking site, the user creates an online profile that contains a list of
identifying information and personal details. Information shared can include the user's real
name or a pseudonym, geographical location, age, e-mail address and personal photographs.
Social networking sites connect people millions of people of varying demographics and
geographical locations for purposes such as establishing friendships, romantic relationships or
sexual encounters.

The American Psychological Association (2010) defines sexual orientation as:

“An enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others.

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive
heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of
bisexuality.”

Whilst it is difficult to determine the sexual orientations of a population, homosexuals are said
to make up approximately 6% of the United Kingdom’s (Campbell, 2005). Once heavily
stigmatised by society, currently it is significantly more acceptable to be homosexual in most
first world countries, with homosexual public figures more prevalent in mainstream culture
and with newly passed propositions permitting pro-homosexual legislation such as civil
unions (Brewer, 2003). Whilst the negative view of homosexuals has lessened in recent years,
the life of a homosexual still a difficult one; non-heterosexual teenagers are twice more likely
to have suicidal thoughts or to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts (Zhao,

3
Montoro, Igartua & Thombs, 2010). The pressure of being a non-heterosexual leads to many
seeking guidance or a safe haven to discuss feelings that cannot be discussed with peers,
many turning to social networking sites to fulfil this role.

Further research into the area of social networking sites is increasingly important, as many
previous studies into online behaviour and representation have used content analysis tools and
web crawlers to acquire their results (Huffaker and Calvert, 2005; Jernigan and Mistree
2009), compared to directly collecting responses from the owners of the profiles and blogs
used in their studies. This variation in methodology may offer a more accurate depiction of
the user’s intentions by representing themselves online in the manner that they do. False
reporting is also lessened as the research data is collected anonymously and confidentially,
rather than collecting data from a publicly accessible forum where erroneous information may
be presented to deceive or for amusement.

In previous studies, it has been established that homosexuals visit social networking sites
more frequently than heterosexuals (Harris Interactive, 2009) and that they can use social
networking sites as a haven for free expression of their sexuality, desires and feelings
(Alexander, 2004). Is the amount of information that a person discloses on social networking
sites related to their sexual orientation? In turn, does the sexual orientation of the user affect
what information they disclose? This leads into the research objective:

1) Identifying and analysing differences in levels of privacy and disclosure of personal

information depending on sexual orientation

Secondly, studies have shown that homosexuals frequently use social networking sites with
the aim of initiating sexual encounters (Bolding et al, 2005; Gross, 2008), is this also apparent
in the heterosexual community? Does the sexual orientation of the user affect the likeliness of
them meeting someone they have met on a social networking site? Does excessive use of
social networking sites have a detrimental effect on real-life relationships? Hence, the second
research objective is:

2) Identifying and analysing differences in the way people interact and form
relationships on social networking sites depending on sexual orientation

The essay is structured as follows. The 'Literature Review' section details prior research
papers looking into the areas of social networking, privacy, homosexuals and interaction.
Based on the results of these studies, I have formulated the set of hypotheses, about how a
social networking site user’s sexual orientation influences their online behaviour, interactions
and privacy levels. The subsequent section presents the results of testing each of these

4
hypotheses using the data gathered from 130 participants who completed an online
questionnaire I conducted. The essay then continues with a discussion of the significance of
the results alongside the limitations of the research instrument and possible directions of
future research. A statement about the possible uses of these results and the future of social
networking sites then concludes the paper.

LITERATURE REVIEW

PRIVACY

Sharing personal information online has become ‘the social norm’ according to Facebook
founder Mark Zuckerberg (Johnson, 2010). He states that “People have really gotten
comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with
more people”. When a large amount of personal information is shared online, threats such as
identity theft and spamming become a prominent issue. Many reports have outlined the
potential threats to privacy through the disclosure of personal information on social
networking sites, highlighting the risks involved (Gross And Acquisti, 2005; Hodge, 2006). In
2010, 57% of users of Sophos anti-virus software reported that they had been spammed via
social networking sites, a 70.6% increase from 2009 (Sophos, 2010). When using a social
networking site, the user must place a significant amount of trust in those they meet online
and also the social networking website itself (Dwyer, Hiltz and Passerini, 2007).
Approximately two-thirds of social networking site users are reported to be worried about the
safety of their personal data held on their profiles, with almost one third of users having
already entered false information about themselves to protect their identity online (RealWire,
2007). The pitfalls of sharing personal information online was demonstrated in the
development of PleaseRobMe.com, a site which displays a live Twitter feed of users which
share their current location through mobile applications such as Foursquare. The creators
were said to have created the site to prove a point about the dangers of sharing precise
location information on the Internet. Despite the suggestive name, the creators stress that the
site is not intended as a tool for crime, but as more of a wake-up call to users who are
unknowingly over sharing, "The point we're getting at is that not long ago it was questionable
to share your full name on the internet. We've gone past that point by 1,000 miles." (BBC
News, 2010).

The information revealed on social networking sites can also be used against the creator of the
profile. Opposing lawyers now routinely check the social networking site profiles of those
who stand accused and can use the information shared to expose any falsities in their

5
statements (Luscombe, 2009). For example, a custody case where a mother had stated that she
no longer drank alcohol, but images on her MySpace profile proved otherwise.

Research undertaken by Dr Will Reader of Sheffield Hallam University asked 200

participants to complete a questionnaire based on their social networking habits. The results
show that 90% of those who they consider close friends were people they had met face to face
(Randerson, 2009). “People see face to face contact as being absolutely imperative in forming
close friendships” states Reader, with one of the biggest variables in his study being the
interpretation of body language and emotional cues such as laughing and smiling; “It is very
easy to be deceptive on the Internet”. Trust is cited as one of the critical components when
sharing information or establishing new relationships (Fukuyama, 1995) and when interacting
online (Castelfranchi & Tan, 2002; Coppola & Hiltz, 2004; Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner,
1998; Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002; Wu, Chen & Chung, In Press). Online forums and
communities are often populated with users that exploit the anonymity that the Internet offers
and create a false online persona, often exaggerating and altering their physical features and
personality traits to appear more attractive or to deceive (Castelfranchi & Tan, 2002; Egan,
2000; McMillan & Morrison, 2006; Toma, Hancock & Ellison, 2008). Online deception such
as this can weaken trust relationships that were originally established offline (Castelfranchi &
Tan, 2002)

INTERACTION

The way we interact online has drastically changed over the last decade (New Media
Consortium, 2007) and continues to do so (Bianchini, 2010). Our expectations and needs
from social technology now lie deeper than before, with each part of our lives having a
separate home online; Facebook for seeking out friends and socialising, Twitter for keeping
contacts updated on our current actions and LinkedIn for professional networking. This rapid
evolution in the way we interact is partially due to the change in the way we now connect to
the Internet; more than half of Americans have accessed the Internet wirelessly through a
laptop, mobile phone, MP3 player or game console (Horrigan, 2009). Instead of logging-on
and off the Internet through a desktop computer, we are constantly connected through our
mobile phones and portable Internet devices. This evolution of Internet access and connection
has seen our online activity transform from sporadic connections to a constant stream of
interactions. This evolution can also be likened to the shift in usage between e-mail and social
networking sites, from the stop-start nature of sending and receiving e-mails to the constant
updates received on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

6
Through social networking sites, users can network with the intention of forming new
friendships, dating, sexual encounters and job opportunities or to maintain the friendships
they have already established in real life (Realwire, 2007). The increase of use of social
networking sites has transformed the traditional communities that we live in. Instead of
locally based groups, we have moved towards geographically dispersed social networks, a
process entitled ‘Glocalization’ (Rainie, Boase, Horrigan & Wellman, 2006). We are now
separately connected as individuals rather than households or groups, a new basis for
community that has been referred to as ‘networked individualism’ (Wellman, 2002). The
increase in ‘networked individualism’ has been accelerated by the portable technology
available to us today, such as mobile phones and wireless Internet. When a phone call is made
to a landline number, the phone rings at the ‘place’ where it is situated, no matter who is the
intended recipient. If that same phone call were made to a mobile phone, that person can be
directly contacted. There has been a shift in the community ties from linking a person to a
place to linking people to wherever they currently are (Wellman, 2002). These shifts in the
basis of community are apparent in many aspects of modern day life, such as the loosely
bounded state of many family units and workers who report to multiple peers in various
locations and companies (Wellman, 2002).

The word ‘friend’ is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as ‘one attached to another
by affection or esteem’. What defines someone as a ‘friend’ in the modern technological
world has become unclear, with friendships ranging in scale from a nodding acquaintance to a
close confidante (Rubel, 2007). As well as transforming the types of friendships that we have,
social networking sites have also changed the average number of friends a person has. The
average number of friends in a Facebook network is 120, yet some users have amassed
networks of up to 500 ‘friends’ (The Economist Newspaper Limited, 2009). Male social
networking site users with networks as large as 500 have been found to only regularly
communicate with merely 10 of these contacts, with females extending this number to 16
(The Economist Newspaper Limited, 2009). Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet &
American Life Project, has put forward the idea that rather than networking with other users
through social networking sites, social networking sites users are plainly “broadcasting their
lives to an outer tier of acquaintances who aren’t necessarily inside the Dunbar circle”. This
suggests that our friendships and intimacy circles are not growing, simply the way we
broadcast our daily activities, interests and interactions has changed (The Economist
Newspaper Limited, 2009).

‘Dunbar’s number’ (Dunbar, 1992) is a theoretical limit on the number of people that a
human can maintain a stable social relationship with, defined by Oxford anthropologist Robin

7
Dunbar. Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict the value of
the number, which is commonly cited as 150, reflecting the limits on the capacity of the
neocortex in the human brain. Found in these 150 is an average core of 5 close friends. As
well as close friends, also included in the total are those at the outer limits of your friendship
circle, such as old colleagues or school friends. When questioned whether social networking
sites have out-dated his research, Dunbar was quoted as saying that the research "made us
realize people don't know what these wretched things called relationships are -- and that helps
explain why we're so bad at them." (Bialik, 2007)

Social networking sites are also said to have affected the quality of friendships. The hours per
day that are now spent using social media have detracted from time spent socializing face-to-
face, sometimes leading to social isolation (Sigman, 2009). Also, the number and quality of
friendships for the average American has been declining since at least 1985, with Americans
having a third fewer confidantes (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Brashears, 2006). Social
networking site are also said to be a threat towards developing children, as supposedly they
can cause personality and brain disorders such as ADHD and a need for instant gratification
(Derbyshire, 2009). Research has also shown that replacing real-life interaction with that of
online forums and social networking sites has shown to positively affect the likelihood of
developing symptoms of depression (Morrison & Gore, 2010). In contrast, the connections
that a person can make on social networking sites can have a majorly positive effect on their
life, with 60 million Americans having received guidance from friends and experts online,
though major life issues such as changing jobs or caring for someone with an illness (Rainie
et al, 2006). Other studies have shown that social networking site users usually have larger
social networks than non-users and using social networking sites to maintain those
relationships promotes more face-to-face interaction, strengthening offline social networks
instead of replacing them (Rainie et al, 2006). Editor of blog ‘Web Worker Daily’ Anne Truitt
Zelenka supports the idea that the effect of social networking sites on friendships is a positive
one, stating “You can give specially targeted support because you understand much better the
contours and context of each friend’s life. You can connect and communicate with much less
trouble than before, because you know when your friends are available and how best to reach
them.” (Li, 2007).

HOMOSEXUALS

The Internet is often used as a support system for those with physical and emotional obstacles
(Idriss, Kvedar & Watson, 2009; White & Dorman, 2001) and for those looking for advice
and guidance (DeWert, Babinski & Jones, 2003; Rainie et al, 2006). It can also be a viable

8
way of alleviating social exclusion of various hidden social groups (Chigona, Beukes, Vally
& Tanner, 2009), including homosexuals. Youths who form close online relationships are
more likely to be highly troubled or with low levels of communication with parents when
compared to peers of their own gender and age (Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2003).

Homosexual teens can be found using the Internet as a refuge from everyday life and to
overcome isolation (Elias, 2007). It is also used by homosexuals to make contact with others
for both friendship and romance and for the purpose of finding homosexual role models
(Egan, 2000). Studies have also suggested that homosexual teenagers are coming out at a
younger age than in the past, which could possibly be attributed to the availability of
information, guidance and advice that can be accessed through their Internet connection.
(Egan, 2000; Elias, 2007). In ‘Communities in Cyberspace’ (Smith & Kollock, 1999) it is
stated “Technology has its most profound effect when it alters the ways in which people come
together and communicate”. Christopher Mele (1999) bolsters the importance of the Internet
as a support system for minorities and disadvantaged groups declaring, “Computer-mediated
communication and networking is a useful mechanism for disadvantaged groups in their
efforts at collective action and empowerment”.

Homosexuals are not only using the Internet for emotional support, often looking to it as a
source for initiating sexual encounters. Since America Online first introduced men-for-men
chat rooms fifteen years ago, the nature of ‘cruising’ online has drastically changed, but more
importantly, so has homosexual culture (Gross, 2008). In 1993, 2.3% of homosexual men
found their first male sexual partner online, which by 2003 had risen to 61.2% (Gross, 2008).
Co-founder of the leading homosexual social networking site Manhunt.com Jonathan
Crutchley describes the change as that “Guys have always been looking for the same things.
The Internet makes it much easier to find exactly what you want” (Reynolds, 2009).

Evolving from the text based chat rooms such as America Online’s, exclusively non-
heterosexual social networking sites have been introduced for many of the same purposes as
non-exclusive social networking sites, such as socializing, dating and maintaining friendships
(Realwire, 2007). For the majority of these exclusively non-heterosexual social networking
sites, such as Manhunt, Gay.com and Adam4Adam, one of the main purposes of networking
is to initiate sexual encounters. Reports of the negative effect of these types of websites on
homosexual culture, including their contribution to rising risk levels of HIV and other STDs
have been discussed frequently (Zhang et al, 2007). Dan Savage, author of sex column
‘Savage Love’ and editor of Seattle’s ‘The Stranger’ newspaper, argues that it is the users that
are to blame rather than the websites themselves, “Manhunt is a tool. Big, bad Manhunt

9
doesn’t make guys drag themselves to the webcam and take all those pictures of their dicks.”
(Gross, 2008). Studies have also found that HIV-positive homosexual men use the internet as
a way to meet other HIV positive men for casual sexual encounters (Bolding et al, 2005),
posing a high risk for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This information is even
more worrying when partnered with the knowledge that 17% of HIV-positive men who are
sexually active with other men and nearly 75% of men who are sexually active with other
men who’ve never been tested for HIV, display they are HIV negative in their online profiles
(Horvath, Oakes & Rosser, 2008).

The effect of the rising popularity of exclusively non-heterosexual social networking sites is
not only negatively affecting homosexuals physically, but psychologically too. Detroit
psychologist Joe Kort explains that through cruising online through social networking sites
and by displaying nude photographs or exposing their bodies on webcam, homosexuals can
impair their ability to find intimacy in real life relationships, “It means you’re always looking
for the better or the best” (Gross 2008). The negative effects of using the Internet for sexual
gratification are not limited solely to homosexuals; research has shown that heterosexual boys
who use the Internet to view pornography are more likely to indulge in casual sex and less
likely to form successful relationships when they grow older (Chittenden & Holehouse,
2010). These same boys are also more inclined to think that there is nothing wrong with
sexually harassing a girl later in life. Psychotherapist Thaddeus Birchard believes that the
proposed negative effect of youths using the Internet for sexual gain is untrue, arguing that
“Sexually explicit material on the net can even help educate them” (Chittenden & Holehouse,
2010).

Homosexuals are some of the biggest social networking site users, logging on more
frequently compared to heterosexual users (Harris Interactive, 2009). One of the reasons
suggested as to why homosexuals are such prevalent users of the Internet is that they can use
it as a place where they can use their anonymity to discuss their sexual orientation, which they
might not be able to do with their family or peers (Grotevant, 1998). They are using the
Internet as emancipation from everyday life, being able to express themselves and their
sexuality in a way which may be perceived as inappropriate or grating otherwise in a
traditional social setting (Alexander, 2004). This expression of identity has also been apparent
within the relationship between male cross-dressers and how they represent themselves to
their real-life identity (Hegland & Nelson, 2004). In contrast, a study in language use on
teenage blogs revealed that male and female teenagers suggest that teenagers stay closer to
reality in their online expressions of self than has previously been suggested, and that these

10
explorations involve issues such as learning about their sexuality, that commonly occur
during the adolescent years (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005).

Negatively, homosexual usage of the Internet leads to higher levels of concealment of

personal information, with the conclusion that homosexuals expect higher benefits from
concealing personal information because of anti-homosexual discrimination (Berg & Lien,
2008). A survey conducted by Iowa State University (Blumenfeld, Cooper, Curtis, &
Ferlazzo, 2010) revealed that one out of two non-heterosexual youths have been a victim of
cyber bullying. The effects of cyber bullying can lead to depression, embarrassment and
anxiousness. Most importantly, more than a quarter of the non-heterosexual respondents had
experienced suicidal thoughts from being cyber bullied (Blumenfeld, Cooper, Curtis, &
Ferlazzo, 2010). Homosexuals have little privacy in life and therefore make use of secrecy
online to conceal their behaviour from others (Warren & Laslett, 2010).

As well as the motivations behind interaction, the demographic of those users that
homosexuals interact with online has been studied. Jernigan and Mistree’s (2009) research
study entitled ‘Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation’ found that by
analysing the gender and sexuality of a person's contacts on a social networking site, it was
possible to predict men's sexual orientation, revealing that homosexual men have
proportionally more homosexual friends than heterosexual men. From there, they created a
piece of software that successfully predicted the sexual orientation of 10 homosexual
Facebook users who had not explicitly disclosed their sexual orientation on their profile. The
effects of a piece of software that could determine a social networking site user’s sexual
orientation could be disastrous, resulting in the ‘outing’ of homosexuals who had yet to do it
themselves. Also, the chances of heterosexual men forming relationships with homosexual
men on social networking sites could be lessened out of fear of being labeled as homosexual
themselves. In a recent study, Paz Galupo (2007) also highlighted the fact that homosexuals
have proportionally more homosexual friends than heterosexual men but also the fact that
bisexuals have proportionally more heterosexual friends.

HYPOTHESES

Based on the findings of the above research papers, I have formulated a set of hypotheses to
test the validity of the results that my study will yield. Berg and Lien’s (2008) research study
entitled 'Sexual Orientation and Self-Reported Lying' suggested that homosexuals expect
higher benefits from concealing personal information, because of anti-homosexual

11
discrimination. Also, Gneezy (2005) theorizes that people conceal or falsify information for
their own personal gain; therefore homosexuals will lie more frequently than heterosexuals as
they will benefit more from such concealment. My first hypothesis builds upon these two
papers and aims to discover the differing attitudes regarding privacy between social
networking site users of varying sexualities:

1) Whether homosexuals are more likely to provide false personal information on social
networking sites than heterosexuals.
2) Whether homosexuals are less likely to reveal personal information about themselves
than heterosexuals
3) Whether homosexuals are more likely to list their social networking profiles privately
compared to heterosexuals

Studies have shown that online interaction between homosexuals can often result in sexual
encounters (Bolding et al, 2005; Gross, 2008), but can this simply be consigned to an aspect
of homosexual culture, or has the rising level of social networking site use made an impact?
Also, does the fact that homosexuals are more likely to meet sexual partners online mean that
they are more likely to meet other social networking site users for friendship, long-term
relationships or job opportunities? My second hypothesis aims to establish the differences in
the ways social networking site users of varying sexual orientations interact with those they
meet online and what such encounters lead to:

4) Whether homosexuals are more likely to meet someone they have met on a social
networking site than heterosexuals
5) Whether homosexuals are more likely to network with users with the aim of a sexual
encounter than heterosexuals

Spending time on social networking sites rather than engaging in face-to-face interaction has
shown to positively affect the likelihood of developing symptoms of depression (Morrison
and Gore, 2010). Also, excessive time using social networking sites has detracted from time
spent socializing face-to-face, sometimes leading to social isolation (Sigman, 2009). As well
as the user’s psychological well-being and the quality of friendships, my final hypothesis
aims to discover whether a high-level of use of social networking sites has a correlation with
a low perceived quality of a romantic relationship:

6) Whether excessive use of social networking sites has a detrimental effect on the
perceived quality of a romantic relationship

12
METHODOLOGY

RESPONDENTS

Between January 26th and February 27th 2010, an online questionnaire was conducted using a
sample of 130 participants, of which 55% were male and 45% female. Each of the
participants was aged 64 or younger, with 95% of them aged 34 or younger; a majority of
63% of participants fell between the age brackets of 18-24. The participants represented a mix
of sexual orientations, with 48% of them being heterosexual whilst the remaining participants
being either homosexual (35%) or bisexual (17%). When analysing the participant’s gender, it
was found that 100% of the homosexual participants were male, 78% of the heterosexual
participants were female and that there was an equal number of male and female bisexual
participants. 70% of the participants were currently single, whilst 16% were in a long-term
relationship.

ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE

The study was conducted with a questionnaire created using Google Forms, an online form
creator and then posted across the Internet through social networking sites such as Facebook
and Twitter. To reach a wider demographic of respondents, I also posted my questionnaire on
various discussion forums. The aim of posting on discussion forums was mainly to increase
the number of homosexual participants, which would have not have reached a satisfactory
level if I had solely sent out the questionnaire to people I am personally acquainted with. The
sites that I posted the questionnaire on were www.popjustice.com and
www.britneyboards.org, popular pop music forums with a positively skewed ratio of
homosexual members. The participants were notified that the study was about the relationship
between sexual orientation and behaviour on social networking sites and that their results
would be used solely for this purpose.

Homosexuals are typically a hard population to research, as they are a socially hidden
population. This presents two main factors which must be taken into consideration, as
described in Heckathorn’s (1997) study: "First, no sampling frame exists, so the size and
boundaries of the population are unknown; and second, there exist strong privacy concerns,
because membership involves stigmatized or illegal behaviour, leading individuals to refuse
to co-operate, or give unreliable answers to protect their privacy". Many homosexuals have
revealed their sexuality to a relatively small group of people, dues to fears of stigmatization,
homophobia and violence, thus lessening their accessibility. One of the common methods

13
used when researching using a hidden population is ‘snowball sampling’ (Goodman, 1961),
which I partially incorporated into my research by requesting that participants pass on the
questionnaire to their non-heterosexual peers. Through ‘snowball sampling’, a randomly
chosen group of participants acts as the initial sample. This initial group then recruits more
participants from the desired demographic, thus widening the scope of the project and
increasing the accessibility of those in the ‘hidden population’. This process may continue for
as many stages as desired. The aim of using this method was to access a varied demographic
of participants from multiple social networks, not just those which are easily accessible
through my own social network. This method of recruitment also involves the aspect of
personal trust. Participants who had already taken part in the questionnaire could then relate
their own personal experience of the questions to the potential non-heterosexual participants
that I had requested they invite. This would have lead to many participants responding who
probably would not have done so of their own accord.

Before releasing the questionnaire publicly, a pilot study was conducted with 10 participants,
each with varying backgrounds and relationship statuses to ensure that all parts of the
questionnaire would be tested. Issues over the intrusiveness of some of the questions were
raised, to which a rewording of said questions was administered. Also, some
misunderstanding over the intention of the research and the aim of the questions warranted a
rewrite of the introduction and the addition of guidance text beneath more complicated
questions. Once this pilot study was complete and the necessary amendments made, the
questionnaire was released to the public.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT DESIGN

I made use of an online questionnaire as my research instrument as I needed to reach a wide

mix of participants, including a substantial proportion of homosexuals to ensure I had a strong
data set to analyze. Through traditional methods, it would have been almost impossible to
reach a suitable amount of participants in the desired demographics and in varying geographic
locations (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman, 1999). Entries were completely confidential
with no indentifying personal information requested. The introduction stressed this fact and
ensured participants that the information collected would only be used for the relating study
and viewed by myself. Due to the sensitive nature of some of the questions involving
sexuality and relationships, participants were urged to answer truthfully, so as not to
invalidate the results of the research (Mustanski, 2001). The duration of the questionnaire
varied between 2-5 minutes depending on the relationship status of the participant, with those
participants who were single being able to skip the final section of questions.

14
Another reason why I used online questionnaires over alternative methods was that it allowed
me to reach a large number of participants in a relatively short amount of time. A link to the
questionnaire could be posted once on a discussion forum and reach a large number of people
who can submit their results instantaneously, whereas a paper-based questionnaire involves
mailing backwards and forwards between participant and researcher. A mixed-mode
questionnaire carried out by Schaefer and Dillman (1998) reported that e-mail responses had
arrived back before the first of the completed paper surveys were returned. Also, I chose
online questionnaires because of the low cost of creating and distributing them compared to
the paper-based alternative (Bachmann & Elfrink, 1996; Mehta & Sivadas, 1995; Parker,
1992).

MEASURES OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE USE AND PRIVACY

In the first section of the questionnaire, the aim of was to capture perceptions of privacy,
information disclosure, dishonesty and general use of social networking sites. Also included
was a selection of questions on basic personal details, such as gender, age and sexual
orientation. The questionnaire asked participants to indicate what personal information they
disclose on social networking sites. Options were presented as checkboxes and included basic
personal information such as name, geographical location, relationship status and birth date,
to the tastes and preferences of the participant, such as their favourite music, books and
quotes. This list was derived and adapted from Gross and Acquisti’s (2005) study that
similarly studied the information people reveal on social networking sites.

The next question in the questionnaire was “Have you ever provided false personal
information on a social networking site?” and for those participants that answered yes, a
selection of reasons why they had chose to lie; for amusement, protection of privacy,
exaggeration, to increase attractiveness, avoidance of possible embarrassment or to deceive.
A text box field marked ‘Other’ was also included for reasons that did not fit into any of these
categories. The list of options of personal information participants disclosed on social
networking sites was then included again, but this time with the question “If applicable, what
false personal details did you provide?” attached to it.

The final group of questions in this section asked about the participant’s social networking
site usage habits and their level of privacy online: “How often do you log onto your social
networking site profile?” and “How long do you spend on average on your social networking
site profile each time you log on?” Research into time spent on social networking sites has
become highly important after studies have shown that people who use the internet

15
excessively, replacing real-life social interaction with that of social networking sites or chat
rooms, are more likely to show depressive symptoms (Morrison and Gore, 2010). The last
question then asked whether the participant’s social networking site profile was visible by
everyone, to those in the surrounding geographical area and friends or exclusively to friends.

MEASURES OF RELATIONSHIPS AND INTERACTION

The section of measures of relationships and interaction begins with the question “What is
your current relationship status?” which is an integral piece of information for the statistical
analysis of the results. The response to this question also determines whether the participants
will be required to complete the subsequent section of the questionnaire relating to perceived
romantic relationship quality. The participants were presented with a series of checkboxes
that presented them with the options ‘single’, ‘casual dating’, ‘long term relationship’,
‘engaged’, ‘married’, ‘separated / divorced’ and ‘cohabiting’. Participants were able to check
more than one box if applicable, for example if they were divorced but now dating.

Next, the participants are asked, “What are you looking for when using social networking
sites?” The options were presented as a series of checkboxes, allowing for multiple responses.
The available answers were ‘New Friendships’, ‘Casual Dating’, ‘Long Term Relationships’,
‘Job Opportunities’, ‘Sexual Encounters’, ‘Socialising’, ‘Reconnecting with old friends’ and
an ‘Other’ text box, which allowed the participant to enter a qualitative response if needed. I
was especially interested in those participants who answered ‘Sexual Encounters’ for the
purpose of my hypotheses.

The question “Have you ever met anyone you have befriended on a social networking site in
true life?” was then followed by a question only for those that had asking how many people
they had met like this. To conclude this section the participants were asked whether “After
befriending someone on a social networking site and then meeting them in true life, what did
it lead to?” with available options including ‘Friendship’, ‘Sexual Encounters’ and ‘Job
Opportunities’.

MEASURES OF PERCEIVED ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

The final section of the questionnaire was only applicable to participants in a relationship,
those who were not were asked to skip these questions and submit only their previous
answers. The questions featured in this section derive from Fletcher, Simpson and Thomas’s
(2000) research on the measurement of perceived relationship quality components and asks
the participant to rate six quality measures; Satisfaction, Trust, Intimacy, Commitment,

16
Passion and Love. It was an 18-item scale, where the six quality measures were then divided
into subscales made up of 3 items each. Upon testing, it was discovered that the Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale measured at .98, showing a high level of internal consistency. The items
were rated on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Extremely” (7).
For example, ‘Satisfaction’ contained the questions “How satisfied are you with your
relationship?”, “How content are you with your relationship?” and “How happy are you with
your relationship?”

DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

After processing the results of the 130 participants, it was discovered that one participant’s
results had been submitted twice, possibly due to a technical error. The duplicated set of
results was therefore discarded, bringing the final number of participants to 129.

Two participants failed to answer the question “If you visit your social networking site profile
more than once per day, how long do you spend logged in on average in total?”, therefore the
missing values were replaced with the value of series means to allow for complete statistical
analysis.

In the final section of the questionnaire, containing measures of perceived romantic

relationship quality, as many as 15 single participants who were not eligible to complete that
section had submitted a full set of answers. As well as these, a further 4 ineligible participants
submitted a partially completed set of answers. These results were removed, as they have no
relevance to the study and were most likely entered by error or due to confusion. Altering the
questionnaire so that the eligibility rules are clearer, or adapting the questionnaire to
automatically exclude those who are ineligible from submitting answers should be considered
for future research.

Various other errors had to be rectified in the results before statistical analysis could be
conducted. When asked what is their current relationship status, participants were presented
with a series of checkboxes of which they could make multiple selections, for example,
someone who was both divorced and single would mark both of the corresponding
checkboxes. Whilst this usually proved to be a satisfactory method of obtaining this
information, it lead to some people erroneously marking that they were both ‘single’ and
‘engaged’ at the same time as well as other nonsensical combinations. By looking at whether
they had submitted answers to the measures of perceived romantic relationship quality, I
deduced which was the correct relationship status and discarded the other

17
RESULTS

1) WHETHER NON-HETEROSEXUALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO PROVIDE

FALSE PERSONAL INFORMATION ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
THAN HETEROSEXUALS

Figure 2. Mean values of providing false information on social networking site profiles

The first hypothesis was that homosexuals are more likely to provide false personal
information on social networking sites than heterosexuals. This prediction was derived from
Berg and Lien’s (2008) research showing that homosexuals expect higher benefits from
concealing personal information. Respondents answered either ‘Yes’ (2) or ‘No’ (1) as to
whether they had ever provided false personal information on a social networking site [Figure
2]. Through conducting a one-way ANOVA test it was found that F(2,126) = 2.638, mse = .
204, p = .075. This theory was not proved, with no significant difference between participants
of differing sexual orientations. To further my research I then carried out additional post hoc
t-tests comparing sexual orientation to ensure I was not overlooking any statistical
significance. The results were as follows, between bisexual and heterosexual participants it
was found that t(31) = 2.032, p = .051, between bisexuals and homosexuals, t(65) = .956, p = .
343 and between homosexuals and heterosexuals, t(105) =  -1.437, p = .154. None of these t-
tests produced significant results, apart from the marginal significance found between
bisexual and heterosexual participants. Whilst the results were insignificant, the mean values
of those most likely to provide false personal information on social networking sites

18
registered highest with Bisexuals (1.45), followed by homosexuals (1.33) and finally
heterosexuals (1.21). As no significant difference was discovered, plans to then test the
significance of the reasons behind the providing of false personal information on a social
networking site were abandoned.

2) WHETHER NON-HETEROSEXUALS ARE LESS LIKELY TO REVEAL

PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THEMSELVES THAN
HETEROSEXUALS

The second hypothesis was that non-heterosexuals are less likely to reveal personal
information about themselves than heterosexuals. This prediction was also derived from Berg
and Lien’s (2008) research showing that homosexuals expect higher benefits from concealing
personal information. Respondents answered either ‘Yes’ (2) or ‘No’ (1) as to whether they
revealed each aspect of personal information on their social networking site profile. The mean
values of the levels of disclosure for each sexual orientation were calculated, creating a new
variable for analysis. This variable was then tested alongside the respondent’s sexual
orientation with a one-way ANOVA, to yield the results F(2,126) = 3.038, mse = .032, p = .
051. The marginal significance between disclosure levels called for further tests to establish
the source of the difference. Subsequent t-tests were conducted and it was discovered that the
only significant differences occurred between homosexuals and heterosexuals with the results
t(105) = -2.542 p = .012, in the ‘images depicting yourself’ and ‘instant messenger’ fields.
The results for ‘instant messenger’ were t(81) = -2.540, p = .013 and for ‘images’ were t(103)
= -2013, p = .047. However, as a significant difference was only apparent in 2 out of the 18
fields available, it cannot be fairly assumed that homosexuals reveal more or less information
than heterosexuals overall.

3) WHETHER NON-HETEROSEXUALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO LIST THEIR

SOCIAL NETWORKING PROFILES PRIVATELY COMPARED TO
HETEROSEXUALS

19
Figure 3. Mean values of privacy levels on social networking site profiles

The third hypothesis was that non-heterosexuals are more likely to list their social networking
profiles privately compared to heterosexuals. This prediction, much like for the first and
second hypotheses, was also derived from Berg and Lien’s (2008) research showing that
homosexuals expect higher benefits from concealing personal information. Shown in the chart
above [Figure 3] are the varying mean levels of privacy that social networking site users of
differing sexual orientations implement on their profiles. Respondents answered ‘Viewable by
Everyone’ (2), ‘Viewable by those in the surrounding geographical area and friends’ (3) or
‘Viewable by friends only’ (4) as to whom their social networking site profile is visible to.
The option ‘Do not know’ (1) was also presented for those participants who were unsure
about their current privacy status. These responses were discarded for the purpose of
statistical analysis. Through conducting a one-way ANOVA test it was found that F(2,126)
= .564, mse = .239, p = .570, therefore the results were insignificant. I then carried out
additional post hoc t-tests comparing the sexual orientation of the participants. The results
were as follows, between bisexual and heterosexual participants it was found that t(78) =
-.287, p = .775, between bisexuals and homosexuals, t(63) = .516, p = .608 and between
homosexuals and heterosexuals, t(99) = 1.081, p = .282. None of the t-tests produced any
significant results. Whilst the results were insignificant, the mean values of those most likely
to list their social networking profiles privately registered highest with heterosexuals (3.03),
followed by bisexuals (3) and finally homosexuals (2.93).

20
4) WHETHER HOMOSEXUALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO MEET SOMEONE
THEY HAVE MET ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE THAN
HETEROSEXUALS

Figure 4. Mean values of meeting someone who was met on a social networking site

The fourth hypothesis was that homosexuals are more likely to meet someone in true life that
they had initially met on a social networking site than heterosexuals. This prediction was
derived from research showing that homosexuals use the Internet to initiate sexual encounters
with those they meet online (Bolding et al, 2005; Gross, 2008). Respondents answered either
‘Yes’ (2) or ‘No’ (1) as to whether they had met anyone they had befriended on a social
networking site in true life [Figure 4]. Through conducting a one-way ANOVA test it was
found that F(2,126) = 2.077, mse = .234, p = .008, showing that the results were significant.
The mean values of those most likely to meet someone they have met on a social networking
site registered highest with homosexuals (1.73), followed by bisexuals (1.5) and finally
heterosexuals (1.44).

21
Figure 5. Comparison of heterosexual and homosexual mean values

After finding that the results between the three sexual orientations tested were significant, I
conducted an independent samples t-test between heterosexuals and homosexuals to further
establish the source of the difference [Figure 5]. This yielded the values t = (105) -3.178, p = .
002, thus proving to be the significant difference. This t-test was repeated between bisexuals
and heterosexuals (p = .607) and between bisexuals and homosexuals (p = .060), both proving
to be insignificant.

5) WHETHER NON-HETEROSEXUALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO NETWORK

WITH USERS WITH THE AIM OF A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER THAN
HETEROSEXUALS

22
Figure 6. Mean values of users with the aim of a sexual encounter

The fifth hypothesis was that non-heterosexuals are more likely to network with users with
the aim of a sexual encounter than heterosexuals. This prediction, much like the fourth, was
derived from research showing that homosexuals use the Internet to initiate sexual encounters
with those they meet online (Bolding et al, 2005; Gross, 2008). Respondents chose from a list
of social networking aims: ‘New Friendships’, ‘Casual Dating’, ‘Long Term Relationships’,
‘Job Opportunities’, ‘Sexual Encounters’, ‘Socialising’, ‘Reconnecting with old friends’ and
an ‘Other’ text box, which allowed the participant to enter a qualitative response if needed.
The sexual orientation of those who answered ‘Sexual Encounters’ was then analysed [Figure
6]. I conducted a one-way ANOVA test on the results, which was found to be significant with
the values F(2,126) = 6.024, mse = 0.73 and p = .003. No heterosexual participants answered
that they used social networking sites to network with users with the aim of a sexual
encounter.

I then conducted post-hoc t-tests between pairs of sexual orientations to see where the
significance lay within these results. Between bisexual and heterosexual participants, the
results were significant with t(82) = 3.667, p = .001. Homosexual and heterosexual
participants also showed a significant difference with t(105) = -3.348, p = .001. In contrast,
the difference between bisexual and homosexual participants was not significant, with the t-
test yielding t(65) = .269, p = .789.

23
6) WHETHER EXCESSIVE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES HAS A
DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF A ROMANTIC
RELATIONSHIP

Figure 7. Mean values of perceived quality of a romantic relationship

The final hypothesis asked whether excessive use of social networking sites has a detrimental
effect on the perceived quality of a romantic relationship. This prediction was derived from
research showing that people replacing real-life social interaction with that of social
networking sites or chat rooms spent less time socializing face-to-face (Sigman, 2009) and are
more likely to show depressive symptoms (Morrison and Gore, 2010). Participants in a
relationship were asked to answer a series of questions on a 7-point Likert scale. The mean
values of these responses were then presented, grouped by the participant’s frequency of
logging in. I conducted a one-way ANOVA test on the results, which was found to be
insignificant, with the values F(3,33) = 1.755, mse = 2.165 and p = .175. I then furthered my
research by carrying out a 3 (bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual) X 4 (several times a day,
every day, once a week, once a month) ANOVA analysing at the effects of frequency of
logging in and sexual orientation on perceived relationship quality. This yielded three 'F'
statistics, one for each main effect and one for the interaction effect between the two
independent variables. The frequency of logging in produced the figures F(3,30) = 1.013,
MSE = 2.270, p = .401, the sexual orientation of the participants produced F(2,30) = .602,

24
MSE = 1.349, p = .554 and finally the interaction effect figures were F(1,30) = .680, mse =
1.523, p = .416, displaying no interaction effect.

Figure 8. Mean values of perceived quality of a romantic relationship

After finding that the results between the different frequencies of logging in were
insignificant, I then selected those participants who log on several times a day, of which there
were 24 in total. I then conducted a one-way ANOVA, comparing how long they spend
logged in on average in total to the mean value of the perceived quality of a romantic
relationship [Figure 8]. This yielded the values F(3,24) = 1.136, mse = 2.679 and p = .378,
thus proving to also be an insignificant difference.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research essay was to examine the effect a social networking site user’s
sexual orientation has on the way in which they behave and interact online. Three main areas
were researched: privacy, interaction and relationships.

PRIVACY

Despite research highlighting the risks of the disclosure of personal information (Gross And
Acquisti, 2005; Hodge, 2006) and research concluding that homosexuals expect higher
benefits from concealing personal information because of anti-homosexual discrimination
(Berg & Lien, 2008), no evidence of a significant difference between users of varying sexual
orientations was apparent in the results for the hypotheses concerning privacy. The mean

25
values of those most likely to provide false personal information on social networking sites
registered highest with bisexuals and homosexuals, but the difference between these values
and that of heterosexuals was not large enough to prove to be significant. Therefore, there is
no evidence to support the hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to provide false
personal information on social networking sites than heterosexuals. In a study examining
lying on online dating profiles, it was discovered that 81% of participants lied about at least
one characteristic on their dating profiles (Toma et al, 2008). The high levels of lying are
apparent across both genders and regardless of sexual orientation. The proposed benefits for
homosexuals from concealing personal information are overshadowed by the large proportion
of users who lie for reasons of vanity and deceit.

The results of my study also show that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that
homosexuals are less likely to reveal personal information about themselves than
heterosexuals. When investigated, homosexuals were found to share personal images and
instant messenger usernames on their social networking site profile more often than
heterosexuals, but this also did not warrant a difference large enough to be considered
significant. Another study conducted by Steven Hartwell (1995) from USD Law School
examined the correlation between the sexual orientation of participants and the concern for
anonymity. This proposed correlation was not found, with no significant results to support it.

My research also proved that the hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to list their
social networking profiles privately compared to heterosexuals rang untrue. I feel one
possible explanation for the lack of significant results foe this hypothesis can be attributed to
the growing amounts of research (Alexander, 2004; Egan, 2000; Elias, 2007; Grotevant,
1998) that detail how homosexuals are using the Internet as emancipation from everyday life
and as a platform to discuss their sexual orientation and feelings. To express oneself fully,
surely it would prove to be problematic under tight privacy settings? In some societies, the
traditional process of ‘coming out’ seems old-fashioned and obsolete, the lives of many
homosexuals have been normalised and are thus classed as ‘beyond the closet’ ( Seidman,
Meeks & Traschen, 1999).

Whilst the option of avoiding the disclosure of personal information is still viable, the results
of my study do not concur with my hypothesis, instead it shows that homosexual or bisexual
users do not think of a higher level of privacy as any more essential than their heterosexual
peers. This could perhaps be attributed the increasingly positive view of homosexuals in
modern society (Brewer, 2003). The need to hide away and disguise oneself is gradually
becoming less necessary as a homosexual social networking site user, with public

26
stigmatisation becoming increasingly less apparent in society. The advent of the Internet has
provided a much wider variety of methods of representation to homosexuals (Alexander,
2004); these results are perhaps an indication of the future of the online communities that
homosexuals and bisexuals can hope to network in, free from the fear of prejudice.

INTERACTION

The results of my study support my hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to network
with users with the aim of a sexual encounter than heterosexuals. The idea of homosexuals
using the Internet as a source of sexual encounters is not a new one. Research has shown that
between 1993 and 2003, the number of homosexual men that found their first male sexual
partner online had risen by 58.9% (Gross, 2008). This surge in popularity is mirrored in the
results of my study, confirming that homosexuals are more likely to meet someone they have
met on a social networking site than heterosexuals and that non-heterosexuals are more likely
to network with users with the aim of a sexual encounter. But with figures like the ones
mentioned by Gross (2008) available, is it really much of a surprise that the hypotheses were
confirmed?

The study also yielded results supporting the hypothesis that homosexuals are more likely to
meet someone they have met on a social networking site than heterosexuals. The methods of
online interaction have drastically changed over the last few years and continues to do so into
the future (Bianchini, 2010; New Media Consortium, 2007); the opportunities to meet new
‘friends’ are ever expanding. Reports of the quality of friendships declining continue to
appear (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Brashears, 2006; Sigman, 2009), but with the definition
of a ‘friend’ under scrutiny (Rubel, 2007), are those that you meet for sexual encounters now
also deserving of the ‘friend’ classification? The prospect of the current trend of social
networking for sexual gain amongst non-heterosexuals doesn’t seem to be slowing either.
With advancing technologies comes new ways to interact; from the text based ‘men-for-men’
chat rooms American Online introduced fifteen years ago, we have seen the arrival of
exclusively homosexual social networking sites. But as Dan Savage, author of sex column
‘Savage Love’, states, that it is the users that are responsible for their actions rather than the
websites that provide the service (Gross, 2008). Will this nonchalant attitude to promiscuity
be the downfall of the homosexual community, or has the attitude always been present and
simply transferring to an online setting? The health implications of random ‘hook-ups’ have
been heavily discussed (Bolding et al, 2005; Horvath, Oakes & Rosser, 2008; Zhang et al,
2007), as have the psychological impacts of a highly sexualised presence on the Internet
(Gross 2008). But was Jonathan Crutchely correct in saying that “Guys have always been

27
looking for the same things. The Internet makes it much easier to find exactly what you
want”? I propose that the trend of non-heterosexuals using the Internet as a sexual tool will
continue into the foreseeable future as the underlying issues as to why non-heterosexuals use
it in such a manner is still as prominent as it always has been.

PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

The power of the Internet as a relationship-establishing tool is undeniable (The Economist

Newspaper Limited, 2009); therefore the focus of my study was based on effect social
networking sites has on pre-existing, offline relationships. The suggested negative effects of
spending an excessive amount of time on social networking sites are numerous and eclectic;
from social isolation (Sigman, 2009) and depression (Morrison and Gore, 2010), to
personality disorders such as ADHD (Derbyshire, 2009). My hypothesis was to determine
whether excessive use of social networking sites has a detrimental effect on the perceived
quality of a romantic relationship, but the study produced no results to support this. Many
studies have shown the positive effect of social networking sites on relationships (Li, 2007;
Rainie et al, 2006), perhaps this effect also translates into a romantic setting also? I feel that
the main reason for this was the small sample size. As this hypothesis was only applicable to
participants in a relationship, the sample size was drastically reduced from 129 to less than
50, a number too small in size to effectively perform analysis upon. Further research into this
area, with an appropriate sample size, may prove more successful in the analysis of the
proposed correlation.

LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS

One major limitation of my research was that no homosexual females participated in the
questionnaire. Homosexuals have traditionally been among the most difficult social groups to
reach for research purposes, as people often are reluctant to talk about their sexual activity
and orientation, especially when they are part of a stigmatized demographic minority. This
lack of homosexual female participation limited the analysis that could be undertaken, instead
leading the study to focus solely on homosexual males. Researching into the differences in
behaviour between homosexual males and females in a social networking site setting could be
an interesting topic for future research. Similarly, there was a low proportion of heterosexual
male participants, a factor which would be beneficial to reduce in further studies.

The questionnaire was only available to English speaking social networking site users, as it
was solely written in English and exclusively posted onto English speaking websites. One of
the main benefits of social networking sites is that it can connect people who live on opposite

28
sides of the world, to only allow English speaking users to participate in this study is a
limitation which if possible, would be advantageous to lessen in future studies.

Another limitation of my research was that merely 5% of the participants were over 34 years
old. Whilst on both Facebook and MySpace less than 20% of users are aged 35 or older
(O’Neill, 2008), it would have been advantageous to have a larger representation of the
‘older’ population in the research. The younger generation may be more likely to form
relationships online when compared to older users, a possible subject of further research
could be to analyse the differences between users of varying age groups to see how
interaction differs between them.

THREATS TO VALIDITY AND FURTHER RESEARCH

A risk specifically related to my research is that it will not give a fair representation of
homosexuals due to privacy and stigma issues. Homosexuals have traditionally been among
the most difficult social groups to research, especially when using traditional methods such as
telephone and mail surveys. The emergence of online questionnaires had lessened this
problem slightly, but the effects are still apparent when constructing the research instrument.
When considering how to approach asking the participant their sexual orientation, there are
two ways to approach the situation; asking indirectly, by asking questions about the gender of
the participant’s partner or which sexual activities they engage in, or asking them directly. I
chose the latter, as by stressing the confidentiality of the questionnaire I hoped that the
participant would feel comfortable disclosing such information. In future research, it would
be interesting to see the effects of asking indirectly and whether this method allows for a
greater yield of participants.

The questionnaire asks participants to recall weekly slots of time spent on social networking
sites, but requesting estimations of time or frequency of event occurrence rarely produces a
reliable answer, therefore lessening the significance of any results obtained from this data
(Kirakowski, 2000). In a future study, it could prove more effective to ask participants to
actually measure the time spent on social networking sites, rather than asking for their own
estimation.

Weaknesses in the actual research instrument also became apparent once the results were
collated. Allowing participants to enter a textual response in a text field when answering why
they had provided false personal information on a social networking site, lead to three entries
of qualitative data that was then unusable for statistical analysis. After reading the content of

29
the responses which were submitted, I then found the most appropriate answer from the
available check boxes and transferred the answer to there.

Another weakness in the design of the research instrument was found in the questions
regarding which details a user shares on their social networking site profile. For the fields
‘Forename’ and ‘Full Name’, it was not clearly defined how the user should answer. For
example, if the user shares their full name on their profile, should they also check the
‘Forename’ option, as listing their ‘Full Name’ would include divulging their forename? This
lack of clarity lead to a selection of participants checking both checkboxes, whilst the
remainder only checked one. Before I could analyse the results statistically, I amended the
results so that for those users who shared their full name, only had that singular field checked.
A lack of clarity was also apparent when asking the participant what their current relationship
status was. A common response was for both ‘Single’ and ‘Casual Dating’ to be checked,
which were intended to be mutually exclusive when the research instrument was constructed.
The results were then amended according to whether the participant had entered figures in the
measures of perceived romantic relationship quality section.

Debriefing at the conclusion of questionnaires is common practice in psychological studies,

but is often unnecessary in other questionnaires. As the study dealt with sensitive issues such
as sexual orientation and sexual activity, it perhaps would have been advantageous to include
a debrief section to inform the participant as to what their answer would be used for and the
purpose of the study. Some debriefs go as far as to offer suggested related research if the
participant were to be interested in conducting further reading into the subject, or helpline
telephone numbers for those who have been effected by the issues discussed in the
questionnaire. I would consider including a similar section if I were to do a related study in
the future.

CONCLUSION

As shown in the results of this study, the way we interact online often mirrors our offline
habits and personalities; non-heterosexuals are more likely to lead a sexually permissive
lifestyle. Whilst the hypotheses concerning online privacy proved insignificant, it was those
that suggested that offline human behaviour was mirrored in an online setting which proved
true. Another conclusion of this research is that much of the blame attributed to social
networking websites for the acts that are carried out upon them should actually rest upon the
users themselves. If Internet users had decided not to populate these online communities, the
relationships and actions that were recorded in this study would not exist. Social networking

30
sites are tools; it is the user who decides their purpose. As participation on social networking
sites takes place through the abstraction of a computer and communication is carried out
through a keyboard, many of the moral and social norms we observe in the physical world are
either modified or completely ignored. Although our online selves may mirror our offline
selves, perhaps the mirrors reflection is magnified and allows us to view our strengths and
weaknesses in greater detail. No social networking site has the ability to alter the moral
standing of its users, just as ownership of a gun does not make a man a murderer. Without the
societal influences provided by social anxiety, shame and the preservation of self-respect,
online we are at liberty to say and do as we please. In Freudian terms, we could compare it to
the id being given full license to pursue the pleasure principle without interference from the
super-ego. As Bertrand Russell observed, “Freedom in general may be defined as the absence
of obstacles to the realization of desires”.

The Internet itself is still in a relative state of infancy, with the first social networking site
SixDegress.com established just thirteen years ago. Academic research into the relationship
between the Internet and its users has produced many theories, but at such an early stage of its
evolution can any of these be respected as truth? Perhaps when the Internet has reached a
greater level of maturity, studies such as these will produce a more reliable set of theories.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

31
Alexa Top 500 Global Sites (2009). Retrieved Jan 7, 2010, from http://www.alexa.com/topsites

Alexander, J. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: Queer webs: Representations of LGBT people and
communities on the world wide web [Electronic Version]. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies,
7, 77–84.

Anderson, J., Liackman, L., & Reitsma, R. (2009, July 27). Consumer Behavior Online: A 2009 Deep
Dive. Forrester Research. Retrieved Oct 10, 2010, from http://www.forrester.com/rb/Res

Bachmann, D., & Elfrink, J. (1996). Tracking the progress of e-mail versus snail-mail. Marketing Research, 8(2),
31-35.

BBC News. (2010, February 18). PleaseRobMe website reveals dangers of social networks. BBC News. Retrieved
April 30, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8521598.st

Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2008). Sexual orientation and self-reported lying. Review of Economics of the Household,
7(1), 83-104.

Bialik, C. (2007, November 16). Sorry, you may have gone over your limit of network friends. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119518271549595364.html?
mod=googlenews_wsj

Bianchini, G. (2010, January 22). The evolution of social technology: Building richer, more engaged lives, online
and off. The Huffington Post. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-bianchini/the-
evolution-of-social-t_b_433815.html

Bolding, G., Davis, M., Hart, G., Sherr, L., & Elford, J. (2005). Gay men who look or sex on the Internet: Is there
more HIV/STI risk with online partners? AIDS, 19(9), 961-968. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2005/06100/Gay_men_who_look_for_sex_on_the_Internet__is_there.
14.aspx

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

Blumenfeld, W., Cooper, R., Curtis, C., & Ferlazzo, M. (2010, March). ISU researchers publish national study on
cyberbullying of LGBT and allied youths. Iowa State University. Retrieved April 21, 2010, from
http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2010/mar/cyberbullying

Brewer, P. R. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. The Journal of Politics, 65,
1208-1220.

Campbell, D. (2005, December 11). 3.6m people in Britain are gay. The Observer. Retrieved March 14, 2010,
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/11/gayrights.immigrationpolicy

Castelfranchi, C., & Tan, Y. (2002). The role of trust and deception in virtual societies. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 55-70.

Chigona, W., Beukes, D., Vally, J., & Tanner, M. (2009). Can mobile internet help alleviate social exclusion in
developing countries? The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 36(7), 1-16.

32
Chittenden, M., & Holehouse, M. (2010, January 24). Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls. Times Online.
Retrieved April 14, 2010, from www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6999874.ece

Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building Trust in Virtual Teams. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 47(2), 95-103.

Derbyshire, D. (2009, February 24). Social websites harm children's brains: Chilling warning to parents from top
neuroscientist. Daily Mail. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1153583/Social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-Chilling-warning-parents-neuroscientist.html

DeWert, M. H., Babinski, L. M., & Jones, B. D. (2003). Safe passages: Providing online support to beginning
teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 311-320.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution,
22, 469-493.

Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S. R., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A
comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information
Systems.

The Economist Newspaper Limited. (2009, February 26). Primates on Facebook. The Economist. Retrieved April
22, 2010, from http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13176775&source=login_payBarrier

Egan, J. (2000, December 10). Lonely gay teen seeking same. The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2010,
from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/magazine/lonely-gay-teen-seeking-same.html

Elias, M. (2007, February 11). Gay teens coming out earlier to peers and family. USATODAY. Retrieved March
24, 2010, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-07-gay-teens-cover_x.htm

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), 340-354.
Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/a

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: Social virtues and the creation of prosperity. NY: Free Press.

Friend. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/friend

Galupo, M. P. (2007). Friendship patterns of sexual minority individuals in adulthood. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 24(139). Retrieved March 22, 2010, from
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/1/139

Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1999). Studying on-line social networks. In S. Jones
(Ed.), Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for Examining the Net (pp. 75-105). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball Sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148-170.

33
Gross, M. J. (2008, September). Has Manhunt destroyed gay culture?. Out Magazine. Retrieved October 21, 2009,
from http://out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=24005

Gross, R., Acquisti, A., and Heinz, H. J. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In
WPES '05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society, (pp. 71-80), New York,
NY, USA. ACM.

Grotevant, H. D. (1998). Adolescent development in family contexts. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),
Handbook of Child Psychology; Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 5th ed. (pp. 1097-1149).
New York: Wiley.

Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: The Role of Consequences. American Economic Review, 95(1), 384–394.

Harris Interactive. (2008, April 21). Gay and lesbian adults are reading and responding to more blogs than
heterosexuals. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.harrisi.org/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1300

Hartwell, S. (1995). What a difference a gay Makes: An empirical study of the impact of 'out' gay law faculty on
law school curriculum and policies. National Journal Of Sexual Orientation Law, 1(2), Retrieved May 7, 2010,
from http://www.ibiblio.org/gaylaw/issue2/hartwell.html

Heckathorn, D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social
Problems, 44(2), 174-199.

Hegland, J. E., & Nelson, N. J. (2004). Cross-dressers in Cyber-Space: Exploring the internet as a tool for
expressing gendered identity. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 7(2-3), 139-161.

Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the "new" Internet: Facebook.com and
MySpace.com. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 31, 95-123.

Horvath, K. J., Oakes, J. M., & Rosser, B. R. (2008). Sexual negotiation and HIV Serodisclosure among men who
have sex with men with their online and offline partners. Journal of Urban Health, 85(5), 744-758.

Horrigan, J. (2009, July 22). Wireless internet use. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/12-Wireless-Internet-Use.aspx

Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/huffaker.html

Idriss, S. Z., Kvedar, J. C., & Watson, A. J. (2009). The role of online support communities: Benefits of expanded
social networks to patients with psoriasis. Archives of Dermatology, 145(1), 46-51.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?: Antecedents of trust in global virtual
teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29 - 64.

Jernigan, C., & Mistree, B. F. (2009). Gaydar: Facebook friendships expose sexual orientation. First Monday,
14(10). Retrieved March 14, 2010, from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2611/2302

34
Johnson, B. (2010, January 11). Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder. The Guardian. Retrieved
April 29, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy

Kirakowski, J. (2000, June 2). Questionnaires in Usability Engineering FAQ. UCC home page. Retrieved March
13, 2010, from http://www.ucc.ie/hfrg/resources/qfaq1

Li, L. (2007). Friendship in a web 2.0 world – How social networks have redefined friendship. Green Marketing
2.0. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://lornali.com/social-media/friendship-in-a-web-20-world-how-social-
networks-have-redefined-friendship

Luscombe, B. (2009, June 22). Facebook and divorce: Airing the dirty laundry. Time. Retrieved March 20, 2010,
from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904147,00.html

McMillan, S. J., & Morrison, M. (2006). Coming of age with the internet: A qualitative exploration of how the
internet has become an integral part of young people’s lives. New Media Society, 8(1), 73-95.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & M. E. Brashears. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core
discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353-375.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versus electronic mail
surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37(4), 429 – 439.

Mele, C. (1999). Cyberspace and disadvantaged communities: The Internet as tool for collective action.
Communities in cyberspace (p. 292). London: Routledge.

Morrison, C. M., & Gore, H. (2010). The relationship between excessive internet use and depression: A
questionnaire-based study of 1,319 young people and adults. Psychopathology, 43(2), 121-126.

Mustanski, B. S. (2001). Getting wired: Exploiting the internet for the collection of sexually valid data. The
Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 292-301

New Media Consortium. (2007, December). Social Networking, the “Third Place,” and the Evolution of
Communication presented at the NMC Series of Online Conferences.

Nielsen, (2009). Global Faces and Networked Places. In Neilsen. Retrieved Oct 10, 2009, from http://en-
us.nielsen.com/forms/report_forms/Global_Faces_and_Networked_Places_A_Nielsen_Report_on_Social_Networ
kings_New_Global_Footprint.

O'Neill, N. (2008, June 18). Top social network age distributions. SocialTimes.com. Retrieved March 20, 2010,
from http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/06/top-social-network-age-distributions/

Parker, L. (1992). Collecting data the e-mail way. Training and Development, 52-54.

Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams. MIS
Quarterly, 27(3), 365-395 .

Primates on Facebook. (2010, February 26). The Economist. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13176775&source=log

35
Rainie, L., Boase, J., Horrigan, J. B., & Wellman, B. (2006, January 26). The Strength of Internet. Pew Research
Center's Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx

Randerson, J. (2009, September 10). Facebook study reveals users 'trophy friends'. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved
March 21, 2010, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3306173/Facebook-study-reveals-users-
trophy-friends.html

RealWire, (2007). Social networking sites: Almost two thirds of users enter false information to protect identity.
Realwire. Retrieved Mar 3rd, 2010, from http://www.realwire.com/release_detail.asp?ReleaseID=6671

Reynolds, S. (2009, June 18). Hooking up with the father of Manhunt. Gay & Lesbian Times. Retrieved March 21,
2010, from http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=14920

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.

Rubel, S. (2007, August 27). The web changes how we define friendship. Micro Persuasion. Retrieved April 29,
2010, from http://www.micropersuasion.com/2007/08/how-the-web-cha.html

Schaefer, D. R., & Dillman, D. A. (1998). Development of standard e-mail methodology: Results of an
experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378-397.

Seidman, S., Meeks, C., & Traschen, F. (1999). Beyond the Closet? The Changing Social Meaning of
Homosexuality in the United States. Sexualities, 2(1), 9-34.

Sexual Orientation, Homosexuality, & Bisexuality. (2010). American Psychological Association (APA). Retrieved
March 13, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Sigman, A. (2009). Well connected? The biological implications for 'social networking'. Biologist, 56(1), 14-20.

Smith, M. A., & Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in Cyberspace. Communities in Cyberspace (1 ed., p. 4). New
York: Routledge.

Sophos. (2010, February 1). Malware and spam rise 70% on social networks, security report reveals. Sophos.
Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2010/02/security-report-
2010.html

Švab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2008). Researching hard-to-reach social groups: The example of gay and lesbian
population in Slovenia. Drustvena istrazivanja: Journal for General Social Issues, 17(3), 529-552.

Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive
self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023-1036.

Tsang, M. (2010, March 3). Facebook Valued at $11.5 Billion in SharesPost Index. BusinessWeek. Retrieved April
22, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/facebook-valued-at-11-5-billion-in-debut-of-
sharespost-index.html

36
Warren, C., & Laslett, B. (2010). Privacy and secrecy: A conceptual comparison. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3),
43-51.

Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. Digital Cities II. Computational
and Sociological Approaches: Second Kyoto Workshop on Digital Cities, Kyoto, Japan, October 18-20, 2001.
Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) (1st, pp. 337-343). New York: Springer.

White, M., & Dorman, S. M. (2001). Receiving social support online: Implications for health education. Health
Education Research, 16(6), 693-707.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form
close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 105-119.

Wu, J., Chen, Y., & Chung, Y. (In Press). Trust factors influencing virtual community members: A study of
transaction communities. Journal of Business Research.

Zhang, D., Bi, P., Lv, F., Tang, H., Zhang, J., & Hiller, J. E. (2007). Internet use and risk behaviours: An online
survey of visitors to three gay websites in China. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 83(7), 571-576.

Zhao, Y., Montoro, R., Igartua, K., & Thombs, B. D. (2010). Suicidal ideation and attempt among adolescents
reporting "unsure" sexual identity or heterosexual identity plus same-sex attraction or behavior: Forgotten groups?
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(2), 104-113.

APPENDIX

i. Questionnaire Screenshots
ii. Statistical Test Output
iii. Responses Excel File [Submitted Electronically]
iv. SPSS Raw Data [Submitted Electronically]

37