Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the

relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook
use and affordances
Jesse Fox a,⇑, Jennifer J. Moreland b
a
The Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1339, USA
b
The Research Institute, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, 575 Children’s Crossroad, WB5K10, Columbus, OH 43215, USA

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

Article history: Research on social media typically focuses on its benefits; considerably less is known about the dark side
Available online 24 December 2014 of social networking sites. Focus groups of adult Facebook users (N = 44) uncovered narratives surround-
ing individuals’ negative psychological and relational experiences tied to the social networking site and
Keywords: its affordances (e.g., connectivity, visibility, accessibility, persistence, and social feedback). Thematic anal-
Social networking sites ysis rendered five themes regarding Facebook stressors: managing inappropriate or annoying content, being
Social comparison tethered, lack of privacy and control, social comparison and jealousy, and relationship tension and conflict.
Jealousy
Results demonstrate that although Facebook users often experience negative emotions, they feel
Relationship conflict
Privacy management
pressured to access the site frequently due to the fear of missing out and to keep up with relationship
Facebook addiction maintenance demands. Some participants reported privacy violations due to Facebook’s visibility, con-
nectivity, and persistence. These features also afforded constant social comparison to other network
members, which triggered jealousy, anxiety, and other negative emotions. Relational turbulence occurred
due to the public nature of conflict on Facebook. Many participants’ responses revealed overarching con-
tradictions: initially they claimed Facebook was inconsequential, yet later recounted significant stressful
or hurtful events associated with Facebook. Our findings indicate some methods may not uncover the
actual nature or scope of users’ experiences.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Social networking websites (SNSs) have become an integral
medium for communicating within and about interpersonal rela-
tionships. Facebook is the most dominant SNS in the U.S. and over
one billion people worldwide possess an active Facebook account
(Facebook, 2014). Over two-thirds of U.S. Facebook users visit the
site at least once per day and are connected to an average of 338
friends (Pew Research Center, 2014).
One reason Facebook is the most popular social networking site
is the scope of affordances it provides for users. The ability to
connect with one’s offline network online—as well as make new
connections online—allows users to communicate easily with net-
work members. Through the posting and sharing functions, social
information is easily distributed and stored among members; users
can also provide feedback to this information in the form of com-
⇑ Corresponding author at: 3084 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH
43210-1339, USA. Tel.: +1 (614) 247 2348.
E-mail addresses: fox.775@osu.edu (J. Fox), jennifer.moreland@nationwide
childrens.org (J.J. Moreland).
ments and ‘‘likes.’’ Facebook also offers the convenience of net-
work-wide, group, and private communication channels through
one interface. Further, Facebook has a mobile application, ensuring
that users can access the site easily from their devices. Collectively,
these affordances explain why Facebook has grown and main-
tained a devoted user base globally.
Although considerable research has focused on the benefits of
using SNSs such as increased social capital, social support, and
relationship maintenance (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007;
McEwan, 2013; Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013), fewer studies have
examined the nature of negative outcomes for adult users. Given
that users expect positive outcomes and often visit SNSs for relax-
ation, entertainment, or social connection (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2013;
Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009), users may not anticipate negative
experiences or interactions, making them more potent or hurtful.
At this time, some survey-based research has identified links
between Facebook use and diminished well-being (e.g., Chen &
Lee, 2013; Chou & Edge, 2012; Kross et al., 2013), as well as nega-
tive experiences based on unfriending and romantic relationship
dissolution (Bevan, Ang, & Fearns, 2014; Fox, Jones, & Lookadoo,
2013; Marshall, 2012; Tokunaga, 2014). Further, a recent content

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
analysis showed a prevalence of negative content posted to
Facebook (Shelton & Skalski, 2014). What is lacking is a deeper
investigation into how and why users have negative experiences
on Facebook, particularly given users’ tendency to proclaim, ‘‘it’s
just Facebook,’’ and thus does not affect them substantially (Fox,
Warber, & Makstaller, 2013). As Mao (2014) noted, qualitative
methods are necessary to elaborate on quantitative studies about
technology and gain more insight into the breadth and depth of
users’ changing experiences. It is important to determine the scope
of these experiences so users and scholars are aware of both the
benefits and drawbacks to participating in SNSs and can learn to
manage or guide the management of negative Facebook experi-
ences in a psychologically and relationally healthy manner. To this
end, we designed an exploratory study to investigate the rich nar-
ratives surrounding users’ negative emotional experiences with
Facebook, rooting our study in the context of dark side interper-
sonal communication.
2. Experiences with social networking sites
2.1. The light side of Facebook
Several benefits have been ascribed to SNS use. Relationships on
Facebook bring social capital, the benefits users receive from their
associations with other people (Ellison et al., 2007; Valenzuela,
Park, & Kee, 2008). Facebook affords the ability to strengthen weak
ties, maintain existing relationships, and define otherwise ambigu-
ous relationships (McEwan, 2013; Valenzuela et al., 2008). Face-
book’s connectivity enables users to promote group identity and
in-group relationships, particularly for users in ethnoracial, gender
identity, or sexual orientation minority groups (Fox & Warber, in
press; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008).
In addition to promoting social relationships, SNS use may have
individual psychological benefits for users. Several studies have
identified boosts in self-esteem from interacting with or modifying
one’s own Facebook profile (Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, &
Campbell, 2012; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Toma & Hancock,
2013) as well as from general Facebook use (Gonzales, 2014).
Research has also determined that connectivity on SNSs may pro-
mote perceptions of social support for some users, which in turn
facilitates well-being offline (Nabi et al., 2013). Thus, Facebook
and other SNSs have demonstrated the potential to provide consid-
erable social and psychological benefits to users.
2.2. The dark side of Facebook
Although Facebook may provide a variety of benefits, SNSs also
manifest a dark side and can have deleterious consequences for
users. A survey by Bevan, Gomez, and Sparks (2014) revealed the
more time spent on SNSs and the more SNSs a person used, the
lower their quality of life. Chen and Lee (2013) found that Facebook
interaction is associated with reduced self-esteem, cognitive over-
load, and feelings of distress. Kross et al. (2013) examined Face-
book use over time and found higher levels of Facebook use were
associated with a significant decrease in well-being. At its worst,
Facebook is used as a conduit for cyberbullying, stalking, and
online harassment (Fox, in press; Kwan & Skoric, 2013).
Because of the visibility of other network members’ experi-
ences, habits, and preferences, social comparison is a common
activity on Facebook. Several studies have indicated that social
comparisons made on SNSs can be detrimental (Feinstein et al.,
2013; Johnson & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014; Lee, 2014). Chou
and Edge (2012) found those who have used Facebook longer
expressed they believed other people were happier and had better
lives than they did. Haferkamp and Krämer (2011) found that after
169
looking at attractive users’ profiles on Facebook, participants felt
worse about their bodies than participants exposed to less attrac-
tive profiles. Male participants who viewed profiles of successful
males demonstrated a greater perceived discrepancy between their
current career status and their ideal career status when compared
to males who viewed the profiles of less successful people
(Haferkamp & Krämer, 2011).
Facebook can also have a negative impact on romantic relation-
ships. Research has shown that Facebook can promote romantic
jealousy (Utz & Beukeboom, 2011), which may explain why it is
a commonly cited source of relational conflict (Fox, Osborn, &
Warber, 2014; Fox, Warber et al., 2013). Furthermore, after rela-
tionships terminate, Facebook can enable unhealthy surveillance
of the ex-partner and delay emotional recovery (Fox, Jones et al.,
2013; Fox & Warber, 2014; Marshall, 2012).
To date, survey-based research demonstrates that adult
Facebook users can feel worse after using the site. Experimental
researchers have manipulated specific content, such as the attrac-
tiveness or success of other users, and determined that Facebook
has the potential to promote negative affect. What is missing from
the literature is an exploration into the variety and scope of nega-
tive experiences resulting from Facebook use. Thus, we ask:
RQ1: What kind of negative psychological experiences do users
have with Facebook?
RQ2: What kind of negative relational experiences do users
have with Facebook?
2.3. Facebook affordances
Social networking sites are defined by users’ ability to maintain
a profile, connect with other users, and trace the networks of con-
nected users (boyd & Ellison, 2008). On Facebook, users are norma-
tively associated with their real (or chosen) name and identifying
information. Thus, Facebook’s primary purpose is to provide access
to users’ offline networks—and the social information they pro-
vide—online (Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012). As a result,
the site has distinct social implications and functionality compared
to other social media.
Facebook’s social functionality is tied to its specific set of affor-
dances (Fox, in press; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Affordances can
influence users’ positive and negative experiences with technology
(e.g., Mao, 2014). Perhaps the most notable affordance of SNSs is
connectivity or association, which enables network members to rec-
ognize each other’s presence and often view each other’s profile
content through a direct connection or a common node (Treem &
Leonardi, 2012). On Facebook, these nodes are referred to as
‘‘friends.’’ Although this connectivity enables convenient access
to one’s entire network and may expand the network by identify-
ing second degree connections, it may also reveal associations that
promote stress (e.g., seeing that a romantic partner is still friends
with an ex-partner).
Visibility concerns the public or private nature of information
presented online. Although social information or artifacts may
not be easily accessible or publicized offline, Facebook enables easy
and immediate sharing among the network (Treem & Leonardi,
2012). One drawback is that such information may be negatively
skewed (e.g., an unflattering or inappropriate picture of oneself
posted by a friend). Visibility also enables the monitoring of others’
content without their awareness; for example, Facebook does not
inform a user who has viewed their page. Thus, users can informa-
tion seek surreptitiously.
Social feedback is the ability for others to interact directly with
shared information and subsequently respond to the user
(Sutcliffe, Gonzalez, Binder, & Nevarez, 2011). Facebook allows
users to comment, share, and ‘‘like’’ posts, all of which let the user
170 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
know other network members viewed and interacted with posted
information. Further, although social feedback can be conveyed
privately, most of it is visible to other users. If the social feedback
is positive, such as earning ‘‘likes’’ after posting a picture of a new
haircut, it is likely the user will have a positive reaction or experi-
ence self-affirmation (Toma & Hancock, 2013). Facebook’s features
can also convey negative social feedback, whether through a nega-
tive comment or by ‘‘liking’’ a post that conveys a user’s negative
experience (e.g., ‘‘I lost my job today.’’)
Persistence is tied to the digital nature of the text, pictures, and
other content posted online. Because digital material is easily
saved, duplicated, and recirculated, information shared on
Facebook may be accessible long after the initial post and difficult
to remove permanently (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Members of
family and friend groups typically intersect on Facebook and they
can share and store memories on the site. In the case of an unflat-
tering photo posted by a friend, however, it may be impossible to
delete every copy, ensuring that the photo will endure long after
the initial post. Thus, negative information may persist long after
initial posts and even after an individual attempts to delete
content.
Accessibility is the capability of easily reaching content on an
SNS (Fox, in press). Facebook optimizes its interface for mobile
platforms to maximize the time people spend with the site. Users
are not required to get to a desktop computer; rather they can con-
veniently log on any time and from any place using a digital device
with cellular service or an Internet connection. Some scholars have
noted downsides to constant accessibility such as ‘‘Facebook addic-
tion,’’ a constant need for gratification, and the tendency to become
distracted from work or face-to-face interaction (Masur, Reinecke,
Ziegele, & Quiring, 2014; Pang, 2013; Turkle, 2011).
Given these affordances, social networking sites like Facebook
enable users to initiate, promote, and exacerbate many facets of
the dark side of relationships (Fox, in press). At this time, however,
limited research has delved into the relationship between Face-
book’s affordances and negative experiences with the site. Thus,
we pose a third research question:
RQ3: What affordances of Facebook are associated with nega-
tive experiences?
3. Method
We employed focus groups to uncover themes in the current
study concerning emotional responses and stressors related to
Facebook use. We conducted focus group analysis for two primary
reasons. First, few studies exist that explicate the nature of stress-
ors associated with Facebook. Thus, a method allowing for suffi-
cient freedom and depth of probing was needed. Second, social
networks are inherently social contexts designed for interaction,
and focus groups more closely reflect this dynamic multivocality
compared to other methods (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Focus groups
provide rich, in-depth information and narratives often not
obtained using more closed-ended methods, such as surveys or
experiments. Further, focus groups encourage the expression of
thoughts, emotions, and experiences (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
3.1. Procedure
Focus groups were conducted in two sessions. The inclusion of a
second wave of data enabled triangulation via member validation
and negative case analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Furthermore,
we established diachronic reliability, as we found no noted differ-
ences in participant testimonies from one group of sessions to the
other (Miles & Huberman, 1994). All groups were conducted in the
same location to maintain continuity. The research team video
recorded all focus groups to obtain both verbal and nonverbal
(e.g., nodding, gestures) cues for later analysis (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Three moderators trained in focus group methodology and
qualitative analysis conducted the focus groups. Given their
knowledge on the topic was required to probe participants on rel-
evant themes, the authors served as moderators for the study
(Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996).
When participants arrived at the study location, the modera-
tor(s) greeted them and guided them through the consent process.
Moderators worked from a semi-structured guide to lead the focus
groups (see Appendix A). The semi-structured nature of the guide
encouraged the natural flow of conversation and further probes
were employed in each group when necessary.
3.2. Participants
Participants (N = 44) were 17 men and 27 women who were tak-
ing one or more classes at a large Midwestern university and ranged
in age from 19 to 52 (M = 23.36, SD = 6.79). Some were offered extra
credit in exchange for their participation, whereas others partici-
pated without compensation. They identified as White/European/
European-American (52.3%), Asian/Asian-American (20.5%),
Multiracial (6.8%), Latino/a (2.3%), Middle Eastern (2.3%), and seven
did not report their race/ethnicity due to a clerical error. All those
reporting sexual orientation stated they were heterosexual. Only
one participant reported she did not currently use Facebook, but
had been a regular user until six months prior. Her data was
retained in the analyses as she effectively responded to questions
regarding her prior use. Otherwise, all participants possessed an
active Facebook account. They reported having their profile an aver-
age of 3.55 years (SD = 1.90) and spent an average of 1.56 h
(SD = 1.63) each day actively using Facebook (i.e., not just logged
in, but using the interface). This use is notably higher than Face-
book’s recent report that users spend 40 min a day on the site
(Brustein, 2014).
3.3. Analysis
Twelve same-sex groups ranging in size from three to five par-
ticipants were analyzed. We conducted same-sex groups because,
as Lindolf and Taylor (2011) note, ‘‘a homogeneous group is usually
more willing to speak openly’’ (p. 186). We engaged in an open
coding process and then completed in vivo coding (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) to identify the terms participants chose to describe
their experiences (e.g., creeping, TMI, friend sluts). Through itera-
tions of the data, a constant-comparative method was applied to
identify, elaborate, and clarify categories (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Emergent categories were examined within and across
groups to determine salience and recurrence. After a training pro-
cess, the first and second authors individually coded each group
and identified common themes across groups to achieve investiga-
tor triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Common themes were
identified within each of the 12 focus groups.
4. Results
Following the coding process, five themes concerning the dark
side of Facebook emerged: managing inappropriate or annoying
content, being tethered to Facebook, perceived lack of privacy and
control, social comparison and jealousy, and relationship tension.
The role of Facebook’s affordances manifested in the discussion
of each of these themes.
 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
4.1. Managing inappropriate or annoying content
In terms of minor negative experiences, a number of subthemes
emerged concerning participants’ aggravation with others’ per-
ceived misuse of Facebook or Facebook’s automated features. Reac-
tions to this inappropriate content ranged from annoyance (e.g.,
due to continuous negative posts from a sulking friend) to shock
(e.g., from hearing important news from a close friend via an imper-
sonal channel like Facebook) to disgust (e.g., from seeing lewd,
offensive, or otherwise inappropriate content posted by friends).
Participants reported mild irritation from content they per-
ceived as repetitive and pointless, whether user- or system-gener-
ated. Because Facebook affords both continuous and automatic
posting, several participants were vexed by ongoing status updates
about gaming achievements or score updates from live sporting
events. The most frequently cited annoyance was Facebook’s auto-
mated birthday notifications, which participants felt obligated
them to post birthday wishes on that person’s page. A female par-
ticipant reported: ‘‘You have to make sure to log on to their wall
that day and say ‘Have a great day!’’’ Another female participant
agreed: ‘‘Right, or then people are upset. It’s totally the success
of Facebook that we feel bad about not being on Facebook on that
day. Isn’t that some bullshit?’’ Participants wanted to ignore these
posts, but they realized doing so came at a social cost. The latter
quote points to how some participants even placed blame on
Facebook for feeling such pressure.
Beyond mere annoyance, participants noted numerous instances
of being shocked by the perceived inappropriateness of friends’ vis-
ible posts, comments, and photos. Although Facebook does post
rules regarding obscene content, it does not afford selective filter-
ing. As one male participant noted, ‘‘There aren’t obviously clear
cut boundaries as established by, like, Mark Zuckerberg as to what
you should be doing on Facebook. . .I just feel there are natural
boundaries that exist on how much you should be sharing.’’ Indeed,
participants often elaborated their standards regarding what they
deemed appropriate self-disclosure on Facebook, but what was con-
sidered acceptable varied between individuals and groups. Thus,
although many endorsed the idea of ‘‘natural boundaries’’ or that
people ‘‘should know what’s okay and what’s not,’’ the discrepan-
cies in between responses demonstrates that, similar to Fox and
Anderegg (2014), norms and expectations for behavior on Facebook
vary considerably. Such variation may be a source of conflict among
friends. In terms of Petronio’s (1991) coordinated management of
privacy theory, although participants report engaging in rule
development for themselves, they often avoid the process of
boundary coordination with others in the Facebook sphere. Instead,
they choose to simply avoid offenders’ pages or block them from
their newsfeed. This passive response does not communicate the
perceived violation to the offender, and thus the boundaries are
not coordinated appropriately.
In addition to content-appropriateness, some participants noted
violations of context-appropriateness. Because Facebook affords
mass posts to the network and connectivity does not distinguish
strong and weak ties, some participants feel SNSs are depersonal-
ized and an inappropriate way to share some information. Some
participants mentioned astonishment over hearing significant
news (e.g., a sibling’s pregnancy and a close friend’s engagement)
via Facebook. In these instances, participants were stunned and
hurt that they learned about a major life event via the massperson-
al channel of Facebook. Rather, they believed they should have
received personal, private contact from the source.
4.2. Being tethered to Facebook
Similar to Turkle’s (2011) claims, participants reported feeling
pressure to continue being a part of the Facebook world and stay
171
connected to friends no matter the place or time. As one female
participant noted, ‘‘I feel like I couldn’t not have a Facebook though
because all my friends have Facebook.’’ Such social pressure often
came coupled with feelings of guilt and dissatisfaction. Because
Facebook is available on mobile devices, it affords constant acces-
sibility, which means users can reach it at all times and also that
other network members expect them to be able to reach it at all
times. Several participants agreed they were unhappy with the
social pressure from social network members to comment imme-
diately on friends’ posts and pictures or post their own pictures
of recent events. One participant likened it to labor:
I think Facebook is one more thing that you have to like be
accountable for. . . ‘‘Hey, I posted on your Facebook wall. Why
didn’t you see it?...Like, why didn’t you read my message?’’. . .[I]
already have all these other things that I need to be doing and
keeping track of and Facebook is just one more thing you have
to be responsive to. . . it’s kinda like work, like you have to do it. . .
Despite reports of negative emotions about feeling tethered to
the site, participants seemed unable to separate themselves from
it. As a female participant noted, ‘‘You have to know what everyone
else is doing at all times.’’ Because Facebook affords constant
accessibility and updating, participants frequently cited a ‘‘fear of
missing out’’ on new social information that they felt was impor-
tant (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013). One male
participant cited this fear to explain the dissonance between his
continuing use of Facebook in spite of disliking it: ‘‘I don’t like
Facebook. I feel like I have to have it just because everyone else
has it. And I feel I’d be missing out on—I don’t even know what
I’d be missing out on.’’ It may be that spending more time on
Facebook foments constant anticipation of important social infor-
mation, even when the idea of what is important is nebulous.
Further supporting the notion of being tethered, most partici-
pants lamented spending too much time on Facebook, as it often
detracted from face-to-face interpersonal interaction, work, stud-
ies, or sleep. One male participant related being late to class and
work often because of a need to check Facebook before he left
the house. A female participant confessed her schoolwork suffered
because she could not control her time on Facebook: ‘‘The paper
took me twice as long as it should have. . .I told myself it would
be 15 minutes. . .It’s kind of a problem.’’ These participants demon-
strate what Pang (2013) refers to as a ‘‘distraction addiction,’’
wherein users are so preoccupied with the information stream
from their devices that they have trouble functioning productively.
Together, these findings suggest why it may be difficult for users to
stay off of or stop using the site. Particularly, the lures of
Facebook’s affordances and fears about missing out on social infor-
mation may inform why many users report problematic behavior
and addictive tendencies regarding SNSs (Masur et al., 2014).
4.3. Privacy frustrations and perceived lack of control
A perceived lack of privacy on Facebook emerged as a popular
theme that manifested in two ways. First, because of the affor-
dances of sharing, replicability, and connectivity, users must cope
with the inability to hide things from their existing Facebook net-
work. Second, because Facebook ultimately controls users’ privacy,
participants lamented the inability to hide things from the world
(i.e., those outside one’s Facebook network) because of the lack
of control of how Facebook itself shares information (e.g., making
material on Facebook searchable on the Internet).
In some cases, members outside of participants’ established
network gained access to their Facebook profile. A middle-aged
male participant experienced a surprise on Facebook: a teenage
girl contacted him and claimed he was her father, a chronological
172 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
impossibility although he knew her mother at one time. Given the
girl seemed troubled, he felt compelled to maintain contact, yet felt
uncomfortable with the situation. After the girl got in trouble, her
mother contacted the participant via Facebook asking what they
should do with ‘‘their’’ daughter. At that point, this participant
could no longer manage the stress of the Facebook connection:
‘‘That’s it for you. You’re blocked. Because it became obvious that
this woman had been living in some kind of delusion, and now
she had her daughter living it too. I was very stressed. And then
my wife saw it [on Facebook], and she got really mad.’’ In the wake
of the situation, this participant reported becoming very paranoid
about people from his past contacting him. He strengthened his
privacy management on Facebook because ‘‘You just never know
what’s going to jump up out of the past.’’
Although some privacy threats could arise from outside of the
network, most participants seemed more concerned with the
threat of privacy violation within their own network. One group
brought up the Tyler Clementi case, wherein a roommate mali-
ciously filmed his closeted roommate’s romantic encounter with
another man and then broadcast it over social media, outing
Clementi and triggering him to commit suicide. The group reflected
on the potential for long-term damage if someone were to be
humiliated via Facebook, as information on Facebook is both visi-
ble and persistent. A male participant suggested that because of
Facebook’s pervasiveness and network connectivity, that person
would likely be left friendless:
You’re pretty much [Facebook] friends with all your friends. You
have a circle of friends on this planet, what are you going to do?
Make a new circle of friends? It’s your entire circle of friends.
You don’t have secret reservoirs of friends. Again, it’s almost like
you’re a celebrity where there is nowhere to run.
This comment reflects how a serious privacy violation would be
far-reaching and perhaps devastating, as Facebook’s connectivity
could leave a user with no unaware ties and thus without a support
system.
4.4. Enduring social comparison and jealousy
Similar to Haferkamp and Krämer (2011) and Chou and Edge
(2012), our findings demonstrate individuals engage in various
manners of social comparison through Facebook. For participants
who started Facebook as an adolescent, the first basis of compari-
son (and competition) was the number of friends one had on the
network: a quantifiable popularity contest. A female participant
noted, ‘‘[Getting Facebook friends] seems like such an arms race,’’
and another in the same group agreed, ‘‘It was like a race to try
to get so many friends.’’ Although participants mostly indicated
that their ‘‘friend count’’ did not matter now, other comments indi-
cated that this measure may still serve as a heuristic cue, particu-
larly for outliers (i.e., judging ‘‘friend sluts’’ with thousands of
friends, or those with very few connections).
Participants also reported comparing their lives to those of their
Facebook friends, which often resulted in feelings of jealousy or
dissatisfaction. One female participant discussed becoming preoc-
cupied with others’ posts: ‘‘I feel like it consumes you. . .to the
point that you can’t live your normal life because you see everyone
else’s. . . I think it makes you think your life is not as fun or as excit-
ing or interesting than other peoples’, which is sad because it’s not
true.’’ Likewise, a few participants noted how Facebook interac-
tions seemed to change offline socializing because people are too
preoccupied with constantly documenting and uploading every
moment. A female participant lamented:
I think life is a lot less stressful when you’re not worried about
how it seems to other people. Everyone is so concerned about
how they look on Facebook. I noticed that even with myself,
like, if I’m at an event it’s like, ‘I need to get a good picture.’
And I stop: ‘Do I really care? I’m having fun with the people
I’m with, the world doesn’t need to know about it.’
Similarly, a male participant blamed Facebook (and its founder)
for hegemonizing the tendency to socially compare:
. . .people are trying to constantly tweet their Facebook to
express who they want to look like, not who they actually are,
and constantly comparing themselves to other people. . . people
are just so, so worried about what other people think, when it
ultimately doesn’t matter. Facebook has this air of authority
that it really doesn’t have. . .Mark Zuckerberg’s a business man
and so he’s gonna do whatever it takes to suck people in and
get their information.
Social comparison became particularly salient to participants in
romantic contexts, wherein they would use Facebook’s affordances
of persistent history and connectivity to self-compare with a roman-
tic interest’s potential or former mates. Male participants especially
acknowledged comparing themselves to a romantic interest’s
ex-boyfriend and even the interest’s current male friends to assess
their potential for success. At the other end of the relationship spec-
trum, some women noted in the wake of a breakup, they pursued
downward social comparison with an ex’s new love interest to bol-
ster their own egos, even if it required considerable effort to do so:
I’ve had friends that have gone to crazy extents—they’ll find out
mutual friends and ask them to sign on and will like look at
every single one of their albums...They want to find like a pic-
ture where they [the new significant other] look unattractive
to make themselves feel better. [laughing]
Although perhaps this social comparison was an attempt at
reducing uncertainty about the current or former relationship,
employing Facebook as a social comparison tool is known to elicit
jealousy in users (Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). Furthermore, partici-
pants also acknowledged the potential for seeing things on
Facebook that instigate feelings of mistrust about their current
romantic partner. Some participants noted that prior to the advent
of Facebook, they would not have been able to compare themselves
so readily to a partner’s former love interests.
4.5. Fighting on and about Facebook: Relationship maintenance,
conflict, and deterioration
Given that Facebook networks typically mimic offline networks
(Reich et al., 2012), it is unsurprising that interactions occurring
offline may carry onto Facebook, and interactions happening on
Facebook may transfer offline. Participants suggested that
Facebook could both exacerbate existing offline conflict and create
new sources of conflict. As one female participant noted, ‘‘Facebook
definitely causes drama.’’
One particularly rife area for this drama was romantic relation-
ships. Facebook’s affordances, such as the visibility of content to
the social network and the ability for relationship partners to link
their profiles (i.e., go ‘‘Facebook official’’; Fox & Warber, 2013), pro-
vided several areas where seemingly small issues took on a new
and vicious life because of Facebook. A male participant noted
Facebook as a frequent source of interpersonal conflict:
It’s kind of stressful sometimes because it becomes drama, it
becomes conflict. The stupid little fights, and it comes up bigger
and bigger and bigger, just for these little reasons: oh, you
didn’t comment me back, or oh you didn’t post this picture
up. I think every relationship is like that—my past two girl-
friends were like that the same way.
 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
Another male agreed, noting he also had fights with his girl-
friend over their one-sided Facebook interaction: ‘‘She said our
wall-to-wall was embarrassing, because it was like her her her
her her, one me. Her her her her her, one me. I mean, it’s not that
I don’t care, it’s just, like, I have your number. I don’t need to write
on your wall.’’ Although the male participant did not see a use for
the affordance of social feedback, his girlfriend’s use of the term
‘‘embarrassing’’ indicates that she felt that his lack of response
had not just interpersonal but social significance due to its visibil-
ity. Similarly, one female mocked other women’s preoccupation
with their significant other’s social feedback on Facebook over
the course of a relationship:
[First, it’s] ‘Oh, he looks good in this picture, and I like his
clothes, and he’s friends with his brother, and they look so nice’
and then six months later, it’s like, ‘I commented on his picture
two days ago and he didn’t ‘like’ it. WHY.’ [throws up hands and
drops pen dramatically, others laugh]
All of these comments indicate that although Facebook makes
relationship maintenance convenient, its perceived accessibility
and the visibility of these interactions to the social network may
foster expectations. If partners’ Facebook use or expectations are
not compatible, this may create conflict and make relationship
maintenance on the site feel burdensome (Fox, in press).
Participants noted the maintenance of family ties on Facebook
was an additional source of interpersonal strife. Several partici-
pants related face-to-face arguments resulting from not friending
or defriending their relatives on Facebook. For example, a female
participant and her cousins were confronted at a family gathering
by their uncle’s new wife, who demanded to know why they had
not friended her on Facebook. In other situations, the relative’s
online behavior is unpalatable. For example, a female participant
defriended her sister-in-law because she found her posts vulgar;
thus, she did not want to be visibly linked to the sister-in-law.
The first time she saw the sister-in-law face-to-face, she was
alarmed by her reaction: ‘‘We went to a wedding and she was like
[makes angry face], ‘You defriended me on Facebook!’ And I was
like, ‘I love you in real life. I don’t like you on the Internet.’’’ As this
incident demonstrates, the practice of defriending may be per-
ceived as a relational slight (Bevan, Ang et al., 2014), and this par-
ticipant reported having to engage in relationship repair to salvage
their connection.
‘‘Facebook wars’’ or ‘‘comment wars’’ represent another form of
conflict participants cited wherein several discussion topics, par-
ticularly politics, could spark heated debates online through the
visible social feedback. Participants acknowledged the lack of
face-to-face conversation often resulted in the debates becoming
uncivil, and most witnessed these fights continue offline.
Alternatively, offline fights moved online. A male participant
recalled an argument with a friend about gay marriage during a
car ride. Although he thought the dispute ended, the friend later
posted about it: ‘‘We got into a big thing on Facebook. It was weird
having an argument over Facebook. Like, waiting for their response
so you can say, ‘Ha ha, that’s crap.’ [mimics angry typing] It became
this big 30-post tirade back and forth.’’ No matter the topic,
Facebook’s visibility and connectivity allow private conflicts to
become public and also enable other network members to com-
ment on it or take sides, further fanning the flames and often pro-
ducing offline relational consequences as well.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we sought to explore the breadth and depth of
participants’ negative emotional experiences with a social net-
working site. This study revealed that SNS use can trigger many
minor and major negative emotional experiences, many of which
173
are afforded by Facebook’s design. Although Facebook’s affor-
dances offer benefits for sharing social information, they also pres-
ent downsides. Participants in this study noted visibility can work
against users, as they see things they do not want to see.
Furthermore, their friends often share things that users wish they
would not share, and the persistence of this information can haunt
users. Although Facebook is conveniently accessible through
mobile devices, this also makes users feel tethered to the site.
Because Facebook affords constant accessibility and updating,
users fear missing out on social information if they do not check
the site regularly, creating more social labor for users. Participants
felt pressured by friends, relatives, and romantic partners to
engage in relationship maintenance on the site; accessibility cre-
ated an expectation that users would respond quickly to Facebook
posts and messages. Connectivity can be great among friends and
relatives, but it can create problems when users do not want to
connect to others, want to terminate existing connections, or use
this connectivity to enable unhealthy behaviors like monitoring
an ex-partner or engaging in social comparison. Despite these neg-
ative experiences, however, all participants except one still main-
tained their Facebook accounts. Future research should further
explore how users weigh the psychological and relational costs
and benefits of their Facebook engagement.
The use of focus groups in this study had many advantages, and
one important finding emerged that probably would not have been
evident using alternative methods. Namely, over the course of the
group discussions, the majority of participants revealed significant
inconsistencies about their negative experiences with Facebook.
These inconsistencies included: (1) suggesting other people caused
or experienced negative events on the site, whereas they them-
selves did not; (2) claiming Facebook was insignificant in their
lives, but later revealing instances in which Facebook had a consid-
erable emotional impact on them; and (3) defending their own
negative interactions on Facebook as uncontrollable, but attribut-
ing others’ negative interactions to personality flaws. These con-
tradictions have significant implications for how SNS researchers
collect and interpret data about user’s experiences.
First, we noted a marked trend supporting the presence of the
third person effect (Davison, 1983) regarding Facebook use. Although
many participants downplayed their own negative interactions on
Facebook, they were quick to assert others posted negatively, cre-
ated drama on or about Facebook, or overreacted to Facebook con-
tent. Later disclosures, however, revealed that, like their peers,
these participants were responsible for negative content or events.
A second related inconsistency was that many participants who
initially claimed Facebook was inconsequential later shared stories
in which Facebook had a significant impact on them. Early in the
discussions, participants often decried other people ‘‘making a big
deal’’ out of Facebook or confusing it with ‘‘real life,’’ but later dem-
onstrated Facebook was consequential and had affected them off-
line. One participant said it was ‘‘ridiculous’’ to get upset over
Facebook, but later relayed how she no longer talked to a close
friend over comments the friend made on Facebook. Two men both
claimed Facebook never played a role in their romantic relation-
ships, but later each discussed how their lack of communication
with their girlfriends on Facebook caused fights offline. The very
same participants who claimed that Facebook was not ‘‘real’’ all
had stories to share about having negative emotions, offline con-
flict, or even relational termination in part because of (if not wholly
attributable to) Facebook’s affordances. These findings reinforce the
notion that although many people conceptualize them as separate
worlds, online and offline experiences are inextricably intertwined.
A third inconsistency is emerged when participants related inci-
dents in which they were responsible for a negative event or drama
on Facebook. Their accounts often revealed the fundamental
attribution error (Ross, 1977). Although other Facebook users posted
174 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176
drama because they were unstable or desperate for attention, when
participants themselves were probed, they claimed external circum-
stances (e.g., needing to respond to someone else’s misguided post)
prompted their own behaviors (DeAndrea & Walther, 2011). Thus,
users demonstrate a blind spot when it comes to their own
Facebook negativity, although they continue to judge others.
These contradictions have significant implications for SNS
researchers. First, they indicate that the breadth of users’ experi-
ences are not truly captured by content analytical procedures or
big data scrapes. For example, several of our participants reported
posting positive messages (e.g., birthdays, congratulating people
on life events) although they actually felt annoyed, offended, or
hurt. Selective self-presentation is pervasive and undoubtedly
shapes the content of users’ posts, and taking these comments at
face value would not be an accurate reflection of users’ state of
mind. Second, participants appear to experience some dissonance
in regards to Facebook. Given many spend considerable time on
the site, they may feel guilty, defensive, or embarrassed about neg-
ative experiences with Facebook and may forget, ignore, minimize,
or avoid discussing the dark side. If researchers assess users’ atti-
tudes or experiences in a single, straightforward survey, users
may consciously or subconsciously provide positively-biased
responses. Qualitative approaches or funneling techniques may
help mitigate bias in the way users describe their experiences with
social media.
Our findings also have practical applications for Facebook users.
They suggest that many users are unaware of how Facebook may
negatively affect their lives and do not necessarily manage nega-
tive experiences in a productive manner. First, our findings suggest
users should become more aware of the time and effort they sink
into the site. As Pang (2013) suggests, contemplative computing
practices may help draw users’ attention to the time they spend
with the site and make that time more efficient, thus helping users
feel less drained, annoyed by, or tethered to the site. Second, our
findings suggest that although Facebook is convenient and accessi-
ble, other channels may be more interpersonally appropriate for
some communication, including arguments and important life
announcements. Visibility to other network members may exacer-
bate conflict, and diminished nonverbal cues may make it difficult
to determine others’ emotional reactions during an argument.
Although Facebook may be an acceptable venue for broadcasting
important announcements to weak ties, it is seen as too deperson-
alized to communicate these messages to strong ties. Third, given
many users felt that their privacy was violated on Facebook, our
findings suggest that users should be educated on how privacy is
practiced at the interpersonal, network, and corporate levels on
every SNS they join. Users should be aware of the consequences
of the affordances of visibility, connectivity, persistence, accessibil-
ity, and social feedback as there are implications for both psycho-
logical and social well-being. Finally, users should be aware of the
detrimental effects of constant social comparison via SNSs. Users
should acknowledge how SNSs afford selective self-presentation
(Walther, 1996) and avoid seeking out targets for comparison.
Blocking these connections or removing them from visible feeds
may help users control the impulse to self-compare and avoid
the subsequent negative emotions.
Given social media use continues to grow among younger and
younger age groups, with a recent survey showing nearly 60% of
children used SNSs by the age of 10 (Lange, 2014), it is essential
these social media literacy efforts start early. Existing patterns of
SNS adoption suggest these efforts should not be restricted solely
to children, however (Pew Research Center, 2014); adolescents
and adults of all ages should be clearly informed of how these sites
work and the potential costs and benefits of participation.
A few strengths and limitations to the current study are worth
noting. The qualitative method allowed for individual narratives to
emerge and provided for a rich analysis of themes. Focus groups
encouraged participants to converse and bounce ideas off one
another in a safe environment, and indeed, over time they dis-
closed more substantial and intense negative experiences. Quanti-
tative analyses concerning Facebook provide only one part of the
picture; researchers should also seek out more descriptive data
to help shape a more comprehensive understanding of users’
online experiences.
Future extensions of this work should address the limitations of
this study. All participants in this study were enrolled in a college
course; the commonality of these experiences across broader pop-
ulations is unknown. Thus, the rich data provided by this study
may be complemented by further quantitative research with a
nationally representative sample to examine how widely these
perspectives are held. Given Facebook’s global appeal—over 80%
of Facebook users are outside of the U.S. and Canada (Facebook,
2014)—cross-cultural studies would offer further insight and bases
of comparison for relational experiences in different countries. Fur-
thermore, our participants were skewed toward younger adults.
Although young adults are some of the heaviest users, SNS use
has grown significantly in older populations and their experiences
likely differ (Pew Research Center, 2014).
With regard to methodology, scholars conducting future stud-
ies in this area may desire to employ male and female moderators.
All focus group moderators in the current study were female,
which may have influenced, further facilitated, or limited some
participants’ responding. Replications with sex-matched modera-
tors are advisable. Overall, these strengths and limitations point
to the need for further exploration of Facebook use and emotion-
ally-charged, dark side interpersonal and masspersonal
interactions.
In sum, this study revealed that although there are many posi-
tive aspects to using social networking sites, users should be aware
of a dark side. Given every participant related a significant negative
relational and psychological experience tied to Facebook, manag-
ing social media and its role in our relationships should be an
essential part of media literacy education. Research should con-
tinue to determine how we can maximize the benefits of social
media while avoiding its drawbacks. Finally, users should remem-
ber that social networking sites are tools, and as one male partici-
pant noted: ‘‘Tools can make your life easier, or you can cut your
hand off. You just have to know how to use them.’’
Appendix A. Semi-structured interview guide
When you share a positive life event or good news on Facebook,
what kind of positive or negative outcomes occur?
When you share a negative life event or bad news on Facebook,
what kind of positive or negative outcomes occur?
If you something good or bad happens to you, do you go on
Facebook to rant or rave about it?
Have you ever posted something that you wished you could
take back?
Have you ever deleted a post because it had an unintended
impact, like hurting someone’s feelings?
Do you think that, because of Facebook, you have a larger group
of friends you could rely on in a crisis (for example, if you
needed someone to take care of you after breaking a leg, or if
you were having a hard time emotionally after a breakup)?
Do you feel Facebook is a healthy or unhealthy practice overall?
What kind of positive or negative emotional experiences have
you had via Facebook during relationship initiation?
What kind of positive or negative emotional experiences have
you had within your romantic relationships on Facebook?
Overall, do you think Facebook is a healthy or unhealthy tool in
romantic relationships?
 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176 175

Do you ever feel that Facebook has caused you stress or Haferkamp, N., & Krämer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects
of online profiles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
anxiety?
Social Networking, 14, 309–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120.
Have you ever had physical repercussions from Facebook use? Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Glancing up or down: Mood
management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites.
Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 33–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.
09.009.
References Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., et al. (2013). Facebook
use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One, 8(8),
e69841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841.
Bevan, J. L., Ang, P. C., & Fearns, J. B. (2014). Being unfriended on Facebook: An
Ku, Y. C., Chu, T. H., & Tseng, C. H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies:
application of expectancy violation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,
171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.029.
226–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009.
Bevan, J. L., Gomez, R., & Sparks, L. (2014). Disclosures about important life events
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
on Facebook: Relationships with stress and quality of life. Computers in Human
school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 16–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Behavior, 39, 246–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.021.
j.chb.2012.07.014.
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
Lange, M. (2014). 59 percent of tiny children use social media. New York Magazine
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. http://
<http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/over-half-kids-social-media-before-age-
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j/1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
ten.html> Retrieved 31.07.14.
Brustein, J. (2014). Americans now spend more time on Facebook than they do on
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network
their pets. Business Week <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-23/
sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–260. http://
heres-how-much-time-people-spend-on-facebook-daily> Retrieved 11.11.14.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009.
Chen, W., & Lee, K. H. (2013). Sharing, liking, commenting, and distressed? The
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
pathway between Facebook interaction and psychological distress.
Lindolf, T. R, & Taylor, B. C (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 728–734. http://
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0272.
Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school
Chou, H. G., & Edge, N. (2012). ‘‘They are happier and having better lives than I am:’’
students’ technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human
The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, 33, 213–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002.
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 117–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners:
cyber.2011.0324.
Associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 521–526. http://
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion
Masur, P. K., Reinecke, L., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2014). The interplay of intrinsic
Quarterly, 47, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268763.
need satisfaction and Facebook specific motives in explaining addictive
DeAndrea, D. C., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between
behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 376–386. http://
online and offline self-presentations. Communication Research, 38, 805–825.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.047.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650210385340.
McEwan, B. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actor–partner
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’
interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance
Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of
strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 863–869.
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0717.
j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Facebook (2014). Our mission <http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/> Retrieved
Sage.
14.09.14.
Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits?
Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J.
Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and
(2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms:
well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 721–727.
Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 161–170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521.
Fox, J. (in press). The dark side of social networking sites in romantic relationships.
Pang, A. S. K. (2013). The distraction addiction. New York: Little, Brown.
In B. K. Wiederhold, G. Riva, and P. Cipresso (Eds.), The psychology of social
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking
networking: Communication, presence, identity, and relationships in online
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes.
communities. Versita.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 729–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
Fox, J., & Anderegg, C. (2014). Romantic relationship stages and behavior on social
cpb.2009.0003.
networking sites: Uncertainty reduction strategies and perceived norms on
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of
Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 685–691. http://
managing disclosure of private information between marital couples.
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0232.
Communication Theory, 1, 311–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.
Fox, J., Jones, E. B., & Lookadoo, K. (2013). Romantic relationship dissolution on
1991.tb00023.x.
social networking sites: Social support, coping, and rituals on Facebook. Paper
Pew Research Center (2014). 6 new facts about Facebook <http://
presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the International Communication
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/>.
Association, London, UK.
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational,
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social
emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human
networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation,
Behavior, 29, 1841–1848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.
maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35,
Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and
527–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031.
hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of
networks. Developmental Psychology, 48, 356–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and
a0026980.
behaviors. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 3–7. http://
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0288.
attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships:
Shelton, A. K., & Skalski, P. (2014). Blinded by the light: Illuminating the dark side of
Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook.
social network use through content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 3–7. http://dx.doi.org/
339–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.017.
10.1089/cyber.2012.0667.
Sutcliffe, A. G., Gonzalez, V., Binder, J., & Nevarez, G. (2011). Social mediating
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (in press). Queer identity management and political self-
technologies: Social affordances and functionalities. International Journal of
expression on social networking sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of
Human-Computer Interaction, 27, 1037–1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
silence. Journal of Communication.
10447318.2011.555318.
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic
Tokunaga, R. S. (2014). Relational transgressions on social networking sites:
relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model.
Individual, interpersonal, and contextual explanations for dyadic strain and
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 772–795. http://dx.doi.org/
communication rules change. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 287–295.
10.1177/0265407512468370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.024.
Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., & Campbell, W. K. (2012). The effect of
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use.
social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 321–331. http://dx.doi.org/
investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1929–1933. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0146167212474694.
10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.012.
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
Gonzales, A. L. (2014). Text-based communication influences self-esteem more than
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication
face-to-face or cellphone communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,
Yearbook, 36, 143–189.
197–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.026.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from
Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects
each other. New York: Basic Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
13691180801999050.
Networking, 14, 79–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.
176 J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168–176

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic
relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 511–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008). Is there social capital in a social network
site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and
participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education
and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23,
3–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
1816–1836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.