Romantic Relationship Stages and Social Networking Sites: Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Perceived Relational Norms on Facebook
Publication: Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 17, Issue Number 11
Abstract
Due to their pervasiveness and unique affordances, social media play a distinct role in the development of modern romantic relationships. This study examines how a social networking site is used for information seeking about a potential or current romantic partner. In a survey, Facebook users (N=517) were presented with Facebook behaviors categorized as passive (e.g., reading a partner's profile), active (e.g., “friending” a common third party), or interactive (e.g., commenting on the partner's wall) uncertainty reduction strategies. Participants reported how normative they perceived these behaviors to be during four possible stages of relationship development (before meeting face-to-face, after meeting face-to-face, casual dating, and exclusive dating). Results indicated that as relationships progress, perceived norms for these behaviors change. Sex differences were also observed, as women perceived passive and interactive strategies as more normative than men during certain relationship stages.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Note
Researchers may contact the first author at [email protected] for a copy of the measures used in this study.
References
1.
Stafford L, Hillyer JD. Information and communication technologies in personal relationships. Review of Communication 2012; 12:290–312.
2.
Facebook. Statistics. http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/ (accessed Apr 1, 2014).
3.
Fox J, Warber KM. Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults' perceptions, motives, and behaviors. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:3–7.
4.
Carpenter CJ, Spottswood EL. Exploring romantic relationships on social networking sites using the self-expansion model. Computers in Human Behavior 2013; 29:1531–1537.
5.
Hand MM, Thomas D, Buboltz WC, et al. Facebook and romantic relationships: intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:8–13.
6.
McEwan B. Sharing, caring, and surveilling: an actor–partner interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2013; 16:863–869.
7.
Papp LM, Danielewicz JD, Cayemberg C. “Are we Facebook official?” Implications of dating partners' Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15:85–90.
8.
Hall JA. First comes social networking, then comes marriage? Characteristics of Americans married 2005–2012 who met through social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2014; 17:322–326.
9.
Fox J, Warber KM, Makstaller DC. The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp's relational stage model. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 2013; 30:772–795
10.
Fox J, Warber KM. Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2014; 17:3–7.
11.
Marshall TC. Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: associations with postbreakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2012; 15:521–526.
12.
Tokunaga RS. Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:705–713.
13.
Lyndon A, Bonds-Raacke J, Cratty AD. College students' Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:711–716.
14.
Eggermont S. Television viewing, perceived similarity, and adolescents' expectations of a romantic partner. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2004; 48:244–265.
15.
Furman W, Winkles JK. Predicting romantic involvement, relationship cognitions, and relationship qualities from physical appearances, perceived norms, and relational styles regarding friends and parents. Journal of Adolescence 2010; 33:827–836.
16.
Weisskirch RS, Delevi R. “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:1697–1701.
17.
Knobloch LK, Solomon DH. Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies 1999; 50:261–278.
18.
Knobloch LK, Solomon DH. Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication Research 2002; 28:243–257.
19.
Berger CR, Calabrese RJ. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research 1975; 1:99–112.
20.
Antheunis ML, Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Getting acquainted through social network sites: testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in Human Behavior 2010; 26:100–109.
21.
Gibbs JL, Ellison NB, Lai CH. First comes love, then comes Google: an investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research 2011; 38:70–100.
22.
Fox J, Peterson A, Warber KM. Attachment style, sex, and the use of secret tests via social networking sites in romantic relationships. Paper presented at the 2013 Multi-Level Motivations in Close Relationship Dynamics Conference of the International Association for Relationship Research, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
23.
Duck SW. (1977) The study of acquaintance. Farnborough, United Kingdom: Saxon House.
24.
Furman W, Wehner EA. (1994) Romantic views: toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In Montemayor R, ed. Advances in adolescent development, Vol. 3: Relationships in adolescence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 168–195.
25.
Furman W, Wehner EA. (1997) Adolescent romantic relationships: a developmental perspective. In Shulman S, Collins WA, eds. Romantic relationships in adolescence: developmental perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 21–36.
26.
Knapp ML. (1978) Social intercourse: from greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
Altman I, Taylor DA. (1973) Social penetration: the development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28.
Fuhrman RW, Flannagan D, Matamoros M. Behavior expectations in cross-sex friendships, same-sex friendships, and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships 2009; 16:575–596.
29.
Aubrey JS, Harrison K, Kramer L, Yellin J. Variety versus timing: gender differences in college students' sexual expectations as predicted by exposure to sexually oriented television. Communication Research 2003; 30:432–460.
30.
Bartoli AM, Clark MD. The dating game: similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality & Culture 2006; 10:54–80.
31.
Waller MR, McLanahan SS. “His” and “her” marriage expectations: determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage & Family 2005; 67:53–67.
32.
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1990; 58:1015–1026.
33.
Brown BB. (1999) “You're going out with who?” Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman W, Brown BB, Fiering C, eds. The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 291–329.
34.
Friedlander L, Connolly J, Pepler D, et al. Biological, familial, and peer influences on dating in early adolescence. Archives of Sexual Behavior 2007; 36:821–830.
35.
Bochner AP. (1982) On the efficacy of openness in close relationships. In Burgoon M, ed. Communication yearbook 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 109–124.
36.
Knobloch LK, Carpenter-Theune KE. Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research 2004; 31:173–205.
37.
Simon RW, Eder D, Evans C. The development of feeling norms underlying romantic love among adolescent females. Social Psychology Quarterly 1992; 56:29–46.
38.
DeLamater J. (1987) Gender differences in sexual scenarios. In Kelley K, ed. Females, males, and sexuality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 127–139.
39.
Mathwick C. Understanding the online consumer: a typology of online relational norms and behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing 2002; 16:40–55.
40.
Mesch GS, Beker G. Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online? Human Communication Research 2002; 36:570–592.
41.
Fox J, Osborn JL, Warber KM. Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 35:527–534.
42.
Spitzberg BG, Cupach WR. What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression & Violent Behavior 2003; 8:345–375.
43.
Clark CL, Shaver PR, Abrahams MF. Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 1999; 25:709–722.
44.
Baxter LA, Dun T, Sahlstein E. Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 2001; 18:173–199.
45.
Balswick JP. (1988) The inexpressive male. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
46.
Burnett R. (1987) Reflection in personal relationships. In Burnett R, McGhee P, Clarke D, eds. Accounting for relationships: explanation, representation and knowledge. New York: Methuen, pp. 74–93.
47.
Canary DJ, Emmers-Sommer TM. (1997) Sex and gender differences in personal relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
48.
Pew Research Internet Project. Social media update 2013. www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/ (accessed Apr. 1, 2014).
49.
Mansson DH, Myers SA. An initial examination of college students' expressions of affection through Facebook. Southern Communication Journal 2011; 76:155–168.
50.
McAndrew FT, Shah SS. Sex differences in jealousy over Facebook activity. Computers in Human Behavior 2013, 29:2603–2606.
51.
Muise A, Christofides E, Desmarais S. “Creeping” or just information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships 2014; 21:35–50.
52.
Fox J. (in press) The dark side of social networking sites in romantic relationships. In Wiederhold BK, Riva G, Cipresso P, eds. The psychology of social networking: Communication, presence, identity, and relationships in online communities. Berlin, Germany: Versita.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Volume 17 • Issue Number 11 • November 2014
Pages: 685 - 691
PubMed: 25314128
Copyright
Copyright 2014, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
History
Published online: 18 November 2014
Published in print: November 2014
Published ahead of print: 14 October 2014
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.