Will social media strengthen or threaten romantic love?
The ways we represent our relationships, notice our partners, and let the social media interfere in our romantic relationships have aroused researchers’ interest. In this research, the purpose was to analyze, how people who use social media actively perceive the connection between social media and romantic relationships. The research questions set for this study were: (1) What are the rules of self-disclosure that support romantic relationships in social media?; (2) What kinds of benefits do social media provide for romantic relationships?; and (3) What kinds of threats or disadvantages do social media provide for romantic relationships? This was a qualitative research in which the research participants (N=25) were approached with an online questionnaire that included open-ended questions. The answers were analyzed with the qualitative content analyzing method. The findings showed that the research participants could name some principles of self-disclosure regarding their romantic relationships in social media and certain benefits as well as harms and threats of social media for a romantic relationship. The findings were further discussed in the light of the elements of love as emotions, love as actions, and love as skills and knowledge that here could be interpreted as “the media literacy of romantic relationships”.
2. Finnish people using social media 2015. Helsinki, MTV, Kurio - The Social Media Age(ncy) & Laurea ammattikorkeakoulu (2015). [http://im.mtv.fi/blob/4941078/6c812d65a85598db50814610bd1da47b/suomalaisten-sosiaalisen-median-kaytto-2015-mtv-white-paper-data.pdf?utm_campaign=NTF_pdf_Some2015:eimarklupa&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua]
3. S. Sprecher. The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 630–644 (2011). [doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01330.x]
4. J. H. Kietzmann, K. Hermkens, I. P. McCarthy, and B. S. Silvestre. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251 (2011). [doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005]
5. J. T. Cacioppo, S. Cacioppo, G. C. Gonzaga, E. L. Ogburn, and T. J. VanderWeele. Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(25), 10135–10140 (2013). [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222447110]
6. J. Fox, K. M. Warber, and D. C. Makstaller. The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development. An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 771-794 (2013). [doi: 10.1177/0265407512468370]
7. L. Backstrom and J. Kleinberg. Romantic partnerships and the dispersion of social ties: a network analysis of relationship status on Facebook. CSCW '14 Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 831-841 (2014). [doi: 10.1145/2531602.2531642]
8. K. Määttä and S. Uusiautti. Many faces of love, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2013).
9. S. Uusiautti and K. Määttä. I am no longer alone - How do university students perceive the possibilities of social media? International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(3), 293-305. (2014). [doi: 10.1080/02673843.2014.919600]
10. S. Uusiautti and K. Määttä. If it’s ok that your mom can see it, you can publish it– On suitable behavior in social media. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 4(9), 1184-1202 (2014).
11. K. Määttä and S. Uusiautti. Rakkaus – Tunteita, taitoja, tekoja [Love – emotions, skills, actions], Kirjapaja, Helsinki (2014).
12. M. D. Slater. Reinforcing spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281–303 (2007). [doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x]
13. A. Kavanaugh, D. Reese, J. Carroll, and M. Rosson. Weak ties in networked communities. Information Society, 21, 119–131 (2005).
14. N. B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, and C. Lampe. The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168 (2007). [doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x]
15. L. R. Saslow, A. Muise, E. A. Impett, and M. Dubin. Can you see how happy we are? Facebook images and relationship satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 411–418 (2012). [doi:10.1177/1948550612460059]
16. J. P. Seder and S. Oishi. Intensity of smiling in Facebook photos predicts future life satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 407–413 (2012). [doi:10.1177/1948550611424968]
17. C. M. K. Cheung and M. K. O. Lee. A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49, 24–30 (2010). [doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.12.006]
18. K. L. Blair and D. Holmberg. Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 25, 769–791 (2008).
19. C. M. K. Cheung, P.-Y. Chiu, and M. K. O. Lee. Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337–1343 (2011). [doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028]
20. M. Lea and R. Spears. “Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over computer networks,” in Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track, J. T. Wood & S. Duck Eds., pp. 197-233, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1995).
21. C. L. Toma, and M. Choi. The couple who Facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(7), 367-372 (2015).
22. B. L. Lane, C. W. Piercy, and C. T. Carr. Making it Facebook official: The warranting value of online relationship status disclosures on relational characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 1–8 (2016). [doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.016]
23. J. Northrup and J. Smith. Effects of Facebook maintenance behaviors on partners’ experience of love. Contemporary Family Therapy, 38(2), 245–253 (2016). [doi: 10.1007/s10591-016-9379-5]
24. J. Fox and K. M. Warber. Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: an exploratory study of emerging adults' perceptions, motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(1), 3-7 (2013). [doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288]
25. S. Utz and C. J. Beukeboom. The role of social network sites in romantic relationships: effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511–527 (2011). [doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x]
26. R. S. Tokunaga. Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 705–713 (2011). [doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014]
27. R. B. Clayton. The third wheel: the impact of Twitter use on relationship infidelity and divorce. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(7), 425-430 (2014). [doi: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0570]
28. R. B. Clayton, A. Nagurney, and J. R. Smith. Cheating, breakup, and divorce: is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 717-720 (2013). [doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0424]
29. M. Salmela and S. Uusiautti. How to implement the narrative approach in different phases of a positive psychological research? A four-dimensional analysis. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 6(1), 43-55 (2017). doi: 10.5861/ijrsp.2017.1704
30. P. Mayring. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2) (2000). [http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385]
31. A. K. Shenton. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75 (2004).
32. J. Creswell. W. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2009).
33. K. Määttä and S. Uusiautti. Who is the one? The difficulty in selecting the partner. International Review of Business and Social Sciences, 1(6), 67-88 (2012).
34. J. M. Grohol. Too much time online: internet addiction or healthy social interactions? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2(5), 395-401 (2009). [doi: 10.1089/cpb.1999.2.395]
35. C. L. Toma, and M. Choi. Mobile media matters: media use and relationship satisfaction among geographically close dating couples. CSCW '16 Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 394-404 (2016). [doi: 10.1145/2818048.2835204]
36. A. Dhir and T. Torsheim. Age and gender differences in photo tagging gratifications. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 630-638 (2016).
37. K. Määttä and S. Uusiautti. Silence is not golden: review of studies of couple interaction. Communication Studies, 64(1), 33-48 (2013). [doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.731467]
38. J. Fox and J. J. Moreland. The dark side of social networking sites: An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168–176 (2015). [doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083]
39. K. Scherer. College life on-line: Healthy and unhealthy internet use. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 655–665 (1997).
40. R. Hobbs and R. Frost. Measuring the acquisition of media-literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330–355 (2003). [doi: 10.1598/RRQ.38.3.2]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.