Understanding Online Communication Patterns
Part of comprehending how people communicate online is understanding what drives them to use technology and in what ways they use the technologies available to them. There have been many studies exploring the motivation for participation in particular sites and Internet usage more globally. Many scholars have outlined their own categories of why people use social media. Some key reasons tend to be: social interaction, information seeking, to pass time, entertainment, relaxation, communica-tory utility, convenience utility, expression of opinion, information sharing, and surveillance and/or to gain knowledge about others (Whiting & Williams, 2013). The primary goal of social networking sites (SNSs) is precisely that: networking (Filipovic, 2013). This technology allows users to connect to others, post pictures, share songs and other media, post thoughts and feelings, and have other users interact with them through likes, shares, etc. It can also be used as a personal diary (Syn & Sinn, 2015). As a result of the varied functions, social media is an important part of our lives.
Motivation theory has been applied to understand SNS usage to examine the perceived benefits of using such sites, including a site’s utility and how much enjoyment the user experiences (Filipovic, 2013). Enjoyment is, as Lin and Lu (2011) found, the most critical factor in deciding to use SNSs. The more one enjoys the experience of social networking, the more they will participate. These positives are also subsequently reinforcing: if one individual has a good experience and enjoys the site, they will spend more time online, find new friends, develop a broader network, and likely have even more enriching experiences (Lin & Lu, 2011). In the case of Facebook, the primary motivator is to communicate with others, even more than individual personality factors in some cases (Ross et al., 2009).
The effects of the result of this networking may depend on the type of person using the media. Several studies have explored the personalities of those posting on social networking sites and explored whether, for some types of people, using Facebook is beneficial. For example, those who are extroverted tend to have more Facebook friends and be more active in social media (Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010). Consequently, those with a tendency toward introversion with Facebook profiles report feeling more disconnected than people with a similar level of introversion who do not have Facebook profiles (Stronge et al., 2015). This may be a result of the “grass is greener” through watching others’ profiles and feeling as if one is not connected through comparing themselves to how others appear to be connected.
There are also some specific motivators in texting. In terms of personality, people who are anxious to take a face-to-face risk in communication are more motivated to use text than calling (Reid & Reid, 2007). In fact, the more someone has face-to-face interactions, the more they engage in texting (Jin & Park, 2010). Further motivations to use texting include searching for affection and feeling (Jin & Park, 2010). Park, Lee, and Chung (2016) suspected there was an association between the number of texts one sends on their cellphone (not time spent texting, but number) and feelings of loneliness—and they were right. The number of messages sent seemed to reduce subjective feelings of loneliness (Park et al., 2016).
Both the synchronous and asynchronous nature of interactive communicative technologies adds particular incentives to online communication and couple relationships. Synchronous communication is communication occurring at the same time—for example, chat rooms, text messaging, and other interactions conducted simultaneously. Asynchronous communications refer to communication occurring over time, such as email or instant messages not received immediately by the intended recipient. Synchronous communication has a built-in incentive of immediate response. Inquiries about one’s whereabouts, activities, and directives are effectively transmitted instantly.
Research in the field of education suggests that a key incentive in the usage of asynchronous communication is the ability to be more thoughtful about one’s message—having a chance to correspond at greater levels of depth (with the receiver focusing more on the message than the presenter) (Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). Further, those with a tendency to be shy may find more comfort in and be more motivated to participate in asynchronous than synchronous communicative methods (Krämer & Winter, 2008), so those uncomfortable in larger social surroundings may be drawn to forms of asynchronous communication and may communicate at a deeper level than those opting for synchronous communication. Those who are motivated to participate in asynchronous situations, however, also have to come to a decision about the rules of engagement: namely, frequency and timing of messages (Ocker & Yaverbaum, 1999). Confusion around this issue may prevent couples from moving forward.
Other research in the field of education can be used to understand interpersonal relationships. Much of the literature suggests the ability to process information presented through interactive communicative technology is dependent on the type of communication used. Synchronous communication may be more natural, but this style of communication may be more difficult to process because immediate responses are required in order to keep the conversation going. On the other hand, asynchronous communication may feel less natural and more purposive, but may be easier to process in some ways because there is little need to respond immediately (Hrastinski, 2008). Several studies have compared both modalities of communication in educational settings (see Hrastinski, 2008, for a complete analysis of studies) and, taken together, reveal a few important trends. First, many of the members who participated in online learning in synchronous chat formats had a greater sense of connection and social support with one another as compared to those who participated in asynchronous e-learning methods. Second, participation in asynchronous communication methods may be better when the focus of the communication is task-oriented. Third, asynchronous communication may be difficult to start when there are fewer people involved in the potential interaction; likewise, people interact more frequently when the communication method is synchronous (Hrastinski, 2008).
The differences described earlier have direct implications for couples, both positive and negative. In cases where the communication is problematic, it is often the case that synchronous and asynchronous types of communication are used inappropriately—that is, couples use asynchronous communication for synchronous communication or use synchronous communication in times when asynchronous communication would be more fitting. This application is supported by research examining couples’ conflict resolution strategies in computer-mediated versus face-to-face communication. From a sample of 47 couples, there seemed to be little difference in the satisfaction level of resolving a conflict through a computer versus face-to-face. The participant’s own responses indicated the use of computer-mediated communication was effective because there were fewer nonverbal distractions. In other words, there was little way to become angry at one’s tone or facial expressions because there were none. Another benefit cited by participants was that asynchronous communication allowed for someone to not respond in the heat of the moment (Perry & Werner-Wilson, 2011).
Another facet of Internet communication related to synchrony is directed versus non-directed communication (Berger, 2013). In directed communication, we speak to one person or a group of people in particular. It is how most of our face-to-face communication operates. Personal information or feelings shared over Facebook statuses are seen by everyone, which is problematic for couples, where private matters are made public where a partner did not consent to the post. For individuals often they share deep personal problems and feelings in statuses and on blogs that are not appropriate and attract obligatory attention from other online members.
A common use of social media is to gain social capital (Aharony, 2016). The establishment of social capital is a mechanism for gaining more than networking (or bridging social capital). For example, if people are anxious, they are not typically going to reach out online to gain new friends, unless the anxiety around not having friends gets so overwhelming that it inspires reaching out online to make new friends—which, in turn, begets more reaching out and more friends (Weiqin, Campbell, Kimpton, Wozencroft, & Orel, 2016). In fact, extroverts end up winning out in online environments in terms of social capital, because of their ability to initiate the expansion of their social network (Weiqin et al., 2016).
The bonding type of social capital involves acquiring social support (Putnam, 2000). In the acquisition of social capital there is the ability to draw on that capital when needed. For example, one might be able to use a network to obtain a new job (Aharony, 2016). The potential resources to be gained from this network include emotional, personal, and financial support. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn are primary settings for the measurement of social capital. They retain information about how many friends, followers, and likes a post receives. Research conducted on social capital of social media (namely Facebook) discovered a strong relationship between both bridging and bonding types of social capital through the use of Facebook, though in some studies the relationship seemed to be strongest between Facebook and bridging capital (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011) because Facebook helps with sustaining more associative relationships (Aharony, 2016). In a study looking specifically at youth, it was noted that those who felt more lonely were those who spent more time online communicating (i.e., disclosing intimate details about their lives) with others. Another study found the affiliation that one might receive from others as well as the feeling of being included were important motivators in phone and texting behaviors (Jin & Park, 2010). This leads scholars like Bonetti, Campbell, and Gilmore (2010) and Saxton and Waters (2014) to believe that the Internet provides a way for lonely youth to engage in developmentally appropriate socialization skills. This activity can combat the potential loneliness (Lee, Noh, & Koo, 2013). Finally, the way in which Facebook users post photos may be less about identity construction and more about relationship displays (Strano, 2008).
Let us be clear on one point: it is not our intention to imply nor do we believe that the only people with personality disorders are the ones who post online or use social media. We do not believe this to be true, nor do we wish to communicate that in this section. We acknowledge that most people (1) do not have personality disorders, and (2) use the Internet regularly and in healthy ways. The purpose of this section is to merely present research that looks at the context and personality characteristics of some people who post and engage in interactions online.
In the early years of SNSs and Internet research, much time was spent examining who was participating in different facets of the Internet (Self-hout, Branje, Delsing, Ter Bogt, & Meeus, 2009; Zillien & Hargittai, 2009). Yet the significant proportion of individuals reporting they use at least one social media site (2.8 billion worldwide) has shifted researchers from examining the personalities of those online and instead evaluating processes in posting including assessing the circumstances under which posts are made. For example, shy people feel more comfortable when discussions are online versus when the discussions take place in person (Ham-mick & Lee, 2014). Shy people also tend to lead online conversations and forums as this does not challenge their anxiety in the same way that doing so in person would (Helm, Möller, Mauroner, & Conrad, 2013). Yet when the conversations are about intent to change some behavior, face-to-face interaction seems to be more effective (Hammick & Lee, 2014).
Regarding social media usage specifically, a notable amount of research examined those with more aggressive/problematic personality traits and their social media and Facebook usage. Buffardi and Campbell (2008) evaluated postings of those who have higher levels of narcissism and found they are more likely to post profile messages characterized by vanity than people who do not. Ong et al. (2011) found that those rating attractiveness of their own profile pictures had higher levels of narcissism and extroversion. Individuals with narcissistic personality traits reflect a high level of self-love, inflated self-view, sense of entitlement, and exaggerated sense of self-importance and uniqueness (Brailovskaia & Bier-hoff, 2016). The utilization of technology and SNSs has allowed covert and open narcissists to indulge in their demand of attention, admiration, and popularity by establishing superficial relationships quickly with their viewers or followers. Consequently, narcissism is considered a predictor of social media use (Leung & Zhang, 2017). With the large audience they acquire, narcissists receive the attention they desire by creating an image of how they want others to perceive them via the amount and types of status updates and uploaded photos they post. Individuals with narcissistic personality traits tend to view their own SNS pages more frequently and spend more time on them (Brailovskaia & Bierhoff, 2016). Covert narcissists experience self-doubt, sensitivity, dissatisfaction, and social anxiety, which then results in a lack of social skills to gain public approval in face-to-face social interactions. They are, however, able to present their narcissism in an open manner via SNS platforms just as openly as open narcissists. Covert narcissists have time to plan and control their self-presentation that they otherwise would not be able to do in face-to-face interactions (Brailovskaia & Bierhoff, 2016). Likewise, Wolfradt and Doll (2001) found those with higher levels of narcissism or those with the potential for a personality disorder diagnosis tend to post more frequently, ostensibly to obtain validation from others. In another study, higher levels of narcissism and lower levels of self-esteem were associated with greater online social media usage as well as self-presentation (Mehdizadeh, 2010).
When exploring narcissism as a moderating behavior in social media, as Liu, Liu, Ding, Wang, Zhen, and Xu (2016) described it:
When [adolescents] obtain a sense of competence, belongingness, and autonomy through disclosing private information on the Internet, they can become obsessed with network behavior. Due to a deficiency of self-control, young people might be caught in a vicious cycle.
(p. 10)
This corresponds to other research that suggests the more positive feedback one gets from disclosure, the more disclosures they make; the more disclosure they make, the more positive feedback they receive (Liu & Brown, 2014).
Stead and Bibby (2017) explored the Big Five personality factors and their connection to Facebook usage. Using a cross-sectional design, neuroticism was unrelated to Facebook usage, whereas conscientiousness and extraversion were connected to use. Further, people who score higher on the “agreeable” scale are more likely to contact the person uploading the photo to make a change rather than unilaterally “untagging” (Lang & Barton, 2015). But personality is not the only factor that contributes to social media use, which might be because social networking is not social media’s sole purpose. Social media users communicate with others, conduct business transactions, maintain long-term relationships, conduct research, and surveil others. This might explain the motivator known as “fear of missing out.”
Social media is not just about talking to someone else, but also sharing things that are going on in one’s life (Utz, 2015) with both people known and unknown to the user. There are complex motivations in sharing information, posts, photos, and even our location with others. Another element affecting usage is one’s end goal. For example, in the case of the research on narcissism and Facebook posting, the goal was to present oneself in such a way to obtain validation from others and to gain sympathy (Diefenbach & Christoforakos, 2017). In other cases, Facebook postings may be oriented to appear more socially desirable (Siibak, 2009; Yurchisin, Watchravesringkan, & McCabe, 2005).
Several studies have also tried to identify the fear of missing out’s contribution in online communication and social media usage. For example, the fear of missing out is associated with higher levels of narcissism. In fact, the more pathology you have, the more you fear missing out (Weg-mann, Oberst, Stodt, & Brand, 2017). For example, the lower one’s self-esteem, the more one is subject to fear of missing out. On the other hand, lower levels of fear of missing out are associated with greater life satisfaction (Błachnio & Przepiórka, 2018). There is also some tie-in to how our brain operates and fear of missing out. Research tells us that people who score higher on a Fear of Missing Out Scale have a more activated right middle temporal gyrus in response to photos of social inclusions (Lai, Altavilla, Ronconi, & Aceto, 2016).
Fear of missing out has a significant impact in people’s frequency of use of technology as well as how they use it. For example, fear of missing out is significantly related to one’s use of social media: those who have a greater fear of missing out use social media more (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013). Those who are more fearful of missing out are more willing to take risks that do not benefit them academically or personally. Specifically people who have more fear of missing out are more likely to use social media while they are driving, ordering, coursework, and lectures. This data is congruent with other data, and suggests the more people use Internet technologies, the more it interferes with their day-to-day life, and the more likely it is that they have an Internet communicative disorder. The assumption here is that fear of missing out might be the piece that mediates between Internet use and developing a disorder. For example, if someone has an Internet use disorder, it is likely that their Internet use is somehow compromising their day-to-day life and interfering with their well-being. Certainly, one could argue that using the Internet while you are driving and not paying attention or in lectures is an example of the Internet contributing to interfering with one’s well-being. It is the presence of fear of missing out, which is idiosyncratic to each individual, bridging problematic Internet use and implications. While it is not described as a mediator or moderator, one group of researchers has looked at how fear of missing out contributes to what they described as online vulnerability. That may be a broader catch-all term for the development of Internet communication/use problems.
Fear of missing out is a substantial contributor to having problems online. It is connected to using social media during academic lectures and driving (Przybylski et al., 2013). While those who do not use phones when they drive or are in school think about dismissing this information, consider this: fear of missing out leads to other behaviors that constitute making oneself vulnerable online. First, the more one uses social media, the more one increases their vulnerability online. Second, the more one uses social media, the more they are afraid of missing out. The more one fears missing out, the more likely they are to say more online, share more, and try to make more friends, each of which increases one’s vulnerabilities toward poor outcomes associated with online usage (Binder, Buglass, Betts, & Underwood, 2017). Using the term “new social anxiety,” Wehrenberg (2018) discusses social media use in adolescents and the impact it has on young people. Wehrenberg agrees about fear of missing out. She also, however, ties it to a fear of failure, not just a fear of matching up. She connects this to a fear of anything that is not predictable. This, while not empirically supported, has some relevance when we talk about dating online.
In general, Internet communication technologies allow us to be able to communicate with others in much the same way as we did prior to the innovations of technology, if not more frequently. For example, people can still talk to each other, express vulnerabilities, and share parts of their day with one another. They can build relationships steadily and progressively. The differences are in the way they accomplish these tasks, such as how they manage their impression online, and what the implications might be. Differences include self-presentation, nonverbal relationship signals, and the development of rituals and sense of “everydayness” (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). The research is not clear on whether face-to-face or computer-mediated communication produces more disclosures (Ruppel et al., 2017). The current thinking is that there is no empirical support for hyperpersonal theory (Ruppel et al., 2017), which posits that people sending information can be strategic in their presentation; that a receiver cannot find out much information about the sender; and that the sender can intentionally misrepresent themselves. The positive response the sender gets reinforces similar presentations in the future (Walther, 1996). There is, however, seemingly some support for social information processing theory, which says that online relationships tend to have information exchanged more slowly, and while they may reach the same level of relationship development, it takes them a bit of time before they get there.
Markie and I originally described our viewpoints on the dimensions of commonalities and points of difference in The Couple and Family Technology Framework (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013). As originally constructed, the list contained a smaller set of domains on which comparisons could be made. Previously, these were described as also including a discussion of how time was spent, how nonverbal signals were communicated, and so forth. In this updated text, we have subsumed these domains into others and distinguished further domains. See Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Comparing/Contrasting Face-to-Face (FtF) Versus Internet Communication Technologies (ICTs)
| Domains | Similarity Between FtF and ICT | Differences Between FtF and ICT |
|
|
||
| Self-Presentation | Opportunities to manage your self-presentation exist. | Opportunities to manage your self-presentation are greater in ICT. |
| Sharing Data | Presentation involves the sharing of data. | Data in ICTs is composed of emoticons, lack of nonverbals, and potentially manipulated data. |
| Rituals | Rituals and traditions are developed. | The Internet is the primary medium for the ritual and may impact shared time/interests. |
| Everydayness | Conversation reflects a sense of comfortableness and everydayness. | In ICTs, everydayness may be less spontaneous and more structured. |
| Emotional Intimacy | Emotional intimacy is key to the development of relationships (couple and family). | Emotional intimacy is heavily dependent on text-based conversations in ICTs. |
| History-Gathering | History-gathering occurs through interaction and communication (primarily direct observation). | History-gathering may also include surveillance online (indirect observation). |
| Consent | Both parties are engaged in a consenting process to move a relationship forward. | Consent is implied in FtF and may have to be explicitly given in ICTs. |
Lasch (1979) made some stark predictions about US culture, with many if not all of them happening in our networked society. Lasch’s (1979) premise was that, in response to the revolution and challenging political climate of the 1960s, US society would shift from looking outward and naturally begin to focus inward—with a specific focus on the attainment of our individual personal goals and happiness. In his text, he takes a somewhat critical view of psychotherapy as assisting with the development of the focus on self, but also presents a picture of, with that continued focus, what our community will look like. With the advent of technology, we are where he predicted us being. We use technology to focus on pursuing our individual happiness and goals, and are interested in how we present to others as a way to feel better about ourselves. Impression management in a voyeuristic world is critical (Kaylor, Jeglic, & Collins, 2016). Impression management in today’s digital context is big business. One has the ability to critically evaluate and make decisions around what they wish to present about themselves and their lives to others (Krämer & Winter, 2008). For example, Saudi women aged 20–26 were shown to use the privacy offered by the Internet to hide their identity, give themselves aliases, and subsequently interact with others who were not culturally sanctioned (Guta & Karolak, 2015). Many companies boast the ability to create profiles or personas, to build friend lists, or to assist people in making more effective (or engaging) Facebook posts (Swani, Milne, Brown, Assaf, & Donthu, 2017). It was initially believed that people using social media had an ability to artfully manage their presentation online via its screen—and use it as a screen of anonymity (Hetsroni & Guldin, 2017).
In both face-to-face communication and Internet communication, users have a degree of control over what is presented to others. When relationships are initiated offline, the ability to manage one’s self-presentation may be evident in one’s physical presentation—their clothing, the way they care for their home, how they style their hair, and so on. Romantically, partners may opt to attend to their presentation in a way that would make them more attractive to the other. Some of the way in which presentations are managed change in the case of online communication. Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation has been used to explain Internet users’ self-presentation (Hall & Caton, 2017). Hogan (2010) considered social media more an exhibition than presentation as exhibitions are subject to selective contributions and are posted for a duration of time that could be observed anytime by a third party at their leisure, and termed the social media user a curator rather than a presenter. Gabriel (2014) would agree with this perspective—teens and young adults need to be overly conscious about what they are presenting to the world and have to embark on visibility management. This is particularly true of young people who are sexual orientation minorities (lesbian, gay, and bisexual; LGB) who have a need for managing their visibility regarding the disclosure of their sexual orientation identity and relationships offline, as well as online, which scholars have termed “electronic visibility management” (Twist, Bergdall, Belous, & Maier, 2017). Goffman posited there were two ways in which people managed their presentation to others: explicitly and implicitly. Explicit presentation refers to our purposeful presentation to others. Implicit presentation is that which appears natural and is the one we try to manipulate when we are attempting to manage how others see us. Self-presentation on Facebook is associated with certain personality traits as well—predicting how one presents oneself was most closely linked to conscientiousness and neuroticism. In other words, motivation for using Facebook affects the relationship between personality and one’s behavior. In particular, those who score high on agreeableness are more likely to use Facebook to achieve a sense of belongingness. Individuals scoring high on neuroticism, on the other hand, use Facebook for self-presentation and personal disclosure (Seidman, 2013).
Most people use social media in an attempt to “accurately” display elements of their lives and personas (Orehek & Human, 2017). In social media postings, early research examined five methods of self-presentation: ingratiation (wanting to be liked by others), competence (to appear skilled), intimidation (threats), exemplification (to be perceived as superior), and supplication (enticing others to come to your aid through appearing helpless). People may use the Internet to play out these strategies since one can easily identify targets for each of these skills (Dominick, 1999). Rather than focusing on theories of self-presentation, some authors have found profiles actually reflect personality instead of trying to gain a reaction from other users (Back et al., 2010). Alternatively, one theory with adequate support suggests users manage their posting to self-promote their ideal of how they appear in each situation rather than intentionally deceiving other users across the board (Diefenbach & Christoforakos, 2017). This misrepresentation is not typically malicious (Hall & Caton, 2017), though the information posted is selected by the user themselves (Oberst, Renau, Chamarro, & Carbonell, 2016). This self-selection bias may result in self-censorship (Hall & Caton, 2017), postings that are socially desirable (Siibak, 2009), and postings that are more likely to be reinforced and celebrated by the Internet audience (Marder, Houghton, Joinson, Shankar, & Bull, 2016), and potentially less accurate to one’s lived experience and instead crafted (Michikyan, Subrahmanyam, & Dennis, 2015). What is shared depends on who is going to see the information posted. While on some other sites, a person who meets someone online eventually may get to the place of talking to them offline that is not true for Facebook (Ross et al., 2009). Those who expect to have some offline encounter with an individual will affect what they share and post (Ross et al., 2009).
There also are differences in self-esteem depending on what is posted (Yang & Bradford Brown, 2015). For example, positive postings are connected to boosting one’s self-esteem (Yang, Holden, & Carter, 2017). The implications are that one may have a low self-esteem and want it boosted, thus providing a motivation for the post. The more deep information one posts, the more likely they are to have lower self-esteem, explained in part by the fact that with more information shared, there is more information of which an audience can be critical or judgmental (Yang et al., 2017). The anxiety tied to what is shared is precisely why people with social anxiety refrain from self-disclosures (Green, Wilhelmsen, Wilmots, Dodd, & Quinn, 2016). The finding about the potential critical nature of an audience, however, contradicts findings from other research that says that self-esteem is positively associated with positive self-disclosures presumably in an attempt to support one’s positive view-of-self (Chen, 2017). For example, swapping instant messages with someone you do not know can provide a self-esteem boost for adolescents (but not young adults) (Gross, 2011). One final aspect for consideration is that someone else may put up a post tagging an individual who does not want that photo or event shared. In social media, self-presentation can also be other-presentation. In other words, what someone else chooses to present about you might contradict what you wish others to see about you. In fact, most people (84%) have had an experience of being tagged in a photo against their wishes (Lang & Barton, 2015). This has led some people to ask for consent or permission of a person in a picture before posting it online. For instance, teachers and pediatricians are the front-runners of obtaining consent prior to taking and posting photos of students and patients, respectively (Bryson, 2013). Those photographing in these contexts not only take and post images with consent, they use the hashtag #withconsent every time they do so to demonstrate that this online act is being done with permission (Kunkel, Twist, McDaniel, & Theiler, 2016).
We cannot discuss self-presentation on social media without discussing the selfie. Selfies are defined as a picture you take involving only you or you and others that is presented to others via social media (Sorokowski et al., 2015), and was added to dictionaries as a term in 2013. It is one of the most prominent forms of media, with an estimated 93 million selfies posted daily (Brandt, 2014). This statistic, however, does not include users of iPhones, which are actually more popular than Android phones (Heisler, 2017). Selfies are clearly a means of self-expression. At the same time, social media users who want to appear a particular way can always edit, stage, or otherwise purposefully arrange the selfie they provide to ensure social desirability (Lin, Tov, & Qiu, 2014). People can be selective about what they present (Walther, 2011). Providing a selfie may also be a way to gain positive feedback from others, regardless of whether the selfie is realistic (Mehdizadeh, 2010).
Some argue that the selfie has transformed the emphasis of the activity and diluted the experience of what we are trying to capture. Frequently selfies look staged/organized as the individual is trying to get the perfect shot and instead loses the purpose of sharing the experience (Roman, 2014). In addition, selfies to some degree allow for comparisons between individuals. For adults this may not be a problem, but for young teens designed to obtain peer approval, the consequences of not meeting the bar set by others can have a host of negative consequences. For example, a host of research has uncovered that adolescent girls posting selfies are comparing themselves to their peers and encountering some pretty negative outcomes as they pertain to their self-esteem and body image (McLean, Paxton, Wertheim, & Masters, 2015).
Just as selfies may be staged or planned to reflect what one wants others to see (Lyu, 2016), selfies may also be edited post-production. Editing selfies is also becoming a common practice. The motivation behind editing selfies is less about dissatisfaction with the selfie itself, but more associated with the desire to appear more favorably to others (social comparison) (Chae, 2017). The decision to edit selfies seems to stem in part from a global trend toward posting selfies and the inherent social comparison that accompanies such activity. With more selfies in the world and more exposure to those selfies via social media, one can compare oneself to others and scrutinize one’s appearance more. At the same time, some personality factors contribute to self-presentation. For example, there are some well-founded assertions that the platform of Facebook and posting of selfies are the result of or further cultivate a context to support narcissism (Błachnio & Przepiórka, 2018). This relationship between the two (selfie-taking and narcissism) is reciprocal—that is, the more narcissistic you are, the more selfies you take; the more selfies you post, the more narcissistic you become (Halpern, Valenzuela, & Katz, 2016). For example, people who wish to self-promote and self-disclose as a way to gain sympathy from others are more likely to feel positively about taking and posting selfies and do not see themselves as being narcissistic (Diefenbach & Christoforakos, 2017; Re, Wang, He, & Rule, 2016), perhaps a result of the way selfies are normalized on social media.
Because we know such posts are staged and can be edited (Marwick & boyd, 2011), the view of selfies from others is rather negative and critical. People in selfies tend to be viewed as less trustworthy, less attractive, and more narcissistic than the same person in photos taken by others (Krämer, Feurstein, Kluck, Meier, Rother, & Winter, 2017). This is particularly true for men who take selfies, specifically in the areas of narcissism and trustworthiness (Krämer et al., 2017). In fact, social media users actually prefer looking at standard photos on social media rather than selfies (Diefenbach & Christoforakos, 2017). In addition, selfies have been tied to loneliness and depression, with some devastating outcomes (Kaur & Vig, 2016). Others, however, believe that they are a regular part of everyday life and avoid linking them to pathology (Hunt, 2016).
Relationships that initiate online have to manage the issue of self-presentation differently. In short, there is a greater ability to edit one’s presentation. Consequently, people’s perceptions of the early days of online dating were that the type of people who chose to post profiles online could not be trusted, were shy, awkward, lonely, deceitful, and had difficulty with social interactions, thus resulting in them resorting to online engagements (Anderson, 2007). This becomes a critically important and early relationship task: determining the extent to which one has presented oneself accurately. In addition, once the information is tested, how much accuracy is sufficient to continue the relationship?
One way presentation may be edited is through management of mood state. This may include withholding information about one’s mood and emotional condition or actively presenting inaccurate information (Lee, Cheung, & Thadani, 2012). Another area in which self-presentation manifests is regarding physical attributes. A host of research cites the challenges with online daters and their photo profiles. In face-to-face interactions, it may be relatively easy to observe aspects of one’s physical appearance that may not be consistent with other photos or information received about oneself. We have the ability to make an assessment about our physical height, weight, hair color, physique, etc. in person. There also seem to be differences in gender. Men, for example, are more likely to exaggerate elements of their physique, where women are more likely to mis-represent hobbies and age (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). Men are also more likely to present basic information about themselves on social media than are women (Special & Barber, 2012).
In essence, the Internet allows people to present whatever they want about themselves. In a study conducted on online dating, one individual reported that he would no longer trust anyone’s online profile because he had one bad interaction with someone who was at least ten years older than that person’s posted photo (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010). Self-presentation, at least in front of an audience of friends, is strategic. In one study, there was no difference between the amount of positive messages between Facebook wall posts, status messages, and private messages. That is not true, however, for negative messages: there are significantly fewer negative messages on wall posts than there are in status messages and private messages (Bazarova, Taft, Choi, & Cosley, 2013). Finally, heterosexual couples who share profile pictures of them as a couple report feeling more satisfied with their relationship and closer to one another (Saslow, Muise, Impett, & Dubin, 2013). In LGB couples, those of a younger age/generation are not practicing a high degree of anonymity about their relationships on their social media—meaning they are “out” online to friends (Twist, Belous, Maier, & Bergdall, 2017), which is a change from previous generations and may be a sign of greater acceptance and social support for LGB relationships (Becker, 2012; Fingerhut, 2016).
Because of the ability to misrepresent, some individuals engage in a warranting procedure when first meeting. Warranting refers to a process by which an individual confirms the information provided by an individual’s profile (Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011). This is a common practice in online dating, where anyone can post whatever is desired. For example, women under the age of 50 are more likely to be deceitful about their age in online dating profiles than older women (Hall, Park, Song, & Cody, 2010). Warranting is partly accomplished through valuing information provided by a third party instead of the person with whom one is interacting because the information from the third party cannot be manipulated (Gibbs et al., 2011). Those who make a decision to continue the warranting process may experience a trade-off in trust: the recipient of the warranting process may experience anger about not being trusted. Further, those not using warranting procedures may have some difficulty in resolving inconsistencies once the relationship becomes more serious.
Despite both the anecdotal and empirical evidence that we may use creative license in our profiles and communications, what is not clear is how these inconsistencies are aired, acknowledged, or resolved. One easy way to resolve the observed inconsistency is terminating the relationship (Heino, Ellison, & Gibbs, 2010), particularly in the case of a mismatch in the description of physical characteristics (Whitty & Carr, 2006).
As aforementioned, adolescents and young adults are the groups with the highest proportion of technology and media usage to facilitate social interactions. They make more calls and send more text messages per day than any other age group, and nearly half report being online “almost constantly” (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). Though a proportion of the research is dedicated to friendship and romantic relationships, youth use these technologies to also communicate with their families. Over half of college students note daily or nearly daily contact with their parents. Another quarter noted contact with parents a few times a week (Arnett & Schwab, 2012). In addition, digital technologies are evolving constantly, which may provide even more opportunities for connection (Stein, Osborn, & Greenberg, 2016) and opportunities for representation (or misrepresentation) between parents and their children. Teens tend to use email and phone calls to interact with older generations and text messaging and social media to communicate with peers (Brown, Campbell, & Ling, 2011).
In families with an adolescent who engages in online communication, a youth’s online presentation may be to convince parents or care providers who are monitoring one’s activities that peers and others in a youth’s social group adhere to household rules and standards (Siibak, 2009). On the contrary, many adolescents admit to having at least two social media profiles—one that their parents or care providers have “friended” where they can appear to be adhering to rules and expectations, and another profile through which they post information not permitted by their parents, care providers, or home rules.
One last piece of social networking affecting our relationships is the effect of networking on prosocial behavior. Those who post in a monologue style (one-to-many) exhibit fewer prosocial behaviors (Chiou, Chen, & Liao, 2014). Certainly, there are plenty of reasons why someone would be posting in a monologue fashion in the first place—perhaps some narcissism as mentioned earlier, self-esteem issues, lack of social graces, etc. In any event, it is critical that we move forward to try to identify whether there is a contribution in any capacity regarding the actual use of media rather than the personality characteristics or social learning that occurs before the Internet gets involved.
Another similarity between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication is the sharing of nonverbal signals in one’s communication pattern. Nonverbal interactions in humans related to courtship seem to follow predictable patterns (Moore, 2010). Most research, which focuses primarily on heterosexual couples, supports the idea that women typically initiate the earlier nonverbal interactions; however, the signs that women give tend to be subtle, and, when men respond, it appears as if the man is making the first move. Then men and women both respond in reciprocal ways, each interaction building on the next until one of two outcomes: successful relationship interaction, or one person stops reciprocating and opts out of the relationship.
These same patterns also seem to hold true in online interactions. Someone may initiate an interaction through an approach and then assess whether that invitation was received well. Women may play a more prominent role in the earlier stages of courtship, whereas men play a more prominent role in latter stages, such as just prior to sexual interaction. Nonverbal signals such as smiling and leaning forward to indicate interest seem to have emerged across multiple studies as playing an important role in the nonverbal courtship process (Moore, 2010).
In addition to verbal interactions, couples do indeed grow when they can assess and make meaning of one another’s nonverbal interactions. A main difference between face-to-face and computer-mediated communication, however, is the way in which nonverbal signals are communicated. In online interactions, nonverbal signals are communicated by emoticons rather than by someone’s facial expressions or body positioning. Emoticons can enhance communication through technology when one can accurately display a general nonverbal reaction to the communication that fits the circumstance and, moreover, can give the other person added information about the context in which one’s message was received. For example, one middle-class, heterosexual EuroAmerican couple—Ryan and Anais—were discussing the most recent argument they had. Since the couple had the argument over a chat function, Anais brought in a print out of the argument. During the argument, one issue was the use of Anais’s emoticons in communication. After a comment where she was trying to diffuse the powerful emotions that were building up, she inserted a smiling face emoticon. In Ryan’s state of being upset, he misinterpreted the smile as her attempt to mock him, thus fueling his anger and escalating the conflict.
Problematic implications for online relationships are that users of communicative technologies may insert an emoticon to display a certain non-verbal signal that (a) may not be accurate to their true experience, and/or (b) may be misinterpreted by the receiver. Holly and Damien, a lower-upper-class, heterosexual couple of mixed ethnic backgrounds, came into session arguing about an interaction they had over a text message earlier that day. In the message, Holly stated that she wanted Damien to be mindful of the time so that he would be on time for the session, especially given his tendency to run late. Since the message was not accompanied by any nonverbal signals, Damien took the message as a directive and as an attack about his time-management skills. Consequently, he reacted by socializing with his boss after work, partially to prove a point that he could be on time for the session without her managing his schedule for him, but ended up late to the session. The nonverbal signals not communicated were that Holly was interested in Damien and attempting to build the relationship. She was not intending to be critical toward him, which most likely would have been reflected in tone and attitude had she spoken to him in person rather than sending a text message.
Another area in which face-to-face and computer-mediated communication are similar is the development of rituals and sense of everydayness that the couple shares. Rituals, defined as repetitive yet meaningful interactions, are a key piece of the relationship dynamic. Because of the positive impact of rituals on a sense of satisfaction and stability in the relationship (Bruess & Pearson, 2002), rituals can be a useful adjunct in treatment (Olson, 1993). Couples have found rituals useful as a way to process such events as forgiveness (Barnett & Youngberg, 2004) and infidelity (Winek & Craven, 2003). Examples include renewing their vows or engaging in some ritual creating a sense of having a unique boundary around their relationship. The rituals contribute to a couple’s sense of shared identity (Berg-Cross, Daniels, & Carr, 1993) and can be used as a way to bind the couple together, provide a sense of predictability in their relationship, and identify elements of family life that they want to transmit to future generations (Crespo, Davide, Costa, & Fletcher, 2008). The establishment of rituals in relationships is also associated with increases in marital satisfaction for newer parents (Crespo et al., 2008). Various types of rituals exist for both married and unmarried couples. In married couples, rituals include those related to time, symbols, daily routines, communication, habits, intimacy, and spirituality (Bruess & Pearson, 1997). Unmarried couples have rituals distinct from those for married couples, such as gift giving, assistance giving, visiting with extended family, and planning for the future (Campbell, Silva, & Wright, 2011).
One way rituals differ in technology-mediated relationships is the use of the Internet as a mechanism for conducting the ritual. For example, Tramell and Yola, a, heterosexual, working-class, African American couple, had a ritual of holding hands and praying together before dinner each night. When the couple was separated by distance, however, they were unable to continue this ritual. Therefore, the ritual transitioned from praying together while touching to praying together without touching but over the webcam. This type of ritual can be evident in offline relationships as well, but the difference is that the Internet is not the form of mediation in the ritual. Further, the ritual can be compromised if there are technical difficulties in the participation in the ritual. Less than optimal rituals may also emerge in couples/relational systems (Olson, 1993). For example, each member of a system may play out a part in their dynamic that they admit is nonproductive and unhealthy, but in the moment, they cannot manage to do anything different. For example, Mark and David, a, gay couple of professional-class and mixed ethnic backgrounds, left a therapy session feeling hopeful about their relationship and worked to develop a plan for what they would do differently daily, weekly, and monthly for one another. At the end of the first week, however, neither one had participated in doing anything differently. In the second week, the couple decided on a ritual to designate every Tuesday night as “cooking class night” where they selected a new recipe they had never made before and spent time together working through the recipe.
Similarly, the concept of “everydayness” refers to the unstructured interactions and experiences people have with each other on a daily or regular basis. This includes seeing each other in less contrived ways, such as experiencing daily chores together, and negotiating aspects of the relations as they emerge. In both face-to-face and computer-mediated communication relationships, a sense of everydayness is shared. The difference, however, is that in relationships characterized by computer-mediated communication, the everydayness is structured. In other words, individuals in the relationship have to organize a time in which they share the everydayness with one another. Without this negotiation of time, a member of a couple/relational system is not privy to the day-to-day interactions, feelings, and experiences of another without an explicit invitation to do so.
Emotional intimacy is also very different from face-to-face versus online interactions. A key reason for this is the level of self-disclosure. Self-disclosure refers to the information about ourselves that we disclose to others (Cozby, 1973), including information about our present emotional state, our cognitive processes, and even our physical whereabouts and activities (Tidwell & Walther, 2000). This process involves disclosing with both breadth and depth (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). In other words, it is characterized by the range of topics shared as well as how personally revealing or sensitive the shared information is. To some degree, the extent to which someone self-discloses online is tied to certain aspects of their personality (Chen, Widjaja, & Yen, 2015). Frequency and type of disclosure may also be tied to the size of one’s network; those with more people in their network are more likely to disclose their emotions—primarily positive (Lin et al., 2014). Disclosures made via Facebook are also driven by emotional state. In a study on college students’ social media usage, it was demonstrated that people tend to disclose more on social media when they are feeling stressed and these disclosures are intentional (Zhang, 2017). This finding supports previous findings of similar research investigating motivations for disclosures online; for example, those who tend to use online media to find fulfillment and receive affection from others find that they receive that affection and fulfillment when they make emotional disclosures—and, subsequently, are satisfied with their online relationships (Pornsakulvanich, Haridakis, & Rubin, 2008).
There are five dimensions of self-disclosure: intentionality, amount, valence, veracity, and depth (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). A common misconception is that the type of self-disclosure that develops intimacy is heavily reliant on the depth type. In fact, intimacy can be developed through consistent/frequent self-disclosure about topics that seem rather benign. In this way, it feels as if the person disclosing one’s partner has a high degree of social presence in the lives of others and is readily available for support. The dimensions change, however, when applied to self-disclosures made over social media like Facebook. Authors have found four distinct motivations for self-disclosure on Facebook: social, hedonic, utilitarian, and social investigation (Chang & Heo, 2014). Each of these motivations leads to a different path of self-disclosure. Those who tend to disclose basic, highly sensitive information tend to be those who are socially motivated.
Social presence was developed to explain communication via technology (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Social presence describes the degree of salience one has in technological interactions. Those who have a higher degree of social presence (i.e., are more active on social media) are seen as more warm, caring, and likeable than those with a lower degree of social presence. Further, as someone discloses to you, you disclose to them in a reciprocal fashion. This reciprocity then affects how the relationship develops—known as social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973). This is critical in social networking. In fact, when negative messages are posted on a wall, the person with whom the user is most familiar has a quicker response time than those with whom the poster is less familiar, a fact that is not true when sending the same message via private messenger (Bazarova et al., 2013).
Part of why self-disclosure is so powerful in online relationships is due to the lack of nonverbal communications, resulting in a reliance on description of one’s state and other descriptive cues to supplement context and facilitate greater understanding (Whitty, 2008). For example, a casual observer in near proximity to an individual may perceive that a person texting to another is visibly upset, as evidenced by a sorrowful expression, the appearance of tears, and other elements of their body language. The individual on the other end of the messages, however, without such information communicated, would experience far more difficulty being able to discern the texter’s emotional state. From this lens, the observer in geographic proximity may be considered having a more intimate relationship with the texter than perhaps the person on the other end of the messages. On the other hand, if the individual texting chooses to completely describe their emotional experience, including a description of their facial expressions, thought processes, emotion, etc., the two communicating via text can develop a more intimate relationship with the person on the other end of the communications.
The decision to disclose online is subject to a series of considerations, not the least of which include privacy and trust (Contena, Loscalzo, & Taddei, 2015). In addition, self-disclosure may be tied to the social comparisons we conduct online. We share information about ourselves to receive validation or to compare what we have posted to the posts of others. At other times, self-disclosure is unplanned. We may disclose something without recognition that others who are not to see it will be able to do so, or may post a photo without realizing something in the photo discloses more about us than was intended. A statement we make may reveal more than what we are trying to communicate. The disclosures may also have some interpersonal consequences. Teachers, for example, are rated as being more credible when they disclose online (Mazer, Murphy, & Simonds, 2009).
Finally, there is a natural tension between what to post and what to keep private (Greene et al., 2006). In some ways, we rely on the others posting on social media to assist us with our own sense of self. Termed “collaborative disclosure,” it means that we rely on others to help us maintain what is private versus what is shared (Farci, Rossi, Boccia Artieri, & Giglietto, 2017). A good deal of our management about what to post and what to keep private online relies on social comparison. We note what others write and post and leave feedback; we receive feedback from others; this mechanism, among many others, is a way to assist us with developing a sophisticated understanding of what is deemed appropriate sharing. It is this collaborative disclosure that also enhances intimacy development (Farci et al., 2017).
Disclosure also has implications for relationships. Farci et al. (2017) expanded on what exactly occurs in self-disclosure that promotes such closeness and intimacy. They identified five strategies people use on Face-book in particular to disclose: (1) showing rather than telling, (2) sharing implicit content, (3) tagging self and others, (4) expectation of mutual understanding, and (5) liking. In showing rather than telling, the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” seems to hold up. Viewers can imply certain meaning from the visual cue presented and can understand the “relational context existing behind the picture” (Farci et al., 2017, p. 790). Sharing implicit content, while it can also occur in the photos or images presented in the first type discussed, also means that one can imply certain things in their written text. This means that one can share a rather vague or ambiguous post where the intended audience (perhaps a very small group of intimate friends or connections) will understand its true meaning—a construct called social steganography (Oolo & Siibak, 2013). Tagging is a mechanism designed to expand the experience and post to others. It is viewed as collaborative, aimed at inviting social contact, and a method to improve group cohesion. Mutual understanding related to the reason and meaning behind one’s post is implied in one’s social network. Farci et al. (2017) assert that Facebook users have an ongoing assessment in their head evaluating the likelihood that their Facebook friends will be able to understand a given post and edit accordingly. Finally, liking is an easy way to stay connected to someone without more directly posting to them or interacting at length with them (Farci et al., 2017).
Because of their findings and these strategies leading to collaborative disclosures, Farci et al. (2017) introduced the concept of networked intimacy. Networked intimacy refers to an intimacy developed through collaborative disclosure, such as the disclosures we make on social media (and Facebook in particular). Users treat the disclosures both as disclosures and as information. As Farci et al. noted:
Networked intimacy is, at one and the same time, a practice of selective sociality (Itō, Okabe, & Matsuda, 2005) that helps to maintain exclusive private intimacy, and a form of social inclusion that arises from the pleasure of belonging to what Nakajima, Himeno and Yoshii describe as a “full-time intimate community” (p. 137).
(p. 795)
In other words, we are connected to each other in perpetuity—if we want to be. Users can make decisions about what to share, with whom, when, and how. They can interact with others to demonstrate reciprocity and enhance intimacy, and can choose to display their relationships with others.
History-gathering takes a different turn in the age of the Internet and social media. History-gathering used to be a long assessment of time, various questions asked over many dinners or instances. In today’s climate, however, history-gathering is primarily done online. It is quite easy to do a Google search for someone’s name to try to identify whether the information about them is accurate. Using the Internet as a historian is another way to gain context about our peers and our colleagues. Not only can one establish the veracity of someone else’s identity and background online, one can potentially identify key experiences through archived posts, photographs, and other memorabilia shared online. This includes information on one’s medical history, relational history, employment history, and beyond (Aimeur & Lafond, 2013). In addition to gathering history on peers, there is also potential for professionals to gather history on an institution or each other. For example, literature in psychology and counseling discusses the ethical decision-making around searching for one’s patients online. Some argue that is a violation of patient privacy; on the other hand, clinicians feel like it gives them a fuller picture of the patient when they are able to know some contextual information. Families also have the ability to become their own kind of family science scholars through creating genograms and connecting with others to explore their genealogy (Crowe, 2008).
Finally, many of these practices are activated without the consent of the other participant. So, for example, when you are gathering information about a peer or friend, they may not be aware that you are using the Internet to gain that information. Prior to advanced technologies, any gathering of information may have required the consent and/or volunteerism of the person with whom one was communicating. That is no longer always the case. Anybody can look up anybody without necessarily having to clear it with a person or obtain consent. This contributes to an unequal power dynamic developing in relationships from the beginning. As one person gains more information about their partner to the exclusion of their partner, they establish a dynamic where one person is not being very honest, and that can have implications that play out in the relationship later.
This domain refers to not just the gathering of information, but the sharing of it as well. This includes activities such as revenge pornography (revenge porn), the establishment of private social media accounts in youth, the recording of conversations without others’ knowledge, etc. (Heistand & Weins, 2014; Johnson, Mishna, Okumu, & Daciuk, 2018). In many ways, these technologies allow for “plausible deniability” for the one who commits the action, creating even more distress for the victim (Johnson et al., 2018, p. 4). Aside from the dishonesty piece related to the variety of non-consensual activities noted earlier, other considerations may include the potential for abuse/coercion. In technology, one may have a certain level of power or control when they obtain information about another person that the person does not want shared. A partner may force their partner to provide information including surrendering their cellphone for checking, giving up email passwords, coercing a partner into being technologically available, monitoring, etc. For example, once someone declines a date, the other partner, if they have access to that person’s cell number, can follow with an unlimited number of harassing text messages.
Clearly, the patterns that dictate one’s decision to engage in a particular technology are a highly complex endeavor. The patterns reflect a synthesis of personality, social motivators, individual pathology, resiliencies, cognitive style, and stage of development. The decision, however, to present oneself in a particular way (or to have the power to present others in a particular way) can have significant implications for self-esteem and relationships.
Aharony, N. (2016). Relationships among attachment theory, social capital perspective, personality characteristics, and Facebook self-disclosure. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68 (3), 362–386. doi:10.1108/AJIM-01-2016-0001
Aimeur, E., & Lafond, M. (2013). The scourge of Internet personal data collection. Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES). 2013 Eighth International Conference, 821–828. doi:10.1109/ARES.2013.110
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt.
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. PEW Research Center; Internet and Technology. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from www.pewInternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Anderson, N. (2007). Video gaming to be twice as big as music by 2011. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2007/08/gaming-to-surge-50-percent-in-four-years-possibly/
Arnett, J. J., & Schwab, J. (2012). The Clark University poll of emerging adults: Thriving, struggling, and hopeful. Worcester, MA: Clark University.
Back, M., Stopfer, J., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S., Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21 (3), 372–374. doi: 10.1177/0956797609360756
Barnett, J. K., & Youngberg, C. (2004). Forgiveness as a ritual in couples therapy. The Family Journal, 12 (1), 14–20. doi:10.1177/1066480703258613
Bazarova, N., Taft, J., Choi, Y., & Cosley, D. (2013). Managing impressions and relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through the analysis of language style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32 (2), 121–141.
Becker, A. B. (2012). Determinants of public support for same-sex marriage: Generational cohorts, social contact, and shifting attitudes. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24 (4), 524–533. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds002
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Berg-Cross, L., Daniels, C., & Carr, P. (1993). Marital rituals among divorced and married couples. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 18 (1–2), 1–30. doi:10.1300/j087v18n01_01
Berger, J. (2013). Beyond viral: Interpersonal communication in the Internet age. Psychological Inquiry, 24 (4), 293–296. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.842203
Binder, J. F., Buglass, S. L., Betts, L. R., & Underwood, J. D. (2017). Online social network data as sociometric markers. American Psychologist, 72 (7), 668–678. doi:10.1037/amp0000052
Błachnio, A., & Przepiórka, A. (2018). Facebook intrusion, fear of missing out, narcissism, and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Psychiatry Research, 259, 514–519. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.012
Bonetti, L., Campbell, M. A., & Gilmore, L. (2010). The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children’s and adolescents’ online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13 (3), 279–285. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0215
Brailovskaia, J., & Bierhoff, H. (2016). Cross-cultural narcissism on Facebook: Relationship between self-presentation, social interaction and the open and covert narcissism on a social networking site in Germany and Russia. Computers in Human Behavior, 55 (PA), 251–257.
Brandt, R. (2014). Google divulges numbers at I/O: 20 bullion texts, 93 million selfies and more. Retrieved July 7, 2016, from www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/06/25/google-divulges-numbers-at-i-o-20-billion-texts-93.html
Brown, K., Campbell, S. W., & Ling, R. (2011). Mobile phones bridging the digital divide for teens in the US? Future Internet, 3 (4), 144–158. doi:10.3390/fi3020144
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult friendship. Communication Monographs, 64 (1), 25–46. doi:10.1080/03637759709376403
Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (2002). The function of mundane ritualizing in adult friendship and marriage. Communication Research Reports, 19 (4), 314–326. doi:10.1080/08824090209384860
Bryson, D. (2013). Current issues: Consent for clinical photography. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 36 (1/2), 62–63. doi:10.3109/17453054.2 013.791256
Buffardi, L., & Campbell, W. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (10), 1303–1314.
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1162–1167. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2010.12.010
Campbell, K., Silva, L. C., & Wright, D. W. (2011). Rituals in unmarried couple relationships: An exploratory study. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40 (1), 45–57. doi:10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02087.x
Chae, J. (2017). Virtual makeover: Selfie-taking and social media use increase selfie-editing frequency through social comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 370–276. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.0070747-5632
Chang, C., & Heo, J. (2014). Visiting theories that predict college students’ self-disclosure on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 79–86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.059
Chen, H. (2017). Antecedents of positive self-disclosure online: An empirical study of US college students’ Facebook usage. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 10, 147–153. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S136049
Chen, J. V., Widjaja, A. E., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Need for affiliation, need for popularity, self-esteem, and the moderating effect of big five personality traits affecting individuals’ self-disclosure on Facebook. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31 (11), 815–831. doi:10.1080/10447318.201 5.1067479
Chiou, W., Chen, S., & Liao, D. (2014). Does Facebook promote self-interest? Enactment of indiscriminate one-to-many communication on online social networking sites decreases prosocial behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17 (2), 68–73. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0035
Contena, B., Loscalzo, Y., & Taddei, S. (2015). Surfing on social network sites: A comprehensive instrument to evaluate online self-disclosure and related attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 30–37. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2015.02.04[KH1]
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79 (2), 73–91. doi:10.1037/h0033950
Crespo, C., Davide, I. N., Costa, M. E., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2008). Family rituals in married couples: Links with attachment, relationship quality, and closeness. Personal Relationships, 15 (2), 191–203. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00193.x
Crowe, E. (2008). Genealogy online (8th ed., Fully rev. and updated. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Diefenbach, S., & Christoforakos, L. (2017). The selfie paradox: Nobody seems to like them Yet everyone has reasons to take them. An exploration of psychological functions of selfies in self-presentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (7). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00007
Dominick, J. R. (1999). Who do you think you are? Personal home pages and self-presentation on the world wide web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76 (4), 646–658. doi:10.1177/107769909907600403
Farci, M., Rossi, L., Boccia Artieri, G., & Giglietto, F. (2017). Networked intimacy. Intimacy and friendship among Italian Facebook users. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (5), 784–801. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203970
Filipovic, J. (2013). The attractiveness of different online formats motives and frequencies of use. Communications & Strategies, 89, 105–115.
Fingerhut, H. (2016). Support steady for same-sex marriage and acceptance of homosexuality. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for-same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/
Gabriel, F. (2014). Sexting, selfies and self-harm: Young people, social media and the performance of self-development. Media International Australia, 151 (151), 104–112. doi:10.1177/1329878X1415100114
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38 (1), 70–100. doi:10.1177/0093650210377091
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Green, T., Wilhelmsen, T., Wilmots, E., Dodd, B., & Quinn, S. (2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206–213. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.066
Greene, K. V., Derlega, J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 412–413). New York, NY: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, E. F. (2011). Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online communication following social exclusion. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1, 60–68. doi:10.1037/2160-4134.1.S.60
Guta, H., & Karolak, M. (2015). Veiling and blogging: Social media as sites of identity negotiation and expression among Saudi women. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 16 (2), 115–127.
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 27 (1), 117–135. doi:10.1177/0265407509349633
Hall, M., & Caton, S. (2017). Am I who I say I am? Unobtrusive self-representa tion and personality recognition on Facebook. PLoS ONE, 12 (9), e0184417. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184417
Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Katz, J. E. (2016). ‘Selfie-ists’ or ‘Narci-selfiers’?: A cross-lagged panel analysis of selfie taking and narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 98–101. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.019
Hammick, J. K., & Lee, M. J. (2014). Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 302–310. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.046
Heino, R., Ellison, N., & Gibbs, J. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (4), 427–447.
Heisler, Y. (2017, May). Sorry, Android fans, but the iPhone is still the world’s most popular smartphone. Retrieved from http://bgr.com/2017/05/10/iphonevs-android-sales-marketshare-2017/
Heistand, T. C., & Weins, W. J. (Eds.). (2014). Sexting and youth. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Helm, R., Möller, M., Mauroner, O., & Conrad, D. (2013). The effects of a lack of social recognition on online communication behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 1065–1077. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.007
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. New York: Routledge.
Hetsroni, A., & Guldin, D. A. (2017). Revealing images as Facebook profile pictures: Influences of demographics and relationship status. Social Behavior and Personality, 45 (6), 987–998. doi:10.2224/sbp.6004
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30 (6), 377–386. doi:10.1177/0270467610385893
Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management, 45 (7), 499–506. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005
Hunt, E. (2016). Taking the self out of selfie? Most pictures not about vanity, says study. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/08/taking-the-self-out-of-selfie-most-pictures-not-about-vanity-says-study
Itō, M., Okabe, D., & Matsuda, M. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISSN: 11578637.
Jin, B., & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting: Interpersonal motives for cellphone use, face-to-face interaction, and loneliness. Cyber-psychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13 (6), 611–618. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0314
Johnson, M., Mishna, F., Okumu, M., & Daciuk, J. (2018). Non-consensual sharing of sexts: behaviours and attitudes of Canadian youth. Ottawa: MediaSmarts. Retrieved October 21, 2018, from http://mediasmarts.ca/sites/mediasmarts/files/publication-report/full/sharing-of-sexts.pdf
Kaur, S., & Vig, D. (2016). Selfie and mental health issues: An overview. Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, 7 (12), 1149–1152.
Kaylor, L., Jeglic, E. L., & Collins, C. (2016). Examining the impact of technology on exhibitionistic behavior. Deviant Behavior, 37 (10), 1152–1162. doi:10.108 0/01639625.2016.1169828
Krämer, N. C., Feurstein, M., Kluck, J. P., Meier, Y., Rother, M., & Winter, S. (2017). Beware of selfies: The impact of photo type on impression formation based on social networking profiles. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00188
Krämer, N. C., & Winter, S. (2008). Impression management 2.0: The relationship of self-esteem, extraversion, self-efficacy, and self-presentation within social networking sites. Journal of Media Psychology, 20 (3), 106–116. doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106
Kunkel, H., Twist, M. L. C., McDaniel, R., & Theiler, A. F. (2016, November). Consent and cosplay: Considerations for individuals and families. Poster, Society for Scientific Study of Sexuality Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Lai, C., Altavilla, D., Ronconi, A., & Aceto, P. (2016). Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) is associated with activation of the right middle temporal gyrus during inclusion social cue. Computers in Human Behavior, 61 (C), 516–521. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.072
Lang, C., & Barton, H. (2015). Just untag it: Exploring the management of undesirable Facebook photos. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.051
Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York: Norton.
Lee, K., Noh, M., & Koo, D. (2013). Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16 (6), 413–418. doi:10. 1089/cyber.2012.0553
Lee, Z., Cheung, C. M., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). An investigation into the problematic use of Facebook. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 2012, pp. 1768–1776. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.106
Leung, L., & Zhang, R. (2017). Narcissism and social media use by children and adolescents. In K. S. Young & C. N. de Abreu (Eds.), Internet addiction in children and adolescents: Risk factors, assessment, and treatment. New York: Springer.
Lin, H., Tov, W., & Qiu, L. (2014). Emotional disclosure on social networking sites: The role of network structure and psychological needs. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 342–350. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.045
Lin, K., & Lu, H. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (3), 1152–1161. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009
Liu, D., & Brown, B. B. (2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 213–219. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.003
Liu, Y., Liu, R., Ding, Y., Wang, J., Zhen, R., & Xu, L. (2016). How online basic psychological need satisfaction influences self-disclosure online among Chinese adolescents: Moderated mediation effect of exhibitionism and narcissism. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1279. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01279
Lyu, S. O. (2016). Travel selfies on social media as objectified self-presentation. Tourism Management, 54, 185–195. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.11.001
Marder, B., Houghton, D., Joinson, A., Shankar, A., & Bull, E. (2016). Understanding the psychological process of avoidance-based self-regulation on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 19 (5), 321–327. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0564
Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114–133.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2), 175. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655
McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., & Masters, J. (2015). Photoshop-ping the selfie: Self photo editing and photo investment are associated with body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48 (8), 1132–1140. doi:10.1002/eat.22449
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 357–364. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0257
Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2015). A picture is worth a thousand words: A mixed methods study of online self-presentation in a multiethnic sample of emerging adults. Identity, 15 (4), 287–308. doi:10.1080/152 83488.2015.1089506
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior- a brief historical review. Journal of Sex Research, 47 (2/3), 171–180. doi:10.1080/00224490903402520
Oberst, U., Renau, V., Chamarro, A., & Carbonell, X. (2016). Gender stereotypes in Facebook profiles: Are women more female online? Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 559–564. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.085
Ocker, R. J., & Yaverbaum, G. J. (1999). Asynchronous computer-mediated communication versus face-to-face collaboration: Results on student learning, quality and satisfaction. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8 (5), 427–440. doi:10.1023/A:1008621827601
Olson, F. (1993). The development and impact of ritual in couple counseling. Counseling and Values, 38 (1), 12–20. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.1993.tb00816.x
Ong, E. Y., Ang, R. P., Ho, J., Lim, J. C., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., & Chua, Alton Y. K. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Face-book. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 (2), 180–185. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2010.09.022
Oolo, E., & Siibak, A. (2013). Performing for one’s imagined audience: Social steganography and other privacy strategies of Estonian teens on networked publics. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7 (1). doi:10.5817/CP2013-1-7
Orehek, E., & Human, L. (2017). Self-expression on social media. Do tweets present accurate and positive portraits of impulsivity, self-esteem, and attachment style? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43 (1), 60–70. doi:10.1177/014 6167216675332
Park, N., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2016). Uses of cellphone texting: An integration of motivations, usage patterns, and psychological outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 712–719. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.041
Perry, M. S., & WernerWilson, R. J. (2011). Couples and computer-mediated communication: A closer look at the affordances and use of the channel. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40 (2), 120–134. doi:10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02099.x
Pornsakulvanich, V., Haridakis, P., & Rubin, A. M. (2008). The influence of dispositions and Internet motivation on online communication satisfaction and relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2292–2310. doi:10. 1016/j.chb.2007.11.003
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1841–1848. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Re, D., Wang, S., He, J., & Rule, N. (2016). Selfie indulgence. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (6), 588–596. doi:10.1177/1948550616644299
Reid, D. J., & Reid, F. J. M. (2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent preferences for cellphone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10 (3), 424–435. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9936
Roman, M. W. (2014). Has “Be here now” become “Me here now”? Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35 (11), 814–814. doi:10.3109/01612840.2014.954069
Ross, C., Orr, R. R., Orr, E. S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J. M., & Simmering, M. G. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 578–586. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024
Ruppel, E., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B., Allen, M., & Kim, S. (2017). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22 (1). Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jcc4.12179
Saslow, L., Muise, A., Impett, E., & Dubin, M. (2013). Can you see how happy we are? Facebook images and relationship satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4 (4), 411–418.
Saxton, G., & Waters, R. (2014). What do stakeholders like on Facebook? Examining public reactions to nonprofit organizations’ informational, promotional, and community-building messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26 (3), 280–299.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual Differences, 54 (3), 402–407. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M., Ter Bogt, T. F., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32 (4), 819–833. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.011
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Siibak, A. (2009). Constructing the self through the photo selection—Visual impression management on social networking websites. C yberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3 (1).
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K. (2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 123–127. 10.1016/j. paid.2015.05.004
Special, W. P., & Barber, K. T. (2012). Self-disclosure and student satisfaction with Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2), 624–630. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2011.11.00
Stead, H., & Bibby, P. A. (2017). Personality, fear of missing out and problematic Internet use and their relationship to subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 534–540. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.016
Stein, C. H., Osborn, L. A., & Greenberg, S. G. (2016). Understanding young adults’ reports of contact with their parents in a digital world: Psychological and familial relationship factors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1802–1814. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0366-0
Strano, M. M. (2008). User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2 (2). Retrieved from https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4212/3253
Stronge, S., Osborne, D., West-Newman, T., Milojev, P., Greaves, L. M., Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2015). The Facebook feedback hypothesis of personality and social belonging. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 44 (2), 4–13.
Swani, K., Milne, G., Brown, B., Assaf, G., & Donthu, N. (2017). What messages to post? Evaluating the popularity of social media communications in business versus consumer markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.07.006
Syn, S., & Sinn, D. (2015). Repurposing Facebook for documenting personal history: How do people develop a secondary system use? Information Research, 20 (4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/20-4/paper698.html
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2000). Getting to know one another a bit at a time: Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations. Human Communication Research, 28 (3), 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Twist, M. L. C., Belous, C. K., Maier, C. A., & Bergdall, M. K. (2017). Considering technology-based ecological elements in lesbian, gay, and bisexual partnered relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32 (3/4), 291–308.
Twist, M. L. C., Bergdall, M. K., Belous, C. K., & Maier, C. A. (2017). Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical Educational Interventions, 16 (4), 271–285.
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2014.11.076
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. Retrieved October 21, 2018, from http://wiki.commres.org/pds/TheoriesInNewMedia/42241_14.pdf
Wegmann, E., Oberst, U., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2017). Online-specific fear of missing out and Internet-use expectancies contribute to symptoms of Internet-communication disorder. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 5, 33–42. doi:10.1016/j. abrep.2017.04.001
Wehrenberg, M. (2018). The New Face of Anxiety: Treating Anxiety Disorders in the Age of Texting, Social Media and 24/7 Internet Access. Seminar presented via PESI, December 2018.
Weiqin, E. L., Campbell, M., Kimpton, M., Wozencroft, K., & Orel, A. (2016). Social capital on Facebook: The impact of personality and online communication behaviors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54 (6), 747–786. doi:10.1177/0735633116631886
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2 (4), 338–346. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00494.x
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 16 (4), 362–369. doi:10.1108/qmr-06-2013-0041
Whitty, M. T. (2008). Liberating or debilitating? An examination of romantic relationships, sexual relationships and friendships on the Net. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 1837–1850. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.009
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Deviance and cyberspace. Cyberspace Romance: The Psychology of Online Relationships, 109–123. doi:10.1007/978-0-230-20856-8_6
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults’ use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13 (2), 173–177. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0094
Winek, J. L., & Craven, P. A. (2003). Healing rituals for couples recovering from adultery. Contemporary Family Therapy, 25 (3), 249–266. doi:10.1023/A:1024 518719817
Wolfradt, U., & Doll, J. (2001). Motives of adolescents to use the Internet as a function of personality traits, personal and social factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24 (1), 13–27. doi:10.2190/anpm-ln97-aut2-d2ej
Yang, C., & Bradford Brown, B. (2015). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (2), 402–416. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y
Yang, C., Holden, S. M., & Carter, M. D. (2017). Emerging adults’ social media self-presentation and identity development at college transition: Mindfulness as a moderator. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52, 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2017.08.006
Yurchisin, J., Watchravesringkan, K., & McCabe, D. B. (2005). An exploration of identity re-creation in the context of Internet dating. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 33 (8), 735–750. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.8.735[KH5]
Zhang, R. (2017). The stress-buffering effect of self-disclosure on Facebook: An examination of stressful life events, social support, and mental health among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 527. doi:10.1016/j.chb. 2017.05.043
Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of Internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (2), 274–291. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x