Social media channels serve multiple roles throughout the lifespan of relationships. Although social media has been shown to be particularly useful for maintaining relationships with weak tie relationships such as acquaintances and casual friends (Ellison et al., Reference Ellison, Steinfeld and Lampe2007), social media channels also have implications for romantic partners, who may vacillate in tie strength over the course of the relationship. This chapter will focus on advancements in research on romantic and sexual relationships and consider social media’s influence on the message strategies and outcomes of romantic couples. Social media may offer communication opportunities for direct relational communication related to the initiation, development, and maintenance of romantic relationships as well as provide a stage for couples to communicate the state their relationship to the broader social network. In addition, social media has altered strategies related to the dissolution of romantic relationships and post-dissolution interactions.
We offer the caveat that the popularity of specific social media platforms rises and falls over time. Within the literature, much of the research thus far focuses specifically on Facebook. Yet, Facebook may not represent the way that future romantic partners engage in relational communication via social media channels. Within the chapter, we attempt to weave in research from multiple platforms. Yet, we also note that if we consider the affordances of the platform, research conducted on Facebook may still provide information about the influence of message visibility or network connectivity even if the platform falls out of favor (see also McEwan & Fox, Reference McEwan, Fox, Quan-Hasse and Sloan2022).
Initiating Relationships
When exploring potential options of romantic partners, people often use social media to aid in information seeking and uncertainty reduction. These processes, facilitated through social media, have led to changes and adaptations to the relationship initiation process. Complex and diverse channels and pathways allow social media users to locate potential romantic partners and develop burgeoning romantic relationships.
Relationship Initiation
Communication technologies are able to accommodate the initiation and escalation processes used to seek, find, and communicate with potential romantic interests in-person and/or online (Sharabi & Caughlin, Reference Sharabi and Caughlin2017; Van Ouystel et al., 2016). In particular, the blurring of interpersonal and mass communication offers the ability for individuals to have access to a wider network of numerous potential partners (Finkel et al., Reference Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis and Sprecher2012; O’Sullivan & Carr, Reference O’Sullivan and Carr2018). People may use online dating apps to evaluate a wide network of potential partners, social network sites (SNS) to facilitate information-seeking and disclosure processes, and messaging apps to begin relational communication.
The enhancement of communication technology affords users the ability to connect with easier accessibility and personalization, allowing for increased convenience of sending and receiving messages to a potentially wider array of possible partners. Social media can consist of public to private channels conveying impersonal to interpersonal messages. Social media are often masspersonal, in that they allow for messages that do the work of interpersonal communication while simultaneously being visible to a larger social audience (O’Sullivan & Carr, Reference O’Sullivan and Carr2018). Individual motivation and communication practices may aid in locating potential romantic and/or sexual partner(s) with greater or lesser success (LeFebvre & Goodcase, Reference LeFebvre and Goodcase2021).
Relationship initiation is contingent on identifying available and potential partners. Prior to technological advancements in smartphones, online dating sites, and mobile dating applications, people commonly met romantic partners through the intermediation of friends and family (Coontz, Reference Coontz2005). These peripheral tie relationships offered the ability to bridge new connections (Granovetter, Reference Granovetter1973). The internet increasingly altered the social arena for locating potential romantic partners. Although online dating sites or mobile dating applications1 are typically what is thought of when we consider people seeking new romantic partners, the creation of connections (and reconnections) to potential partners can come through a variety of social media applications. Social networking sites (SNS; see boyd & Ellison, Reference Boyd and Ellison2007) allow for unconventional platforms and channels for finding and locating partners, for instance, messaging or reconnecting on Facebook (Langlais et al., Reference Langlais, Seidman and Bruxvoort2020; Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Sumner and Spinda2017), or sliding into DMs (direct messages) on Instagram, Twitter, or WhatsApp (Dibble et al., Reference Dibble, Banas and Drouin2021; Sharabi & Hopkins, Reference Sharabi and Hopkins2021). Other social media related relational behavior might involve interacting through TikTok (Vaterlaus & Winter, Reference Vaterlaus and Winter2021), or watching video streams together on such platforms as Douyu, Twitch, or YouTube (Sheng & Kairam, Reference Sheng and Kairam2020).
These and other communication technologies have modified and displaced traditional ways of meeting potential partners, especially for heterosexual individuals, who were previously relying on family members and friends (Rosenfeld & Thomas, Reference Rosenfeld and Thomas2012). Unlike mixed-sex couples, same-sex couples have been using mediated platforms for relational communication for several decades (Rosenfeld & Thomas, Reference Rosenfeld and Thomas2012), although the expansion of social and sexual platforms has afforded new opportunities for finding partner(s). Mediated platforms, whether dating apps or social media, allow LGBTQ+ adults more access to potential romantic and/or sexual partners, particularly in rural areas (Sumter & Vandenbosch, Reference Sumter and Vandenbosch2019).
Young adults often have the greatest access and availability to social media, and also the greatest availability of potential partners. Yet, although young adults are perceived (and often are) more technologically savvy, they are the least likely to meet potential partners using mediated platforms (Rosenfeld & Thomas, Reference Rosenfeld and Thomas2012). This outcome may be because young adults have access to a wide and available pool of potential dating partners through their regular social networks.
The availability of social media, including online dating apps, may alter the process of selecting romantic partners in two ways. First, when selecting potential partners offline, people tend to seek partners from within (endogamy) rather than outside (exogamy) their social groups. Social media has led to greater exogamy than was available in solely offline relational initiation (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas2020). In addition, social media and dating apps may allow people to find a wider pool of dating partners. This type of access to selected groups may be particularly useful for members of the LGBTQ community (Miller, Reference Miller2015), especially those who live in smaller or more isolated communities (Blackwell et al., Reference Blackwell, Birnholtz and Abbott2015). Second, in selecting romantic partners people tend towards homophily, or attraction to others they find to have similar personal qualities. Yet, research has found that couples who met online have greater interracial and interreligious connections as well as wider variation in their level of obtained education between the relationship partners (Thomas, Reference Thomas2020).
When using online dating platforms, individuals must understand how they want to brand themselves as well as explicitly delineate their preferences with predetermined personalized biographical descriptions, visual depictions, and parameters narrowing their potential connections (LeFebvre, Reference LeFebvre2018). These pre-interaction relational processes are generated prior to interaction and allow other users to passively consider future interaction and reduce some uncertainty (Sharabi, Reference Sharabi2021). They break down into three stages: profile, matching, and discovery (Markowitz et al., Reference Markowitz, Hancock, Tong and Papacharissi2018).
The profile stage involves intrapersonal decision-making processes about identity presentation and emphasizes users’ curation of their motivations, authenticity, and self-promotion (Dredge & Anderson, Reference Dredge and Anderson2021). Categorizing information about oneself for potential partners allows people to evaluate their potential, and women are more likely than men to identify their own relationship motivations, religious beliefs, and employment (Vogels & Anderson, Reference Vogels and Anderson2020). Self-presentational practices in dating profiles may involve careful selection of photos and messages, masking identity characteristics, or even providing erroneous information (Toma et al., Reference Toma, Jiang and Hancock2018). On the other hand, most deception on online dating apps is slight (Gibbs et al., Reference Gibbs, Ellison and Heino2006) and likely not any more egregious than deceptive practices identified in face-to-face dating (Cunningham & Barbee, Reference Cunningham, Barbee, Sprecher, Wenzel and Harvey2008; Tooke & Camire, Reference Tooke and Camire1991). The matching stage involves the potential to initiate interpersonal communication as users determine their attractiveness and interest in other users. This stage allows users to practice swiping behaviors, which take place in seconds (Levy et al., Reference Levy, Markell and Cerf2019). The discovery phase occurs after a match has been made and involves mediated communication to determine if the matched parties will choose to pursue a face-to-face meeting and possible relationship.
Information Seeking, Creeping, and “Facebook Stalking”
Whether individuals meet in-person or online, relationship initiation typically involves uncertainty and information gathering to reduce that uncertainty (Knobloch & Miller, Reference Knobloch, Miller, Sprecher, Wenzel and Harvey2008). Verifying, vetting, and seeking personalized information, particularly for online matches, necessitates combing through, scouting for, and scrutinizing potential partners and is not limited to online contacts. Social media provides a mechanism for relational partners in the early relationship stages to gather information about their potential or nascent romantic partner (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014; Sheldon & Bryant, Reference Sheldon and Bryant2016). These uncertainty reduction and information-seeking strategies can be applied sequentially or simultaneously to reduce uncertainty (Ramirez & Walther, Reference Ramirez, Walther, Smith and Wilson2009), and may be especially informative in relationship formation that coalescences with social media. The affordances of social media increase the persistence and searchability of the information available about potential and nascent romantic partners. The persistence of social media means that posted information endures online and then can be searched by other users, including potential new romantic partners.
This social media searching can represent a specific form of passive uncertainty reduction (see Berger & Bradac, Reference Berger and Bradac1982) called extractive information seeking (Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon and Sunnafrank2002). When locating potential partners, people are worried about others misrepresenting themselves (Gibbs et al., Reference Gibbs, Ellison and Lai2011) or deception (Sharabi & Caughlin, Reference Sharabi and Caughlin2017; Toma et al., Reference Toma, Jiang and Hancock2018). Verification processes are commonplace when many couples who meet online are perfect strangers with limited or no peripheral ties connecting them. Often individuals use information-seeking strategies (see Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon and Sunnafrank2002) that include passive (unobstructive available information), active (third-party sources), and extractive (non-human information sources, such as Googling prospective daters) strategies to locate information, form assumptions, and find answers (see Gibbs et al., Reference Gibbs, Ellison and Lai2011). Even if partners are aware of their potential partners through in-person interactions, they often employ other SNS sites to locate identity-verifying information including their contact information, general description, romantic history, current relational status, and even personal values (Duguay, Reference Duguay2017; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Ramirez, Hayes and Gabrielson2019; Weser et al., Reference Weser, Opara, Sands, Fernandes and Hieftje2021). This strategy of partner vetting can help users determine interest and compatibility, as well as reduce disillusionment or potential rejection (Chan, Reference Chan2021).
Seeking information about social network members including romantic relationship partners is a form of interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES, Tokunaga, Reference Tokunaga2011). In the early days of Facebook, young adults experiencing this form of surveillance often referred to as “creeping” (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014) or “Facebook stalking” (Hermida & Hernández-Santaolalla, Reference Hermida and Hernández-Santaolalla2020). These terms are colloquialisms referring to fairly expected forms of social information collection (Hermida & Hernández-Santaolalla, Reference Hermida and Hernández-Santaolalla2020). Searching through social media posts may be seen as a more socially acceptable method of seeking information about new and potential partners because the information is posted publicly, which might not be perceived as violation of trust (Utz & Beukeboom, Reference Utz and Beukeboom2011). People may look for information about the compatibility of a potential romantic partner (Andrejevic, Reference Andrejevic2005), or see if the person already has a romantic partner (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014). Overall, information gleaned from scanning Facebook profiles can provide information about a potential partners’ friends, level of education, and hobbies that can help reduce uncertainty about the potential partner (Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, Yeshua-Katz and Marciano2022).
Although most IES through social media is likely quite benign, people with darker intentions can use social media to engage in cyberstalking (Tokunaga & Aune, Reference Tokunaga and Aune2017). Cyberstalking refers to unwanted pursuit and surveillance via social media, search engines, and even applications such as keyboard loggers or smartphone apps (Reyns et al., Reference Reyns, Henson and Fisher2011; Spitzberg & Hoobler, Reference Spitzberg and Hoobler2002). Around 11 percent of US adults have personally experienced cyberstalking (Vogels, Reference Vogels2021). Research with German participants suggests 6.5 percent of German adults have experienced cyberstalking (Dreßing et al., Reference Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner and Gallas2014) Perpetrators of cyberstalking may have problems with anger and desire immediate gratification (Kuar et al., Reference Kuar, Dhir, Tandon, Alzeiby and Abohassan2021). Cyberstalkers may be more likely to be narcissistic (Ménard & Pincus, Reference Ménard and Pincus2012). Cyberstalking in male perpetrators was also correlated with machiavellianism and physical aggression, whereas cyberstalking in female perpetrators is correlated with interpersonal jealousy and discomfort with intimacy (Kuar et al., Reference Kuar, Dhir, Tandon, Alzeiby and Abohassan2021). There are other gender differences in cyberstalking as well; men may be less likely to experience victimization, but also less likely to report being stalked (Berry & Bainbridge, Reference Berry and Bainbridge2017; Fansher & Randa, Reference Fansher and Randa2019).
Like stalking, cyberstalking is accompanied by a threat to harm. Cyberstalking is particularly worrisome as it can cause serious psychological distress for victims (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, Reference Parsons-Pollard and Moriarty2009) and be a precursor for further harms (e.g., physical violence, reputation destruction) by the aggressor. Cyberstalking itself can be quite detrimental to victims. People being stalked through online channels may experience decreases in the quality of their eating, sleeping, and academic habits as well as increases in emotional distress, and other aspects of mental health such as anxiety, irritability and depression (see Kuar et al., Reference Kuar, Dhir, Tandon, Alzeiby and Abohassan2021, for an extensive review).
Relational Development
As individuals move from initiation to development, social media use related to the relationship more often associates relationship development processes (Bryant et al., Reference Bryant, Marmo, Ramirez, Wright and Webb2011; Ling et al., Reference Ling, Bertel and Sundsøy2012) with network display and constraints (Hall, Reference Hall2020; Weser et al., Reference Weser, Opara, Sands, Fernandes and Hieftje2021). In addition, the masspersonal nature of social media, often reconfigures public-private boundaries (Hjorth & Lim, Reference Hjorth and Lim2012; Hobbs et al., Reference Hobbs, Owen and Gerber2017; O’Sullivan & Carr, Reference O’Sullivan and Carr2018), creating more channels for interpersonal connection, but also opening the communication between and about the romantic partnership to a larger networked audience.
When considering the influence and impact of media on romantic relationships, it is important to highlight the distinction that many behaviors or characteristics are enabled by media (particularly SNS), whereas other behaviors and characteristics have been created because of media (Rus & Tiemensma, Reference Rus and Tiemensma2017). Some scholars have used the relational development model (see Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, Vangelisti and Caughlin2020) to articulate how social media might affect different stages of romantic relational development (Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2016; Fox & Anderegg, Reference Fox and Anderegg2014; Fox & Warber, Reference Fox and Warber2013; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014; Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, Yeshua-Katz and Marciano2022; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Blackburn and Brody2015). The relationship developmental model (see Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, Vangelisti and Caughlin2020) illustrated relationship movement through five coming-together stages: initiating, experimentation, intensifying, integrating, and bonding and five coming-apart stages: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating. These stages (along with other relationship dissolution models) examined and mapped SNS behaviors onto these models. When extending these prior models, scholars considered specific relational behaviors afforded by social networking sites such as surveillance, relationship broadcasting or status determination, communicating (in)stability, photo impression management, network management, considerations for privacy and sharing, and relational communication (see Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2016; Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014). These patterns delineate strategies and behaviors that are multiphasic (e.g., Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2016), and exist beyond face-to-face communication channels. In particular, the initiating and experimenting processes include finding and locating, but also highlighted the ambiguity and uncertainty that can unfold through perpetual contact (Katz & Aakhus, Reference Katz and Aakhus2002) and continuous connectivity (Karsay & Vandenbosch, Reference Karsay and Vandenbosch2021). In these stages, people may use uncertainty reduction strategies, information-seeking, and stalking practices to initiate (described above) but also describe how individuals work to manage relationships as they develop.
Early work in relationships and computer-mediated dating highlighted the process of modality switching, or when relational partners shift their communication from online-only to face-to-face (Ramirez & Zhang, Reference Ramirez and Zhang2007; Sharabi & Dykstra-DeVette). Modality switching is still an important process for online daters who to continue the relationship generally must move from purely mediated channels to face-to-face interaction. For example, Ramirez et al. (Reference Ramirez, Sumner, Fleuriet and Cole2015) found that online daters fared the best when they switched modalities around 14–21 days after first meeting online. This finding is likely explained by the fact that online daters needed enough time to learn a bit about each other, but not spend so much time purely online so that they began to form overly idealized or hyperpersonal impressions (see Walther, Reference Walther1996).
With current forms of mediated communication, it is unlikely that daters move from purely online communication to purely offline communication. Rather, the communication driving the formation of interpersonal relationships likely occurs through a tapestry of modalities. Even relationships that start online weave various forms of social media throughout their relational communication (McEwan, Reference McEwan2021). Social media users may use messaging and image sharing features to display their relationship to the broader network. They may share gifs or TikToks with each other to highlight their perceived similarity. They can use social media postings to seek information and reduce uncertainty about each other.
Overall, social media may lead people to consider how to share and integrate their relationship in current public and private spheres. During these stages, relational partners may begin to make choices about how they will portray their relationship on social media. Public social media messages often bring different network segments together into a single audience, creating context collapse (see Marwick & boyd, Reference Marwick2011). For romantic relationships, context collapse may require couples to navigate posting messages that are appropriate for friends, but also family members, and perhaps work colleagues. Partners may need to discuss their preferences and requirements for managing messages for their social media audience.
Earlier research on social media focused on Facebook, which offered the ability to sign a relationship connection by going Facebook official (see Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014; Papp et al., Reference Papp, Danielewicz and Cayemberg2012). By adding a relational status, this action prompted an important display of commitment, especially in young adult romantic relationships (Fox & Warber, Reference Fox and Warber2013; Lane et al., Reference Lane, Piercy and Carr2016). Today, social media users have moved away from the idea of “Facebook official” for dating relationships (although many still update statuses for marriages and engagements), yet users still create posts to broadcast the status of their relationship to their broader network. For example, people might upload a new profile picture that includes their romantic partner or relationship pictures (Toma & Choi, Reference Toma and Choi2015).
As couples begin to integrate, they also begin the process of managing impressions not only of themselves but also of the relationship (Sharabi & Hopkins, Reference Sharabi and Hopkins2021). Representations of the relationship on social media can serve as a sign of partners’ commitment to the relationship. Relational posts signal the existence and importance of the relationship to the broader social network (Ito et al., Reference Ito, Yang and Li2021). This visual public intimacy may demonstrate a critical relational turning point by signifying the disclosure of a developing relationship (Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2016). However, for some partners, the intimacy loses its status when advertised broadly on social media (Miguel, Reference Miguel2016). The privilege of posting visual intimacy often highlights heteronormative relationships, and even if individuals and partners may want to display their developing relationship, the public-private norms may not allow their relationship openness. It should be noted that research findings in this area are primarily from studies with young adult samples. Although older demographics are becoming steady adopters (Auxier & Anderson, Reference Auxier and Anderson2021) further relationship development scholarship should explore how adults of all ages navigate romantic relationships and social media.
The display of romantic relationship status on social media may have particularly positive outcomes for members of the LGBTQ community. Positive feedback via comments and likes on relational status posts can lead to greater feelings of resilience and well-being for same-sex partners (Bond, Reference Bond2015). Viewing posts of others in sexual minority relationships can also serve as identity-affirming experiences for people whose LGBTQ-related aspects of identity are emerging. Social media content can provide representation of everyday regular life that goes beyond stereotyped and fetishized LGBTQ representations found within mass media (Fox & Ralston, Reference Fox and Ralston2016).
Social Media Relational Maintenance Behaviors
The observation of the relationship development model draws in and highlights relationship maintenance as relational partners demonstrate behaviors and routines through social media. All relationships require some type of maintenance to remain in existence and ideally in a mutually satisfactory state. Relational maintenance behaviors are the strategic and routine behaviors that couples engage in to keep their relationship in a desired state (Dindia, Reference Dindia, Canary and Dainton2003). These behaviors or tactics have been sorted into various strategies such as positivity (cheerful and upbeat messages), assurances (messages related to relational commitment), openness (discussions about the relationship), and more (see Canary et al., Reference Canary, Stafford, Hause and Wallace1993; Stafford, Reference Stafford2011).
Although the formation and dissolution processes in relationships often garner the most attention, couples spend the most time in their relationships maintaining that relationship. Social media, particularly SNS, can facilitate maintenance behaviors across a variety of relational types, including romantic couples. As people began to adopt social media platforms more widely, relational maintenance was a frequently cited motivation (Sheldon, Reference Sheldon2008). Indeed, Ramirez and Walther (Reference Ramirez, Walther, Smith and Wilson2009) noted that Facebook’s “greatest utility” was likely relational maintenance.
In regard to specific studies of relational maintenance via social media, McEwan et al. (Reference McEwan, Fletcher, Eden and Sumner2014) developed a measure of Facebook relational maintenance. However, that measure has primarily been used to study platonic Facebook connections, and other scholars have adapted versions of general relational maintenance measures for social media contexts. For example, Stewart et al. (Reference Stewart, Dainton and Goodboy2014) examined sharing messages related to positivity, openness, and assurances and found that relational satisfaction was correlated with engaging in higher amounts of Facebook positivity and assurances. People may also use private channels provided through social media (e.g., Facebook messenger, Instagram DMs, Snapchat) to share maintenance messages (Langlais et al., Reference Langlais, Seidman and Bruxvoort2020). More recent qualitative studies have found that young adults still use Facebook to maintain their romantic relationships. Goldberg et al. (Reference Goldberg, Yeshua-Katz and Marciano2022) found social media such as Facebook and Instagram allowed users to create a sense of togetherness, but that Facebook was perceived as a better choice to display relational events as the Facebook audience is often a more closed network of friends, family, and social acquaintances whereas Instagram posts are often for the purpose of creating a particular aesthetic for a more public, less known audience.
Partners can tag each other as a type of electronic tie-sign (Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, Yeshua-Katz and Marciano2022; Ito et al., Reference Ito, Yang and Li2021; Tong & Walther, Reference Tong and Walther2011). Engaging with each other’s content through likes and comments can show that a partner endorses and confirms particular activities and identity displays (Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, Yeshua-Katz and Marciano2022). Other research has found that people may display their relationship on social media by posting pictures of gifts they have exchanged. Interestingly, motivations for posting gift pictures may vary by platform. Chinchanachokchai and Pusaksrikit (Reference Chinchanachokchai and Pusaksrikit2021) found that people were more likely to post gifts they thought represented themselves on Facebook and use Instagram to post gifts that were high status. Overall, the utility of social media sites appears to be connected to the maintenance strategy of network connectivity. Social media allows a couple to display their relationship and commitment to their broader network. As one of Fox et al.’s (Reference Fox and Anderegg2014) participants noted, Facebook posts can be “the ultimate PDA [public display of affection], ‘cause everyone can see it.”
Ongoing Partner Surveillance
SNS can also serve as a site of ongoing surveillance of romantic partners (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014; Tokunaga, Reference Tokunaga2016). SNS have several affordances including the visibility and persistence of posted information as well as increasing the perception of network associations that can lead to increased partner surveillance. Through social media, romantic partners can monitor each other’s posts and activity (Rueda et al., Reference Rueda, Lindsay and Williams2015).
Relational partners may use social media monitoring more when they are experiencing uncertainty about the relationship (Stewart et al., Reference Stewart, Dainton and Goodboy2014). Relational uncertainty can be particularly high in the early stages of a relationship as partners get to know each other. In this stage, gathering information from a partner’s or potential partner’s social media feed may be a relatively benign way to get to know the person better. However, high levels of uncertainty later in the relationship may lead to jealousy-related reasons for monitoring a partner’s social media behavior (Dainton & Berkoski, Reference Dainton and Berkoski2013; Dainton & Stokes, Reference Dainton and Stokes2015; Stewart et al., Reference Stewart, Dainton and Goodboy2014). SNS in particular may be breeding grounds for relational jealousy because the platforms provide easy access to survey network connections and interactions, facilitate relational maintenance with potential rivals, and produce more ambiguous social situations that could result in misunderstandings (Bevan, Reference Bevan2013).
Multiple studies have found that social media use can lead to conflict and jealousy when partners respond to potential rivals’ posts, view profiles of potential rivals, and reconnect or post pictures with exes (Clayton et al., Reference Clayton, Nagurney and Smith2013; Muise et al., Reference Muise, Christofides and Desmarais2014). Seidmen et al. (2019) found that for couples with low levels of jealousy social media monitoring was perceived to be helpful for the relationship, but for those who were very jealous, monitoring did not improve the relationship. The persistence of social media information also allows partners to dig through previous posts and photos to find virtual artifacts and possessions or digital remnants such as social media evidence left over from previous romantic relationships (Frampton & Fox, Reference Frampton and Fox2018; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Blackburn and Brody2015; Robards & Lincoln, Reference Robards and Lincoln2016). For some romantic partners, these virtual possessions or remnants may induce retroactive jealousy, which occurs when someone feels jealous about their partner’s romantic history even though previous partners are not actively interfering in the current relationship (Elphinston & Noller, Reference Elphinston and Noller2011; Frampton & Fox, Reference Frampton and Fox2018; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Blackburn and Brody2015).
Another way social media may contribute to increased jealousy in relationships is through hyperperception effects (Carpenter & Spottswood, Reference Carpenter and Spottswood2021, see Walther Reference Walther1996 for a review of the foundational hyperpersonal model). Hyperperception occurs when romantic partners view their partners’ interactions with potential rivals on social media and perceive those interactions to be more intimate than they actually are. These effects can occur because (a) there is a limited amount of information available via social information and (b) social media tends to have a positivity bias where people post primarily positive content. Thus, if the observing partner perceives that their romantic partner and the potential rival are frequently engaging in positive interactions on SNS the observer may interpret this to mean that one or both members of the dyad are attempting to escalate their relationship. Actively seeking out interactions between partners and rivals, as well as engaging in a feedback loop (feeling that observing some of the partner/rival interaction led the observer to actively look for more of their interactions) was associated with greater feelings of jealousy (Carpenter & Spottswood, Reference Carpenter and Spottswood2021).
Conflict
As can be seen from the findings on surveillance and jealousy, social media does not always have a positive effect on romantic couples. Although jealousy and finding out information about one’s partner or potential rivals may be a main driver of social media related conflict (Arikewuyo et al., Reference Arikewuyo, Lasisi, Abdulbaqi, Omoloso and Arikewuyo2020), social media interactions can contribute to other conflicts as well. For example, in interviews with Latino adolescents, Len-Rios et al. (Reference Len-Ríos, Streit, Killoren, Deutsch, Cooper and Carlo2016) found that respondents felt that sites such as Facebook or Instagram could have negative effects on their relationships as the increased ability to monitor their partners’ posts could lead to finding potential causes of conflict. Partners may also use social media to check up on their partners’ claims and activities if there is a lack of trust in the relationship (Frampton & Fox, Reference Frampton and Fox2018). Another potential source of conflict is disagreement over what partners consider appropriate to post on social media (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Osborn and Warber2014). Posts, pictures, and public communication with others can all lead to relational conflict episodes between romantic partners and Facebook related conflict has been shown to be negatively correlated with relational satisfaction, commitment, and love (Rahaman, Reference Rahaman2015).
Relationships End, Social Media Lives On
The process of de-coupling from a romantic entanglement typically has involved the lessening of communication frequency and intensity (Baxter, Reference Baxter1984; Knapp et al., Reference Knapp, Vangelisti and Caughlin2020). Social media influences multiple aspects of relational dissolution (Gershon, Reference Gershon2020). When breaking up, romantic partners must determine how to disconnect or disengage their identities and shared memories. Former romantic couples need to disentangle the many ways they have woven their digital lives together, including managing virtual relational possession (Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2020; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Brody and Blackburn2020). They also need to manage the increased uncertainty that comes with the end of the relationship and consider how much they want to engage with their former partner’s social media content (Fox & Tokunaga, Reference Fox and Tokunaga2015). Mediated communication channels can influence the choices regarding how partners communicate relational termination to each other as well as how to reduce or cut off communication post-break up. Former partners can make active social media choices such as unfriending, blocking, deleting, and hiding or passive tactics such as ghosting, or cutting off communication with no explanation.
Social media can also influence how people manage the broader social network’s impression of the breakup (Frampton & Fox, Reference Frampton and Fox2018). They may turn to social media to broadcast their side of the story or to post imagery of successfully moving on to the larger network. Social media also provides a persistent record of the relationship, by creating a visible chronology of previous communication, social interactions, and relational memory (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Frampton, Jones and Lookadoo2021). This aspect of people’s past must be managed as part of their own identity presentation and for what the record communicates to potential and future partners. The dissolution of a romantic relationship can be an incredibly distressing event in a person’s life (Kendler et al., Reference Kendler, Hettema, Butera, Gardner and Prescott2003). With the advent of social media, people now must manage public performances of the breakup, multiple communication channels connecting them to their break-up partner, and the potential for continue interaction and/or observance of the partner via social platforms.
Uncertainty Management
Often increased uncertainty bubbles up during the dissolution phase of a relationship (Planalp & Honeycutt, Reference Planalp and Honeycutt1985). For those who did not initiate the break-up, experiencing dissolution can increase uncertainty about their understanding of the relationship and their former partner. In this high-uncertainty situation, people may be drawn to monitor their former partner’s social media as an uncertainty management strategy (Fox & Tokunaga, Reference Fox and Tokunaga2015; Tong, Reference Tong2013). Unfortunately, social media monitoring of exes is associated with greater distress for the surveyor. Taking a break from an ex-partner’s social media content may be a better choice to facilitate moving on from the former relationship (Fox & Tokunaga, Reference Fox and Tokunaga2015; Fox & Warber, Reference Fox and Warber2013). However, due to the integration of their social media presences, partners will have to negotiate how much social media contact they wish to have with their ex (Gershon, Reference Gershon2020). Different couples negotiate this in different ways, with some remaining friendly on the group messaging app, and others choosing to cut off all contact.
Relational Curation
Earlier in the chapter, we outlined how people use posts on social media to maintain the relationship and present an impression of the relationship to the network. During relational dissolution, couples must decide what happens to these digital artifacts. Some people choose to delete every virtual possession connected to the relationship, others choose to selectively remove relationship-related artifacts, and still others choose to keep the social media record fully intact (Herron et al., Reference Herron, Moncur and van den Hoven2017). The variance in keeping and deleting behaviors may represent different approaches to the relational curation process (LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Brody and Blackburn2020).
When people based curation decisions on their connection with their ex-partner, they were more likely to choose to keep those artifacts (LeFebvre et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2020). This choice may reflect a partner still connecting their identity with that relationship. However, keeping these artifacts may make adjusting to post-dissolution life more difficult (Sas & Whittaker, Reference Sas and Whittaker2013) and lead to increased rumination regarding the failed relationship. On the other hand, people often delete virtual possessions in order to prepare for future relationships (LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Blackburn and Brody2015; Frampton & Fox, Reference Frampton and Fox2018). Social media users who based their curation decision on potential future partners, were more likely to delete virtual possessions connected to their former partner. People who delete social media artifacts may be able to move on from the past relationship more quickly (Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2020). Yet, the ability to encapsulate the past or hold onto memories that deal with past relationship social media (Garde-Hansen, Reference Garde-Hansen, Garde-Hansen, Hoskins and Reading2009; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Blackburn and Brody2015) can call into question whether they can end or simply continue to exist through our social media.
Network Impression Management and Grave Dressing
The curation process articulates that relational identities can remain on social media long after the relationships have ended (McDaniel et al., Reference McDaniel, Drouin, Dibble, Galovan and Merritt2021). Couples often have shared memories through social media and mutual connections making it more difficult to disentangle themselves (McDaniel et al., Reference McDaniel, Drouin, Dibble, Galovan and Merritt2021; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Freeman and McNeese2020). Relational information on SNS may be particularly difficult to manage post-dissolution as the persistence of past communication about the relationship conflicts with the current relational status. Former romantic partners may use social media to communicate their experience to the broader network. Whereas relationship curation typically occurs behind the scenes, the grave-dressing process prioritizes the need to present their version of the story of the breakup to a social audience.
This narrative, grave-dressing process is not new (see Duck, Reference Duck1998), but social media may complicate its deployment. The masspersonal nature of SNS can lead to an audience expecting fairly fixed, consistent, and coherent identity expressions (see McEwan, Reference McEwan2015). Yet, relational dissolution narratives indicate a change in relationships, reconstruction of part of the identity of the former relational partners, and introduces the possibility of the former partners presenting conflicting narratives to the social media audience.
Social media allows people to follow relationships as they develop and dissolve in real time (Fox et al., Reference Fox, Frampton, Jones and Lookadoo2021; Seraj et al., Reference Seraj, Blackburn and Pennebaker2021). The public audience represented on SNS can alter the way memories are created in the grave dressing process (Brody et al., Reference Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn2020). Networks on SNS tend to be comprised of large audiences of weak ties and it may be difficult to craft messages that are appropriate for all segments of the network (Marwick & boyd, Reference Marwick2011). The presence of these ties representing a wide variety of contexts may make it difficult to perform the narrative tasks related to the end of a relationship. In addition, the persistence of digital items that represent cues to relationship memories and associated emotions can make it difficult to move on from past relationships (Herron et al., Reference Herron, Moncur and van den Hoven2017; Sas & Whittaker, Reference Sas and Whittaker2013).
Perhaps for these reasons, mediated sharing about a breakup may not have the same benefits as a face-to-face conversation. In a study of college students, Choi and colleagues (2017) found that discussing a breakup with friends in a face-to-face setting was related to feelings of personal growth but sharing via mediated channels did not have the same relationship to personal growth. When people are moving through their breakup, they must make decisions about what their digital items represent, how and which social networks to maintain, and how to organize their own relationship and individual identity moving forward.
Social Media-Related Break-Up Strategies
At times people may also use mediated channels to facilitate their break-up communication. Breaking up via mediated technology can generate physical and psychological separation (Sprecher et al., Reference Sprecher, Zimmerman and Abrahams2010). People may choose a particular medium in an effort to alter their message (Ledbetter, Reference Ledbetter2014) or maximize difference in perceived channel affordances (Fox & McEwan, Reference Fox and McEwan2017). In a study of college students, Choi et al. (Reference Choi, Toma, Reinecke and Eden2017) found that although most couples in a geographically-close relationship had a face-to-face conversation to break up, some chose texting instead. For long-distance romantic relationships, texting was a more popular choice for breaking up than a face-to-face conversation. Interestingly, a voice phone call was the least popular choice regardless of the partners’ proximity to each other.
In other cases, people may avoid all communication with a former or potential partner and end the relationship with a strategy known as “ghosting.” The term ghosting first appeared in 2006 in the Urban Dictionary as “the act of disappearing on your friends without notice or canceling plans with little or no choice.” However, over time the term morphed into the concept of halting communication with a romantic partner or potential partner with no explanation. Based on qualitative interview data, LeFebvre et al. (Reference LeFebvre, Ramirez, Hayes and Gabrielson2019) define the process as “unilaterally ceasing communication (temporarily or permanently) in an effort to withdraw access to individual(s) prompting relationship dissolution (suddenly or gradually) commonly enacted via one or multiple technological mediums.” The individual withholding the communication is the ghoster, and the partner being avoided is the ghostee.
Ghosting is not an entirely new phenomenon; Planalp and Honeycutt (Reference Planalp and Honeycutt1985) include unexplained loss of contact such as the partner moving away in their typology of uncertainty-increasing events. However, the accessibility of social media and other forms of mediated communication makes it obvious to the ghostee that the ghoster could resume communication if they so choose. Thus, ghosting is typically thought of in connection with mediated contexts and channels (LeFebvre & Fan, Reference LeFebvre and Fan2020). In addition, mediated channels make ghosting an ambiguous loss. There is a physical and psychological absence, yet there remains a form of ambient access, the knowledge via digital technology that the person continues to exist (LeFebvre, Reference LeFebvre2018).
Ghosting may occur on a continuum; sudden ghosting occurs when communication suddenly ceases and gradual ghosting involves slowly spacing out communication episodes until they eventually cease altogether. In any case, most people feel that ghosting is an inappropriate break-up strategy, but it should be noted that people ghost anyway (LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Ramirez, Hayes and Gabrielson2019). There are cases where ghosting may be seen as more appropriate such as in very early stages. As one of LeFebvre et al.’s (Reference LeFebvre, Allen, Rasner, Garstad, Wilms and Parrish2019) participants noted, “I definitely think it’s appropriate if you find someone on like Tinder. You start talking for a little bit but if you’re not into it, you can just start ghosting them” (p. 134). In these cases, ghosters may feel that not enough has been invested into the relationship to go to the trouble of investing the time and energy required for a more explicit break-up discussion. Ghosting may also be seen as more appropriate if the ghostee begins behaving oddly or in a way that seems dangerous (Manning et al., Reference Manning, Buchanan and Denker2019). In such a case, cutting off communication quickly and completely may be a safer dissolution strategy than attempting to explain the need for a dissolution in a face-to-face setting.
However, sometimes people ghost merely out of convenience or finding their attraction to the person has dissipated or not materialized. People who have strong implicit theories about destiny may be more likely to ghost than people who believe that relationship can grow and change over time (Freedman et al., Reference Freedman, Powell, Le and Williams2019). In these cases, ghosting may create difficulties for the ghostee in that they likely experience ambiguity, uncertainty, and a lack of closure (Koessler et al., Reference Koessler, Kohut and Campbell2019; LeFebvre et al., Reference LeFebvre, Ramirez, Hayes and Gabrielson2019). Ghostees aim to make sense of the relationship itself often before transitioning to a new relationship; however, ghostees may engage in increased privacy settings (e.g., blocking of previous partners or social networks, deleting messages) in order to control the process of grave-dressing and begin resurrection (Pancani et al., Reference Pancani, Mazzoni, Aureli and Riva2021).
Conclusion
Throughout the lifespan of a relationship, romantic partners weave together communication through a variety of channels, including social media (McEwan, Reference McEwan2021).
Social media does not greatly alter the processes involved in romantic relationships; people still need to locate potential partners, form and maintain relationships, and dissolve those relationships. However, the affordances of social media, in particular persistence and network connectivity, often change the audience and rigidity of these messages. Mediated channels can allow for opportunities such as an increased pool of potential partners available via dating apps but also challenges such as experiencing conflict or jealousy related to a partners’ social media posts. Much of the research on romantic relationships and social media thus far has occurred within the context of Facebook (although there is starting to be more work on other platforms e.g., Instagram, Snapchat). Whether Facebook remains an important social channel or not, young adults in particular are likely to weave their relational communication through many different mediated channels. Within this chapter, we have attempted to consider how relational processes and channel affordance intersect to make meaning in romantic relationships. Future research focusing on specific affordances can help us continue to increase our understanding of how the context of social media accommodates, amplifies, or alters relational communication processes (McEwan & Fox, Reference McEwan, Fox, Quan-Hasse and Sloan2022).
Open access