Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

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

relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook
use and affordances
Jesse Fox a,, Jennifer J. Moreland b
a
b

The Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1339, USA
The Research Institute, Nationwide Childrens Hospital, 575 Childrens Crossroad, WB5K10, Columbus, OH 43215, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 24 December 2014
Keywords:
Social networking sites
Social comparison
Jealousy
Relationship conict
Privacy management
Facebook addiction

a b s t r a c t
Research on social media typically focuses on its benets; considerably less is known about the dark side
of social networking sites. Focus groups of adult Facebook users (N = 44) uncovered narratives surrounding individuals negative psychological and relational experiences tied to the social networking site and
its affordances (e.g., connectivity, visibility, accessibility, persistence, and social feedback). Thematic analysis rendered ve themes regarding Facebook stressors: managing inappropriate or annoying content, being
tethered, lack of privacy and control, social comparison and jealousy, and relationship tension and conict.
Results demonstrate that although Facebook users often experience negative emotions, they feel
pressured to access the site frequently due to the fear of missing out and to keep up with relationship
maintenance demands. Some participants reported privacy violations due to Facebooks visibility, connectivity, and persistence. These features also afforded constant social comparison to other network
members, which triggered jealousy, anxiety, and other negative emotions. Relational turbulence occurred
due to the public nature of conict on Facebook. Many participants responses revealed overarching contradictions: initially they claimed Facebook was inconsequential, yet later recounted signicant stressful
or hurtful events associated with Facebook. Our ndings indicate some methods may not uncover the
actual nature or scope of users experiences.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Social networking websites (SNSs) have become an integral
medium for communicating within and about interpersonal relationships. Facebook is the most dominant SNS in the U.S. and over
one billion people worldwide possess an active Facebook account
(Facebook, 2014). Over two-thirds of U.S. Facebook users visit the
site at least once per day and are connected to an average of 338
friends (Pew Research Center, 2014).
One reason Facebook is the most popular social networking site
is the scope of affordances it provides for users. The ability to
connect with ones ofine network onlineas well as make new
connections onlineallows users to communicate easily with network members. Through the posting and sharing functions, social
information is easily distributed and stored among members; users
can also provide feedback to this information in the form of com Corresponding author at: 3084 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH
43210-1339, USA. Tel.: +1 (614) 247 2348.
E-mail addresses: fox.775@osu.edu (J. Fox), jennifer.moreland@nationwide
childrens.org (J.J. Moreland).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.083
0747-5632/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ments and likes. Facebook also offers the convenience of network-wide, group, and private communication channels through
one interface. Further, Facebook has a mobile application, ensuring
that users can access the site easily from their devices. Collectively,
these affordances explain why Facebook has grown and maintained a devoted user base globally.
Although considerable research has focused on the benets of
using SNSs such as increased social capital, social support, and
relationship maintenance (e.g., Ellison, Steineld, & Lampe, 2007;
McEwan, 2013; Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013), fewer studies have
examined the nature of negative outcomes for adult users. Given
that users expect positive outcomes and often visit SNSs for relaxation, entertainment, or social connection (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2013;
Park, Kee, & Valenzuela, 2009), users may not anticipate negative
experiences or interactions, making them more potent or hurtful.
At this time, some survey-based research has identied links
between Facebook use and diminished well-being (e.g., Chen &
Lee, 2013; Chou & Edge, 2012; Kross et al., 2013), as well as negative experiences based on unfriending and romantic relationship
dissolution (Bevan, Ang, & Fearns, 2014; Fox, Jones, & Lookadoo,
2013; Marshall, 2012; Tokunaga, 2014). Further, a recent content

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

analysis showed a prevalence of negative content posted to

Facebook (Shelton & Skalski, 2014). What is lacking is a deeper
investigation into how and why users have negative experiences
on Facebook, particularly given users tendency to proclaim, its
just Facebook, and thus does not affect them substantially (Fox,
Warber, & Makstaller, 2013). As Mao (2014) noted, qualitative
methods are necessary to elaborate on quantitative studies about
technology and gain more insight into the breadth and depth of
users changing experiences. It is important to determine the scope
of these experiences so users and scholars are aware of both the
benets and drawbacks to participating in SNSs and can learn to
manage or guide the management of negative Facebook experiences in a psychologically and relationally healthy manner. To this
end, we designed an exploratory study to investigate the rich narratives surrounding users negative emotional experiences with
Facebook, rooting our study in the context of dark side interpersonal communication.
2. Experiences with social networking sites
2.1. The light side of Facebook
Several benets have been ascribed to SNS use. Relationships on
Facebook bring social capital, the benets users receive from their
associations with other people (Ellison et al., 2007; Valenzuela,
Park, & Kee, 2008). Facebook affords the ability to strengthen weak
ties, maintain existing relationships, and dene otherwise ambiguous relationships (McEwan, 2013; Valenzuela et al., 2008). Facebooks connectivity enables users to promote group identity and
in-group relationships, particularly for users in ethnoracial, gender
identity, or sexual orientation minority groups (Fox & Warber, in
press; Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008).
In addition to promoting social relationships, SNS use may have
individual psychological benets for users. Several studies have
identied boosts in self-esteem from interacting with or modifying
ones own Facebook prole (Gentile, Twenge, Freeman, &
Campbell, 2012; Gonzales & Hancock, 2011; Toma & Hancock,
2013) as well as from general Facebook use (Gonzales, 2014).
Research has also determined that connectivity on SNSs may promote perceptions of social support for some users, which in turn
facilitates well-being ofine (Nabi et al., 2013). Thus, Facebook
and other SNSs have demonstrated the potential to provide considerable social and psychological benets to users.
2.2. The dark side of Facebook
Although Facebook may provide a variety of benets, SNSs also
manifest a dark side and can have deleterious consequences for
users. A survey by Bevan, Gomez, and Sparks (2014) revealed the
more time spent on SNSs and the more SNSs a person used, the
lower their quality of life. Chen and Lee (2013) found that Facebook
interaction is associated with reduced self-esteem, cognitive overload, and feelings of distress. Kross et al. (2013) examined Facebook use over time and found higher levels of Facebook use were
associated with a signicant decrease in well-being. At its worst,
Facebook is used as a conduit for cyberbullying, stalking, and
online harassment (Fox, in press; Kwan & Skoric, 2013).
Because of the visibility of other network members experiences, habits, and preferences, social comparison is a common
activity on Facebook. Several studies have indicated that social
comparisons made on SNSs can be detrimental (Feinstein et al.,
2013; Johnson & Knobloch-Westerwick, 2014; Lee, 2014). Chou
and Edge (2012) found those who have used Facebook longer
expressed they believed other people were happier and had better
lives than they did. Haferkamp and Krmer (2011) found that after

169

looking at attractive users proles on Facebook, participants felt

worse about their bodies than participants exposed to less attractive proles. Male participants who viewed proles of successful
males demonstrated a greater perceived discrepancy between their
current career status and their ideal career status when compared
to males who viewed the proles of less successful people
(Haferkamp & Krmer, 2011).
Facebook can also have a negative impact on romantic relationships. Research has shown that Facebook can promote romantic
jealousy (Utz & Beukeboom, 2011), which may explain why it is
a commonly cited source of relational conict (Fox, Osborn, &
Warber, 2014; Fox, Warber et al., 2013). Furthermore, after relationships terminate, Facebook can enable unhealthy surveillance
of the ex-partner and delay emotional recovery (Fox, Jones et al.,
2013; Fox & Warber, 2014; Marshall, 2012).
To date, survey-based research demonstrates that adult
Facebook users can feel worse after using the site. Experimental
researchers have manipulated specic content, such as the attractiveness or success of other users, and determined that Facebook
has the potential to promote negative affect. What is missing from
the literature is an exploration into the variety and scope of negative experiences resulting from Facebook use. Thus, we ask:
RQ1: What kind of negative psychological experiences do users
have with Facebook?
RQ2: What kind of negative relational experiences do users
have with Facebook?
2.3. Facebook affordances
Social networking sites are dened by users ability to maintain
a prole, connect with other users, and trace the networks of connected users (boyd & Ellison, 2008). On Facebook, users are normatively associated with their real (or chosen) name and identifying
information. Thus, Facebooks primary purpose is to provide access
to users ofine networksand the social information they provideonline (Reich, Subrahmanyam, & Espinoza, 2012). As a result,
the site has distinct social implications and functionality compared
to other social media.
Facebooks social functionality is tied to its specic set of affordances (Fox, in press; Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Affordances can
inuence users positive and negative experiences with technology
(e.g., Mao, 2014). Perhaps the most notable affordance of SNSs is
connectivity or association, which enables network members to recognize each others presence and often view each others prole
content through a direct connection or a common node (Treem &
Leonardi, 2012). On Facebook, these nodes are referred to as
friends. Although this connectivity enables convenient access
to ones entire network and may expand the network by identifying second degree connections, it may also reveal associations that
promote stress (e.g., seeing that a romantic partner is still friends
with an ex-partner).
Visibility concerns the public or private nature of information
presented online. Although social information or artifacts may
not be easily accessible or publicized ofine, Facebook enables easy
and immediate sharing among the network (Treem & Leonardi,
2012). One drawback is that such information may be negatively
skewed (e.g., an unattering or inappropriate picture of oneself
posted by a friend). Visibility also enables the monitoring of others
content without their awareness; for example, Facebook does not
inform a user who has viewed their page. Thus, users can information seek surreptitiously.
Social feedback is the ability for others to interact directly with
shared information and subsequently respond to the user
(Sutcliffe, Gonzalez, Binder, & Nevarez, 2011). Facebook allows
users to comment, share, and like posts, all of which let the user

170

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

know other network members viewed and interacted with posted

information. Further, although social feedback can be conveyed
privately, most of it is visible to other users. If the social feedback
is positive, such as earning likes after posting a picture of a new
haircut, it is likely the user will have a positive reaction or experience self-afrmation (Toma & Hancock, 2013). Facebooks features
can also convey negative social feedback, whether through a negative comment or by liking a post that conveys a users negative
experience (e.g., I lost my job today.)
Persistence is tied to the digital nature of the text, pictures, and
other content posted online. Because digital material is easily
saved, duplicated, and recirculated, information shared on
Facebook may be accessible long after the initial post and difcult
to remove permanently (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Members of
family and friend groups typically intersect on Facebook and they
can share and store memories on the site. In the case of an unattering photo posted by a friend, however, it may be impossible to
delete every copy, ensuring that the photo will endure long after
the initial post. Thus, negative information may persist long after
initial posts and even after an individual attempts to delete
content.
Accessibility is the capability of easily reaching content on an
SNS (Fox, in press). Facebook optimizes its interface for mobile
platforms to maximize the time people spend with the site. Users
are not required to get to a desktop computer; rather they can conveniently log on any time and from any place using a digital device
with cellular service or an Internet connection. Some scholars have
noted downsides to constant accessibility such as Facebook addiction, a constant need for gratication, and the tendency to become
distracted from work or face-to-face interaction (Masur, Reinecke,
Ziegele, & Quiring, 2014; Pang, 2013; Turkle, 2011).
Given these affordances, social networking sites like Facebook
enable users to initiate, promote, and exacerbate many facets of
the dark side of relationships (Fox, in press). At this time, however,
limited research has delved into the relationship between Facebooks affordances and negative experiences with the site. Thus,
we pose a third research question:
RQ3: What affordances of Facebook are associated with negative experiences?
3. Method
We employed focus groups to uncover themes in the current
study concerning emotional responses and stressors related to
Facebook use. We conducted focus group analysis for two primary
reasons. First, few studies exist that explicate the nature of stressors associated with Facebook. Thus, a method allowing for sufcient freedom and depth of probing was needed. Second, social
networks are inherently social contexts designed for interaction,
and focus groups more closely reect this dynamic multivocality
compared to other methods (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Focus groups
provide rich, in-depth information and narratives often not
obtained using more closed-ended methods, such as surveys or
experiments. Further, focus groups encourage the expression of
thoughts, emotions, and experiences (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

recorded all focus groups to obtain both verbal and nonverbal

(e.g., nodding, gestures) cues for later analysis (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Three moderators trained in focus group methodology and
qualitative analysis conducted the focus groups. Given their
knowledge on the topic was required to probe participants on relevant themes, the authors served as moderators for the study
(Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996).
When participants arrived at the study location, the moderator(s) greeted them and guided them through the consent process.
Moderators worked from a semi-structured guide to lead the focus
groups (see Appendix A). The semi-structured nature of the guide
encouraged the natural ow of conversation and further probes
were employed in each group when necessary.

3.2. Participants
Participants (N = 44) were 17 men and 27 women who were taking one or more classes at a large Midwestern university and ranged
in age from 19 to 52 (M = 23.36, SD = 6.79). Some were offered extra
credit in exchange for their participation, whereas others participated without compensation. They identied as White/European/
European-American (52.3%), Asian/Asian-American (20.5%),
Multiracial (6.8%), Latino/a (2.3%), Middle Eastern (2.3%), and seven
did not report their race/ethnicity due to a clerical error. All those
reporting sexual orientation stated they were heterosexual. Only
one participant reported she did not currently use Facebook, but
had been a regular user until six months prior. Her data was
retained in the analyses as she effectively responded to questions
regarding her prior use. Otherwise, all participants possessed an
active Facebook account. They reported having their prole an average of 3.55 years (SD = 1.90) and spent an average of 1.56 h
(SD = 1.63) each day actively using Facebook (i.e., not just logged
in, but using the interface). This use is notably higher than Facebooks recent report that users spend 40 min a day on the site
(Brustein, 2014).

3.3. Analysis
Twelve same-sex groups ranging in size from three to ve participants were analyzed. We conducted same-sex groups because,
as Lindolf and Taylor (2011) note, a homogeneous group is usually
more willing to speak openly (p. 186). We engaged in an open
coding process and then completed in vivo coding (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) to identify the terms participants chose to describe
their experiences (e.g., creeping, TMI, friend sluts). Through iterations of the data, a constant-comparative method was applied to
identify, elaborate, and clarify categories (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). Emergent categories were examined within and across
groups to determine salience and recurrence. After a training process, the rst and second authors individually coded each group
and identied common themes across groups to achieve investigator triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Common themes were
identied within each of the 12 focus groups.

3.1. Procedure
4. Results
Focus groups were conducted in two sessions. The inclusion of a
second wave of data enabled triangulation via member validation
and negative case analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Furthermore,
we established diachronic reliability, as we found no noted differences in participant testimonies from one group of sessions to the
other (Miles & Huberman, 1994). All groups were conducted in the
same location to maintain continuity. The research team video

Following the coding process, ve themes concerning the dark

side of Facebook emerged: managing inappropriate or annoying
content, being tethered to Facebook, perceived lack of privacy and
control, social comparison and jealousy, and relationship tension.
The role of Facebooks affordances manifested in the discussion
of each of these themes.

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

4.1. Managing inappropriate or annoying content

In terms of minor negative experiences, a number of subthemes
emerged concerning participants aggravation with others perceived misuse of Facebook or Facebooks automated features. Reactions to this inappropriate content ranged from annoyance (e.g.,
due to continuous negative posts from a sulking friend) to shock
(e.g., from hearing important news from a close friend via an impersonal channel like Facebook) to disgust (e.g., from seeing lewd,
offensive, or otherwise inappropriate content posted by friends).
Participants reported mild irritation from content they perceived as repetitive and pointless, whether user- or system-generated. Because Facebook affords both continuous and automatic
posting, several participants were vexed by ongoing status updates
about gaming achievements or score updates from live sporting
events. The most frequently cited annoyance was Facebooks automated birthday notications, which participants felt obligated
them to post birthday wishes on that persons page. A female participant reported: You have to make sure to log on to their wall
that day and say Have a great day! Another female participant
agreed: Right, or then people are upset. Its totally the success
of Facebook that we feel bad about not being on Facebook on that
day. Isnt that some bullshit? Participants wanted to ignore these
posts, but they realized doing so came at a social cost. The latter
quote points to how some participants even placed blame on
Facebook for feeling such pressure.
Beyond mere annoyance, participants noted numerous instances
of being shocked by the perceived inappropriateness of friends visible posts, comments, and photos. Although Facebook does post
rules regarding obscene content, it does not afford selective ltering. As one male participant noted, There arent obviously clear
cut boundaries as established by, like, Mark Zuckerberg as to what
you should be doing on Facebook. . .I just feel there are natural
boundaries that exist on how much you should be sharing. Indeed,
participants often elaborated their standards regarding what they
deemed appropriate self-disclosure on Facebook, but what was considered acceptable varied between individuals and groups. Thus,
although many endorsed the idea of natural boundaries or that
people should know whats okay and whats not, the discrepancies in between responses demonstrates that, similar to Fox and
Anderegg (2014), norms and expectations for behavior on Facebook
vary considerably. Such variation may be a source of conict among
friends. In terms of Petronios (1991) coordinated management of
privacy theory, although participants report engaging in rule
development for themselves, they often avoid the process of
boundary coordination with others in the Facebook sphere. Instead,
they choose to simply avoid offenders pages or block them from
their newsfeed. This passive response does not communicate the
perceived violation to the offender, and thus the boundaries are
not coordinated appropriately.
In addition to content-appropriateness, some participants noted
violations of context-appropriateness. Because Facebook affords
mass posts to the network and connectivity does not distinguish
strong and weak ties, some participants feel SNSs are depersonalized and an inappropriate way to share some information. Some
participants mentioned astonishment over hearing signicant
news (e.g., a siblings pregnancy and a close friends engagement)
via Facebook. In these instances, participants were stunned and
hurt that they learned about a major life event via the masspersonal channel of Facebook. Rather, they believed they should have
received personal, private contact from the source.
4.2. Being tethered to Facebook
Similar to Turkles (2011) claims, participants reported feeling
pressure to continue being a part of the Facebook world and stay

171

connected to friends no matter the place or time. As one female

participant noted, I feel like I couldnt not have a Facebook though
because all my friends have Facebook. Such social pressure often
came coupled with feelings of guilt and dissatisfaction. Because
Facebook is available on mobile devices, it affords constant accessibility, which means users can reach it at all times and also that
other network members expect them to be able to reach it at all
times. Several participants agreed they were unhappy with the
social pressure from social network members to comment immediately on friends posts and pictures or post their own pictures
of recent events. One participant likened it to labor:
I think Facebook is one more thing that you have to like be
accountable for. . . Hey, I posted on your Facebook wall. Why
didnt you see it?...Like, why didnt you read my message?. . .[I]
already have all these other things that I need to be doing and
keeping track of and Facebook is just one more thing you have
to be responsive to. . . its kinda like work, like you have to do it. . .
Despite reports of negative emotions about feeling tethered to
the site, participants seemed unable to separate themselves from
it. As a female participant noted, You have to know what everyone
else is doing at all times. Because Facebook affords constant
accessibility and updating, participants frequently cited a fear of
missing out on new social information that they felt was important (Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwell, 2013). One male
participant cited this fear to explain the dissonance between his
continuing use of Facebook in spite of disliking it: I dont like
Facebook. I feel like I have to have it just because everyone else
has it. And I feel Id be missing out onI dont even know what
Id be missing out on. It may be that spending more time on
Facebook foments constant anticipation of important social information, even when the idea of what is important is nebulous.
Further supporting the notion of being tethered, most participants lamented spending too much time on Facebook, as it often
detracted from face-to-face interpersonal interaction, work, studies, or sleep. One male participant related being late to class and
work often because of a need to check Facebook before he left
the house. A female participant confessed her schoolwork suffered
because she could not control her time on Facebook: The paper
took me twice as long as it should have. . .I told myself it would
be 15 minutes. . .Its kind of a problem. These participants demonstrate what Pang (2013) refers to as a distraction addiction,
wherein users are so preoccupied with the information stream
from their devices that they have trouble functioning productively.
Together, these ndings suggest why it may be difcult for users to
stay off of or stop using the site. Particularly, the lures of
Facebooks affordances and fears about missing out on social information may inform why many users report problematic behavior
and addictive tendencies regarding SNSs (Masur et al., 2014).
4.3. Privacy frustrations and perceived lack of control
A perceived lack of privacy on Facebook emerged as a popular
theme that manifested in two ways. First, because of the affordances of sharing, replicability, and connectivity, users must cope
with the inability to hide things from their existing Facebook network. Second, because Facebook ultimately controls users privacy,
participants lamented the inability to hide things from the world
(i.e., those outside ones Facebook network) because of the lack
of control of how Facebook itself shares information (e.g., making
material on Facebook searchable on the Internet).
In some cases, members outside of participants established
network gained access to their Facebook prole. A middle-aged
male participant experienced a surprise on Facebook: a teenage
girl contacted him and claimed he was her father, a chronological

172

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

impossibility although he knew her mother at one time. Given the

girl seemed troubled, he felt compelled to maintain contact, yet felt
uncomfortable with the situation. After the girl got in trouble, her
mother contacted the participant via Facebook asking what they
should do with their daughter. At that point, this participant
could no longer manage the stress of the Facebook connection:
Thats it for you. Youre blocked. Because it became obvious that
this woman had been living in some kind of delusion, and now
she had her daughter living it too. I was very stressed. And then
my wife saw it [on Facebook], and she got really mad. In the wake
of the situation, this participant reported becoming very paranoid
about people from his past contacting him. He strengthened his
privacy management on Facebook because You just never know
whats going to jump up out of the past.
Although some privacy threats could arise from outside of the
network, most participants seemed more concerned with the
threat of privacy violation within their own network. One group
brought up the Tyler Clementi case, wherein a roommate maliciously lmed his closeted roommates romantic encounter with
another man and then broadcast it over social media, outing
Clementi and triggering him to commit suicide. The group reected
on the potential for long-term damage if someone were to be
humiliated via Facebook, as information on Facebook is both visible and persistent. A male participant suggested that because of
Facebooks pervasiveness and network connectivity, that person
would likely be left friendless:
Youre pretty much [Facebook] friends with all your friends. You
have a circle of friends on this planet, what are you going to do?
Make a new circle of friends? Its your entire circle of friends.
You dont have secret reservoirs of friends. Again, its almost like
youre a celebrity where there is nowhere to run.
This comment reects how a serious privacy violation would be
far-reaching and perhaps devastating, as Facebooks connectivity
could leave a user with no unaware ties and thus without a support
system.
4.4. Enduring social comparison and jealousy
Similar to Haferkamp and Krmer (2011) and Chou and Edge
(2012), our ndings demonstrate individuals engage in various
manners of social comparison through Facebook. For participants
who started Facebook as an adolescent, the rst basis of comparison (and competition) was the number of friends one had on the
network: a quantiable popularity contest. A female participant
noted, [Getting Facebook friends] seems like such an arms race,
and another in the same group agreed, It was like a race to try
to get so many friends. Although participants mostly indicated
that their friend count did not matter now, other comments indicated that this measure may still serve as a heuristic cue, particularly for outliers (i.e., judging friend sluts with thousands of
friends, or those with very few connections).
Participants also reported comparing their lives to those of their
Facebook friends, which often resulted in feelings of jealousy or
dissatisfaction. One female participant discussed becoming preoccupied with others posts: I feel like it consumes you. . .to the
point that you cant live your normal life because you see everyone
elses. . . I think it makes you think your life is not as fun or as exciting or interesting than other peoples, which is sad because its not
true. Likewise, a few participants noted how Facebook interactions seemed to change ofine socializing because people are too
preoccupied with constantly documenting and uploading every
moment. A female participant lamented:
I think life is a lot less stressful when youre not worried about
how it seems to other people. Everyone is so concerned about

how they look on Facebook. I noticed that even with myself,

like, if Im at an event its like, I need to get a good picture.
And I stop: Do I really care? Im having fun with the people
Im with, the world doesnt need to know about it.
Similarly, a male participant blamed Facebook (and its founder)
for hegemonizing the tendency to socially compare:
. . .people are trying to constantly tweet their Facebook to
express who they want to look like, not who they actually are,
and constantly comparing themselves to other people. . . people
are just so, so worried about what other people think, when it
ultimately doesnt matter. Facebook has this air of authority
that it really doesnt have. . .Mark Zuckerbergs a business man
and so hes gonna do whatever it takes to suck people in and
get their information.
Social comparison became particularly salient to participants in
romantic contexts, wherein they would use Facebooks affordances
of persistent history and connectivity to self-compare with a romantic interests potential or former mates. Male participants especially
acknowledged comparing themselves to a romantic interests
ex-boyfriend and even the interests current male friends to assess
their potential for success. At the other end of the relationship spectrum, some women noted in the wake of a breakup, they pursued
downward social comparison with an exs new love interest to bolster their own egos, even if it required considerable effort to do so:
Ive had friends that have gone to crazy extentstheyll nd out
mutual friends and ask them to sign on and will like look at
every single one of their albums...They want to nd like a picture where they [the new signicant other] look unattractive
to make themselves feel better. [laughing]
Although perhaps this social comparison was an attempt at
reducing uncertainty about the current or former relationship,
employing Facebook as a social comparison tool is known to elicit
jealousy in users (Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). Furthermore, participants also acknowledged the potential for seeing things on
Facebook that instigate feelings of mistrust about their current
romantic partner. Some participants noted that prior to the advent
of Facebook, they would not have been able to compare themselves
so readily to a partners former love interests.
4.5. Fighting on and about Facebook: Relationship maintenance,
conict, and deterioration
Given that Facebook networks typically mimic ofine networks
(Reich et al., 2012), it is unsurprising that interactions occurring
ofine may carry onto Facebook, and interactions happening on
Facebook may transfer ofine. Participants suggested that
Facebook could both exacerbate existing ofine conict and create
new sources of conict. As one female participant noted, Facebook
denitely causes drama.
One particularly rife area for this drama was romantic relationships. Facebooks affordances, such as the visibility of content to
the social network and the ability for relationship partners to link
their proles (i.e., go Facebook ofcial; Fox & Warber, 2013), provided several areas where seemingly small issues took on a new
and vicious life because of Facebook. A male participant noted
Facebook as a frequent source of interpersonal conict:
Its kind of stressful sometimes because it becomes drama, it
becomes conict. The stupid little ghts, and it comes up bigger
and bigger and bigger, just for these little reasons: oh, you
didnt comment me back, or oh you didnt post this picture
up. I think every relationship is like thatmy past two girlfriends were like that the same way.

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

Another male agreed, noting he also had ghts with his girlfriend over their one-sided Facebook interaction: She said our
wall-to-wall was embarrassing, because it was like her her her
her her, one me. Her her her her her, one me. I mean, its not that
I dont care, its just, like, I have your number. I dont need to write
on your wall. Although the male participant did not see a use for
the affordance of social feedback, his girlfriends use of the term
embarrassing indicates that she felt that his lack of response
had not just interpersonal but social signicance due to its visibility. Similarly, one female mocked other womens preoccupation
with their signicant others social feedback on Facebook over
the course of a relationship:
[First, its] Oh, he looks good in this picture, and I like his
clothes, and hes friends with his brother, and they look so nice
and then six months later, its like, I commented on his picture
two days ago and he didnt like it. WHY. [throws up hands and
drops pen dramatically, others laugh]
All of these comments indicate that although Facebook makes
relationship maintenance convenient, its perceived accessibility
and the visibility of these interactions to the social network may
foster expectations. If partners Facebook use or expectations are
not compatible, this may create conict and make relationship
maintenance on the site feel burdensome (Fox, in press).
Participants noted the maintenance of family ties on Facebook
was an additional source of interpersonal strife. Several participants related face-to-face arguments resulting from not friending
or defriending their relatives on Facebook. For example, a female
participant and her cousins were confronted at a family gathering
by their uncles new wife, who demanded to know why they had
not friended her on Facebook. In other situations, the relatives
online behavior is unpalatable. For example, a female participant
defriended her sister-in-law because she found her posts vulgar;
thus, she did not want to be visibly linked to the sister-in-law.
The rst time she saw the sister-in-law face-to-face, she was
alarmed by her reaction: We went to a wedding and she was like
[makes angry face], You defriended me on Facebook! And I was
like, I love you in real life. I dont like you on the Internet. As this
incident demonstrates, the practice of defriending may be perceived as a relational slight (Bevan, Ang et al., 2014), and this participant reported having to engage in relationship repair to salvage
their connection.
Facebook wars or comment wars represent another form of
conict participants cited wherein several discussion topics, particularly politics, could spark heated debates online through the
visible social feedback. Participants acknowledged the lack of
face-to-face conversation often resulted in the debates becoming
uncivil, and most witnessed these ghts continue ofine.
Alternatively, ofine ghts moved online. A male participant
recalled an argument with a friend about gay marriage during a
car ride. Although he thought the dispute ended, the friend later
posted about it: We got into a big thing on Facebook. It was weird
having an argument over Facebook. Like, waiting for their response
so you can say, Ha ha, thats crap. [mimics angry typing] It became
this big 30-post tirade back and forth. No matter the topic,
Facebooks visibility and connectivity allow private conicts to
become public and also enable other network members to comment on it or take sides, further fanning the ames and often producing ofine relational consequences as well.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we sought to explore the breadth and depth of
participants negative emotional experiences with a social networking site. This study revealed that SNS use can trigger many
minor and major negative emotional experiences, many of which

173

are afforded by Facebooks design. Although Facebooks affordances offer benets for sharing social information, they also present downsides. Participants in this study noted visibility can work
against users, as they see things they do not want to see.
Furthermore, their friends often share things that users wish they
would not share, and the persistence of this information can haunt
users. Although Facebook is conveniently accessible through
mobile devices, this also makes users feel tethered to the site.
Because Facebook affords constant accessibility and updating,
users fear missing out on social information if they do not check
the site regularly, creating more social labor for users. Participants
felt pressured by friends, relatives, and romantic partners to
engage in relationship maintenance on the site; accessibility created an expectation that users would respond quickly to Facebook
posts and messages. Connectivity can be great among friends and
relatives, but it can create problems when users do not want to
connect to others, want to terminate existing connections, or use
this connectivity to enable unhealthy behaviors like monitoring
an ex-partner or engaging in social comparison. Despite these negative experiences, however, all participants except one still maintained their Facebook accounts. Future research should further
explore how users weigh the psychological and relational costs
and benets of their Facebook engagement.
The use of focus groups in this study had many advantages, and
one important nding emerged that probably would not have been
evident using alternative methods. Namely, over the course of the
group discussions, the majority of participants revealed signicant
inconsistencies about their negative experiences with Facebook.
These inconsistencies included: (1) suggesting other people caused
or experienced negative events on the site, whereas they themselves did not; (2) claiming Facebook was insignicant in their
lives, but later revealing instances in which Facebook had a considerable emotional impact on them; and (3) defending their own
negative interactions on Facebook as uncontrollable, but attributing others negative interactions to personality aws. These contradictions have signicant implications for how SNS researchers
collect and interpret data about users experiences.
First, we noted a marked trend supporting the presence of the
third person effect (Davison, 1983) regarding Facebook use. Although
many participants downplayed their own negative interactions on
Facebook, they were quick to assert others posted negatively, created drama on or about Facebook, or overreacted to Facebook content. Later disclosures, however, revealed that, like their peers,
these participants were responsible for negative content or events.
A second related inconsistency was that many participants who
initially claimed Facebook was inconsequential later shared stories
in which Facebook had a signicant impact on them. Early in the
discussions, participants often decried other people making a big
deal out of Facebook or confusing it with real life, but later demonstrated Facebook was consequential and had affected them offline. One participant said it was ridiculous to get upset over
Facebook, but later relayed how she no longer talked to a close
friend over comments the friend made on Facebook. Two men both
claimed Facebook never played a role in their romantic relationships, but later each discussed how their lack of communication
with their girlfriends on Facebook caused ghts ofine. The very
same participants who claimed that Facebook was not real all
had stories to share about having negative emotions, ofine conict, or even relational termination in part because of (if not wholly
attributable to) Facebooks affordances. These ndings reinforce the
notion that although many people conceptualize them as separate
worlds, online and ofine experiences are inextricably intertwined.
A third inconsistency is emerged when participants related incidents in which they were responsible for a negative event or drama
on Facebook. Their accounts often revealed the fundamental
attribution error (Ross, 1977). Although other Facebook users posted

174

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

drama because they were unstable or desperate for attention, when

participants themselves were probed, they claimed external circumstances (e.g., needing to respond to someone elses misguided post)
prompted their own behaviors (DeAndrea & Walther, 2011). Thus,
users demonstrate a blind spot when it comes to their own
Facebook negativity, although they continue to judge others.
These contradictions have signicant implications for SNS
researchers. First, they indicate that the breadth of users experiences are not truly captured by content analytical procedures or
big data scrapes. For example, several of our participants reported
posting positive messages (e.g., birthdays, congratulating people
on life events) although they actually felt annoyed, offended, or
hurt. Selective self-presentation is pervasive and undoubtedly
shapes the content of users posts, and taking these comments at
face value would not be an accurate reection of users state of
mind. Second, participants appear to experience some dissonance
in regards to Facebook. Given many spend considerable time on
the site, they may feel guilty, defensive, or embarrassed about negative experiences with Facebook and may forget, ignore, minimize,
or avoid discussing the dark side. If researchers assess users attitudes or experiences in a single, straightforward survey, users
may consciously or subconsciously provide positively-biased
responses. Qualitative approaches or funneling techniques may
help mitigate bias in the way users describe their experiences with
social media.
Our ndings also have practical applications for Facebook users.
They suggest that many users are unaware of how Facebook may
negatively affect their lives and do not necessarily manage negative experiences in a productive manner. First, our ndings suggest
users should become more aware of the time and effort they sink
into the site. As Pang (2013) suggests, contemplative computing
practices may help draw users attention to the time they spend
with the site and make that time more efcient, thus helping users
feel less drained, annoyed by, or tethered to the site. Second, our
ndings suggest that although Facebook is convenient and accessible, other channels may be more interpersonally appropriate for
some communication, including arguments and important life
announcements. Visibility to other network members may exacerbate conict, and diminished nonverbal cues may make it difcult
to determine others emotional reactions during an argument.
Although Facebook may be an acceptable venue for broadcasting
important announcements to weak ties, it is seen as too depersonalized to communicate these messages to strong ties. Third, given
many users felt that their privacy was violated on Facebook, our
ndings suggest that users should be educated on how privacy is
practiced at the interpersonal, network, and corporate levels on
every SNS they join. Users should be aware of the consequences
of the affordances of visibility, connectivity, persistence, accessibility, and social feedback as there are implications for both psychological and social well-being. Finally, users should be aware of the
detrimental effects of constant social comparison via SNSs. Users
should acknowledge how SNSs afford selective self-presentation
(Walther, 1996) and avoid seeking out targets for comparison.
Blocking these connections or removing them from visible feeds
may help users control the impulse to self-compare and avoid
the subsequent negative emotions.
Given social media use continues to grow among younger and
younger age groups, with a recent survey showing nearly 60% of
children used SNSs by the age of 10 (Lange, 2014), it is essential
these social media literacy efforts start early. Existing patterns of
SNS adoption suggest these efforts should not be restricted solely
to children, however (Pew Research Center, 2014); adolescents
and adults of all ages should be clearly informed of how these sites
work and the potential costs and benets of participation.
A few strengths and limitations to the current study are worth
noting. The qualitative method allowed for individual narratives to

emerge and provided for a rich analysis of themes. Focus groups

encouraged participants to converse and bounce ideas off one
another in a safe environment, and indeed, over time they disclosed more substantial and intense negative experiences. Quantitative analyses concerning Facebook provide only one part of the
picture; researchers should also seek out more descriptive data
to help shape a more comprehensive understanding of users
online experiences.
Future extensions of this work should address the limitations of
this study. All participants in this study were enrolled in a college
course; the commonality of these experiences across broader populations is unknown. Thus, the rich data provided by this study
may be complemented by further quantitative research with a
nationally representative sample to examine how widely these
perspectives are held. Given Facebooks global appealover 80%
of Facebook users are outside of the U.S. and Canada (Facebook,
2014)cross-cultural studies would offer further insight and bases
of comparison for relational experiences in different countries. Furthermore, our participants were skewed toward younger adults.
Although young adults are some of the heaviest users, SNS use
has grown signicantly in older populations and their experiences
likely differ (Pew Research Center, 2014).
With regard to methodology, scholars conducting future studies in this area may desire to employ male and female moderators.
All focus group moderators in the current study were female,
which may have inuenced, further facilitated, or limited some
participants responding. Replications with sex-matched moderators are advisable. Overall, these strengths and limitations point
to the need for further exploration of Facebook use and emotionally-charged, dark side interpersonal and masspersonal
interactions.
In sum, this study revealed that although there are many positive aspects to using social networking sites, users should be aware
of a dark side. Given every participant related a signicant negative
relational and psychological experience tied to Facebook, managing social media and its role in our relationships should be an
essential part of media literacy education. Research should continue to determine how we can maximize the benets of social
media while avoiding its drawbacks. Finally, users should remember that social networking sites are tools, and as one male participant noted: Tools can make your life easier, or you can cut your
hand off. You just have to know how to use them.
Appendix A. Semi-structured interview guide
When you share a positive life event or good news on Facebook,
what kind of positive or negative outcomes occur?
When you share a negative life event or bad news on Facebook,
what kind of positive or negative outcomes occur?
If you something good or bad happens to you, do you go on
Facebook to rant or rave about it?
Have you ever posted something that you wished you could
take back?
Have you ever deleted a post because it had an unintended
impact, like hurting someones feelings?
Do you think that, because of Facebook, you have a larger group
of friends you could rely on in a crisis (for example, if you
needed someone to take care of you after breaking a leg, or if
you were having a hard time emotionally after a breakup)?
Do you feel Facebook is a healthy or unhealthy practice overall?
What kind of positive or negative emotional experiences have
you had via Facebook during relationship initiation?
What kind of positive or negative emotional experiences have
you had within your romantic relationships on Facebook?
Overall, do you think Facebook is a healthy or unhealthy tool in
romantic relationships?

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

Do you ever feel that Facebook has caused you stress or

anxiety?
Have you ever had physical repercussions from Facebook use?

References
Bevan, J. L., Ang, P. C., & Fearns, J. B. (2014). Being unfriended on Facebook: An
application of expectancy violation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
171178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.029.
Bevan, J. L., Gomez, R., & Sparks, L. (2014). Disclosures about important life events
on Facebook: Relationships with stress and quality of life. Computers in Human
Behavior, 39, 246253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.021.
boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Denition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210230. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j/1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
Brustein, J. (2014). Americans now spend more time on Facebook than they do on
their pets. Business Week <http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-23/
heres-how-much-time-people-spend-on-facebook-daily> Retrieved 11.11.14.
Chen, W., & Lee, K. H. (2013). Sharing, liking, commenting, and distressed? The
pathway between Facebook interaction and psychological distress.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 728734. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0272.
Chou, H. G., & Edge, N. (2012). They are happier and having better lives than I am:
The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others lives. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 117121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
cyber.2011.0324.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 47, 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268763.
DeAndrea, D. C., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between
online and ofine self-presentations. Communication Research, 38, 805825.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650210385340.
Ellison, N. B., Steineld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benets of Facebook friends:
Social capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 11431168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
Facebook (2014). Our mission <http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/> Retrieved
14.09.14.
Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J.
(2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms:
Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2, 161170.
Fox, J. (in press). The dark side of social networking sites in romantic relationships.
In B. K. Wiederhold, G. Riva, and P. Cipresso (Eds.), The psychology of social
networking: Communication, presence, identity, and relationships in online
communities. Versita.
Fox, J., & Anderegg, C. (2014). Romantic relationship stages and behavior on social
networking sites: Uncertainty reduction strategies and perceived norms on
Facebook. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 685691. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0232.
Fox, J., Jones, E. B., & Lookadoo, K. (2013). Romantic relationship dissolution on
social networking sites: Social support, coping, and rituals on Facebook. Paper
presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the International Communication
Association, London, UK.
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social
networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation,
maintenance, conict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35,
527534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of
Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults perceptions, motives, and
behaviors. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 37. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0288.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships:
Attachment,
uncertainty,
and
partner
surveillance
on
Facebook.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 37. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2012.0667.
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (in press). Queer identity management and political selfexpression on social networking sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of
silence. Journal of Communication.
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic
relationship development: An exploration of Knapps relational stage model.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 772795. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0265407512468370.
Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., & Campbell, W. K. (2012). The effect of
social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental
investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 19291933. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.012.
Gonzales, A. L. (2014). Text-based communication inuences self-esteem more than
face-to-face or cellphone communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,
197203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.026.
Gonzales, A. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects
of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14, 7983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.

175

Haferkamp, N., & Krmer, N. C. (2011). Social comparison 2.0: Examining the effects
of online proles on social-networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14, 309314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0120.
Johnson, B. K., & Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2014). Glancing up or down: Mood
management and selective social comparisons on social networking sites.
Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 3339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.
09.009.
Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., et al. (2013). Facebook
use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PloS One, 8(8),
e69841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841.
Ku, Y. C., Chu, T. H., & Tseng, C. H. (2013). Gratications for using CMC technologies:
A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,
226234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009.
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2012.07.014.
Lange, M. (2014). 59 percent of tiny children use social media. New York Magazine
<http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/over-half-kids-social-media-before-ageten.html> Retrieved 31.07.14.
Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network
sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253260. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.009.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lindolf, T. R, & Taylor, B. C (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school
students technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human
Behavior, 33, 213223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002.
Marshall, T. C. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners:
Associations
with
postbreakup
recovery
and
personal
growth.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 521526. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125.
Masur, P. K., Reinecke, L., Ziegele, M., & Quiring, O. (2014). The interplay of intrinsic
need satisfaction and Facebook specic motives in explaining addictive
behavior on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 376386. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.047.
McEwan, B. (2013). Sharing, caring, and surveilling: An actorpartner
interdependence model examination of Facebook relational maintenance
strategies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 863869.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0717.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nabi, R. L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benets?
Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and
well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 721727.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0521.
Pang, A. S. K. (2013). The distraction addiction. New York: Little, Brown.
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking
environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratications, and social outcomes.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12, 729733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/
cpb.2009.0003.
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of
managing disclosure of private information between marital couples.
Communication Theory, 1, 311335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.
1991.tb00023.x.
Pew Research Center (2014). 6 new facts about Facebook <http://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-facebook/>.
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, 18411848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014.
Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IMing, and
hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents online and ofine social
networks. Developmental Psychology, 48, 356368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0026980.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173220.
Shelton, A. K., & Skalski, P. (2014). Blinded by the light: Illuminating the dark side of
social network use through content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 33,
339348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.017.
Sutcliffe, A. G., Gonzalez, V., Binder, J., & Nevarez, G. (2011). Social mediating
technologies: Social affordances and functionalities. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, 27, 10371065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10447318.2011.555318.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2014). Relational transgressions on social networking sites:
Individual, interpersonal, and contextual explanations for dyadic strain and
communication rules change. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 287295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.024.
Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-afrmation underlies Facebook use.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 321331. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0146167212474694.
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the
affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication
Yearbook, 36, 143189.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from
each
other.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13691180801999050.

176

J. Fox, J.J. Moreland / Computers in Human Behavior 45 (2015) 168176

Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic
relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 511527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008). Is there social capital in a social network
site?: Facebook use and college students life satisfaction, trust, and
participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875901.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education
and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal,
interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23,
343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital
empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24,
18161836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.