All Statuses Considered Equal Relationship Status and ... · which was intended to measure Facebook jealousy through self-report questions on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey included

RUNNING HEAD: All Singles Considered Equal

All Statuses Considered Equal – Relationship Status and General Facebook Jealousy

Janelle Priya Mathur

Nicole Zamanzadeh

RUNNING HEAD: All Statuses Considered Equal 1

All Statuses Considered Equal – Relationship Status and General Facebook Jealousy

Along with the growing popularity of communicating through means facilitated by a

rapidly expanding technological base has come a series of consequences that were not present

before. Among these is the types of ways in which people can experience various emotions, such

as jealousy, depression, excitement, happiness or inadequacy (Kramer, 2012). It is no longer

simply a case of who heard or saw what in real life, as social networking sites such as Facebook,

Twitter, and Instagram have created a pixelated platform where age-old emotions can be

provoked in new ways. Considering this, the present study was conducted to discover whether or

not a link between type of relationship status or satisfaction with the relationship status and

jealousy about actions portrayed on Facebook exists.

Multiple studies have been conducted with the intent of conceptualizing and

operationalizing jealousy, which is often regarded as being multi-faceted and has been studied

mainly in terms of romantic implications (Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997, Pines & Friedman,

1997, Barelds & Dijkstra, 2007). This present study deviates from the prior research by

extending the definition of one of the categories in which jealousy manifests, which Davis and

Hill (2000) have previously separated into five categories. Of these categories, “work jealousy”

came the closest to describing the type of jealousy this study means to examine, defining it as

either “a need for social approval and the fear that it will be lost” or “‘wanting all the

appreciation,’” and boasting of oneself (Davis & Hill, 2000). However, because many of the

connections participants have with others online can be, and often are, friendlier (or at least

different) in nature than work relationships, this study will expand the definition of jealousy to

include the desire to achieve, accomplish or possess what someone else has posted online as

having achieved, accomplished, or possessed. The SNS Facebook will serve as the platform

through which this kind of coveting jealousy will be assessed. This study focused on whether or

not some kind of non-romantic general jealousy was created or aroused based on Facebook

usage. Note that from this point forward, the jealousy the current study is looking at will be

referred to as general Facebook jealousy (GFJ), in contrast to what has been previously studied:

romantic Facebook jealousy.

In a previous study, Muise, Christofides, and Desmarais (2009) conducted an online

survey to better understand the factor of Facebook in the experience of jealousy, and to conclude


if more time on Facebook was correlated with jealousy beyond personal and relationship factors.

Undergraduate students participated in the survey, the majority of whom were in a romantic

relationship at the time. The researchers designed and implemented the Facebook jealousy scale,

which was intended to measure Facebook jealousy through self-report questions on a 7-point

Likert scale. The survey included questions designed to quantify self-esteem, demographic

information, and levels of trust in the respondent’s relationship. The study concluded that use of

Facebook significantly increases jealousy in romantic relationships. After reviewing the

literature, a question about the link between relationship status and jealousy engendered by

Facebook was raised; so this present study was designed to expand the previous study to include

all types of relationship statuses (single, committed, open relationship, etc.) to see the influences

of relationship status on GFJ.

To determine what causes Facebook jealousy, Beukboom and Utz (2011) explored the

relationship between levels of self-esteem and romantic Facebook jealousy. An online survey

was taken by 103 undergraduate students, all of whom were involved in a romantic relationship.

Factors that were measured included relationship characteristics, SNS use, SNS jealousy, SNS

happiness, SNS monitoring behavior, monitoring behavior on the SNS in general, trait jealousy,

the connection between popularity and SNS use, and the connection between the level of the

respondent’s self-esteem and jealousy. The study concluded that individuals with low self-

esteem experienced greater romantic jealousy as a consequence of using Facebook.

Sciangula & Morry (2009) ran a similar study to examine the relationship between self-

esteem and relationship satisfaction, surveying undergraduate students who had been in a

relationship for at least three months on self-esteem, relationship satisfaction, and relationship

traits. The study found that self-esteem and relationship traits predicted satisfaction with the

relationship. Taking into consideration the conclusions of both studies, the question about

whether self-esteem could be replaced by satisfaction with the relationship status arose.

Furthermore, since it had been romantic jealousy that had been considered, could levels of GFJ

also be effected? In other words, could satisfaction in relationship status, with satisfaction being

defined as the fulfillment of one’s expectations and needs and/or the pleasure derived from that,

be associated with GFJ?


Gender has also been a subject of interest when it comes to determining who is more

likely to experience jealousy on Facebook. One study surveyed forty heterosexual undergraduate

students who were each in a romantic relationship, and had them fill out Muise’s, Christofides’,

and Desmarais’ (2009) Facebook jealousy scale twice. Participants were asked to first fill out the

survey with their own answers, which were then compared. The data indicated that women were

more likely to experience romantic Facebook jealousy and act on jealous motivations than were

men. The question about whether or not this trend would continue across all relationship types

arose, so this present study included a question asking for the participant to indicate their gender

for inclusion into the analysis.

In all, the current study aimed to answer two research questions and test one hypothesis:

R1: What type of relationship status (single, steady, etc.) leads to the most general

Facebook jealousy?

R2: Does lower relationship status satisfaction lead to general Facebook jealousy?

H1: Women will experience more general Facebook jealousy than will men.

Method

Sample

With regard to the limited resource of time, a cross-sectional survey was created. A convenience

sample of 60 undergraduate students at a large southwestern university were asked to fill out a 47

question paper questionnaire, passed out by students involved in conducting the study. Fifty

participants were from a research methods for communication class while the other ten lived in

the local dormitories on campus. The participants were told that they would be asked questions

about their relationship status and their own behaviors on Facebook. No incentive was offered

for taking part in the study. For a complete list of questions, please refer to Appendix A.

Participants

The total sample comprised of 19 males and 41 females, all of whom reported having a

Facebook account. Twenty-three students reported being in a committed relationship, 34 students

reported themselves as single, two students reported themselves as casually dating, and one

student reported themself as being in an open relationship.


Measures

Relationship status. Participants were asked to indicate their relationship status, based

on a range of provided options including: seriously dating another person, casually dating one or

more partners, in an open relationship, single, married, and divorced/separated.

Relationship status satisfaction. Seven questions adapted from Hendrick’s (1988)

relationship satisfaction scale were used to measure relationship status satisfaction. The goal was

to identify how satisfied participants were with the state of their relationship status. Example

questions participants were asked to rank themselves on included, “In general, how satisfied are

you with your relationship status?” and “How well does your relationship status meet your

needs?” Participants then indicated on a six point Likert-type scale their level of satisfaction with

their current relationship status (1 = dissatisfied, 6 = very satisfied). Two of the items were

reverse scored.

General Facebook jealousy. The Facebook jealousy scale (Muise, Christofides, &

Desmarais, 2009), was adapted to a 15 question composite measure, worded so that it evaluated

the participant’s jealousy towards their Facebook friends instead of just their romantic partner.

The intent of this was to make the questions relevant to participants who may not have had a

romantic partner at the time of the sampling. Participants read a statement that described a

particular behavior or attitude (for example, “Monitor your friend’s activities on Facebook,” and,

“Check your friend’s Facebook page regularly”) and were then asked to rate themselves on a six-

point Likert-type scale based on the likelihood of them experiencing the posed statement (1 =

very unlikely, 6 = very likely).

Results

Research question one explored whether or not a correlation between relationship status type and

GFJ existed. Survey results indicated a small, negative correlation (r = -0.24), so no relationship

was found. Of all the participants, those in an open relationship experienced the highest levels of

Facebook jealousy (M = 2.5), with those in a committed relationship reporting slightly lower

levels (M = 2.1). Singles reported slightly lower levels (M = 1.72) and those casually dating

reported the lowest levels (M = 1.5). The differences between the means were not strong enough

to conclude significant relationships between type of relationship status and GFJ. Note that the

difference in mean values between participants in an open relationship and those casually dating


was not deemed significant due to the disproportionate number of participants who indicated

themselves as in an open relationship versus other statuses of relationship. For a visual

representation, please refer to Figures 1 and 2.

Research question two explored whether or not there was a link between the satisfaction

in relationship status individuals have and the amount of GFJ experienced. Survey results show a

weak, positive correlation (r = 0.28), so no link was established. For a visual representation,

please refer to Figure 3.

Hypothesis one predicted that women would indicate higher levels of GFJ than men,

regardless of relationship status. There was a very slight difference between GFJ in women

(M=1.96) and in men (M=1.71). Thus, there is little evidence to strongly support the claim of the

initial hypothesis. For a visual representation, please refer to Figure 4.

Discussion

Comparing the averages of levels of GFJ based on relationship status of the participants

yielded no strong evidence that would conclude one relationship type predicts higher levels of

GFJ than another. One significant trend arose, implying that those in open relationship are much

more likely to experience GFJ than those casually dating, but as previously mentioned, this is not

well supported due to a lack of participants who reported themselves as being in an open

relationship. Because of the very small population size for the relationship status of casual

dating, and open relationship, those data points should be discarded. There appears to be a 17%

decrease in GFJ between those who are in a committed relationship versus though who are not in

any relationship. This may be because those who are in committed relationship have more

expectations relative to their partners versus those who are single and wary of the “grass is

greener” bias.

Generally, results alluded to a small, positive correlation between relationship status

satisfaction and GFJ, but this correlation is not deemed strong enough to imply a trend. Rather, it

is more accurate to say that satisfaction in relationship status does not have an effect on global

Facebook jealousy. This may be because satisfaction in relationship status only affects jealousy

in the romantic sense, and does not consciously affect general jealousy. This evidence would

support the idea that romantic jealousy does not necessarily influence general jealousy.


Regarding gender differences in GFJ, it would be misleading to say that the data in this

study supports H1, since the mean scores of GFJ between men and women are close enough that

the difference cannot be labeled significant. However, given that Beukeboom and Utz’s (2011)

original study found that women showed higher levels of romantic Facebook jealousy, it is worth

noting that that trend (however minor) remains consistent in the results of this current study.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of the study were as follows: the design of the questions in the study met the

requirements in terms of being clear, issue-focused, unbiased, and unassuming. Disregarding the

“other” space for the gender question, questions were unambiguous and did not require

participants to think beyond the provided answers. Because researchers were present when

participants filled out the questionnaire, clarification could be provided immediately – however

this was not necessary.

In conducting future studies on this or related topics, the following sampling errors

should be avoided in order to develop a more robust data set. First, recruiting respondents largely

from a communication course resulted in a higher concentration of females than males, which is

common for the gender ratios in communication science, but is not an accurate representation of

the population in general. Also, about half of the males in this study were located on a scholar’s

floor in the dormitory on the campus, and during the survey the majority of them openly

admitted that their ownership of a Facebook profile was more of a social obligation, rather than a

platform they actually interacted with. Given that the population on this dormitory floor is

specifically grouped based on similarities, it is plausible to conclude that this trend is more

common for this population than it is for males in general. Therefore it’s reasonable to conclude

that the results they provided negatively affected the external validity of the overall data. The

lack of representation is worsened by the fact that all participants were conveniently sampled;

future studies should aim to correct this method of sampling, and aim to more evenly represent

each gender.

While self-report surveys are best for collecting data that reports conscious attitudes and

beliefs, the influence of social desirability must be considered in the overall validity of the data.

This is particularly the case since participants were asked to admit experiencing an emotion that

is often negatively connoted.


With regards to the scales themselves, the ones used in this study were originally

designed to test those in romantic relationship, and so may not have been as accurate in testing

GFJ. Furthermore, the scales were adapted to only have six points on its scale, instead of five or

seven, which prevented participants from having a “neutral” option. Nearly half of the

participants ranked themselves between three and four in terms of relationship status satisfaction,

indicating a strong need for a more neutral option that only a five or seven point Likert-type

scale could provide.


References

Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, undefined P. (2007). Relations between different types of

jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 14(3), 176–188.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and

the Family, 50, 93–98.

Hill, R., & Davis, P. (2000). ‘Platonic jealousy’: A conceptualization and review of the literature

on non-romantic pathological jealousy. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73(4),

505–517.

Kramer, A. D. I. (2012). The spread of emotion via facebook. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM

Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’12.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009, July 25). More information than you ever

wanted: does facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?

Pines, A. M., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 138(1), 54–71.

Sciangula, A., & Morry, M. M. (2009). Self-esteem and perceived regard: how I see myself

affects my relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 143

-158.

Sharpsteen, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. (1997, March 1). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic

attachment.

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(4), 511–527.


Figure 1

Figure 2 – note that 1 = seriously dating, 2 = casually dating, 3 = open relationship, 4 = single


Figure 3

Figure 4


Appendix A

This is a study about students’ attitudes and behaviors regarding

Facebook and jealousy. You will be asked questions about your relationship status, comfort levels

regarding specific posts, and your own behaviors on Facebook. Your responses are completely

anonymous (i.e., your name is not being collected so your responses cannot be connected to you in

any way). This study is also completely voluntary. You may skip any question you do not feel

comfortable answering or you may decide not to participate at all. If you consent to participate in

this study, please begin the survey now. When you are finished, please return your survey to the

surveyor. If you do not wish to participate, please return it blank so that it may be used by another

student. We thank you for your time and honesty.

Do you have a facebook account?

❏ Yes

❏ No

What is your current relationship status? (Not Facebook status) (check one)

❏ seriously dating another person

❏ casually dating one or more partners

❏ in an open relationship

❏ single

❏ married

❏ divorced/separated

The following questions relate to your relationship STATUS (single, in a relationship, etc.). Please

make sure NOT to confuse this with the nature of the relationship itself.

How comfortable are you with your relationship status? (If single, how satisfied are you being

single?)

Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely Satisfied

How well does your relationship status meet your needs?

Not well 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very well

In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship status?

Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Satisfied

In general, do you agree that your relationship status is preferable to the alternative? That is, if you

are single, do you agree that is better than being in relationship, or vice versa?

Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly agree


How much do you enjoy your relationship status?

Very little 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much

How much do you dislike your current relationship status?

Dislike it very little 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dislike it a lot

How much do you wish to change your relationship status?

Don’t wish to change 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly wish to change

Please mark your gender

❏ Male

❏ Female

❏ Other (Please specify) __________

On average, how many times a day do you log onto facebook?

❏ one time

❏ 1-3 times

❏ 3-6 times

❏ 6-9 times

❏ 9-12 times

❏ 12+ times

On average, how many times a day do you spend “facebooking”? Example, checking out other

people’s pages, writing on walls, facebook chatting, using applications, etc.

❏ under an hour

❏ 1-2 hours

❏ 2-3 hours

❏ 3-4 hours

❏ 5 hours or more

You have a deep trust in your partner.

❏ Strongly disagree

❏ Disagree

❏ agree

❏ strongly agree

❏ I don’t have a partner

For the following questions, please be honest about your situations. Keep in mind that “friend”

refer to the friends you have on facebook. You will answer how you feel on a 6-point Likert scale.

Below are the instructions for what every point means. Read carefully and circle the number (0, 1,

2, etc.) that you feel best describes your response. Response scale 0 = Very unlikely, 1 = Unlikely, 2


= Somewhat unlikely, 3 = Neither likely nor unlikely, 4 = Somewhat likely, 5 = Likely, 6 = Very

likely.

Become jealous after seeing that your friend has added an unknown member of the opposite sex to

facebook.

Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely

Monitor your friend’s activities on facebook.


Become jealous after seeing that your friend has posted a message on the wall of his or her partner.


Question your friend about his or her facebook friends.


Experience jealousy if your friends posts pictures on facebook of him or her with an arm around

the member of the opposite sex.


Be upset if your friend limited your access to his or her profile.


Be jealous if your friends posts pictures of him or herself with a previous romantic or sexual

partner .


Become jealous after seeing that your friend has received a wall message from someone of the

opposite sex.


Suspect that your friend is secretly developing an intimate relationship with someone on facebook


Feel annoyed that someone else on facebook is attracted to your friend.


Have a fight with your friend about facebook


Check your friend’s facebook page regularly.



Attempt to use Facebook to evoke jealousy from your facebook friends.


Experience jealousy related to Facebook.


For the following scenarios, imagine that your friend has posted the given status, and rate how

likely you are to “like” it (clicking the facebook “like” button) and how bothered you are by it.

“I love her, she loves me, that’s the way it’s gonna be.”

Unlikely to “like” 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely “to like”

Unbothered 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very bothered

“Just came back from the movies with the boo!”

Unlikely “to like” 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely “to like”


“Eating chips and salsa. Bruh.”



“Meeting you was fate, becoming your friend was a choice, but falling in love with you was beyond my

control.”



“my gifts today were a four month supply of chips, chocolate, tennis shoes, a fantastic razor, a

beautiful fresh bouquet of roses, and a wonderful card that made me cry tears of joy and gratitude. I'm

honestly sure I don't deserve him, yet surprisingly he loves me and that's as much as anyone needs in

this world.”



“Best day ever with the best person ever.”



Imagine you login to facebook, and see a friend of yours from high school has recently updated his

facebook relationship status to “in a relationship.” How likely are you to “like” this?

Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very likely

How bothered by this post are you?



Imagine you’re surfing through your facebook feed, and see a friend’s status detailing his or her

time at the beach with their significant other.

How likely are you to “like” this?




Imagine that in your feed, your friend updates his or her status, describing a concert that they went

to with someone you know them to be crushing on.

How likely are you to “like” this?





Abstracts

Platonic jealousy’: A conceptualization and review of the literature on non-romantic pathological jealousy

Romantic jealousy has long been of interest to psycho dynamically oriented clinicians. More recently empirical

investigations have emerged into the causes and treatments of romantic jealousy. What has not kept pace with this

interest is a wider research agenda into non-romantic forms of jealousy. While work has appeared in relation to

specific groups or topics, such as sibling rivalry, no attempt has been made to draw together the material on non-

romantic jealousy. In this paper the theoretical and empirical material on non-romantic jealousy is reviewed in order

to answer two fundamental questions. Firstly, is non-romantic jealousy necessarily pathological? Secondly, to what

extent is it helpful to subsume all forms of non-romantic jealousy under one term? It is suggested that while non-

romantic jealousy is not always pathological, the term non-romantic jealousy may be a useful differentiating term,

not least in highlighting an important area for future research.

More Information than You Ever Wanted: Does Facebook Bring Out the Green-Eyed Monster of Jealousy? The social network site Facebook is a rapidly expanding phenomenon that is changing the nature of social

relationships. Anecdotal evidence, including information described in the popular media, suggests that Facebook

may be responsible for creating jealousy and suspicion in romantic relationships. The objectives of the present study

were to explore the role of Facebook in the experience of jealousy and to determine if increased Facebook exposure

predicts jealousy above and beyond personal and relationship factors. Three hundred eight undergraduate students

completed an online survey that assessed demographic and personality factors and explored respondents' Facebook

use. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis, controlling for individual, personality, and relationship factors,

revealed that increased Facebook use significantly predicts Facebook-related jealousy. We argue that this effect may

be the result of a feedback loop whereby using Facebook exposes people to often ambiguous information about their

partner that they may not otherwise have access to and that this new information incites further Facebook use. Our

study provides evidence of Facebook's unique contributions to the experience of jealousy in romantic relationships.

Self-Esteem and Perceived Regard: How I See Myself Affects My Relationship Satisfaction

ABSTRACT. The authors explored the relations among self-esteem, perceived regard, and satisfaction in dating

relationships. On the basis of the dependency regulation model (T. DeHart, B. Pelham, & S. Murray, 2004), the

authors hypothesized that self-esteem would influence individuals’ self-perceptions and views of how their partners

perceive them (metaperception). They also hypothesized that perceived regard (self-perception minus

metaperception) would predict relationship satisfaction. Regression analyses indicated that for moderate

relationship-relevant traits (i.e., caring, loving), high self-esteem was associated with self-enhancement

(idealization), whereas low self-esteem was associated with self-deprecation. For low relationship-relevant traits

(i.e., quiet, reserved), both low and high self-esteem individuals self-enhanced. Hierarchical regression analyses

indicated that self-esteem and perceived regard for moderate relationship-relevant traits predicted satisfaction. The

authors discuss the implications of idealization, self-verification, and self-deprecation for the perceivers and their

relationships.

The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness


On social network sites (SNS), information about one's romantic partner is readily available and public for friends.

The paper focuses on the negative (SNS jealousy) and positive (SNS relationship happiness) consequences of SNS

use for romantic relationships. We examined whether relationship satisfaction, trait jealousy, SNS use and need for

popularity predicted these emotional consequences of SNS use and tested the moderating role of self-esteem. For

low self-esteem individuals, need for popularity predicted jealousy and relationship happiness. For high-self-esteem

individuals, SNS use for grooming was the main predictor. Low-self-esteem individuals try to compensate their low

self-esteem by creating an idealized picture. Undesirable information threatens this picture, and especially

individuals with a high need for popularity react with SNS jealousy.

Documents

All Statuses Considered Equal Relationship Status and ... · which was intended to measure Facebook jealousy through self-report questions on a 7-point Likert scale. The survey included