Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:26:11.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

35 - Personal Relationships and Technology in the Digital Age

from Part IX - Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Jessica Vitak  and
Nicole B. Ellison
Edited by
Anita L. Vangelisti  and
Daniel Perlman
Anita L. Vangelisti
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Daniel Perlman
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we discuss how new communication technologies are reshaping interpersonal relationship formation, maintenance, and dissolution. Through this evaluation, we extend existing research on the socio-technical affordances of computer-mediated communication (CMC) and relational processes by (1) synthesizing the current state of mediated personal relationships research across these three relational stages and (2) describing how each relational state is influenced by the affordances of new communication technologies. An affordances framework is especially useful for evaluating and understanding complex relationships and interactions on social media platforms because it captures the plastic nature of communication tools and the user practices that accompany them, providing a more holistic understanding of the interactions between users and the tools and how these relationships evolve over time. We argue that using an affordances framework to evaluate interpersonal relationship processes highlights how social and technological attributes shape interaction patterns while acknowledging individuals’ agency in deciding how they use communication tools. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research in this area and describes some of the unique methodological, theoretical, and practical challenges of studying mediated interpersonal relationships.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 481 - 493
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance. First Monday, 13(3), n.p. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142Google Scholar
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Ames, M. G., Go, J., Kaye, J. J., & Spasojevic, M. (2010). Making love in the network closet: the benefits and work of family videochat. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 145–154). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1718918.1718946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangasser-Evans, S., Pearce, K., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. (2016). The affordances test: A conceptual model for understanding affordances in communication research. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986 ). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 12, 469–493. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00088.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 956–977. http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Beer, C. (2017, October 16). Smartphone ownership around the world. GlobalWebIndex. Available: https://blog.globalwebindex.net/chart-of-the-day/smartphone-ownership/Google Scholar
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boneva, B., Kraut, R., & Frohlich, D. (2001). Using e-mail for personal relationships: The difference gender makes. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 530–549. http://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121957204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Papacharissi, Z. (ed.) Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
boyd, D. (2012). Networked privacy. Surveillance & Society, 10(3/4), 348–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brandtzæg, P. B. (2012). Social networking sites: Their users and social implications – A longitudinal study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 467–488. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083–6101.2012.01580.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 571–580). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, M., Marlow, C., & Lento, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1909–1912). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 10135-10140. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222447110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canary, D. J., & Dainton, M. (eds.) (2003). Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotten, S. R., Ford, G., Ford, S., & Hale, T. M. (2012). Internet use and depression among older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 496–499. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Busby, D., Iverson, B., & Grant, D. M. (2011). “I luv u:)!”: A descriptive study of the media use of individuals in romantic relationships. Family Relations, 60, 150–162. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741–3729.2010.00639.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1986). Accounts of relational dissolution: A comparison of marital and non‐marital relationships. Communication Monographs, 53, 311–334. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637758609376146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255–271. http://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163–173. http://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donath, J. S. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 231–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2007.00394.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donath, J. S., & boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82. doi: 10.1023/B:BTTJ.0000047585.06264.ccCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duck, S. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. Personal Relationships, 4, 1–30.Google Scholar
Duck, S. (1988). Relating to others. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Duck, S. (1991). Understanding relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Duggan, M., Ellison, N., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2014). Social media update. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18, 891–907. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? Open Science, 3(1), n.p. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150292Google ScholarPubMed
Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59, 19–36. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.541336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N. B. & boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In Dutton, W. H. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (pp. 151–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Gray, R., Lampe, C., & Fiore, A. T. (2014). Social capital and resource requests on Facebook. New Media & Society 16 (7), pp. 1104–1121. doi: 10.1177/1461444814543998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T. & Toma, C. L. (2012). Profile as Promise: A framework for conceptualizing veracity in online dating self-presentations. New Media & Society 14, 45–62. doi: 10.1177/1461444811410395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society 13 (6), 873–892. doi: 10.1177/1461444810385389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, N. B. & Vitak, J. (2015). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In Sundar, S. (ed.) The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 205–227). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 855–870. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3–66. doi: 10.1177/1529100612436522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Romantic partner monitoring after breakups: Attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 491–498. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2015.0123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 3–7. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0667CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79–84). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/108844.108856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 1–26. doi: 10.1177/0093650205285368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research, 38, 70–100. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1480. doi: 10.1086/225469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1998). Communicative responses to jealousy as a function of self‐esteem and relationship maintenance goals: A test of Bryson’s dual motivation model. Communication Reports, 11, 111–122. http://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011, June 16). Social networking sites and our lives. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Hampton, K. N., Lee, C., & Her, E. J. (2011). How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society, 13, 1031–1039. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810390342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heino, R. D., Ellison, N. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the market metaphor in online dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 427–447. doi: 10.1177/0265407510361614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, B. (2013). Pseudonyms and the rise of the real-name web. In Hartley, J., Burgess, J., & Bruns, A. (eds.) A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 290–308). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrigan, J. B., & Duggan, M. (2015). Home broadband 2015. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Jiang, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. A., Craig, E. A., & Wigley, S. (2008). College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long‐distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1083–6101.2008.00401.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: Motives and use of Facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1027–1036). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.10.1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., Ahn, J., & Vitak, J. (2015). Korean mothers’ Kakao Story use and its relationship to psychological well-being. First Monday, 20(3), n.p. http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i3.5576Google Scholar
Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2013). Interpersonal communication & human relationships (7th edn.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2015). Adolescent online romantic relationship initiation: Differences by sexual and gender identification. Journal of Adolescence, 40, 54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.01.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 167–170). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Lampe, C., Gray, R., Fiore, A., & Ellison, N. B. (2014). Help is on the way: Patterns of responses to resource requests on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2531602.2531720Google Scholar
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, technology and friendships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014). Couples, the internet, and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Lenhart, A., Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2015). Teens, technology, and romantic relationship. Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project.Google Scholar
Leonardi, P. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6), n.p. http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukacs, V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: New scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 492–508. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCall, G. J. (1982). Becoming unrelated: The management of bond dissolution. Personal Relationships, 4, 211–231.Google Scholar
McEwan, B., Fletcher, J., Eden, J., & (Bryant) Sumner, E. (2014). Development and validation of a Facebook relational maintenance measure. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 244–263. http://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2014.967844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, C., & Vitak, J. (2012). Norm evolution and violation on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14, 299–315. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelson, A., & Papacharissi, Z. (2010). Look at us: Collective narcissism in college student Facebook photo galleries. In Papacharissi, Z. (ed.) A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 251–273). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Metzger, M. J., Wilson, C., Pure, R. A., & Zhao, B. Y. (2012). Invisible interactions: What latent social interaction can tell us about social relationships in social network sites. In Comunello, D. (ed.) Networked sociability and individualism: Technology for personal and professional relationships (pp. 79–103). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncur, W., Gibson, L., & Herron, D. (2016). The role of digital technologies during relationship breakdowns. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 371–382). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819925Google Scholar
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–444. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, M. J. (2009). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In Sears, A. & Jacko, J. A. (eds.) Human–computer interaction: Development process (pp. 166–186). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Mynatt, E. D., O’Day, V. L., Adler, A., & Ito, M. (1998). Network communities: Something old, something new, something borrowed … Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 123–156. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008688205872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, P., & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1, 1–9. http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4), n.p. doi: 10.1111/j.1460–2466.1996.tb01462.xGoogle Scholar
Pearce, K. E., & Vitak, J. (2016). Performing honor online: The affordances of social media for surveillance and impression management in an honor culture. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2595–2612. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815600279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational maintenance and the influence of commitment in online and offline relationships. Communication Studies, 58, 315–337. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510970701518405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, A., & Broneck, K. (2009). “IM me”: Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 291–314. doi: 10.1177/0265407509106719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, A., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer-mediated communication, uncertainty, and information seeking using the Internet. In Afifi, T. D. & Afifi, W. A. (eds.) Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 67–84). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28, 213–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2958.2002.tb00804.xGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287–310. doi: 10.1080/03637750701543493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Rideout, V. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media Research. Retrieved April 15, 2016 from www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teensGoogle Scholar
Rueda, H. A., Lindsay, M., & Williams, L. R. (2015). “She posted it on Facebook”: Mexican American adolescents’ experiences with technology and romantic relationship conflict. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 419–445. http://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414565236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenebeck, S., Ellison, N. B., Blackwell, L., Bayer, J., & Falk, E. (2016). Backstalking, impression management, and play: How young adults look back on their teen Facebook use. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 1475–1487). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2818048.2819923Google Scholar
Schrock, A. R. (2015). Communicative affordances of mobile media: Portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1229–1246. doi: 1932–8036/20150005Google Scholar
Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265407591082004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 67, 306–323. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434–445. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stutzman, F., Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2013). Silent listeners: The evolution of privacy and disclosure on Facebook. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality, 4(2), Article 2. Retrieved April 10, 2016 from http://repository.cmu.edu/jpc/vol4/iss2/2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanis, M. (2008). Health-related on-line forums: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Health Communication, 13, 698–714. http://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802415316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 705–713. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023–1036. doi: 10.1177/0146167208318067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, S. T. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: Uncertainty reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 788–793. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0549CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2129853Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8721.2009.01595.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van De Wiele, C., & Tong, S. T. (2014). Breaking boundaries: The uses & gratifications of Grindr. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 619–630). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2632048.2636070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitak, J. (2012 ). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56, 451–470. http://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.732140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitak, J. (2014). Facebook makes the heart grow fonder: Relationship maintenance strategies among geographically dispersed and communication-restricted connections. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 842–853). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2531602.2531726Google Scholar
Vitak, J., & Kim, J. (2014). “You can’t block people offline”: Examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 461–474). New York, NY: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531672Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–91. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi: 10.1177/009365096023001001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. L. & Daly, J. A. (eds.) Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229–253. doi: 10.1177/0093650208330251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Rubin, Z. (ed.) Doing unto others (pp. 17–26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Yu, R. P., Mccammon, R. J., Ellison, N. B., & Langa, K. M. (2016). The relationships that matter: social network site use and social wellbeing among older adults in the United States of America. Ageing & Society, 36(9), 1826–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×