Role of Facebook in Romantic Relationships - Research Proposal Example

? Facebook and Romantic Relationships Facebook and Romantic Relationships This review examines the popular use of social media sites such as Facebook and how it affects romantic relationships. Romantic relationships are a crucial aspect of the human life therefore these make it interesting and extremely important to learn how daily interaction with Facebook can actually strain ones romantic life. With the help of surveys and interview, mistrust and jealousy are found to be increased in romantic relationships, when partners use Facebook. Part of the research method used asks questions about the use of Facebook and its direct impacts on intimate relationships, while some of the research methods ask questions that explore the chances of certain genetic predisposition having a role in the issue. It is true in some cases that people with certain personalities such as jealousy may be prone to using Facebook and at the same time his frequency of being jealousy remains high. It is easily assumed that the use of Facebook has created peculiar and unnatural facets in romantic relationships which contributes to extra feelings of jealousy and mistrust in relationships. The impacts of these results are extremely important and relevant to pay attention to mainly because it is a modern challenge and it has not been remedied. A good number of people who took part in the survey confirmed that their relationships improved after they had stopped using Facebook. Quitting Facebook may not be an option that many people are interested in but, still there is a need to find a solution. Further and wider research is needed to come up with workable solutions that can remedy the problem. This can also provides us with effective ways on how to understand and cope with the elements of jealousy and mistrust that Facebook has introduced in romantic relationships. Introduction It is important to look into these 21th century problem with keen interest because; it’s already in its way to destroy the roots of our social continuity which is based on romantic relationships. Facebook was first introduced in Harvard University in 2004, during this period it was a social interaction platform for student of Harvard University only (Wittkower 2010 pg234). However due to its influence its popularity grew and the amount of people using it increased enormously and eventually had its way to other universities and the public. Gaining interest in Facebook means having interest in those who are in your online social environment and friends, this means that if you are dating you will also have some significant others in your romantic life. In another twist Facebook has several features that reveal relationship status of a person. It has options such as “In a relationship”, “Single”, “In an open relationship” and “married”. Facebook also provides users with options to upload pictures using computers, cameras and mobile phones these gives users a chance to display pictures showing them having a good time with their boyfriends or girlfriends. In another sense these shows that Facebook supports romantic relationship and allows it to thrive online. The big question is what happens if people being to misuse this opportunity and start perusing selfish interests? In this survey the ruining of offline romantic relationships linked to operation of Facebook is examined to establish how and why the problem occurs. Literature review The initial investigations and research about the relationship between Facebook and romantic relationship was carried out by Reis and Sprecher. They carried out their study on anonymous Facebook users, the majority of the sample people that they used consisted of people who were already in relationships. They used interviewing questions related to feelings of mistrust and jealousy as a product of using Facebook. Some of the questions asked included “how would a partner feel if his boyfriend or girlfriend has added an unknown member of an opposite sex as a friend? “In this study the innate jealousy that comes with genetics was put into consideration. The feelings of jealousy under certain conditions are estimated by general frequency of emotional jealousy; this informs us that some people get jealous frequently than others (Reis & Sprecher, 2009 pg456). They expected that when an individual is exposed to information about his partner’s friends and other extra social interactions may create a situation of jealousy (Reis & Sprecher,). Their theory was supported by Wright and Webb they found out that people in relationships who are heavily involved in Facebook are more vulnerable to relationship problems and difficulties such as mistrust, resentment and dissatisfaction (Wright & Webb 2011). This research gave them strong foundation to believe that the amount of time spent on Facebook determined whether a relationship will deteriorate or flourish. The more time one spends on Facebook the more his partner becomes dissatisfied with him and the less the time spent online the stronger the relationship becomes assuming other factors are constant. Throughout the past decade usage of social media as a form of communication has grown and evolved in to a house hold nail, this has raised academic concerns because the new concept of Facebook has the potential of causing harm to humanity. Many academicians have developed the idea that that Facebook is an impecunious and sterile form of social exchange compared to face-to-face interactions. Therefore, it has the potential of generating negative feedbacks in relationships (Ray 2013 pg67). Facebook users have a variety of options that they can use in their reach out for friends. A friend can writer on a users wall, they are also in a position to send private instant messages, sending of e-mailing is also possible when using Facebook. The students confirmed that they use the wall feature more often than other features in a study carried out by Funk Some scholars have also argued in the contrary, that Facebook use is an important tool in building social capital and ties. They put their weight behind this idea by ascertaining that frequent use of Facebook indicates greater social and psychological well- being of the users (Wolfson, 2013pg 40). They are also of the idea that online relationships do not differ with offline relationships in any aspect therefore they are the same (Wolfson, 2013 pg 132). Unlike most major technological innovation and advancement, which have been run and dominated by men throughout history Facebook has achieved gender balance. Even though, earlier scholars had found gender difference in the usage of Facebook research has proven that gender differences in the use of this technology has reduced (Ray 2013 pg 65). Researchers have found out that more than 92% of males and 95% of female university students are using Facebook; there is little time difference when it comes to time spent online with both genders (Ray 2013 pg 45). Atwood and Gallo also discovered a very interesting line of thought. In their research it was revealed that the frequency of Facebook use is completely related with negative relationships (Atwood & Gallo 2011 pg78). They proved that Facebook exposes its users to information about their partners that would otherwise be secretes if Facebook was not in the picture. The discovery of such facts increases the scrutiny of one’s partners on the media. The results concluded that Facebook use avails information that potentially provokes jealousy. A feedback loop is created and as a result the investigating partner increases scrutiny of his partner’s page. This will in turn expose the investigating partner to further provoking information (Atwood & Gallo 2011 pg89). The exposure to such information makes a curious partner to theories negative feelings that would have not happened in the absence of Facebook. The interviewees in this research testified that the environment that Facebook creates has some negative effects on their love life and hence raising concerns about safety of their partners (Atwood & Gallo 2011 pg123). Facebook users who were previously not jealous and had trust on their partners, being to catch feelings of jealousy and mistrust, while those who already had the feeling in their association find themselves in an even worse situation. These scholars believe that the presence of significant others that who are found on Facebook, is what brings storms to romantic relationship. Social site such as Facebook have changed the perspective of communication both in the public and the private sphere of communication. This is because lots of information about an individual is made available to their partner. Their interaction and association with other people is within the scope of their lovers therefore facilitating lack of privacy in the love cycle (Porterfield 2013 pg 230). Another work done by Porterfield indicates that the functions of social networks are varied and diversified. They are however, distinct from other websites. For example Facebook is characterized with the presentation of the user’s profile and with a vivid display of her relationships with others. Factors that influence romantic associations such as age, interests and location are readily available in the site (Porterfield 2013 pg220). Other researchers such as Edison Research 2010 indicate that Facebook has recently upgraded their profile user interface and introduced a timeline. Using this feature Facebook users are able to update the events that are taking place in their lives chronologically. The unique feature of Facebook that makes it peculiar is the sectioning. Users are able to comment on their friend’s status, interests, movies as well as type of music that they like. Duck, shows the disclosure on Facebook using his work dubbed, Reading romance: the effects Facebook activities can have on romantic relationships. He found out that college students tend to disclose their full details on the website. This includes their photographs which plays an important role in formation of romantic associations online. It is reported that over 340million pictures are uploaded using Facebook every day and can be shared between users (Duck 2007 pg67). Duck examines the role that pictures play in the experience of mistrust, resentment and jealousy in online activities. He singles out Facebook personal pictures as the weightiest aspect in the site. This is mainly because they show moments shared in natural circumstances online and allow for tagging, liking and commenting. When all these activities are done for a picture it gains an active role in the social interaction site. Various slogans and phrases have been formulated to strengthen this role. For example “if it was not on Facebook it did not happen”. This indicates that people especially the youth are documenting events in their lives for Facebook purposes; this also explains the essence of photo taking in social events (Duck 2007 pg56). Duck through his research confirms that, for those who are in relationships pictures cause a lot of problems in their social life above all the other products offered by Facebook. Pictures and message from past romantic affairs in the traditional forms of communication cannot be accessed by current partners. However, in the online world the information is readily available. ‘’ my boy friend uploaded some nice pictures of me and him, that we took on a vacation. After a short while her ex- girl friend uploaded photos of her and him in a party behaving as if she owned him”( Duck 2007 pg 67). This example is quoted from part of Duck work. If this girl friend lived in an offline environment this problem would not have surfaced. Exes are not the only reason why Facebook pictures have strains on relationships. He also illustrates instances where a lady gets jealous because her boy friend uploaded a picture of him and other ladies and she was not present. The boy friend does not own a Facebook account. Ilan Gershon finds out in her study that pictures uploaded in Facebook are major sources of jealousy in romantic relationships. One subject in her study explains that she had not been constantly viewing her boy friend’s picture with other ladies. She would have not cared about the issue because she knew he will be hanging out with other ladies (Ilan 2010 pg56). The problem came on Facebook when she saw him with other women but she could not tell who they were. The reason for this problem is that the pictures are believed to be presenting truthful glimpse about the social scene in which they are taken. However some of her subjects states that you never know if the person was just asked to pose for a picture. All that we are able to see is their presence in the pictures. The issue of pictures on Facebook also brings another bread of problems when one decides to de-tag them; this is because it will be interpreted as not wanting the picture to be seen. Recovering a de-tagged picture is a difficult process which requires determination. As a demonstration of curiosity and jealousy people decide to go through the entire process to recover de- tagged pictures, discover the intention of the person who de-tagged them(Ilan 2010 pg123). It is important to know the meaning of a “friend” as it is expressed in the context of Facebook. It is a person who can access your account and comment your wall. Methodology The study has employed various methodologies including, survey, interview and focus group, these is because there was availability of literature about the subject matter. Though, a large part of the survey addresses a lot of negative aspects on romantic relationships as a result of Facebook use. Given that many people involved use Facebook and they have direct experience with it, interview seemed a better option than the other. The focus group was used in order to observe the interaction, disagreement and agreement of the people invited in the research. The focus group provides deep information that cannot be obtained from other closed methodologies (Ling 2011 pg56). Discussion were carried out by four female moderators (2 undergraduate students, one faculty member and an external researcher) trained in focus group methodology. Two or three moderation attended the sessions. They were required to guide and inform the participants on relevant topics, the others served as referee for the study. Two moderators were not informed about the topic study to prevent biased interpretation of data during data analysis. Participants Participants were 98 men and 102 women from a small University who at one point had romantic relationship experiences while using Facebook, their age ranged between 18 and 25 years. This age was found appropriate because it represents a mature stage in life and therefore the participants understands fully the cycle of romantic relationships. They were selected across all the faculties in the university. Some of the participants were given extra credit in order for them to participate; others participated without any special consideration for their participation. The most data involved in this study are from the focus group and 100 Facebook posts which were retrieved from the student’s Facebook accounts. Eight mixed- sex groups having a range of six to twelve participants were examined. The participants acknowledged that they spend approximately two and a half hours on Facebook not just logged in but participating in the activities, commenting liking and posting. Procedure When the participants arrived at the studying area they were welcomed and asked to read through the consent form. They were then given the chance to ask any question regarding the consent form. After they approved the forms they were signed and given to the moderator. The leader s of the study groups used a common script of questions to maintain homogeneity in the survey. For the introductory part of the discussion, the participants were asked to describe. What are romantic relationships in terms of how they understood it? The moderator also asked questions specifically regarding how Facebook affects romantic relationships. The moderators worked with questions that had been designed in advance. The format of the questions was simple and written with clarity to ensure accuracy of the answers based on deeper understanding. The nature of flow of conversation dictated which question was asked in each group. The interview was carried out on the university streets for two days continuously. It involved 20 men and 26women; those who were participated in the interview were randomly picked. They verified their membership of the university and stated their age willing fully. After they met the criteria which were 18 and 25 years and membership, they were allowed to take part in the interview. The interviews were oral and recoding of the data was done by the interviewers. References Wittkower, D. E. (2010). Facebook and philosophy: What's on your mind?. Chicago: Open Court. Ray, R. (2013). The Facebook guide to small business marketing. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Nierman, D., & Facebook (Firm). (2010). Facebook Rules!: Why you can friend certain people, block others, adn how to decide who you should be friends with ; Relationship answers : why most people have 130 Facebook friends, what type of friends are they, and how you can attract more friends : with a jolt of humor thrown in. Minneapolis: Two Harbors Press. Funk, T. (2011). Social Media Playbook for Business: Reaching Your Online Community with Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, and More. Westport: ABC-CLIO. Wright, K. B., & Webb, L. M. (2011). Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships. New York: Peter Lang. Honeycutt, J. M., & Bryan, S. P. (2011). Scripts and communication for relationships. New York: P. Lang. Keller, E. B., & Fay, B. (2012). The face-to-face book: Why real relationships rule in a digital marketplace. New York: Free Press. Wolfson, R. (2013). Relational Judaism: Using the power of relationships to transform the Jewish community. Duck, S. (2007). Human relationships. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2009). Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Atwood, J. D., & Gallo, C. (2011). The effects of the internet on social relationships: Therapeutic considerations. Bloomington, IN: Iuniverse Inc. Porterfield, A. (2013). Facebook marketing all-in-one for dummies. Hoboken: John Wiley. O'Reilly, T., Kennedy, N., & McClure, D. (2007). The Facebook application platform: An O'Reilly Radar report. Sebastopol, Calif: O'Reilly Media. Fadeel, B., Pietroiusti, A., & Shvedova, A. (2012). Adverse Effects of Engineered Nanomaterials: Exposure, Toxicology, and Impact on Human Health. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Phillips, D., & Young, P. (2009). Online public relations: A practical guide to developing an online strategy in the world of social media. London: Kogan Page. Oetting, M. (2009). Ripple effect: How empowered involvement drives word of mouth. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Ling, R. S., & Campbell, S. W. (2011). Mobile communication: Bringing us together and tearing us apart. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers. Kluger, J., & OverDrive, Inc. (2011). The sibling effect: What the bonds among brothers and sisters reveal about us. New York: Riverhead Books. Subrahmanyam, K., & S?mahel, D. (2011). Digital youth: The role of media in development. New York: Springer. Zheng, R., Burrow-Sanchez, J. J., & Drew, C. J. (2010). Adolescent online social communication and behavior: Relationship formation on the Internet. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Read More