Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, – Relationship maintenance on Facebook: Development of a measure, The rules of Facebook friendship: A two-stage examination of interaction . Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet use and psychosocial wellbeing. On the theoretical level our investigation combines Goffman's notion of from dating efforts to conversation regulation and maintenance of social ties. The ease of liking a Facebook social action page may, so goes the argument of . For Goffman, “To study face-saving is to study the traffic rules of social interaction” [12 ]. Over one billion people use Facebook as a platform for social interaction groups in users of the German social network StudiVZ . .. -the-rules-of- cypenv.info?_r=0. Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J . MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to.
The technological boundaries move and evolve in constant interaction with corresponding features of sociality. Impression management in front of a networked audience Face-work on Facebook The Like button was designed to let other users know that you enjoyed their comment, post, or picture.
Since using the Like button is an inherently social signal, in order to understand its nature and use we must look beyond the properties of individual users and liked objects. This means shifting focus to the interactions between users, and to the ritual elements that influence interaction. He conceptualizes encounters or situations as strips cut from an ongoing stream of events.
In these strips, people behave in a certain way that usually aims at smooth and conflict-free continuation of the situation. Goffman calls face the positive social value one claims for oneself by taking a certain line. However, Bernie Hogan is critical of applying this kind of Goffmanian scheme to online situations.
Hogan himself prefers the metaphor of exhibition to conceptualize the specificity of Facebook behavior. We agree with Hogan that one should be careful when seeking counterparts to online phenomena in the off-line world. Nevertheless, we maintain that the metaphor of exhibition downplays important aspects of social interaction among Facebook users. We assert that, despite the absence of a common physical context, many Goffmanian ideas regarding impression management and face-work can be applied to Facebook.
We follow the work of Wittkowerwho argues that the specific nature of Facebook real names, etc.
On Facebook and other mediated settings, this tendency is taken to an extreme. Instead of seconds and minutes, the discussion threads can stretch for hours or days, and there is often a considerable lag between gestures in these interactions. The strip of activity blends with the continuous stream of the Facebook news feed and the timeline easily fades into history without the clear-cut distinction available in physical settings.
Even if the immediateness of a situation is taken away, the temporality and its effect on participants remain. This temporality, however, is of a different type and changes the ritualistic nature of the interaction and the nature of face.
A wall post, for example, can be liked either immediately or years after the original posting. On Facebook and in other similar online settings, as individual situations dissolve into a longer stream, the boundaries of face change, and it becomes stretched over an extended period of time. The stretched face also implies the dangers and fragility of such situations: An originally harmless Like may, with new contextual information, develop into a face-threatening affair weeks or months after the original post.
Wittkower assumes that face-work and identity creation are identical processes. Despite the longer timeframe, even the stretched face cannot be considered a synonym for identity. While identity implies a more stable and substantive essence, the stretched face is anchored in survival of the situation and in maintaining a positive assessment both of the user herself and others.
These actions feed into identity creation. The Like button as an example of nano-level interaction Goffman is interested in micro-gestures and reactions delivered via glances, gestures, and positionings, whether intended or not. On Facebook, these micro-gestures are different: Comments, emojis, and pictures form a major part of interactions, but they are more analogous to speech acts and verbal statements than to glances and positionings.
We propose the term nano-level interaction as an equivalent to the Goffmanian micro-gesture, and use it to denote the most minute and fleeting forms of interaction online, such as liking. The asynchronous nature of Facebook allows for more consideration and planning of nano-level interactions than the immediate nature of a physical social situation.
On Facebook, we can take as much time as we need to evaluate all the situations, consider the audience, and ponder possible outcomes of different gestures. Asynchronicity also changes the permanence of actions. If a coworker walks up to you in a hideous new shirt and you let your face show your opinion, it cannot be undone.
In the online setting, there is always time to reconsider every action. On Facebook this could happen, for example, to a left-wing politician liking a neo-Nazi page.
These Goffmanian insights presented above must be combined with the fact that Facebook friends form a particular type of audience consisting of people connected through personal network ties — an aspect we will address in the next subsection.
Interaction rituals in front of networked audiences Facebook users write, like, and share various objects in public in front of a crowd of friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. However, at the same time, Facebook users are not always aware that a discussion that has the intimacy of a private conversation might actually be visible not only to the Facebook friends of both participants but also to a much larger network of third-step contacts, depending on the privacy settings of both users.
In the following, we further develop the effect these implied audiences have on the ritualistic elements of Like button use Waters and Ackerman,Debatin, et al. More importantly, this influence is not only dyadic between user A and her particular Facebook friend B but also networked: Jealousy has often been viewed as multidimensional construct e.
Some authors distinguish between dispositional and state jealousy e. The first refers to jealousy as a trait, a relatively stable propensity to respond in a jealous way, the latter refers to jealousy as a reaction on a jealousy-evoking event. Buunkdifferentiates between reactive, anxious, and possessive jealousy. Reactive jealousy refers mainly to the emotional reactions anger, sadness on emotional or sexual infidelity. Anxious jealousy has a strong cognitive component and involves ruminating about the possible infidelity of the partner.
Possessive jealousy has a stronger behavioral component and includes monitoring behavior and trying to prevent the partner from having opposite sex friends.
The social significance of the Facebook Like button | Eranti | First Monday
Reactive jealousy occurs as reaction to a real threat to the relationship, whereas anxious and possessive jealousy can also occur in the absence of a real threat. Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra found that reactive jealousy was positively related to relationship quality.
They assume that reactive jealousy signals caring for the partner. Anxious jealousy however was negatively related to relationship quality, probably because it is often ungrounded and therefore causes distress in the relationship. In contrast to their hypotheses, possessive jealousy was unrelated to relationship quality.
SNS use and jealousy Muise et al. These authors argued that the constant availability of information about the partner on the SNS contributes to jealousy.
For their study they developed a scale to measure so-called Facebook jealousy - jealousy that arises from the use of Facebook. It could therefore be interpreted as a measure of possessive and anxious jealousy. Adding a person of the opposite sex can be an indication of infidelity, but will in most cases be common SNS use. In search of predictors of Facebook jealousy, Muise et al.
Women and jealous individuals exhibited higher levels of Facebook jealousy. Trust was the only relationship factor that had an effect. The higher relationship trust, the lower Facebook jealousy. Relationship uncertainty, commitment, and self-esteem had no effect. The present research aims to replicate and extend these findings. However, we are more interested in the psychological processes underlying SNS jealousy than in simple gender effects.
Gender will be included in all analyses, but the focus of the paper is on personality and relationship variables as well as indicators of SNS use. The first hypothesis is therefore: Trait jealousy is positively related to SNS jealousy.
In addition to trait jealousy, actual monitoring behavior, a more behavioral measure, could be considered as a potentially better predictor of SNS jealousy. Monitoring behavior is an aspect of possessive jealousy. Some items of the Facebook jealousy scale address online monitoring behavior such as checking the partner's profile on a regular basis or adding the partner's friends to the own profile to keep tabs on the partner.
It seems likely that people who monitor their partner in various ways should also be more likely to experience jealousy when seeing rather harmless events such as public conversations of the partner on an SNS with persons of the opposite sex. Monitoring behavior is positively related to SNS jealousy. However, as we argued above, it is also socially more accepted to visit the partner's profile.
SNS provide an opportunity to unobtrusively monitor the partner. This opportunity should be used by individuals who also tend to monitor their partner via other ways. If monitoring the partner on a SNS is more socially accepted, people should be more likely to engage in SNS monitoring behavior than in traditional monitoring behavior.
Therefore, we also compare the levels of traditional and SNS monitoring behavior. An open research question is formulated: What is the level of SNS monitoring behavior compared to traditional monitoring behavior? In addition to the time spent on the SNS, we expect that the psychological meaning and the type of use of the SNS may be more important predictors of experienced SNS jealousy.
Tufekci called the latter purpose grooming. Grooming involves browsing the profiles of friends and thereby increases the chance to encounter information that may evoke jealousy. We further want to extend the work by Muise et al. Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais reported that need for popularity was related to self-disclosure on the SNS.
People with a high need for popularity want to create an idealized image on the SNS.
Being in a happy relationship is for many people part of such an image Zhao et al. People with a high need for popularity might therefore also be more sensitive to cues that threaten this part of their self-presentation.
They might be especially sensitive to activities of their partner on a SNS that may harm the idealized relationship image they like to present. These are public at least within the circle of friends and acquaintances, and such public detections of transgressions are especially damaging for the relationship Afifi et al. Individuals with a high need for popularity should therefore be more likely to experience SNS jealousy.
Need for popularity is positively related to SNS jealousy. We argue that self-esteem has a moderating rather than a direct effect and expect that the link between need for popularity and SNS jealousy is qualified by self-esteem. Jealousy develops in relationship threatening situations. According to Afifi et al. Such a threat should be perceived as more severe by people with a low self-esteem.
People with a high self-esteem usually have more trust in their self-worth and consequently also in the love of their partner. Therefore, self-esteem is an important moderator when it comes to romantic relationships.
Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed aboutyears ago, during the PleistoceneDunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter—gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large, equivalent to bandscultural lineage groups and tribes —with respective size ranges of 30—50, — and — members each.
Correspondingly, only groups under intense survival pressure,[ citation needed ] such as subsistence villages, nomadic tribes, and historical military groupings, have, on average, achieved the member mark. Moreover, Dunbar noted that such groups are almost always physically close: In dispersed societies, individuals will meet less often and will thus be less familiar with each other, so group sizes should be smaller in consequence.
Dunbar, in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Languageproposes furthermore that language may have arisen as a "cheap" means of social grooming, allowing early humans to maintain social cohesion efficiently.
Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible. Language may have allowed societies to remain cohesive, while reducing the need for physical and social intimacy.
For example, developers of social software are interested in it, as they need to know the size of social networks their software needs to take into account; and in the modern military, operational psychologists seek such data to support or refute policies related to maintaining or improving unit cohesion and morale. A recent study has suggested that Dunbar's number is applicable to online social networks  and communication networks mobile phone.