Navigating Romantic Relationships on Facebook: Extending the Relationship Dissolution Model to...

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/04/0265407514524848The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0265407514524848

published online 5 March 2014Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsLeah LeFebvre, Kate Blackburn and Nicholas Brody

dissolution model to social networking environmentsNavigating romantic relationships on Facebook: Extending the relationship

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 5, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at University of Texas Libraries on April 1, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Texas Libraries on April 1, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://spr.sagepub.com/


http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/04/0265407514524848

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/04/0265407514524848



http://www.iarr.org

http://www.iarr.org

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/04/0265407514524848.full.pdf

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/04/0265407514524848.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Article

Navigating romanticrelationships onFacebook: Extendingthe relationshipdissolution model to socialnetworking environments

Leah LeFebvre1, Kate Blackburn2 and Nicholas Brody3

AbstractThe present study explores how people use social networking sites to adjust tobreakups by studying their postdissolution behaviors. We apply Rollie and Duck’s(2006) relationship dissolution model by examining how collegiate Facebook users(N ¼ 208) enact behaviors in breakups to extend the model to online environmentsduring and after breakups. Furthermore, we employed a retrospective design utilizingqualitative methods to define categories of behavioral responses to a breakup onFacebook. The analysis revealed online behaviors that overlapped with the dissolutionmodel as well as paralleled previous research into online behaviors. Results are dis-cussed using the relationship dissolution model framework to individuals modifyingonline relationship statuses, ‘‘unfriending’’ previous partners, and limiting profile accessin order to manage relationship termination.

KeywordsAdjustment, breakups, Facebook, relationship dissolution model, romantic relationships,social networking sites, stage models of relationships

1 University of Wyoming, USA2 The University of Texas at Austin, USA3 University of Puget Sound, USA

Corresponding author:

Leah LeFebvre, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Avenue, Dept. 3904, Laramie, WY 82072, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships

1–21ª The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0265407514524848spr.sagepub.com

J S P R

at University of Texas Libraries on April 1, 2014spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://spr.sagepub.com



In the last decade, the increased popularity of social networking sites (SNSs) has pro-

foundly influenced the nature of relational communication. SNSs have dominated

Internet traffic as individuals logged in daily to check status updates, post articles, and

upload photos. Approximately two thirds of online adults have an SNS profile (Madden

& Zickuhr, 2011) such as Facebook. Currently, Facebook (2012) reports that more than

one half of its over 950 million active members log in everyday, along with an estimated

250 million photo postings uploaded daily to individuals’ profiles. Interacting and

perusing SNSs has become a routine ritual; accordingly, certain online behaviors have

become especially salient features adding complexity to romantic relationships. The

increased popularity and total time spent on the relatively new phenomena of SNS

prompts questions as to how interpersonal relationships are assimilating their networks

into their lives (Hand, Thomas, Buboltz, Deemer, & Buyanjargal, 2013).

This exploratory study aims to examine the effect of SNSs on relationship dissolution

processes. In particular, we examine relationship termination asserting that breakups do

not constitute communication finality; rather, relationships can continue to live on in

communication and memories, especially through the advent of technology (Koenig

Kellas, 2006). There is little known about the overlaps between online and off-line beha-

viors (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). By gathering descriptive data on the prevalence and

variance of relationship termination behaviors off-line, we can determine what is occur-

ring through SNSs, while heeding Parks’ (2009) call for more descriptive research of

online communication. Additionally, although recent research has examined the role

of Facebook in the development of romantic relationships, more research is needed to

examine how SNSs influence the breakup process (Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2013).

Specifically, this research extends a traditional relationship dissolution model (Rollie &

Duck, 2006) by examining phases of online breakup behaviors and their relationship to

postdissolution adjustment.

In this study, we consider how SNSs display users’ experience and progress through

the processes of relational dissolution as articulated by Rollie and Duck (2006). This

study extends this traditional research and examines the impact of technology on the

dissolution process. We first discuss existing literature highlighting how technology

influences relationships. Then we describe the relationship dissolution model before

exploring our research question: What Facebook behaviors do people engage in during

and after relationship breakups? After detailing the methodological approaches used to

gather data, we report and interpret the results in the discussion.

Technology and relationships

Computer-mediated communication has provided new forums and opportunities for indi-

viduals to strategically present themselves through the careful editing of their written

messages (Walther, 1996). The present study focuses on Facebook because it is the most

frequently used online SNSs (Madden &Zickuhr, 2011), where individuals construct and

manage their online identity by posting photographs, status updates, and news stories.

Previous research suggests that the Internet creates a new public space for individuals

to disclose information linked to identity (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002).

2 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships




Individuals use SNSs to present a public personal image (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) and with

a touch of a few buttons, users can gather information about another person’s rela-

tionship status, place of employment, political view, common friends, and other highly

personal information. The act of observing personal information from another individual

is known as interpersonal electronic surveillance. It is defined as ‘‘the surreptitious

strategies individuals use over communication technologies to gain awareness of another

user’s offline and online behaviors’’ (Tokunaga, 2011, p. 706). In particular, surveillance

occurring through technology is considered a conscious and goal-oriented observation

strategy that often negatively impacts romantic relationships (Elphinston & Noller,

2011). In other words, interpersonal electronic surveillance offers, with a concerted

effort, the ability to collect information by looking at other’s profiles, photos, and wall

comments. Facebook operates with the ability to accumulate a larger and larger social

network providing tantalizing and incomplete information lending its users to technolo-

gical techniques that can be risky; implementing Facebook practices in untenable and

often destructive ways for their relationships (Gershon, 2011).

SNSs and interpersonal outcomes

Experiencing a romantic breakup can be emotionally distressing and is frequently cited

among life’s most distressing psychological events (Kendler, Hettema, Butera, Gardner, &

Prescott, 2003); therefore, it is likely that the outcomes of breakups would influence

the experience and expression of online emotions. Recent research has found that

Facebook behaviors relate to an individual’s predicted relational functioning (Papp,

Danielwicz, & Cayemberg, 2012) as demonstrated by mixed findings about satisfac-

tion and intimacy. A dyadic analysis by Papp and colleagues revealed that male use of

a ‘‘partnered’’ relational status on Facebook (e.g., listing oneself as ‘‘in a relation-

ship’’) positively predicted relational satisfaction for both male and female partners.

Female partners’ use of a profile picture featuring the relationship was associated with

higher levels of male and female relational satisfaction (Papp et al., 2012). Contrarily,

Hand and colleagues (2013) found no significant relationships between individual’s

usage of SNSs and partners’ perception of relationship satisfaction and intimacy. They

argued that attributional bias led individuals to more likely perceive their partner usage

as negative compared with their own.

Additionally, the frequent use of Facebook by individuals in relationships has been

found to relate to some measures of jealousy. Muise, Christofides, and Desmarais (2009)

found that more frequent Facebook use by relational partners related to increased reports

of Facebook-related jealousy, such as becoming jealous when a partner adds a member

of the opposite sex as a friend. Similarly, Elphinston and Noller (2011) determined cog-

nitive jealousy and surveillance behaviors were linked to relationship dissatisfaction.

This research suggests that SNS behavior has an effect on relational outcomes. To exam-

ine the interplay of SNSs’ behavior and relational processes more specifically, the pres-

ent study extends Duck’s (1982) model of relationship dissolution to understand and

describe online behavior in response to a breakup. The following section reviews the

framework (Duck, 1982; Rollie & Duck, 2006), which highlights the personal cognitions

and communication of individuals’ off-line relational behaviors during breakups. This

LeFebvre et al. 3




present study situates commonly reported online SNS behaviors of partners in dissolving

relationships within a well-established relationship-focused model.

Relationship dissolution model

Relationship dissolution is a normative part of the relationship life cycle. Two commonly

utilized communication models of relationship dissolution include Duck (1982) and

Knapp (1978). At the fundamental level, these two models (e.g., Duck, 1982; Knapp,

1978; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992; Rollie & Duck, 2006) discuss the processes in which

relational dissolution commonly unfolds as sequential events from couplehood to

singlehold. Duck’s dissolution model emphasizes the interface between partners and

social network throughout their movement through phases as relationships separate,

whereas as Knapp emphasizes what takes place between partners (Vangelisti, 2011).

We utilize Duck’s model over other competing relationship dissolution models because it

conceptualizes both psychological and communicative approaches addressing individual,

dyadic, and network actions through the phases. These elements are particularly salient

for understanding how relationship dissolution processes in off-line relationship

actions extend to online behaviors.

The original relational dissolution model (Duck, 1982) emphasized psychological

states that have recently been modified by Rollie and Duck (2006) extending the

communication patterns individuals experience throughout the relationship breakup

processes. Their work (e.g., Duck, 1982, 2011; Rollie & Duck, 2006) argued that the

relationship dissolution model is a process that individual partners experience as they

move through five processes (i.e., intrapsychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing, and

resurrection) occurring over variable time periods. Although the five processes are

linearly depicted as separate functions, they can overlap and multiple processes can

simultaneously occur. Additionally, individuals may experience the demise of a rela-

tionship in multifarious fashion based on but not limited to the initiator, nature of the

breakup, level of investment and commitment, and relationship length.

These relationship dissolution processes begin with individual psychological cogni-

tions, progressing between partners and social networks and concludes with the indi-

vidual’s ability to enter a new relationship. First, the intrapsychic process focuses on the

partner as an internal desire by one or both partners that stems from an individualistic

reflection about the state of the relationship. Next, the dyadic process focuses on the

relationship and transpires when the two partners then discuss their problems or reser-

vations about the relationship calling to question and potentially jeopardizing the future

or redefinition of the relationship. Partners can choose to dissolve, repair, or postpone the

relationship.

After one or both partners have decided to terminate the relationship, news of the

breakup is communicated to outside parties in the social process. This process focuses on

facing the social and public consequences of publicizing the decision (Duck, 1982) to

family, friends, and acquaintances. Rollie and Duck (2006) described the social process

unfolding, as account(s) of the relationship dissolution are made public among an

individual’s network members.





Duck (1982) highlighted three major goals for this process: (1) to dissolve the rela-

tionship, (2) to have the dissolution recognized and accredited by relevant social network

members, and (3) to finalize the process socially while remaining psychologically intact.

The social process entails first an individualized reflection of what occurred and then

presents publicized versions for sharing within networks. Communicative elements

within the social process focus on marketing versions of accounts of the breakup in an

effort to save face or place blame. Social processes entitle partners the means to create

and distribute public stories about their particular version of the relationship dissolution.

The outcome of the social process is to publicly acknowledge the separation and

move into grave dressing. This process focuses on tidying up the accounts representing

explanations for past actions and events, which includes characterizations of self and

significant others (Sorenson, Russell, Harkness, & Harvey, 1993). Through the public

and private accounting individuals retrospectively recall their memories and attempt to

make sense of their relational history. This adjustment process includes the major goal of

putting the relationship to rest, which includes a considerable amount of ‘‘post mortem

attributional activity’’ (Duck, 1982, p. 27) where retrospective accounting occurs for

both the relationship’s initiation and termination.

Lastly, the new version of the model (e.g., Rollie & Duck, 2006) included the

resurrection process, which focuses on the potential lessons learned from the pre-

vious relationship as individuals prepare for future romantic relationships. The

resurrection phase encompasses a rebirth rising from the end of the previous rela-

tionship projecting a new generalized self who has learned from experience (Rollie &

Duck, 2006). This process communicates that individuals are ready to start anew and

reenter the dating world.

Thus, the relationship dissolution model set forth by Rollie and Duck (2006) provided

a generalized theoretical framework depicting the central goals and content of com-

munication during breakups. This study explores how off-line behavior (i.e., breaking up

with a partner) affects Facebook activities. The investigation of these processes in online

environments strengthens the understanding of relational features and processes while

extending the original framework to include technology influences on behaviors.

Exploring online behaviors based on the relationship dissolutionmodel

Although studies have shown that online behavior relates to relational outcomes (e.g.,

Papp et al., 2012), more research is needed to explore how off-line relational events, such

as breakups, influence online behavior (e.g., Gershon, 2011). We utilized a sample of

collegiate students because they are particularly frequent users of Facebook, averaging

approximately 1–2 hr on Facebook daily (Kalpidou, Costin, & Morris, 2011), which is

consistent with our sample’s average daily time spent on Facebook for collegiate students

ranging from 30 min to over 2 hr (e.g., Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007; Raacke &

Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Approximately 70% of college students have experienced a

romantic relationship breakup (Knox, Zusman, & Nieves, 1998). Breakups can be pub-

licly displayed on Facebook at the touch of a button and users must consider how the

breakup is then publicized to those in their social network (Fox et al., 2013).

LeFebvre et al. 5




For this study’s purpose, we conceptualize breakups happening as two phases—

before and after—because various disengagement strategies and situational factors can

alter the process of termination (e.g., Baxter, 1982; Cody, 1982). Additionally, Spre-

cher, Felmlee, Metts, Fehr, and Vanni (1998) found that individuals experience different

types of distress during the breakup than they do after the breakup. Incidentally, by

assessing behaviors that individuals enact during and after the relationship dissolution

provides insight into the nature of how breakups are communicated and managed

throughout the process in online public networks, specifically the most popular SNS,

Facebook. Therefore, we propose following research question for our exploratory

investigation:

RQ: What Facebook behaviors do people engage in during and after relationship

breakups?

Method

Participants

Participants (N ¼ 226) in the study were asked to provide information pertaining to the

process of romantic relationship dissolution behaviors associated with their Facebook

accounts and associated usage. Participants (N ¼18) without Facebook accounts were

asked the same questions about their off-line behavior (not reported in the present

study). All participants were allowed to complete the survey for extra credit. However,

these individuals were removed from data set in order to address the overarching

research question within the context of Facebook interaction. Hence, the final sample

consisted of 208 participants.

Participants were recruited from undergraduate courses at a large and diverse

southern university. The sample consisted of 77 males and 131 females (M¼ 20.17 years

old, SD ¼ 2.25). Most of the participants were Caucasian (58%), followed by Hispanic

(18%), Asian (13%), African American (4%), Multiracial (4%), and Arabic (2%) ethnic

origin. Two participants did not report ethnic origin. Most participants reported on

opposite sex friendships (N ¼ 198). However, seven participants reported on male–male

relationships and three participants reported on female–female relationships. Addition-

ally, participants’ partners were Caucasian (64%), followed by Hispanic (11%), Asian

(8%), African American (5%), Multiracial (4%), Arabic (1%), and other (5%) ethnic

origin. Four participants did not report on the ethnic origin of their partner.

Participants completed an online survey where they reported on a romantic rela-

tionship, which had ended within the past 2 years similar to other relationship dissolution

studies (e.g., Koenig Kellas, Bean, Cunningham, & Cheng, 2008). On average, parti-

cipants reported about relationships that had ended 10.92 months ago (SD ¼ 7.28).

Participants were asked to rate the seriousness of their romantic relationship when they

were most committed to that partner (1 ¼ Causally involved to 5 ¼ Seriously involved;

M ¼ 3.67, SD ¼ 1.16). Prior to the breakup, the relationships had lasted a mean of 18.87

months (SD ¼ 18.25). Regarding who initiated the breakup, 41.3% of the participants

reported they initiated the breakup, 21.7% reported their partner initiated the breakup,

and 37% of the participants reported the breakup was a mutual decision.





Additionally, participants were asked to indicate how frequently they had com-

municated face to face with their romantic partner and how frequently they used

Facebook. Survey participants, on average, reported 2.84 (SD ¼ 1.93) face-to-face

communications with their previous partners on a 7-point Likert-type items (1¼ Not at

all to 7¼ Very frequently). Additionally, participants reported using Facebook for 47.6

months (SD¼ 28.82; Mdn¼ 48.00). Participants indicated they spent a mean of 116.09

min (SD ¼ 173.80; Mdn ¼ 60) on Facebook per day. On average, participants reported

having 882.02 (SD ¼ 534.41; Mdn ¼ 800) members in their social network (e.g.,

Facebook friends) and shared approximately 161 (SD ¼ 176.21; Mdn ¼ 110) mutual

friends (e.g., network overlap) with their most recent breakup partners.

Procedures and measurements

Each individual who voluntarily agreed to participate was asked to complete an online

questionnaire through Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com). Participants were asked to report

on their online communication and behaviors that had occurred during and after their

romantic relationship breakups. For the study, the breakup progression was labeled by

the distinctive phase—during and after. The questionnaire measured relationship dis-

solution and Facebook behaviors.

Breakup behaviors. Participants were asked to recall their breakup via several open-ended

questions. To provide a baseline, questions were posed to understand the behaviors indi-

viduals engaged in during their romantic relationship. Another question was implemen-

ted to account for online behaviors unknown or unintended. Participants were asked,

‘‘After completing the survey were there any questions you thought might be asked but

were not?’’

Qualitative analysis procedures

We used an interpretative approach to gather an understanding of Facebook behaviors

during and after romantic relationship dissolution to answer the research question.

During initial analysis stages, we employed a grounded theory approach (e.g., Glaser &

Strauss, 1967) to preliminarily make sense of the data. To begin, each author indepen-

dently reviewed the open-ended questionnaire responses pertaining to during and after

breakup behaviors in an effort to identify primary categories. After several of these inde-

pendent reviews, we were able to engage in a constant comparative approach using both

open and axial coding to examine the emerging likenesses and differences in the multiple

behaviors provided by participants. Open coding involved examining the initial

responses reported (rather than all behaviors in the open-ended responses) across the

breakup experience with the goal of identifying distinct concepts encompassing specific

Facebook behavior properties and dimensions. Ultimately, we were then able to organize

properties so that behaviors could be grouped into separate categories to explain these

unique emerging behaviors (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Next applying axial coding,

we redefined the codebook to incorporate conceptually overlapping phenomena and con-

texts and establish saturation among categories.

LeFebvre et al. 7




Upon reaching saturation of the reported behaviors emerging from the data, all

authors independently reviewed during and after behaviors from 12.5% of the partici-

pants (n ¼ 26). Participants identified multiple behaviors within their open-ended

responses; however, we examined only the predominant or initial written response beha-

vior (Vangelisti, Young, Carpenter-Theune, & Alexander, 2005), considering the criteria

indicated that dissolution occurred within the past 2 years. A relatively high reliability

(Krippendorff’s a ¼ .80) was established between the three authors for this process.

Authors independently coded the remainder of the sample.

Many of the categories intersected across the breakup time phase of during and after;

therefore, the list of all 15 categories represented account modifications, impression

management, minimal or no Facebook impact, new relationship interest, normative

Facebook activities, off-social network communication, relational cleansing, relational

transgressions, self-regulation from Facebook, self-regulation from partner, social net-

work support, surveillance, virtual reconciliation, virtual mourning, and withdrawing

access. Those responses unable to be identified or interpreted were coded as miscella-

neous. In order to better understand and organize the categories that emerged from par-

ticipants’ responses, we calculated the frequencies to analyze how often the behaviors

occurred in this context.

Results

These results reveal categories produced from Facebook behaviors individuals engaged

in during and after their relationship breakup. For reporting purposes, the results are

separated into two sections surrounding the relationship dissolution phases—during and

after (Table 1).

Individuals experience different types of distress during the breakup than they do after

the breakup. Assessing behaviors enacted during and after the relationship dissolution

Table 1. During and after dissolution online behaviors.

During dissolution After dissolution

Impression management Impression managementMinimal or no Facebook activity Minimal or no Facebook activityMiscellaneous MiscellaneousNew relationship interest New relationship interestNormative Facebook activities Normative Facebook activitiesRelational cleansing Off-social network communicationSelf-regulation from Facebook Relational cleansingSelf-regulation from partner Relational transgressionsSurveillance Self-regulation from FacebookVirtual mourning Self-regulation from partnerNew relationship interest Social network supportWithdrawing access Surveillance

Virtual mourningVirtual reconciliationWithdrawing access





provides insight into the nature of how breakups are communicated and managed

throughout the process (e.g., Sprecher et al., 1998). Therefore, participants were allowed

to interpret the phases to reflect their experiences. These categories are described in

order from the most to least frequently occurring Facebook behaviors. Table 2 displays

the categories, descriptions, and percentages associated with behaviors that appeared

throughout the breakup process. We report the most to least salient categories (reporting

frequencies of 5% or higher) below in the results.

During relationship dissolution

The categories that emerged during relationship dissolution involved minimal or no

Facebook activity, relational cleansing, surveillance, self-regulation from partner, nor-

mative Facebook activities, self-regulation from Facebook, impression management,

virtual mourning, withdrawing access, virtual reconciliation, new relationship interest,

and miscellaneous.

The most frequent behavior to emerge during dissolution process was minimal or no

Facebook activity; thus, suggesting that many respondents did not engage or display

Facebook management strategies during relationship deterioration. For instance, one

participant articulated, ‘‘Our breakup stayed off of Facebook, because I didn’t want to

get other people involved in my business.’’ Here specifically, respondents minimized or

did not use technology during their romantic relationship termination.

However, other respondents immediately altered relationship association through

relational cleansing. Within this category, individuals employed behaviors that purged

or purified their online relational presence by minimizing their public relationship

associations. Respondents indicated either hiding or removing their relationship status to

conceal relationship changes from their networks (e.g., Facebook friends). More visible

examples of relational cleansing included individuals altering their online relationship

status to ‘‘single’’ or ‘‘it’s complicated.’’ While other respondents reported clearing away

the presence of the previous partner and their relationship by removing wall postings and

pictures that demonstrated varying degrees of intimacy, public displays of affection, and

togetherness.

Another commonly reported behavior was interpersonal electronic surveillance.

These behaviors indicated that respondents felt the need to observe their romantic

partners’ online actions during the breakup process, including the interactions their

partners had with others. Participants called it ‘‘creeping’’ or ‘‘stalking’’ and used these

colloquial terms interchangeably to describe interpersonal electronic surveillance

behaviors. One participant said that she ‘‘stalked his wall and all the girls who wrote on

his wall.’’ This category involved behaviors about participants’ desires to investigate

partners by seeking out information about romantic partners and their social networks.

A participant expressed, ‘‘I check to see if there was someone else or if he was back with

his ex-girlfriend.’’ Another articulated that, ‘‘During the breakup, I would look at his

profile religiously checking to see if he was moving on and what not,’’ and yet another

expressed ‘‘I checked his page ALL THE TIME. Upwards of 5 times a day.’’ Clearly, the

affordances of SNSs allowed individuals the ability to observe their previous partners’

behavior as they progressed through the relationship termination process.

LeFebvre et al. 9




Table 2. During dissolution online behavior categories, descriptions, and frequencies.

Category Description Percentage (%)

Relational cleansing � Hid, delayed, or removed relationshipstatus

� Updated status to ‘‘single’’ or ‘‘it’scomplicated’’

� Untagged or deleted wall postings andpictures/album

22.7

Minimal or no Facebook � No Facebook activity or limitedFacebook activity

22.6

Surveillance � Stalked and crept partner’s, partner’ssocial network, and mutual friend’sprofile

� Check partner’s social network

10.2

Self-regulation from partner � Avoided viewing partner’s profile andmutual friend’s profiles

� Refrained from public postings about therelationship and writing to potentialrivals

� Unsubscribed from ex-partner’snewsfeed posts

� Denied refriended ex-partner

9.3

Normative Facebook activities � Walled, chatted, or poked partner� Sent private messages to partner� Commented on posts/statuses� Tagged in pictures� Liked pictures, status, and updates� Posted nonpersonal items

7.5

Self-regulation from Facebook � ‘‘Vacation’’ from Facebook� Limited personal Facebook postings

5.3

Virtual morning � Posted emotional statuses or mentionedex-partner

3.5

Withdrawing access � Defriend, delete, or block ex-partner,ex-partner’s family and ex-partner’sfriends

3.5

Impression management � Posted on fun activities and positivestatuses

� Modified profile pictures and albums� Checked in at new places

3.5

Miscellaneous � Indiscernible 3.1Virtual reconciliation � Refriended ex-partner or tried to

refriend ex-partner� Liked or commented on ex-partner

information� Wrote apology e-mails

0.4

New relationship interest � Reviewed partner’s albums, newpartner’s previous profile pictures,mutual friends, or previous relationships

0.4





Many partners choose to distance themselves while dissolving relationships.

Although two forms of distancing occurred, the more predominant indicated distancing

from their partners. Respondents who undertook self-regulation from partner made a

conscious attempt to avoid their romantic partner by refraining from posting about the

relationship, not communicating with potential romantic rivals, and shunning other

activities to minimize interaction with a romantic partner. For example, one individual

described an attempt to self-regulate from his partner post-breakup by ‘‘avoiding looking

up her Facebook account.’’ For another individual, this meant limiting information about

her partner from any source. She said, ‘‘I tried not to look at any of his friend’s pages, in

case I saw pictures posted of him.’’

For certain individuals, maintaining online normalcy (indicating no deviation from

their common Facebook account behaviors) emerged. This category was known as

normative Facebook activities that revealed typical online SNS behaviors such as

sending messages, posting comments, and posting pictures with no deviation from their

usual activities. Respondents typically either did not want to exhibit any public rela-

tionship termination behaviors or did not share with their networks.

The second distancing category indicated individuals separating themselves from

SNS by eliminating the option to partners’ and social networks’ personal communica-

tion, interpersonal electronic surveillance, or inadvertent information about their pre-

vious partner. This self-regulation from Facebook emerged as a way for individuals to

limit personal Facebook postings. For instance, a participant claimed, ‘‘I decreased the

frequency of my posting and contacting her via Facebook.’’ This limit in personal online

activity is representative of an online leave of absence or a virtual vacation away from

Facebook.

After relationship dissolution

Respondents also reported various behaviors for the time following relationship dis-

solution. Categories included relational cleansing, minimal or no Facebook activity,

surveillance, withdrawing access, self-regulation from partner, impression management,

virtual reconciliation, normative Facebook activities, self-regulation from Facebook, vir-

tual mourning, account modification, social network support, off-social network com-

munication, relational transgressions, and miscellaneous (Table 3).

Although there was much overlap in the behaviors reported during and after the

breakup, some categories were more prominent after relationship termination. For

instance, individuals continued to engage in relational cleansing to signal a public

change in romantic status and remove the online existence of the relationship. One

respondent wrote, ‘‘Well I deleted every single picture of us, deleted her as a friend, and

deleted a lot of the posts.’’ Another respondent stated he, ‘‘Unchecked that I was in ‘a

relationship’ and changed it to ‘it’s complicated’ and then ‘single.’’’ These behaviors

also encompassed acts of deleting previous wall postings, removal of photos, and lim-

iting connection to their romantic partner. Respondents enacted a virtual cleansing to rid

themselves of unwanted relationship remains.

The second most prominent category, yet again, revealed some individuals elected

minimal or no Facebook activity. These respondents limited their Facebook activity

LeFebvre et al. 11




Table 3. After dissolution online behavior categories, descriptions, and frequencies.

Category Description Percentage (%)

Relational cleansing � Hid, delayed, or removed relationshipstatus

� Updated status to ‘‘single’’ or ‘‘it’scomplicated’’

� Untagged or deleted wall postings andpictures/album

20.4

Minimal or no Facebook impact � Not affected by the breakup 19.9Surveillance � Stalked and crept partner’s, partner’s

social network, and mutual friends’profiles

10.2

Withdrawing access � Defriend, delete, or block ex-partner,ex-partner’s family, and ex-partner’sfriends

9.3

Self-regulation from partner � Avoided viewing partner’s profile andmutual friend’s profiles

� Refrained from public postings aboutthe relationship and writing topotential rivals

� Unsubscribed from ex-partner’snewsfeed posts

� Denied refriended ex-partner

7.5

Impression management � Posted on fun activities and positivestatuses

� Modified profile pictures and albums� Checked in at new places

7.1

Normative Facebook activities � Walled, chatted, or poked partner� Sent private messages to partner� Commented on posts/statuses� Tagged in pictures� Liked pictures, status, and updates� Posted nonpersonal items

4.0

Virtual reconciliation � Refriended ex-partner or tried torefriend ex-partner

� Liked or commented on ex-partnerinformation

� Wrote apology e-mails

4.0

Self-regulation from Facebook � ‘‘Vacation’’ from Facebook� Limited personal Facebook postings

2.2

Miscellaneous � Indiscernible 1.3Virtual mourning � Posted emotional statuses or

mentioned ex-partner1.3

Account modification � Changed individual privacy settings� Altered relationship privacy� Deactivated or changed account

0.4

Off-social network communication � Increased in text, cell, and Skype 0.4Social network support � Discussed, sought, or received

relational support0.4

Relational transgression � Wrote negative disclosures aboutbreakup, relationship secrets

� Exposed unflattering fabricatedinformation

� Revealed cheating or infidelity� Hacked partner’s profile

0.18





throughout the process. A more in-depth explanation of this category and group of indi-

viduals is provided in the discussion below.

Participants reported interpersonal electronic surveillance of romantic partners after

their breakup. Viewing an ex-partner’s social network along with the previous partner’s

profile demonstrates failure to disconnect from the relationship. As several respondents

expressed, ‘‘I couldn’t help but look at his profile a lot and see what he was doing, who

his pictures were, etc.’’ and others wrote, ‘‘I checked to see what his new girlfriends/

boyfriends looked like.’’ However, some individuals took active steps to cut ties with

their romantic partner by withdrawing access. One respondent claimed, ‘‘I deleted her

and blocked her account.’’ In other words, individuals defriended, deleted, or blocked

Facebook access to their past romantic partner, their family members, and social network

of close friends. Other participants reported self-regulation from partner, in which there

was a conscious effort to avoid interacting with the past romantic partner without com-

pletely severing all communication. As one respondent expressed, ‘‘I stopped looking at

his profile, I found myself looking at it out of habit and decided it was too hard. It just

made me take two steps back every time I looked at it.’’ Facebook users made a con-

certed attempt to limit and avoid acquiring information connected to the past partner

either through the previous partner’s profile or through mutual friend’s profiles.

The impression management category highlighted respondents’ attempts to positively

self-present themselves online. These activities presented a return to previous pre-

relationship normalcy status as suggested by respondents, where normalcy represents

a return from breakup grieving. This strategy included behaviors aimed to evoke impres-

sions of jealousy or regret from previous partners by presenting themselves as ready to

reengage in other romantic interests through positive promotions. For those still adjust-

ing to the recent breakup, participants articulated comments such as ‘‘Dressed up and

took a lot of pictures for my senior year and with my girlfriends so that he would see

current pictures of me and hopefully change his mind.’’ Others were more concerned

with an effort to create positive impressions by posting fun activities, providing exciting

statuses, checking in at new places, and posting new attractive pictures. As one respon-

dent described, ‘‘I had a lot more status updates and pictures showing how much fun I

was having.’’ These online behaviors were often promoted as a readiness toward reen-

tering the mating market; therefore, in order to present this new image, respondents

posted flattering profile pictures and flirted online with new potential romantic

prospects.

Follow-up analysis

Because there was such high frequency of respondents who indicated minimal or no

Facebook activity throughout the dissolution process, we were compelled to further

consider the minimal or no Facebook activity category that emerged during the two

dissolution phases. Although we note that it is unconventional to combine inter-

pretative methods that emerge from grounded theory, we argue utilizing empirical

support to further explain unanticipated nuances in the open-ended categories expands

our understanding of who may be utilizing particular behaviors. Utilizing grounded

theory and its basic presumptions led us back to reexamine all the data—rather than

LeFebvre et al. 13




looking exclusively at open-ended responses. Thus, we explored how differences

existed between individuals who participated in online activities and compared it with

those who choose not to participate in social networking relationships by asking an

additional research question:

RQ2: Do individuals who engaged in breakup-related Facebook behaviors report a

different level of postdissolutional adjustment than individuals who reported

not engaging in breakup-related Facebook behaviors?

In order to examine the emergence of minimal or no Facebook activity, we examined

other measures originally collected as a part of a larger study. Participants had also been

asked to complete a variety of measures regarding their perceptions of the breakup (e.g.,

post-breakup adjustment and Facebook intensity) involving their behaviors on an online

social network site.

Measures

Post-breakup adjustment was measured using the six 7-point Likert-type items adapted

by Koenig Kellas et al. (2008). Items included ‘‘How difficult has it been for you to

make an emotional adjustment to this breakup?’’ ‘‘Since the breakup, how much has

your typical everyday functioning and routine been disrupted?’’ and ‘‘To what extent

do you feel like you have adjusted to the end of the relationship?’’ Reliability was

acceptable (a ¼ .78; M ¼ 4.49; SD ¼ 1.36).

The Facebook intensity scale (Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs, 2006) was utilized as a

control variable to measure the importance of Facebook in individuals’ lives. The 6-item

measure was rated on a 5-point scale (1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 5 ¼ Strongly agree) and

also includes items that tap frequency of Facebook use. Sample items include ‘‘Facebook

is part of my everyday activity,’’ and ‘‘I am proud to tell people I am on Facebook.’’

Reliability was very high (a ¼ .97; M ¼ 3.62; SD ¼ .85).

Analysis

These 15 categories were then utilized to designate individuals into 3 groups to answer

the research question. The first group (N ¼ 131) included individuals who reported

Facebook behavior both during and after the breakup. The second group (N ¼ 54)

included individuals who reported minimal or no impact on their Facebook behaviors

during at least one phase of their breakup, but not both. The third group (N ¼ 23)

included individuals who reported that Facebook had minimal or no impact on their

behavior at either phase throughout their breakup.

Post hoc results

We utilized an analysis of covariance to explore how Facebook behaviors affect indi-

viduals during the postdissolution adjustment. We controlled for respondents’ report of

intensity of Facebook usage, the number of months since the breakup, participant sex,





sexual orientation, and breakup initiator. All nominal variables were dummy coded.

Postdissolutional adjustment was the dependent variable. The analysis yielded a sig-

nificant main effect for Facebook behavior, F(2, 206)¼ 7.82, p¼ .001, partial Z2¼ .07.

Post hoc Bonferroni comparisons indicated that individuals who reported minimal or no

Facebook impact at any phase of their breakup (M ¼ 5.32, SD ¼ .97) reported higher

adjustment than individuals who reported a Facebook impact both during (M ¼ 4.28,

SD ¼ 1.37) and after their breakups (M ¼ 4.56, SD ¼ 1.39).

Discussion

Theoretical implications

The relationship dissolution model (Rollie & Duck, 2006) provided a theoretical

framework for connecting online SNSs and relationship breakup processes. Table 4

maps respondents’ behaviors in relation to the primary dissolutional processes.

The social network process is central to SNSs; therefore, individuals’ behaviors

displayed through Facebook demonstrate they are engaging in social, grave-dressing,

or resurrection processes. Although these processes do not always occur in a linear

progression, the ability to see how individuals are adjusting to their new relationship

status through their behaviors showcases the communicative process of relationship

dissolution.

Participants reported behaviors both during and after their breakup that reflected pro-

gression through the relational dissolution processes. For instance, Facebook behaviors

during the dissolution process more often than not evidenced engagement in intrapsychic

and dyadic processes prior to their public displays through the Internet. Respondents who

had ended their relationships appeared to reflect their psychological state by (1) virtually

mourning the end of their relationship, (2) acknowledging the breakup with relational

cleansing behaviors, (3) continuing to ruminate about their partner and the future through

surveillance, or (4) beginning to distance themselves from their ability to communicate

with their previous partners or opportunities to interact with them or their social networks

through self-regulation. These behaviors communicate various responses to relationship

termination. SNSs enabled a readily available exchange of new circumstances and updates,

Table 4. During and after online behaviors in the relationship dissolution model.

Social Grave dressing Resurrection

Relational cleansing Account modification Impression managementRelational transgressions Impression management New relationship interestSocial network support Relational cleansing Self-regulation from partnerVirtual mourning Self-regulation from Facebook Withdrawing access

Self-regulation from partnerVirtual mourningVirtual reconciliation

Note. We did not specify categories for Minimal and no Facebook impact, normative Facebook behaviors, off-social network communication, or surveillance as they did not fit any predominant processes.

LeFebvre et al. 15




provided public announcements of relationship termination, and mirrored personal adjust-

ment especially when social networks were extensive and overlapping.

Additionally, several Facebook behaviors exemplified grave-dressing processes.

These behaviors focused on tidying up memories and attempting to make sense of their

relational history. In the time phase following the breakup, individuals reported rela-

tional cleansing and interpersonal electronic surveillance behaviors; although, these two

behaviors may represent different facets of the process. Relational cleansing includes

cleaning up memories and attempting to bring closure to the relationship. While interper-

sonal electronic surveillance may indicate individuals are still fixating on or ruminating

about their previous partners and the relationship. Furthermore, the emergence of ‘‘with-

drawing access’’ behaviors demonstrated that many respondents acted to sever connec-

tions with their previous partners and bring their relationship to a close.

Respondents indicated participating in a variety of behaviors consistent with the

relational dissolution model. Specifically, participants reported defriending or blocking

their former relational partners, deleting and untagging pictures, and monitoring their

ex-partner’s social networking behavior. Defriending, deleting, and blocking previous

partners and their social networks limited participants’ ability to continue interpersonal

electronic surveillance the profiles of their ex-partners, and curtailed their ability to

counter their ex-partner’s accounts of the breakup. Perhaps in an effort to prepare them-

selves for future relationships, some participants further curtailed communication with

their former partners via self-regulation and began to reconstruct their virtual self

through the use of impression management strategies.

Although relationship dissolution is often associated with finality, many relationships

never fully dissolve (Rollie & Duck, 2006) and especially with the expansion of tech-

nology to encapsulate our relationship memories the ability to erase a relationship’s

existence may be even more challenging. People often clean up memories of their

relationship history over time (Duck & Sants, 1983) and as shown by these respondents’

behaviors, individuals removed relational artifacts and associations (e.g., untagged

photos, removed wall posting, and defriended). These behaviors mirror the grave-

dressing resurrection processes as individuals moved on from a previous relationship and

prepared for future relationships. The reality is that artifacts of a previous relationship

remain retrievable online while evidence of the relationship dissolution and subsequent

behaviors also cannot be completely erased. Although cleansing may help bring closure

to a relationship, some memories continued to exist in virtual space and influenced

the development of subsequent relationships and interactions with potential partners.

These memories were difficult to completely purge; rather, they became part of each

ensuing relationship via remnants embedded in virtual SNS data.

This study begins to explore how the use of SNSs crystallizes relationship memories

after breakups, and how individuals subsequently act to strategically manage their online

identity. However, the relationship dissolution model must continue to explore how

lingering online traces of past relationships might influence new relationship formation

from the resurrection process to relationship initiation phases. The postdissolutional

adjustment process may be exacerbated and extended by SNS data, potentially inter-

fering with the process of tidying up public accounts that depict previous relational

history and hindering formation of new relationships.





Postdissolutional adjustment

Individuals who reported no Facebook-related behaviors in response to their breakup

indicated a higher level of post-breakup adjustment than individuals who reported

Facebook-related behaviors during and after the breakup. Koenig Kellas (2006) and

Weiss (1975) argued that the connection to a past relationship tends to decrease over

time following a breakup, and postdissolutional communication continues to affect

adjustment. With the integrated use of technology within interpersonal relationships,

individuals are still able to maintain contact—whether through direct interaction or inter-

personal electronic surveillance—with their previous partners. Clayton, Nagurney, and

Smith (2013) found that high levels of usage of SNSs damaged interpersonal relation-

ships with predicted negative relationship outcomes (e.g., breakup, divorce, and cheat-

ing). This ongoing access and connection to their partner might relate to a reduced

ability to adjust to the end of a relationship, also perpetuating negative interpersonal and

personal outcomes. For instance, previous postdissolutional adjustment research has

shown that people can experience a host of negative outcomes following relationship ter-

mination (Rollie & Duck, 2006), adjusting to new relationship communication (Koenig

Kellas, 2006) and creating a shared social network (Foley & Fraser, 1998). Facebook can

encourage jealous thoughts and the engagement of surveillance behaviors, which have

been found to be associated with dissatisfying relationships (Elphinston & Noller,

2011). The results of the present study also suggest that undertaking Facebook behavior

related to a previous relationship impinged relational recovery from breakups. Overall,

people with minimal breakup-related SNS use after a breakup were better adjusted. Via

SNSs, individuals are able to continue to access and view their relational partners’ infor-

mation. In the present study, respondents who chose not to utilize SNSs throughout the

breakup process perhaps resulted in higher levels of adjustment. As SNSs becomes an

increasingly important component of people’s everyday communication activity, the

examination of the communication and relational behaviors of people who do not

actively participate in online forums could lend insight into the effects of communication

technology on relationships.

Limitations and future research

We are encouraged that our results shed light on online behaviors associated with the

relationship dissolution model that was first developed based on off-line behaviors;

nonetheless, we recognize there are limitations. The convenience sample consisted

of college students who are frequently utilized in research. Previous research by Smith,

Rainie, and Zickuhr (2011) found that 87% of college students are members of SNSs;

hence, this population is the preeminent sample for exploratory relational studies in an

online context due to its overwhelming usage. Future research should continue to

examine a more diverse sample and similarities/differences that exist between age,

gender, and sexual orientation in the application of the dissolution model through

technology.

Additionally, this study applied analysis to retrospective accounts in order to reveal

the varied types of behaviors associated with online interactions during the dissolution of

LeFebvre et al. 17




a relationship. We examined the first response to open-ended behaviors performed dur-

ing and after breakups; although, we acknowledge retrospective accounts are polished by

hindsight and may alter the occurrences that were much more unclear leading up to and

during the dissolution process—this begins the exploration to see how dissolution tran-

spires on SNSs. To increase the understanding of these behaviors, future research should

expand beyond the use of retrospective accounts and find ways to examine the process as

it occurs over time as with a longitudinal study observing behaviors throughout the rela-

tionship process. A future study may seek to recruit individuals at the beginning of a

romantic relationship and track these behaviors longitudinally and the corresponding

adjustment. In addition, this type of research could shed information on other processes

of a romantic relationship as well as how off-line and online behaviors influence SNSs’

activities.

Lastly, future research could assess how the relationship dissolution model addresses

the lingering relationship memories that exist outside of the partnerships’ control. SNSs

provide individuals with access to constantly and covertly gather, interpret, and evaluate

information about potential, current, and past romantic partners (Fox et al., 2013). The

ability to draw on relationship memories at the touch of a button (i.e., Facebook, blogs,

tagged pictures, etc.) means a relationship never truly ‘‘ends’’—its effects continue to be

visible even during future relationships. The lingering of these online memories may

therefore hinder the complete breakup resurrection process. The relationship dissolution

model could be used to explore how the persistence of online information available about

previous relationships may not allow the ‘‘cleansed rebirth’’ described in Rollie and

Duck’s (2006) resurrection process.

Conclusion

With the increasing adoption of new technology, such as Facebook, off-line behavior,

such as breaking up with a relational partner, often affects online behavior. The present

study extended Rollie and Duck’s (2006) model to examine and understand the types of

behaviors individuals enact in online environments, suggesting that continuing to view

past partners on SNSs may interfere with postdissolution adjustment. Overall, the find-

ings suggest that certain components of the relationship dissolution model are amplified

and altered by the unique affordances of online communication.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Rene Dailey and our anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Authors’ Note

This article was presented at the 2012 International Association of Relationship Research Conference

in Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or

not-for-profit sectors.





References

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation

and expression of the ‘‘true self ’’ on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 33–48. doi:10.

1111/1540-4560.00247

Baxter, L. A. (1982). Strategies for ending relationships: Two studies. Western Journal of Speech

Communication, 46, 223–241. doi:10.1080/10570318209374082

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Jour-

nal of Communication, 13, 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook

use to blame. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 717–720. doi:10.1089/

cyber.2012.0424

Cody, M. J. (1982). A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role inti-

macy, reactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection. Communication

Monographs, 49, 148–170. doi:10.1080/03637758209376079

Duck, S. W. (1982). A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. W. Duck

(Ed.), Personal relationship: Vol. 4. Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 1–30). London,

UK: Academic Press.

Duck, S. W. (2011). The language of relationships in a social order. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Rethink-

ing relationships (pp. 171–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duck, S. W., & Sants, H. K. A. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships

really interpersonal states? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 27–41. doi:10.1521/

jscp.1983.1.1.27

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation pro-

cesses in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11,

415–444. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00020.x

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends’’: Social capital

and college students’ use of online social networks sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-

munication, 12, 1143–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for

romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-

working, 14, 631–635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318

Facebook. (2012). Retrieved March 21, 2012, from Facebook Newsroom http://newsroom.fb.com/

content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId¼22

Foley, L., & Fraser, J. (1998). A research note on post-dating relationships: The social embeddedness

of redefining romantic couplings. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 209–219. doi:10.2307/1389360

Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship

development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Per-

sonal Relationships, 30, 771–794. doi:10.1177/0265407512468370

Gershon, I. (2011). Un-friend my heart: Facebook, promiscuity, and heartbreak in a neoliberal age.

Anthropological Quarterly, 84, 865–894.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Hand, M. M., Thomas, D., Buboltz, W. C., Deemer, E. D., & Buyanjargal, M. (2013). Facebook

and romantic relationships: Intimacy and couple satisfaction associated with online social

LeFebvre et al. 19


http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22





network use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 8–13. doi:10.1089/cyber.

2012.0038

Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the

well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-

working, 14, 184–189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061

Kendler, K. S., Hettema, J. M., Butera, F., Gardner, C. O., & Prescott, C. A. (2003). Life event

dimensions of loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the prediction of onsets of major

depression and generalized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 789–796. doi:10.

1001/archpsyc.60.8.789

Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1992). Interpersonal communication and human relations

(4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., & Nieves, W. (1998). Breaking away: How college students end love

relationships. College Student Journal, 32, 482–484.

Koenig Kellas, J. (2006). ‘The worst part is, we don’t even talk anymore’: Post-dissolutional

communication in break up stories. In K. M. Galvin & P. J. Cooper (Eds.), Making connec-

tions: Readings in relational communication (4th ed., pp. 281–290). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Koenig Kellas, J., Bean, D., Cunningham, C., & Cheng, K. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories,

turning points, and adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional relationships. Journal

of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 23–50. doi:10.1177/0265407507086804

Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011, August 26). 65% of online adults use social networking sites.

Retrieved April 2, 2012, from the Pew Research Center website http://pewinternet.org/Com-

mentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx

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, and

Social Networking, 12, 441–444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263

Papp, L. M., Danielwicz, M. A., & Cayemberg, C. C. (2012). ‘‘Are we Facebook official?’’

Implications of dating partners’ Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satis-

faction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 85–90. doi:10.1089/cyber.

2011.0291

Parks, M. (2009). What will we study when the internet disappears? Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 14, 724–729. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01462.x

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifica-

tions theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 169–174.

doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0056

Rollie, S. S., & Duck, S. W. (2006). Divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships: Stage

models and their limitations. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and

relationship dissolution (pp. 223–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Smith, A., Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2011). College students and technology. Washington, DC:

Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from http://pewinternet.

org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-technology/Report.aspx

Sorenson, K. A., Russell, S. M., Harkness, D. J., & Harvey, J. H. (1993). Account-making, con-

fiding, and coping with the ending of a close relationship. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 8, 73–86.



http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx

http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-technology/Report.aspx

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/College-students-and-technology/Report.aspx



Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated with distress

following the breakup of a close relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15,

791–809. doi:10.1177/0265407598156005

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use

of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Beha-

vior, 27, 705–713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Vangelisti, A. L. (2011). Interpersonal processes in romantic relationships. In M. L. Knapp &

J. A. Daly (Eds.), The sage handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 597–632). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vangelisti, A. L., Young, S. L., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Alexander, A. L. (2005). Why does it

hurt? The perceived causes of hurt feelings. Communication Research, 32, 443–477. doi:10.

1177/0093650205277319

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-

personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–44. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001

Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

LeFebvre et al. 21




Navigating Romantic Relationships on Facebook: Extending the Relationship Dissolution Model to...

Documents

Transcript of Navigating Romantic Relationships on Facebook: Extending the Relationship Dissolution Model to...