Snapchat Elicits More Jealousy than Facebook: A Comparison of Snapchat and Facebook Use
Abstract
Recent news in the media has suggested that younger people are using popular social media such as Facebook less and are quickly adopting newer media, such as the self-destructing app Snapchat. Snapchat is unique in that it erases messages several seconds after they have been sent, affording its users a higher level of privacy. Yet, little research exists on Snapchat use in general, let alone its broader psychological implications. This article offers a preliminary comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use and psychological effects on romantic jealousy. General motives for using Snapchat and Facebook are examined, as well as the nature of the content that Snapchat users most frequently share. Further, because of the differences in privacy and persistence of information, potential psychological effects in the domain of romantic jealousy are also examined, which has been widely studied on Facebook in the last few years. Findings show that the main difference in motives were that Snapchat was used more for flirting and finding new love interests, whereas Facebook was still the main social networking site used for keeping in touch with friends. Further, when presenting users with a series of potentially jealousy provoking scenarios, Snapchat elicited higher levels of jealousy than did Facebook. These findings are explained based on an affordance approach.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Snapchat has more than 100 million users and is the third most popular SMS after Facebook and Instagram.
“Snapchat is known to have more than 100 million users (Piwek and Joinson 2016), and is the third most popular SMS after Facebook and Instagram (Duggan 2013;Utz et al. 2015).”
Cites
Barker, V. (2009) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0228 · Cited by 781 · see citing works
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0226 · Cited by 696 · see citing works
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318 · Cited by 596 · see citing works
Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Self-citationThe impact of engagement with social networking sites (SNSs) on cognitive skills
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.015 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Afifi, W. A., Falato, W. L., & Weiner, J. L. (2001) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407501182007 · Cited by 114 · cited 1× · see citing works
“15 In the context of social media, it was shown that women (compared to men) were jealous when threats to the relationship were more public on Facebook (i.e., their partner was tagged in a photo with an unknown woman, and this photo was public to their friends).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305117691544 · Cited by 820 · see citing works
Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of Platform Type
Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1405754 · Cited by 819 · see citing works
“…with social media, but they tend to focus on social media in general (e.g., Muntinga, Moorman, and Smit 2011; Gironda and Korgaonkar 2014) or on one specific social media platform (e.g., Chi 2011; Sook Kwon et al. 2014; Phillips, Miller, and McQuarrie 2014; Utz, Muscanell, and Khalid 2015).”
BackgroundNesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x · Cited by 712 · see citing works
Kircaburun, K., Alhabash, S., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020) · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction · doi:10.1007/s11469-018-9940-6 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
“What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service
Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.026 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Association Between Social Networks and Subjective Well-Being in Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Webster, D., Dunne, L., & Hunter, R. (2021) · Youth & Society · doi:10.1177/0044118x20919589 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.034 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Mandau, M. B. H. (2020) · Sexuality & Culture · doi:10.1007/s12119-019-09626-2 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Willems, A.-S., & Van Dam, M. (2019) · Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2019-3-3 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Waddell, T. F. (2016) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0677 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Halston, A., Iwamoto, D., Junker, M., & Chun, H. (2019) · International Journal of Psychological Studies · doi:10.5539/ijps.v11n3p27 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
The Impact of Social Norms on Adolescents’ Self-Presentation Practices on Social Media
Zillich, A. F., & Wunderlich, A. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241299829 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“A popular form of adolescents’ self-presentation is the “selfie” (Chae, 2017; Gorea, 2021; Utz et al., 2015), “a visual representation of the pho-tographer’s face, or other body parts used as a means of visual communication and self-representation” (Gorea, 2021, p. 2).”
- Authors
- Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C.
- Affiliations
- ERC/Social Media, Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany.
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Utz, Sonja
- Venue
- Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 141-146
- ISSN
- 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 2152-2723
- OpenAlex
- W2111269850
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 82.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Keywords
- Snapchat, Facebook, romantic jealousy, privacy, affordances, motivations for social media use, flirting, young adults, social networking sites
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Jealousy, Male, Motivation, Self Concept, Self Disclosure, Computer Security, Friends, Young Adult, Social Networking, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
