The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 66 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness
Open accessAbstract
We examined whether relationship satisfaction, trait jealousy, SNS use and need for popularity predicted these emotional consequences of SNS use and tested the moderating role of self-esteem.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
4 of 66 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“self-esteem has repeatedly been found to moderate processes in romantic relationships (Cameron, Holmes, & Vorauer, 2009;Murray, Aloni, et al., 2009;Murray, Leder, et al., 2009).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron, Holmes, & Vorauer, 2009 source
- Supportedcites Murray, Aloni, et al., 2009 source
The Experiment 5 Results report significant self-esteem-by-exchange interactions in participants’ efforts to increase their partners’ dependence. The Experiment 4 Discussion likewise describes different responses to exchange priming among high- and low-self-esteem participants. Together, these findings support the claim that self-esteem moderates processes in romantic relationships. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Murray, Leder, et al., 2009 source
Experiment 1 Results report a significant interaction between self-esteem and condition in predicting trust in a romantic partner. Experiment 2 Results also report a significant self-esteem-by-condition interaction in predicting efforts to make oneself integral to a partner’s life. These repeated findings support the broad claim. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In general, low self-esteem individuals cope less successfully with various stress-situations in the relationship (Cameron et al., 2009;Murray, Aloni, et al., 2009;Murray, Leder, et al., 2009).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron et al., 2009 source
- Partly supportedcites Murray, Aloni, et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and General Discussion (page numbers unavailable) report that low-self-esteem people showed greater anxiety about inferiority and replacement in specific relationship situations, supporting a narrower version of the claim. The paper does not establish that they cope less successfully across various relationship stressors; the General Discussion also suggests their dependence-promoting response may protect relationships in the short term. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Murray, Leder, et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Experiment 2’s Discussion and the General Discussion report that, when faced with the possibility of being replaced, low-self-esteem participants distanced themselves from their partners, while high-self-esteem participants took compensatory action. This supports the claim for that relationship threat, but the paper’s findings do not establish that low-self-esteem individuals cope less successfully across various relationship stress situations. The supplied copy gives no page numbers for these sections. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For high-self-esteem individuals, SNS use for grooming was the main predictor.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Entering trait jealousy, β = .34,p < .05)and monitoring behavior, β = .42,p < .01,resulted in an adjusted R 2 of .31.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy,”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 53
- Probably not a substantial claim. 50
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For low self-esteem individuals, need for popularity predicted jealousy and relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“monitoring behavior, β = .31,p < .05,and trait jealousy, β = .32,p < .05were still significant predictors, but need for popularity had the strongest effect, β = .48,p < .01.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For individuals low in self-esteem, gender and relationship satisfaction had no significant effect.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first block explained 47% of the variance, but only monitoring behavior had a significant effect, β = .62,p < .001.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Need for popularity contributed another 3% of explained variance, but this effect was only marginally significant.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, more females than males were in the sample.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding SNS use increased the adjusted R 2 to .30.This was driven by the effect of frequency of login, β = .64,p < .01.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect was only marginally significant, and was only found for the low-self-esteem individuals.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, almost 30% were for 3 years or longer in their relationship.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present study, we measured more aspects of SNS use, and these explained much more variance (13-23%).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relationships satisfaction and SNS use, especially use for grooming, predict higher SNS relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For low-selfesteem individuals, SNS relationship happiness was determined by relationship satisfaction, but also by frequency of login.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relationship satisfaction and gender did not have a significant effect in block 1, adjusted R 2 = .01.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first block explained 17% of the variance.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SNS relationship happiness of the low self-esteem individuals was related to relationship satisfaction and frequency of login, whereas the SNS relationship happiness of the high-self-esteem individuals was predicted by SNS use for grooming only.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, low-self-esteem individuals experienced more SNS jealousy than high-self-esteem individuals, whereas these groups did not differ in experienced SNS relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For low-self-esteem individuals, need for popularity had a strong impact.The higher their need for popularity, the higher their likelihood to experience SNS jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also an effect for gender, β = .30,p < .05.Women tended to experience more SNS relationship happiness than men.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SNS use for grooming was the main predictor of SNS jealousy as well as SNS relationship happiness of high-self-esteem, but not of low-self-esteem, individuals.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relationship satisfaction, β = .29,p < .01,frequency of login, β = .37,p < .05,and SNS use for grooming, β = .34,p < .05,predicted SNS relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also marginally significant effects for need for popularity, β = .23,p < .10,frequency of login, β = .35,p < .10,and relationship satisfaction, β = -.21,p < .10.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trait jealousy, however, was only a significant predictor for low-self-esteem individuals, and not for high-self-esteem individuals.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a typical student sample, the sample was also relatively young and the respondents did not have relationships that lasted for 10 years or longer.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“About half of the sample never engaged in traditional monitoring behavior such as searching the partner's bags or secretly reading the partner's e-mails.However, respondents were quite likely to monitor the partner's SNS profile.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Theoretical contributions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), and need for popularity (H4) were positively related to SNS jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the effect of need for popularity was much stronger for low self-esteem individuals, and SNS use only had an effect for high-self-esteem individuals.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Jealousy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Buunk (1991,1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, time spent on Facebook explained an additional 2% of variance.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Up till now, relatively little research has focused on the effects of SNS on romantic relationships.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Introduction Seeing that the romantic partner leaves comments on the Facebook wall of an attractive member of the opposite sex can induce jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).But if the partner publicly displays his or her affection on a social network site (SNS), can this also increase relationship happiness?And to what extent are these effects moderated by self-esteem?These are the central questions of this paper.SNS have become part of everyday life for many people.Research has mainly focused on self-presentation, privacy settings, or the consequences of SNS use for bridging and bonding capital (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008;Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007;Krämer & Winter, 2008;Siibak, 2009;Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008;Utz & Krämer, 2009).Up till now, relatively little research has focused on the effects of SNS on romantic relationships.Muise et al. (2009) brought the attention to a negative effect Facebook use might have: increasing jealousy.The access to the partner's profile provides people with information they did not have before SNS came up; Muise et al. ( 2009) showed that people can become jealous if they see their partner interacting with potential romantic partners on Facebook.Although Facebook jealousy was mainly determined by trait jealousy, there was an additional effect of time spent on Facebook, indicating that SNS increase feelings of jealousy.The present paper builds on this research and extends it in several ways.First, the focus is not only on negative effects of SNS use on romantic relationships, but also on positive effects.Second, the paper focuses on the moderating role of self-esteem and examines the role of need for popularity.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais (2009) reported that need for popularity was related to self-disclosure on the SNS.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Christofides, Muise, and Desmarais (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The higher relationship trust, the lower Facebook jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“SNS are ''nonymous'' online environments (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008).That is, users can be identified and found in real life.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Zhao et al. (2008) identified being popular among SNS friends as a central motivation for SNS use.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhao et al. (2008) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Trait jealousy, measured by self-report, showed the largest positive effect and explained, together with gender, 46% of the variance of Facebook jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“People create desirable identities on SNS and try to become popular among their friends (Zhao et al., 2008).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhao et al., 2008 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“SNS are mainly used for the maintenance of social relationships, especially for upholding contact with weaker social ties (Ellison et al., 2007).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellison et al., 2007 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Muise et al. ( 2009) showed that people can become jealous if they see their partner interacting with potential romantic partners on Facebook.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Introduction Seeing that the romantic partner leaves comments on the Facebook wall of an attractive member of the opposite sex can induce jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).But if the partner publicly displays his or her affection on a social network site (SNS), can this also increase relationship happiness?And to what extent are these effects moderated by self-esteem?These are the central questions of this paper.SNS have become part of everyday life for many people.Research has mainly focused on self-presentation, privacy settings, or the consequences of SNS use for bridging and bonding capital (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008;Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007;Krämer & Winter, 2008;Siibak, 2009;Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008;Utz & Krämer, 2009).Up till now, relatively little research has focused on the effects of SNS on romantic relationships.Muise et al. (2009) brought the attention to a negative effect Facebook use might have: increasing jealousy.The access to the partner's profile provides people with information they did not have before SNS came up; Muise et al. ( 2009) showed that people can become jealous if they see their partner interacting with potential romantic partners on Facebook.Although Facebook jealousy was mainly determined by trait jealousy, there was an additional effect of time spent on Facebook, indicating that SNS increase feelings of jealousy.The present paper builds on this research and extends it in several ways.First, the focus is not only on negative effects of SNS use on romantic relationships, but also on positive effects.Second, the paper focuses on the moderating role of self-esteem and examines the role of need for popularity.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scale measures the likelihood of reactions in hypothetical situations.None of the items addresses the reactions on actual cheating (= reactive jealousy)”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Jealousy
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visiting the SNS profiles of friends and partner, however, is part of the SNS routine of many users.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These authors argued that the constant availability of information about the partner on the SNS contributes to jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Although Facebook jealousy was mainly determined by trait jealousy”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Introduction Seeing that the romantic partner leaves comments on the Facebook wall of an attractive member of the opposite sex can induce jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).But if the partner publicly displays his or her affection on a social network site (SNS), can this also increase relationship happiness?And to what extent are these effects moderated by self-esteem?These are the central questions of this paper.SNS have become part of everyday life for many people.Research has mainly focused on self-presentation, privacy settings, or the consequences of SNS use for bridging and bonding capital (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008;Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007;Krämer & Winter, 2008;Siibak, 2009;Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008;Utz & Krämer, 2009).Up till now, relatively little research has focused on the effects of SNS on romantic relationships.Muise et al. (2009) brought the attention to a negative effect Facebook use might have: increasing jealousy.The access to the partner's profile provides people with information they did not have before SNS came up; Muise et al. ( 2009) showed that people can become jealous if they see their partner interacting with potential romantic partners on Facebook.Although Facebook jealousy was mainly determined by trait jealousy, there was an additional effect of time spent on Facebook, indicating that SNS increase feelings of jealousy.The present paper builds on this research and extends it in several ways.First, the focus is not only on negative effects of SNS use on romantic relationships, but also on positive effects.Second, the paper focuses on the moderating role of self-esteem and examines the role of need for popularity.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second characteristic is that SNS offer a socially accepted way of monitoring the partner.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though people have always received information about their partner from friends or acquaintances, SNS centralize much of this information at one point.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Relationship uncertainty, commitment, and self-esteem had no effect.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On social network sites (SNS), information about one's romantic partner is readily available and public for friends.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, users deliberately choose pictures that make them look cool and popular (Siibak, 2009).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Siibak, 2009
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Low-self-esteem individuals try to compensate their low self-esteem by creating an idealized picture.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Impression management has been found to be an important motive for setting up and maintaining a profile on a SNS (Krämer & Winter, 2008).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Krämer & Winter, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Women and jealous individuals exhibited higher levels of Facebook jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and jealousy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“there was an additional effect of time spent on Facebook, indicating that SNS increase feelings of jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Introduction Seeing that the romantic partner leaves comments on the Facebook wall of an attractive member of the opposite sex can induce jealousy (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009).But if the partner publicly displays his or her affection on a social network site (SNS), can this also increase relationship happiness?And to what extent are these effects moderated by self-esteem?These are the central questions of this paper.SNS have become part of everyday life for many people.Research has mainly focused on self-presentation, privacy settings, or the consequences of SNS use for bridging and bonding capital (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008;Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007;Krämer & Winter, 2008;Siibak, 2009;Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008;Utz & Krämer, 2009).Up till now, relatively little research has focused on the effects of SNS on romantic relationships.Muise et al. (2009) brought the attention to a negative effect Facebook use might have: increasing jealousy.The access to the partner's profile provides people with information they did not have before SNS came up; Muise et al. ( 2009) showed that people can become jealous if they see their partner interacting with potential romantic partners on Facebook.Although Facebook jealousy was mainly determined by trait jealousy, there was an additional effect of time spent on Facebook, indicating that SNS increase feelings of jealousy.The present paper builds on this research and extends it in several ways.First, the focus is not only on negative effects of SNS use on romantic relationships, but also on positive effects.Second, the paper focuses on the moderating role of self-esteem and examines the role of need for popularity.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seeing on a SNS that the partner puts an arm around another member of the opposite sex might be experienced as a public self threat because this picture can be seen by all friends and acquaintances.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“especially individuals with a high need for popularity react with SNS jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The displayed relationships usually correspond to offline relationships and are therefore termed ''anchored relationships'' (Zhao et al., 2008).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS and romantic relationships: What is new?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhao et al., 2008 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Three items in the style of Pfeiffer and Wong's (1989) behavioral jealousy subscale assessed traditional monitoring behavior.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Monitoring behavior.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pfeiffer and Wong's (1989) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results support H1, H2, and H4.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, there were also positive effects on bonding capital, strong ties with close friends.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and relationship happiness
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mod (2010) also found that people publicly display their affection on SNS and that partners value these public signs of affection”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and relationship happiness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mod (2010)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These studies found that SNS are especially useful for maintaining bridging capital, that is, weaker ties with acquaintances.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and relationship happiness
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mod (2010) found that changing the relationship status is a major step in a relationship and can also alter dynamics in the offline relationship.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and relationship happiness
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mod (2010)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Need for popularity was measured with seven items from the popularity scale by Santor, Messervey, and Kusumakar (2000).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS monitoring behavior.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Santor, Messervey, and Kusumakar (2000) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Self-esteem was measured with the Rosenberg scale (Rosenberg, 1979).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS monitoring behavior.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rosenberg, 1979
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining 26 items were combined into one scale, α = .96.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The effects of SNS use on bonding capital were less strong and not moderated by self-esteem.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use and relationship happiness
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The original scale had 12 items, but the short version turned out to be reliable, α = .81.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS monitoring behavior.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“six items referred to grooming (e.g., ''How often do you visit the profiles of close friends?''''How often do you leave messages (krabbels, wallposts) on the profiles of acquaintances?''α = .85).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use for profile maintenance and grooming.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These questions were taken from the SNS intensity scale by Ellison et al. (2007).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS use.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ellison et al. (2007) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Facebook jealousy scale by Muise et al. (2009) was used.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Zhao et al. (2008) reported that SNS users express their affection to loved ones on their profiles”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Theoretical contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zhao et al. (2008) source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Muise et al. (2009) used time spent on Facebook as only SNS use variable; and this variable explained 2% of the variance.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Afifi et al. (2001) found that the method of infidelity discovery matters.”
- Also stated in: § SNS jealousy. · plain
“Afifi et al. (2001) found that public discovery of relational transgression is perceived as more severe than a private disclosure by the partner.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Afifi et al. (2001) source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § SNS jealousy. · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it seems plausible that monitoring the partner on a SNS is socially more acceptable because of the public character of SNS.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Theoretical contributions
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We corrected for this distribution by including gender as control variable in all analysis”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If they additionally have a high need for popularity, they are especially sensitive to negative cues and experience more jealousy when encountering relationship threatening comments or pictures on a SNS.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SNS do not only provide people with much more information about their partner, it is also socially more accepted to monitor the partner's activities via a SNS.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Theoretical contributions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To conclude, this is the first study on the effects of SNS use and romantic relationships that simultaneously examined SNS jealousy and SNS relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“social desirability might therefore have influenced the results.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appears that, especially low-self-esteem individuals with a high score on trait jealousy interpret the behaviors of their partner on the SNS as more threatening, and consequently experience SNS jealousy.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS jealousy.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Trait jealousy is a relatively stable personality characteristic that is not related to a specific partner.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study demonstrates that SNS have the potential to increase relationship satisfaction and happiness, because they allow for public demonstrations of affection and relationship commitment.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a more diverse sample, relationship satisfaction might have a stronger impact on SNS jealousy and SNS relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Prior research has already shown that SNS use can increase bridging, and, to a lesser degree, also bonding capital (Ellison et al., 2007;Steinfield et al., 2008, Valenzuela et al., 2009).”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Theoretical contributions
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The present study replicated some basic findings of Muise et al. (2009) and thereby generalized these findings to a different SNS.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Muise et al. (2009) source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that SNS relationship happiness as well as SNS jealousy of high-self-esteem individuals is mainly based on the content encountered on the profiles of friends or the partner.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This supports H7 and H8.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Descriptive analysis Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations as well as the intercorrelations between the measures.Respondents stated to be more likely to experience SNS relationship happiness 64.1 14.6 3.9 6.8 7.8 1.9 1.0 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.32) than SNS jealousy (M = 2.83, SD = 1.19), t(80) = -12.14,p < .001.Note that the scales did not assess the likelihood of events (e.g., partner posts a comment on the wall of an ex), but the likelihood to experience happiness or jealousy when the partner showed a specific behavior.Low self-esteem individuals reported to experience more SNS jealousy (M = 3.07, SD = 1.13) than high-self-esteem individuals (M = 2.56, SD = 1.21), t(79) = 1.94, p < .05,one-tailed.Low-and highself-esteem individuals did not differ in SNS relationship happiness (Ms = 4.70, SD = 1.26, vs. 4.75, SD = 1.41, ns).The scores on monitoring behavior indicate that about half of the participants reported that they engage in monitoring behavior at least every now and then.Nevertheless, as Table 2 shows, 70-80% of all respondents reported that they never or almost never searched their partners bags, or secretly read the text messages or e-mails they sent to somebody else.Only 10 to 17% had scores of 5 or higher.In contrast, the scores for SNS monitoring behavior were much higher (see Table 3).Table 3 shows that on the first three items about SNS monitoring, 30 to 35% of the respondents had an answer score of 5 or higher.Roughly 35% of the respondents reported that they were likely to visit their partners profile regularly.30% reported that they would check their partner's profile if they were suspicious, and another 30% reported that they were likely to monitor the profile of the partner on a regular basis.Only the item ''add your partner's friends to your SNS to keep tabs on your partner'' received similar rejection rates as the items of the monitoring behavior scale.These descriptive results provide an answer to RQ1.They indicate that monitoring the partner on a SNS might be more common and apparently socially more accepted than monitoring the partner offline.Hypotheses testing SNS jealousy.The first four hypotheses predicted that SNS jealousy would be related to trait jealousy (H1), monitoring behavior (H2), SNS use, especially use for grooming (H3), and need for popularity (H4).H6 expected a negative relationship with relationship satisfaction.To test the hypotheses these variables were simultaneously entered as predictors in a regression analysis, in which we also controlled for gender.The model explained 57% of the variance of SNS jealousy, F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001.Trait jealousy was a marginally significant predictor of SNS jealousy, β = .16,p = .06.Monitoring behavior, β = .40,p < .01,and need for popularity, β = .33,p < .01,significantly predicted SNS jealousy, whereas the different types of SNS use (profile maintenance and grooming) and relationship satisfaction failed to reach significance, all ts < 1.61.The results support H1, H2, and H4. To examine the moderating role of self-esteem, separate regressions with SNS jealousy as dependent variable were calculated for low-and high-self-esteem subjects.In the first block, trait jealousy, monitoring behavior, relationship satisfaction, and gender were included as predictors.In the second block, frequency of login, SNS intensity, SNS use for profile maintenance, and SNS use for grooming were entered, and finally need for popularity was entered in the third block.Blockwise entering of the variables allowed us to detect whether the indicators of SNS use and need for popularity explained additional variance over and above the relationship variables and gender.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SNS use explained additional variance, showing that using SNS can further enhance already existing feelings of relationship happiness.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual levels of monitoring behavior might be higher, but we have no reason to doubt the correlations we observed.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, SNS monitoring behavior and traditional monitoring behavior were measured on slightly different scales because they were taken and adapted from different scales.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This further corroborates the assumption that low-self-esteem individuals compensate their low-self-esteem with the display of a happy relationship, and become more happy if they succeed in it.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > SNS relationship happiness.
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the amount of information, the socially accepted way of monitoring the partner, and the public display of potentially jealousy-inducing events can lead to negative experiences, especially among low-self-esteem individuals with a high need for popularity.”
§ The Role of Social Network Sites in Romantic Relationships: Effects on Jealousy and Relationship Happiness > Strengths and limitations
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The direction of the effects of SNS use on romantic relationships mainly depends on the relationship quality and the behavior of the partner.
“We do not assume that SNS use is bad or good for relationships per se; instead, we assume that the direction of the effects mainly depends on the relationship quality and the behavior of the partner.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Information on a SNS is public, at least within the circle of friends.
“Information on a SNS is public, at least within the circle of friends.”
The paper relies on this without support.
SNS monitoring is not per se an intentional activity; information about SNS friends' actions is automatically pushed into the user's news feed and is not secretly pulled from the partner's profile.
“Moreover, SNS monitoring, in contrast to traditional monitoring, is not per se an intentional activity.Information about the actions of SNS friends is automatically pushed into the user's news feed, and is not secretly pulled from the partner's profile.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trait jealousy is a relatively stable personality characteristic that is not related to a specific partner.
“Trait jealousy is a relatively stable personality characteristic that is not related to a specific partner.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recruiting respondents via banners on SNS usually results in a self-selected sample in which highly active users are overrepresented.
“Recruiting respondents via banners on SNS usually results in a self-selected sample in which highly active users are overrepresented.”
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?
In the citing paper
“social comparison with others on SNSs may lead to jealousy and envy, and thus may deter them from SNSs (Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015;Utz & Beukeboom, 2011).”
From Till logout do us part? Comparison of factors predicting excessive social network sites use and addiction between Singaporean adolescents and adults (2017) · cites this paper as Utz & Beukeboom, 2011
In the citing paper
“As for adolescents, self-esteem may not be associated with excessive use and addiction because social comparison with others on SNSs may lead to jealousy and envy, and thus may deter them from SNSs (Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2015;Utz & Beukeboom, 2011).”
From Till logout do us part? Comparison of factors predicting excessive social network sites use and addiction between Singaporean adolescents and adults (2017) · cites this paper as Utz & Beukeboom, 2011
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(80) = -12.14reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(80) = -12.14,p < .001”
- Consistentt(79) = 1.94reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .056
“t(79) = 1.94, p < .05”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- ConsistentF(9, 71) = 12.82reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(9,71) = 12.82, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(7, 73) = 5.27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(7,73) = 5.27, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x · Cited by 9,939
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,872
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x · Cited by 2,229 · cited 2×
“Prior research has already shown that SNS use can increase et al., 2008, Valenzuela et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodSocial capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002 · Cited by 1,919 · cited 4×
“…research on Facebook use and romantic relationships has focused on the negative effects (Muise et al., 2009), but there is evidence that SNS use can strengthen the relationships with friends and acquaintances (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfield et al., 2008; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee, 2009).”
BackgroundInfluentialIdentity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012 · Cited by 1,848
Narcissism and social networking web sites
Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167208320061 · Cited by 1,159
Krämer (2008) · doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.3.106 · Cited by 883
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0226 · Cited by 696
Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumakar, V. (2000) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1023/a:1005152515264 · Cited by 670
Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x · Cited by 625
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Buunk, 1991, Psychological perspectives on jealousy and envy, 148
- Metts, 2000, Handbook of personal relationships., 373
- Siibak , A. 2009 Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3 http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009061501&article=1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 295
Cyber-Psychopathy: Examining the Relationship between Dark E-Personality and Online Misconduct
Nevin, A. D. (2015) · Scholarship@Western (Western University) · Cited by 20
Passive, invasive, and duplicitous: Three forms of intimate partner cyberstalking
March, E., Szymczak, P., Rago, M. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2022) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111502 · Cited by 23
The Adaptive Functions of Jealousy
Yong, J. C., & Li, N. P. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4_7 · Cited by 21
The Big 5 and relationship maintenance on Facebook
Seidman, G. (2018) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407518772089 · Cited by 20
Quiroz, S. I., Ha, T., & Anderson, S. F. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108111 · Cited by 21
Social Network Sites, Individual Social Capital and HappinessPreprint
Arampatzi, E., Burger, M., & Novik, N. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2853339 · Cited by 20
Effects of Facebook Maintenance Behaviors on Partners’ Experience of Love
Northrup, J. C., & Smith, J. (2016) · Contemporary family therapy · doi:10.1007/s10591-016-9379-5
Factors associated with Facebook jealousy in three Spanish-Speaking countries
Moyano, N., Sánchez-Fuentes, M. D. M., Chiriboga, A., & Flórez-Donado, J. (2017) · Sexual & Relationship Therapy · doi:10.1080/14681994.2017.1397946 · Cited by 16
Kim, S.-B., Choi, K. W., & Kim, D.-Y. (2013) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2013.774918 · Cited by 18
Abbasi, I. S. (2018) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439318793947 · Cited by 22
US Latino adolescents’ use of mass media and mediated communication in romantic relationships
Len-Ríos, M. E., Streit, C., Killoren, S. E., Deutsch, A. R., Cooper, M. L., & Carlo, G. (2016) · Journal of Children and Media · doi:10.1080/17482798.2016.1144214 · Cited by 20
Silva, H. M. (2025) · Nature anthropology · doi:10.70322/natanthropol.2025.10003 · Cited by 17
Romantic Relationship Length and its Perceived Quality: Mediating Role of Facebook-Related Conflict
Rahaman, H. M. S. (2015) · Europe's Journal of Psychology · doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i3.932 · Cited by 16
Sharabi, L. L., & Hopkins, A. (2021) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407521991662 · Cited by 15
Romantic Relationship Quality in the Digital Age: A Study with Young Adults
Sánchez, V. V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2017) · The Spanish Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1017/sjp.2017.20 · Cited by 13
Relationship among Facebook jealousy, aggression, and personal and relationship variables
Demirtaş-Madran, H. A. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1451919 · Cited by 18
Kim, J. W. (2018) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118772835 · Cited by 19
Cowan, R. L., & Horan, S. M. (2017) · International Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/2329488417731860 · Cited by 15
Fejes-Vékássy, L., Ujhelyi, A., & Faragó, L. (2020) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-020-01187-0 · Cited by 13
Cyber human values scale (i-value): the study of development, validity and reliability
Kılıçer, K., Çoklar, A. N., & Özeke, V. (2017) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-10-2016-0290 · Cited by 16
“Hedge Your Bets”: Technology’s Role in Young Gay Men’s Relationship Challenges
McKie, R. M., Milhausen, R., & Lachowsky, N. (2017) · Journal of Homosexuality · doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1172883 · Cited by 8
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2020) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2020-2-5 · Cited by 14
The Psychology of Social Networking Vol.1: Personal Experience in Online Communities
Riva, G., Wiederhold, B. K., & Cipresso, P. (2015) · doi:10.1515/9783110473780 · Cited by 13
Brito, F. W. C., & de Freitas, A. A. F. (2019) · PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural · doi:10.25145/j.pasos.2019.17.008 · Cited by 12
A mere holding effect: Haptic influences on impression formation through mobile dating apps
Banks, J., Westerman, D., & Sharabi, L. L. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.035 · Cited by 11
Wang, L., Qiu, J., Yan, S., & Liu, W. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-636141/v1 · Cited by 5
Negotiating privacy and intimacy on social media: Review and recommendations.
Zurbriggen, E. L., Ben-Hagai, E., & León, G. (2016) · Translational Issues in Psychological Science · doi:10.1037/tps0000078 · Cited by 11
Social Network Site Use among Dutch Students
Utz, S. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-338-6.ch006 · Cited by 11
Self-citationAttachment Style and Jealousy in the Digital Age: Do Attitudes About Online Communication Matter?
Sullivan, K. T. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678542 · Cited by 12
Adolescents’ Digital Media Interactions within the Context of Sexuality Development
Maes, C., van Oosten, J. M. F., & Vandenbosch, L. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108976237.009 · Cited by 11
Towards Informatic Personhood: understanding contemporary subjects in a data-driven society
Lee, A. (2019) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1637446 · Cited by 9
Exploring the Effects of Social Media on Marriages in Northern Ghana
Konlan, I., Abdulai, M., & Ibrahim, H. (2023) · Human Arenas · doi:10.1007/s42087-023-00333-x · Cited by 9
Is This WhatsApp Conversation Aggressive? Adolescents’ Perception of Cyber Dating Aggression
Sánchez, V., Rodríguez‐deArriba, M., & Muñoz‐Fernández, N. (2021) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/08862605211028011 · Cited by 10
Cyber Dating Violence: How Is It Perceived in Early Adolescence?
Redondo, I., Ozamiz-Etxebarria, N., Jaureguizar, J., & Santamaría, M. D. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs14111074 · Cited by 8
Hernández‐Santaolalla, V., & Hermida, A. (2020) · Surveillance & Society · doi:10.24908/ss.v18i3.13149 · Cited by 9
Social Media as Sources of Emotions
Utz, S. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_14 · Cited by 9
Self-citationThe social media discontinuance model: the trio of dark side, regret, and privacy control
Huang, Z., Palvia, P., & Mehta, N. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2326551 · Cited by 15
Social Media Addiction and Its Consequences Among Youth: A Developing Country Perspective
Hassan, M. R., Mahmud, M. S., & Hasan, M. K. (2024) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/09721509241276720 · Cited by 8
Knowledge acquisition from social platforms based on network distributions fitting
Jankowski, J., Michalski, R., Bródka, P., Kazienko, P., & Utz, S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.015 · Cited by 8
Self-citationYoung adults' romantic investment behaviors on social media
Marcotte, A. S., Gesselman, A. N., Reynolds, T. A., & Garcia, J. R. (2021) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/pere.12390 · Cited by 8
Using Instagram While “In a Relationship”
Lee, E., Choi, T. R., Lee, T., & Sung, Y. (2019) · Journal of Individual Differences · doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000282 · Cited by 8
Dunn, M. J., & Billett, G. (2017) · Evolutionary Psychological Science · doi:10.1007/s40806-017-0110-z · Cited by 9
FARAJİ, H., & GÜLER, K. (2015) · Aydın insan ve toplum dergisi · doi:10.17932/iau.ait.2015.012/ait_v07i2002 · Cited by 7
Sánchez-Hernández, M. D., Herrera, M. C., & Expósito, F. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2204275 · Cited by 8
An empirical study of notifications’ importance for online social network users
Bouraga, S., Jureta, I., & Faulkner, S. (2015) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-015-0293-x · Cited by 6
Spottswood, E. L., & Carpenter, C. J. (2020) · International Journal of Interactive Communication Systems and Technologies · doi:10.4018/ijicst.2020010101 · Cited by 7
The impact of emojis on perceived responsiveness and relationship satisfaction in text messaging
Huh, E. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326189 · Cited by 13
Fatkin, J.-M. (2015) · Cited by 7
Abbasi, I. S., Drouin, M. A., McDaniel, B. T., & Dibble, J. L. (2019) · American Journal of Family Therapy · doi:10.1080/01926187.2019.1613940 · Cited by 9
An Overview of the Mechanism of Social Networking Addiction and Its Negative Consequences
王, 维. (2018) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2018.88127 · Cited by 7
Suphan, A., & Mierzejewska, B. I. (2016) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1186716 · Cited by 8
Métellus, S., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Brassard, A., & Daspe, M.-È. (2025) · Journal of Marital & Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.70074 · Cited by 13
12. Social Networking and Romantic Relationships: A Review of Jealousy and Related Emotions
Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2015) · doi:10.1515/9783110473780-014 · Cited by 6
Testing the predictive and theoretical validity of the network uncertainty measure
Stein, J. B. (2021) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/pere.12369 · Cited by 6
Compasión, celos y envidia: emociones sociales y Cyberbullying entre adolescentes
Marín-Cortés, A., Palacio, D., Medina, J., & Carmona, A. (2021) · Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.21501/22161201.3459 · Cited by 6
Penggunaan Media Sosial Facebook bagi Remaja Laki – Laki dalam Menjalin Hubungan Pacaran
Muhammad, H., & Irwansyah, I. (2021) · Translitera Jurnal Kajian Komunikasi dan Studi Media · doi:10.35457/translitera.v10i1.1299 · Cited by 6
Imperato, C., Everri, M., & Mancini, T. (2021) · Journal of Family Studies · doi:10.1080/13229400.2021.1987295 · Cited by 7
Relational and Masspersonal Maintenance: Romantic Partners' Use of Social Network Websites
Tong, S. T., & Westerman, D. (2016) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2016.284 · Cited by 6
Urmanov, B., & Hoyoung, S. (2021) · International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems (ICFNDS) · doi:10.1145/3508072.3508169 · Cited by 6
Leung, P. C., & MacDonald, T. K. (2021) · Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · doi:10.1037/cbs0000307 · Cited by 4
Huang, V. (2019) · International Conference on Social Media and Society (SMSociety) · doi:10.1145/3328529.3328539 · Cited by 5
Ziha, A., Chaitee, N. N., & Rahman, S. (2021) · Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) · doi:10.47405/mjssh.v6i11.1164 · Cited by 5
You Are Not Alone Online: A Case Study of a Long Distance Romantic Relationship Online Community
He, Y., Kraus, K., & Preece, J. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39371-6_3 · Cited by 5
Group size and personalization’s effect on Facebook message response rates
Fatkin, J.-M., & Lansdown, T. C. (2017) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-02-2015-0042 · Cited by 5
Singles Looking to Mingle: An Analysis of Self-Presentation in Online Dating
Jacobson, L., Atkinson, A., Mohamed, L., & Dorr, J. (2016) · Concordia Journal of Communication Research · doi:10.54416/zfwv7152 · Cited by 4
A virtual reality: Technology′s impact on youth mental health
Perry, B., & Singh, S. P. (2016) · Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry · doi:10.4103/0971-9962.193190 · Cited by 4
Cyber Abuse in Romantic Relationships
Leisring, P. A., Farrell, D. M., & Scotto, D. M. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_164 · Cited by 4
Koban, K., & Krüger, S. (2017) · Communication Research Reports · doi:10.1080/08824096.2017.1383235 · Cited by 4
The influence of globalization and technological development on intimate relationships
Sanrı, Ç., & Goodwin, R. B. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139333610.003 · Cited by 4
Sánchez-Hernández, M. D., Herrera, M. C., & Expósito, F. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-05985-8 · Cited by 5
ДОСУГ ПОДРОСТКОВ В СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ СЕТЯХ И ЭКОЛОГИЯ ЦИФРОВОГО ОБЩЕНИЯ: ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЙ АСПЕКТ
А., Н. Д., Е.И., Ч., & Cherdymova, V. S. (2023) · Человеческий капитал. · doi:10.25629/hc.2023.06.36 · Cited by 4
Satisfaction from romantic relationship and social media usage
Yadav, M., & Choudhary, S. (2019) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-09-2018-0078 · Cited by 4
MADALYONUN ÖBÜR YÜZÜ: GENÇLERİN DUYGUSAL İLİŞKİLERİNDE AKILLI TELEFONLARIN YERİ
Çizmeci, E. (2017) · Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi · doi:10.17755/esosder.294833 · Cited by 4
Abou-Warda, S. H. (2016) · International Journal of Online Marketing · doi:10.4018/ijom.2016010101 · Cited by 5
Alanazi, N. (2021) · University of Sharjah (UoS) Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.36394/jhss/18/1a/15 · Cited by 4
Romantic Relationships and Social Media
McEwan, B. L., & LeFebvre, L. E. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009158657.011 · Cited by 3
KOMUNIKACIJA MEĐU PARTNERIMA U DIGITALNO DOBA: MOGUĆNOSTI OBITELJSKE MEDIJACIJE
Vejmelka, L. (2020) · Annual of Social Work · doi:10.3935/ljsr.v27i2.347 · Cited by 3
Tambellini, E., Danielsbacka, M., & Rotkirch, A. (2025) · Journal of Family Research · doi:10.20377/jfr-1155 · Cited by 3
Validación de la Escala Abreviada de Celos de Facebook entre Hombres y Mujeres Colombianos
Sánchez-Fuentes, M. D. M., Moyano, N., Alcaráz-Iborra, M., Parra-Barrera, S. M., & Quílez-Robres, A. (2023) · Acta Colombiana de Psicología · doi:10.14718/acp.2023.26.2.5 · Cited by 3
Merriam-Pigg, L. K. (2012) · doi:10.31979/etd.hck5-wytw · Cited by 4
The Role of Sense of Presence and Irritation in the Context of Mobile Social Network Sites
Park, J., Jung, Y., & Cho, W. (2018) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3184444.3184449 · Cited by 3
Sibona, C., & Walczak, S. M. (2014) · International Journal of Business Environment · doi:10.1504/ijbe.2014.060237 · Cited by 3
Rodríguez‐deArriba, M., Caridade, S., Rey, R. D., & Sánchez, V. (2024) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2024-1-1 · Cited by 4
Using the Control Balance Theory to Explain Social Media Deviance
Lowry, P. B., Moody, G. D., & Chatterjee, S. (2017) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.272 · Cited by 3
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2020) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2020-5 · Cited by 3
Whitty, M. T. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.95089-x · Cited by 2
Affetti nella rete. Il benessere degli adolescenti tra rischi e opportunità social
Pediconi, M. G., & Brunori, M. (2019) · PSICOLOGIA DELLA SALUTE · doi:10.3280/pds2019-002003 · Cited by 2
Will social media strengthen or threaten romantic love?
Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2017) · Journal of Social Sciences (COES&RJ-JSS) · doi:10.25255/jss.2017.6.4.709.725 · Cited by 3
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., Arias, V. S., Dibble, J. L., Drouin, M. A., Ouytsel, J. V., Martinez, R. J., & Wagner, T. R. (2024) · Journal of Social Psychology Research · doi:10.37256/jspr.3120243256 · Cited by 2
Ramirez, F., & Bolaños-Carpio, A. (2024) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/02654075241302846 · Cited by 4
Akgül, S. Ç., & Ümmet, D. (2025) · Aile Psikolojik Danışmanlığı Dergisi · doi:10.58434/apdad.1830283 · Cited by 2
Vanderheiden, E. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59527-2_12 · Cited by 2
Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Romantik İlişkilerinde Sosyal Ağ Sitelerinin Rolünü Keşfetmek
KOŞAN, Y. (2022) · ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD) · doi:10.48146/odusobiad.1181735 · Cited by 2
Social effects of social networking sites
(2020) · doi:10.21608/joa.2020.147790 · Cited by 2
Gürsoy, B. E., & Öner-Özkan, B. (2023) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.30935/ojcmt/12864 · Cited by 2
Social Media, Jealousy, and Romantic Relationships
Utz, S. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197520536.003.0018 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 511-527
- ISSN
- 1083-6101 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072670966
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 53.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- social network sites, romantic relationships, relationship happiness, relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, online grooming
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
