Abstract
The current study examined associations between the Big 5, relationship maintenance activities on Facebook (public displays and partner surveillance), and Facebook-related relationship difficulties (conflict and jealousy). Two hundred fifty-seven individuals currently involved in romantic relationships completed an online survey assessing Facebook activity and the Big 5. Greater extraversion and conscientiousness were associated with higher frequency of displays of dyadic photographs and posts on one’s own or one’s partner’s Facebook page. High extraversion, low openness, and low conscientiousness were associated with engaging in excessive public displays on Facebook. High extraversion and neuroticism were associated with greater partner surveillance and Facebook-related conflict. Neuroticism was also associated with more Facebook-induced jealousy. Surveillance mediated the associations between these two traits and these negative outcomes. Openness and conscientiousness were associated with experiencing fewer negative outcomes of Facebook use.
Over two thirds of American adults maintain a profile on social networking websites (SNS; Perrin, 2015), and Facebook has 1.32 billion daily active users (Facebook, 2017). Facebook is involved in romantic relationship processes and presents unique opportunities for mate retention strategies, jealousy, and conflict (e.g., Billedo, Kerkhof, & Finkenauer, 2015; Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2013; LeFebvre, Blackburn, & Brody, 2015; see also Rus & Tiemensma, 2017, for review). Additionally, individual differences are known to play a role in both romantic relationship processes (e.g., Holden, Zeigler-Hill, Pham, & Shackelford, 2014; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001) and Facebook use (see Błachnio, Przepiórka, & Rudnicka, 2013 for review). Yet there are currently few studies on Facebook and romantic relationships, and only limited attention has been paid to individual differences in Facebook’s role in these relationships.
Researchers have examined the role of Facebook in relationship processes, such as initiation, breakup, and maintenance (e.g., Billedo et al., 2015; LeFebvre et al., 2015). Facebook is implicated in satisfaction and commitment (Papp, Danielewicz, & Cayemberg, 2012; Saslow, Muise, Impett, & Dubin, 2013; Toma & Choi, 2015), but also problems like jealousy and conflict (Clayton et al., 2013; Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Fox, Osborn, & Warber, 2014; Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Facebook also provides partners with unique ways to engage in mate retention strategies. Two common strategies are direct guarding and public signals of possession (Buss, 1988; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Shackelford, Goetz, & Buss, 2005). These two strategies can especially be employed via Facebook: direct guarding via surveillance of one’s partner’s Facebook page and public signals via posts on one’s own and one’s partner’s page.
A large body of research shows that personality traits, especially the Big 5, relate to Facebook use (see Błachnio et al., 2013 for review), and personality correlates with many relationship behaviors, including mate retention (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014), conflict (Heaven, Smith, Prabhakar, Abraham, & Mete, 2006; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), and jealousy (Dijkstra, & Barelds, 2008). While there are known effects of individual differences in how people use social media, most of the research on Facebook and romantic relationships has not examined the role of individual differences. Given that relationship maintenance activities can occur via Facebook (e.g., Billedo et al., 2015), it is important to know whether personality differences in off-line relationship maintenance activities extend to the context of SNS, where these behaviors potentially have a much larger audience, as they can be seen by the user’s Facebook “friends.” Similarly, Facebook provides unique opportunities for jealousy and conflict to arise (e.g., Clayton et al., 2013; Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Fox et al., 2014; Muise et al., 2009). Understanding how personality relates to relationship processes on Facebook can contribute to a better understanding of individual differences in relationship maintenance and who is at risk for negative relationship experiences on Facebook.
The current research examines how the Big 5 relate to two mate retention strategies on Facebook (public displays and surveillance) and the presence of Facebook-related relationship difficulties. To provide background on these issues, I will review the literature on mate retention, jealousy, and conflict as they relate to Facebook and past research on individual differences in romantic relationship-oriented behavior on Facebook. I will then briefly outline the Big 5 model of personality and its importance in this context. Finally, I will discuss links between the Big 5 and both Facebook activity and relationship processes and propose several hypotheses.
Mate retention tactics on Facebook
Mate retention strategies are behaviors used to prevent partners from leaving a relationship or to discourage romantic rivals (Buss, 1988). These strategies fall into five categories: direct guarding, public signals of possession, intersexual negative inducements, positive inducements, and intrasexual negative inducements (Buss, 1988; Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Shackelford et al., 2005). Facebook gives partners unique opportunities to engage in two of these strategies, public signals and direct guarding.
Public signals of possession show others that one’s partner is taken and can be used to fend off rivals and guard against infidelity (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Shackelford et al., 2005). Off-line, these tactics involve verbal statements of possession; physical signals, such as putting one’s arm around one’s partner; and possessive ornamentation, such as asking one’s partner to wear a ring (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Facebook gives users multiple ways to publicly signal their relationships to others. They can link their relationship status to their partner in their main profile (i.e., make the relationship “Facebook official”) and display their relationship via dyadic photographs and posts on their partner’s page (i.e., the Facebook “timeline,” aka “wall”). Posting directly on one’s partner’s wall is a way to indicate to one’s own and one’s partner’s social network that the partner is involved in a relationship. Similarly, when individuals post photographs, others in the photograph are typically “tagged” by the original poster, so members of their social network also see the photographs. Research has shown that those in long-distance relationships, who are likely to be especially vulnerable to mate poaching, are more likely to use such tactics (Billedo et al., 2015).
Direct guarding can take the form of partner surveillance (Buss & Shackelford, 1997; Shackelford et al., 2005). Off-line, this vigilance can involve monitoring partners’ whereabouts or going through personal belongings (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). Research on Facebook relationship maintenance has examined monitoring of romantic partners’ Facebook activity (aka interpersonal electronic surveillance; Tokunaga, 2011). This online surveillance is used as a form of relationship maintenance to learn about partners’ activities and detect infidelity (Billedo et al., 2015; Tokunaga, 2011). In addition, more frequent Facebook logins (Darvell, Walsh, & White, 2011) and compulsive Facebook use that intrudes on one’s own daily functioning (Elphinston & Noller, 2011) are associated with greater partner surveillance on Facebook.
Public displays and surveillance (as a form of direct guarding) are the focus of the present investigation because Facebook provides a context especially conducive to these particular strategies. Facebook plays a role in direct guarding due to the special access it provides to partners’ social activities and networks (e.g., Billedo et al., 2015; Muise et al., 2009). It also gives individuals an opportunity to engage in public displays of possession to a potentially much larger audience than possible off-line (e.g., Emery, Muise, Dix, & Le, 2014). Other mate retention strategies of intersexual negative inducements (threats or expressions of negative emotions toward one’s partner), positive inducements (doing things that benefit one’s partner), and intrasexual negative inducements (threatening rivals) may also occur on Facebook but in a more limited manner. Facebook would be just another venue by which someone could express these sentiments, and many of these expressions would be indistinguishable from public displays, given the public nature of Facebook posts.
Facebook-related relationship difficulties
Facebook use is linked to relationship difficulties. One such difficulty is jealousy (Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Muise et al., 2009). Muise, Christofides, and Desmarais (2009) suggest this jealousy is part of a feedback loop whereby greater exposure to Facebook increases jealousy, which then increases motivation to monitor partners through Facebook, creating more jealousy. Such jealousy can result in relationship dissolution (Clayton et al., 2013). Additionally, Clayton, Nagurney, and Smith (2013) found that couples may experience Facebook-related conflicts caused by excessive use or jealousy, which are associated with infidelity and breakup.
Individual differences in Facebook relationship maintenance
Some research has examined how individual differences relate to relationship-oriented Facebook behavior, but research on the Big 5 has been limited and inconclusive. Abandonment anxiety and self-esteem are linked to relationship displays and partner surveillance on Facebook (Emery et al., 2014; Marshall, Benjanyan, di Castro, & Lee, 2013; Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015). However, the majority of research on relationship-oriented Facebook activity has not examined the Big 5. Saslow et al. (2013) assessed the Big 5 and found no personality effects on the tendency to use a dyadic profile photograph. Similarly, Marshall, Lefringhausen, and Ferenczi (2015) found no correlation between the Big 5 and frequency of posting about relationships. These preliminary investigations do not necessarily indicate that personality is unrelated to relationship maintenance on Facebook. Saslow et al. (2013) only focused on one type of dyadic display, profile photographs. These photographs will be seen by members of one’s own social network and are less likely to be seen by members of one’s partner’s network, because they are not viewable in the partner’s profile, making them a less effective public signal than posts that will be seen by one’s partner’s network. Marshall et al. (2015) asked a general question about frequency of relationship-related posts, so it is unclear what types of posts participants were considering when answering this question.
In addition, this prior research did not assess how individuals’ relationship displays on Facebook differ from their off-line relationship displays. Some individuals engage in what Seidman, Langlais, and Havens (2017) refer to as “excessive displays” on Facebook. That is, they share more potentially embarrassing relationship information online than they normally do off-line, with this online sharing taking the form of comments or photographs. Because these displays are unusual, they may better represent mate retention tactics than the displays examined by Saslow et al. (2013), which are commonplace among satisfied couples (e.g., Emery, Muise, Alpert, & Le, 2015; Steers, Øverup, Brunson, & Acitelli, 2016). Moreover, public relationship displays are only one way Facebook is involved in romantic relationships. As discussed previously, Facebook can be used to monitor partners and Facebook use can have varied effects on relationships, including leading to conflict or jealousy. The question of whether personality relates to these behaviors is still open.
The Big 5
The consensus of many scholars is that personality is best explained by the Five-Factor Model (Funder, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 1997). The five-factor structure has been replicated cross-culturally (McCrae & Costa, 1997) and is stable over time (McCrae & Costa, 1994). The Big 5 traits are extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Extraversion involves sociability, activity, excitement seeking, and creating energy through outside means. Neuroticism reflects anxiety, hostility, and emotional instability. Agreeableness involves kindness, trust, and cooperativeness. Openness reflects creativity, intellectualism, and openness to novel experiences. Conscientiousness involves practicality, competence, and responsibility.
Given that the Big 5 structure is universal and core to understanding personality, it is of interest how the Big 5 predict specific behaviors. Moreover, the Big 5 are implicated in non-relationship Facebook activities that bear some similarity to mate retention behaviors, specifically using Facebook to seek out information about others and to present oneself to others (Carpenter, Green, & LaFlam, 2011; Seidman, 2013). However, associations between personality and Facebook behaviors may be different in the context of romantic relationships where expectations of loyalty and exclusivity are greater (Fuhrman, Flannagan, & Matamoros, 2009). Additionally, people typically engage in fewer behaviors to maintain their friendships than their romantic relationships (Canary, Stafford, Hause, & Wallace, 1993), suggesting that the intensity of Facebook activity directed toward romantic partners will be greater than activity targeted at individual friends. Furthermore, with the increasing popularity of SNS, it is important to understand whether off-line patterns of relationship functioning, such as the link between the Big 5 and mate retention, operate similarly online.
Extraversion
Presentation of romantic relationships on Facebook involves similar activities to self-presentation in the form of posting photographs and information. However, it goes beyond such self-presentations because of its dyadic nature. Results on the association between Facebook disclosures and extraversion are mixed. Hollenbaugh and Ferris (2014) and Seidman (2013) found no relationship between extraversion and frequency of posting information or updating one’s profile on Facebook. Compared to introverts, Bibby (2008) found that extraverts disclosed more on Facebook, while Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010) found that extraverts’ profiles revealed less personal information. Additionally, extraversion is associated with lower social inhibition (Denollet, 2005), which could make extraverts more willing than introverts to post personal information on public websites, such as Facebook.
As discussed earlier, relationship displays can be used as a mate retention tactic (Shackelford et al., 2005). Thus, online relationship displays, especially those that exceed off-line expressions of affection, may bear only minimal similarity to other Facebook disclosures. Past research has shown that extraversion is associated with using more public signals (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014). These off-line retention tactics may extend to online contexts. However, the limited research examining dyadic displays on Facebook and extraversion revealed no association between these variables (Saslow et al., 2013). Thus, it is possible that only more extreme Facebook relational displays that go beyond off-line public displays of affection are associated with extraversion, especially given that extraversion is not generally associated with revealing more information on Facebook.
Evidence linking extraversion to direct guarding tactics has been inconsistent. de Miguel and Buss (2011) found a positive correlation between extraversion and direct guarding, but other research has found no such association (Holden et al., 2014; McKibbin, Miner, Shackelford, Ehrke, & Weekes-Shackelford, 2014). Given these inconsistencies regarding off-line mate guarding and that extraversion is unrelated to using Facebook to seek information about others (Seidman, 2013), I do not expect extraversion to relate to surveillance.
Neuroticism
On Facebook, neurotic individuals are more emotionally disclosing and more likely to present idealized versions of themselves than stable individuals (Seidman, 2013). Additionally, those low in self-esteem, a trait associated with neuroticism (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002) may compensate for their self-doubt by displaying happy relationships on Facebook (Utz & Beukeboom, 2011) and they more frequently post information about their relationships (Marshall et al., 2015). Off-line, neuroticism is associated with more frequent public displays of possession (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014). However, Saslow et al. (2013) found no association between Facebook relationship displays and neuroticism. Despite this single null finding, the preponderance of evidence leads to H2.
Neuroticism correlates with greater romantic jealousy (Melamed, 1991). Moreover, jealousy can take three forms: reactive (emotional reactions to actual infidelity or threats), anxious (worry and distrust), and preventive (preventing partners from interacting with rivals; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2006). Neuroticism involves greater vigilance against social danger (Nettle, 2006) and is associated with higher levels of all three forms of jealousy (Dijkstra & Barelds, 2008) and greater direct mate guarding (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014).
With reference to Facebook, neuroticism is associated with the tendency to seek information about others through Facebook (Seidman, 2013), suggesting it is generally associated with online surveillance. In romantic relationships, Facebook surveillance can be both a cause and a consequence of anxious and preventative jealousy (Muise et al., 2009). Additionally, one’s own monitoring could cause conflict related to Facebook use, as the suspicious partner becomes upset with his/her partner’s use, and the suspected partner becomes irritated with his/her partner’s monitoring. Thus, I expect neuroticism will relate to monitoring and experiences of Facebook-related conflict and jealousy. Moreover, I expect that frequency of partner surveillance will partially explain the association between neuroticism and these negative outcomes.
Conscientiousness
Those high in conscientiousness, relative to those low in this trait, adopt an authentic self-presentational style (Leary & Allen, 2011), reflected in a more cautious online presentation (Seidman, 2013). Similarly, conscientiousness is associated with greater feelings of regret over inappropriate Facebook posts (Moore & McElroy, 2012). This cautious style suggests conscientious individuals will be unlikely to engage in potentially embarrassing or excessive relationship displays on Facebook. Conscientiousness is associated with using fewer direct mate-guarding tactics, such as vigilance (Holden et al., 2014), suggesting it will be associated with less Facebook surveillance. Conscientiousness is related to less frequent Facebook use (Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Wilson, Fornasier, & White, 2010) and more cautious online self-presentation (Seidman, 2013), so it should relate to having fewer Facebook-related conflicts with partners. Additionally, if conscientious individuals engage in less monitoring and fewer embarrassing public displays than those low in conscientiousness, then that could contribute to a lower likelihood of jealousy and Facebook-related conflicts.
Agreeableness
Because agreeable individuals are oriented toward others, it seems likely that their Facebook use would involve their relationships. However, agreeableness is not associated with disclosing information on Facebook (Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, & Gaddis, 2011; Hollenbaugh & Ferris, 2014; Seidman, 2013), posting dyadic photographs (Saslow et al., 2013), or posting about relationships (Marshall et al., 2015). However, agreeableness does play a role in relationship processes and outcomes. Most relevant to the present research, agreeableness is associated with fewer negative interactions (Donnellan, Conger, & Bryant, 2004) and more constructive responses to conflict (Heaven et al., 2006; Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), which should result in a negative association between agreeableness and frequency of Facebook-related conflicts. Agreeableness is also associated with less frequent direct mate guarding (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014), which should correspond with less Facebook partner surveillance.
Openness
There is limited evidence that openness could relate to relationship-oriented Facebook behaviors. Openness is associated with more breadth (i.e., discussing a larger number of topics) but not frequency of self-disclosure on Facebook (Hollenbaugh & Ferris, 2014). However, Gosling, Augustine, Vazire, Holtzman, and Gaddis (2011) found a positive correlation between openness and the number of photographs posted on Facebook. Concerning off-line relationship maintenance, openness is associated with less direct mate guarding (de Miguel & Buss, 2011; Holden et al., 2014) and more constructive conflict responses (Heaven et al., 2006). Therefore, it is expected that openness will relate to less online partner surveillance and fewer conflicts over Facebook use.
In sum, Facebook provides unique opportunities for certain mate retention strategies (public displays, including excessive displays, and direct guarding through surveillance) and for jealousy and conflict to occur. Off-line, these relationship processes are associated with the Big 5, but it is unclear whether these associations will occur in the context of Facebook where the audience for public signals is potentially large and opportunities for monitoring and jealousy are amplified through access to large amounts of information about a partner’s social life. In the present study, romantically involved individuals were surveyed regarding the frequency with which they engaged in relationship displays and partner surveillance as well as their experiences of jealousy and conflict on Facebook.
Method
Participants
Three-hundred and twenty individuals were recruited from Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and paid US$1. MTurk is an Internet marketplace, where users who sign up for the service choose to complete online tasks in exchange for monetary reimbursement. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be Facebook users and currently involved in a romantic relationship. At recruitment, participants were informed that the survey assessed how they presented their relationships on Facebook. I excluded data from 60 individuals because they did not complete the entire survey or failed an attention check item. Three participants’ data were eliminated because they indicated they spend 0 hr/week on Facebook.
The final sample included 257 participants (58.5% female). Participants were aged 18–59 years (M = 32.77, SD = 9.18). The ethnic breakdown was as follows: 215 Caucasian, 9 Black/African American, 13 Asian, 15 Latino/a, 1 Native American, and 4 other. Ten participants were in casual relationships, 72 were in committed relationships and not cohabiting, 64 were cohabiting, and 111 were married. Length of romantic involvement ranged from 1 month to 35 years (M = 7.04, SD = 6.75). It is not known whether the relationships on which participants reported were mixed or same sex, but 15 participants reported they were homosexual and 18 bisexual, with the remainder heterosexual. Reported weekly hours on Facebook ranged from 1 to 60 (M = 8.29, SD = 8.94). Some data from this survey were published in Seidman et al. (2017), focusing on relationship satisfaction and closeness with no examination of personality traits.
Materials and procedures
Participants completed an online survey assessing behaviors they engaged in on Facebook with respect to their romantic relationship, negative outcomes of Facebook, and the Big 5. The survey included demographic questions and additional measures not relevant to this analysis.
Facebook behaviors
Three scales from Seidman et al. (2017) measured relationship-oriented Facebook behavior: surveillance (representing direct guarding), public displays, and excessive displays (both representing public signals). Public displays contained 8 items asking participants how frequently they posted relationship content, including dyadic photographs, comments on their partners’ pages, and comments on their partners’ posts on their own pages. Excessive displays contained 3 items asking participants how often they posted potentially embarrassing relationship content or comments/photographs expressing more affection than one would normally do off-line, such as “information about your relationship that would otherwise be embarrassing if you exchanged those comments in front of acquaintances” and “couple photos or expressions of affection that are more intimate than you normally display in public off-line.” Surveillance contained 6 items regarding frequency of viewing partners’ profiles, posts, and friends, such as “How frequently do you read what others post on your partner’s Facebook wall?” Participants used a Likert-type scale to indicate how frequently they engaged in each behavior (1 = never, 7 = all the time). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and reliability for all measures.
Descriptive statistics and reliability.
Facebook-related relationship difficulties
Two items were adapted from Clayton et al. (2013). The Facebook conflict item asked participants how often they have an argument as a result of excessive Facebook use, and the jealousy item asked how often they feel jealous after viewing something on their partner’s page. Participants responded on a Likert-type scale (1 = never, 5 = very frequently).
Big 5
The Big 5 personality characteristics were measured using Saucier’s (1994) Mini-markers scale, a brief version of Goldberg’s Big 5 markers. Participants rated themselves on 40 characteristics (1 = very inaccurate to 5 = very accurate), 8 characteristics for each Big 5 dimension.
Results
Analysis plan and preliminary analyses
To test the relationship between the Big 5 and Facebook activity, five multiple regression analyses were conducted, using the three Facebook behaviors (public displays, excessive displays, and surveillance) and two Facebook outcomes (conflict and jealousy) as criterion variables. In each model, one Facebook behavior or outcome was the criterion variable. Control variables were entered in Step 1. Big 5 traits were entered in Step 2 to assess the relative strength of each trait in predicting Facebook behaviors and outcomes, holding the other traits constant.
Bivariate correlations between all variables were computed prior to the regression to determine whether all planned control variables should be included in the model and whether intercorrelations between variables were high enough to raise multicollinearity concerns (see Table 2). There were modest intercorrelations (r’s < .5) between the Big 5 traits. Age was slightly correlated with most traits (r’s < .3) and was somewhat strongly correlated with relationship length. There were several additional correlations between predictors, but none were large enough to justify removing variables.
Correlations among variables.
**p < .01; *p < .05, † p < .10.
To test mediational hypotheses, Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) bootstrapping method was used. Bootstrapping involves taking repeated samples from the data with replacement and generating a confidence interval for the size of the indirect effect. The Hayes (2013) PROCESS SPSS macro was used, taking 5,000 samples and using bias correction.
Control variables
Initially, I planned to control for three Facebook use variables, weekly hours on Facebook, Facebook-checking frequency, and Facebook-posting frequency, because the dependent measures were expected to be correlated with Facebook use. However, after examining correlations between predictors, I only included Facebook-posting frequency. All three Facebook use variables were modestly correlated with each other, and only Facebook posting was consistently correlated with criterion variables. Gender and relationship length were included as controls due to their links to relationship processes (Kurdek, 2005). Age was included because participants varied considerably in age, and age is linked to relationship processes (Shallcross, Ford, Floerke, & Mauss, 2013) and the Big 5 (Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011).
Main analyses
Table 3 presents regression coefficients and standard errors for each predictor, at Step 1 and 2. Each set of two columns displays results of a separate regression model. The last row contains the change in R 2. Note that all Big 5 traits were retained in each model to test the relative predictive power of each trait, adjusting for the others.
Regression weights (standard errors) predicting Facebook behaviors and outcomes from Big 5 and control variables.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; † p < .10.
In support of H1, extraversion was positively associated with general public displays and excessive displays. Contrary to H2, neuroticism was unrelated to general relationship displays and excessive displays. Consistent with H3, neuroticism was associated with greater surveillance of partners’ pages, jealousy over Facebook, and Facebook-related conflict. H4 proposed that surveillance would mediate associations between neuroticism and both conflict and jealousy. Unstandardized coefficients for the mediation model are presented in Figure 1. Indirect effects for conflict (β = .0898, SE = .0333, 95% CI [.0366, .1700]) and jealousy (β = .0991, SE = .0345, 95% CI [.0390, .1776]) were significant. Surprisingly, extraversion was associated with greater surveillance and marginally significantly associated with more Facebook-related conflict. Bootstrapping was used to determine whether a similar mediation relationship as found with neuroticism could explain the extraversion–conflict link. Results supported mediation (indirect effect: β = .0806, SE = .0314, 95% CI [.0292, .1559]; see Figure 2).
Path diagrams showing surveillance as a mediator between neuroticism and conflict (top) and jealousy (bottom). Paths represent mediated effects, presented as unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Path diagram showing surveillance as a mediator between extraversion and conflict. Paths represent mediated effects, presented as unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Consistent with H5, conscientiousness was associated with fewer excessive displays and less Facebook-related conflict. Contrary to H5, conscientiousness was unrelated to surveillance and jealousy and was marginally significantly associated with more public displays. H6 proposed that excessive displays and surveillance would mediate the link between conscientiousness and conflict (See Figure 3). The indirect effect was significant for excessive displays (β = −.0461, SE = .0240, 95% CI [−.1059, −.0101]) but not surveillance (β = .0461, SE = .0316, 95% CI [−.0119, .1148]). Contrary to H7, agreeableness was not associated with any criterion variable. Contrary to H8, openness was unrelated to surveillance but consistent with the hypothesis it was negatively related to conflict. Unexpectedly, openness was negatively associated with excessive displays and jealousy. 1
Path diagram showing excessive displays as a mediator between conscientiousness and conflict. Paths represent mediated effects, presented as unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. *p < .05; ***p < .001.
Effects of relationship status were examined on an exploratory basis. As seen in Table 2, relationship length was negatively correlated with excessive displays, monitoring, and jealousy. Relationship status differences in personality effects reported were examined by testing interactions between relationship status and each Big 5 trait in Step 3 of each regression model. The interaction was a significant predictor of excessive displays (B = −.554, SE = .166, p = .001) and conflict (B = −.558, SE = .164, p = .001). High neuroticism was associated with greater excessive displays and conflict for those in non-cohabiting relationships only. 2
Discussion
The current study shows that individual differences, specifically the Big 5, predict use of mate retention tactics on Facebook and perceived negative relationship outcomes of Facebook use. This work extends the literature on personality and mate retention tactics by considering newer, technology-based, retention tactics that are uniquely enabled by SNS. This research also extends work on the Big 5 and Facebook use by examining these associations in the context of romantic relationships.
Contrary to the results of Saslow et al. (2013), Big 5 traits were associated with publicly displaying one’s relationship via dyadic photographs or posts on one’s own or one’s partner’s Facebook page. This inconsistency may be due to the fact that the public displays measured in the present research were more likely to be seen by potential rivals, making them a better indicator of intrasexual mate retention strategies than those examined by Saslow et al. However, it should be noted that overall effect sizes for the Big 5 traits were small. This suggests that while personality plays some role in predicting mate retention on Facebook, it is not a major driver of these behaviors.
Contrary to predictions, but consistent with Saslow et al. (2013), neuroticism was not associated with public displays. Although neurotic individuals are more likely to use Facebook for acceptance seeking (Seidman, 2013), they may paradoxically be reluctant to do so with intimate partners due to fears of rejection that plague the neurotic (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Consistent with research on jealousy and mate guarding, neuroticism was associated with greater monitoring, more Facebook-related conflict, and more Facebook-induced jealousy. Moreover, monitoring mediated the association between neuroticism and these negative outcomes. This supports the notion that monitoring is one link in a negative jealousy cycle (Muise et al., 2009).
Extraversion was associated with more public relationship displays, consistent with research showing that extraverts use more public signals as a mate retention tactic than introverts (Holden et al., 2014). Extraversion was associated with reports of more frequent conflict over Facebook use, and this association was explained by the positive correlation between extraversion and partner surveillance. One possible explanation for this is based on findings that extraversion is related to greater perceived partner similarity (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008) and greater likelihood of infidelity (Schmitt, 2004). Perhaps extraverted individuals have more reason to be suspicious, leading to greater monitoring, with conflict ensuing when suspicious content is subsequently uncovered. Further research is needed to understand the motivations behind monitoring behavior of extraverted individuals.
Consistent with research on the cautious online self-presentational style of conscientious individuals (Seidman, 2013), conscientiousness was associated with fewer excessive displays, which in turn were associated with less Facebook-related conflict. Unexpectedly, conscientiousness was marginally positively associated with public displays. People may believe such displays are a sign of affection for their partners and thus engage in this activity out of consideration to their partners, as conscientiousness is associated with an unselfish relationship style (White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004).
Despite its importance in relationship processes, agreeableness was largely unrelated to the Facebook mate retention tactics examined. This is consistent with Holden et al. (2014) who found that while agreeableness was related to some off-line retention strategies, it was not associated with public signals or direct guarding. Surprisingly, openness was negatively correlated with excessive displays and jealousy. Open individuals may engage in fewer excessive displays because, relative to those lower in openness, they spend a greater proportion of their time on Facebook pursuing intellectual interests, as suggested by Marshall et al. (2015), who found openness was associated with posting about intellectual interests and using Facebook to seek information. Therefore, they may use Facebook less as way to satisfy relational needs and have a slightly different perception of Facebook’s purpose.
It should also be noted that some retention strategies were better predicted by personality than others. Specifically, excessive displays were predicted by three traits and ordinary public displays were predicted only by extraversion and marginally significantly by openness. Perhaps excessive displays are more driven by personality than the general displays that have previously been linked to satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Saslow et al., 2013; Toma & Choi, 2015). This suggests that the motivation behind some public signals could be more personality driven, while others could be more relationship driven.
Although not central to the predictions of the study, some gender differences and relationship status differences emerged. Consistent with research showing that men use public signals more frequently than women (e.g., Holden et al., 2014), the present study showed that men engaged in more frequent excessive displays than women. Those in longer relationships experienced less Facebook-induced jealousy and engaged in more public displays but fewer excessive displays than those in shorter relationships. This suggests that public displays may be a sign the couple is more committed, while excessive displays may indicate a desire for more commitment among those whose relationships are in their early stages. Further research should assess commitment directly and examine its association with these displays to examine this possibility. Additionally, associations between neuroticism and excessive displays and conflict were only present for those in non-cohabiting relationships. This suggests that insecurity created by the combination of a neurotic personality and less committed relationships could increase the likelihood of using Facebook for relationship maintenance. This supports the notion that people are especially likely to use Facebook in this manner when they are insecure about their relationships (Emery et al., 2014). However, experimental or longitudinal data are required to determine whether this causal link exists.
This study had several limitations. First, it relied on self-report. Future researchers should obtain objective data by examining users’ actual Facebook profiles and coding the content. Second, only one partner reported on Facebook behaviors. In judging whether relational displays were embarrassing or excessive, I relied only on the report of the person posting the information. Additionally, without dyadic data, it is impossible to determine how partners responded to these strategies, so the effectiveness of these strategies could not be assessed. The data were also cross-sectional and did not allow for the examination of the effects of personality and mate retention strategies on relationships over time. In addition to the cross-sectional nature of the measures, the measures of conflict and jealousy were single-item measures. Future researchers should employ multidimensional measures of these constructs. Finally, rates of Facebook-related conflict and jealousy were low in this sample, which may have resulted in smaller effects due to restriction of range.
There were also strengths and weaknesses to the sample itself. The sample size was not especially large, but post hoc power analysis revealed that the study had 88.4% power to detect R 2 changes, consistent in size with the smallest R 2 changes in this study (R 2 = .05). In addition, while MTurk samples are more demographically diverse than and provide data that are at least as reliable as undergraduate samples (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), MTurk workers differ in extraversion and neuroticism, compared to community and college samples (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Thus, it is likely that neuroticism levels were higher and extraversion levels lower than the general population. This could affect the applicability of the present findings to other samples.
Although mate retention tactics are classified into five areas (Shackelford et al., 2005), the present study only examined two strategies. However, if behaviors targeted toward the larger social network are assessed, additional mate retention tactics on Facebook could be uncovered. For example, intrasexual negative inducements, such as aggressing against potential rivals, could occur if people used Facebook as a medium by which to intimidate potential rivals who interact with their partners online.
Finally, only a limited set of Facebook-related relationship outcomes, jealousy and conflict over excessive use, was examined. Facebook use can lead to other negative outcomes, including conflict over specific interactions on Facebook or infidelity catalyzed by Facebook (Clayton et al., 2013). Future research should investigate a wider range of consequences of Facebook use and their associations with personality.
Whether online mate retention strategies correlate with their off-line counterparts remains to be tested. In some instances, but not others, the present findings regarding personality and online mate retention were consistent with research on off-line strategies. Perhaps unique features of the SNS environment, such as its public nature, prevent individuals from using the same strategies on Facebook that they employ off-line. Off-line use of public signals may include behaviors targeted at specific rivals, whereas public signals on Facebook are viewed by a potentially large and ill-defined audience. This raises the possibility that there are personality differences not just in general tendencies to use public signals, but in the specific types of signals that are used or the social contexts in which they are used. Additionally, public signals may carry more social risks on Facebook than they do off-line due to the larger potential audience, which could explain why neuroticism was not associated with public signals on Facebook. In addition, surveillance behaviors on Facebook are considered normative by many young adults (Tokunaga, 2011), thus they may only sometimes be motivated by mate guarding and other times could be motivated by desires to connect with partners. Future research should examine motivations for online mate retention strategies and compare the use of online strategies to the use of off-line strategies.
The present research shows that individual differences can explain how Facebook is used in relationship maintenance. Mate retention tactics used by those high in neuroticism (more surveillance), low in conscientiousness (more excessive displays and fewer public displays), and low in openness (more excessive displays) may have negative relationship consequences. The present results show that these mate retention tactics may contribute to links between personality and perceptions that Facebook has harmed one’s relationship by creating conflict or jealousy. Extraversion is associated with greater likelihood of engaging in a wide range of mate retention tactics on Facebook, both positive and negative, and thus extraverts may find that Facebook is simultaneously more harmful and more helpful to their relationships. Future research should explore how the Big 5 relate to additional relationship processes online.
In sum, the current findings show that each Big 5 trait is associated with the use of a unique set of mate retention tactics on Facebook. Some traits are also linked to problematic consequences of Facebook use, and when that occurs, it is often partly explained by the use of surveillance and excessive displays. Thus, this research suggests that the tendency for Facebook to facilitate maladaptive relationship behaviors depends, in part, on users’ personalities.
Footnotes
Author’s note
These data were previously presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology annual conference on March 1–3, 2018.
Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank Dayana Petrenko for her contributions to data collection.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by an Albright Creative Research Experience grant at Albright College.