Examining How Gender and Emoticons Influence Facebook Jealousy
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 18, Number 2, 2015
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0129
Examining How Gender
and Emoticons Influence Facebook Jealousy
Michael B. Hudson, BA,1 Sylis C. Nicolas, MA,2 Molly E. Howser, MS, CF-SLP,3 Kristen E. Lipsett, BS,1
Ian W. Robinson, BS,4 Laura J. Pope, MS,1 Abigail F. Hobby,1 and Denise R. Friedman, PhD1
Abstract
Facebook use among young adults is widespread, and understanding how it affects romantic relationships has
practical, real world implications. Both gender and amount of time spent on Facebook have been associated
with online jealousy. Emoticons can be used online to clarify messages and are often used in mixed gender
interactions. A series of studies was used to examine whether gender and emoticons interacted to influence
Facebook jealousy. Interestingly, results differed based on qualitative and quantitative responses. With quan-
titative responses, a main effect was found only for gender. Females displayed more Facebook jealousy than
males. With qualitative responses, an interaction was found. Males were more jealous when a winking emoticon
was present, while females were more jealous when no emoticon was present. This research supports evolu-
tionary work in suggesting that specific cues may differentially influence jealousy responses in males and
females. It should be mentioned that although differences were noticed, they may be contingent upon the
research methods utilized and that mixed methods may best address issues involving jealousy in young adults.
Introduction There are also differences in the types of cues that elicit
jealousy in males and females.10,11 Women react more
D eveloping intimate relationships is a key develop-
mental milestone for young adults,1 who are heavy users
of social networking sites (SNS).2 Understanding how in-
strongly to cues indicating emotional infidelity, whereas men
react more strongly to cues indicating sexual infidelity.10,11
While these findings have been consistent offline, supporting
teractions in these domains affect their relationships is im- evolutionary work,10,11 investigating jealousy in online
portant.3 Facebook jealousy is considered to be a unique modalities seems to render opposing results.4,12
phenomenon arising from the misinterpretation of ambiguous
information involving romantic partners.4 Facebook jealousy SNSs and jealousy
has been positively correlated with time spent on Facebook4
As more and more communication takes place through the
and has also been associated with gender. In the case of
medium of the Internet, individuals are increasingly looking
gender, females display more Facebook jealousy than males.4
for romantic partners through SNSs.12 As a result, it has
The current study sought to examine whether additional cues,
become easier for users of the Internet to engage others ro-
specifically emoticons, would increase Facebook jealousy.
mantically or flirtatiously in a discreet and inconspicuous
forum. This has definite implications for those who are in a
Gender and jealousy
romantic relationship and are active users of the Internet; the
Romantic jealousy is a complex emotion comprised of opportunities for infidelity have increased, giving rise to the
different parts, including anger, sadness, and fear5 caused by relatively new phenomenon known as cyber-cheating.12
a partner’s suspected or actual infidelity.6–9 Gender differ- Whitty13 found that both sexes consider various forms of
ences in how males and females react to jealousy-evoking online infidelity to be a definite act of cheating. Both sexes
scenarios have been identified. Females generally exhibit a viewed online flirting as analogous to face-to-face flirting,
more profound emotional response, whereas males generally though differences in the perception of online infidelity
exhibit a more violent or aggressive behavioral response.10 were observed. Guardagno and Sagarin12 found that online
1
Department of Psychology, Roanoke College, Salem, Virginia.
2
Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.
3
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Radford University, Radford, Virginia.
4
School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
8788 HUDSON ET AL.
infidelity elicits the same gender-specific responses predicted represent private displays (e.g., messenger). With texting, it
by evolutionary psychology pertaining to real world infidel- was found that smiling emoticons were interpreted most
ity.10,11 That is, men were far more jealous of cybersex than often as happiness (91.7%), while the winking emoticon was
emotional cheating, whereas women displayed the opposite interpreted most often as flirting (88.9%), teasing (80.6%),
trend. In addition, women were reported to have stronger and sexual advance (72.2%).23 Furthermore, while the
overall distress reactions.10,11 This is perhaps due to the lo- Twitter study22 did not examine gender interpretations of the
gistical nature of romantic communication that takes place emoticons, the texting study indicated that men and women
over the Internet. Messages sent and received over the In- did not interpret the emoticons differently.23
ternet afford the user a better opportunity to engage in emo- An unexplored area is how emoticon use may influence
tional infidelity rather than sexual infidelity, perhaps more so jealousy in online interactions. In the current study, emoti-
on SNSs where a user is identifiable. Facebook in particular cons were added to private messages to examine whether the
allows users access to large amounts of information con- evolutionary argument was supported. The evolutionary ar-
cerning romantic partners, in the form of status updates, wall gument theorizes that women are more jealous of their
posts, pictures, profile information, and inbox messages. partners’ emotional infidelity, whereas men are more jealous
Muise et al.4 found that women display more Facebook of their partners’ sexual infidelity. Support for this sex dif-
jealousy than men, supporting their stronger overall distress ference in reactions to the threat of real or perceived infi-
reactions,10,11 but failing to examine gender-specific re- delity has come from numerous studies.24–28 Specifically,
sponses. Given the nature of Facebook and its wide and this study examined whether the evolutionary argument would
steadily growing use, it is clear that the Web site has signif- be supported in that women would be more jealous over
icantly contributed to the phenomenon of cyber-infidelity.4 emotional infidelity, represented by scenarios with no emo-
ticon (based on the interaction platform Facebook mes-
senger) and the smiling emoticon (which is used most
Emoticons as contextual cues
commonly to share happiness), while men would be more
Communication over e-mail or social networks such as jealous over sexual infidelity, represented by scenarios with a
Facebook has several disadvantages, which may lead to mis- winking emoticon.
communication or misinterpretation. Rezabek and Cochenour14
noted that the use of computer-mediated communication Goals and hypotheses
(CMC) can give rise to ambiguity due to a lack of contextual
A series of studies was conducted, using mixed method-
information. Face-to-face communication, in contrast, employs
ology,29 to examine the role of gender and emoticons in
cues such as voice tone, head nodding, facial expressions,
Facebook jealousy. It was hypothesized that:
posture, and eye contact that can typically help clarify or em-
phasize verbal messages. The lack of such cues in CMC has led
H1: Women would display more Facebook jealousy than
to the use of emoticons, which can help clarify text-based men.
messages by conveying emotional content or moderating mes-
sage tone (i.e., sarcasm).15–17 Lo18 found that emoticons have H2: Participants who viewed a Facebook message with an
emoticon would report more Facebook jealousy than those
the potential to alter the interpretation of a message signifi- who viewed a message with no emoticon. Specifically,
cantly, both in terms of direction (positive or negative inter- winking emoticons were hypothesized to cause the most
pretation) and strength. Facebook jealousy.
H3: Men would be more jealous than women when a
winking emoticon was present, whereas women would be
Gender and emoticon use more jealous than men when a smiling emoticon (study 3
The use and interpretation of emoticons between sexes only) or no emoticon was displayed.
holds significant implications for scenarios involving cyber-
infidelity. Older studies show no difference in frequency of
emoticon use between males and females, though males used Method
emoticons mostly when interacting with women or mixed Overview
sex groups.19,20 In one older study, happy emoticons (i.e.,
smileys) were used most frequently among men and women, Three studies were conducted to determine whether
accounting for more than 50% of emoticons used, while flirty emoticons and gender have an effect on Facebook jealousy.
emoticons (i.e., winks, tongues) accounted for only 5%.19 Studies varied in focusing on either qualitative or quantita-
Other studies suggest that emoticons were used frequently as tive responses and on the number of emoticon conditions
a means of conveying a flirtatious/teasing tone in messages, investigated.
particularly among males.20,21 More recent descriptive work
Procedure
indicates specific emoticons have been linked to greater use
on Twitter and in texting.22,23 Specifically, smiling emoti- In all three studies, participants were asked to imagine
cons were ranked 33rd out of the 100 most used emoticons being in a committed relationship when borrowing their
on Twitter, while winking emoticons were ranked 20th out of significant other’s (SO) laptop to check e-mail. The SO’s
100.22 In texting, smiles were ranked as the most used Facebook account was open with an inbox message from a
emoticon, with winks reported as the 3rd most used emoti- member of the opposite sex. The message stated: ‘‘What are
con.23 Because Facebook allows public and private com- you up to later?’’ Participants were randomly assigned to
munication, Twitter may more closely represent public either the control condition with no emoticon or an experi-
displays (e.g., wall posts), while texting may more accurately mental condition with an emoticon. Participants were thenGENDER, EMOTICONS, AND FACEBOOK JEALOUSY 89
asked to respond to the scenario and complete a demographic SD = 3.07) in the no emoticon condition. Hypothesis 3 was
questionnaire. supported.
Study 2
Study 1
Participants
Participants
Participants included 111 traditionally aged (M = 19.87
Participants included 83 traditionally aged (M = 19.94
years; SD = 1.52) college students (60 females) from a small
years; SD = 1.80 years) college students (42 females) from a
liberal arts college in the Southeastern part of the United
small liberal arts college in the Southeastern part of the
States. Participants were primarily heterosexual (98.2%).
United States. Participants were primarily heterosexual
Most participants were underclassmen (64%), and half were
(98.8%). Most participants were underclassmen (65.8%),
currently in a relationship (50.5%). Average GPA was 3.02
and less than half were currently in a relationship (42.1%).
(SD = 0.565).
Average grade point average (GPA) was 3.07 (SD = 0.537).
Procedure
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to the scenario with
Participants were randomly assigned to the scenario with
either no emoticon or a winking emoticon. After reading the
either no emoticon or a winking emoticon. After reading the
scenario, they were asked to complete the Facebook Jealousy
scenario, they were asked to share likely behavioral and
Scale.4
emotional responses via a survey.
Materials
Materials
Participants were asked to complete the Facebook Jea-
Qualitative responses. In an open-ended question, par-
lousy Scale4 in response to the scenario. Participants scored
ticipants were asked how they would react, both emotionally
between 31 and 155 (M = 88.159, SD = 30.228). Higher
and behaviorally, upon finding the inbox message. Reactions
scores indicate greater jealousy responses.
were coded from mild to extreme (e.g., ignoring the message,
closing out of Facebook, reasoning through the situation with
Results
the SO, altering the Facebook page, stalking the person who
sent the message, investigating the SO’s Facebook page and A 2 · 2 (M/F · no emoticon, winking emoticon) quasi-
inbox more closely, confronting the SO in an upset manner, experimental between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to
confronting the sender via Facebook, seeking retribution examine the effects of gender and emoticons on Facebook
outside Facebook, desire to throw, break, or punch some- jealousy. There was a significant main effect for gender,
thing, and/or considering physically harming the sender or F(1, 106) = 6.949, p = 0.010, g2 = 0.062. Females (M = 95.39,
SO). A total of 67.5% of participants said they would likely SD = 29.62) displayed higher jealousy scores than males
talk to their partner about the message, though most indi- (M = 79.48, SD = 28.9), supporting hypothesis 1. There was
cated additional reactions. Of the responses indicated, chi- no main effect for emoticon condition, F(1, 106) = 0.646,
square analyses indicated significant gender differences, p = 0.423, nor was there a gender by emoticon interaction,
where women were more likely to confront their partner F(1, 106) = 0.047, p = 0.829. Therefore, hypotheses 2 and 3
( p = 0.048) and confide in another person about finding were not supported.
the message ( p = 0.047), while men were more likely to get An exploratory analysis supported previous empirical
back at their partner ( p = 0.019), get back at the sender work,4 finding time spent on Facebook is positively associ-
( p = 0.041), and display general aggressiveness ( p = 0.041). ated with Facebook jealousy, r(109) = 0.215, p = 0.025. Ad-
Responses were coded, blind to conditions, for extremity ditionally, cumulative GPA correlated positively with
using a 10-point scale, with higher scores representing more Facebook jealousy, r(109) = 0.292, p = 0.002.
intense jealousy responses (M = 3.65, SD = 1.29). Interrater
reliability was established (a = 0.91). Study 3
Participants
Results
Participants included 177 traditionally aged (M = 20.2
A 2 · 2 (M/F · no emoticon, winking emoticon) quasi-
years; SD = 1.80) college students (94 females) from a small
experimental between-subjects analysis of variance (ANO-
liberal arts college in the Southeastern part of the United
VA) was conducted to examine the effects of gender and
States. Participants were primarily heterosexual (97.7%).
emoticons on Facebook jealousy. There was no significant
Approximately half students were underclassmen (53.7%),
main effect for gender, F(1, 79) = 2.526, p = 0.116, nor was
and almost half were currently in a relationship (46.9%).
there a significant main effect for the emoticon condition,
Average GPA was 2.997 (SD = 0.531).
F(1, 79) = 0.253, p = 0.617. Therefore, hypotheses 1 and
2 were not supported. However, there was a significant
Procedure
gender–emoticon interaction, F(1, 79) = 4.456, p = 0.038,
g2 = 0.053. Males (M = 7.05, SD = 2.31) displayed higher Participants were randomly assigned to the scenario with
jealousy scores than females (M = 6.27, SD = 2.09) in the no emoticon, a smiling emoticon, or a winking emoticon.
winking condition, while females (M = 8.15, SD = 2.01) After reading the scenario, they were asked to complete the
displayed higher jealousy scores than males (M = 6.02, Facebook Jealousy Scale.490 HUDSON ET AL.
Materials varying emoticons, it seems that emotional infidelity online
Participants were asked to complete the Facebook Jea- evokes seeking social support in females, and sexual infidelity
lousy Scale4 in response to the scenario. Participants scored online evokes jealousy in an aggressive form for males. Men’s
between 27 and 162 (M = 89.189, SD = 32.157). aggressive reaction to perceived sexual infidelity may have real
life implications to consider. For example, romantic jealousy
Results
has been associated with spousal abuse and uxoricide.36
Relying only on responses to the Facebook Jealousy Scale
To test the effect of gender and emoticons on Facebook by Muise et al.,4 women displayed more jealousy than men
jealousy, a 2 · 3 (M/F · winking emoticon/smiling emoticon/ regardless of whether an emoticon was included. These
control) ANOVA was conducted. There was no main effect findings replicated research demonstrating that women tend
for the emoticon condition, F(2, 174) = 0.516, p = 0.598, and to display more romantic jealousy over interactions on Fa-
no interaction, F(2, 174) = 0.759, p = 0.470. Therefore, hy- cebook.4 The second and third studies in this series relied on
potheses 2 and 3 were unsupported. However, a significant the same scale as the original Muise et al. study rather than
main effect of gender emerged, F(1, 174) = 15.990, p < 0.001, open-ended responses. The face validity of the Muise et al.
g2 = 0.087. Women (M = 98.63, SD = 3.227) scored signifi- scale is high and may have led the males to respond based on
cantly higher than men (M = 79.11, SD = 3.664) on jealousy. social desirability, modifying their responses to hide their
Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported. jealousy.37
An exploratory analysis again supported previous empir- In general, women are heavier users of Facebook and may
ical work,4 finding trends that the frequency of accessing take interactions there more seriously than men, as the site
one’s inbox, r(168) = 0.147, p = 0.052, and time spent on lends itself more to emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity.
Facebook, r(168) = 0.139, p = 0.071, are positively associated However, the present study suggests that in instances when
with Facebook jealousy.4 Additionally, cumulative GPA sexual infidelity is perceived, men are prone to Facebook
correlated positively with Facebook jealousy, r(169) = 0.203, jealousy. It also suggests that open-ended questions may yield
p = 0.008, replicating the findings in study 2. more honest, nuanced responses when dealing with a subject
where gender role expectations come into play.
Exploratory analyses supported the work of Muise et al.
Discussion
that time spent on Facebook is marginally yet positively
Previous work has indicated that women display more associated with jealousy. More specifically, time checking
romantic jealousy than men over interactions on Facebook.4 one’s inbox is positively correlated with jealousy. Un-
This series of studies suggests that gender differences in expectedly, cumulative GPA was positively correlated with
Facebook jealousy may be more nuanced when using mixed Facebook jealousy as well. It is possible that differences in
methods. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first series of personality may have attributed to this relationship where
studies to examine the impact of frequently used emoticons fastidious, conscientious individuals could possibly devote
(now commonly used in online interactions) on jealousy as much attention to the maintenance of their relationships as
reactions (see Fleuriet et al.30 for an examination of how they do their schoolwork.38,39
nonverbal message characteristics on Facebook predict
emotional responses, indicating the timeliness of the studies
Limitations and implications
herein). When examining the extremity of open-ended jeal-
ousy responses, men were found to be more jealous in sce- This series of studies was conducted with traditional
narios including a winking emoticon, while women were college-aged students and may not generalize to the larger
more jealous in scenarios where no emoticon was included. population. Qualitative data were only collected for one study,
However, when examining closed-ended survey responses, though from the same population as the other two studies, but
women were more jealous than men across the board. did indicate gender differences in Facebook jealousy.
Open-ended responses may have allowed for a more ac- Future work should use mixed methods to examine Fa-
curate and honest representation of reactions to the scenar- cebook jealousy, as it appears to offer greater insight. Ad-
io.31 These responses were collected immediately after ditionally, examining the link between GPA and Facebook
reading the scenario and were not limited in length. While jealousy would help understand how other factors influence
most participants indicated multiple reactions to the sce- this phenomenon. As young adults spend a considerable
nario, responses were coded with respect to the most extreme amount of time on SNSs, it is wise to consider how their
reaction noted. In this case, men were more jealous than relationships might be impacted.
women when a winking emoticon was included with the Based on this work, it seems that roughly two-thirds of
message. Given men tend to use winking emoticons to young adults would talk to their partner about what they
flirt,20,21,23 and women interpret them as flirtatious as well,23 found online. Understanding the interpretation of features
these results seemingly support evolutionary work suggest- such as private messaging and emoticons by a partner may
ing men are more jealous of sexual infidelity and women of help prevent behavior that will be hurtful to the partner and
emotional infidelity.24–28,32–35 Greater support of evolu- even the relationship. Additionally, understanding how so-
tionary work may be observed in the behavioral responses of cial media in general acts as an interface for romantic rela-
men and women in reaction to the scenario. Women were tionships helps determine how the medium may change
more likely to confront their partner and confide in others, relationships and possibly introduce new challenges in con-
while men indicated more aggressive responses in general— necting to romantic partners.40 Because developing intimate
including getting back at the partner and the message sender. relationships is considered an important developmen-
When these responses are considered in the context of the tal milestone for young adults,1,41 who are heavy users ofGENDER, EMOTICONS, AND FACEBOOK JEALOUSY 91
SNSs,2 examining how interactions in these domains affect 17. Derks D, Arjan EB, von Grumbkow J. Emoticons and
their relationships with romantic partners and even peers is online message interpretation. Social Science Computer
necessary.3 Future research should continue to explore these Review 2008; 26:379–388.
issues. 18. Lo S. The nonverbal communication functions of emo-
ticons in computer-mediated communication. Cyber-
Psychology & Behavior 2008; 5:595–597.
Author Disclosure Statement 19. Huffaker DA, Calvert SL. Gender, identity, and language
use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated
No competing financial interests exist. Communication 2005; 10:article 1.
20. Wolf A. Emotional expression online: gender differences in
References emoticon use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2000; 3:827–
833.
1. Arnett J. Emerging adulthood. American Psychologist 21. Dresner E, Herring SC. Functions of the nonverbal in
2000; 55:469. CMC: emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication
2. Thompson SH, Lougheed E. Frazzled by Facebook? An Theory 2008; 20:249–268.
exploratory study of gender differences in social network 22. Chalabi M. (2014) The 100 most-used emojis. http://
communication among undergraduate men and women. fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-100-most-used-emojis/
College Student Journal 2012; 46:88–98. (accessed Oct. 11, 2014).
3. Jenkins-Guarnieri MA, Wright SL, Johnson B. The Inter- 23. Friedman DR, Hobby AF. [Emojis mean what?] Unpublished
relationships among attachment style, personality traits, raw data.
interpersonal competency, and facebook. Psychology of 24. Buss DM, Larsen R, Westen D, et al. Sex differences in
Popular Media & Culture 2013; 2:117–131. jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psycho-
4. Muise A, Christofides E, Desmarais S. More information logical Science 1992; 3:251–255.
than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the green- 25. Buss DM, Shackelford TK, Kirkpatrick LA, et al. Jealousy
eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of com-
2009; 12:441–444. peting hypotheses about sex differences in the United
5. Parrott WG, Smith RH. Distinguishing the experiences of States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships 1999; 6:
envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality & Social Psy- 125–150.
chology 1993; 64:906–920. 26. Buunk BP, Angleitner A, Oubaid V, et al. Sex differences
6. Bringle RG, Buunk BP. (1991) Extradyadic relationships in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: tests
and sexual jealousy. In McKinney K, Sprecher S, eds. from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States.
Sexuality in close relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Psychological Science 1996; 7:359–363.
Erlbaum, pp. 135–153. 27. Shackelford TK, Buss DM, Bennett K. Forgiveness or
7. Salovey P, Rothman AJ. (1989) Envy and jealousy: self and breakup: sex differences in responses to a partner’s infi-
society. In Salovey P, ed. The psychology of jealousy and delity. Cognition & Emotion 2002; 16:299–307.
envy. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 271–286. 28. Ward J, Voracek M. Evolutionary and social cognitive
8. Shackelford TK, LeBlanc GJ, Drass E. Emotional reactions explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Aus-
to infidelity. Cognition & Emotion 2000; 14:643–659. tralian Journal of Psychology 2004, 56:165–171.
9. Buss DM. (2000) The dangerous passion. New York: Free 29. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. (2007) Desiging and con-
Press. ducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
10. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. Sexual strategies theory: an evo- Sage.
lutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological 30. Fleuriet C, Cole M, Guerrero LK. Exploring Facebook:
Review 1993; 100:204–232. attachment stule and nonverbal message characteristics as
11. Buunk BP, Dijkstra P. Gender differences in rival char- predictors of anticipated emotional reactions to Facebook
acteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional postings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 2014; 38:429–
versus sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships 2004; 11: 450.
395–408. 31. Harrelson G, Gardner G, Winterstein, AP. (2009) Admin-
12. Guadagno RE, Sagarin BJ. Sex differences in jealousy: an istrative topics in athletic training: concepts to practice.
evolutionary perspective on online infidelity. Journal of Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated.
Applied Social Psychology 2010; 40:2636–2655. 32. DeSteno DA, Salovey P. Evolutionary origins of sex dif-
13. Whitty MT. The realness of cybercheating: men’s and ferences in jealousy: questioning the ‘‘fitness’’ of the
women’s representations of unfaithful Internet relation- model. Psychological Science 1996; 7:367–372.
ships. Social Science Computer Review 2005; 23:57–67. 33. Geary DC, Rumsey M, Bow-Thomas CC, et al. Sexual
14. Rezabek LL, Cochenour JJ. Visual cues in computer- jealousy as a facultative trait: evidence from the pattern of
mediated communication: supplementing text with emoti- sex differences in adults from China and the United States.
cons. Journal of Visual Literacy 1998; 18:201–215. Ethology & Sociobiology 1995; 16:255–283.
15. Constanin C, Kalyanaraman S, Stavrositu C, et al. (2002) 34. Shackelford TK, Buss DM, Bennett K. Forgiveness or
To be or not to be emotional: impression formation effects breakup: sex differences in responses to a partner’s infi-
of emoticons in moderated chatrooms. Paper presented at delity. Cognition & Emotion 2002; 16:299–307.
the Communication Technology and Policy Division at the 35. Ward J, Voracek M. Evolutionary and social cognitive
85th Annual Convention of the Association for Education explanations of sex differences in romantic jealousy. Aus-
in Journalism and Mass Communication. tralian Journal of Psychology 2004; 56:165–171.
16. Crystal D. (2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge: 36. Daly M, Wilson M. (1988) Homicide. New York: Aldine de
Cambridge University Press. Gruyter.92 HUDSON ET AL.
37. Salovey P. (1991) The psychology of jealousy and envy. 41. Erikson EH, Erikson JM. (1997) The life cycle completed/
New York: Guilford Press. Erik H. Erikson. New York: Norton.
38. Burger JM. Desire for control and academic performance.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 1992; 24:147–155.
39. Nguyen NT, Allen LC, Fraccastoro K. Personality predicts Address correspondence to:
academic performance: exploring the moderating role of Dr. Denise Friedman
gender. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management Roanoke College
2005; 27:105–116. Department of Psychology
40. Fox J, Warber KM, Makstaller DC. The role of Facebook 221 College Lane
in romantic relationship development: an exploration of Salem, VA 24153
Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social & Per-
sonal Relationships 2013; 30:771–794. E-mail: friedman@roanoke.eduYou can also read
