Com Research Final Paper

Running head: CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 1
Romantic Relationships: Conflict Within College Students Activity on Facebook and Instagram
Payton Van Vors, Rachel Moser, Lindsey Kun, and Jimmy Ralph
Loras College
CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Abstract 4
Introduction to the Study. 6
Literature Review.9
Discussion of the Method 32
Analysis of the Data.35
Summary.. .93
Limitations of the Study...
.98
Recommendations for Further Study... 101
Conclusion... 104
References107
Appendices.......113
Abstract

Our team of social scientists researched social media and its impact within college
relationships. Following the first concept of social media created by Bruce and Susan Ableson,
we examined the evolution of online platforms, (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, p. 60). With over
1.44 billion users on Facebook (Lee-Won, Herzog & Park, 2015) and over 500 million users on
Instagram today (Instagram, 2016), social media has become a large part of humans lives.
Using the interpersonal relationship theory, we analyzed the level of jealously or potential threat
level social media causes for a couple (Homans, 2016). Activity on social media was predicted
to cause harm for a relationship. Therefore, we hypothesized that activity on Facebook and
Instagram would provoke conflict within relationships of college students. 120 questionnaires
were distributed to six different classrooms at a small Catholic liberal arts college in the
Midwest. The sampling groups were selected by using the stratified random sampling method.
After sampling distribution was completed, the data was analyzed using three statistical tests:
frequency tests, cross tabulations, and chi square tests. Results from our analysis support our
hypothesis that activity on Facebook and Instagram can provoke conflict within romantic
relationships of college students. In addition, results showed respondents both interact with
users for different reasons as well as acknowledge that users interact with them for different
reasons. We also compared the discrepancy in overall responses between males and females to
determine if a certain gender was more or less impacted by activity on social media.
Introduction of the Study

As humans continue to evolve, so does technology. Even before the expansion of online
social platforms, humans have expressed a desire for social interaction in order to form
relationships. In recent years, social media platforms have provided an outlet for humans to
connect with one another. Previous studies have looked at how college students utilize social
media as well as the psychology behind how an individual responds to online activity. We
decided to take both of these studies into consideration and combine them to determine how
college students usage of social media can cause conflict within a romantic relationship. In
addition, we set out to find which specific actions within a social platforms capabilities would
be most concerning. Even further, the study expected to determine if a certain gender was more
inclined to allow social media while it was influenced in the condition of a relationship.
Since the beginning of civilization, face to face interaction has been important in any
relationship. Technology started becoming a factor in all types relationships during the late
1900s when social interaction platforms were created such as blogging sites, (Boyd & Ellison,
2007). This encouraged more communication which essentially led to an increased need in
relationship maintenance. The first forms of social media, such as Open Diary created by
Ableson and Ableson, facilitated exchange of information between users, (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2009). Technology only developed further to create connecting platforms such as SixDegrees,
MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and most recently, SnapChat, to list a few. The
social networking site, Facebook, proved to be one of the most influential platforms due to its
innovative features like the newsfeed and reaction buttons. The photo editing site, Instagram,
adapted as taking photos with smartphones became part of everyday life. Instagram soon
acquired the newsfeed feature similar to Facebook which made it easy for an individual to
monitor what their friends and/or significant others are doing virtually at all times between the
two platforms.
With the constant access to activity through the new social platforms, this could explain
an individuals outlook toward relationships and how ones perception changes in due course,
(Homans, 2016). This is known as the Interpersonal Relationship Theory. Constantly being able
to compare activity from ones own profile to another, or vice versa, can cause conflict because
the intent could be misinterpreted based on the user, (Homans, 2016). The need to constantly
know what the person is doing can cause activity that is influenced based on emotions such as
jealousy. The combination of jealousy and Facebook surveillance is associated with
dissatisfaction in romantic relationships, (Elphinston & Noller, 2011, p. 343).
Past studies have examined the Interpersonal Relationship Theory, Theory of
Belongingness, Relational Investment Theory, Social Support Theory, Social Comparison Theory
and the psychology behind the activity on social media platforms. Within the multiple theory
studies, they indicated different emotions and conflicts were added to relationship, but they
focused on the individual. We want to take the previous studies a step further to see what exactly
caused individuals to feel the certain emotion.
Literature Review
10
Evolution of Social Media

Social media platforms are internet-based, persistent channels of mass personal
communication facilitating perceptions of interactions among users, deriving value primarily
from user-generated content, (Carr & Hayes, 2015, p. 7). Online communication platforms are
used to stay in touch, be up to date, to fill spare time, to provide entertainment, to express
opinions, to share photos and videos with other users, and to connect with new and existing
relationships, (Geoff, 2015). Whether scrolling through the newsfeed on Facebook or snapping
photos to post on Instagram, social media is present on college campuses nationwide. These
platforms have evolved throughout the years, growing from a simple collegiate student site to a
multi-billion dollar company employing thousands of individuals, (Cote & Pybus, 2011). Before
one can understand the present day forms of social media, one must look at the early influences
that led to the creation and influence of these platforms.
According to Baskin (2010), during the 1800s, most societies became urbanized as
farmers and artisans moved to cities to become fully integrated into the machinery of the
Industrial Revolution, (p. 57). In many places, the change was stunning and quick; the
population in London doubled during the first half of the 19 century, (Baskin, 2010, p. 57). As
th
their lives changed, the people who lived in the 1800s were social, perhaps, because the
behaviors were extensions of the communal nature of rural life, (Baskin, 2010, p. 58). The first
years of social activity started to create different community groups to provide areas for social
engagement, such as the Woodment of the World, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, the
Knights of Columbus, and the Masons, (Baskin, 2010). Early communal activities such as
carrier pigeons and telegraphs acted as early forms of social media because they helped fulfill the
human need for social engagement, (Baskin, 2010, p. 10).
11
The first concept of social media started when Bruce and Susan Abelson founded Open
Diary, which is a social networking site that brought together online diary writers into one
community, (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, p. 60). When the Internet was developed in the 1950s,
this became the first version of the blog created to act as a platform that facilitates exchange
between users, (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). While this type of site may not fit into what is
defined as a social media platform in present day, it acts as the foundation of todays new social
media. Twenty years later, improvements were seen when Usenet was introduced for users to
utilize when posting publicly to share with others, (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009, p. 60).
The internet improved in strength, capacity, and speed over time. According to Boyd and
Ellison (2007), participants on many of the large social media sites do not necessarily network
or look to meet new people; instead, they use these online platforms to communicate with people
who are already a part of their extended social network, (paragraph 6). SixDegrees, a social
media site, was launched in 1997, (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Although it failed, it attracted
millions of users because of the sustainability of friends who participated as active users online,
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007, paragraph 16). More and more social media sites started to develop in
hope of appealing to a new, unnoticed niche of users, (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Following the
path of SixDegrees, MySpace developed in 2003, (Boyd & Ellison, 2007, paragraph 26).
MySpace quickly became a hub for professionals and enthusiasts within the music industry;
bands soon adapted the social media platform as their official site, (Boyd & Ellison, 2007,
paragraph 27). The year of 2004 brought about a wide array of new social media platforms such
as: Flickr, Dodgeball, Care2, YouTube, Bebo, Asian Avenue, BlackPlanet and early forms of
Facebook, (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Arriving in the later 2000s were some of todays most highprofile companies such as Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Vine, and multiple other sites.
12
Facebook
While attending Harvard University, the future creator of Facebook, Zuckerberg worked
to create a social media platform that connected the Harvard University campus, (Cote & Pybus,
2011). According to Cote and Pybus (2011), thefacebook.com was launched in 2004 at Harvard
University and within 24 hours, a reported 1,200 students had joined the network. As stated by
Kirkpatrick (2011), by the end of the spring semester, thirty-four additional institutions were
operating, each with almost 100,000 users, (p. 42). By the end of 2004, there were 64 million
active users on thefacebook.com, (Kirkpatrick, 2011).
Facebook is a social networking website that connects people with common interests and
enables users to keep up to date with their friends and family, (Funk & Wagnalls, 2014). Funk
and Wagnalls (2014) stated that Facebook allowed anyone thirteen and older with an e-mail
address to join after 2006. This model turned into what we recognize today as Facebook, Inc.
Facebook users create profiles that include photos and information about themselves which helps
in the process of friending on the site, (Funk & Wagnalls, 2014). Funk and Wagnalls (2014)
state that by friending people on Facebook, the users are able to view each others profiles and
interact with hundreds and thousands of friends. Within Facebooks user generated platform,
identities are reproduced via the immediate feedback loops that get attached to every update,
every link, or every photo that gets uploaded to someones profile, (Cote & Pybus, 2011). This
makes Facebook appealing to users because they can engage in self-presentation through
various text based communication functions such as status updates and wall posts as well as
photograph-based features, (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011, p. 79). .
Compared to the original MySpace, Facebook is far more complex due to the newsfeed
which helps users become immediately recognizable through both the user, who updates his or
13
her profile, as well as by those who like what they have read on the newsfeed, and who may
choose to comment on or share a link, (Cote & Pybus, 2011). Statistics demonstrate users spend
a total of over 700 billion minutes online each month, (Cote & Pybus, 2011). During one month,
the site yields some 30 billion pieces of content, including web links, news stories, blog posts,
notes, and photo albums, (Cote & Pybus, 2011, p. 5). To stay ahead of its time, Facebook
continued to make improvements on the site through creating the like button for users to
interact with each other, transitioning into the timeline format for personal profiles, and
introducing reaction buttons to further specify the content-driven response, (Kirkpatrick, 2011).
According to Lee-Won, Herzog and Park (2015), Facebook has 1.44 billion monthly
active users and approximately 82.8% of daily active users outside the United States and Canada
which makes Facebook stand as one of the most popular social network sites worldwide, (p.
567). Being one of, if not the largest social network sites, advertisers and organizations look at
Facebook as a gateway to their current and potential customers. With all the improvements,
Facebook has changed the way advertisers, charities and other organizations and campaigns
operate because of their online word-of-mouth, (Funk & Wagnalls, 2014). In 2011, people in
Tunisia and Egypt used Facebook to help organize massive protests, which eventually toppled
the governments of both countries, (Funk & Wagnalls, 2014).
Instagram
While Facebook is still the most popular social media platform with 71% of all online
adults in the United States having an account, Instagram has proven that pictures speak louder
than words, exceeding Twitter and other social media platforms in terms of users, (Lee, Lee,
Moon, & Sung, 2015, p. 552). Since its debut on October 6, 2010, Instagram has hit different
user milestones. By the end of the companys first year, Instagram reached 1 million users,
14
(Instagram, 2016). Other improvements Instagram has made throughout the years are
introducing a photo map as well as added online profiles, creating more photo filters and editing
options, adding direct messaging services, and continuous camera improvements, (Instagram,
2016). As of June 2016, Instagram has grown to over 500 million users, (Instagram, 2016).
Taking photos with smartphones has become a part of everyday life. Instagram markets
itself as a medium that allows users to transform an image into a memory to keep around forever,
(Lee et al, 2015, p. 552). Instagram users chronicle their stories through photographs and short
videos. This image first, text second rule of Instagram creates strong visual-oriented culture
with its enhanced photo-editing features, (Lee et al, 2015, p. 552). Without having to use a
different app for taking, editing, and uploading the photos, Instagram is an all-in-one package,
allowing users to complete the three steps instantly and, more importantly, with high quality,
(Lee et al, 2015, p. 552). Instagram has people uploading photos, manipulating the photo using
filters, sharing with friends, and then commenting on or favoriting the photos of others,
(Marwick, 2015). According to Marwick (2015), on the main Instagram application screen,
users can browse through a stream of photographs from people they follow, explore popular
photos or search by username or hashtag, take photos or upload previously taken photos, view
comments or likes on their photos, and view their own profile, (p. 8). Using Instagram to share
photos and videos helps capture moments in everyday life and then allows the user to share with
friends, (Erkan, 2015, p.1437). This is one of the most appealing features of Instagram: users are
able to promote themselves on the Internet by using these filters, (Erkan, 2015, p. 1437).
Instagram is becoming one of the most popular social networking sites and marketers are
catching on. Marketing professionals see Instagram users as not only consistent customers, but
also marketers: more specifically, 86% of top brands have official accounts on this website,
15
(Simply Measured, 2014, p. 4). Instagram users post about their brands and products in an effort
to engage with current and potential customers, (Erkan, 2015, p. 1438).
The official Instagram application is only available on mobile operating systems such as
Apples iOS and Googles Android, which makes the app virtually reachable anywhere and
anytime due to the mobility of the smartphone, (Lee, et al, 2015). Some individuals have logged
on to their Instagram account about four times per day and uploaded an average of sixty-one
pictures since creating their Instagram account, (Lee, et al, 2015, p. 553).
Interpersonal Relationship Theory
An interpersonal relationship can develop in many ways. Examples of how an
interpersonal relationship develops are working together in the same organization, on the same
team, interacting with the opposite sex, through immediate family members and relatives or
between a child and their parent, (Homans, 2016). The interpersonal relationship model explains
an individuals outlook toward relationships and how ones perception changes in due course,
(Homans, 2016). Within the interpersonal relationship model, which explains an individuals
outlook towards relationship and how ones perception changes in due course, (Homans, 2016).
The two directional components go a long way in creating an individuals perception about
relationships: others to self and self to others, (Homans, 2016). Others to self focus on ones
awareness of his partners attitude, thoughts and beliefs toward him or herself, (Homans, 2016).
The self to others is focused on his/her own behavior and attitude towards his or hers partner,
(Homans, 2016).
A relationship develops and endures several different stages of emotion, (Knapp, 2010).
According to Knapps (2010) relationship escalation model, every relationship goes through the
following stages: initiation, experimentation, intensifying, integration, bonding, differentiating,
16
circumscribing, stagnating, avoidance, and terminating. The first stage is all about initial
impressions and are typically influenced by physical appearance, (Knapp, 2010). The next stage
of experimentation is about exploring and getting to know one another, (Knapp, 2010).
Intensifying is when the relationship begins to become less forms and both parties in the
relationship look to strengthen its development, (Knapp, 2010). Integration is when the level of
intimacy increases and stages of love begin to appear, (Knapp, 2010). Within the stage of
bonding, a person will publicize their romantic feelings toward one another through means such
as proposal or marriage, (Knapp, 2010). The stage of differentiation is when conflict begins to
appear, (Knapp, 2010). This is when partners devote time and effort to individual hobbies.
Circumscribing is when communication boundaries are set out of fear of arguing. The stage of
stagnation is when it is clear the relationship will not continue to improve. Avoidance is
intentionally ignoring all potential causing of discussing conflict. Finally, termination is the final
stage of coming apart, (Knapp, 2010).
Before social media existed, our choices of relationship partners were largely limited to
the people we encountered face to face, (Wood, 2015, p. 323). The transformation of intimacy
has documented how individuals intimate personal lives have continued to become more
intertwined with social media viewers, (Wood, 2015). Because of this, new rights as well as
obligations have been produced on determining how to shape self-identity on social networking
sites, (Ridder & Bauwel, 2015).
Psychology of Online Relational Needs
Recent studies show the presence of both positive and negative impact on youths
interpersonal relationships from social networking sites, (Rahman, 2016). Many facets of an
individuals life are now publicly shared, allowing an audience to obtain further details about
17
someone through posts, photos, video, and other communication devices within a social
networking site, (Burke & Kraut, 2016, p. 265). According to Burke and Kraut (2016), the tests
predict online interactions and personal well-being are made by theories of belongingness,
relationship maintenance, relational investment, social support, and social comparison, (p. 265).
Many theories have been developed in order to understand the cause of relational conflict.
Sense of Belongingness Theory
The theory of belongingness predicts that increased communication with stronger ties,
independent of its content, should lead to improvements in psychological well-being, (Burke &
Kraut, 2016, p. 270). This theory explains that all human beings want to feel connected to
someone, but the satisfaction of social interaction alone is not enough. To create a strong tie with
a significant partner, stable interpersonal relationships have to obtain positive concern and care
for one another. A large instigator of conflict within college relationships is through the
utilization of Facebook to fill ones own sense of belongingness.
To gain a sense of belongingness within a relationship, many user choose to monitor their
significant others online activity. According to Sheldon (2009), some of the male participants
further confessed that they used Facebook as a stalker tool to spy on their partner in whom
they are interested. Some of the females said that they used Facebook to avoid loneliness, (p.
55). The sense of virtual community creates this satisfaction. However, through the monitoring
of a partners Facebook page, face-to-face social interaction is decreased and content and/or
activity can be misinterpreted causing insecurity. College students are heavily immersed in SNS
(Social Networking Sites), with a recent study showing that 90% of college students use SNSs,
and 97% of those are everyday users of Facebook, (Smith & Caruso, 2010, p. 21). Because the
majority of college students are using Facebook in their daily lives, much of their time has been
18
rededicated to monitoring a website versus engaging with others in person. Many articles have
attempted to determine why social media users engage on the specific platform of Instagram.
Study results show the main reason of Instagram activity is to maintain relationships while
knowing what others are doing, (Sheldon & Bryant, 2015). However, while the intent may be
to maintain the relationship, using social media to monitor ones partner may actually cause harm
to the relationship.
In addition to monitoring another persons likes, comments, and posts, monitoring ones
self and impression management is also present, (Smith & Caruso, 2010). According to Ridder
& Bauwel (2015), young people are continuously making decisions on what they are posting and
sharing on social media platforms, (p. 320). A person feels the need to monitor their partner to
have a better understanding of the person through analyzing their presentation of photos, how
many likes they receive, and who comments on their posts. After they get a better
understanding, he or she can apply it to their own self-presentation. The cycle of belongingness
revolves around reassuring an individual about a users impression management and to provide
the person seeking information a way to connect, (Saslow, et al., 2013).
While many of these online observations may provide a sense of assurance ones own
impression management, it is also possible for social media to create uncertainty within a
relationship. When created, relationship uncertainty intensifies cognitive, emotional, and
communicative reactions to relationship related events, (Saslow, et al., 2013). Uncertainty
within a romantic relationship has an indirect negative effect on expression within a relationship,
(Saslow, et al., 2013). When analyzing ones partners Facebook page, if there is an absence of a
public acknowledgment to the other partner such as through their profile picture or posting a
relationship update, negative feelings like hurt, irritation or jealousy may results through the lack
19
of affirmed belongingness, (Saslow, et al., 2013). In comparison, people who had posted a photo
of themselves with their romantic partner as their profile picture tended to report high levels of
relational satisfaction and closeness, (Saslow, et al., 2013, p. 416).
Another result of the lack of belongingness is the creation of jealousy. Companionship
jealousy is experienced from the nature of a romantic partners outside friendships with another,
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Results show jealousy created a large nonverbal response, (Boyd &
Ellison, 2007). This shows that damage was indeed done to a relationship but may or may not be
expressed and if so, is likely to be responded to in an indirect manner. The most common
jealousy-evoking situation between romantic partners was one partners choice to devote time
and attention to a non-romantic other, (Worley & Samp, 2014). With social medias interactive
abilities only increasing with time, this may serve problematic to the stability of relationships,
(Elphinston & Noller, 2011).
Relationship Maintenance Theory
Relationship maintenance can be done within online social platforms through acquiring
updates on ones romantic partner. Since the theory of belongingness is interrelated to the
relationship maintenance theory they both demonstrated social grooming which causes conflicts
between couples. Examples of maintenance behaviors include: avoidance, commenting, spying,
infidelity and jealousy induction, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). According to Joinson (2008), the
second most common use for Facebook is to engage in virtual people watching or social
investigation, although such investigation will lead to couples experiencing doubt and jealousy,
(p. 430). The combination of jealousy and Facebook surveillance is associated with
dissatisfaction in romantic relationships, (Elphinston & Noller, 2011, p. 343). Constant
observation on a partners Facebook page can increase jealousy due to the extended time
20
associated with targeted communication. Targeted communication, such as a wall post, tends to
be more other-focused than a broadcast status update which is typically more self-focused and
less personalized, (Bazarova, Taft, Choi & Cosley, 2012, p. 130). This type of communication
stirs up jealousy, frustration, or relationship insecurity when the partner does not fully understand
the intended message within the communication, (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Suspicious or
concerned thoughts that occur as a result of a perceived threat are classified as cognitive
jealousy, (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). In addition, emotional jealousy is the presence of anger, fear,
and insecurity resulting from feeling threatened, (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Focus group results
show information gathered about the partner via Facebook may trigger jealousy, (Dainton &
Stokes, 2015). If a partner feels threatened from a stranger commenting on their prospective
romantic interests wall, he or she is likely to react by providing their own public activity
involving a territorial or protective appeal as a response to an indirect fear of abandonment,
(Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Although, when threatened by their partners friendships with others,
individuals may not choose to vocalize their perception to their partner, (Worley & Samp, 2014).
Other negative responses of jealousy and uncertainty include nonverbal reactions such as crying,
distancing or decreasing affection, nonaggressive communication, aggressive communication,
avoidance of the problem, or even threats of physical violence, (Worley & Samp, 2014).
Research suggested the reasoning behind the differing reactions to be that individuals
responses are influenced by the specific nature of jealousy experienced, (Worley & Samp, 2014).
Relational Investment Theory
Relational investment theory focuses on the meaning of valuable interaction between two
people, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). Burke and Krauts (2016) study of 1,910 Facebook users linked
relational investment to the three categories in which one can interact on Facebook: composed,
21
one-click, and broadcast. According to Burke and Kraut (2016), composed communication
consists of one-on-one exchanges through text. One click communication is a single click action
such as a like or poke. Broadcast communication is reading news feed stories, viewing
others photos, and visiting profiles, (p. 268). In a relationship, one prefers to be spoken to with
composed communication because it is more direct and personal, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). In
Burke and Krauts (2016) study, one of the respondents that participated in a focus group stated,
He frequently comments on my stuff and I feel loved, and Ive been able to reach out and share
what Ive been going through and have my friends support me. Facebook has increased my
support network and helps me feel not so alone in what Im facing, (p. 276). Since targeted
communication is more related to the individual, it helps to increase self-esteem and affirmation,
(Burke & Kraut, 2016). The act of favoriting a post on Instagram was a more selective
behavior compared to other media platforms (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). Results from the
focus group conducted noted both women and their friends were attentive to how many likes
were received as well as by whom, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). Other results suggested that
activity on anothers post was an additional form of subtle recognition through obligation of a
relationship form, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). In addition, the presence of acknowledgement
on social media by others is correlated to an individuals level of happiness, (Burke & Kraut,
2016). However, when a woman or man is contacted through social media the message could be
misread because it is reaching a larger audience of viewers, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). In order to
avoid conflict, the comment capability on social media has more symbolic importance because of
the extra clarity compared to low-effort, stylized communication, such as likes that are also
used, (Burke & Kraut, 2016, p. 269). Research shows that a single click on a social media
platform may be sent and interpreted in a variety of ways, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016).
22
Facebook defines their like feature as, an easy way to let people know that you enjoy a post
without leaving a comment, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016, p. 31). The main interaction college
students use to connect with their romantic partner is the expression through emoticons, which
are a nonverbal interactions, (Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014). Nonverbal cues may be most
likely to trigger negative emotions such as jealousy because they tend to be more ambiguous
than verbal messages, (Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014, p. 431). Emoticons are typographical
symbols that resemble facial expressions and they interact in a virtual community by holding the
representation of a face, (Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014). According to Walther and
DAddario (2001), the emoticons in the wink condition found the message to be seductive (85.4
%), joking (66.2 %), secretive (88.7 %), and sarcastic (84.1 %). Thus, messages that include a
wink-face emoticon may be perceived as more threatening than those including text only, (p.
335). Regardless of the true intention the usage of a wink has, there can be different perceptions
made, (Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014). This flirtatious expression also translates into
indications that an unfamiliar person is flirting with someones boyfriend or girlfriend, (Fleuriet,
Cole & Guerrero, 2014, p. 443). This type of interaction threatens the relationship as if their
partner was being hit on by another person, (Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014). Fleuriet, Cole,
and Guerreros research (2014) shows that couples react in a negative manner when emoticons
and likes sent from an individual outside the relationship are associated with the partners
boyfriend or girlfriend, (p. 429).
Social Support Theory
However, social support theory reveals that simple actions such as likes or favorites
help create happier and healthier people over text-based interactions, (Burke & Kraut, 2016, p.
269). The reasoning behind social support theory is to provide care for Facebook or Instagram
23
members, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). When someone likes or favorites a post or a photo, each
action means a different response. Some college students could have said, I liked her post
because I havent spoken to her in a while, He was going through a really tough time with his
family, or I am just on a liking spree, (Burke & Kraut, 2016). This interaction is just a
simple way of saying hello to someone and it happens more frequently than others, (Fleuriet,
Cole & Guerrero, 2014). According to Burke and Kraut (2016), Theories of social support imply
that the most valuable communication consists of targeted interactions with strong ties, but the
everyday and invisible support variant suggests that small actions such as one-click likes could
also generate feelings that supportive friends will be available when needed, (p. 270).
According to Yaacoub & Najjar (2016), when an individual posts a picture and does not
get what they perceive to be enough likes after a couple of hours, they may remove it, (p. 182).
This conflict is typically targeted more towards women in the relationships due to a recent study
showing women over-analyzing certain situations, (Yaacoub & Najjar, 2016). Social media,
specifically Instagram, consists of users posting selfies for a multiple reasons. Women tend to
post selfies more than men because it is socially and culturally acceptable with men acting as the
primary audience, (Senft & Bayn, 2015). Engagement in public displays of affection (PDA) is
one of the most common behaviors on social media platforms, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). The
use of PDA can vary from a simple cue to a meaningful mechanism of communication, (Hayes,
Carr, & Wohn, 2016). It can be used to signal support socially, maintain or develop interpersonal
relationships, or demonstrate friendliness between ones self and another, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn,
2016). Regardless of the reason behind why an individual participates on social media
platforms, the premise of social media involves the sending of ones own information and
receiving the information of another.
24
Social Comparison Theory

The last theory that impacts ones well-being through online interactions is social
comparison theory. This theory compares ones life to others broadcasts, (Burke & Kraut,
2016). Today, people use social media platforms for personal-marketing and self-image,
(Yaacoub & Najjar, 2016, p. 182). According to Fleuriet, Cole, and Guerrero (2014), results
suggest attractive versus unattractive photos are also related to the level of jealously that can
occur when rivals are physically attractive, (Buunk and Dijkstra, 2005). The form of jealousy an
individual may experience can differ based on the recipient of their partners attention. For
example, an individual may experience different forms of jealousy when a partner focuses
communication on a friend compared to if the partner is communicating with someone who is
identified as a threat or rival, (Worley & Samp, 2014).
Self-uncertainty reflects concerns about ones own involvement in a relationship. Partner
uncertainty focuses on a partners involvement in the relationship, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016).
One woman used the social comparison theory to start a fight with her boyfriend due to the fact
that an attractive womans commented on his Facebook timeline. Therefore, this woman felt
threatened by this stranger because psychology has shown that people of the opposite sex are
more inclined to create relationships with people who have posted attractive profile pictures,
(Fleuriet, Cole & Guerrero, 2014, p. 432). Women have much higher standards than men for
attaining what they deem to be the perfect body, hair, and makeup. Senft and Bayn (2015)
discuss how easy it is to imagine the psychological and social well-being of a person that posts
an average photo of their body and the photo receives positive reinforcement, (p. 1597).
Likewise, when someone posts a selfie having high value to them and receives no praise, a
person could react with feelings of neglect.
25
Social Media Application

According to Cote and Pybus (2011):
For Facebook, user-generated individuated archives are the lucrative lifeblood of surplus
value and exchange. Indeed, the seemingly endlessly increasing marketing value of
Facebook is entirely predicted on the willingness of users to upload their immaterial and
affective labour. The (re)production of those digital archives of the self is a deeply
recursive process. For users, it is about the production and circulation of subjectivities;
for Facebook, it is a political economic imperative. This is a fundamental point of
tension at the heart of cognitive capitalism, (p. 23).
Social interactions on the Internet largely involve text-based asynchronous/synchronous
communication and thereby afford strategic and selective self-presentation to a greater extent
than face-to-face contexts, (Walther, 2007, p. 2539). This provides numerous possibilities for
ones motivation in engaging on social media to vary such as: the desire of social interaction,
escapism, self-expression, marking moments in history, and using platforms as a means of
surveillance, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). This can lead individuals to invest a
disproportionate amount of attention, time, and effort in online socializing and to experience
difficulties in exercising control on the Internet, (Caplan, 2005). When investigating how social
media has a positive or negative effect on romantic relationships, it is important to establish the
motives behind using it. According to Lee, Lee, Moon, and Sung (2015), research results
propose the five primary social and psychological motives for using Instagram: peeking, selfexpression, escapism, social interaction, and archiving, (p. 552). In a similar study by Sheldon
and Bryant (2015), four primary motives were found for Instagram use: knowledge about
others, documentation, coolness, and creativity, (p. 89). Each study gathered results from
26
participants of either a random sampling questionnaire, group study, or convenience sampling.

According to Lee, et al, (2015), a questionnaire was created to survey participants in a three
week period from November to December regarding social media platforms. From these results,
social interaction among users holds significant importance, (Lee, et al, 2015). The uses and
gratification theory suggests that people are on social media based on their needs and wants.
These wants and need form the social and psychological circumstances, motives, and
expectations an individual uses to influence social media use, (Sheldon & Bryant 2015, p. 90).
Instagram users noted they actively seek out social relationships with others who have the same
interests, use the same hashtags, and are actively invested in their account, (Lee, et al. , 2015).
A connection between users is built when one is followed by another, (Lee, et al., 2015, p.
555).
Surveillance was one of the primary motives for college students to use Instagram.
Today, many romantic problems arise from jealousy, uncertainty, and self-doubt with peeking
and escapism being the primary motives, (Lee, et al., 2015, p. 555). There can be no
assumptions when speaking about peeking on others through Instagram, but with escapism
comes a wanting to get away from reality. Sheldon and Bryants (2015) study investigated the
lives of the participants, including life satisfaction, interpersonal interaction, and social activity
to see if those influenced the posting habits of each individual, (p. 89). The way someone
displays themselves on Instagram is their choice. But why is there an ongoing obsession with
constantly wanting to know about others at this young adult age? There is a feeling, or lack
thereof when college students think they are missing out on what one could be doing, instead
of the actions that are happening at the time. Whiting and Williams (2013) actually named
surveillance/knowledge about others as one of the primary motives for social media use. It
27
included watching what others are doing and what they are commenting on. According to
Sheldon and Bryant (2015), the ease of following ones life through a social media application
like Instagram is becoming a problem.
It is known that separation and divorce rates have continuously increased, and todays
college students are highly exposed to relationships coming to an end. With this, millennials end
relationships for reasons past generations to which they were not exposed. In social medias
case, it is assumed that a millennial relationship have ended simply from reasoning such as a
like or a comment on someone elses photo. Assuming peeking or escapism as cheating can
be difficult in the fact that the definition of cheating has been altered. According to Lee, et al.
(2015), 53% of young adults in the United States from the age of 18-29 use Instagram (p. 552).
Over half of the nations young adults have an Instagram account and use the application (Lee, et
al., 2015, p. 552).
Relationships are formed and evolve in numerous ways. Among the many ways
relationships begin to form, social media is becoming more prominent. Social media provides a
platform to meet strangers with potential similar interests and forming a relationship with them.
With easy access to either confirm or deny a potential partner with just a click of a button or
message over the social media platform, possible problems can arise. One study suggests that
the use of paralinguistic digital affordance cues in social media can facilitate communication and
interaction without specific language associated with their messages, (Hayes, 2016, p. 173).
Instagram is a picture first, text second social media platform that is one in its own. A like on
Facebook is not interpreted as the same as a favorite on Instagram. Activity on Instagram was
a more selective behavior from women in the focus group, while saying their friends paid
attention to how many public displays of affection or likes they received and from which
28
sender, (Hayes, 2016, p. 178). According to Hayes (2016), past studies have shown women look
at who favorites their posts more than men check (p. 179). This is why, according to Hayes
(2016), favoriting becomes a problem in relationships, because if a partner comments or reacts
to a photo that is perceived inappropriate to their partner, conflict is likely to occur (p. 179).
Also, if emotional gratification is not enough from your partner, it could be assumed to lead to
future problems if someone else is giving it through social media. But for those who are single,
showing interest when liking ones post could lead to the noticing of the receiver.
According to Senft and Bayn (2015), a selfie today is a form of expression; shallow to
some, but still expression, (p.15). Senft, Bayn and Hayes in their respective research study, look
at posting to social media and how acceptance or neglecting have effects on the individual
posting the content. With all the new technology of front facing cameras, selfie sticks, and
drones, taking a selfie is easily done. However easy selfie-taking may be, it could be the
problem in a relationship. Senft and Bayn (2015) hypothesized about selfies and their lack of
depth, specifically displaying narcissism, fashion, self-promotion and seeking attention, (p.
1593). Another important factor is social support/grooming, (Hayes, 2016, p.179). Participants
in a study felt obligated to like or favorite a post just for relationship maintenance, (Hayes,
2016, p. 179). Today, if a boyfriend or girlfriend posts a photo on Instagram, it can be assumed
that the partner will publicly acknowledge it. One participant said that her friend will not leave
the house without checking her outfit with whoever is online at the time; so because she is her
friend, she feels an obligation to provide social activity on the friends post, (Hayes, 2016, p.
179). Today, a favorite is also a way of telling someone that they are accepted and loved
through social media activitys emotional, status, and social gratification effects, (Hayes, 2016).
Participants in a study noted feelings of sadness if they didnt receive any favorites on their
29
Instagram posts while others said sharing a moment with their followers and receiving positive
feedback feels was a positive experience, (Hayes, 2016, p. 180). A selfie, one of the more
popular posts to Instagram, is a photographic object that makes the viewer feel connected to the
image and the viewed, (Senft & Bayn, 2015, p. 1589). According to Senft and Bayn (2015),
girls and guys alike will post a selfie of themselves just for the pleasure of getting favorites on
Instagram naming this phenomenon, favorite whoring, (p. 1590). Men are known to look at
women and women watch themselves being looked at, (Senft & Bayn, 2015, p. 1594). As stated
by Senft and Bayn (2015), 1970s critic, Berger argued that in the history of western art, women
have little control over the representation of their bodies because male patron dominated
institutions rewarded men as ideal subjects and viewers, (p. 1595). This influence carries into
todays values. Instagram famous is a phenomenon in which men and womens user accounts
are highly viewed by others solely because of the amount of followers they have based on the
content they post. Being Instagram famous has no tangible value for the mass society, other
than feeding the ego and bank accounts of the content poster. Today, many people are meeting
online through social media. Research in Hayes study told, how one woman and her now fianc
started their relationship just by liking each others posts, (p. 181). Shortly after noticing, the
couples interactions advanced to utilizing social media messaging capabilities only to finally
meet in person, ultimately, leading to their marriage engagement, (Hayes, 2016, p. 181).
Relationships, similar to the one viewed during this study, happen every day, especially among
college students. This only emphasizes the importance of understanding how activity on social
media platforms can impact a relationship.
Throughout every scholarly article found, the link between human psychology,
interpersonal relationships, and connection within social media all relate back to our research and
30
how online activity on social media platforms provokes conflict within romantic interpersonal
relationships. When referring back to the research, there were topics of positivity and finding an
individual with similar interests. But the bulk of our studies suggested the ideas of jealousy,
uncertainty in romance, and a possible lack of fulfillment. In todays society, individuals are
nearly always seeking acceptance, approval, and assurance. That positive reinforcement can now
be portrayed in the form of likes, favorites, comments, and messages through social
media platforms. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have become a world
dominant figure. Todays societal values have changed because of this dynamic partnership in
social media.
Overall, social media holds a significant amount of power due to the fact that a single
click may be sent and interpreted in a variety of ways, (Hayes, Carr, & Wohn, 2016). According
to Hayes, Carr, and Wohn (2016), though just a click, PDAs may have many meanings, reflecting
the diversity of social media platforms; and may be entire complex messages providing
intrapersonal and interpersonal meaning to social media users, depending on system, social, and
structural factors, (p.185). For example, some capabilities Instagram allows a user to interact are
the ability to upload photographs, manipulate them using filters, share them with others, and
receive feedback through a like or a comment, ( Lee et al., 2015). Because the interpretation of
an act on social media can vary, conflict can occur. According to Fleuriet, Cole and Guerrero
(2014), results found that increased time on Facebook were associated with jealousy. They
reasoned that the more time people spend on Facebook, the more uncertainty-causing
information they encounter, which is likely to make them jealous, (p. 431).
Discussion of the Method
31
32
During the first initial meeting of our research team, we all came to the meeting with a
similar topic idea. As a team, we decided to discuss the conflict that social media contributed in
relationships among small, catholic, liberal arts college students. Moving forward, we conducted
preliminary secondary research. We used this research to learn the history of social media
platforms, specifically Instagram and Facebook, as well as relationships and psychology. To find
this information, we utilized online databases such as Communication and Mass Media
Complete, EBSCO, and Google Scholar. Using what we learned during our preliminary
research, we formed the research question, how does online activity cause conflict between
romantic interpersonal relationships? Based on this question and our research we formed the
hypothesis, Online activity on social media platforms provokes conflict within romantic
interpersonal relationships of college students.
To find evidence that supports our hypothesis, we drafted a questionnaire (Appendix A).
Working together, we came up with around 30 questions and then narrowed down to a final 25.
We then included a cover letter (Appendix B) to each questionnaire which included a brief
description of our study, sharing that participation was voluntary, and then asking for the consent
of each participant by signing their name. Following this, our team completed the Institutional
Review Board form (Appendix C) which made sure that our questionnaire and cover letter were
fair to all of the students who participated and was not offensive.
Once approved, participants were selected randomly using the Fall 2016 Class Course
List (Appendix D) and a random number generator (Appendix E). As a class, we came up with
lists of courses we expected to find students from each class in. First years were labeled in
yellow highlighter, sophomores were orange, juniors were pink, and seniors were blue. This was
done in order to keep the courses separate from each other to make the list easier to read. Using
33
a two-number numbering system, our team numbered the mentioned courses based on the colors.
Then, using the random number generator, one team member randomly placed their finger onto
one number indicating which course we were to start with. All courses were only allowed to be
used once. Once selected, our course instructor crossed that course off on the chalkboard.
Once the selection process was complete, each team sent an email (Appendix F) to the
respective courses professor to set a date and time of when we could distribute questionnaires.
Based on our schedules, we then decided who would go to each class.
After classes completed the questionnaires, the cover letters were removed to make sure
the answers remained anonymous. Each questionnaire was then numbered in the top right corner
to ensure that no questionnaire was entered into the computer software twice. The SPSS program
requires answers to be inputted as numbers, not words, so each question was assigned a word to
correspond with the questionnaire question (Appendix G). Each answer was given a number
value. While entering the information, one team member read the results while another inputted
the data (Appendix H). We used the SPSS statistical program to run frequencies and cross
tabulations to find correlations within our data to support our hypothesis.
Analysis of the Data
34

Frequency Tests
Question 1: What gender do you identify as?
Statistics
Gender
N
Valid
120
Missing
Gender
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
59
49.2
49.2
49.2
2.00
61
50.8
50.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 1 looked to identify the gender of the questionnaire participants. Results showed a
fairly even representation of both genders as 51% of the respondents identified as women and
49% identified as males.
35
36
Question 2: How old are you?
Statistics
Old
N
Valid
120
Missing
Old
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
18.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
19.00
35
29.2
29.2
44.2
20.00
21
17.5
17.5
61.7
21.00
30
25.0
25.0
86.7
22.00
13
10.8
10.8
97.5
23.00
2.5
2.5
100.0
120
100.0
100.0
Total
Question 2 identified the age of the respondents. The majority of students surveyed selected the
age of 19 with 29%, 25% selected the age of 21, and 18% at the age of 20. The remaining
respondents answered as followed: 15% at age 18, 11% at age 22, and only 3% age 23 or older.
37
Question 3: What is your year in college?
Statistics
Year
N
Valid
120
Missing
Year
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
26
21.7
21.7
21.7
2.00
33
27.5
27.5
49.2
3.00
21
17.5
17.5
66.7
4.00
40
33.3
33.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
After determining gender and age, Question 3 asked participants what level of collegiate
education they were currently enrolled. The most selected class was seniors at 33%, followed by
28% sophomores, 22% first years, and 18% juniors.

Question 4: Do you have a Facebook profile?
Statistics
Facebook
N
Valid
120
Missing
Facebook
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
115
95.8
95.8
95.8
2.00
4.2
4.2
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 4 asked participants of the questionnaire they created personal Facebook accounts.
96% of respondents responded that they do have accounts with only 4% answering no.
38

Question 5: Do you have an Instagram account?
Statistics
Instagram
N
Valid
120
Missing
Instagram
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
98
81.7
81.7
81.7
2.00
22
18.3
18.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 5 looks at whether or not those participating in the study had their own Instagram
account. 82% of participants do have an Instagram account while 18% do not.
39
40
Question 6: How many hours in a day are you on social media?
Statistics
Hours
N
Valid
120
Missing
Hours
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
3.3
3.3
3.3
2.00
47
39.2
39.2
42.5
3.00
53
44.2
44.2
86.7
4.00
12
10.0
10.0
96.7
5.00
3.3
3.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 6 looked to see how many hours in a day respondents spent on social media platforms.
Results show the most selected group was 3-4 hours a day (44%). 39% of respondents answered
they spend 1-2 hours per day on social media with 10% spending around 5-6 hours.
41
Question 7: If you were to choose one, what is your main purpose of using social media?
Statistics
Purpose
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Purpose
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.00
11
9.2
9.2
10.8
2.00
16
13.3
13.3
24.2
3.00
67
55.8
55.8
80.0
4.00
6.7
6.7
86.7
5.00
16
13.3
13.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 7 looked at what our participants viewed as their main reason for participating on social
media. Results showed most respondents use social media for social interaction at 56%. Next,
respondents selected peeking and self-expression as their purpose of posting on social media,
both at 13%. Additional options were relationship maintenance (9%) and networking (7%).
42
Question 8: Are you in a romantic relationship?
Statistics
Relationship
N
Valid
120
Missing
Relationship
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.00
59
49.2
49.2
49.2
2.00
61
50.8
50.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 8 was designed to differentiate the respondents who were in a romantic relationship
versus those who were not. With almost identical results, both categories were well represented
in our study. 51% answered that they were not currently in a romantic relationship while 49%
answered they were committed.
43
Question 9: If in a relationship, does your partner have a social media account?
Statistics
Account
N
Valid
120
Missing
Account
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
46
38.3
38.3
38.3
1.00
57
47.5
47.5
85.8
2.00
17
14.2
14.2
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 9 was directed towards the study participants who classified themselves as in a
relationship. The question was asked to determine if the partner of the committed respondent has
a social media account. 48% of the study participants answered yes while only 14% said their
partner did not have a social media profile.
44
Question 10: If single, does your crush have a social media account?
Statistics
Crush
N
Valid
120
Missing
Crush
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
56
46.7
46.7
46.7
1.00
54
45.0
45.0
91.7
2.00
10
8.3
8.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 10 was directed to reach the audience that the previous question did not apply to. To
those who classified themselves outside of a committed relationship, we asked if their crush had
a social media account. Receiving a similar response to the question before, 45% of respondents
said their crush did have a social media profile with 8% saying their crush did not.
45
Question 11: If in a relationship, would you generally say you trust your significant other?
Statistics
Other
N
Valid
120
Missing
Other
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
42
35.0
35.0
35.0
1.00
70
58.3
58.3
93.3
2.00
6.7
6.7
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 11 asked respondents if they generally trusted their significant other; this was
anticipated to be highly significant for our research study. 58% of the overall participants
responded saying they do trust their partner with only 7% saying they do not. 35% of
participants did not answer this question which is likely to be the individuals who answered no to
being in a relationship when asked in Question 8.

Question 12: Do you look at who likes or favorites your posts?
Statistics
Posts
N
Valid
120
Missing
Posts
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
.00
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.00
103
85.8
85.8
87.5
2.00
15
12.5
12.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 12 asked participants if they looked at who liked or commented on their posts and
86% replied that they do. 13% said they do not view who interacts on their posts.
46
47
Question 13: Is a like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram?
Statistics
Like
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Like
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.00
12
10.0
10.0
15.0
2.00
12
10.0
10.0
25.0
3.00
38
31.7
31.7
56.7
4.00
37
30.8
30.8
87.5
5.00
15
12.5
12.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 13 looked to see if participants viewed a like on Facebook different than a favorite
on Instagram. Although we deemed this question a limitation after distributing the questionnaire,
most respondents answered neutrally saying it might or might not (32%) and 31% answering
with probably not. On the opposite end, 10% of the participants said a like and a favorite
are definitely different and 10% also answered probably yes.
48
Question 14: Do you look at who likes or favorites other peoples posts?
Statistics
People
N
Valid
120
Missing
People
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
.8
.8
.8
1.00
60
50.0
50.0
50.8
2.00
59
49.2
49.2
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 14 looked at if participants checked who liked or favorited their social media posts.
Results from the frequency test show 50% of participants saying they do not while 49% said they
do look at who is active on their posts. 1% did not complete this question.

Question 15: Do you have different motivations for liking or favoriting different peoples
posts?
Statistics
Motivations
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Motivations
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.00
85
70.8
70.8
72.5
2.00
33
27.5
27.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 15 asked those who completed the questionnaire if they had different motivations for
liking and/or favoriting different peoples posts. 71% responded that they do have different
reasons behind liking peoples posts while 28% said they do not. 2% did not complete this
question.
49
50
Question 16: Do you interpret the motivation behind receiving a like or favorite differently
based on the individual?
Statistics
Individual
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Individual
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
.8
.8
.8
1.00
82
68.3
68.3
69.2
2.00
37
30.8
30.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Parallel to the previous question, Question 16 asked if participants interpreted the motivations
behind receiving a like or favorite different based on the individual. 68% of respondents said
they do interpret different reasons behind others activities on social media while 31% said they
do not. 1% did not complete this question.
51
Question 17: Do you interpret another liking/commenting on your photo as flirting
Statistics
Another
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Another
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.00
1.7
1.7
4.2
2.00
.8
.8
5.0
3.00
10
8.3
8.3
13.3
4.00
68
56.7
56.7
70.0
5.00
36
30.0
30.0
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 17 asked if the respondent interpreted another liking or commenting on their photo as
flirting. The majority of respondents answered sometimes at 57% and 30% said they never
view people liking/commenting on their posts as flirting.
52
Question 18: Do you use social media to monitor your significant others online activity?
Statistics
Activity
N
Valid
120
Missing
Activity
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
16
13.3
13.3
13.3
1.00
17
14.2
14.2
27.5
2.00
87
72.5
72.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 18 asked the participants if they used social media to monitor their partners activity. A
large majority of 73% stated they do not use social media to watch their significant others online
activity with only 14% saying they monitor on social media. 13% did not complete this
question. Overall, these results do not support our hypothesis but we believe this is due to
incorrectly phrasing the question and misleading the respondent.

Question 19: Do women or men use social media more as a means of monitoring prospective
romantic interests?
Statistics
Men
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Men
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
4.2
4.2
4.2
1.00
10
8.3
8.3
12.5
2.00
105
87.5
87.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 19 was anticipated to determine what gender uses social media as a means of
monitoring their prospective romantic interests. 88% of respondents believe women utilize
social media for this purpose with only 8% saying men do. 4% did not complete this question.
53
54
Question 20: Do you react differently when your significant other likes or favorites someones
post of the same sex versus the opposite sex?
Sex
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
16
13.3
13.3
13.3
1.00
4.2
4.2
17.5
2.00
5.8
5.8
23.3
3.00
7.5
7.5
30.8
4.00
37
30.8
30.8
61.7
5.00
46
38.3
38.3
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 20 asked if the respondent would react differently if their significant other liked or
commented on someones post of the same sex versus the opposite sex. Potentially due to the
questions complexity, it may have caused confusion because responses varied. 69% of
participants answered with sometimes or never while 10% answered always or most of the
time in regards to how they would react. 8% landed between these two sides.
55
90%
78.30%
80%
70%
60%
53.30%
50%
40.80%
37%
40%
35.80%
30%
20%
15.00%
10%
0%
Friend Request
Like
Reaction
Comment
4
Direct Message
Question 21: If a different user contacted your partner/crush on social media, which of the
following social media activities are likely to cause the most concern for you?
Statistics
Concern1
N
Valid
Missing
Concern2
Concern3
Concern4
Concern5
120
120
120
120
120

Concern1
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
1.00
4.2
4.2
19.2
2.00
20
16.7
16.7
35.8
3.00
21
17.5
17.5
53.3
4.00
13
10.8
10.8
64.2
5.00
43
35.8
35.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Concern2
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
1.00
.8
.8
15.8
2.00
5.0
5.0
20.8
3.00
6.7
6.7
27.5
4.00
44
36.7
36.7
64.2
5.00
43
35.8
35.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Concern3
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
1.00
1.7
1.7
16.7
2.00
6.7
6.7
23.3
3.00
49
40.8
40.8
64.2
4.00
35
29.2
29.2
93.3
5.00
6.7
6.7
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
56
57
Concern4
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
2.00
64
53.3
53.3
68.3
3.00
23
19.2
19.2
87.5
4.00
10
8.3
8.3
95.8
5.00
4.2
4.2
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Concern5
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
18
15.0
15.0
15.0
1.00
94
78.3
78.3
93.3
2.00
3.3
3.3
96.7
3.00
.8
.8
97.5
5.00
2.5
2.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 21 looks at what specific action received by a romantic partner within Facebook and
Instagram would provide the most concern for an individual. Results showed direct messaging to
be the most threatening, followed by direct messages (78%), comments (53%), reactions
(41%), likes (37%), and a friend request (36%). This supports our hypothesis that activity can
provoke conflict through these actions on social media.
58
Question 22: If you are in a same-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the same gender
likes your partners post?
SSex
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
87
72.5
72.5
72.5
1.00
5.0
5.0
77.5
2.00
27
22.5
22.5
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 22 addresses those in a same-sex relationship by asking if they would feel threatened if
someone of the same sex liked their partners post. 73% of participants didnt complete this
question, which was expected as they may not be in a same-sex relationship. However, of those
who did provide an answer, 23% said no they would not feel threatened with 5% saying they
would. These findings would support our null hypothesis.
59
Question 23: If you are in an opposite-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the opposite
gender likes your partners post?
Statistics
OSex
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
OSex
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
34
28.3
28.3
28.3
1.00
13
10.8
10.8
39.2
2.00
73
60.8
60.8
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 23 asks those in an opposite-sex relationship if they would feel threatened if someone
of the opposite sex liked their partners post. The majority (61%) said they would not feel
threatened while 11% said they would. 28% chose not to complete this question.
60
Question 24: Have you ever used social media as a tool to get information about a prospective
romantic interest?
Statistics
Tool
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Tool
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.00
91
75.8
75.8
78.3
2.00
26
21.7
21.7
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 24 asked respondents if they have ever used social media as a means to get information
on a prospective romantic interest. 76% answered the question with yes they have utilized
social media as a tool for getting to know a romantic interest. 22% said they have not and 3%
chose to not complete this question.
61
Question 25: Do you think that social media activity provokes conflict in romantic relationships?
Statistics
Conflict
N
Valid
120
Missing
0
Conflict
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Percent
.00
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.00
97
80.8
80.8
83.3
2.00
20
16.7
16.7
100.0
Total
120
100.0
100.0
Question 25 was intended to ask the questionnaire participants if they agreed with our
hypothesis. It asked participants if they believed activity on social media may provoke conflict
within romantic relationship and 81% supported our hypothesis that is does have the ability to
create issues. 17% said social media activity does not provoke conflict and 3% did not answer
the question.
62
Cross tabulation and Chi-Square Tests

Cross tabulation 1: Relationship and Account
Account * Relationship Cross tabulation
Relationship
yes
Account
.00
Count
46
46
.0%
100.0%
100.0%
56
57
98.2%
1.8%
100.0%
14
17
17.6%
82.4%
100.0%
59
61
120
49.2%
50.8%
100.0%
Count
% within Account
no
Count
% within Account
Total
Count
% within Account
Total
% within Account
yes
no
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
106.184
.000
Likelihood Ratio
140.410
.000
21.107
.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
120
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.36.
This graph presented above shows how many participants that have taken the
questionnaire and are involved in a relationship. These results also represent that their
significant other has a social media account whether it is Facebook or Instagram. The 47% of
the males relationships and the 51% of the females relationships can support our hypothesis
since they are in a relationship that is affected by social media.
63
64
Cross tabulation 2: Other and Relationship

Relationship * Other Cross tabulation
Other
.00
`Relationship
1.00
Count
% within Relationship
2.00
Count
Total
1.00
Count
2.00
Total
56
59
.0%
94.9%
5.1%
100.0%
42
14
61
68.9%
23.0%
8.2%
100.0%
42
70
120
35.0%
58.3%
6.7%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
67.685
.000
Likelihood Ratio
85.681
.000
38.211
.000
N of Valid Cases
120
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.93.
65
The results of this test indicate that among those in a relationship 37% of males trust their
significant other and 43% of females trust their significant other in their relationship. According
to the chart shown above, when the results are combined the 95% of the participants who
responded they are in a relationship trust each other.
66
Cross tabulation 3: Activity and Another

Another * Activity Cross tabulation
Activity
.00
Another
.00
1.00
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
10
10.0%
60.0%
30.0%
100.0%
51
68
11.8%
13.2%
75.0%
100.0%
30
36
11.1%
5.6%
83.3%
100.0%
16
17
87
120
13.3%
14.2%
72.5%
100.0%
Count
Count
% within Another
3.00
Count
% within Another
4.00
Count
% within Another
5.00
Count
% within Another
Total
Count
% within Another
2.00
% within Another
2.00
1.00
Count
% within Another
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
34.948
10
.000
Likelihood Ratio
25.036
10
.005
7.052
.008
N of Valid Cases
120
a. 12 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .13.
67
Among the males who have responded in the graph, 100% of the males say that they always
interpret another liking or commenting on their photo as flirting. However, this percentage also
displays that the males responded no to utilizing social media to monitor their significant other.
This indicates that those who responded negatively towards monitoring their significant other
spend less time on social media which leads to fewer conflicts provoked. The results in the
graph that correlate monitored activity of a significant other and the interpretation of flirting
demonstrates about half the time the 30% females and males reacted positively, which supports
our hypothesis. The most significant results shown in the chart above, 75% of the participants
responded with the statement I sometimes interpret another liking or commenting on their photo
as flirting. This was almost half of our participants that responded this way which shows that
this is a key element that could provoke conflict in romantic relationships because it is facilitated
with social media.
68
Cross tabulation 4: Individual and Tool

Tool * Individual Cross tabulation
Individual
.00
Tool
.00
Count
% within Tool
yes
no
Total
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
69
22
91
.0%
75.8%
24.2%
100.0%
12
13
26
3.8%
46.2%
50.0%
100.0%
82
37
120
.8%
68.3%
30.8%
100.0%
Count
% within Tool
Total
Count
% within Tool
no
Count
% within Tool
yes
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
df
12.427
.014
11.511
.021
1.710
.191
120
69
The results indicate in the chart that 76% of both females and males interpret the motivation of
receiving a like or favorite differently based on the individual and social media is used as a
tool to get information about one's significant other. These results would support the hypothesis
through the different interpretation of posts and the tool to make that interpretation. There is a
significant amount of both genders that agree that social media is used to gather more
information about their significant other resulting in a more conflicted communication.
70
Cross tabulation 5: Conflict and Tool

Tool * Conflict Cross tabulation
Conflict
.00
Tool
.00
Count
% within Tool
1.00
Total
66.7%
33.3%
.0%
100.0%
77
14
91
.0%
84.6%
15.4%
100.0%
19
26
3.8%
73.1%
23.1%
100.0%
97
20
120
2.5%
80.8%
16.7%
100.0%
Count
% within Tool
Total
Count
% within Tool
2.00
Count
% within Tool
2.00
1.00
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
54.294
.000
Likelihood Ratio
17.096
.002
3.290
.070
N of Valid Cases
120
71
According to the graph displayed above show that 50% female and 35% male have support that
conflict is provoked by social media and that it is used as a tool to monitor a significant other.
When analyzing the chart above these results indicate that 85% of the participants, which is
more than half of the participants show a positive correlation. This relation shows the fact that
social media is a tool that can provide information about a partner that could cause a conflict
between the two partners.
72
Cross tabulation 6: Individual and Posts

Posts * Individual Cross tabulation
Individual
.00
Posts
.00
Count
% within Posts
1.00
Total
50.0%
.0%
50.0%
100.0%
77
26
103
.0%
74.8%
25.2%
100.0%
10
15
.0%
33.3%
66.7%
100.0%
82
37
120
.8%
68.3%
30.8%
100.0%
Count
Count
% within Posts
Total
2.00
% within Posts
2.00
1.00
Count
% within Posts
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
71.207
.000
Likelihood Ratio
20.833
.000
10.441
.001
N of Valid Cases
120
73
The participants shown in the middle bar graph represent the participants that analyzes who
likes or favorites their posts as well as responding yes to interpreting different motivations.
Both female and male participants make up 75% who interpret the motivation behind receiving
a like differently based on an individual while analyzing the people who like certain posts. As
shown in the third bar, a significant percentage of 54% of males do not look at who likes their
posts, which could represent that this question is more relevant to females. However, these
results support our hypothesis through the agreement of different individuals actions result into a
different reaction within in a romantic relationship. The constant monitoring of who likes
certain posts could result in distrust in a relationship, which could lead to conflict provoked by
social media.
74
Cross tabulation 7: Concern 1 and Conflict

Conflict * Concern1 Cross tabulation
Concern1
.00
Conflict
.00
Count
% within Conflict
1.00
Count
% within Conflict
2.00
Count
% within Conflict
Total
Count
% within Conflict
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Total
66.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
33.3%
100.0%
11
16
17
10
39
97
11.3%
4.1%
16.5%
17.5%
10.3%
40.2%
100.0%
20
25.0%
5.0%
20.0%
20.0%
15.0%
15.0%
100.0%
18
20
21
13
43
120
15.0%
4.2%
16.7%
17.5%
10.8%
35.8%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
12.544
10
.250
Likelihood Ratio
12.021
10
.284
1.538
.215
N of Valid Cases
120
75
These results indicate that 40% of romantic relationships are concerned with direct messaging.
This shows that this is a direct contact to another person, so these results are more significant
due to the fact that both genders agree this is the most conflicting reaction compared to the other
four concerns.
76
Cross tabulation 8: Men and Other

Other * Men Cross tabulation
Men
.00
Other
.00
Count
% within Other
1.00
2.00
Total
37
42
7.1%
4.8%
88.1%
100.0%
60
70
2.9%
11.4%
85.7%
100.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10
105
120
4.2%
8.3%
87.5%
100.0%
Count
% within Other
Total
Count
% within Other
2.00
Count
% within Other
1.00
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
3.799
.434
Likelihood Ratio
4.704
.319
.602
.438
N of Valid Cases
120
77
According to the graph above, the majority of the participants, which is 86% are in a romantic
relationship that trust their partner. This percentile also represents that women use social media
more to monitor their prospective romantic interest.
78
Cross tabulation 9: Tool and Other

Other * Tool Cross tabulation
Tool
.00
Other
.00
Count
% within Other
1.00
Total
42
2.4%
81.0%
16.7%
100.0%
53
16
70
1.4%
75.7%
22.9%
100.0%
12.5%
50.0%
37.5%
100.0%
91
26
120
2.5%
75.8%
21.7%
100.0%
Count
% within Other
Total
34
Count
% within Other
2.00
Count
% within Other
2.00
1.00
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
5.829
.212
Likelihood Ratio
4.275
.370
.759
.384
N of Valid Cases
120
79
The results indicate 76% trust their partner in their romantic relationship while using social
media as a tool to gain information from their partner. There is a statistically significance
difference between male and female when each gender responded about the use of social media
to gain information about his or her partner. While trusting their significant other 31% of
female responded yes to using social media as a tool and 23% responded no. Only 28% of males
use social media to gain information about their partner and 39% responded no to monitoring
their partner. The results presents on the graph clearly display that the majority of romantic
relationships trust each other, but also use social media as an aid to gather information about
their partner.
80
Cross tabulation 10: Conflict and Other

Other * Conflict Cross tabulation
Conflict
.00
Other
.00
Count
2.00
42
.0%
81.0%
19.0%
100.0%
56
12
70
2.9%
80.0%
17.1%
100.0%
12.5%
87.5%
.0%
100.0%
97
20
120
2.5%
80.8%
16.7%
100.0%
Count
% within Other
Total
Count
% within Other
Total
34
Count
% within Other
2.00
% within Other
1.00
1.00
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
5.822
.213
Likelihood Ratio
6.615
.158
2.505
.113
N of Valid Cases
120
81
These results express a positive correlation between trust within the romantic relationships and
whether or not the participants believe social media provokes conflict in these relationships.
80% of the participants trust their partner as they agree that social media is a significant element
that negatively affects romantic relationships. 17% of the participants who trust their partner
responded no to social media provoking conflict within their relationship.
82
Cross tabulation 11: Individual and Motivations

Motivations * Individual Cross tabulation
Individual
.00
Motivations
.00
Count
% within Motivations
1.00
Count
2.00
Count
Total
Count
1.00
2.00
Total
50.0%
.0%
50.0%
100.0%
70
15
85
.0%
82.4%
17.6%
100.0%
12
21
33
.0%
36.4%
63.6%
100.0%
82
37
120
.8%
68.3%
30.8%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
84.296
.000
Likelihood Ratio
33.834
.000
22.188
.000
N of Valid Cases
120
These results indicate that 82% have different motivations for liking or favoriting different
peoples posts as they interpret the motivation behind receiving a like or favorite based on
the individual. 63% of the participants responded with no to interpreting motivations for
receiving or giving these actions based on the individual.
83
84
Cross tabulation 12: Men and Posts

Posts * Men Cross tabulation
Men
.00
Posts
.00
Count
% within Posts
1.00
Total
Total
50.0%
.0%
50.0%
100.0%
93
103
1.9%
7.8%
90.3%
100.0%
11
15
13.3%
13.3%
73.3%
100.0%
10
105
120
4.2%
8.3%
87.5%
100.0%
Count
Count
% within Posts
2.00
% within Posts
2.00
1.00
Count
% within Posts
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
df
a
.003
8.158
.086
.962
.327
N of Valid Cases
120
Likelihood Ratio
15.746
85
There is significant correlation between these results, 90.3% of people look at their posts while
the female figure resulted to be the sex that monitors their romantic partner more with the use of
social media. The reason for this relevance is within the responses, 60% males versus 13%
females have responded that they do not look at who specifically likes their posts. This statistic
displays the significance of more females interpreting more on social media, due to paying close
to more detail through social media.
86
Cross tabulation 13: Another and Posts

Posts * Another Cross tabulation
Another
.00
Posts
.00
Count
% within Posts
1.00
Count
% within Posts
2.00
Count
% within Posts
Total
Count
% within Posts
Total
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
100.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
100.0%
10
58
32
103
.0%
1.9%
1.0%
9.7%
56.3%
31.1%
100.0%
10
15
6.7%
.0%
.0%
.0%
66.7%
26.7%
100.0%
10
68
36
120
2.5%
1.7%
.8%
8.3%
56.7%
30.0%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
83.907
10
.000
Likelihood Ratio
24.505
10
.006
3.564
.059
N of Valid Cases
120
87
56% of the participants have responded that they look at who likes or favorites their posts
and they sometimes interpret another liking or commenting on your photo as flirting. As
seen in the graph above the males have responded in a more conflict provoking angle. The male
participants responded with 100% always, 100% most of the time, 60% about half of the time,
and 42% sometimes. The female participants responded 40% about half of the time, 42%
sometimes, and 58% never. These results indicate a statistical significance through how highly
both genders responded agreeing that reactions on photos is a sign of flirtation.
88
Cross tabulation 14: Conflict and Hours

Hours * Conflict Cross tabulation
Conflict
.00
Hours
1.00
Count
% within Hours
2.00
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
100.0%
39
47
4.3%
83.0%
12.8%
100.0%
43
10
53
.0%
81.1%
18.9%
100.0%
11
12
.0%
91.7%
8.3%
100.0%
.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
97
20
120
2.5%
80.8%
16.7%
100.0%
Count
Count
Count
% within Hours
5.00
Count
% within Hours
Total
Total
% within Hours
4.00
2.00
% within Hours
3.00
1.00
Count
% within Hours
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
N of Valid Cases
df
15.463
.051
11.118
.195
2.539
.111
120
89
These results display on the graph that the average amount of hours spent on social media is
about 3-4 hours. With this average amount of hours, 81% of the participants stated yes for social
media provoking conflict in romantic relationships. The significance presented in the responses
is the females responded more positively towards social media provoking more conflict than
males responded. 29% of females responded yes to social media provoking conflict in contrast
to 16% of males.
90
Cross tabulation 15: Sex and Other
Other * Sex Cross tabulation

Sex
.00
Other
.00
Count
% within Other
1.00
Count
% within Other
2.00
Count
% within Other
Total
Count
% within Other
1.00
2.00
Total
3.00
4.00
5.00
16
12
10
42
38.1%
.0%
2.4%
7.1%
28.6%
23.8%
100.0%
22
33
70
.0%
4.3%
8.6%
8.6%
31.4%
47.1%
100.0%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
.0%
37.5%
37.5%
100.0%
16
37
46
120
13.3%
4.2%
5.8%
7.5%
30.8%
38.3%
100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Pearson Chi-Square
46.662
10
.000
Likelihood Ratio
49.250
10
.000
13.268
.000
N of Valid Cases
120
91
These results indicate that both genders agree to react differently when their significant other
likes someones post of the same sex versus the opposite sex even though they are in a trusting
romantic relationship. The males responses agree with 60% stating always, 43% most of the
time, 22% about half of the time, 33% sometimes. The female respondents agree with 43%
stating most of the time, 44% about half of the time, and 33% sometimes. Since both genders
agree with reacting differently to someones post when it is the opposite gender over the same
supports social media provoking conflict.
Summary
92
93
The results of this study acted as a continuation of past studies attempts in determining
how an individual chooses to utilize social media and how they interpret what they discover. The
uses and gratification theory suggests that people are on social media based on their needs and
wants and those factor as ones social and psychological circumstances, motives, and
expectations influence social media use, (Sheldon & Bryant 2015, p. 90). Hayes, Carr, and
Wohns study show both women and their friends were attentive to how many likes were
received as well as by whom. Additional results from this focus group suggested that activity on
anothers post was another form of subtle recognition through obligation of a relationship
form, (2016). The complexity of motivation behind an action on social media created the desire
to see how it could impact relationships. This, along with the interpersonal relationship theory
led us to analyze how an individuals actions and interpretations of others actions on social
media can influence his or her own romantic relationship.
Distributing questionnaires to a sample of students enrolled at a small, Catholic liberal
arts college in the Midwest, we collected a sample of 120 respondents. We used frequency tests,
cross tabulations, and chi square tests to analyze the statistical significance of our data. Through
our analysis, we learned that 49% of our respondents identified as males while 51% identified as
females. This shows a fairly equal representation of both genders that were present within our
distribution. In addition, 96% of participants were active on Facebook and 82% had personal
Instagram accounts, so the majority of those surveyed are relevant subjects to our study.
Based on our results, social media users utilize platforms primarily for social interaction
(56%) as well as self-expression and peeking (13%). A moderately positive correlation we can
infer is that social media users notice who looks at their posts (86%) with only 13% disagreeing.
However, when asked if participants look at who like or comment on others posts, only 50%
94
answered yes, 49% said no, and 1% chose to not complete the question. This is suggestive to the
idea that people may post on social media with the intent to reach more than one audience.
Leading into the next positive correlation, 71% of respondents admitted to having different
motivations for liking or commenting on others posts with only 28% saying they do not.
Likewise, respondents also interpreted the motivation behind receiving attention on social media
differently based on the individual at 68%. This suggests users are aware that the same action
may have a different meaning depending on the identity of the sender or receiver. Respondents
also acknowledged that flirting can occur through social media with 57% stating they have
received an action they interpreted as a form of romantic appeal.
Our study also anticipated researching whether men or women utilized social media more
as a means to gain information on prospective romantic interest. Based on our results, the
majority of respondents (76%) have used social media as a means to get information on a
prospective romantic interest with only 22% answering no. Furthermore, an overwhelming 88%
of respondents believe women utilize social media for the purpose of gathering information
about a partner or crush compared to the 9% who selected the male gender. However, when
comparing those who were currently in a relationship to the gender of the respondent, 43% of
females trust their significant other while only 37% of males trust their partner. In addition,
when asked if an individual felt threatened by another liking or commenting on their partners
profile, 73% said they do not with only 23% expressing concern. This suggests the complexity
and significance gender plays into the interpretation of social media posts.
Although the studys focus was not to determine differences of interpretation between
different social media platforms, the results we found cannot conclude a significance. 20% of
respondents noted a difference between a like on Facebook versus a favorite on Instagram
95
while the majority (44%) did not. Seeking to determine the degree of concern a specific action
on social media can cause within a relationship, we asked respondents to rate the threat level of a
like, comment, reaction, direct message, and friend request. Five separate frequency tests
were completed with the highest results showing direct messages causing the most concern
(78%) followed by a comment (53%), reaction (41%), like (37%), and lastly, a friend request
(35.8%). Overall, when asked if social media activity can provoke conflict within a romantic
relationship over 76% of respondents agreed and 22% did not. This specific result supports our
hypothesis that an individuals action within an online social media platform can cause negative
implications within his or her relationship. In a cross tabulation that was ran, 40% of romantic
relationships are concerned with direct messaging. This type of interaction is direct contact to
another person, so these results are significant due to the majority of the participants agreeing
with this concern as the highest negative impact in their relationship.
After we ran the frequencies, we began our cross tabulations and chi square tests. These
cross tabulations show positive and negative connections between variables that correlate to the
participants that are in relationships. The first connection we combined was the participants who
are in a relationship and whether their partners have social media, which resulted as 98%.
Within these relationships 95% of the couples trust their significant other. While in these
trusting relationships both females and males spend an average of 3-4 hours per day on social
media while 81% of them believe social media provokes conflict. This result has a positive
correlation to a cross tabulation that combines the people who look at their posts and that women
are the gender who monitors their partner more on social media, which resulted as 90%.
The significance about this result is 75% of the males and females who do or do not look at their
posts, which were combined with if they trust their significant other. These results could indicate
96
the fact that since females are more on social media males do not spend the amount of time to
interpret their significant other. 76% of both females and males interpret the motivation of
receiving a like or favorite differently based on the individual while social media is used as a
tool to get information about one's significant other. The participants who agreed with these
variables also interpret this information that can be misinterpreted and influence a like or
favorite from different individuals which could provoke conflict within a relationship.
Limitations of the Study
97
98
When determining how activity on social media can provoke conflict within romantic
relationships, we came across a variety of limitations. First, our study population consisted of
students from a small, private Catholic college in the Midwest. This demographic could have
formed pressure for the respondents to provide answers that mirror the values of the college
rather than providing an honest answer.
Another limitation involving the respondents is their decision to refrain from completing
the questionnaire. During our distribution period, a number of our anticipated respondents chose
to not participate in our study. This created another limitation which consisted of not fully
reaching our anticipated target demographic. Looking to reach a minimum of twenty-five
participants from each cohort, we only gathered twenty-one completed questionnaires from the
junior class; this did not meet the expected quota. This could be due to not identifying a more
accurate pool of participants as well as low class attendance on the day of distribution.
This leads to the limitation of sensitivity our study contained. We believe that the topic
of conflict within romantic relationships was likely to create dishonest answers. Although some
participants declined the invitation to be a part of our study, others completed the questionnaire
but did not answer as specific as possible. We noticed that in regards to the more vulnerable or
emotional questions, the majority of respondents chose the neutral answer. Our study relied on
participants to admit to monitoring others through social media and despite the awareness of
confidentiality, numerous individuals chose to answer vaguely or provide no answer at all.
Lastly, we believe our biggest limitation involved the structure of multiple questions
within the questionnaire. Multiple questions could have been reworded to create a more accurate
interpretation for the respondents or removed entirely from the questionnaire. For example, Is a
like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram? should have been phrased, Do you
99
interpret the motivation behind a like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram?
Another example of a vague question that required more direction is, Do you interpret another
liking/commenting on your photo as flirting? This question created skewed results due to the
lack of direction. If we were to keep the question on the questionnaire, we should have phrased
it, How often do you interpret likes or favorites on your posts as flirting?
For other questions we asked during the distribution period, they either not necessary to
ask or classified as double-barreled questions. The question, Do you use social media to
monitor your significant others online activity should have either been reworded or removed as
it did not aid our studys purpose. The questionnaire already contains a question very similar to
the previously mentioned question so there was not a benefit in including it. The double-barreled
question was worded, Do you react differently when your significant other likes or favorites
someones post of the same sex versus the opposite sex? Not only is this question complicated
to the reader, but it should have been separated into two questions such as, How often do you
react negatively when your significant other likes or favorites someones post of the opposite
sex? and How often do you react negatively when your significant other likes or favorites
someones post of the same sex? Even so, the question may not have been beneficial to include
at all.
Recommendations for Further Study
100
101
Further studies in alternative social media platforms such as Snapchat, Twitter, Pinterest,
and Vine would further develop our understanding of social media as a whole within
relationships. Limiting our research to just Facebook and Instagram was necessary in order to
determine whether or not social media activity was likely to cause conflict within a romantic
relationship. Now that this hypothesis was supported, further focus within specific platforms and
the unique communication opportunities they provide would give insight on what direct actions
cause a certain level of conflict. In addition, once individual studies of social media platforms
were conducted, results could be compared to determine how activity on specific platforms
compare and contrast with one another.
In addition, determining how specific capabilities within a social media platform impact
the interpretation of motives could also be a study to conduct. Different platforms allow
different forms of communication such as a favorite on Instagram and Twitter, sharing a
resume on LinkedIn, and creating groups within Facebook. Also, further studies could look into
certain factors into account such as the length of a comment, the timing of an activity, or the
frequency an individual performing an act. Knowing how individuals interpret each specific
communication tool within a platform could then be used to compare different platforms.
Psychology and an individuals unique interpretation of words, thoughts, and action
significantly impact the success of a romantic relationship. Although our study looked briefly
into the psychology behind activity on social media and how partners within a relationship
interpret the activity, further analysis would be beneficial. Being able to connect a certain action
within a social media platform to a specific human emotion could help identify what activity can
improve a romantic relationship and what could potentially harm a relationship. An additional
102
study could provide various examples of potential activity within social media and ask them to
identify it with an emotion such as sadness, happiness, vulnerability, confusion, and more.
Looking deeper into the reasoning behind specific trends of interpretation may provide insight on
the level of conflict social media can create within a relationship.
Lastly, comparing men and womens differing interpretations, emotions, and actions
online can further interpret social media platforms psychological impacts. With our study
results showing a significant difference why those of different genders utilize social media, it
could be beneficial to determine more specific results. Our study also showed a level of
disinterest on social media for the male gender, so further inquiring the reasoning behind this
could be valuable. Examples of this would be to determine what specific actions men/women
are most likely to perform on social media, how men/women interpret sending and receiving
specific online communication, and the level of influence men/women credit social media for
causing conflict his/her relationship.
Conclusion
103
104
We, as social scientists, added research to the topic of romantic relationships among
college age students. Additionally, we added research to help determine how social media
provokes conflict among those relationships. This is important to research due to social media
becoming more prominent in society. The prominence of social media can be attributed to the
advancements in technology that affects everyday life and relationships. Specifically, we studied
the use of Instagram and Facebook and how their features through their social media platform
contribute to conflicts in romantic relationships.
In the review of the literature, we discovered that some of features are more significant
than others, such as peeking on others for fulfillment. Some Instagram users are motivated to
pursue relaxation, avoid the troubles they encounter in reality, and view others photographs,
(Lee et al., 2015, p. 555). The present findings suggest that Instagram users utilize this platform
to escape from their real lives and engage with friends, family, and other people they have never
met offline before, (Lee et al., 2015, p. 555).
In conclusion, a large portion of our findings supported our hypothesis. After collecting
and transferring our data into PASW, we discovered that men and women have different
perspectives in romantic relationships. We discussed that jealousy through flirtation over social
media is a major contribution to college aged relationships, thus messages including a wink-face
emoticon may be perceived as more threatening than those including text only.As such, this
flirtatiousness may also translate into a computer-mediated communication environment;
indicating that an unfamiliar person is flirting with the participants significant other. By
extension, it makes sense that individuals would imagine they would experience jealousy,
sadness, and other negative emotions if their partner was being hit on by another person,
(Walther & DAddario, 2001, p. 335).
105
Because the research was conducted at a small, Catholic liberal arts college in the
Midwest, our data may be skewed. We had primarily eighteen through twenty-two year old
students whose perspectives on social media and romantic relationships are varied. Inaccuracy
could have occurred due to the participants perspectives or discomfort with any of the questions
on the questionnaire. Some limitations of our questionnaire were the use of unnecessary
questions or questions that had no merit to our overall research. This study merits further
research such as analyzing specific platforms and their capabilities along with studying more
psychology of men and womens interpretations online.
References
106
107
References
Baskin, J. S. (2010). Histories of Social Media. SNCR Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?
id=QTGOBkXNVHcC&pg=PA62&dq=social+media+before+1900s&hl=en&sa=X&ved
=0ahUKEwip0I30qM_PAhVEziYKHQSMCKE4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=carri
er%20pigeons&f=false
Bazarova, N., Taft, J., Choi, Y., & Cosley, D. (2012). Managing impressions and
relationships on Facebook: Self-presentational and relational concerns revealed through
the analysis of language style. Language and Social Psychology, 32(2), 121141.
Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 210230.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.
Burke, M., & Kraut, R. E. (2016). The Relationship between Facebook use and
well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal Of ComputerMediated Communication, 21(4), 265-281. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12162.
Caplan, S. (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of
Communication, 55, 721-736.
108
Cote, M., & Pybus, J. (2011). Learning to Immaterial Labour 2.0: Facebook and Social
Networks. Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor. Retrieved from:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/2836382/CotePybus_Immaterial_Labour_2.0-Facebook.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1480542915&Signature=o
KeiQKtOkW5KJLYmFKwRicwSDQY%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B
%20filename%3DLearning_to_Immaterial_Labour_2.0_Facebo.pdf
Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students romantic relationships on
Facebook: Linking the gratification for maintenance to Facebook maintenance activity
and the experience of jealousy. Communication Quarterly, 63, 365-383.
doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1058283.
Elphinston, R., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the
implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 631635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318.
Facebook. (2016). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, p, 1.
Fleuriet, C., Cole, M., & Guerrero, L. (2014). Exploring Facebook: Attachment style and
nonverbal message characteristics as predictors of anticipated emotional reactions to
Facebook postings. Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 38, 429-450. doi:10.1007/s10919014-0189-x.
109
Geoff, C. (2015). The 10 top reasons why we use social networks: Experts Talk. We are social
media, 6. Retrieved from http://wersm.com/the-10-top-reasons-why-we-use-socialnetworks/.
Gonzales, A., & Hancock, J. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of exposure
to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, behavior, & social networking, 14, 17-83.
Hayes, R.A., Carr, C.T., & Wohn, D.Y. (2016). One click, many meanings: Interpreting
paralinguistic digital affordances in social media. Journal of broadcasting &
electronic media, 60, 171-187.
Homans, G. (2016). MSG Management Study Guide. Theories of interpersonal
relationship: Interpersonal relationship skills/qualities. MSG Experts. Retrieved from
http://www.managementstudyguide.com/interpersonal-relationship-theories.htm.
Instagram. (2015). Statistics. Retrieved from https://instagram.com/press/.
Joinson, A. N. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people: Motives and
use of Facebook. Presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human
factors in computing systems. New York: ACM, 38, 429-450. doi:10.1007/s10919-0140189-x.
Knapp, M. (2010). Communication theory: Knapps relationship model, 149. Retrieved
110
from http://communicationtheory.org/knapps-relationship-model/.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2011). The Facebook effect: The inside story of the company that is
connecting the World. 30-42. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?
id=PxTvbM-VCPEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Lee, E., Lee, J., Moon, J. H., & Sung, Y. (2015). Pictures speak louder than words:
Motivations for using Instagram. Cyberpsychology, behavior & social
networking, 18(9), 552-556. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0157
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multi-dimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 6, 181196.
Rahman, M. (2016). Influence of social networking sites (SNSs) on the interpersonal
relationships of your study bangladesh youth. Global Media Journal: Pakistan Edition.
9(1), 1-16.
Ridder, S., & Bauwel, S. (2015). Youth and intimate media cultures: Gender, sexuality,
relationships, and desire as storytelling practices in social networking sites.
Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research 40(3), 319-340.
Saslow, L. R., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Dubin, M. (2013). Can you see how happy we
111
are?: Facebook images and relationship satisfaction. Social Psychological and

Personality Science, 4, 411418.
Senft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). What Does the Selfie Say? Investigating a
Global Phenomenon. International Journal Of Communication, 24,
91588-1606.
Sheldon, P. (2009). Maintain or Develop New Relationships? Rocky Mountain Communication
Review, 6(1), 51-56.
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to
narcissism and contextual age. Computers In Human Behavior, 5889-97.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059.
Shively, K. (2014, October 29). Research shows instagram engagement per post up 416% in
just two years. Simply Measured. Retrieved from
http://simplymeasured.com/blog/research-shows-instagram-engagement-per-post-up-416in-just-two-years/#sm.00001ympvtpug1f1jwkmdg0snyirl.
Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). Research study: ECAR study of undergraduate
students and information technology, 6. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333.
112
Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication:

hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language and cognition. Computers in human
behavior; 23, 2538-2557.
Walther, J. B., & DAddario, K. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message
interpretation in computer mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review,
19, 324347.
Wood, J. (2015). Interpersonal communication and everyday encounters. Boston:
Wadsworth, 8, 323.
Worley, T., & Samp, J. (2014). Exploring the associations between relational
uncertainty, jealousy about partners friendships, and jealousy expression in dating
relationships. Communication studies, 65(4). 370-388.
Yaacoub, H., & Najjar, R. (2016). Effect of Facebook friends on each others
consumption patterns. Journal of competitiveness studies, 24 (3), 182.
Appendices
113
114
Appendix A
Directions: Please circle the response that best reflects your opinion. When answering the
questions, please take into account that for this study, activity on social media refers to actions
such as liking, favoriting, commenting, using reactions and direct messaging.
If a question is not applicable, do not respond.
1. What gender do you identify as?
Male
Female
2. How old are you?
18
19
3. What is your year in college?
20
21
22
23+

First Year
Sophomore
Junior
115
Senior
4. Do you have a Facebook profile?
Yes
No
5. Do you have an Instagram account?
Yes
No
6. How many hours in a day are you on social media?
1-2
3-4
5-6
7. If you were to choose one, what is your main purpose of using social media?
7+

1.) Relationship Maintenance
2.) Peeking (Creeping)
3.) Social Interaction
4.) Networking
5.) Self Expression
8. Are you in a romantic relationship?
Yes
No
9. If in a relationship, does your partner have a social media account?
Yes
No
10. If single, does your crush have a social media account?
Yes
No
116
117
11. If in a relationship, would you generally say you trust your significant other?
Yes
No
12. Do you look at who likes or favorites your posts?
Yes
No
13. Is a like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram?
Definitely
Yes
Probably
Might or
Probably
Yes
Might Not
Not
Definitely
Not
14. Do you look at who likes or favorites other peoples posts?
Yes
No
15. Do you have different motivations for liking or favoriting different peoples posts?
Yes
118
No
16. Do you interpret the motivation behind receiving a like or favorite differently based on
the individual?
Yes
No
17. Do you interpret another liking/commenting on your photo as flirting?
Always
Most of
the time
About half of
Sometimes
Never
the time
18. Do you use social media to monitor your significant others online activity?
Yes
No
19. Do women or men use social media more as a means of monitoring prospective romantic
interests?
Men
Women
20. Do you react differently when your significant other likes or favorites someones post of
the same sex versus the opposite sex?
Always
Most of
About half of
the time
the time
Sometimes
Never
119
21. If a different user contacted your partner/crush on social media, which of the following
social media activities are likely to cause the most concern for you?
Please rank from 1 being the most concerning to 5 being the least concerning.
1.
Friend request
_____
2.
Like
_____
3.
Reaction
_____
4.
Comment
_____
5.
Direct message
_____
22. If you are in a same-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the same gender likes your
partners post?
Yes
No
23. If you are in an opposite-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the opposite gender
Yes
No
24. Have you ever used social media as a tool to get information about a prospective romantic
interest?
Yes
No

25. Do you think that social media activity provokes conflict in romantic relationships?
Yes
No
Thank You!
120
121
Appendix B
Dear Student,
As students enrolled in the Communication Research course, we are very interested in assessing
Loras College students perception of relationships. The course in which you are currently
enrolled has been randomly selected from the comprehensive list of Fall 2016 courses to
participate in our study.
Your participation in this study is voluntary; however, your feedback is important. Please print
and sign your name in the spaces provided below. Please do not put your name on the
questionnaire.
We, the researchers, guarantee your anonymity and the results will be confidential regarding all
responses and information shared in this study. Your responses will only be used for the research
being conducted in the Fall 2016 Communication Research course.
Please return your completed questionnaire to the researcher in the front of this classroom. If
you have further questions, please contact our professor, Dr. Mary Carol Harris at
marycarol.harris@loras.edu.
Thank you for your participation in our study.
Sincerely,
__________________________
__________________________
Lindsay Kun
Rachel Moser
__________________________
__________________________
James Ralph
Payton Van Vors
Date______________
Print your name______________________
Sign your name____________________________
122
Appendix C
Loras College Institutional Review Board
REQUEST FOR IRB REVIEW
Student Research Project
Please complete the following research application. Provide all information requested as part of
this application. Do not simply refer to other documents or grant applications. Once completed,
send this form, with the attached Research description, and all supporting documents (email
preferred) to the Institutional Review Board chair:
Kathrin Parks, Sociology Program (588-7819); irb@loras.edu
Ethics Certification: In submitting this review request, you agree to conduct this research as
described in the attached documents. You agree to request and wait to receive approval from the
IRB for any changes to the research proposal. You will comply with the policies for conducting
ethical research as outlined in the Belmont Report (at
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/belmont.html .) and other applicable professional ethical
standards.
Please watch the video The Belmont Report: Basic Ethical Principles and Their Application
from the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, from the beginning of the program to minute 13, available at
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up09dioFdEU . Your electronic signature in the space below
affirms that you have watched the video and understand the ethical principles presented:
Rachel Moser, Payton Van Vors, Lindsay Kun, & James Ralph
1. Student Investigator(s) and contact information:
Rachel Moser= Rachel.Moser@loras.edu
Lindsay Kun= Lindsay.Kun@loras.edu
Payton Van Vors= Payton.Vanvors@loras.edu
Jimmy Ralph= James.Ralph@loras.edu
2. Title of Project:
The Impact of Facebook and Instagram Activity on Romantic Interpersonal Relationships
3. Course Requiring Project:
123
COM 485 - Communication Research - Dr. Harris
4. Faculty sponsor name and contact information:

Faculty sponsors should be satisfied the procedures outlined in this review application
are in line with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report as well as any appropriate
professional ethical standards. Faculty sponsors should email the IRB chair
(irb@loras.edu) to indicate that they have reviewed this application prior to it being
submitted. Students, you should copy your faculty sponsor on all IRB-related
correspondence.
Dr. Mary Carol Harris, Division of Communication Chair
MaryCarol.Harris@loras.edu
5. Proposed duration of all project activities:

From August 2016 to December 2016
6. Approximate number of subjects:

125-140 subjects
7. Type of subject: (Mark all appropriate)
__ Adults, Non-student
X Loras College students
__ Other college students
__ Minors (under age 18)
__ Persons with cognitive or psychological impairment
__ Persons with limited civil freedom
__ Persons with HIV+/AIDS
__ Pregnant women
124
6. Special considerations: (Mark all appropriate)

__ No special materials
__ Videotaping
__ Audio taping
__ Use of deception (explain in attachment)
__ Use of alcohol or drugs
__ Other (explain): Not applicable
7. Funding source (other than Loras College):

Students own financial means
.Please complete the Research Description outlined on the next page.

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION
Please address each of the following points below. If a question or section is not applicable to
your research, please state this.
1. Purpose & Significance of Project.

Our Communication Research class is dedicated to utilizing traditional research methods to
conduct our own research project at Loras College. Specific to our topic, our research group is
looking to determine how activity on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram
impact the romantic relationships of college students. Because social media is a continuously
growing, highly utilized form of communication for young adults, we want to see how
communicating through these platforms will influence relationships. Our hypothesis is that
online activity on social media platforms provokes conflict within romantic interpersonal
relationships of college students. Some of the goals we hope to accomplish is to determine what
are college students main reasons for using social media, whether a certain gender utilizes social
media platforms as a way of monitoring their significant others profiles more, and if specific
activity on Facebook or Instagram causes more conflict than others. These goals are important
because according to Lee-Won, Herzog and Park (2015), Facebook has 1.44 billion monthly
active users and approximately 82.8% of daily active users outside United States and Canada
125
which makes Facebook stand as one of the most popular social network sites worldwide, (p.
567). This shows that social media is being utilized by a large mass of users, many of these users
being college students. Among the causes of conflict are elements that can be found in social
media. Today, many romantic problems arise from jealousy, uncertainty, and self-doubt with
peeking and escapism being the primary motives (Lee, et al. ,2015, p. 555). This research shows
that insecurities and conflict can and may arise within social media. It is also important because
social media is a newer form of communication therefore there is a lesser amount of research.
Before social media existed, our choices of relationship partners were largely limited to the
people we encountered face to face, (Wood, p. 323). Because of this, new rights as well as
obligations have been produced on determining how to shape self-identity on social networking
sites, (Ridder & Bauwel, 2015). We anticipate our questionnaire results to show that social media
does, in fact create the potential for conflict within college relationships. We also expect that
activity that enables more communicative flexibility such as comments or direct messaging will
be perceived as more threatening to a relationship. Lastly, we expect to find a larger number of
females using social media platforms to monitor their partner's accounts and activity compared
to males. These findings are beneficial because if our results are as expected, that means social
media creates a whole new element within a relationship. Our anticipated findings would support
the idea that relationships in college are more difficult to maintain due to the increased usage of
social media. Overall, there is value in seeing how an increased dependency on technology along
with the move to online communication may provide complications within relationships.
2. Participants
Recruitment:
In order to recruit participants, we used a random number generator and assigned numbers to
each of the classes offered in the Fall of 2016 at Loras College. Using the random number
generator, we selected classes for each cohort: First years, sophomores, juniors, and senior
classes. We aim to get 25 completed questionnaires from each cohort.
Of the classes we randomly selected, we contacted the professors to get permission to enter their
classroom on a specific day to distribute questionnaires. Once approved via email or in person,
we will enter the classroom on the specific day and distribute to who is in the class at the time.
No restriction on gender, race or ethnic group. We will distribute to all in attendance. After the
class has taken the questionnaire, we will count to see how many of each cohort successfully
complete the questionnaire.
Consent:
Our team has completed a cover letter with a brief description of what we are trying to
accomplish with our study concluded with our own signatures stating our consent. The subject is
then requested to sign and print his/her name giving their consent.
Collaboration:
There are no other institutions involved in this study.
126
3. Methods and Procedure: Describe your research procedure.

What will you ask the participants to do?
We will ask them to give us permission to use their responses in our questionnaire and then they
will complete it. We will allow them 5-7 minutes.
Where will they do this? Alone or in groups?
They will complete the surveys in their classrooms before their classes will begin. Each student
will do this individually.
How long will the procedure take? How many sessions?
This procedure will take about 5-7 minutes and we will complete 6 classes all together.
Give details about any questionnaires or stimuli participants will be exposed to; be specific in
amounts or dosages of any substances participants will be asked to ingest. (Participants may
not consume alcoholic beverages in student research projects.)
The type of questionnaire we are distributing contains 25 questions and we will give them about
5-7 minutes to complete it. No stimulus will be used on our participants.
4. Risk & Benefit Analysis
What are the psychological, physical, or social (loss of reputation, deception, privacy, etc)
risks subjects might encounter by participating? (Please do not say none. All activities
involve some risk, although it may be minimal.)
As it is stated previous, our participants will be listed as anonymous in our questionnaire. In
some case there could be an incident where someone looks over at their responses. So loss of
privacy to a participant.
What precautions will you take to protect participants or reduce risk?
The precautions we will demonstrate is through the cover letter where the participants will give
us consent with their permission to use their responses in our study. This permission will
guarantee their identity will be anonymous. Also, we will keep our questionnaires in a locked
room so no one can look at them.
What benefit, if any, will the participants gain from participating in this research? (Please do
not include compensation or course credit as benefit. If none, simply state that.)
The participants will gain a different perspective and a better understanding of how they view
social media in their relationships.
What compensation, if any, will participants receive (payment, gifts, course credit, etc.)? (If
none, simply state that.)
They will receive none.
What follow-up or debriefing procedures will you have after the research is concluded?
127
We will not follow up with our participants, but we will thank all of them for filling out our
questionnaire.
If any deception or withholding of information is required for this research, please explain
why it is necessary and how this will be handled in the debriefing. Attach debriefing script.
We will not be withholding their information.
5. Data Handling
How will the data be kept anonymous or confidential?
Before answering and filling out the questionnaire, each participant is asked to read and agree
with a cover letter stating that there answers will remain anonymous and is only used for the
purpose of this research study.
Where will data be stored and for how long? Who will have access to the data?
All data will be held in a database called PASW Statistics 18. Once all data is collected from the
questionnaires, the data will be held in an enclosed room in separate team boxes. Each member
of this study, Rachel Moser, Payton Van Vors, Lindsay Kun, and Jimmy Ralph along with Dr.
Mary Carol Harris will be allowed access to the data
Include specific details on the use and storage of any audio or video tapes.
Not applicable
Do you plan to share the results of this research in a class? If so, how?
If any final data would be shared it would be only the results of the questionnaires, which would
still stay anonymous, with COM 485, Communication Research.
Do you plan to share the results of this research outside of your class? If so, how?
If the research is accepted, our research would be shown at the Loras Legacy Symposium
detailing our results of the data.
6. If Participants Will Be Minors (Under age 18)
Not Applicable
7. Investigator Background (Student researchers only)
What coursework have you had to prepare you for research?
Prior to the completion of the questionnaires, we spent weeks in Communication Research going
over risks, methods, ethics and other components necessary for successful research. Some of our
group members are also enrolled in Marketing Research this semester as well.
What is your previous research-related experience, if any?
Not applicable.
128
How will your faculty sponsor supervise or be involved?

Our professor will be provide us guidelines with certain ways to present our research and
instructions to follow throughout the process of research.
8. Consent Forms.
Written Consent Attach copy of all consent & assent forms. See Informed Consent Checklist
on the IRB website
(https://lorasedu.sharepoint.com/Academics/AcademicCommittees/IRB/default.aspx).
Oral consent Provide justification for not obtaining written consent and the text of the script
you will use to obtain oral consent.
Waiver of consent Provide written justification for waiving consent process. This is rare and
usually granted only if consent process itself adds substantial risk to the research.
129
Appendix D
LORAS COLLEGE SCHEDULE - FALL 2016 LAST UPDATED: 11/14/16
MAX USED WTLST

TIME
DAY
30
29
09:00-09:50
SYN
DEPT CAT SEC TITLE

BLDG ROOM
INSTRUCTOR(S)
12:45
7259 L.ACC 227 01 Managerial Accounting

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
CRED
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
25
10:00-10:50

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
26
08:00-09:20

TTH
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
31
09:30-10:50

TTH
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
KEAN 333
Lammer, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
10:00-10:50
7265 L.ACC 331 01 Intermed Financial Acct I

MWF
KEAN 334
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NOT OPEN TO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
3.0
28
26
08:00-09:20
7266 L.ACC 343 01 Cost Accounting

TTH
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
130
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
7928 L.ACC 394

ARR
Lammer, L
03 Accounting Internship
1-12
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Signature Required
25
20
08:00-09:20
7267 L.ACC 455 01 Federal Income Tax I

TTH
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
16
07:00-07:50
7268 L.ACC 468 01 Adv Financial Accounting

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
3
ARR
7926 L.ACC 494

ARR
Sturm, K
1-12
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
7934 L.ACC 494

ARR
Lammer, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-12
0
7
09:30-10:20
7543 L.ARC 101 01 Transition to College

TTH
WAHL 124
Gallagher, L
131
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24
22
10:00-10:50
5989 L.ATR 140 01 First Aid & Emergency Care

MWF
ROHL 143
McDonald, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY FIRST YEAR AND SOPHOMORES
15
12
11:00-11:50
5991 L.ATR 280 01 Athletic Training Clinical I

ROHL 127
McDonald, M
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ATHLETIC TRAINING MAJORS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $40.00
20
13
08:00-08:50
5992 L.ATR 290 01 Eval of Athletic Injuries I

MWF
GRAB 104
Newman, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
10
01:30-02:20pm
5994 L.ATR 380 01 Athletic Training Clinical III

GRAB 104
McDonald, M
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $40.00
25
24
09:30-10:50
7414 L.ATR 481 01 Pathophysiology

TTH
HENN 070
Newman, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
9
01:30-02:20pm
7434 L.ATR 489 01 Athletic Train Clinical V

ROHL 127
McDonald, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
132

COURSE FEE: $40.00
25
26
12:30-01:50pm
7324 L.BAN 210 01 Essentials of Analytics

TTH
KEAN 334
Graham, H
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
02:00-03:20pm
7318 L.BAN 210 02 Essentials of Analytics

TTH
KEAN 334
Graham, H
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
06:00-09:00pm
7464 L.BAN 295 01 Topics: Data Analytics Lab

KEAN 334
Lehman, D
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
8
02:30-03:20pm
7317 L.BAN 330 01 Introduction to Data Science

MWF
HENN 270
Rissler, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
7319 L.BAN 450 01 Marketing Analytics

KEAN 305
Marzofka, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
JUNIORS & SENIORS ONLY
20
16
09:00-09:50
6775 L.BIO 115 01 Principles of Biology I

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F
08:00-10:50
TH
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
18
09:00-09:50

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F / Staff
11:00-01:50pm
TH
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
20
16
09:00-09:50

MWF
SCIE 242
Schnee, F / Staff
02:00-04:50pm
TH
133
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 049
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
14
09:00-09:50
6778 L.BIO 116 01 Principles of Biology II

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D / Sinha, A
08:00-10:50
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
9
09:00-09:50
6779 L.BIO 116 02 Principles of Biology II

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D / Sinha, A
02:00-04:50pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 054
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16
14
11:00-12:20pm
6015 L.BIO 225 02 Human Anatomy & Physiology I

TTH
HENN 070
Thraen-Borowski, K
08:00-09:50
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16
17
11:00-12:20pm
6016 L.BIO 225 03 Human Anatomy & Physiology I

TTH
HENN 070
Thraen-Borowski, K
12:30-02:20pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
20
10:00-10:50
6780 L.BIO 240 01 Plant Biology

MWF
SCIE 109
Sinha, A
12:30-03:20pm
TH
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 054
4.0
134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
18
10:00-10:50
7325 L.BIO 260 01 Human Anatomy & Physiology-AH

MWF
SCIE 134
Davis, T
09:00-10:50
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 134
NOT OPEN TO CROSS-REGISTRATION
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
20
01:30-02:20pm
6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human Genetics-HV

WF
SCIE 049
Schnee, F
01:30-03:20pm
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 049
Clustered with 6742 L.PHI 317 01 Ethics &
New Genetics-HV
COURSE FEE: $20.00
12
11
10:00-10:50
6782 L.BIO 279 01 Exp Design/Biostat-AH

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
02:30-04:20pm
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
12
12
10:00-10:50

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
02:30-04:20pm
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 019
COURSE FEE: $20.00
12
10
10:00-10:50

MWF
SCIE 128
Shealer, D
02:30-04:20pm
TH
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 019
3.0
135

COURSE FEE: $20.00
25
14
03:30-04:20pm
6784 L.BIO 389 01 Junior Seminar

SCIE 208
Schnee, F
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
BIO & BIO RESEARCH MAJORS ONLY
16
13
12:30-01:20pm
6785 L.BIO 420 01 Vertebrate Physiology

MWF
SCIE 128
Davis, T
02:30-04:20pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16
16
12:30-01:20pm
6786 L.BIO 420 02 Vertebrate Physiology

MWF
SCIE 128
Davis, T
02:30-04:20pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 134
COURSE FEE: $20.00
25
15
02:30-04:20pm
6787 L.BIO 488 01 Senior Seminar Portfolio-PJ

SCIE 208
Sinha, A
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
28
26
02:30-03:50pm
5685 L.BUS 230 01 Prin of Management

MW
KEAN 334
Gambrall, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
28
29
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
KEAN 011
Gambrall, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

28
28
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
KEAN 011
Gambrall, D
136
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
31
06:00-09:00pm
5687 L.BUS 240 01 Principles of Marketing

KEAN 333
Donovan, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
10:00-10:50
5688 L.BUS 240 02 Principles of Marketing

MWF
KEAN 303
Graham, H
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
34
08:00-08:50
5690 L.BUS 250 01 Business Statistics

MWF
KEAN 333
Sturm, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Bus-255
25
27
09:00-09:50
5691 L.BUS 317 01 Business Law I

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
33
06:00-09:00pm
5693 L.BUS 335 01 Human Resource Management

KEAN 333
Norton, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
25
12:30-01:50pm
5694 L.BUS 343 01 Marketing Management

TTH
KEAN 009
Marzofka, P
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
30
31
12:30-01:20pm
7327 L.BUS 349 01 Consumer Behavior

MWF
KEAN 334
Marzofka, P
137
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
28
26
08:00-08:50
5697 L.BUS 350 01 Managerial Finance

MWF
KEAN 334
Eller, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
09:00-09:50

MWF
KEAN 011
Breitbach, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
20
10:00-10:50

MWF
KEAN 305
Breitbach, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
18
01:30-02:20pm
7328 L.BUS 353 01 Financial Institutions

MWF
KEAN 303
Breitbach, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
09:30-10:50
7329 L.BUS 354 01 Personal Financial Planning

TTH
KEAN 303
Breitbach, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
11
12:30-01:50pm
5700 L.BUS 358 01 LIFE Portfolio Application I

TTH
KEAN 305
Eller, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
26
06:00-09:00pm
5702 L.BUS 433 01 Global Leadership

KEAN 334
Graham, H
138
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
09:00-09:50
5703 L.BUS 447 01 Marketing Research

MWF
KEAN 303
Marzofka, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
19
09:30-10:50
5704 L.BUS 451 01 Intermed Financial Management

TTH
KEAN 333
Eller, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
25
0
12:30-01:50pm
5705 L.BUS 458 01 LIFE Portfolio Application II

TTH
KEAN 305
Eller, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INSTRUCTOR PERMISSION REQUIRED
40
29
10:00-10:50
6106 L.CHE 111 01 General Chemistry I

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
05:00-07:00pm
40
32
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
05:00-07:00pm
40
30
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
SCIE 208
Moser, A
05:00-07:00pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 128
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 128
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 128
4.0
24
20
08:00-10:50
6173 L.CHE 111L 01 Gen Chemistry I Lab

SCIE 245
Speckhard, D
139
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-111
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
22
12:30-03:20pm

SCIE 245
Maslowsky, E
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
21
08:00-10:50

TH
SCIE 245
Edwards, C
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
16
01:30-04:20pm

SCIE 245
Speckhard, D
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
12
12:30-03:20pm

TH
SCIE 245
Moser, A
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
15
11
01:30-02:20pm
6181 L.CHE 225 01 Quantitative Analysis

MWF
SCIE 109
Edwards, C
12:30-04:20pm
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 203
COURSE FEE: $20.00
4.0
18
16
08:00-08:50
6856 L.CHE 234 01 Organic Chemistry II

MWF
SCIE 109
Oostendorp, D
08:00-10:50
140
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
12
08:00-08:50
6857 L.CHE 234 02 Organic Chemistry II

MWF
SCIE 109
Oostendorp, D
12:30-03:20pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
24
08:00-08:50
6184 L.CHE 262 01 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH

MWF
SCIE 252
Maslowsky, E
08:00-09:50
TH
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
24
22
10:00-10:50
7428 L.CHE 262 02 Globl Warming-Fact/Fiction-AH

MWF
SCIE 252
Maslowsky, E
12:30-02:20pm
TH
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 252
COURSE FEE: $20.00
30
25
09:00-09:50
6188 L.CHE 335 01 Introductory Biochemistry

MWF
SCIE 208
Speckhard, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CHE-335L
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
18
08:00-10:50
6938 L.CHE 335L 01 Biochemistry Lab

TH
SCIE 125
Speckhard, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0
20
8
02:30-03:20pm
6196 L.CHE 389 01 Junior Seminar

SCIE 242
Edwards, C
141
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
12
03:30-04:20pm
6797 L.CHE 489 01 Senior Seminar: Portfolio-PJ

SCIE 128
Oostendorp, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Chemistry and Biochemistry Majors
15
ARR
1
ARR
6204 L.CHE 491 01 Research

ARR
Speckhard, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Instructor Permission Required
15
ARR
5
ARR

ARR
Speckhard, D
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
ARR
0
ARR

ARR
Speckhard, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
12:30-01:50pm
5706 L.CIT 110 01 Computing & Info Tech Basics

TTH
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
25
20
02:00-03:20pm
5707 L.CIT 110 02 Computing & Info Tech Basics

TTH
KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Cannot Register If Took L.Cit-111
3.0

20
20
12:30-01:20pm
5709 L.CIT 115 01 Programming & Design Basics

MTWTHF
HENN 360
Rissler, M
142
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
06:00-09:00pm
5710 L.CIT 217 01 Network Management

KEAN 303
Burken, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
14
09:00-09:50
5712 L.CIT 219 01 Computer Organiz/Architecture

MWF
SCIE 231
Neebel, D
12:30-03:20pm
TH
20
16
08:00-08:50
5713 L.CIT 225 01 Data Structures & Algorithms

MTWTHF
HENN 250
Thompson, M
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 231
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
27
19
09:30-10:50
7330 L.CIT 321 01 Data Analysis

TTH
KEAN 305
Hitchcock, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
11
06:00-09:00pm
5714 L.CIT 322 01 Web 1 Basic HTML Authoring

KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
1.0
Aug 29 - Sep 30
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.CIT323*L.CIT-324
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
5715 L.CIT 323 01 Web 2 Adv HTML Authoring

KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
1.0
Oct 3
- Nov 4
25
10
06:00-09:00pm
5716 L.CIT 324 01 Web 3 Site Dev & Admin

KEAN 303
Hitchcock, W
Nov 7
- Dec 16
1.0
143
25
9
10:00-10:50
7332 L.CIT 325 01 Algorithm Design & Analysis

MWF
SCIE 125
Thompson, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
11
09:30-10:50
5718 L.CIT 485 01 Systems Engineering

TTH
HENN 350
Thompson, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
25
21
08:00-08:50
6816 L.COM 131 01 Intro Mass Communication

MWF
HOFF 112
Myers, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
10:00-10:50

MWF
HOFF 111
Myers, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
20
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
HOFF 411
Belanger, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
22
12:30-02:20pm
5877 L.COM 158 01 Intro TV Production

TTH
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
16
16
09:30-10:50
7413 L.COM 164 01 Digital Imaging

TTH
HOFF 435
Myers, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
3.0

25
24
08:00-09:20
5879 L.COM 190 01 Communication Theory

TTH
HOFF 411
Sullivan, M
144
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
10:00-10:50
5883 L.COM 201 01 Prin of Public Relations

MWF
HOFF 412
Harris, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
20
09:00-09:50
5884 L.COM 202 01 Public Relations Writing

MWF
HOFF 411
Harris, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
30
10:00-10:50
5885 L.COM 225 01 Media Writing

MWF
HOFF 311
Kohl, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.COM-131
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
7409 L.COM 255 01 Interpersonal Communicatn-IV

TF
HOFF 311
Sullivan, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business
Ethics-IV
22
20
09:30-10:50
7435 L.COM 257 01 Electronic Field Production

TTH
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $50.00
20
6
03:30-04:20pm
5887 L.COM 259 01 Mock Trials

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Oct 14
22
1
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
1.0
145
Oct 24 - Dec 15
16
16
12:30-01:50pm
5889 L.COM 264 01 Desktop Publishing

TTH
HOFF 435
Pisarik, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR Majors Only
COURSE FEE: $50.00
25
20
02:30-03:50pm
5890 L.COM 280 01 News Analysis

MW
HOFF 412
Pisarik, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
02:30-03:50pm
7410 L.COM 286 01 Identity/Comm in Rock&Roll-AI

MW
HOFF 136
Kohl, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
14
3
09:00-09:50
5892 L.COM 293 01 Media Studies Practicum Staff

MWF
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
04:00-06:30pm
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
HOFF 211
COURSE FEE: $25.00
20
20
10:00-10:50
5895 L.COM 351 01 Adv Public Relations Writing

MWF
HOFF 411
Belanger, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
1
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Oct 14
22
0
03:30-04:20pm

WF
HOFF 411
Merkel, D
Oct 24 - Dec 15
1.0
20
15
09:00-09:50
5898 L.COM 380 01 Persuasion

MWF
HOFF 412
Sullivan, M
146
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
12:30-01:50pm
5900 L.COM 390 01 Media Criticism

TTH
HOFF 411
Kohl, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
8020 L.COM 394 01 Internship

ARR
Sullivan, M
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF CHAIRPERSON REQ
30
38
12:30-01:20pm
5902 L.COM 485 01 Communication Research

MWF
HOFF 512
Harris, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PR & MEDIA STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
15
ARR
0
ARR
5903 L.COM 492 01 Journalism Practicum

ARR
Pisarik, P
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PRIOR APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTOR REQ
16
14
09:00-09:50
5904 L.COM 493 01 Media Studies Practicum II

MWF
HOFF 211
Schaefer, C
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
25
19
09:00-09:50
5972 L.CRJ 120 01 Intro to Criminal Justice

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
20
06:00-07:20pm
5978 L.CRJ 120 02 Intro to Criminal Justice

TTH
HENN 250
Gau, M
147
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
35
35
06:00-09:00pm
5980 L.CRJ 224 01 Criminal Law

HENN 070
Corken, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
20
09:00-09:50
5987 L.CRJ 252 01 Criminology

MWF
WAHL 101
Decker, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
17
10:00-10:50
7334 L.CRJ 253 01 Corrections

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
10:00-10:50
7505 L.CRJ 280 01 CJ Ethical Considerations-AV

MWF
HENN 480
Decker, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
02:30-03:20pm
7506 L.CRJ 280 02 CJ Ethical Considerations-AV

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
27
06:00-09:00pm
7335 L.CRJ 312 01 Crime Prevention

WAHL 101
Corken, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
26
08:00-08:50
6012 L.CRJ 320 01 Juvenile Delinq & Justice

MWF
HENN 480
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

25
7
05:00-08:00pm
7412 L.CRJ 400 01 Women and Crime

HENN 350
Tentis, D
148
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
1
08:00-08:50
6028 L.CRJ 490 03 Field Experience

HENN 445
Decker, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ONLY
FLD INSTRUCTION COORD PERMISSION
10
1
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
0
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
0
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
6.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
0
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
7.0

10
0
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
149
8.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
0
08:00-08:50

HENN 445
Decker, L
9.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
15
12:30-01:50pm
6522 L.CTL 100 01 MOI: The Four Marks-FI

TTH
SMYT 102
Osheim, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
INCOMING FY STUDENTS ONLY
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
21
21
01:30-02:20pm
6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for One-IV

MWF
KEAN 011
Lorenz, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6651 L.CTL 277 01
Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV
21
21
11:00-12:20pm
6651 L.CTL 277 01 Belief/Unbelief & Good Lif-IV

TTH
KEAN 011
Wathier, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
Clustered with 6650 L.CTL 274 01 All for
One-IV

18
15
06:00-08:00pm
6652 L.CTL 490 01 Leadership Sem for Soc Justice

TH
SMYT 102
C. Kuhl
150
2.0
Aug 29 - Oct 14
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
30
27
09:00-09:50
5719 L.ECO 221 01 Prin of Microeconomics

MWF
HOFF 512
Smith, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
10:00-10:50
5720 L.ECO 221 02 Prin of Microeconomics

MWF
HOFF 512
Smith, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
12:30-01:20pm
5722 L.ECO 222 01 Prin of Macroeconomics

MWF
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
29
01:30-02:20pm
5723 L.ECO 222 02 Prin of Macroeconomics

MWF
KEAN 333
Eller, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
10
09:30-10:50
5725 L.ECO 321 01 Intermed Microecon Theory

TTH
HOFF 312
Smith, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
16
12:30-01:20pm
7337 L.ECO 346 01 Public Finance

MWF
HOFF 311
Smith, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
7925 L.ECO 498

ARR
Smith, J
01 Directed Readings
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1-3

25
23
08:00-09:20
6213 L.EDU 200 01 Foundations of Education

TTH
WAHL 143
Scheuerell, S
151
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU-205
25
25
08:00-08:50
6215 L.EDU 205 01 Foundations/Special Education

MWF
WAHL 143
Croatt, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
6216 L.EDU 221 01 Learn Envirn & Collaborations

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
23
08:00-08:50
7549 L.EDU 221 02 Learn Envirn & Collaborations

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
09:30-10:50
6217 L.EDU 230 01 Children & Young Adult Lit-AA

TTH
WAHL 110
Monhardt, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS
26
25
02:30-03:20pm
6218 L.EDU 232 01 C/I in PE/Health/Wellness

WAHL 109
Schreiber, M
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Declared Elementary Ed Majors Only
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU233*L.EDU-234
26
25
03:30-04:20pm
6219 L.EDU 233 01 C/I in Performing Arts

WAHL 109
Davis-Orwoll, S
1.0
152
Aug 29 - Dec 15
26
25
04:30-05:20pm
6220 L.EDU 234 01 C/I in Visual Arts

WAHL 109
Lovell, J
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
6223 L.EDU 265 01 Multicultural Education-AC

TTH
WAHL 143
Scheuerell, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
6
08:00-09:20
6224 L.EDU 321 01 Infant/Toddlers Curriculum

TTH
WAHL 109
Croatt, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
19
5
03:45-06:45pm
6226 L.EDU 323 01 Preprimary Curriculum

WAHL 110
Steines David,T
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
ARR
1
ARR
7552 L.EDU 323

ARR
Staff
02 Preprimary Curriculum
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

20
5
09:30-10:50
6225 L.EDU 327 01 Dev Curr & Methods Birth-Age 5

TTH
WAHL 109
Croatt, K
153
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
16
08:00-09:20
6227 L.EDU 331 01 Curr/Instr in Lang Arts

TTH
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
16
09:30-10:50
6228 L.EDU 332 01 Beginning Reading

TTH
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
15
03:15-07:15pm
6229 L.EDU 333 01 Curr/Instr in Math

WAHL 109
Nugent, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Meets at Fulton Elementary School
12
12
08:00-10:50
6231 L.EDU 334 01 Intermediate Clinical K-6

MWF
WAHL 124
Monhardt, R
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12
ARR
2
ARR
7532 L.EDU 334 02 Intermediate Clinical K-6

ARR
Monhardt, R
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
3
01:00-03:00pm
7580 L.EDU 335 01 Curr/Instr in Soc Studies

WAHL 145
Monhardt, R
3.0
154
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
14
12:30-03:20pm
7444 L.EDU 336 01 Science Curr/Instruct

TH
WAHL 145
Monhardt, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 14
15
9
12:30-01:50pm
6230 L.EDU 337 01 Reading Across the Curriculum

WF
WAHL 145
Salyer, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
7535 L.EDU 339

Welsh, H
01 Differentiated Instr 5-12
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
03:30-06:30pm
6233 L.EDU 340 01 Differentiated Instruction K-6

WAHL 145
Winkel, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
10
03:30-06:30pm
6235 L.EDU 343 01 Assess Exceptionality Pre K-8

TH
WAHL 145
Winkel, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
16
09:00-09:50
6234 L.EDU 346 01 Learning/Behavior Strategies I

MWF
WAHL 110
Shaw, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
8
08:00-09:20
7339 L.EDU 352 01 Special Sec Methods: English

TTH
WAHL 124
Welsh, H
3.0
155
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
6
09:30-10:50
7340 L.EDU 353 01 Special Sec Methods: Math

TTH
HENN 180
Keller, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
4
04:00-07:00pm
7533 L.EDU 354 01 Special Sec Methods: Science

WAHL 124
Monhardt, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
20
08:00-09:20
6240 L.EDU 357 01 Reading in Sec Schools

WF
WAHL 109
Welch, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
7
03:30-04:50pm
6241 L.EDU 361 01 Practicum/Instr Read Problem

TTH
WAHL 110
Lansing, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
ARR
6242 L.EDU 411 01 Student Tch Elem Music

WAHL 109
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
6243 L.EDU 412 01 Student Tch Sec Music

WAHL 110
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
156
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
2
ARR
6247 L.EDU 424 01 Stud Tch Early Child Sp Ed 0-5

ARR
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
0
ARR
6248 L.EDU 425 01 Student Tch Early Child 0-5

ARR
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
2
ARR
6249 L.EDU 426 01 Student Tch Primary K-3 ECE

ARR
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.EDU424*L.EDU-425
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
1
ARR
6250 L.EDU 432 01 Student Tch Elem School

ARR
Fabricius, R
10.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
20
ARR
1
ARR
6251 L.EDU 441 01 Student Tch Inst Strat I K-8

ARR
Fabricius, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
5.0
157

COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
0
ARR
6252 L.EDU 442 01 Student Tch El Ed Inst Strat I

ARR
Fabricius, R
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $100.00
30
ARR
2
ARR
6255 L.EDU 452 01 Student Tch Secondary School

ARR
Fabricius, R
10.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $200.00
40
6
04:00-05:30pm
6256 L.EDU 490 01 Capstone Seminar/Portfolio-PJ

WAHL 101
Welsh, H
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
7906 L.EDU 690

ARR
Keller, R
03 Institutes in Education
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY
COURSE FEE: $600.00
18
14
08:00-09:20
5860 L.EGR 105 01 Intro to Engineering I

TTH
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
09:00-09:50
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
14
08:00-09:20
5862 L.EGR 105 02 Intro to Engineering I

WF
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
3.0
158
Aug 29 - Dec 15
09:00-09:50
SCIE 109
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16
11
01:30-02:20pm
5867 L.EGR 232 01 Engineering Dynamics

MWF
SCIE 118
Carstens, T
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
14
02:30-03:20pm
7341 L.EGR 335 01 Electric Circuits

MWF
SCIE 231
Neebel, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
15
12:30-03:20pm
7342 L.EGR 350 01 Engineering Laboratory I

SCIE 231
Neebel, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
1
ARR
1
ARR
7924 L.EGR 398 01 Empirical Research: Hydrofoil

ARR
Thompson, K
1-4
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
6
12:30-01:20pm
6553 L.EGR 490 01 Capstone Engineer Design I-PJ

MWF
SCIE 118
Thompson, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
20
21
09:30-10:50
6557 L.ENG 111 01 Critical Writing-FW

TTH
HOFF 411
Stone, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
14
11:00-12:20pm

TF
HOFF 511
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
159
20
22
08:00-08:50

MWF
HOFF 511
Kanyusik, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
18
11:00-12:20pm

TF
HOFF 111
Clark, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
14
12:30-01:50pm
7343 L.ENG 224 01 African American Literature

TTH
HOFF 111
Stone, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
22
10:00-10:50
6563 L.ENG 232 01 The Novel-AA

MWF
HOFF 312
Kanyusik, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
11:00-12:20pm
7886 L.ENG 232 02 The Novel-IA

TF
HOFF 512
Kanyusik, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6670 L.HIS 230 01
Community/Identity Am West-IA
15
10
09:00-09:50
6564 L.ENG 238 01 Poetry Writing

MWF
HOFF 347
Pollock, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
18
02:00-03:20pm
7426 L.ENG 239 01 Creative Nonfiction Writing-AA

TTH
WAHL 124
Koch, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
160
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of Nature/Ireland-CI

TF
HOFF 112
Koch, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7355 L.HIS 245 01 The CeltsCI
25
15
09:00-09:50
6565 L.ENG 285 01 Modn Irish Lit & Culture

MWF
HOFF 511
Auge, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
8
02:30-03:50pm
7344 L.ENG 328 01 Am Lit Mod/Contemp Poetry

MW
HOFF 111
Pollock, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
14
02:00-03:20pm
7345 L.ENG 351 01 Milton & 17th C Literature

TTH
HOFF 112
Auge, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
16
12:30-01:20pm
7346 L.ENG 355 01 English Novel 1800-1840

MWF
HOFF 111
VanLaningham, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
13
06:30-09:30pm
7347 L.ENG 370 01 Fantastic Fiction

WAHL 143
Jablonsky, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
10
06:30-09:30pm
6571 L.ENG 384 01 Adv Fiction Writing

HOFF 347
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
15
15
08:00-09:20
7433 L.ENG 395 01 Topics: Writing Social Action

TTH
HOFF 511
Clark, N
161
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
12
02:00-03:20pm
7503 L.ENG 395 02 Topics: Mod/Cont Brit/Am Drama

TTH
HOFF 312
Kanyusik, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
23
09:30-10:50
6576 L.ENG 468 01 Literary Criticism

TTH
ARCE 402
Auge, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
12
01:30-02:20pm
6578 L.ENG 490 01 Senior Literature Capstone-PJ

MWF
HOFF 111
VanLaningham, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
English Literature Major
25
ARR
12
ARR
6580 L.ENG 490D 01 Senior Lit Capstone Defense

ARR
VanLaningham, E
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-490
15
10
12:30-01:20pm
6581 L.ENG 491 01 Senior Thesis Seminar

MWF
WAHL 124
Jablonsky, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
Creative Writing Majors Only
15
ARR
2
ARR
6582 L.ENG 491D 01 Senior Thesis Defense-PJ

ARR
Jablonsky, W
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Need L.ENG-491
0.0
4
ARR
3
ARR
7570 L.ENG 498 01 Directed Readings

ARR
Jablonsky, W
162
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
18
02:30-03:20pm
7524 L.EXP 100 01 Foundation for College Success

MW
WAHL 101
Mulligan, D
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
16
02:00-02:50pm
7525 L.EXP 100 02 Foundation for College Success

TTH
WAHL 101
Walsh, K
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
20
ARR
7904 L.EXP 294 01 Internship

ARR
Carroll, M
1-11
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR

ARR
Carroll, M
1-11
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
6
ARR

ARR
Carroll, M
1-11
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
9
09:00-09:50
7351 L.GRS 101 01 First Yr Ancient Greek I

MWF
HOFF 212
Smith, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
10:00-10:50
7352 L.HIS 117 01 Roman Civilization

MWF
HOFF 212
Smith, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

25
20
08:00-08:50
6667 L.HIS 121 01 U S History to 1877

MWF
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
163
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
22
12:30-01:50pm
7353 L.HIS 141 01 Modern Europe Since 1750

TTH
HOFF 511
Zhu, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
26
11:00-12:20pm
6670 L.HIS 230 01 Community/Identity Am West-IA

MTH
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7886 L.ENG 232 02 The NovelIA
25
24
02:00-02:50pm
7354 L.HIS 231 01 History of U.S. Sexuality-AV

MWF
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7355 L.HIS 245 01 The Celts-CI

MTH
HOFF 112
Eby, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7440 L.ENG 240 01 Nature of
Nature/Ireland-CI
25
21
09:00-09:50
6671 L.HIS 272 01 Japan in the Modern World-AI

MWF
HOFF 312
Zhu, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
02:00-03:20pm
7356 L.HIS 333 01 Imperial Geographies-AA

MW
HOFF 212
Kehren, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
ARR
1
ARR
7695 L.HIS 394 01 Internship

ARR
Anderson-Bricker, K
164
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
14
09:30-10:50
7357 L.HIS 395 01 U.S./China:partners Or Enemies

TTH
HOFF 511
Zhu, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
15
01:30-02:20pm
7358 L.HIS 395 02 Topics: Israel/Palestine

MWF
HOFF 312
Eby, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
9
08:00-09:20
6712 L.HIS 490 01 Research Seminar

TTH
HOFF 512
Anderson-Bricker, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
HISTORY MAJORS ONLY
0
ARR
1
ARR
8010 L.HIS 498 01 Ethics and Civil Rights - VA

ARR
Lorenz, A / Kehren, M
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1
ARR
1
ARR
8011 L.HIS 498

ARR
Kehren, M
02 IS: Contemp Urban Portugal
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
17
08:00-09:20
7415 L.HON 100 01 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI

TTH
HENN 350
Grinde, L / VanLaningham, E
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY STUDENTS IN HONORS PROGRAM
COURSE FEE: $60.00
3.0

22
11
11:00-12:20pm
7416 L.HON 100 02 MOI:Honors Modes of Inq-FI

MTH
ROHL 143
Garrett, M / VanLaningham, E
165
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $60.00
50
25
11:00-11:50
6550 L.HON 250 01 Honors Research Seminar

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
12
6
02:30-03:20pm

M
HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
0
03:30-04:20pm

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
8
11:00-11:50

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
9
02:30-03:20pm

HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
1.0
166
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
0
03:30-04:20pm

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
7
11:00-11:50

HOFF 411
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
10
02:30-03:20pm

HOFF 511
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
50
5
03:30-04:20pm

HOFF 512
VanLaningham, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $25.00
20
13
04:30-05:50pm
7359 L.INS 489 01 Senior Seminar

MW
HOFF 212
Kehren, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6
4
09:00-09:50
5997 L.KIN 050 01 Personal Fitness

MWF
ARR ARR
Kult, T
1.0
167
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3
4
01:30-02:20pm
7518 L.KIN 050 02 Personal Fitness

MWF
ARR ARR
Mertens, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
7
02:30-05:30pm
7539 L.KIN 070 01 Trap and Skeet Shooting

OFC OFC
Degenhardt, C
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Students enrolling in this course will be required to purchase a
range membership ($80). Transportation to Izaak Walton Club
shooting range is provided.
Rifles are provided - personal
weapons may not be used and may not be brought to campus.
25
22
11:00-11:50
5999 L.KIN 074 01 Team Sports I

TTH
GRAB CT1
Tebon, C
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
08:00-08:50
6000 L.KIN 101 01 Introduction to Kinesiology

MWF
GRAB 206
Glover, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
09:00-09:50
6001 L.KIN 101 02 Introduction to Kinesiology

MWF
ROHL 143
McDonald, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
12:30-01:20pm
6002 L.KIN 121 01 Personal/Community Health

MWF
GRAB 206
Thraen-Borowski, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

25
25
10:00-10:50
6003 L.KIN 145 01 Nutrition

MWF
GRAB 206
Glover, S
168
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
27
01:30-02:20pm
7360 L.KIN 145 02 Nutrition

MWF
ROHL 143
Kult, T
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
09:30-10:50
6004 L.KIN 235 01 Sports Officiating

TTH
GRAB 206
Tebon, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ONLY EDUCATION OR KIN MAJORS
15
16
09:00-09:50
6005 L.KIN 322 01 Physiology of Exercise

MWF
SCIE 019
Mertens, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
14
12:30-01:20pm
6006 L.KIN 322 02 Physiology of Exercise

MWF
SCIE 019
Mertens, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
17
08:00-09:20
6007 L.KIN 344 01 Theory Strength Train & Condit

TTH
GRAB 206
Mertens, E
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
8
12:30-01:50pm
6008 L.KIN 344 02 Theory Strength Train & Condit

TTH
GRAB 206
Kult, T
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

15
ARR
4
ARR
6794 L.KIN 392 01 Practm Phys Actvty & Health I

ARR
Mertens, E
169
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1
ARR
1
ARR
7573 L.KIN 398

ARR
Glover, S
01 EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
3
ARR
6011 L.KIN 492

ARR
Glover, S
01 Internship in Kinesiology I
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
0
ARR
6013 L.KIN 493

ARR
Glover, S
01 Internship in Kinesiology II
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
23
08:00-08:50
5727 L.LIB 100 01 MOI: Modes of Inquiry-FI

MWF
WAHL 101
Scheuerell, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
23
10:00-11:00

MWF
KEAN 008
Livingston, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
21
10:00-10:50

MWF
HOFF 136
Edwards, C
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
170

22
23
11:00-12:20pm

MTH
GRAB 206
Newman, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
22
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
HENN 350
Bell, V
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 470
Bechen, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
WAHL 109
Welsh, H
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
23
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 512
Belanger, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

22
18
10:00-10:50

MWF
ARCE 402
Pohland, G
171
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
17
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
ARCE 402
Lammer-Heindel, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
19
09:00-09:50

MWF
ARCE 402
Kehren, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
0
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
KEAN 334
Kerkenbush, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
19
10:00-10:50

MWF
WAHL 143
Kohlhaas, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
20
09:30-10:50

TTH
HENN 270
Heidenreich, J
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
172
16
21
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
22
10:00-10:50
6540 L.LIB 105 01 College Writing-FW

MWF
HOFF 112
Pollock, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
20
08:00-09:20

TTH
HOFF 111
Witthoeft, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
14
09:00-09:50

MWF
HOFF 111
Koch, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
18
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 111
Witthoeft, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
20
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
HOFF 111
Yazbec, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
ARCE 102
Wolff, M
3.0
173
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
ARCE 102
Wolff, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
08:00-08:50
5849 L.LIB 110 01 Public Speaking-FS

MWF
HOFF 427
Goodman, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HOFF 427
Goodman, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
17
12:30-01:50pm

MW
HOFF 427
Pisarik, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
21
08:00-09:20

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
21
09:30-10:50

TTH
HOFF 427
Pisarik, P
3.0
174
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
21
12:30-01:50pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Donald, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
02:00-03:20pm

TTH
HOFF 427
Merkel, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
15
06:00-09:00pm

HOFF 427
Hanson, T
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
02:30-03:50pm
7308 L.LIB 130 01 Witnesses-Hope,Heart,Hum-MC

MW
KEAN 303
Joensen, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
11:00-12:20pm
7447 L.LIB 130 02 The Displaced Person-MC

WF
KEAN 011
Welch, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
01:30-02:20pm
6833 L.LIB 135 01 Priests,Ministers,Rabbis-MC

MWF
WAHL 101
Waldmeir, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
09:00-09:50
6834 L.LIB 135 02 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC

MWF
KEAN 009
Pitt, D
3.0
175
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
25
10:00-10:50
7365 L.LIB 135 03 Body of Christ At Prayer-MC

MWF
KEAN 009
Pitt, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
25
09:30-10:50
5730 L.LIB 220 01 Democ & Global Diversity-MD

TTH
HOFF 112
Darr, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
22
02:00-03:20pm
6046 L.LIB 220 02 Democracy/Global Diversity-MD

TTH
HOFF 511
Eby, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
23
02:30-03:50pm

MW
HENN 070
Cavanagh, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
25
09:30-10:50

TTH
WAHL 101
Bechen, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
22
25
11:00-12:20pm

TTH
WAHL 101
Lammer-Heindel, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
09:30-10:50
7560 L.LIB 236 01 Quest Ethical Development-AV

TTH
HOFF 340
Maskay, B
3.0
176
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
08:00-08:50
7366 L.LIB 276 01 Law/Tech/Informatnl Privcy-AI

MWF
KEAN 305
Schleicher, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
ARR
21
ONL
7499 L.LIB 305

ONL
Adams, R
01 Portfolio-PJ
1.0
Aug 29 - Oct 14
25
ARR
15
ONL
7500 L.LIB 305

ONL
Adams, R
02 Portfolio-PJ
1.0
Oct 18 - Dec 15
10
6
06:00-08:00pm
7508 L.LIB 305 03 Portfolio-PJ

TH
SMYT 102
Osheim, A
1.0
Oct 24 - Dec 15
CTL STUDENTS ONLY
25
25
11:00-11:50
5871 L.MAT 091 01 Intermediate Algebra

MTTHF
ARCE 102
Mulligan, D
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
25
21
12:30-01:20pm
5872 L.MAT 091 02 Intermediate Algebra

MTWF
WAHL 143
Mulligan, D
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
FIRST YEAR ONLY
25
18
09:00-09:50
5881 L.MAT 113 01 College Algebra-FM

MWF
HENN 270
Heidenreich, K
3.0
177
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
25
26
10:00-10:50
5882 L.MAT 113 02 College Algebra-FM

MWF
HENN 270
Meyer, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
CAN'T REG IF TAKEN MAT117 OR ABOVE
25
25
11:00-11:50
5906 L.MAT 115 01 Statistics-FM

MTTHF
HENN 280
Rissler, M
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
12:30-01:20pm

MTWF
HENN 180
Keller, R
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
28
12:30-01:20pm

MTWF
WAHL 101
Heidenreich, K
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
11:00-11:50
5909 L.MAT 117 01 Pre-Calculus-FM

MTTHF
HENN 470
Heidenreich, J
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
12
12:30-01:20pm
5912 L.MAT 117 02 Pre-Calculus-FM

MTWF
SCIE 252
Kohlhaas, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
4.0
28
25
11:00-11:50
5913 L.MAT 150 01 Calc of One Variable I-FM

MTTHF
HENN 250
Crook, S
178
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NO CREDIT IF L.MAT-170 TAKEN
25
22
12:30-01:20pm
5916 L.MAT 150 02 Calc of One Variable I-FM

MTWF
HENN 270
Crook, S
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
14
11:00-11:50
5931 L.MAT 160 01 Calc of One Variable II

MTTHF
HENN 270
Kohlhaas, A
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
13
12:30-01:20pm
5933 L.MAT 250 01 Linear Algebra

MWF
HENN 250
Heidenreich, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
18
08:00-08:50
5934 L.MAT 260 01 Analytic Geom/Calc III

MTWF
HENN 180
Meyer, J
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
13
07:00-07:50
7844 L.MAT 260 02 Analytic Geom/Calc III

MTWTH
OFC OFC
Heidenreich, K
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
14
3
12:30-01:20pm
5936 L.MAT 390 01 Seminar

F
HENN 450
Meyer, J
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MAY REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MAT-250

14
6
02:30-03:50pm
7368 L.MAT 391 03 Guided Research

MW
HENN 250
Meyer, J
179
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
12
01:30-02:20pm
7367 L.MAT 450 01 Modern Algebra

MWF
HENN 250
Kohlhaas, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
9
05:30-09:30pm
6969 L.MBA 510 01 Managerial Effectiveness

KEAN 334
Gambrall, D
3.0
Sep 13 - Oct 25
MBA Students Only
10
ARR
3
ARR
7931 L.MBA 511 01 Business Analytics Overview

ARR
Conway, D.
Oct 3
25
13
05:30-09:30pm
3.0
- Dec 16
7321 L.MBA 515 01 Ethical & Social Resp Bus

KEAN 303
Ciapalo, R
3.0
Sep 12 - Oct 24
MBA Students Only
20
9
05:30-09:30pm
6970 L.MBA 520 01 Data Science

KEAN 334
Lehman, D
3.0
Nov 1
- Dec 13
MBA Students Only
20
13
05:30-09:30pm
5732 L.MBA 555 01 Financial Management

KEAN 303
Hammermeister, J
3.0
Oct 31 - Dec 12
MBA Students Only
25
18
11:00-11:50
5907 L.MUS 101 01 Music Theory I

MTTHF
VISI 115
Tyler, L
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
10
ARR
5
ARR
5910 L.MUS 110

ARR
Kluck, A
01 Applied Voice
180
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
8
ARR
5911 L.MUS 110 02 Applied Voice

ARR
Kluck, A / Tyler, E
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
6
ARR
6
ARR

ARR
Kluck, A / Tyler, E
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
6
ARR

ARR
Kluck, A / Allen, C
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
3
ARR

ARR
Kluck, A / Allen, C
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
20
ARR
14
5919 L.MUS 121

VISI 135
Tyler, L
01 Applied Piano
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
20
ARR
5920 L.MUS 121

VISI 135
Tyler, L
02 Applied Piano
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0
20
ARR
15
5921 L.MUS 121 03 Applied Piano

VISI 135
Chapman, C
181
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
1
ARR
7468 L.MUS 131

ARR
Luke, W
01 Applied Violin
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
1
ARR
7469 L.MUS 132 01 Applied Viola

ARR
Brenner, P
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
1
ARR
7470 L.MUS 133

ARR
Luke, W
01 Applied Cello
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
0
ARR
7471 L.MUS 134

ARR
Luke, W
01 Applied String Bass
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
9
ARR
7472 L.MUS 135 01 Applied Guitar

ARR
McConnell, M
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
2
ARR
7473 L.MUS 141

ARR
Omarzu, J
01 Applied Flute
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
1-2
10
ARR
1
ARR
7474 L.MUS 142

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Oboe
182
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
2
ARR
7475 L.MUS 143

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Clarinet
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
2
ARR
7476 L.MUS 144

ARR
Omarzu, M
01 Applied Saxophone
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
0
ARR
7477 L.MUS 145 01 Applied Bassoon

ARR
Pohland, G
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5
ARR
5947 L.MUS 151 01 Applied Trumpet

VISI 134
Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
7369 L.MUS 151 02 Applied Trumpet

VISI 134
Gaunitz, M / Pohland, G
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
5
ARR
5948 L.MUS 152 01 Applied French Horn

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
1.0
10
ARR
7370 L.MUS 152 02 Applied French Horn

VISI 134
Pohland, G
183
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5
ARR
5950 L.MUS 153 01 Applied Trombone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
7371 L.MUS 153 02 Applied Trombone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5
ARR
5951 L.MUS 154 01 Applied Baritone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
7372 L.MUS 154 02 Applied Baritone

VISI 134
Pohland, G
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
5
ARR
5952 L.MUS 155 01 Applied Tuba

VISI 134
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00
10
ARR
7373 L.MUS 155 02 Applied Tuba

VISI 134
Pohland, G
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $550.00
2.0
10
ARR
1
ARR
7478 L.MUS 160 01 Applied Percussion

ARR
Iwasaki, M
184
1-2
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $275.00 or $550.00
10
ARR
1
ARR
7374 L.MUS 176 01 Brass Techniques

ARR
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
60
8
07:00-08:50pm
5957 L.MUS 181 01 Wind Ensemble

TTH
VISI 236
Pohland, G
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
60
27
07:00-07:50pm
5958 L.MUS 181 02 Wind Ensemble

TTH
VISI 236
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12
2
06:00-06:50pm
7422 L.MUS 182 01 Jazz Ensemble

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
7
06:00-06:50pm
7423 L.MUS 182 02 Jazz Ensemble

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
80
11
03:30-04:50pm
5967 L.MUS 183 01 Loras Concert Choir

TTH
VISI 236
Kluck, A
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
80
47
03:30-04:50pm
5969 L.MUS 183 02 Loras Concert Choir

TTH
VISI 236
Kluck, A
Aug 29 - Dec 15
1.0

20
4
04:30-05:50pm
5970 L.MUS 184 01 Chamber Singers

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
185
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
20
16
04:30-05:50pm
5971 L.MUS 184 02 Chamber Singers

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
MUST REGISTER FOR COREQUISITE: L.MUS-183
30
3
03:30-04:20pm
5973 L.MUS 185 01 Bella Voce

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
8
03:30-04:20pm
5974 L.MUS 185 02 Bella Voce

MW
VISI 236
Kluck, A
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
ARR
0
ARR
7479 L.MUS 186

ARR
Kluck, A
01 Con Brio
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
REQUIRES AUDITION
12
3
10:00-10:50
5977 L.MUS 203 01 Music Theory III

MWF
VISI 115
Tyler, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6
4
09:30-10:20
7420 L.MUS 295 01 Topics: Class Piano

TTH
VISI 136
Tyler, L
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
6
09:30-10:50
7421 L.MUS 295 02 Topics: Intro.Music Therapy

TTH
VISI 115
Clark, D
3.0
186
Aug 29 - Dec 15
6
2
02:30-03:20pm
7467 L.MUS 295 03 Topics; Class Piano

MW
VISI 136
Tyler, L
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12
5
02:00-03:20pm
7424 L.MUS 309 01 Orchestration

TTH
VISI 226
Pohland, G
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
08:00-09:20
7425 L.MUS 315 01 History & Lit of Music III

TTH
VISI 115
Brenner, P
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
02:30-03:50pm
7270 L.NEU 281 01 Exploring the Brain Thru TBI

MW
SCIE 109
Kurczek, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
7376 L.NEU 390 01 Research Experience

Kurczek, J
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Neuroscience Majors Only
30
22
10:00-10:50
6741 L.PHI 150 01 Logic

MWF
WAHL 109
Lammer-Heindel, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
30
11:00-12:20pm
6855 L.PHI 311 01 Business Ethics-IV

MTH
KEAN 333
Ciapalo, R
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7409 L.COM 255 01
Interpersonal Communicatn-IV
3.0

20
20
06:00-09:00pm
6742 L.PHI 317 01 Ethics & New Genetics-HV

ARCE 402
Idziak, J
187
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 6743 L.BIO 273 01 Human
Genetics-HV
30
17
09:30-10:50
7320 L.PHI 322 01 Modern Philosophy

TTH
KEAN 009
Joensen, W
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
2
ARR
7546 L.PHI 498 01 Directed Readings

Lammer-Heindel, C
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
06:00-08:50pm
5941 L.PHY 208 01 Astronomy-AH

MTH
SCIE 242
McLaughlin, Ken
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
36
35
01:30-02:20pm
7378 L.PHY 210 01 Elements Physics I

MWF
SCIE 128
Thompson, K
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
21
16
11:25-12:10pm
7888 L.PHY 210 02 Elements Physics I

MTWTHF
OFC OFC
Thompson, K
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSEO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ONLY
18
12
12:30-01:20pm
7380 L.PHY 223 01 Physics Scientist/Engineers I

MTWF
SCIE 242
McLaughlin, Ken
5.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
12
02:30-05:20pm
7381 L.PHY 290 01 Physics Lab I

SCIE 122
Stierman, T
0.0
188
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
18
12:30-03:20pm

TH
SCIE 122
McLaughlin, Ken
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
18
17
01:30-04:20pm

SCIE 122
Carstens, T
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
21
16
MTWTHF
OFC

OFC
Stierman, T
0.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
COURSE FEE: $20.00
1
ARR
1
ARR
7545 L.PHY 398 01 Empirical Research

ARR
McLaughlin, Ken
1-3
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
26
09:00-09:50
7385 L.POL 101 01 Issues in American Politics

MWF
ARCE 102
Cochran, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
25
10:00-10:50
7386 L.POL 101 02 Issues in American Politics

MWF
ARCE 102
Cochran, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
02:30-03:20pm
7387 L.POL 131 01 Found Western Political Thgt

MWF
HOFF 311
Cochran, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

25
27
01:30-02:20pm
7393 L.POL 201 01 Campaigns & Elections

MWF
HOFF 112
Budzisz, C
189
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
16
02:00-03:20pm
7394 L.POL 301 01 Constitutional Law

TTH
HOFF 340
Budzisz, C
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
12:30-01:50pm
7395 L.POL 314 01 Politics in Developing World

TTH
HOFF 312
Darr, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
1
ARR
7694 L.POL 394 01 Internship

ARR
Budzisz, C
1-10
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
28
10:00-10:50
7271 L.PSY 101 01 Introductory Psychology

MWF
HENN 280
Omarzu, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
29
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
KEAN 011
Ashbrook, G
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
28
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
HENN 350
Schilder, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
20
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 070
Schilder, S
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
190
25
29
10:00-10:50
7275 L.PSY 121 01 Developmental Psych

MWF
WAHL 101
Grinde, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
30
09:30-10:50

TTH
HENN 250
Homb, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
28
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 250
Grinde, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
27
12:30-01:20pm

MWF
HENN 470
Hanson, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24
24
01:30-02:20pm
7278 L.PSY 211 01 Res Methods & Statistics I

MWF
HENN 360
Omarzu, J
02:30-04:20pm
4.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
HENN 360
Psychology/Neuroscience Major/Minor
25
21
02:30-03:50pm
7279 L.PSY 221 01 Abnormal Psychology

MW
HENN 180
Simcox, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
12:30-01:50pm
7280 L.PSY 221 02 Abnormal Psychology

TTH
HENN 250
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
191
25
20
03:30-04:50pm
7281 L.PSY 225 01 Personality-AI

TTH
HENN 070
Hopper, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
19
02:00-03:20pm
7282 L.PSY 242 01 Industrial-Organiz Psych

TTH
HENN 280
Omarzu, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
9
12:00-12:50pm
7283 L.PSY 265 01 Psychology As A Profession

HENN 280
Johnson, M
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
20
02:00-03:20pm
7284 L.PSY 278 01 Cross-Cultural Psychology

TTH
HENN 070
Grinde, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
16
15
12:30-01:50pm
7285 L.PSY 285 01 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH

TTH
HENN 070
Kurczek, J
02:00-03:50pm
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 014
COURSE FEE: $20.00
16
16
12:30-01:50pm
7286 L.PSY 285 02 Drugs & Human Behavior-AH

TTH
HENN 070
Kurczek, J
02:00-03:50pm
TH
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SCIE 014
COURSE FEE: $20.00
25
27
12:30-01:20pm
7287 L.PSY 331 01 Physiological Psychology

MWF
HENN 070
Hopper, M
3.0
192
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
27
10:00-10:50
7288 L.PSY 332 01 Learning & Cognition

MWF
HENN 070
Hopper, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
ARR
16
ARR
7289 L.PSY 351

ARR
Omarzu, J
02 Adv Research Methods
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
1
ARR
7290 L.PSY 390

ARR
Hopper, M
01 Psych Peer Assistantship
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
0
ARR
7291 L.PSY 394 01 Internship

ARR
Johnson, M
1.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
0
ARR

ARR
Johnson, M
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
2
ARR

ARR
Johnson, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
22
09:30-10:50
7294 L.PSY 490 01 Senior Seminar & Portfolio-PJ

TTH
HENN 280
Johnson, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS/MINORS ONLY
SENIORS ONLY
3.0
10
ARR
10
ONL
7501 L.PSY 527

ONL
Dunn, R
01 Human Development
193
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
12
04:00-07:00pm
7296 L.PSY 612 01 Prof. Orien & Ethical Practice

HENN 250
Johnson, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
9
04:00-06:30pm
7297 L.PSY 615 01 Assessment

HENN 180
Schilder, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
7
09:00-11:30
7905 L.PSY 615 02 Assessment

HENN 360
Schilder, S
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
12
ARR
7
ONL
7541 L.PSY 625

ONL
Dunn, R
01 Psychopathology
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
10
06:00-08:30pm
7299 L.PSY 633 01 Physiological Psychology

TH
HENN 070
Hopper, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
10
04:00-06:30pm
7502 L.PSY 647 01 Helping Relationships

WAHL 124
Tuescher, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
194
Open to Masters in Psych Program
8
ARR
2
ARR
7300 L.PSY 694 01 Practicum

ARR
Dalsing, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
8
ARR
1
ARR
7301 L.PSY 696 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship I

ARR
Dalsing, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
NEED 12 GR PSY CREDS PRIOR TO REG
8
ARR
0
ARR
7302 L.PSY 698 01 Supvsed Clinical Internship II

ARR
Dalsing, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
8
ARR
0
ARR
7303 L.PSY 699 01 Supvsed Clinical Internshp III

ARR
Dalsing, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
20
17
09:00-09:50
6751 L.REL 112 01 Intro Theology & Rel Studies

MWF
SMYT 102
Kohlhaas, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
22
02:30-03:50pm
7465 L.REL 250 01 Introduction to Old Testament

TTH
KEAN 305
Waldmeir, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
21
02:30-03:50pm
7397 L.REL 261 01 Christ & Culture-AC

MW
WAHL 143
Pitt, D
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
195
25
25
02:30-03:50pm
7398 L.REL 270 01 Intro Christian Values-AV

MW
KEAN 009
Kohlhaas, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims in Their Own Land-IA

MTH
ARCE 402
Waldmeir, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia
Lit Latin America-IA
25
12
08:00-09:20
7400 L.REL 391 01 The Catholic Heritage

TTH
SMYT 102
Idziak, J
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
4
02:30-03:30pm
7516 L.REL 491 01 Thesis Writing

SMYT 102
Pitt, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
RELIGIOUS STUDIES MAJORS ONLY
15
1
04:00-06:30pm
7619 L.SCP 690 01 School Counseling

HENN 170
Tuescher, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
15
ARR
1
ARR
7620 L.SCP 694 01 Practicum in School Counseling

ARR
Tuescher, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
20
09:00-09:50
6097 L.SCW 130 01 Intro Social Welfare

MWF
HENN 450
Cavanagh, B
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0
25
21
10:00-10:50
6098 L.SCW 130 02 Intro Social Welfare

MWF
HENN 470
Bechen, M
196
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
19
09:30-10:50
6099 L.SCW 231 01 Human Behav & Soc Environmt

TTH
HENN 480
Fett, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
23
02:00-03:20pm
7401 L.SCW 265 01 Culturl Competncy in Pract-AC

TTH
HENN 480
Cavanagh, B
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
16
12:30-01:50pm
6101 L.SCW 347 01 Social Work Practice II

TTH
HENN 480
Bechen, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
22
10:00-10:50
6102 L.SCW 348 01 Social Work Practice III

MWF
HENN 450
Fett, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
24
19
08:00-09:20
7402 L.SCW 350 01 Career Options & Prof Practice

TTH
HENN 450
Fett, N
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SOCIAL WORK MAJORS ONLY
0
ARR
1
ARR
7929 L.SCW 394

ARR
Fett, N
01 Internship
1-6
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
29
08:00-08:50
5733 L.SMG 150 01 Intro Sport Management

MWF
ROHL 143
Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Non-Senior Standing Only
3.0
25
22
09:30-10:50
5734 L.SMG 240 01 Sport and Society

TTH
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
197
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
20
12:30-01:50pm
5735 L.SMG 240 02 Sport and Society

TTH
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
0
ARR
1
ARR
8012 L.SMG 294 01 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt

ARR
Marx Scheuerell, A
3-4
Aug 29 - Dec 15
MINIMUM GPA OF 2.0 REQUIRED
0
ARR
1
ARR
8013 L.SMG 294 02 Level-2 Internship Sport Mgmt

ARR
Marx Scheuerell, A
3-4
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
02:30-03:50pm
5738 L.SMG 450 01 Sport Finance & Revenue Mgmt

MW
ROHL 143
Marx Scheuerell, A
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
08:00-09:20
5739 L.SMG 468 01 Sport Marketing & Promotions

TTH
ROHL 143
Garrett, M
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
1
ARR
5741 L.SMG 492 01 Lev 3 Field Experience Spt Mgt

ARR
Garrett, M
Aug 29 - Dec 15
SENIORS ONLY
SPORT MGMT MAJORS ONLY
12.0
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
6759 L.SOC 115 01 Intro to Sociology

MWF
ARCE 102
Garoutte, L
198
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Has Not Taken L.SOC-101
25
29
01:30-02:20pm

MWF
ARCE 102
Garoutte, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
27
09:00-09:50

MWF
HENN 180
Anderson, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
09:30-10:50
7403 L.SOC 216 01 Social Problems

TTH
HOFF 311
Parks, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
30
28
12:30-01:50pm
7544 L.SOC 216 02 Social Problems

TTH
HOFF 311
Parks, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
02:00-03:20pm
6762 L.SOC 240 01 Gender & Society

TTH
HOFF 311
Garoutte, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
24
08:00-09:20
6765 L.SOC 254 01 Race & Ethnicity-AC

TTH
HOFF 311
Anderson, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
26
12:30-01:20pm
7404 L.SOC 295 01 Topics: Sociology of Sport

MWF
HOFF 212
Anderson, R
3.0
199
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
8
02:30-03:50pm
6766 L.SOC 333 01 Statistical Analysis

MW
HOFF 340
Parks, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
10
09:30-10:50
7405 L.SOC 336 01 Classical Sociological Theory

TTH
HOFF 212
Garoutte, L
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
10
ARR
1
ARR
7553 L.SOC 398 01 Emperical Research

ARR
Garoutte, L
1-4
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
10
01:30-02:20pm
6584 L.SPA 210 02 Intermediate Spanish I

MWF
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
8
09:00-09:50
6585 L.SPA 270 01 Adv Communicative Modes

MWF
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
14
01:30-02:20pm
6586 L.SPA 270 02 Adv Communicative Modes

MWF
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
13
09:30-10:50
6587 L.SPA 350 01 El Mundo Hispano

TTH
WAHL 143
Livingston, D
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
18
19
02:30-03:50pm
7407 L.SPA 395 01 Special Topics:redaccion Avanz

MW
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
Aug 29 - Dec 15
3.0

18
11
02:00-03:20pm
7408 L.SPA 460 01 Topics: Escritoras

TTH
WAHL 143
Jeffries, K
200
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
25
29
11:00-12:20pm
7432 L.SPW 247 01 Colonia Lit Latin America-IA

TF
ARCE 402
McCarthy-Gilmore, K
3.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
Clustered with 7399 L.REL 316 01 Pilgrims
in Their Own Land-IA
20
12
10:00-10:50
7507 L.SSE 101 01 Learning Strategies

MW
WAHL 145
Wolff, M
2.0
Aug 29 - Dec 15
ENHANCED PROGRAM STUDENTS ONLY
10
ARR
2
ONL
7889 L.STM 501 01 Curriculum Inquiry in Stem

ONL
Monhardt, R
3.0
Aug 29 - Sep 23
10
ARR
4
ONL
7696 L.STM 502 02 Scientif and Engineering Pract

ONL
Monhardt, R
Oct 3
- Nov 18
3.0

Appendix E
201
202
Appendix F
Dear Professor _____________,
My name is Rachel Moser. My COM 485 Communication Research group is conducting a
study on relationships. Your course, Course Name & Number which meets on Time and Days
Class Meets, has been randomly selected to be included in our study.
I would like to come to your class on DATE and ask your students to complete our questionnaire.
It will take your students approximately 5 -7 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
I appreciate your consideration of my request.
Please let me know if I may come to your class on DATE or tell me another date which will work
better for you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Moser
Appendix G
203
SPSS INPUT KEY

Numbers that are bolded are the numbers that were inputted to SPSS.
Directions: Please circle the response that best reflects your opinion. When answering the
questions, please take into account that for this study, activity on social media refers to actions
such as liking, favoriting, commenting, using reactions and direct messaging.
If a question is not applicable, do not respond.
26. What gender do you identify as?
SPSS CODE: GENDER
1-Male
2-Female
27. How old are you?

SPSS CODE: OLD
18
19
28. What is your year in college?

SPSS CODE: YEAR
20
21
22
23+

1-First Year
2-Sophomore
3-Junior
204
4-Senior
4. Do you have a Facebook profile?

SPSS CODE: FACEBOOK
1-Yes
2-No
5. Do you have an Instagram account?

SPSS CODE: INSTAGRAM
1-Yes
2-No
6. How many hours in a day are you on social media?

SPSS CODE: HOURS
1- 0
2- 1-2
3- 3-4
4- 5-6
29. If you were to choose one, what is your main purpose of using social media?
5- 7+

SPSS CODE: PURPOSE
1- Relationship Maintenance
2-Peeking (Creeping)
3- Social Interaction
4- Networking
5- Self Expression
30. Are you in a romantic relationship?

SPSS CODE: RELATIONSHIP
1-Yes
2-No
9. If in a relationship, does your partner have a social media account?

SPSS CODE: ACCOUNT
1-Yes
2-No
10. If single, does your crush have a social media account?

SPSS CODE: CRUSH
1-Yes
2-No
205
206
11. If in a relationship, would you generally say you trust your significant other?
SPSS CODE: OTHER
1-Yes
2-No
12. Do you look at who likes or favorites your posts?

SPSS CODE: POSTS
1-Yes
2-No
13. Is a like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram?

SPSS CODE: LIKE
1-Definitely
Yes
2- Probably
Yes
3- Might or
Might Not
4-Probably
Not
5- Definitely
Not
14. Do you look at who likes or favorites other peoples posts?

SPSS CODE: PEOPLE
1-Yes
2-No
15. Do you have different motivations for liking or favoriting different peoples posts?
207
SPSS CODE: MOTIVATIONS
1-Yes
2-No
16. Do you interpret the motivation behind receiving a like or favorite differently based on
the individual?
SPSS CODE: INDIVIDUAL
1-Yes
2-No
17. Do you interpret another liking/commenting on your photo as flirting?

SPSS CODE: ANOTHER
1-Always
2- Most of
3-About half of
the time
the time
4-Sometimes
18. Do you use social media to monitor your significant others online activity?
SPSS CODE: ACTIVITY
1-Yes
2-No
5-Never
208
19. Do women or men use social media more as a means of monitoring prospective romantic
interests?
SPSS CODE: MEN
1-Men
2-Women
20. Do you react differently when your significant other likes or favorites someones post of
the same sex versus the opposite sex?
SPSS CODE: SEX
1-Always
2- Most of
3-About half of
the time
the time
4-Sometimes
5-Never
21. If a different user contacted your partner/crush on social media, which of the following social
media activities are likely to cause the most concern for you?
Please rank from 1 being the most concerning to 5 being the least concerning.
1. Friend request
1-5_____
SPSS CODE: CONCERN 1
2. Like
1-5_____
3. Reaction
1-5_____

4. Comment
209
1-5_____
5. Direct message
1-5_____
22. If you are in a same-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the same gender likes your
partners post?
SPSS CODE: SSEX
1-Yes
2-No
23. If you are in an opposite-sex relationship, do you feel threatened when the opposite gender
SPSS CODE: OSEX
1-Yes
2-No
24. Have you ever used social media as a tool to get information about a prospective romantic
interest?
SPSS CODE: TOOL
1-Yes
2-No
31. Do you think that social media activity provokes conflict in romantic relationships?
210
SPSS CODE: CONFLICT
1-Yes
2-No
Thank You!
Appendix H
Due to the size of our data, screenshots could only reach half of the data inputted into SPSS. The
next two pages include the data from 120 respondents for questions 1-15.
211
212
The next two pages include the data from 120 respondents for questions 16-25 (question number
24 is broken down into five different set of data labeled under Concern#).
213
214

Com Research Final Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Com Research Final Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Running head: CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA 1

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Introduction of the Study

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Evolution of Social Media

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Social Comparison Theory

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Social Media Application

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

participants of either a random sampling questionnaire, group study, or convenience sampling.

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Discussion of the Method

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Analysis of the Data

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 2: How old are you?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 3: What is your year in college?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 6: How many hours in a day are you on social media?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 8: Are you in a romantic relationship?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 9: If in a relationship, does your partner have a social media account?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Question 13: Is a like on Facebook different than a favorite on Instagram?

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CONFLICT WITHIN COLLEGE STUDENTS USAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA