Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 277–280

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Short Communication

Social media addiction in romantic relationships: Does user's age influence T

vulnerability to social media infidelity?
Irum Saeed Abbasi
San Jose State University, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Compulsive social media use has repercussions on the users' social, psychological, professional, and personal
Social media addiction lives. The availability of online romantic alternatives disguised as ‘friends’ provide a ripe environment that can
Infidelity facilitate an emotional and/or sexual affair. Online interactions with virtual friends consume users' attention and
Facebook distract them from spending time with their significant other, which leads to adverse relationship outcomes. In
Emotional intimacy
this study, we examined the relationship between social media addiction and infidelity related behaviors in a
Online affair
sample of 365 partners (242 females, 123 males). We also explored if age influences this connection. The
Internet communication
findings suggest that SNSs addiction predicts SNSs infidelity related behaviors and age moderates this re-
lationship. The study also finds that a age is negatively related with SNSs addiction and SNSs related infidelity.
Implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

1. Introduction (Elphinston & Noller, 2011; Karaiskos, Tzavellas, Balta, &

Internet provides many platforms that connect users with known
and unknown virtual connections in the cyberspace. Currently, one of
the most ubiquitous platforms used for online interactions is social
media. It offers a popular way of initiating, developing, and main-
taining existing as well as new relationships including illicit relation-
ships. Many social networking sites (SNSs) have spawned due to users'
demands such as Facebook, Snapchat, Tumblr, and Instagram. The
popularity of SNSs is rooted in the online features that allow users to
share photos, interests, opinions, and even intimate thoughts and ex-
pressions. Interactions on SNSs can be beneficial (Shaw & Gant, 2002).
However, these interactions can potentially turn into a habitual com-
pulsion (behavioral addiction), which is referred to as “Facebook in-
trusion” (Elphinston & Noller, 2011) or “SNSs addiction” (Andreassen,
Torsheim, Brunborg, & Pallesen, 2012; Ryan, Chester, Reece, & Xenos,
2014). SNSs addiction can cause social overload (Maier, Laumer,
Eckhardt, & Weitzel, 2012), envy (Mukesh, Mayo, & Goncalves, 2016;
Tandoc, Ferrucci, & Duffy, 2014), and anxiety (Labrague, 2014).
Moreover, SNSs addiction can exhibit symptoms of substance abuse
including deficient self-regulation, neglect of personal life, cognitive
preoccupation, mood modifying experiences, tolerance, concealment of
addictive behaviors, and escapism (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011; Kuss &
Griffiths, 2017). SNSs addiction manifests itself as a functional im-
pairment and shares some characteristic features of substance abuse
addictions such as euphoria, withdrawal, relapse, and reinstatement
Paparrigopoulos, 2010).
Relationships formed on SNSs are also addictive and can negatively
influence the primary romantic relationship (Marshall, 2012). Re-
searchers have coined a term ‘Technoference’ for the everyday tech-
nological intrusions in couple interactions or time spent together
(McDaniel & Coyne, 2016). Research on partner phubbing (snubbing
the partner when one is using phone) also points to the deleterious
effect of using cell phone when in the company of the significant other
(Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas, 2016). SNSs addiction is also linked
with a decreased in the quality of the primary romantic relationship,
physical and emotional infidelity, relationship dissatisfaction, romantic
disengagement, and a higher risk of divorce (Abbasi & Alghamdi,
2017a, b; Abbasi, 2018a; Kerkhof, Finkenauer, & Muusses, 2011; Utz &
Beukeboom, 2011; Valenzuela, Halpern, & Katz, 2014).
Social media offers features that enable users to publicly or privately
flirt with other users (Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2013). Flirting in the
virtual world elicits stronger physical and sexual reactions than ex-
perienced in a face-to-face interaction (Alapack, Blichfeldt, & Elden,
2005). The lack of physical presence makes cyberspace interactions
uninhibited and users aggressively share their most intimate thoughts
and desires (Abbasi & AlGhamdi, 2017b; Carter, 2015; Cravens &
Whiting, 2014; Helsper & Whitty, 2010). This lack of self-inhibition
online can lead to an emotional affair, which is the hallmark of Internet
infidelity (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). Infidelity is constituted of “inter-
actions in a relationship in which at least one of the people engaging in

E-mail address: Irum.abbasi@gmail.com.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.038
Received 11 November 2017; Received in revised form 25 October 2018; Accepted 29 October 2018
Available online 01 December 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.S. Abbasi Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 277–280

it understands there to be a violation of agreed or implicit sexual and/or
emotional boundaries within their couple relationship” (Daines, 2006,
p. 48). When such interactions occur on the internet, they constitute
Internet infidelity, which can be both, sexual and emotional (Henline,
Lamke, & Howard, 2007). Researchers have found that maladaptive
Facebook use is linked with feelings of jealousy, suspicion, and loss of
trust (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Suspecting partners
engage in partner's surveillance and retaliatory behaviors that leads to
conflict, loss of trust, and breakup (Cravens & Whiting, 2014; Muise
et al., 2009). The problematic SNSs behaviors include viewing porno-
graphy, emotional disclosure, cybersex, emotional involvement, hot
chatting, and online dating (Dijkstra, Barelds, & Groothof, 2013;
Henline et al., 2007).
The prevalence of addictive Facebook use is higher in the young
population (Abbasi, 2018b; Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). The peer pressure
to engage in popular technologies may be at the root of this addiction
(Orchard & Fullwood, 2010). Among millennials (18 to 34-year-olds),
Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are the three most commonly used
SNSs (Perez, 2014). Even otherwise, young people are generally prone
to developing an Internet addiction (Kuss, Griffiths, & Binder, 2013).
Furthermore, previous research has found an inverse relationship be-
tween age and Facebook activity intensity, which was seen across an
age range of 16 to 56 years (Ozimek & Bierhoff, 2016). This relationship
was mediated by social comparison (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012; Ozimek
& Bierhoff, 2016). Researchers argue that as people grow older, they
tend to use Facebook less often because the need for comparison with
significant others declines with age (McAndrew & Jeong, 2012). This is
probably because the personal and professional goals (partnership,
work, family) are more likely to have been met at an older age than at a
younger age.
As previously mentioned, SNSs interactions can be addictive and
could potentially lead to specific behaviors (flirting, infidelity) that
have been shown to adversely impact romantic relationships. Younger
population may be prone to developing infidelity because they tend to
take risk and disclose freely in an online versus face-to-face environ-
ment (Gray, 2016). Building on this, the author hypothesized that there
is a positive relationship between SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity
behaviors (H1) and age will moderate this relationship (H2). Ad-
ditionally, age is positively related to SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity
(H3).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The sample included 365 participants (242 females, 123 males)
between the ages of 18–73 years (M = 27.94, SD = 11.67). 35.1% of
the participants reported to be married, 14.2% reported to be in a
committed relationship, and 50.7% reported to be casually dating. Our
sample was from diverse ethnic backgrounds and included Whites
(47.4%), Asian (20.8%), Hispanic (24.4%), African American (6.3%),
Native American (0.8%), and miscellaneous others (0.3%). The parti-
cipants spanned a spectrum of occupations, and all participants resided
in the US and more than half resided in California (52.2%).
2.2. Procedure
were directed to the main survey, which included a battery of ques-
tionnaires described below.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Demographic questionnaire
The demographic questionnaire included self-report items that as-
sessed age, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis of mental illness, sexual or-
ientation, country and state of residence, etc.
2.3.2. Social Media Infidelity-Related Behaviors (SMIRB) scale
To measure infidelity-related behaviors on social media, we used
SMIRB, which is a 7-items scale developed by McDaniel, Drouin, and
Cravens (2017). An example item is ‘I sometimes like to chat or message
old romantic partners online or on social networking sites’. Participants
rated their agreement on a 6-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree,
6 = strongly agree). Items were averaged for analyses where high scores
represented greater tendency to engage in infidelity related behaviors.
Reliability of the SMIRB-7 for this study was 0.85.
2.3.3. Modified Facebook intrusion questionnaire
An eight-item scale developed by Elphinston and Noller (2011) was
used to assess the behavioral addiction component among SNSs users.
We modified the Facebook intrusion scale to cover all social media
(rather than just Facebook) by replacing Facebook in each item with
social media. The eight items measured the link between the tendency
towards SNSs involvement and eight aspects of behavioral addiction.
Responses were rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree
and 7 = strongly agree). An example item is ‘I feel connected to others
when I use social media’. Reliability of this modified scale for the
present study was 0.81.
3. Results
To test the hypotheses, SPSS PROCESS Macro (Model 1) developed
by Hayes (2013) was used with 5000 bootstrap resamples (p < .05).
For analyses, SNSs addiction was added as the predictor variable (X),
SNSs infidelity was added as the outcome variable (Y), and age was
added as the moderator (M). Gender and romantic relationship status
were added as control variables.
The overall model was significant [F (5, 359) = 21.69, p < .001,
R2 = 0.48]. In line with H1, we found that SNSs addiction is a sig-
nificant predictor of SNSs infidelity (b = 0.04, t(359) = 8.21
p < .001). Essentially, individuals who reported higher SNSs addiction
also reported greater SNSs related infidelity behaviors. We also found
support for H2; the relationship between SNSs addiction and SNSs
Table 1
Pearson's bivariate correlations and descriptives of variables and controls.
1 2 3 4 5
1. SNSs addiction – .39** −.29** .27** .06
2. SNSs infidelity −.13* .21** −.20**
3. Age −.76** .06
4. Relationship status −.05
5. Gender
Mean (SD) 27.27 2.09 27.94 2.82
(8.70) (.88) (11.67) (1.36)

An institutional review board (IRB) at a public university in the Women

United States approved the present study. Snowball sampling was used Mean 27.67 1.96 28.48 2.77
SD 8.25 .85 12.43 1.38
to recruit participants in the study. A survey link was shared on the
approving university's research website, Facebook, Linkedin, Amazon Men
Mean 26.49 2.34*** 26.89 2.91
Turk, Whatsapp, etc. The inclusionary criteria included being at least
SD 9.52 .87 9.97 1.31
18 years of age, having a heterosexual romantic relationship, and re-
siding in the USA. We excluded cases where participants self reported to Note. N = 365. Correlation is significant at the ***p < .001, **p < .01,
have been diagnosed with a mental illness or failed the attention check *p < .05.
questions. The participants who agreed to the terms of the research

278
I.S. Abbasi
infidelity related behaviors was moderated by age (b = 0.00, t
(359) = 2.15, p < .05). In younger people, the relationship between
SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity is strong and as the age increases,
this relationship becomes weak. Additionally, we found that age is
negatively related to both, SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity. Table 1
shows the Pearson's bivariate correlation between the variables and
controls along with their means and standard deviations. The table also
shows mean differences between males and females on the variables
and controls. There was no significant gender difference in the variables
except SNSs infidelity. Men had significantly higher scores on SNSs
infidelity than women.
4. Discussion
SNSs addiction can lead to a variety of psychological, social
(Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010; Wilson, Fornasier, & White,
2010), and interpersonal problems including reduced relationship
commitment (Abbasi, 2018c; Clayton et al., 2013; Cravens, Leckie, &
Whiting, 2013; Kerkhof et al., 2011). Investment model (Rusbult, 1980)
holds that, in addition to relationship satisfaction and absence of al-
ternatives, steady investments (e.g., time, emotional, financial) ad-
vanced in the primary relationship are essential for strengthening
commitment. Time spent with online friends is traded off with the time
that could have been spent with the significant other. It is noteworthy
that a crucial underlying factor linked with infidelity is the shared time
spent with an extra-dyadic partner (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). Moreover,
research supports that individuals committed to their partners derogate
alternatives (Rusbult, Agnew, & Ximena, 2011), while those who ex-
perience low commitment are prone to developing interest in alter-
natives (Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2014).
In this study, we found that SNSs addiction is positively linked with
SNSs infidelity and this relationship is moderated by age. In other
words, the relationship between SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity
changes in strength with age and becomes weak as age progresses. We
also found that age is negatively linked with SNSs addiction and SNSs
infidelity. Younger individuals reported significantly higher SNSs ad-
diction and SNSs infidelity scores as compared to older individuals. This
is consistent with previous research that indicated that age is a sig-
nificant predictor of social media addiction (Abbasi, 2018b; Błachnio,
Przepiórka, & Pantic, 2015) and that young people are prone to taking
more risks online and/or tend to engage in behaviors that they would
not engage in when in an offline environment (Gray, 2016).
5. Limitations and future directions
The results from the present study are limited in scope and inter-
pretation should be done considering the limitations of the study. We
employed a single method (cross-sectional) design; therefore, causality
cannot be inferred from these findings. Moreover, the direction of the
relationship between the two variables (SNSs addiction and SNSs in-
fidelity related behaviors) is not clear. It is plausible that those who are
prone to infidelity engage in excessive SNSs use or vice versa. This
study also employed self-report scales, which are more subjective than
objective. Furthermore, we did not match our participants with their
partners. Therefore, the results reported in this study are based on the
actor effect (the effect of self on relationship) and not the partner effect.
We call for future research including mixed method design studies to
address the limitations of the present study. Qualitative design study
inclusive of both partners can take into account, both, the actor and
partner effect and can also shed light on how certain behaviors ex-
acerbate SNSs addiction and SNSs infidelity. Albeit the limitations
mentioned above, this study has implications for researchers, SNSs
developers, therapists, school counselors, and educators. These findings
are especially beneficial to the relationship therapists who could cus-
tomize their interventions based on the client's age and focus on curbing
the risky SNSs behaviors that are detrimental to the SNSs users' social,
279
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 277–280
professional, psychological and interpersonal lives.
References
Abbasi, I. S. (2018a). The link between romantic disengagement and Facebook addiction:
Where does relationship commitment fit in? American Journal of Family Therapy
(online first).
Abbasi, I. S. (2018b). Social media and committed relationships: What factors make our
romantic relationship vulnerable? Social Science Computer Review, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439318770609.
Abbasi, I. S. (2018c). Falling prey to online romantic alternatives: Evaluating social media
alternative partners in committed versus dating relationships. Social Science Computer
Review, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318793947.
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017a). The pursuit of romantic alternatives online:
Social media friends as potential alternatives. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1308450.
Abbasi, I. S., & AlGhamdi, N. (2017b). When flirting turns into infidelity: The Facebook
dilemma. The American Journal of Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01926187.2016.1277804.
Alapack, R., Blichfeldt, M. F., & Elden, A. (2005). Flirting on the internet and the hickey:
A hermeneutic. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8, 52–61.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1289–1295.
Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a
Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.
2466/02.09.18. PR0.110.2.501-517.
Błachnio, A., Przepiórka, A., & Pantic, I. (2015). Internet use, Facebook intrusion, and
depression: Results of a cross-sectional study. European Psychiatry, 30(6), 681–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.04.002.
Carter, Z. A. (2015). Married and previously married men and women perceptions of com-
munication on Facebook with the opposite sex: How communicating through facebook can
be damaging to marriages (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from http://gradworks.
umi.com/37/00/3700817.html. (3700817).
Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm:
The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human
Behavior, 63, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.018.
Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is
Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16,
717–720.
Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., & Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook in delity: When poking
becomes problematic. Contem- porary Family Therapy, 35(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10591-012-9231-5.
Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Clinical implications of internet infidelity: Where
Facebook fits in. American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(4), 325–339. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01926187.2013.874211.
Daines, B. (2006). Violations of agreed and implicit sexual and emotional boundaries in
couple relationships - Some thoughts arising from Levine's “A clinical perspective on
couple infidelity”. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14681990500430011.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., & Groothof, H. A. K. (2013). Jealousy in response to online
and offline in- fidelity: The role of sex and sexual orientation. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 54, 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12055.
Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners' current Facebook
friends; beware the ones they add!. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483–488.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.032.
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to Face It! Facebook intrusion and theim-
plications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyber Psychology,
Behavior, & Social Networking, 14(11), 631–635. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0318.
Gray, L. (2016). Exploring how and why young people use social networking sites. Doctorate
in Applied Educational Psychology. Newcastle University (Newcastle University e-
theses).
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement
about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 916–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.006.
Henline, B. H., Lamke, L. K., & Howard, M. D. (2007). Exploring perceptions of online
infidelity. Personal Relationships, 14, 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.
2006.00144.x.
Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2006). Internet infidelity: A critical review of the lit-
erature. The Family Journal, 14(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1066480706290508.
Karaiskos, D., Tzavellas, E., Balta, G., & Paparrigopoulos, T. (2010). Social network ad-
diction: A new clinical disorder? European Psychiatry, 25, 855.
Kerkhof, P., Finkenauer, C., & Muusses, L. D. (2011). Relational consequences of com-
pulsive Internet use: A longitudinal study among newlyweds. Human Communication
Research, 37(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01397.x.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Excessive online social networking: Can adolescents
become addicted to Facebook. Education and Health, 29(4), 68–71.
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons
learned. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health, 14, 311.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311.
Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Binder, J. F. (2013). Internet addiction in students:
Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), https://doi.org/10.
I.S. Abbasi
1016/j.chb.2012.12.024 959e966.
Labrague, L. J. (2014). Facebook use and adolescents’ emotional states of depression,
anxiety, and stress. Health Science Journal, 8(1), 80–89.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2012). When social networking turns to
social overload: Explaining the stress, emotional exhaustion, and quitting behavior
from social network sites' users (2012) (Paper 71). ECIS 2012 Proceedings. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6615/
b961b4f2ff0e114bb9232b0e3db4f9817b69.pdf.
Marshall, T. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with
post breakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 15, 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125.
McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. S. (2012). Who does what on Facebook. Age, sex, and
relationship status as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28,
2359–2365.
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology
in couple relationships and implications for women's personal and relational well-
being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/
ppm0000065.
McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. (2017). Do you have anything to hide?
Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Computers
in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2016.09.031.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever
wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–444. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb. 2008.0263.
Mukesh, M., Mayo, M., & Goncalves, D. (2016). When friends show off: Facebook and
well-being. Proceedings of the Winter Marketing Academic Conference (AMA), February
26-28 Las Vegas, NV.
Orchard, L. J., & Fullwood, C. (2010). Current perspectives on personality and Internet
use. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2), 155–169.
Ozimek, P.m., & Bierhoff, H. W. (2016). Facebook use depending on age: The influence of
280
Personality and Individual Differences 139 (2019) 277–280
social comparisons. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 271–279.
Perez, S. (2014). Snapchat is now the #3 social app among millennials. Retrieved from
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/11/snapchat-is-now-the-3-social-app-among-
millennials.
Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the
investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C., & Ximena, A. (2011). The investment model of commitment
processes. Department of Psychological Sciences Faculty Publications. Paper 26http://
docs.lib.purdue.edu/psychpubs/26.
Ryan, T., Chester, A., Reece, J., & Xenos, S. (2014). The uses and abuses of Facebook: A
review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavior Addiction, 3, 133–148. https://doi.
org/10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016.
Shaw, L., & Gant, L. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet
communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support.
Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 5, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1089/
109493102753770552.
Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P., & Duffy, M. (2014). Facebook use, envy, and depression
among college students: Is Facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior,
43139–43146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.053.
Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic re-
lationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.
2011.01552.x.
Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being
and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Computers in
Human Behavior, 36, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2014.03.034.
Wilson, K., Fornasier, S., & White, K. M. (2010). Psychological predictors of young adults'
use of social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13(2),
173–177. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0094.