Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

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

Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the useof interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships

Robert S. Tokunaga ⇑Department of Communication, University of Arizona, Communication Building #25 Room 211, P.O. Box 210025, Tucson, AZ 85721-0025, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 4 November 2010

Keywords:Social network sitesSurveillanceRomantic relationshipsInternetMeasurement development

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

⇑ Tel.: +1 520 626 3062; fax: +1 520 621 5504.E-mail address: tokunaga@email.arizona.edu

a b s t r a c t

Social network sites (SNSs) are commonly used to maintain existing relationships and form connectionswith new contacts. Recently, concerns of have been expressed over the way these Web-based technolo-gies are used. Estimates suggest that people are increasingly using SNSs for engaging in the surveillanceof others. Given the relatively high rates of prevalence, it can be argued that SNSs have been reinventedinto a tool for interpersonal surveillance along with their social networking capabilities. This articleexpands on the concept of interpersonal electronic surveillance and applies it in the specific context ofromantic partners’ use of SNSs. The relationships between surveillance over SNSs and demographic, rela-tional, and Internet use and efficacy variables are studied. The findings reveal that interpersonal surveil-lance over SNSs is influenced by age, the time individuals spend on their partners’ profiles, the integrationof SNSs into daily routines, and Internet self-efficacy.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The metaphor of the panopticon, developed by philosopherJeremy Bentham and later explicated by Foucault (1977), is oftenapplied to the Internet culture (Katz & Rice, 2002; Lyon, 1993;Spears & Lea, 1994). The panopticon is a theoretical prison struc-ture where prisoners can be observed from a central location atall times without their knowledge. In the information panopticon,Zuboff (1988) proposes that observers who engage in the surveil-lance of others are able to be observed as well. Internet users areunknowingly subjected to the surveillance of Big and Little Brothereach day (D’Urso, 2006). Big Brother is a concept referring to gov-ernmental agencies who observe not only patterns of Internet usebut also the content of online communication (Palen & Dourish,2003). Little Brother is a comparatively newer phenomenon inwhich organizations and individual Internet users engage in sur-veillance to gain awareness about the Internet-related behaviorsof others.

There are several characteristics of Internet-supported technolo-gies that encourage surveillance behaviors. The potential recorda-bility and archival of Internet messages, for instance, can be usedto gain information about the online and offline behaviors of others.Additionally, the public or semi-public nature of messages ex-changed through open forums on the World Wide Web, includingbulletin boards, chat rooms, and websites (e.g., computer-mediatedsupport groups), may make certain Internet-based technologies

ll rights reserved.

enticing outlets to exercise surveillance. Many of these characteris-tics, in concert with the potential for anonymity available over theInternet, allow individuals to lurk in an environment that reducesthe threat of being discovered.

The discovery of personal information published on the Internetmay not have serious negative social implications because the linkbetween personal information and identity is often destroyed, inpart, by exercising the use of anonymous screen names (Rains &Scott, 2007; Scott, 2004) and falsified information (Donath, 1999;Turkle, 1995). People may have access to personal information on-line but often do not know with whom the information is associ-ated. Social network sites (SNSs) bridge the gap between identityand personal information typically generated by the anonymouscharacteristics of Internet-based communication. SNSs, which areInternet-based services that allow people to create and maintainpersonal profiles on which they can place personal information,negotiate friendships with others in a bounded system, and viewfriends’ profiles (boyd & Ellison, 2008), are ideal forums for thosewho wish to exercise surveillance over others.

Privacy settings on SNSs can be controlled to maintain public orsemi-public profiles (boyd & Ellison, 2008). Public profiles are ableto be seen by any registered users while semi-public profiles canonly be viewed by proximal contacts. Users are able to create de-tailed profiles commonly containing their name, age, birthday,hometown, sexual preference, and contact information (Tong,Van Der Heide, Langwell, & Walther, 2008). Additional informationplaced on profiles may include previous academic or work experi-ence, a list of groups of which one is a member, and extensivephoto galleries. Despite the wealth of personal information that

706 R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713

can be accessed by others on these websites, a content analysis ofMySpace profiles finds most users do not enact strict privacy set-tings (Jones, Millermaier, Goya-Martinez, & Schuler, 2008). Similarpatterns of disregard are found on Facebook, where an overwhelm-ing number of students share sensitive information through theirpublic profiles with minimal concern for privacy (Stutzman,2006; Tufekci, 2008).

The popularity of SNSs and the way they are used promotegreater access to personal information (boyd & Ellison, 2008) andbring currency to concerns about interpersonal surveillance andInternet privacy. SNSs are founded on the premise of surveillancewhere individuals not only are allowed but expected to ‘‘trackother members of their community’’ (Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield,2006, p. 167). In a study of Facebook users, Joinson (2008) findsthat, after keeping in touch with friends, social surveillance is thesecond most commonly reported motive coming to mind whengenerating thoughts about SNSs. Students are considerably morelikely to use these websites for social surveillance than developingnew contacts and network connections (Lampe et al., 2006). Recentevidence suggests that interpersonal surveillance over SNSs is afairly common practice. Over 60% of college students use Facebookprofiles to check up on their significant others, see what others aredoing on the Internet, and check people out (Stern & Taylor, 2007).

Although SNSs continue to provide forums for individuals to de-velop and maintain connections with others, these Web-based ser-vices have slowly evolved into a conduit for interpersonalelectronic surveillance. Nevertheless, there is fairly little empiricalresearch beyond simple prevalence estimates despite the growinguse of SNSs for surveillance functions. Furthermore, previous re-search on interpersonal electronic surveillance has not explicatedthis phenomenon, and there is an absence of a reliable and validmeasure for operationalizing this construct. To this end, the objec-tives of this investigation are to expand on the concept of interper-sonal electronic surveillance and provide a tenable context inwhich this form of surveillance may take place.

2. What is interpersonal electronic surveillance?

Interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) is characterized assurreptitious strategies individuals use over communication tech-nologies to gain awareness of another user’s offline and/or onlinebehaviors. IES is characterized as a mindful and goal-orientedbehavior in which contacts of all sorts, including close friends,romantic partners, business associates, or family members, canbe placed under surveillance. Internet-based content such as mes-sage exchanges, newly-formed contacts or relationships, informa-tion about future or attended social gatherings, and personalstatus updates are sought by people who engage in IES. The per-sonal information is accessed using profiles on SNSs, bulletinboards, personal webpages, online diaries, keystroke loggers, andother electronic devices.

IES is a general term related to concepts such as horizontalsurveillance (Albrechtslund, 2008), peer-to-peer monitoring(Andrejevic, 2005), social surveillance (Marx, 2004; Steinfield,Ellison, & Lampe, 2008), social searching (Lampe et al., 2006),and other forms of electronic monitoring and surveillance thatoccur on an individual level. The electronic monitoring or surveil-lance used by organizations or governmental agencies is conceptu-ally similar to IES in that both seek to gain information aboutothers through electronic devices. Apart from this similarity, IES di-verges from these vertical forms of electronic surveillance based onthe specific objectives for collecting information, the asymmetricalsurveillance between the ‘‘observer’’ and the ‘‘observed,’’ the hier-archical relationship disparities, and the influence of the gatheredinformation (i.e., the potential for regulatory oversight). IES is

operationalized as a continuous construct where the surveillancestrategies occur in various magnitudes.

Individuals employ surveillance strategies through communica-tion technologies for a number of reasons. Surveillance is used as away to ‘‘monitor the world around us’’ (Shoemaker, 1996, p. 32)and has both cultural and biological origins. People rely on surveil-lance to examine their immediate environment for deviant behav-iors, people, or events having the potential to cause them harm.Partners involved in romantic relationships exercise surveillanceas a relational maintenance strategy in response to threats of ex-tra-dyadic rivals (Guerrero & Afifi, 1998). Surveillance can also beused in early or intermediate stages of a new relationship to obtainmore information about the other. Marx (2004) acknowledges thatcontemporary surveillance involves the collection of ‘‘data’’ orinformation from individuals and moves away from the traditionalview of surveillance as the close observation of suspected others.

3. Interpersonal electronic surveillance over social networksites

The accessibility to personal information provided by Internet-supported technologies has ushered in new concerns about privacyfor Internet users. Web blogs, for instance, allow people to articu-late their thoughts and express personal information to a massaudience with minimal effort (Huffaker, 2004). Information pub-lished on public or semi-public profiles is made available to largeaudiences of individuals who have strong, weak, or no affiliationto a profile owner on SNSs (boyd & Ellison, 2008). By using Web-based services such as SNSs, there is a presumption that peoplemust submit to a certain level of surveillance from others(Albrechtslund, 2008).

The amount of people using SNSs continues to grow each year.In June, 2008, the number of unique visitors across the world ex-panded to 580 million, a 25% increase in comparison to the preced-ing year (comScore, 2008). The use of SNSs is linked to numerouspsychosocial benefits, including high self-esteem and healthyinternal well-being (Valkenburg, Peter, & Shouten, 2006), life satis-faction, trust, and civic engagement (Valenzuela, Park, & Kee,2009), and enriching interpersonal experiences (boyd & Ellison,2008). Individuals commonly use SNSs as a way to maintain con-nections during turning points in their lives (Ellison, Steinfield, &Lampe, 2007; Lampe et al., 2006). College students use these web-sites to stay in touch with high school friends and maintain contactwith long distance romantic partners.

Participating on SNSs is an important way to remain a centralpart of romantic partners’ daily lives. Individuals can casuallyexamine their romantic partner’s profiles to gather information,employing surreptitious forms of surveillance. A wealth of infor-mation is available on SNSs through status updates (i.e., informa-tion regularly updated on one’s current condition), news feeds(i.e., automatically generated updates about one’s recent onlineactivity), and messages exchanged over message boards. Thesemessage boards, commonly referred to as the Wall, Comments,or Testimonials on various SNSs, are sections dedicated to mes-sages authored by friends (boyd, 2008; Walther, Van Der Heide,Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008).

The benefits of using SNSs are considered alongside emergingreports of relational problems that occur with their use (Muise,Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009; Phillips, 2009). For instance, Face-book surveillance between couples is related to partner jealousy(Phillips, 2009). Phillips explains that IES is often precipitated byinterpersonal jealousy arising from third parties. The interpersonaljealousy provokes people to employ IES strategies through theirpartners’ profiles. The time romantic couples spend on Facebook,presumably to exercise surveillance over their partner’s profiles,

R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713 707

is related to interpersonal jealousy and distrust (Muise et al.,2009).

Surveillance occurring over SNSs is characterized by both its sal-utary and problematic nature on relationships. Scholars who arguethat surveillance is an important tool provided by SNSs believe it fos-ters healthy interpersonal relationships by allowing people to stayinvolved and keep in touch with members of their social community(Lampe et al., 2006). Others are concerned about the manner inwhich messages are exchanged on SNSs given loose privacy settingsand surveillance behaviors. Rosenblum (2007) discusses how sur-veillance of recorded messages, in concert with the disinhibitingnature of SNSs, can lead to relational problems between friends.

4. Favorable characteristics of social network sites tointerpersonal electronic surveillance

Four characteristics of SNSs—accessibility, multimediation,recordability and archival, and geographical distance—conspire toform an ideal forum for exercising surveillance. Accessibility is theextent to which individuals or groups can obtain a diverse range ofinformation in a relatively simple manner (Zhu & He, 2002). Thepublic nature of communication and availability of personal infor-mation on SNSs underscore the high level of accessibility any entityhas to others’ information. Multimediation refers to the convergenceof various media, including pictures, videos, and text, into one med-ium (Walther, Gay, & Hancock, 2005). SNSs have powerful multime-dia capabilities in the form of text-based communication thatappears beside pictures and videos. The consortium of messagesdelivered through multimedia over SNSs is prized by those who seekto engage in IES. Further, records of archived messages, pictures, andvideos exchanged between contacts may encourage surveillanceover SNSs. Messages appearing on walls are removed only in rare cir-cumstances (Walther et al., 2008), and photos in which individualsare identified are infrequently deleted. This makes it possible to re-trieve a complete log of communication exchanges from the birth ofone’s profile. Finally, the absence in need for geographical proximitycan lower the barriers of being caught. The negative connotationassociated with surveillance (Lyon, 2001) may prompt individualsto use SNSs for surveillance functions because these websites pro-vide the opportunity to lurk anonymously (boyd, 2008).

5. Shortcomings in previous operationalizations ofinterpersonal electronic surveillance

The way IES has been operationalized in previous research lim-its the conclusions that can be reached about this phenomenon.Phillips (2009), for instance, used a measure of online obsessiverelational intrusion (ORI; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002) as a proxyfor IES. The two relational behaviors share some conceptual over-lap, particularly in the domain of what Spitzberg and Hoobler(2002) refer to as invasion strategies. Nevertheless, the presumedrelationship between the ‘‘observer’’ and ‘‘observed’’ is a notewor-thy difference between the two behaviors. In online ORI, the ob-sessed pursues closeness while targets desire autonomy. Peoplewho employ IES strategies share an existing relationship with theobserved in most cases (Lampe et al., 2006). IES can also only occuronce for it to be considered an instance of surveillance whilebehaviors must be repeated for the collection of events to be la-beled obsessive. Finally, there is a level of presumption that onlineORI is a negative activity ranging from pestering to menacingbehaviors, which is not made with IES. Measures of online ORIare thus inappropriate for evaluating IES that exists over SNSs.

Muise et al. (2009) used a single item to address and discusssurveillance over SNSs. The time romantic partners spend on SNSsis considered a marker of their IES. However, it can be argued that

the time individuals spend on SNSs does not necessarily imply theyare using those minutes or hours to exercise surveillance over oth-ers. Instead, the time could conceivably be spent maintaining one’sown profile or responding to friends’ messages. Additionally, sin-gle-item measures, as opposed to summated scales, are rarely everable to the capture the universe of a construct and are subject toissues of reliability.

Other attempts to measure surveillance over SNSs have beendirected at vertical or hierarchical surveillance. Fuchs (2009)developed an eight-item measure to evaluate surveillance by orga-nizations over SNSs as opposed to the interpersonal surveillance ofinterest in this project. Examples of items in the scale include‘‘platforms such as studiVZ, Facebook or MySpace store data aboutme only as long as I do not delete my account’’ and ‘‘firms have astrong interest in gathering personal data of Internet users.’’

Lampe et al. (2006) provides the most comprehensive and face-valid items measuring IES. Three items in their scale are relevantindicators of one’s surveillance behaviors using SNSs (i.e., ‘‘checkout a Facebook profile of someone I met socially,’’ ‘‘get informationabout people that live in my dorm, fraternity, or sorority,’’ and ‘‘getinformation about people in my classes’’). In using this scale, how-ever, the scope of the items limits the conclusions that can bedrawn about IES. It is presumed that people are searching for infor-mation about a specific target, not generalized members withinone’s network of offline friends. Adapting the three items to reflecta single target would reduce the measure to one item, which, asstated, fails to capture the entirety of the IES construct.

The limitations of previous measures represent the need for avalid and reliable measure of this construct. The remaining partof this report provides information about the reliability and valid-ity of a 15-item measurement tool that applies IES to the context ofSNSs. Because characteristics of SNSs make surveillance readilyaccessible (Joinson, 2008), these websites provide an ideal back-drop for testing IES. Additionally, the scale was tested amongromantic partners, making it possible to incorporate relevant rela-tional constructs such as partner infidelity and geographical prox-imity. The relationships between IES and demographic (i.e., genderand age), relational (i.e., prior infidelity and geographical proxim-ity), and Internet use and efficacy (i.e., time spent on partners’profile, integration of SNSs into daily routines, and Internetself-efficacy) variables are discussed in the following section.

6. Potential factors influencing the use of interpersonalelectronic surveillance over social network sites

6.1. Demographic variables

Not much is known about whether demography influences sur-veillance behaviors in face-to-face or Internet-based contexts.Some evidence suggests that females spend more of their youthand adolescence engaging in the surveillance of self and othersthan males. Their motivation for exercising surveillance is to dis-cover sexuality and femininity (Renold, 2000). In online contexts,females tend to spend larger amounts of time on SNSs when com-pared to male users (e.g., Hargittai, 2007; Muise et al., 2009). Thisdoes not imply, however, that females use this time to survey oth-ers’ profiles. Instead, they may devote more time to catching upwith friends or maintaining their profiles. In addition to gender,it is not clear whether younger or older people engage in more sur-veillance over SNSs. Curiosity of others, which manifests primarilyat younger ages, may compel individuals to employ face-to-faceand Internet-based surveillance strategies than older individuals.However, there is only modest evidence regarding gender or agedifferences in surveillance behaviors to make predictions abouttheir relationships with surveillance over SNSs.

1 A t test was conducted to see whether the two groups differed on the finaloutcome measure (i.e., the surveillance scale). The t test was nonsignificant, providingevidence that the samples could be collapsed into a larger sample.

708 R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713

RQ1: Are there gender differences in the engagement of inter-personal electronic surveillance over social network sites?RQ2: What is the relationship between age and interpersonalelectronic surveillance over social network sites?

6.2. Relationship variables

Interpersonal jealousy has been discussed as both a motivatingfactor in and outcome of IES (Muise et al., 2009; Phillips, 2009).Suspicious jealousy arises when romantic partners perceive a threatto the relationship from an external source (Hupka, 1991; Parrott,1991). There are certain circumstances that elicit feelings ofinterpersonal threat, such as partner infidelity (Buunk & Dijkstra,2004), which exacerbate emotions of jealousy. The ensuing jealousymanifests as a need for reducing uncertainty by gathering informa-tion about the external threat. In the case where people haveexperienced infidelity with their current partner, surveillance canbe used to verify that the infidelity is not ongoing.

H1: People who have previously experienced infidelity withtheir current partner are more likely to use interpersonal elec-tronic surveillance over social network sites than partnerswho have not experienced infidelity.

Individuals who move away from their romantic partners oftenhave a need to maintain a place in their lives, which is a concern forcollege students (Van Horn et al., 1997). Surveillance over SNSs canbe an enticing method to become aware of the offline and onlinebehaviors of partners. Romantic partners who are geographicallydistributed (i.e., involved in long distance romantic relationships)engage in the surveillance of the others’ profiles as a way to stayconnected in their lives. IES may be employed to become awareof information about partners’ newly-formed contacts, communi-cation with established friends, or events they are attendingamong a host of other activities. Because they are able to surveytheir partners in a physical setting, individuals who reside in thesame geographical region do not need to rely on IES.

H2: Long distance partners employ greater interpersonal elec-tronic surveillance over social network sites than partnersinvolved in geographically-close relationships.

6.3. Internet use variables

The time individuals spend on each others’ profiles is a looseindicator of the amount of surveillance in which they are engaging.It is important to note that these two constructs are conceptuallysimilar but not interchangeable. Partners can dedicate their timespent on SNSs almost exclusively toward exercising surveillanceover the other. In contrast, cases exist where close friends andromantic partners attend to each others’ profiles without surveil-lance taking place because there is no intention to become awareof partners’ offline or online activities. Instead, these partnersmay spend time authoring or responding to messages posted onthe message board. The length of time spent on others’ profiles,however, increases the likelihood of surveillance engagement.

H3: The amount of time spent on a partner’s social network siteprofile is positively related to interpersonal electronic surveil-lance over social network sites.

SNSs play a critical role in the lives of many by making it simpleto develop new contacts and maintain existing relationships (Elli-son et al., 2007). These websites can be integrated into one’s life inthe same way regularly checking e-mails has evolved. For individ-uals with highly integrated routines for SNSs, these Web-based

technologies replace behaviors normally carried out in face-to-facesettings. Placing romantic partners under surveillance is a commonmaintenance strategy used in many relationships (Guerrero & Afifi,1998). Because of the conveniences afforded by SNSs for engagingin surveillance, individuals who have integrated these technologiesinto their lives may carry out surveillance strategies otherwise nat-urally occurring in offline contexts.

H4: The integration of social network sites into daily routines ispositively associated with interpersonal electronic surveillanceover social network sites.

There may be some risks of being caught with the surreptitiousengagement of surveillance over SNSs. The result of being discov-ered surveying close others’ personal information can range frommild distrust to dissolution. People who perform surveillance mustthus have confidence in their ability to execute surveillance with-out exposing their behaviors to romantic partners or others. Inter-net self-efficacy, which refers to the self-assurance in one’s use ofInternet-supported technologies (Eastin & LaRose, 2000), is likelyto be associated with IES because being discovered performing sur-veillance is such a large risk. As Internet self-efficacy grows, peopleare more likely to exercise IES as a result of their increasing confi-dence in the ability to escape being exposed.

H5: Internet self-efficacy is positively associated with interper-sonal electronic surveillance over social network sites.

7. Method

7.1. Participants and procedures

Participants were recruited for the study in one of two ways.Undergraduate students from a large Southwest university re-ceived extra credit for their participation. Participants must havemet the following four requirements at the time of recruitmentto participate: they must be at least 18 years of age, they mustbe currently involved in a romantic relationship, they must ac-tively manage a profile on SNSs, and their romantic partner hasan active profile as part of the same social network (e.g., Facebook,MySpace, etc.). Undergraduate students were also asked to providenon-university adult referrals who may participate on their behalf.The referrals were sought to increase the overall representative-ness of the sample. The recruitment yielded a sample of 126 partic-ipants of which 35 (27.8%) were males and 91 (72.2%) werefemales. The mean age of the participants was 23.3 years(SD = 7.3, range = 18–56). Thirty participants were non-universityadults and 96 were from the university student sample1.

Participants were instructed to complete an Internet-basedquestionnaire, which included items related to surveillance overSNSs, demographic information, relational information, and Inter-net use and efficacy information. Participants had moderateamounts of exposure to the Internet in that they spent an averageof 3.5 h (SD = 2.3) using the Internet each day. Respondents’ expe-rience with Internet use was extensive; they had been using theInternet for an average of 9 years and 11 months (SD = 3.0 months).Most of the romantic relationships were of heterosexual orienta-tion 95.2% (n = 120) and 3.2% (n = 4) of partners were involved inhomosexual relationships. Two respondents did not choose to an-swer the sexual orientation question. Fourteen participants experi-enced infidelity with their current partner while 122 participantsreported their partners have been faithful thus far. Finally, 91

R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713 709

participants were living in the same geographical proximity astheir romantic partners and the remaining 35 individuals were in-volved in long distance relationships. Data used in this study werepart of a larger project on interpersonal surveillance over SNSs.

7.2. Measures

IES Scale for SNSs (ISS). The ISS was created for this project in re-sponse to the absence of a reliable and valid operational measurefor the IES construct. The proposed measure includes 15 itemsgathered through a search of relevant literature, through informalinterviews with experienced users of SNSs, and from adaptations ofitems in offline and online surveillance measures. The items arepresented in Tables 1 and 2 along with their factor loadings. Thescale is based on a 7-point Likert scale with larger numbers indi-cating greater use of IES in the relationship. A procedure for trim-ming the scale to achieve internal consistency is discussed in thenext section. The final scale was based on 12 items, which hadacceptable reliability (Cronbach’s a = .97).

Integration of SNSs. The degree to which individuals’ integrateSNSs into their lives was evaluated using a modified version of Elli-son et al.’s (2007) Facebook intensity scale. The modification in-volved changing the word ‘‘Facebook’’ to ‘‘social networkingsites.’’ The items assessed the extent to which SNSs have becomeritualized in people’s daily routines (e.g., ‘‘social networking sitesare part of my everyday activity’’). The scale, which was based ona 7-point Likert scale with higher numbers indicating greater inte-gration, was reliable (Cronbach’s a = .94)

Internet self-efficacy. Eastin and LaRose (2000) developed a scalethat evaluates Internet self-efficacy or the belief in one’s ability toexecute a series of procedures online to acquire something fromthe Internet or accomplish an Internet-based task. The eight-itemmeasure (e.g., ‘‘I feel confident using the Internet to gather data’’)takes Internet hardware and software into consideration. TheInternet self-efficacy scale, which is based on a 7-point scale, wasreliable (Cronbach’s a = .93).

Demographic and relational questions. Information related todemography (i.e., age and gender) and the relationship (i.e., priorpartner infidelity and geographical distance) was collected usinga series of one-item measures (e.g., ‘‘To your knowledge, has yourcurrent romantic partner ever cheated on you’’).

8. Results

8.1. Psychometric properties of the ISS

In recognizing the absence of a measure for reliably and val-idly evaluating IES over SNSs, one contribution of this project is

Table 1Items and factor loadings for the initial interpersonal electronic surveillance scale for soci

No. Item

1. I visit my partner’s social networking site page often2. When visiting my partner’s social networking site page, I read the new po3. I often spend time looking through my partner’s social networking site pic4. I pay particularly close attention to news feeds that concern my partner5. I notice when my partner updates his/her social networking site page6. I am generally aware of the relationships between my partner and his/her7. If there are messages on my partner’s wall I don’t understand, I try to inve8. I try to read comments my partner posts on mutual friends’ walls9. I am generally aware of my partner’s social networking site activities10. I peruse my partner’s social networking site page to see what s/he’s up to11. I see the friends my partner keeps on his social networking site page12. I know when my partner hasn’t updated his/her social networking site pa13. I try to monitor my partner’s behaviors through his/her social networking14. I explore my partner’s social networking page to see if there is anything n15. I know more about my partners’ everyday life by looking at his/her social

the proposed ISS. A 15-item scale was initially created followingan extensive literature search, interviews with experienced usersof SNSs, and adaptations to offline and online surveillance scaleitems. A principal-axis exploratory factor analysis (EFA) wasinitially conducted on the 15 items of the ISS to evaluate itsproperties. The initial extraction yielded two factors with eigen-values over 1.0. However, the noticeable differences between theeigenvalues for the two factors (i.e., 10.1 and 1.2) indicated scaleunidimensionality. Two items (i.e., items 11 and 15), whichcross-loaded onto two factors, were removed from the analysis.The second principal-axis EFA yielded one factor with an eigen-value of over 1.0, which accounted for 68.1% of the total-itemvariance.

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then used to verify theunidimensionality of the single-factor structure. The variance forthe unidimensional factor was fixed at 1.0 to solve for issues re-lated to scale indeterminacy (see Hatcher, 1994). The initial mea-surement model indicated modest fit, v2(65) = 240.4, p < .05,CFI = .89, SRMR = .05. The normalized residuals of the 13 itemswere examined for any standardized error exceeding 2.0. The pathof one item (i.e., item 7), which had a normalized residual exceed-ing 2.0, was fixed to zero. The trimming of the scale resulted in asignificant reduction in model chi-square and overall improvementof the measurement model’s fit, v2(54) = 192.5, p < .05, CFI = .90,SRMR = .04. Fig. 1 provides the standardized path estimates foreach item.

8.2. Demography, relationship, and Internet use

It was important to provide preliminary data on factors influ-encing individuals’ decisions to exercise IES over SNSs to under-stand this phenomenon. The research questions and hypothesesproposed in this investigation explored demographic, relationship,and Internet-use predictors of IES. The IES variable was regressedon the seven predictors and three control variables—total hoursspent online each day, minutes spent on one’s own profile, andInternet experience. The linear combination of the predictors hadan overall effect on IES, R = .72, R2 = .52, R2

adj ¼ :47, F(10, 110) =10.72, p < .001.

The results for RQ1 revealed that there were no gender differ-ences between males (M = 3.57, SD = 1.55) and females (M = 4.03,SD = 1.70), b = �.08, t = �0.95, ns, in the level of IES performedthrough SNSs. An independent samples t test also confirmed therewere no gender differences, t(124) = �1.39, ns. In contrast, the re-sults for RQ2 showed that age was negatively related to IES,b = �.23, t = �2.95, p < .01. Younger adults are more likely to em-ploy surveillance strategies using SNSs than older adults.

H1 predicted that prior infidelity by a current partner promotesIES behaviors. The results did not substantiate a relationship

al network sites.

Factor 1 Factor 2

.81 �.14sts of his/her friends .76 �.04tures .82 �.18

.82 �.17

.81 �.24social networking site friends .81 �.15stigate it through others’ social networking sites .77 .07

.86 �.04

.84 �.03

.89 �.06

.72 .41ge in a while .85 .12page .80 .28ew or exciting .88 �.04networking site page .70 .49

Table 2Items and factor loadings for the trimmed interpersonal electronic surveillance scale for social network sites.

No. Item M SD Factor 1

1. I visit my partner’s social networking site page often 3.91 2.07 .822. When visiting my partner’s social networking site page, I read the new posts of his/her friends 4.75 2.00 .783. I often spend time looking through my partner’s social networking site pictures 4.12 2.01 .824. I pay particularly close attention to news feeds that concern my partner 4.02 2.04 .835. I notice when my partner updates his/her social networking site page 4.36 1.94 .826. I am generally aware of the relationships between my partner and his/her social networking site friends 4.17 1.92 .817. If there are messages on my partner’s wall I don’t understand, I try to investigate it through others’ social networking sites 3.48 2.01 .778. I try to read comments my partner posts on mutual friends’ walls 3.84 2.03 .879. I am generally aware of my partner’s social networking site activities 3.90 1.89 .8510. I peruse my partner’s social networking site page to see what s/he’s up to 3.87 2.00 .9012. I know when my partner hasn’t updated his/her social networking site page in a while 3.60 2.05 .8313. I try to monitor my partner’s behaviors through his/her social networking page 2.87 1.91 .7314. I explore my partner’s social networking page to see if there is anything new or exciting 3.83 2.03 .88

.84 .73 .89 .78 .84 .83 .82 .81 .84 .90 .84 .81

V2 V3 V4 V5 V8 V1 V9 V10 V12 V13 V14 V6

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12

Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance over SNSs

Fig. 1. Illustration of the measurement model for the interpersonal electronic surveillance scale for social network sites.

710 R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713

between previous partner infidelity and surveillance, b = �.12, t =�1.72, ns. A follow-up t test also confirmed no differences betweenpartners who have encountered infidelity in their current relation-ship (M = 4.46, SD = 1.64) and people who have not (M = 3.83,SD = 1.67) in the extent to which they exercise IES over SNSs,t(124) = 1.33, ns. The results also did not support H2 in that longdistance partners report the same level of IES behaviors than geo-graphically close partners, b = .04, t = 0.51, ns. In short, factors re-lated to the relationship were not strong predictors of people’sdecisions to place their romantic partner under surveillance usingSNSs.

In testing H3, the result revealed that the amount of time spenton a partner’s profile was proportional to their use of IES, b = .24,t = 2.46, p < .05, which provides initial convergent validity of theISS. H4 was predicated on the idea that people who integrate SNSsinto their daily routines are more likely to place their partners un-der surveillance than those who perceive less integration. The re-sults supported the relationship, b = .54, t = 6.36, p < .001,indicating that people who acknowledge SNSs as an important partof their daily activities are more likely to exercise IES. Finally, H6proposed that confidence in one’s Internet skills is likely to pro-mote IES behaviors. The findings indicated a significant relation-ship between Internet self-efficacy and IES; however, therelationship was in the opposite direction than anticipated,b = �.21, t = �2.73, p < .01. Table 3 displays the results of the multi-ple regression using IES as the criterion variable and the sevendemographic, relationship, and Internet use variables as predictors.A complete zero-order correlation matrix of these variables is of-fered in Table 4.

9. Discussion

The vertical forms of electronic monitoring and surveillanceused by governmental agencies and organizations has generated

considerable public concerns (D’Urso, 2006). Public fears of privacyinvasions and information theft have made people weary of thetechnologies they use. Newer forms of interpersonal surveillancesupported through Internet-based communication technologieshave added an additional element of uncertainty to Internet users.This peer-or-peer or horizontal surveillance implies that ordinarycitizens, as opposed to large organizations or agencies, have thepower and ability to exercise surveillance over anyone. The broadobjectives of the present investigation were to explicate this newersurveillance and apply the concept to romantic partners who useSNSs. The latter goal was undertaken by exploring the relation-ships between IES and several demographic, relational, and Inter-net use and efficacy variables.

The proposed measure of IES was developed using an ‘‘arm-chair’’ approach to scale development in which items from offlineand online instruments relevant to partner surveillance wereadapted, experienced users of SNSs were consulted, and a reviewof existing literature on IES stimulated item generation. Althoughthis approach is less systematic than other scale developmentmethods, this procedure led to a unidimensional scale of IES thatdemonstrated internal consistency. In operationalizing the IES con-struct, the items focus on the awareness gained of romantic part-ners’ offline and online behaviors by using information availableon SNSs. An important contribution made by this project is thisproposed measure of IES applied to SNSs. This measure is an initialstep in providing a foundation for future programmatic researchon interpersonal surveillance that emerges in Internet-basedtechnologies.

The circumstances related to a relationship, such as geographicalproximity between romantic partners and prior partner infidelities,have no association with IES behaviors. These findings are at oddswith recent evidence, which suggests that IES is employed as a re-sponse to jealousy from third-party rivals. Long distance romanticpartners and partners who have experienced infidelity in their

Table 3Multiple regression for predictors of interpersonal electronic surveillance over socialnetwork sites.

Interpersonal electronic surveillance

b t

Independent variablesDemographic variables

Gender �.08 �0.95Age �.23** �2.95

Relationship variablesInfidelity experience �.12 �1.72Geographical distance .04 0.51

Internet-use related variablesMins/day spent on partner’s profile .24* 2.46Integration of SNSs .54*** 6.36Internet self-efficacy �.21** �2.73

Control variablesMins/day spent on own profile �.07 �0.61Hours/day on Internet .05 0.65Internet experience �.09 �1.15

Note. For the gender variable, male was coded 0 and female was coded 1. For theinfidelity experience variable, infidelity experienced was coded 0 and infidelity notexperienced was coded 1. For the geographical distance variable, geographically-close relationships were coded 0 and long distance relationships were coded 1.

* p < .05.** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713 711

relationships are expected to be interpersonally jealous and suspi-cious (Buss, 1994; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss & Shackelford,1997; Dainton & Aylor, 2001). Because jealousy is deemed a motivat-ing factor in interpersonal surveillance behaviors (Phillips, 2009),there was a level of presumption that geographical distance andprior infidelity, in turn, influenced IES as well. The lack of findingsmay rest in the initial assumption made about the experience ofjealousy between long distance partners and those who haveexperienced infidelity. These partners may have found a way tomove beyond or cope with the relational events and no longer expe-rience jealousy. Accordingly, there may be a faulty presumptionthese individuals have lingering or residual jealousy. The findingscould also imply that interpersonal surveillance over SNSs may notbe used for mitigating jealousy or insecurity in relationships.

Previous research and theorizing on interpersonal surveillancehas characterized these behaviors negatively. IES has been dis-cussed in relation to cyberstalking (Phillips, 2009) and indictedas a cause of deleterious relational problems (Muise et al., 2009).The results may shed light on an alternative characterization ofpersonal surveillance through electronic technologies not yet seri-ously considered. Although the desire to gain awareness of roman-tic partners’ behaviors surreptitiously conjures negative images,IES may be interpreted as an information-seeking and gainingstrategy used in healthy relationships. Partners access informationavailable through Internet-supported technologies to reduce someof the uncertainty in their relationships. This uncertainty, which is

Table 4Zero-order correlation matrix of all variables in the study.

Variable 1 2 3

1. IES over SNSs –2. Min/day on partner’s profile .28** –3. Age �.40** �.11 –4. Gender .12 .02 �.15. Partner infidelity �.12 �.06 .06. Geographical distance .11 .00 �.17. Integration of SNSs .58** .12 �.38. Internet self-efficacy �.10 .07 �.0

* p < .05.** p < .01.

marked at the onset of relationships (Emmers & Canary, 1996), cancompel individuals to participate in the surveillance of their part-ners. This can also explain why younger people are more likelyto exercise IES than older people; younger individuals implyinvolvement in shorter relationships. No gender differences existin the pursuit of information obtained through IES; females en-gaged in slightly greater surveillance over SNSs than males butnot to discernable degrees.

Internet efficacy and use variables provide important insightsinto conditions motivating partners to engage in surveillance overSNSs. The amount of time spent on a partner’s profile is an indica-tor of one’s level of surveillance. It may be that the longer individ-uals spend on a profile, the more enticed they are to gain access toinformation about their partners’ offline and online behaviors.Alternatively, the length of time may be a natural indication of sur-veillance; it takes longer to gain awareness of partners’ behaviorsthan to post a message onto their message boards or place an iden-tification marker on a picture or video and move on.

As participation on SNSs becomes embedded into daily rou-tines, people are more likely to place their romantic partners undersurveillance using these websites. The convenience of acquiringsought information, in concert with the potential anonymity in-volved with online lurking, can motivate a need to enact surveil-lance. Surveillance is made easy on SNSs from the regularity ofstatus updates, news feeds, and open message exchanges. Theabundance of rich information reduces the need for extensivesearching or formal investigations. People who are concernedabout the maintenance of their relationship and have access toinformation at their disposals naturally move surveillance fromoffline to online contexts. In contrast, it may be argued that peoplewho were efficacious at finding information about their partnersthrough surveillance over SNSs were likely to integrate these socialmedia into their daily routines.

Less capable Internet users appear to seek information abouttheir partners through SNSs. Because of the desirable qualities re-lated to surveillance, romantic partners gravitate to these websitesdespite their inexperience. It may be possible that the perceptionof surveillance as easy and safe on SNSs creates new users of theseWeb-based technologies. Relational partners who are Internet sav-vy may turn to more sophisticated means of technological surveil-lance beyond SNSs. IES over SNSs can thus be characterized as anelementary method of surveillance performed by Internet novices,but this is not to imply it is the only way to survey others or thatonly novices participate in IES.

9.1. Adapted views of technologies among romantic partners

In light of the results from this project, IES may be considered asan information-seeking and gaining strategy among romantic part-ners. This characterization moves away from the negative under-tones associated with surveillance in relationships. Instead,

4 5 6 7 8

1 –0 .06 –9* �.05 .06 –1** .23* �.02 .06 –7 �.19* �.12 .11 .14 –

712 R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713

partner who are unfamiliar with others use SNSs to gain access topersonal information related to their offline and online behaviors.Interpersonal trust and relational security can be developed tothe extent that trusting behaviors are exhibited through one’s pro-file. IES occurs in many forms with SNSs offering one of severalplatforms for individuals to enact surveillance behaviors in theirrelationships. Because of the relative ease in locating informationabout others on SNSs, it is the forum novice or inexperienced Inter-net users turn to for surveillance functions.

IES reflects a ‘‘reinvention’’ of SNSs described by Rice and Rogers(1980). These websites have slowly developed into a device usedfor informatics in conjunction with their primary objective for so-cial networking. In this adaptive view, SNSs are identified as infor-mation managers capable of personal data storage for retrievalfrom any friend or contact, which is facilitated by the social net-working functions. IES is therefore closely related to Marx’s(2004) conception of social surveillance, which is discussed asthe ‘‘scrutiny through the use of technical means to extract or cre-ate personal or group data, whether from individuals or contexts’’(p. 276).

10. Limitations and future directions for research

The results from the present investigation must be consideredwith the limitations of this project. Considering that a large contri-bution of this project is the proposed measure, it is important todiscuss some of the limitations with scale development. First, aspreviously discussed, an armchair approach to item developmentwas used, which generates a pool of items from brainstorming,consulting established interpersonal surveillance measures, anddiscussions with experienced users of SNSs. Although this ap-proach is desirable for scale development in relatively untappeddomains of research, it lacks the systematic orientation of othermore empirical processes. In the more systematic approach toscale development, a multistage process is used for item genera-tion, including identification of relevant constructs and measures,an item pool expansion assisted by expert review and brainstorm-ing, and item revision and then reduction. Future studies may con-sider the more systematic approach for scale development whencomposing a broader IES measure.

Second, the procedure for verifying the factor dimensionality ofthe interpersonal surveillance scale used in this investigation in-volved exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Although itis desirable to use confirmatory factor analysis in collaborationwith exploratory factor analysis to verify the factor structure of ascale, this project used the same data to both explore and confirmfactor dimensionality. One issue with this procedure is that it cancapitalize on the chance characteristics of the data set. As such, fu-ture investigations should explore issues of factorial invariance ofthe IES measure.

11. Conclusion

Recent concerns have been raised about interpersonal surveil-lance that takes place on Internet-supported technologies, whichhas been reflected in scholarly research. This research tries to ex-plain the actors involved in electronic surveillance and provideprevalence estimates for its occurrence. Given the relatively highprevalence rates of individuals who report participating in surveil-lance over SNSs, a shift may be seen in the indifference that chil-dren, adolescents, and adults ostensibly have for issues ofInternet trust and privacy. SNSs have arguably changed how theirusers communicate and view communication technologies. Thisnovel ‘‘reinvention’’ of SNSs may not only change the way peoplecommunicate but how they think about communication as well.

References

Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk,and governance. Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 479–497. Available from: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles2(4)/lateral.pdf Retrieved 01.09.10.

Albrechtslund, A. (2008). Online social networking as participatory surveillance.First Monday, 13(3), article 6. Available from: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949 Retrieved 01.09.10.

boyd, d. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networkedpublics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digitalmedia (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, andscholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.

Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival characteristics thatevoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity. PersonalRelationships, 11, 395–408.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York:Basic Books.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionaryperspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year ofmarriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193–221.

comScore. (2008). Social networking explodes worldwide as sites increase their focuson cultural relevance. Available from: http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2396 Retrieved 01.09.10.

Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust,and maintenance in long-distance versus geographically close relationships.Communication Quarterly, 49, 172–188.

Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith& P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York: Routledge.

D’Urso, S. C. (2006). Who’s watching us at work? Toward a structural–perceptualmodel of electronic monitoring and surveillance in organizations.Communication Theory, 16, 281–303.

Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of thedigital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). Availablefrom: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/eastin.html Retrieved 01.09.10.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. Available from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html Retrieved 01.09.10.

Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J. (1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing strategieson young couples’ relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44,166–182.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).New York: Pantheon.

Fuchs, C. (2009). Social networking sites and the surveillance society: A critical casestudy of the usage of studiVZ, Facebook, and MySpace by students in Salzburg in thecontext of electronic surveillance. Salzburg/Vienna, Austria: Forschungsgruppe.

Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1998). Communicative responses to jealousy as afunction of self-esteem and relationship maintenance goals: A test of Bryson’sdual motivation model. Communication Reports, 11, 111–122.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of socialnetwork sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 14.Available from: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html Retrieved01.09.10.

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis andstructural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Huffaker, D. (2004). Gender similarities and differences in online identity and languageuse among teenage bloggers. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.

Hupka, R. (1991). The motive for arousal of romantic jealousy: Its cultural origins. InP. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–28). New York:Guilford Press.

Joinson, A. N. (2008). ‘Looking at,’ ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up with’ people? Motivesand uses of Facebook. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conferenceon Human factors in computing system, Italy (pp. 1027–1036).

Jones, S., Millermaier, S., Goya-Martinez, M., & Schuler, J. (2008). Whose space isMySpace? A content analysis of MySpace profiles. First Monday, 13(9). Availablefrom: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle./2202/2024 Retrieved 01.09.10.

Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement,and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Socialsearching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of CSCW-2006 (pp. 167–170). NewYork: ACM Press.

Lyon, D. (1993). An electronic panopticon? A sociological critique of surveillancetheory. The Sociological Review, 41, 653–678.

Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance society: Monitoring everyday life. Buckingham, UK: OpenUniversity.

Marx, G. T. (2004). Surveillance and society. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of socialtheory (pp. 275–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you everwanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–444.

Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking ‘‘privacy’’ for a networked world. Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, USA, 129–136.

R.S. Tokunaga / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 705–713 713

Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In P. Salovey(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 252–267). New York: GuilfordPress.

Phillips, M. (2009, February). MySpace or yours?: Social networking sites surveillancein romantic relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the WesternStates Communication Association, Mesa, AZ.

Rains, S. A., & Scott, C. R. (2007). To identify or not to identify: A theoretical model ofreceiver responses to anonymous communication. Communication Theory, 17,61–91.

Renold, E. (2000). ‘Coming out’: Gender, (hetero)sexuality and the primary school.Gender and Education, 12, 309–326.

Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge:Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 499–514.

Rosenblum, D. (2007). What anyone can know: The privacy risks of socialnetworking sites. IEEE Security and Privacy, May/June, 40–49.

Scott, C. R. (2004). Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication:Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. In S. Drucker (Ed.).Free speech yearbook (Vol. 41, pp. 127–141). Washington, DC: NationalCommunication Association.

Shoemaker, P. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural evolutionto explain the surveillance function. Journal of Communication, 46, 32–47.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies ofinterpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71–92.

Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of theCommunication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9–20.

Steinfield, C., Ellison, N. B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use ofonline social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 29, 434–445.

Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social networkcommunities. International Digital and Media Arts Journal, 3, 10–18.

Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too much of agood thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonalimpressions on Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13,531–549.

Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation inonline social network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 28, 20–36.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is there social capital in a social networksite?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, andparticipation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 875–901.

Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Shouten, A. P. (2006). Friend networking sites and theirrelationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. CyberPsychology& Behavior, 9, 584–590.

Van Horn, K. R., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Griffin, M., et al. (1997).Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romanticrelationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 25–34.

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.-Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. (2008). Therole of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals onFacebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human CommunicationResearch, 34, 28–49.

Walther, J. B., Gay, G., & Hancock, J. T. (2005). How do communication and technologyresearchers study the Internet? Journal of Communication, 55, 632–657.

Zhu, J. J. H., & He, Z. (2002). Information accessibility, user sophistication, and sourcecredibility: The impact of the internet on value orientations in mainland China.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(2), article 1. Available from:http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue2/china.html Retrieved 01.09.10.

Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.