Smith ScholarWorks

Theses, Dissertations, and Projects

2014

The exploration of young adults' online and offline

interpersonal relationships
Josselyn B. Sheer

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses

Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

Recommended Citation
Sheer, Josselyn B., "The exploration of young adults' online and offline interpersonal relationships" (2014). Theses, Dissertations, and
Projects. 1084.
https://scholarworks.smith.edu/theses/1084

This Masters Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, and Projects by an authorized administrator of Smith ScholarWorks. For
more information, please contact [email protected].
 Josselyn Sheer
The Exploration of Young Adults’
Online and Offline Interpersonal
Relationships

ABSTRACT

The present study sought to learn about the ways in which young adults who are avid

social networking site users (SNS) build and maintain interpersonal relationships given the ways

in which social media shapes how young adults connect. This research explored how experiences

via SNS such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tinder played a role in one’s online and

offline relationships.

Inclusion criteria included being between the ages of 18 and 30, being an English

speaker, logging onto SNS at least 10 times per day, and being able to speak in person or on the

phone for one hour. With a sample of twelve young adults, the majority of participants identified

as Caucasian, 9, and female, 9, with a mean age of 24.3.

The study concluded that the majority of participants' relationships with friends

originated offline via in-person encounters. Offline relationships were strengthened due to online

SNS activity due to SNS's ability to connect long distance friends and family members, post

photos online that increased offline engagement, reinforce positive aspects of offline

relationships, and deepen one's personal development offline. Participants also noted the ways in

which SNS adversely impacted their relationships offline, including trust, embarrassment, and

exclusion. The findings also showed a gender-specific pattern, revealing that all three male

participants used SNS as a tool for developing businesses; the women never spoke about using
SNS to assist in the development of a business but, rather, spoke only about using it exclusively

as a social environment and tool.

THE EXPLORATION OF YOUNG ADULTS’ ONLINE AND OFFLINE

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

A project based upon an independent investigation,

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Social Work.

Josselyn Sheer

Smith College School for Social Work

Northampton, Massachusetts 01063

2014
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my devoted research advisor, Kelly Mandarino, for her ceaseless
encouragement throughout the duration of this thesis. Kelly made herself available to me at all
hours of the day whether it was by email or Skype, assisting me to further dive into my material
when I needed it, whist at the same time encouraging me to take a step away from the work when
it felt necessary. Kelly was a true teammate throughout this process, and I am grateful to her
dedication and enthusiasm.

Thank you to my family and loved ones for simply being present and with me throughout
this journey. I feel so blessed.

Lastly, thank you Evan, for having to listen to all of my tribulations and for supporting
me with love every step of the way. Thank you for always believing in me.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... iv

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 4

III METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 19

IV FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 25

V DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 58

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 75

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Flyer.................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix B: Study Research Information Sheet ..................................................................... 82
Appendix C: Informed Consent ............................................................................................... 83
Appendix D: Demographic Information Sheet ........................................................................ 87
Appendix E: Interview Questions............................................................................................ 89
Appendix F: Approval Letter from the Smith College Human Subjects Review
Committee ........................................................................................................................ 92

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table…………………………………………………………………………………………...Page

1. Participant SNS Usage ..................................................................................................... 27

2. Participant SNS Usage – Median ..................................................................................... 28

3. Participant SNS Usage – Mode ....................................................................................... 29

iv
 CHAPTER I

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: How do young adults

who are avid social networking site (SNS) users build and maintain interpersonal relationships? I

became curious about young adults’ perceptions of the ways in which social networking sites

play a role in their ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships.

As young adults continue to increase the amount of time they spend on social media

websites, it is important to explore their types of involvement in social media and their ability to

create meaningful online or offline relationships. A national poll conducted by the Common

Sense Media (2009) found that young adults log on to their favorite social media sites more than

ten times per day. This gives evidence that a large part of “social and emotional development is

occurring while on the Internet” (O'Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011, p. 800). Having worked

with young adults in a clinical internship, it became evident to me that social media is changing

and shaping how young individuals are connecting with one another. What sparked my interest

during my first year clinical placement were the ways in which these SNS continually came up in

conversation with a client population of young adults. I found that SNS would be casually

mentioned throughout sessions.

One reason for conducting this study was to offer a deeper understanding of the

experiences of young adults’ SNS usage and their ability to initiate and maintain interpersonal

relationships. As young adults continue to increase the amount of time spent on SNS they are

1
affected either positively or negatively, which may have some effect on their ability to create

meaningful relationships. As a group, young adults make particularly heavy use of technology

(Kolmes, 2012). Kolmes (2012) states that over the past several years “the practice and

profession of psychology ha[s] been greatly influenced by digital culture and social media” (p.

606). Kolmes (2012) discusses clients who use SNS, stating that “young adults on social media

sites are usually crafting identities for particular digital audiences” (p. 610). Thus it is important

to examine how current technological shifts influence clinical social work practice, as SNS are

becoming a standard means of interacting with others. It is imperative that clinicians gain a

deeper understanding of how clients’ use and experience of SNS play a role in young adults’

offline and online relationships, and the building and maintenance of those relationships.

I conducted this study by interviewing a sample of twelve young adults, defined as men

and women aged 18 through 30 (Correa & de Zúñiga, 2010) who were avid social networking

site users. I defined an avid user as an individual who logs onto SNS at least ten times per day

(Common Sense Media, 2009). At the beginning of the interview, I introduced myself to the

participant, briefly described my study, and then continued to use my interview guide to collect

data. I focused on social networking sites (SNS) as I have found that the majority of research on

social media use has solely focused on social networking sites (Acar, 2008, Zywica & Danowski,

2008). I defined SNS use as the consumption of digital media or Internet that provides a

mechanism for communication, interaction, and connection through the virtual use of a user

profile (Correa & de Zúñiga, 2010). Examples of SNS’s included Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,

and MySpace, but were not limited to these. I chose to utilize Self-Psychology, some of which

includes self- love, self-esteem, including grandiosity and inadequacy, self-objects, and twinship

(Keiffer, 2012). I believe that this theoretical lens has helped to make sense of the phenomenon

2
of online relationships and identity shaping and the ways it affects young adults. Interpersonal

relationships will be defined as social associations, connections, or affiliations with two or more

people (Jenkins-Guarnieri, 2013). Examples of this include friendships, romantic partnerships,

and colleagues with whom there is a reciprocal relationship.

In order to begin a study of my own, it was crucial that I explore theoretical and empirical

literature that helped shape my understanding of this topic, as well as recognize where there may

be gaps.

3
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The general investigation of this literature review will explore young adults’ use of social

networking sites (SNS) and their interpersonal relationships. I will use Self Psychology as a

theoretical lens for my study, as I believe that this theory has helped to illustrate online and

offline relationship building and maintenance. I seek to explore young adults’ use of SNS, how

they build and maintain interpersonal relationships, and their orientation of their own self-

esteem.

Adolescent and Young Adult Development

Erik Erikson (1964) developed a psychosocial timeline that looked at the developmental

life stages over the course of a person’s life cycle (Berzoff, 2008). It is important to note that

Erikson’s developmental model is framed from a North American perspective; the stages of

development vary from culture to culture and do not always align. Erikson (1964) theorized that

the “ego itself is shaped and transformed, not only by biological and psychological forces but

also by social forces” (Berzoff, 2008, p. 99). His theory suggested that people are constantly

changing and evolving over the course of their entire lives. Erikson’s Epigenetic Stages include

Infancy, Early Childhood, Play Stage, School Age, Adolescence, Young Adulthood, Adulthood,

and Old Age (Berzoff, 2008). For the purposes of this study, I will focus on adolescence and

young adulthood.

4
 Erikson (1964) states that during adolescence, there is a tension between identity and role

confusion. There is a transition from childhood to adulthood where individuals are feeling more

independent, questioning one’s own identity, struggling with social interactions, and grappling

with moral issues. This is a time when adolescents ask themselves who they are. Erikson (1964)

suggests that adolescents must integrate a basic sense of trust, a strong sense of independence,

competence, and control over one’s life. During this stage, the most significant relationships are

with peer groups. Individuals who receive reinforcement and validation during this stage will

develop a strong sense of self. Erikson (1964) states that completing this stage leads to fidelity,

which he described as “the ability to sustain loyalties freely pledged in spite of differences in

values” (Berzoff, 2008, p. 112).

When individuals are in the young adulthood stage, there is a struggle and tension

between intimacy and isolation (Berzoff, 2008). In order to achieve intimacy in relationships

during this stage, one must have “mutuality, which requires the ability to lose oneself and find

oneself in another without losing one’s identity” (Berzoff, 2008, p. 112). When an individual’s

identity is not solid, his/her attempt at intimacy may lead to isolation and fear of a committed

relationship, because “when identity is shaky, attempts at intimacy become desperate attempts at

delineating the fuzzy outlines of identity by mutual narcissistic mirroring: to fall in love often

means to fall into one’s mirror image” (Berzoff, 2008, p. 112). Berzoff (2008) states, “for

people whose identities are fragmented, rigid, or brittle, the capacity for real intimacy may be

limited or impossible” (p. 113).

The virtue of this stage is love, which Erikson (1964) refers to as, “the strength of the

ego” to be able to share identity with another individual while maintaining a separate self (p.

113). It is during this developmental stage that a young adult is eager to amalgamate their

5
identities with their peers. As the phenomena of SNS increases, the availability for individuals to

share information about themselves increases dramatically, providing more opportunities for

individuals to feel more connected to others. SNS offer an opportunity for young adults to

instantly feel connected and supported by others.

History of Social Networking Sites

According to Boyd and Ellison (2008), the first recognizable social network site launched

in 1997, and was called SixDegrees. The website allowed users to create an individual profile

and list their friends. SixDegrees was the first SNS to combine lists of Friends from AIM, AOL

Instant Messenger, ICQ, an instant messaging server, and Classmates.com, promoting itself as a

tool to “help people connect with and send messages to others” (Boyd & Ellison, 2008).

Following this, AsianAvenue, BlackPlanet, and MiGente were created. These websites allowed

users to identify Friends on their personal profiles. Shortly after, the next wave of SNS were

created in 2001, beginning with Ryze, a website created to “help people leverage their business

networks” (Boyd & Ellison, 2008, p. 215). From here, LinkedIn and Friendster were produced in

2002 “as a social complement to Ryze” (p. 215), however, “in the end, Ryze never acquired mass

popularity, LinkedIn became a powerful business service, and Friendster[‘s]…” popularity

declined due to “technical difficulties, social collisions, and a rupture of trust between users and

the site” (p. 216). From 2003 onward, a new term, “Yet Another Social Networking Services,” or

YASNS, was coined by social software analysis Clay Shirky. During the year 2003, SNSs were

launched to help “strangers connect based on shared interests,” “focus on business people…help

activists meet…connect travelers to people with couches…join Christian churches with their

members” and so on (p. 216). MySpace began in 2003; it was originally created to promote and

advertise local musicians and bands. Soon after, MySpace added new features such as

6
personalizing pages and began attracting a larger demographic including “musicians/artists,

teenagers, and the post-college urban social crowd” (p. 217). In 2004, Facebook was designed

and targeted towards individuals connected to a college network, however it later expanded to

include high school students, and then became “open” for anyone to join (Boyd & Ellison, 2008).

Realizing the power of social networking, Google implemented Google+ in 2011 that allowed

users to video chat with online friends. The world of social networking is continuing to evolve.

Judging from recent SNS developments, one could predict that SNS will continue to further

expand.

Social Networking Site Usage and Interpersonal Relationships

Individuals today are experiencing a new type of interpersonal communication. As

discussed by Bowker and Moorman (2011), there has been a recent shift away from traditional

routes of communicating interpersonally to a more “digital approach to maintaining and

establishing relationships” (Moorman & Bowker, 2011, p. 2). Epstein (1983) suggests that

young adult “interpersonal connections are needed to foster and develop positive social skills and

that reciprocal relations promote positive mental health and psychological adjustment” (Epstein,

1983, p. 153).

Adolescence and young adulthood are developmental periods in which social networks

and cohesive groups of peers are forming. The development and maintenance of healthy

interpersonal relationships, particularly in young adulthood are focused on peer relationships and

intimate relationships. Given the developmental significance of identity development and

establishing intimate friendships and dating relationships during young adulthood, it is important

to consider the ways in which these interpersonal relationships develop.

7
 Interpersonal relationships exist between two or more people who engage in social

associations with one another (Cavazos, 2010). According to an article in Time magazine,

“challenges in life may feel less daunting to people with close interpersonal relationships,” as

those who have close emotional connections feel a sense of “safety and security that reduces

stress” (Cavazos, 2010, p. 1). According to McKenna and Bargh (2000), in a recent poll of 1,000

Internet users, “64% said that ‘using an online Internet service is a necessity to me’” (D’Amico,

1998, p. 1). The drastic growth of the Internet has made it possible for individuals to connect

with others and has inadvertently shaped the way in which individuals are connecting with one

another. A large portion of social interaction is now taking place on the Internet, where people

resort to interpersonal communication via the Internet as a “quick and easy way to maintain

contact with family and friends who live far away” (McKenna & Bargh, 2000, p. 58).

Social Networking Sites and Online Relationships

There has been a dramatic shift and rise in the creation and usage of SNS. Generations

today are experiencing a new wave of interpersonal communication that has transitioned to a

more digital approach. There are hundreds of SNS that stretch back to 1978, however “current

modern communication and interpersonal connectedness is now both fostered and mediated by

the communicative tool itself: the computer” (Hoffman, 2008; Bowker & Moorman, 2011).

Instead of a physical interaction with another individual, SNS make room for a

“simulate[d]…real-time human interaction” (Bowker & Moorman, 2001, p. 2). Online and

offline relationships currently coexist, however, “the role of social networking and its effects on

young adults has largely been ignored in terms of the psychological implications and the impact

on quality of relationships (Fisher, Sollie, & Morrow, 1986; Bowker & Moorman, 2001, p. 4).

8
 For the purposes of my study, I will define a social network site as a web-based site that

allows individuals to communicate, interact, and/or connect through the virtual use of a user

profile (Correa & de Zúñiga, 2010). Examples of SNS’s include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,

and MySpace, but are not limited to these.

Self-Psychology

Self-Psychology is a useful theoretical lens to explore the phenomenon of online SNS use

and young adults’ offline interpersonal relationships. Self-Psychology explains the difficulties

many people experience through their ability to self-regulate and the development of a solid

sense of self. According to Heinz Kohut (1978), the structure of the self is made up of three

distinct poles that enable the self to become cohesive. Kohut refers to these poles as aspects of

development that exist within the self, each of which has their own needs (Flanagan, 2008). The

three poles are the grandiose self, the idealized parent imago, and twinship. First, the grandiose

self is the part of the self that needs “mirroring selfobjects in an effort to feel special and full of

well-being” (Flanagan, 2008, p. 172), developed from mirroring selfobjects and empathic

attunement. The idealized parent imago represents a child’s need to see their caregiver(s) as

idealized people, sources of power and security with whom to merge and feel a part of. Lastly,

twinship is the need to feel that there are other individuals in the world who are similar to you,

creating feelings of belonging and security (Flanagan, 2008). Selfobjects can be defined as

“people or things outside of the self, vitally necessary to every individual as a source of

mirroring, sources of perfection and grandeur to merge with, and as similar selves to feel at one

with” (Flanagan, 2008, p. 171). According to Self-Psychology, selfobjects are needed to fulfill

these functions throughout the life cycle and are called selfobjects because they function to give

the self what it needs in order to become and remain cohesive.

9
 Kohut also emphasizes the use of empathy, or what he called “vicarious

introspection”(Flanagan, 2008, p. 168). His belief was that empathy was necessary for all human

beings, helping a person feel heard and understood. Flanagan (2008) states, “repeated empathic

failures are the roots of disturbance and thwarted growth” (p. 169). Additionally, Kohut spoke of

four descriptive categories of disorders that refer to when a person’s self psychological needs are

not met. The first category is called the understimulated self, which describes those individuals

whose selfobjects were not able to mirror their grandiosity, and may often feel “empty, bored,

listless, or apathetic (Flanagan, 2008, p. 181). The second category, the overstimulated self,

occurs when an individual’s selfobjects are too strong, which makes it difficult for the self to

learn how to soothe itself on its own. The fragmenting self “have not been related to as a whole

by their selfobjects” (Flanagan, 2008, p. 182), and although they have received some attention,

they present as mercurial. Lastly, the overburdened self feels unsupported as a result of

unreliable selfobjects (Flanagan, 2008).

Banai, Mikulincer, and Shaver (2005) found that “unmet selfobject needs for mirroring

and twinship seem to have contributed to low self-esteem, which in turn [contributes] to anxiety

and depression” (p. 243). As seen through Self-Psychology, a healthy and cohesive self-structure

is the outcome of normal development of the three poles. Banai, Mikulincer, and Shaver (2005)

used an experimental design to examine some of Kohut's ideas about selfobject needs. In one

study, they examined Kohut's (1977, 1984) claim that strong hunger for selfobjects and

avoidance of selfobject needs in adulthood are the underlying determinants of low self-esteem

and emotional maladjustment. Results showed that hunger for mirroring and twinship

significantly contribute to forms of emotional maladjustment related to difficulties in

maintaining self-esteem. They further argue that a sense of self-cohesion is achieved when

10
“people possess a stable, positively valued, and congruent set of qualities, ambitions, ideals, and

values, and are able to accomplish their goals without being rejected or isolated from significant

others and important reference groups” (p. 3). When one experiences difficulties in the

development of a cohesive self, they may lack the capacity to maintain a steady level of self-

esteem (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005; Kohut & Wolf, 1978).

For the purposes of this study, I will focus on the grandiose self and twinship.

SNS Acting as a Mirror: The Grandiose Self

The first pole is the grandiose self, which needs “mirroring selfobjects in an effort to feel

special and full of well-being” (Flanagan, p. 172). The grandiose self includes a person’s

individual talents that get mirrored back to them and help to form the core of identity. With

respect to the grandiose pole, Self-Psychology can provide a theoretically grounded framework

for identifying how and why people use SNS. SNS offer a unique opportunity to have mirroring

experiences as a way of validating one’s self. Some individuals strengthen their sense of self

through SNS by selectively presenting a version of their self. SNS provide an ideal environment

for the expression of the hoped-for ideal self (Mehdizadeh, 2010). For example, Gonzales and

Hancock (2011) argue that “selective, online self-presentation affects attitudes about the self.

Facebook profiles may provide sufficiently positive biased stimuli to counter the traditional

effects of objective self-awareness (e.g., photos, autobiographical information), and instead

prompt a positive change in self-esteem” (Gonzales & Hancock, 2011, p. 80). SNS provide a

place for individuals to instantly receive self-verifying feedback that may promote feelings of

acceptance and value by others. When an individual experiences feelings of acceptance and love

from “friends” online, they may experience a rise in self-esteem.

11
 Individuals with a grandiose self are “vibrant, full of confidence, hopeful, ambitious, and

productive (Flanagan 2008, p. 172). However, as discussed by Banai, Mikulincer, and Shaver

(2005), those who are hungry for mirroring experiences may be anxiously attached individuals,

“afraid of rejection and abandonment because such negative interpersonal experiences

exacerbate their sense of isolation and loneliness” (p. 253). These individuals may become more

preoccupied with maintaining a “sense of connectedness and similarity to others than with

maintaining an exhibitionistic, grandiose sense of self (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005, p.

253). However, on the other hand, Banai, Mikulincer, and Shaver (2005) discuss that these

individuals are afraid of rejection and abandonment because their negative interpersonal

experiences undermine their sense of superiority and entitlement. That said, these individuals

may be more preoccupied with “justifying their narcissism than with maintaining a sense of

connectedness to others” (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005, p. 253). When individuals do not

receive self-verifying feedback, the opportunity to be mirrored may be rejected, possibly causing

damage to the self (Cast & Burke 2002, p. 1047 as cited in Brown & Lohr 1987; Burke & Stets

1999; Ellison 1993).

Twinship

Twinship is experienced as sameness, alikeness, and being known by another (Banai,

Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005). One requires twinship in order to feel a sense of connection to

others. According to Flanagan (2008), the pole of twinship refers to an individual’s need to

experience and “feel that there are others in the world who are similar to oneself” (p. 176). When

a person feels this sense of sameness, they are able to facilitate the development of empathy and

social skills (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005).

12
 SNS provide young adults with an opportunity to have an experience of being known by

others, utilizing SNS as a space to connect with others in a parallel way. Freedman, (1996) points

out that teachers often times educate children on the concept of “same” before they teach the

concept of “different.” He states that “cognitive development dictates that one acquire a sense of

sameness prior to acquiring the ability to comprehend differences. Therefore, in order to

affectively experience a sense of differentiation, it is first essential to have affectively

experienced a sense of sameness” (Freedman, 1996, p. 108). SNS are a space where people can

feel a sense of sameness with others, and where a mutual recognition and bond with others can

be formed. For example, an individual may find an online group with other individuals who

share a common interest, are of the same age, or live in the same community.

True-Self

People possess multiple senses of self. Both Goffman (1959) and Jung (1953)

distinguished between an individual’s “public self, or persona, and the individual’s inner self,”

which Higgins (1987) later developed into the “ideal, ought, and actual self-concepts” (Bargh,

2002, p. 34). Other than the actual self, Carl Rogers (1951) expanded this idea into what he

called the true self. Rogers’ notion of the true self was informed by Jung’s (1953) “distinction

between the unconscious self and its public mask, persona” (Bargh, 2002, p. 34). Bargh (2002)

explains Roger’s concept of the true self as:

distinct from both the ideal self or possible selves on the one hand, and the actual
self on the other, because Rogers (1951) viewed the true self of his clients as
actually existing psychologically [i.e., a present, not a future version of self], but
not fully expressed in social life [i.e., not the actual self] (p. 34).

Winnicott (1962) adopted this theory and introduced the true self and the false self. The

true self, which he sometimes called the “real self” is used to describe a sense of self that is

based on authentic experience, a “personal aliveness or feeling real” (Winnicott, 1962, p. 148).

13
The false self was described as a “defense designed to protect the true self by hiding it” (Blass,

2012, p. 1442), which often times presented as “polite and mannered in public” (Winnicott,

1962, p. 148). These aspects of the self may be kept hidden out of fear of rejection or isolation.

Connecting with others on SNS may allow individuals the opportunity to express their

true self, aspects of themselves they may keep hidden from those living within their community.

Perhaps it is also true that individuals use SNS to connect with others in an effort to keep aspects

of their identity “hidden.” (Shaw & Grant 2002). SNS allows users to selectively present

themselves through photos and posts that expose certain aspects of themselves, thus SNS may be

appealing to individuals of all ages, especially young adults, due to the ability one has to

selectively present desired aspects of one’s self.

Alternatively, Tosun (2012) states that relying solely on the Internet to meet social needs

can be maladaptive because young adults will only feel comfortable presenting their “true self”

online. The concept of “true self on the Net” has some implications for relationship formation

and maintenance. Tosun states that the “true self” “involves one’s actually existing

characteristics (like the actual self) but those characteristics are not fully expressed in social life

(like the potential self)” (Tosun, 2012, p. 1511). As with past studies, I am curious how Tosun’s

(2012) findings would translate to offline relationships.

Additionally, SNS may be a space for some individuals to express their false selves

where there is an opportunity to be whoever they want to be, and project aspects of themselves

that they feel may connect them to others. Tosun (2010) conducted a quantitative research

methods study with a correlational design. For this study, researchers first examined 142

students’ motives for using Facebook using the “True self on the Net” questionnaire through a

web-based survey. The “true self on the Net” questionnaire was measured through a 5-point

14
scale ranging from 1 (“does not agree at all”) to 5 (agrees completely.”) Then a web-based

survey was made available for a one-month period. Tosun (2012) found that the main motive for

Facebook use was “relationship maintenance” or “social searching” and to maintain long-

distance relationships (Tosun, 2012). These results support the idea that participants use the

Internet as a “social substitute” for interacting with others” (Tosun, 2012, p. 1511). However,

another possible motive for Facebook use may be to keep regular contact with long-distance

friends in between face-to-face contact.

Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons (2002) used a quantitative methodology and an

experimental design in which multiple methods of research were involved. New York University

students enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated in pairs in a face-to-face

interview. Their task was to respond as quickly as possible to a series of questions. Findings

suggest that when an individual’s “true self” is expressed online, people feel better about

themselves when engaging with other users. Compared to face-to-face interactions, Bargh,

McKenna, and Fitzsimons (2002) found that people were better able to present aspects of their

true self over the Internet and feel accepted by others. The study compared qualities of Internet

communication to “face-to-face” communication. The researchers stated, “by its very nature,

[Internet communication] facilitates the expression and effective communication of one’s true

self to new acquaintances outside of one’s established social network, which leads to forming

online relationships with them” (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002, p. 45.) Interestingly, it

would appear that internet communication may enable self-disclosure because of its relatively

anonymous nature, as it fosters the idealization of others in the absence of information (Bargh,

McKenna & Fitzsimons, 2002; Derlega et al., 1993; Murray et al., 1996).

15
 Like Tosun (2012), Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons (2002) believe that although being

able to express one’s true self on SNS is a positive thing, the researchers expressed concern at

the fast pace in which virtual relationships move. While Tosun (2012) sees the idea that

participants use the Internet as a social substitute for interacting with others, Bargh, McKenna,

and Fitzsimons (2002) believe that while the Internet “affords a panoply of interaction domains

in which alternative forms to the self can be expressed, it is important to use caution with online

relationships” and “take it slow” (p. 46). It is important to note that the study conducted by

Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons (2002) discussed young adults’ chatting online who did not

know each other beforehand, therefore, they are cautioning specifically those who are socially

anxious, “because they are the most highly motivated to find friends and romantic partners”

(Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002, p. 46). I believe that this study would be different had

the participants known each other before they chatted online.

Strengths and Limitations of Literature

The current literature possesses many strengths and limitations. Strengths of the literature

include its usage of the Facebook interface. While there are several other social media websites

such as Tumblr and MySpace, Facebook is advantageous because of its popularity and increased

uniformity (Gonzales, 2011, p. 82.) Given the popularity of SNS use, the studies above have a

timely influence to the growing body of research directed towards SNS use. Another strength of

the empirical literature is its chosen sample group. Lenhart (2009) states that “the predominant

social networking users are young adults; three-quarters of adult Internet users under age 25 have

a profile on a social networking site” (Lenhart, 2009, p. 2). However, it is important to consider

generalizability of this sample group.

16
 I have not found any qualitative studies in the current literature that look at the

implications for SNS use and its link to real world relationships. Therefore, my study will

provide more depth to the current research as real world relationships is one focus. All of the

research that I have read uses college-aged participants for the sample, and the method is

typically some sort of online survey. In addition, all of the studies took place in North America.

There was little attention to cultural values when looking at the development of young adults,

which is another limitation. Lastly, most of the studies that I have read are quantitative methods

studies.

Statement of Implication

In sum, the literature above examined the following categories: Erikson’s developmental

model, SNS and its implications on self-esteem, loneliness and depression, and self-psychology

theory. The literature above presents ample justification for my study. The effects that SNS have

on young adults’ are complex. The empirical literature that I have read thus far has been mostly

quantitative data from the perspective of young adults, all of whom are undergraduate students

(Acar, 2008; Tosun 2012; Shaw &Gant, 2012; Bargh et al,. 2002; Zywica &Danowski, 2008;

Tosun, 2012; Oldmeadow 2012; Lee, 2013). This has influenced my decision to develop a

qualitative research methods study that allows me to explore a deeper understanding of SNS use

and attitudes around relationship formation for those who use SNS.

Interestingly, because many studies were told from the perspective of young adults,

participants were asked to disclose what grade level they were in, in addition to their age and

gender. Few studies, however, required participants to disclose their race, culture, or ethnicity.

This lack of reporting of diversity in the samples gives me reason to believe that perhaps the

participant pool was not diverse.

17
 My research question asks how young adults who are avid SNS users build and maintain

interpersonal relationships. I hope to get a fuller, richer understanding of attitudes around

relationship formation for those who use SNS. The next chapter will discuss the research project

in extensive detail, examining the methodology by which the research was conducted, the sample

population, and data analysis.

18
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore how young adults who are avid social

networking site (SNS) users build and maintain interpersonal relationships. I am curious about

young adults’ perceptions of the ways in which social networking sites play a role in their ability

to build and maintain interpersonal relationships, both online and offline. Both Acar (2008) and

Zywica and Danowski (2008) found that SNS give users a sense of connectedness that they do

not find offline. For my study, this raises the question of how online relationships translate to

offline relationships, as neither Acar (2008) nor Zywica and Danowski (2008) address a

connection to offline relationships.

Research Question

The research question for this study was: How do young adults who are avid social

networking site users build and maintain interpersonal relationships? Additionally, some sub-

questions included: how are young adults utilizing social networking sites to create and maintain

both online and offline connections with others? What are young adults sharing on SNS about

themselves? How are young adults interacting with others both on and offline? How does SNS

use help or hinder offline relationships?

Qualitative methods were chosen for a variety of reasons. First, the purpose of this study

was to explore a deeper understanding of the experiences of young adults’ SNS usage and their

19
ability to initiate and maintain interpersonal relationships. As young adults continue to increase

the amount of time spent on SNS they are affected either positively or negatively, which may

have some effect on their ability to create and/or maintain meaningful relationships. Utilizing

qualitative methods to explore the complex effects that SNS have on young adults provides a

broader understanding of this topic. Secondly, qualitative methods were chosen as most of the

literature reviewed herein uses a quantitative research method. The empirical literature looked

quantitatively at the way in which social networking usage impacted young adults. I have not

found any qualitative studies in the current literature that look at the implications for SNS use

and its link to offline relationships. Therefore, my study provided more depth to the current

research as offline relationships is one focus. Most of the empirical literature that I have read

thus far hasbeen from the perspective of young adults, all of whom are undergraduate students

(Acar, 2008; Tosun 2012; Shaw & Gant, 2012; Bargh et al., 2002; Zywica & Danowski, 2008;

Oldmeadow, 2012; Lee, 2013). This influenced my decision to develop a qualitative research

methods study that allowed me to explore a deeper understanding of attitudes around relationship

formation for those who use social networking sites. I broadened the age range of my subjects so

that my sample included 18 to 30 year olds who are current university students, past university

students who had graduated, or were never university students and who were older than 18 years

of age.

Researcher Bias

Social media is directly influencing and changing the various fields of communication. It

is important to be aware of my biases as I conduct interviews with young adults, for I believe

that social media affects individuals when it comes to relationships. The interview questions

must not project my bias or dispose participants toward any given responses or outcomes. In

20
order to reduce bias, my interview questions have been reviewed and approved by my Research

Advisor and Smith College School for Social Work Institutional Review Board (See Appendix F

for HSR approval letter). In order to improve accuracy, it will be helpful to use member

checking. During interviews, I will summarize and paraphrase participant responses to check for

accuracy.

Sample

The sample population included 12 young adults aged 18 to 30 living in New York City.

As noted earlier and as used by other researchers in the field, an avid user is described as one

who logs on to SNS at least 10 times per day (Correa & de Zúñiga, 2010). Additionally,

inclusion criteria included those able to communicate in English, and those who were willing to

speak via telephone or in person for approximately one hour.

Demographic questions were used to gather information about participants’ age, gender,

race, sexual orientation, level of education, where they reside, annual income and household

income, employment status, and relationship status. This demographic information was used to

describe the sample pool (See Appendix D for Demographic Information Form).

Recruitment

Participants were recruited through two avenues. First, I posted flyers in Manhattan, New

York and Brooklyn, New York. I went door to door and posted my flyer in local coffee shops

and public libraries. Specifically I went to several different locations of the New York and

Brooklyn Public Library systems such as the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library,

the Donnell Library Center, and the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, all of which are located in

Manhattan or in Brooklyn, New York. In Manhattan I posted my flyer in coffee shops, stores,

and public libraries that were located around NYU and Columbia. I also went to coffee shops,

21
stores, and public libraries located around Pratt Institute, University Hospital of Brooklyn, Long

Island University Brooklyn Campus, St. Joseph's College, and Brooklyn Law School, all of

which are located in Brooklyn, New York. My second strategy was to post recruitment

information on social networking sites, such as Facebook. The recruitment resources instructed

interested participants to call or email me.

Previous studies have conducted quantitative studies via nonprobability, purposive

sampling (Acar, 2008; Tosun 2012; Shaw & Gant, 2012; Bargh et al., 2002; Zywica &

Danowski, 2008; Oldmeadow, 2012; Lee, 2013). Lenhart (2009) stated that contacting

participants via nonprobability, purposive sampling was important because “the predominant

social networking users are young adults; three-quarters of adult Internet users under age 25 have

a profile on a social networking site” (p. 2). Therefore, this study used a non-probability,

purposive sampling technique.

Informed Consent Procedures

Upon expressing interest in the study, each participant received information about the

study via email or US mail that included an Information Sheet which explained the study, the

time commitment, eligibility criteria, participants’ rights, and confidentiality (See Appendix B

for Information Sheet). In order to protect the confidentiality of participants, each participant was

required to read and agree to the terms outlined in the Informed Consent Form (See Appendix C

for Informed Consent Form). The participant and I went over the Informed Consent together

where I had the opportunity to answer any questions s/he had. The participant was then required

to sign the Informed Consent with a wet signature and send it back to me. The Informed Consent

Forms will be kept in a locked file cabinet for three years so that participant names are kept

separate from any data. Demographic forms will also be kept in a locked file cabinet for three

22
years, separate from the signed informed consent forms. All data will be destroyed after three

years as per federal regulations, or kept until no longer needed at which point it will be

destroyed.

Risks/Benefits of Participation

Because this study explored personal topics about individual’s friendships and

relationships, it was possible that participants would become uncomfortable or distressed when

talking about online and offline relationships. Participants were given a list of resources

including local New York City community agencies and private practitioners before the

interview began.

Participants may have benefited from participating in this study by being able to vocalize,

share, and reflect on their experiences with friendships and relationships online and offline,

which they may never have had the opportunity to share before. Additionally, participants were

given a chance to reflect on their motivations for using SNS, and perhaps compare and contrast

their online and offline interactions, which could feel validating when someone recognizes their

online interactions as legitimate relationships and forms of communication.

Data Collection

The data for this study was collected between January 21, 2014and February 23, 2014

using semi-structured in-person or telephone interviews. Interviews consisted of open-ended

questions first inquiring about social networking stage usage and online relationships.

Participants were then asked about information they share offline and offline friendships and

relationships. Lastly, participants were asked about their perceptions of whether or not they think

their online SNS use is connected to their life offline (See Appendix E for Interview Questions).

23
 The interviews were conducted in a public setting of the participant’s choosing, such as a

coffee shop or a library, or via telephone. Data was collected via audiotape using a recording

device. Additionally, during in-person interviews, hand-written notes were used to record

nonverbal body language or other information that appeared to be important.

Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency, were used to describe the

demographic information. Thematic analysis has been used to analyze the qualitative data by

looking for common themes in order to uncover similarities and differences in participant

responses. In order to build validity and protect confidentiality of participants, I will use direct

quotes from my participants and amalgamate my data.

24
 CHAPTER IV

Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore how young adults who are avid social

networking site users build and maintain interpersonal relationships. In addition, this research

explored how these cumulative experiences, via both social networking sites and other online

experiences on SNS such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Tinder played a role in one’s

ability to build and maintain offline interpersonal relationships.

This chapter contains findings from twelve interviews that were conducted with young

adults ages 20 through 28 who live in New York City and who log onto social networking sites

at least ten times per day. To protect confidentiality, all participants were assigned fictitious

names for the purposes of this paper. Interviews were conducted both in-person and over the

phone, were then fully transcribed, and subsequently coded using thematic analysis.

Demographic information was collected before the start of each interview. The interview

consisted of seven open-ended questions focused on social networking site usage and online and

offline friendships/relationships. Specific information was then gathered about (a) what

participants like to do on social networking sites and what they share about themselves, (b) if

participants feel that what they share about themselves offline is similar to what they share

online, and (c) if participants believe their offline friendships or relationships have ever

strengthened or suffered because of their online friendships or relationships.

25
Demographic Data

A total of twelve interviews were conducted and analyzed. All twelve participants

completed the demographic questionnaire. All of the study participants reside in New York City,

which was part of the inclusion criteria. Participants range in age from 20 to 28 years with the

mean age being 24.3 years. Nine participants identified as White, two identified as African

American/Black, and one identified as Asian. The participants in this study used two different

terms to describe their sexual orientation: eight identified as straight and four identified as

heterosexual. A plurality of participants, five, stated that their highest level of education was a 4-

year college degree; four listed ‘some college,’ two listed a Master’s degree, and one listed

‘professional degree. Four participants listed their employment as ‘student only,’ four stated that

they work full-time, one stated that s/he is unemployed, one participant listed that he is self-

employed, and two participants stated that they are part-time employees. Again, a plurality, five,

stated that they live with roommates, three stated that they live with their parents/caregivers, two

said that they live alone, one stated that s/he lives in a friend’s mother's apartment for discounted

rent, and one said that s/he lives with his/her partner. The participants were evenly divided

between those who were currently in an intimate relationship and those who were not. Individual

and household annual income ranged widely among participants. Five participants listed their

annual income as being between 0-$20,000, two participants listed $20,000-$30,000, three

participants listed $30,000-$40,000, and two participants listed $50,000-$75,000. With regard to

household income, two participants listed less than $10,000, two participants listed $20,000-

$40,000, one participant listed $60,000-$80,000, one listed $100,000-$150,000, and six listed

$150,000+.

26
 Participants were asked how often they go on SNS. Answered ranged widely, the

minimum being 10 times per day and the maximum being over 100 times. Participants were then

asked how long they stayed on line each time they log on. Again, a range of answers was

collected from "less then five minutes" to "30-45 minutes." Participants were asked how long, on

an average day, they are on line. Answers ranged from “1 hour” to “10-12 hours.” Table 1,

below, represents participants’ answers to these questions about SNS usage.

Table 1: Participant SNS Usage

Participant How many How long do you stay How long are you
times do you online? online per day?
go online
each day?

01 10 10-15 minutes 2 hours

21 y.o. female named
“Margaret”
02 ~10 10 minutes 2 hours
26 y.o. female named
“Lindsay”
03 10 5-10 minutes An hour or so
20 y.o. female named
“Alexa”
04 10ish 5ish minutes 3+ hours
24 y.o. named
“Ben”
05 10 10-15 minutes 1 hour
23 y.o. female named
“Laura”
06 10+ 10-40 minutes 1-1.5 hours
26 y.o. female named
“Melissa”
07 15+ 10 minutes 1 hour
28 y.o. female named
“Amanda”
08 Over 100 30-45 minutes 10-12 hours
25 y.o. male named
“Andrew”

27
 09 20 Less than 5 minutes 1-2 hours
25 y.o. female named
“Katherine”
10 20 20 minutes 8 hours
24 y.o. male named “John”
11 I’m online 30 minutes 10 hours
22 y.o. female named most of the
“Rachel” day for my
job, but I
would say
15+ times
12 25 5 minutes 1.5 hours
26 y.o. female named
“Ana”

As represented in Table 2 below, the number of times participants logged onto SNS per

day reflected by the median accounts as 12.5. Participants were then asked how long they stayed

on line each time they log on. Again, a range of answers was reported, and the median number of

minutes was 11.25. Participants were also asked how long, on an average day, they are online.

The median was 1.75.

Table 2: Participant SNS Usage – Median

Participant Median: How many Median: How long Median: How long
times do you go do you stay online? are you online per
online each day? day?

Participants 1-12 12.5 times/day 11.25 minutes 1.75 hours

As represented in Table 3 below, the most common amount of time participants logged

onto SNS per day was 10 times for 5 minutes. Additionally, the mode for the average amount of

time spent online each day was 1 hour.

28
Table 3: Participant SNS Usage – Mode

Participant Mode: How many Mode: How long do Mode: How long are
times do you go you stay online? you online per day?
online each day?

Participants 1-12 10 times/day 5 minutes 1 hour

Interestingly, four participants did not accurately calculate how long they were online per

day. This speaks to their inaccurate assessment of how much time they spend online each day;

most participants understood whether they log onto SNS often or infrequently, however, there

was a lack of understanding about the precise amount of aggregate time they spent online per

day. For instance, one participant stated that he logs on to SNS 100+ times per day for 30-40

minute intervals; this calculates to a total time spent online of 50 hours per day which is clearly

not possible. Yet, in his interview, this participant stated that he leaves SNS such as Facebook

open on his computer all day. Some of the participants did not accurately assess the connection

between the number of times per day that they log on and the length of time they spend online

each time they log on with the total time they spend online each day.

There were outliers that skewed the data, particularly the data for the number of times

each day that the participants went online. There was a large gap between the number of times

the majority of the participants, eleven, went online each day when compared to participant 08.

While the majority of participants listed that they went online each day 10, 15, 20, and 25 times

per day, participant 08, Andrew, the outlier, listed that he went online "over 100" times per day.

Additionally, when asked to list how long participants went on SNS per day, the majority of

participants, nine, stated 1-2 hours. Participant 08, Andrew, was also an outlier when it came to

29
the total amount of time each day he spent on SNS; he listed that he went online 10-12 hours per

day while the majority of participants listed that they are online anywhere from 1-3 hours. The

data for two other participants, John and Rachel, clustered together; they listed that they went

online for 8 hours (John) and 10 hours (Rachel) per day. These three participants stood out as

outliers; Table2 and Table 3 represent the median and mode of participant SNS usage.

Three Tiers of Relationships

Though my research question sought to explore how young adults use SNS to build and

maintain friendships and relationships, it was evident from the data that the way in which

participants did so was very dependent on with whom specifically the participant was engaging.

The way in which participants used SNS to build and maintain interpersonal relationships – the

how and why of their SNS usage – depended entirely on which of the three different relationship

groups those relationships fell into; the parameters that define these groups emerged from the

interview responses and were consistent across participants. The data showed that the degree to

which SNS are, or are not, important as a means of engagement depended entirely upon the

relationship group to which the participant assigned their friend, family member, or

acquaintance.

All of the participants tiered their relationships, whether they were offline or online

relationships, into three distinct groups. Membership in a group was determined by (a) the way

in which the participants engaged with a person, (b) the frequency with which the participants

engaged with that person, and (c) what participants shared with this person. Every participant

had a very clear understanding of which people in their social sphere they assigned to which

group. The three groups that emerged from the data were as followed: (a) close friends and

family members (“first tier”), (b) second-tier friends and family, friends and family participants

30
engage with periodically via in-person contacts, telephone, and text or chatting, (“second tier”),

and (c) people participants are curious about but do not actively engage with on a periodic basis

and may not actively engage with at all (“third tier”). This tiering of relationships was a

common theme among all participants and framed the substance of their responses.

The first tier, the close friends and family members, was defined by the participants in the

course of their interviews as comprising of those people with whom participants engaged nearly

every day, in most cases multiple times a day. The way in which the participants engaged with

these people was a core part of the parameters for this group; participants were all very clear that

they engaged with this group primarily through means other than SNS. Participants engaged with

these first tier friends and family through one-to-one conversations that were conducted via any

or all of three different means: (a) in-person, face-to face conversations, (b) telephone

conversations or (c) texting or chatting. The public nature of a SNS forum was not the primary

way in which the participants engaged with this first group but was, at most, a secondary means

of engagement. The participants, consistently and seemingly without reservation, shared deeply

held feelings and concerns with these first tier relationships. Laura described the parameters of

her friendships. She stated:

In-person I talk about hard times and good times, etc., and I tell my close friends
everything that’s happening in my life, like relationship issues and ups, or family [stuff],
or just like anything, grades, school work, etc. And I wouldn’t share that online.

Laura added that if she shared these things online, she would feel like people who she "do[esn't]

know very well [might] console [her]."

The second tier relationships were described by participants as those friends or family

members who do not live near the participants or who, if they do live nearby, they do not engage

with on a daily basis. The participants do engage with these people periodically via in-person

31
contacts, telephone, and text or chatting, but not on a regular basis and certainly not on a daily

basis. These relationships are important to the participants but their engagement with this group

is primarily through SNS. The participants did not reflexively share deeply held feelings with

this group although there might be occasions where some are shared. Margaret stated:

I feel like Facebook is for people that [I] might not be as close with, like to keep in touch
with, like…a lot of my best friends, I'm just gonna text them or well be like talking on the
phone, but on Facebook, I feel like it's not as intimate to like Facebook message
someone, so like, I use it to keep up with people I might not talk to everyday or like [I]
might talk to once a month or once every few weeks.

The third tier consisted of everybody else in the participants' social sphere and was

described as being those people with whom they engage only through SNS and even then, only

in the most passive way, i.e. this group is the "everyone" who can see the participants' SNS

profiles. This third tier of relationship included people about whom participants appeared to be

curious however, they are not people with whom they actively engaged on even a periodic basis

and they may not actively engage with them at all. These are people with whom the participants

may have had an in-person relationship at some prior point in their life, e.g., camp or school

friends, or are people who they have met perhaps briefly more recently, and about whom they

remain curious.

It was clear from the data that three tiers of relationships were all created outside of the

general purpose SNS such as Facebook and Twitter. The only relationships that were started and

then also actively nurtured on SNS were those that were formed by using a SNS that was

specifically intended to introduce strangers to each other for the purpose of building personal and

or intimate relationships — a dating SNS. Eleven out of the twelve participants did not use a

purpose-driven dating SNS, but, rather, described their SNS activity as taking place on general-

purpose SNS. These eleven participants all described their relationships with online friends as

32
having originated offline via in-person encounters, however brief. An example of this can be

seen in the responses of one participant, Alexa, who described a time when she had briefly met a

boy in a class and how, after this brief encounter with him, she mustered up the courage to talk to

him online.

If online and I just met somebody I don’t really know, I don’t have the courage to really
talk to them in person so instead I’ll just talk to them online and then that turns into…
friendship.

The How and Why of SNS Usage

Thefirst part of the interview consisted of questions that were focused on eliciting from

the participants a broad picture view of the way in which they use SNS. The major theme found

during this section of the interview was that participants use SNS, generally, to keep in touch

with family members and friends. Participants do this by (a) sharing and reading personal

information online, (b) using SNS as a social calendar to track events, and (c) networking for

business or professional purposes.

Keeping in Touch with Family and Friends

The opening questions in the interview focused both on motivations for using SNS and

on how the participants engaged with SNS. At the start of each interview, the participants were

told that the research would focus on their use of social networking sites, which was described to

them as any web site that enables users to create public profiles and form relationships with other

users such as web sites, online forums, chat rooms, or other online social spaces. Each

participant was provided with examples of different SNS; examples included Facebook, Twitter,

LinkedIn, and MySpace. It is worth noting that dating SNS were not listed as SNS examples;

rather, only general purpose SNS were given as examples. Participants were informed that, for

the purposes of this study, SNS usage was defined as the consumption of digital media or

33
Internet that provides a mechanism for communication, interaction, and connection through the

virtual use of a user profile (Correa & de Zúñiga, 2010). To determine their motivation for using

SNS, the participants were asked why they liked SNS. To discern how they engaged with SNS,

they were asked what they did on them, with whom they engaged on SNS, and what they shared

on SNS.

The main theme that emerged from this section of the interview was that participants

were motivated to use SNS by the desire to connect with family and friends. However, this

connecting activity was always framed within the three-tier structure of these tiers of

relationships. All of the participants stated that they do not use SNS as the primary way to stay

connected with first-tier friends. The majority of participants, seven, stated that they enjoy using

social networking sites because it allows them to keep in touch with friends and family who live

near them and who they may, or may not, see frequently, and also with friends and family who

do not live close by, i.e., their second tier friends and family. SNS usage was oriented towards

staying in touch with the broadest number of people but doing so by not sharing feelings or ideas

that were held any deeper than superficially — "a mile wide and an inch deep" accurately

described both the reason why and the manner in which eleven out of twelve participants used

SNS.

Sharing and Reading Personal Information

As seen by the data, participants stay in touch both by sharing certain personal

information and by reading others’ personal information. There were several different ways

participants share information about themselves each of which seemed to be entirely dependent

on which SNS the participant was referencing. These included posting statuses, posting photos,

creating events, "accepting" or "denying" an event invitation, and posting an article or video. All

34
twelve participants spoke about sharing information about certain aspects of their personal lives

and sharing personal and professional views about life. All twelve participants engaged in

sharing photos and sharing links to articles via SNS. Participants' sharing of photos and articles

was most often done so without including any editorial comment about the photos or articles and,

as such, was a nonverbal way of sharing specific information about themselves.

The information that the participants most frequently stated that they shared via SNS

included information about what they are doing, such as an upcoming vacation or trip they are

either currently on or have recently completed, having attended a party, what they are reading, or

what they are watching on TV or online. As Amanda stated:

Recently I’ve been exaggerating a lot about going away, like I’m going to Trinidad to
visit my mother in two weeks, so every day I like count down online and say like ‘I can’t
wait for the beach life,’ like maybe I’m being too much but I am so excited.

Additionally, participants spoke about watching videos and articles online. For instance, Andrew

stated, "sometimes, people share cool, funny hilarious news articles or something that I want to

read, so I just leave [the SNS] open on my computer the whole day.

Participants also stay in touch by reading other people's newsfeeds, invitations, and

scrolling through photos. Laura, a twenty-three year old woman stated:

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve found that it is a really great way to keep in touch with older
friends, keep up with what people are doing, you know, sharing articles, sharing photos.
It’s just a really convenient way to reach a lot of people at once.

Eleven out of twelve participants reported that when they log onto social networking sites, they

typically scroll through their newsfeeds, browse pictures, like statuses, and read articles that

other people post. Margaret described this activity:

I like to scroll through my newsfeed and see what's going on…see if… one of my close
friends posted a new profile picture. I sometimes like…or comment on something that's
really funny, sometimes I'll look people's pictures of their album if they look cool.

35
 While all participants stated that they maintain connectivity with friends and family both

by posting information about themselves and by reading information posted by others on SNS,

they all placed these behaviors and activities within the framework of the three tiers of

relationships. All participants talked about keeping in touch with friends and family members

whom they do not see on a regular basis – the second and third tier relationships —and either did

not mention or did not emphasize using SNS to maintain connections to close friends and family,

i.e., the first tier relationship group. For example, Amanda emphasized how SNS have allowed

her extended family in the U.S. and in Trinidad to have a platform on which they can

communicate for free:

Whatsapp is another messaging app where you can text but it’s really easy for me
because I talk to family in Trinidad…you can send free texts, pictures, and voice notes,
and it’s the same with BBM. So I like to keep in touch with my family in Trinidad. And
BBM and Whatsapp are very popular in Trinidad. So I adapted to that because that’s
what they usually use, those particular apps. Cousins and direct family members are over
there… But my mother recently moved back so I talk to her through OkHello, so that’s
like Google talk- you can video chat with up to 4 people. So I talk to my mother in
Trinidad and then 3 of my sisters all in one, and it’s like a big group chat. I love it, like I
was on it last night with two of my home girls. Instead of being on the phone and texting,
you can actually be seeing their face and stuff, like it’s more intimate. You see your
friend and see their facial expressions and I like to see them, see what’s going on.

Laura also described using SNS to stay in touch with second tier relationships:

I have family members who don’t live close by but talking online is so much easier [than
calling], like we probably should be talking on the phone but we’ll message [on
Facebook] that way if we don’t have time or if we don’t want to have a long
conversation, we don’t have to.

Social Calendar

The data showed that the participants used SNS as a way of organizing events and

keeping track of social gatherings. A SNS user has the ability to create an event by means of

inviting people to an offline activity. Creating the event not only allows the individual to invite

friends, but it also provides a way for the invitees to RSVP, for invitees to post messages and for

36
them to send the invitation to the event to other people. By sending an invitation out on SNS,

specifically on Facebook, participants were able to reach a large pool of people in a short period

of time. Additionally, the majority of participants, seven, shared that if they are not creating

events, then they look for and respond to events that they are invited to. This acts as a way for

individuals to create and keep track of their social life. As Ben stated:

The most I have used it for has been for…making events for concerts I’ve done in school,
and just keeping on top of things, you know. Just to keep track of things that are going on
in my life.

Additionally, Ana explained:

[I would]…post a status about it…my friend’s wedding, if someone gets engaged, I’ll
share something about that.

Professional Networking

The data showed that professional networking is another significant theme in the way in

which participants engaged with SNS but, most interestingly, the data revealed a notable gender

distinction amongst the participants. The data showed differences in how women and men use

SNS, a question not central nor initially contemplated by my research question, but which sheds

important light on how SNS are used to build and maintain relationships. All of the three male

participants stated that they used SNS either exclusively or very frequently to develop their

business or careers while none of the nine women mentioned using SNS to further their

businesses or careers. The women spoke only about using SNS exclusively as a social

environment and tool. One participant, Ben, explained that his usage of SNS is exclusively for

further developing business relationships:

When projects I am working on become closer to fruition…. I will create more to get
[people] together…For example, when I am working on my documentary, … I’ll post the
link and then a little blurb [online,] and then a call for feedback…asking for advice or
feedback or connections or something like that. Like I was using LinkedIn the other day
doing some research trying to find some media watch dog organization, so I used

37
 LinkedIn to find out who worked there, then [I used] Facebook to find out who their
mutual friends were, and then [I used] it to connect with them from there.

Ben went on to explain how he strategically uses SNS to move his career forward. Ben, a

filmmaker, discusses how it is important to be thoughtful and strategic about his online presence:

I’ve been trying to be strategic about [what I share about myself online] because at some
point in the next year or so once the movie I am making comes out, I’m going to have to
be more active on it than I have been…when you’re making a documentary, you get a lot
of requests — you get a lot of people asking to tell their own story, people have tips for
you, so having that space online where people can connect with you and contact you is
really, really important. Especially if you’re trying to build an audience where people can
support you financially over time, that’s really important. So if that ends up being
something that I want to do which is still pretty up in the air, um, it’s a really cool
opportunity, I just don’t know if it’s my thing yet. Um, but then I’ll have more of a… it’s
just kind of like an experiment, like I’ll be building a character online. If I have an
active… especially humorous online persona…especially for my documentary if I’m
trying to go around and find other people’s stories… it makes me seem more
approachable.

Ben noted that he also uses LinkedIn but only for business purposes:

I was using LinkedIn the other day doing some research trying to find some media watch
dog organization so I used LinkedIn to find out who worked there, FB to find out who
their mutual friends were, and then using it to connect with them from there. So I think of
it a lot as young friends dicking around (laughs), haha I don’t know. It’s an easy fast
connection to where people are.

Andrew, who works in commercial real estate, stated:

A lot of times, I use [LinkedIn] not necessarily to market a product or a service but in my
world, commercial real estate and dealing with a lot of investors and developers, it’s good
to network around. And the good thing about LinkedIn is… I can see how many
connections I have and share with someone else, so then I’ll like introduce myself and be
like, ‘Hey y’know, I know you know Jeremy or whatever… and we’ve known each other
since we were 5 years old.” So then you know we’d like meet up for a beer or something,
get to know one another, see if there’s something we can work on together, but yeah,
other than that… though, that’s really it.

Lastly, John who works in social media explained:

I use LinkedIn…I look for jobs [and]…as a place to have a professional profile and
presence on the Internet because, like, you have to.

38
Sharing Online—Parameters

The next portion of the interview focused on what people were sharing about themselves

on social networking sites. The main themes that emerged from this portion of the interviews

included (a) privacy and safety, (b) sharing of activities, and (c) sharing of photos. If participants

needed probing, they were asked if they typically share positive information about themselves,

negative information, professional information, personal information, and/or things that are

truthful about themselves. Generally, the data showed that participants do not use SNS to share

deeply held feelings but rather, use SNS to share information about activities and/or photos of

events that do not reveal deeply held feelings and that can be reasonably described to be public,

and that are upbeat, e.g., a party or a vacation.

Privacy and Safety

Apart from SNS such as the dating site Tinder, which was used by only one participant,

and where the purpose of the SNS is to communicate with individuals who the users do not know

offline, every other participant said that they did not share deeply held feelings on SNS.

Regardless of where participants were posting, and regardless of what group of friends would see

their post, eleven participants claimed to not put information about their most deeply held

feelings or photos of highly emotional events on SNS platforms; they expressed concern for their

personal, emotional privacy and also did not want to publicly reveal any weaknesses or

vulnerabilities.

It is evident from the data that the participants would not share information about any

hardships they are facing, or any negative thoughts that they may be having, or any very personal

sad feelings that they may be experiencing. The eleven participants reported that they felt they

could not share emotions online that would expose their vulnerability. As Alexa stated:

39
 I think it really exposes your vulnerability and I don’t like that…I don’t want everyone to
know that I’m sad or going through a tough time, I can’t describe it…. I don’t want their
sympathies… I can’t really put my finger on it… I might feel weak, yeah.

And as Andrew explained:

I would never post a status like, ‘Hey guys what do I do?’ I would never publicly
announce it or even allude to it, because then the question that would swirl through other
peoples’ minds would be, ‘Oh, Andrew is going through something…’ and no, no, no,
no. no, I wouldn’t do that…I wouldn’t want anyone to perceive me as overly sensitive or
emotional, because it could make me look weak and you can’t do that in the world that
I’m in. And also, I just feel that it’s no one’s business. I don’t see the point in sharing that
to random people on Facebook who you haven’t spoken to in years.

Similarly, Ana stated, “I try not to make my statuses about my feelings and my thoughts."

Participants did express that they would share certain limited information about feelings

of sadness around certain life events, such as the death of a grandparent — an event that can be

viewed as a public event and for which feelings of sadness are viewed as expected and normal.

Andrew, who was very clear about his refusal to post information about his feelings, noted that

Once I posted when my grandmother passed away, yeah, that’s it. Like I’d post a photo
of that person and I’d say like, rest in peace, or something like that. And then you get
comments, condolences…you do it because you want to see who your real friends
are…ya know…like you really get to see who is present and like who is actually like
taking a look at what you have to say.

Participants were also very concerned about their safety; they did not reveal their contact

information, as they did not want anyone to be able to physically find them. Participants did not

share any information about themselves that could identify their location a stranger.

The one participant, Katherine, who used dating SNS, when talking about her Tinder

usage, described very different SNS practices than she used on general purpose SNS such as

Facebook and Twitter. Katherine was the only participant who initiated and engaged in

conversations with individuals she did not know originally offline and she did this exclusively on

the dating SNS. The only mention of Facebook was: " Okay so I’m gonna talk to Tinder… I

40
don’t go on FB a lot, at all." Interestingly, the participant chose not to talk about the other SNS

she had listed on her demographic sheet, which included Facebook, LinkedIn, Tinder, and

OkCupid. The participant clarified that she typically goes on Tinder twenty times per day for

about twenty minute intervals, and exclusively uses dating sites such as Tinder. This participant

made it clear that she enjoys Tinder because the conversations are able to go "in a more honest

place." The participant shared a sense of comfort and enjoyment while engaging with others on

Tinder, yet never made mention of her exchanges with individuals on non-dating-SNS. One may

imply that while Tinder and other dating SNS allowed Katherine an opportunity to open up to

men and be " free to…be honest," perhaps other SNS did not afford Katherine this opportunity.

Katherine's interactions were solely based on the chat function of Tinder, which allows

individuals to speak to one another if they like each other's Tinder profiles. Katherine shared,

On Tinder…you get to speak to a lot of people and it’s kind of an open environment
because you’re not friends with them [offline] and you feel like more comfortable to say
whatever you want to say… so the conversations can go in a more honest place. And I
think that really contributes to um, self-development. I really think that my online
relationships on Tinder have benefited my personal development, maybe emotionally,
intellectually, because again, you’re in an environment where you can feel… free to, um,
be honest? And let the conversation go wherever it goes, you can talk about ideas, you’re
able to talk to a bunch of different personalities in a span of a month say, so that’s
actually been a really beneficial experience for me.

Sharing of Activities

Another theme that the data shows is that participants tend to share a status on SNS about

activities in which they engage and do so by either describing the activity in words or by posting

a photo. Three participants shared that if they are on vacation or doing something exceptionally

fun, they will either share a status or share a picture of the experience via social networking sites.

For example, Ana explained activities in which she would be engaged that she would share on

SNS platforms. She stated:

41
 If I’m on a vacation or doing something exceptionally fun, or [if I'm] at a really good
restaurant or a birthday. I mostly share like fun things I am doing, like if I’m at a concert
or like a sports event I’ll post a status about it.

Sharing of Photos

SNS has moved beyond the written word and has, in many ways, revolutionized the way

in which individuals communicate with one another. Most SNS include the ability to share

pictures and other forms of nonverbal content. Eleven participants spoke about how they enjoyed

sharing photos on SNS. By sharing a photo, individuals are able to project any image of

themselves or the event or activity depicted in the photo they want and to create an identity of

their choosing. Sharing of photos is a nonverbal way of sharing an activity with second and third

tier friends. For example, Rachel stated:

If I take a picture with a friend, I'll post it to Facebook or Instagram. I think in that way,
I’m sharing parts of my life with people I’m friends with.

One participant, Lindsey, took it as an artistic endeavor, but she also created an online

persona of being an artistic person; she noted that she uses social networking platforms such as

Instagram as an “artistic tool to experiment with different ways of portraying objects.” She

explained that her Instagram posts are based on “external inspiration” and are a form of artistic

expression. Lindsay stated:

I started using [Instagram] really frequently…I use it as an artistic tool to experiment

with different ways of portraying objects. So I go on it, I am sometimes interested to see
what other people put up, my boyfriend uses it for artistic purposes also, so I look at that,
but, there could be days where I put up 3 Instagrams…I don’t put on anyway, it’s based
on external inspiration. And I never use it as an instant thing, which I guess might be the
point (laughs), but I usually, I take a bunch of photos on my phone, and then when I’m on
the subway or have a lot of down time I use a different app and I edit them, and then I
Instagram them, and then once I have reception or whatever I’ll post them. So, yeah, so
yeah and, um, I guess I don’t really use it for updates on other peoples’ lives, but more of
as an artistic tool.

42
 The curating of an online persona is tied to this theme of sharing photos. It is a nonverbal

way for the participants to tell other people what they want them to know about themselves and,

if they do it with a certain goal in mind, as some of them indicated that they do, then they are

able to create a certain persona online. By the very nature of what participants posted online,

they present a certain side of themselves. All participants curated their personality via photos in

that they chose what they wanted to share. Laura shared,

I still like to have my info private. I think I share links that are interesting because that’s
not really about me, you know. Information wise, I guess I would tend to share good
news? I’ll share positive news about myself. I don’t know why? Maybe it’s because… I
don’t think it’s a ‘I want people to think I’m better off than I am’ type thing, but I don’t
want people to contact me about sad news…? That’s something I’d rather process by
myself or with close friends who I reach out to and tell. So it tends to be positive news.
Maybe if I’m out of commission for a while traveling or if I’m going to be really busy…
so yeah.

Online and Offline Sharing – A Disconnect in Perspective

Interestingly, there is a strong disconnect between how people view what they share

online and how they view what they share offline. Some participants felt that what they share —

including the persona that is projected by their carefully curated photos — was the same both

online and offline but when pressed for the details of what they share online and offline they

contradicted themselves, stating that there was a difference between what they share online and

what they share offline. For example, John first stated, "My online life is really like a digital

reflection of my offline life." Later in the interview, however, he shared,

When I’m in-person [with my friends] I will discuss more actual things about my life, [like]
my job, a girl I’m interested in. I’m not going to discuss that in an online public forum. Like I
would say that my interactions with close friends online are much more fleeting, like if we’re
commenting on a piece of content or something…it’s less like about real emotion and
feeling. I would say my interactions and discussions with people online are less about human
relationships and more about pieces of content or you know, politics. And my discussions
with people offline are more about like human relationships and nuances and intricacies of
life, interpersonal relationships and feelings.

43
It was not possible to determine if the participants were simply not responding truthfully to the

interview questions or if they were not aware as to how different the information they share

online versus offline is. The responses, however, were clear in that the participants, when

engaged online, did not share tribulations, feelings of sadness, and any source of vulnerability,

but that they do share these feelings with first tier friends offline either in face-to-care encounters

or via text or chats. There is a clear disconnect between what participants reported their sharing

online and offline versus what they actually share.

Online and Offline Relationships—Differences in Engagement

The second part of the interview focused on the types of friendships and relationships

participants have offline. It was in this part of the interview that the parameters of the three

relationship groups can be seen most clearly as they were strongly articulated by the participants

when explaining the differences between their online and offline relationships.

All of the participants tiered their relationships, whether they were offline or online, into

three distinct groups. Membership in a group was determined by (a) the way in which the

participants engaged with a person, (b) the frequency with which they engaged with the person,

and (c) what participants shared with this person. Every participant had a very clear

understanding of which people in their social sphere they assigned to which group. The three

groups that emerged from the data are, as noted previously,(a) those people with whom

participants engaged nearly every day, in most cases multiple times a day,("first tier"), (b)

friends and family that participants engage with periodically via in-person contacts, telephone,

and text or chatting, but not on a regular basis and certainly not on a daily basis, ("second tier"),

and (c) people participants are curious about but do not actively engage with on a periodic basis

44
and may not actively engage with at all ("third tier"), and was the context within all of the

participants framed their ??? responses???.

Three Tiers –Parameters of Engagement

Eleven out of twelve participants explained that their circle of friend's offline was the

same as their circle of friends online. The term "friend" online seems to be used as a very loose

term by participants, one that encompasses friends, both old and new, and acquaintances. That

said, when participants referenced second and/or third tier friends as well as first tier friends,

they made it clear that these friendships existed both online and offline. However, participants

made it clear that although they are friends and acquaintances with individuals offline, they do

not regularly engage with them offline. Aside from Katherine, who used dating SNS exclusively,

all of the other participants asserted that their offline friends were also online friends.

As noted previously, the first tier relationships were made up of close friends and family

members with whom participants engage on a daily basis and with whom they share their most

deeply held feelings. Participants engage with the first tier group through one-to-one

conversations that were conducted via any or all of three different means: (a) in-person, face-to

face conversations, (b) telephone conversations or (c) texting or chatting. The public nature of a

SNS forum was not the primary way in which the participants engaged with this first group but

was, rather, at best, a secondary means of communicating and connecting with these individuals.

For example, Rachel discussed how she communicates with first tier friends via text. She

explained:

My closest friends, I really don’t interact with them and my boyfriend on Facebook
because we are kind of like, always texting and whatever so it is almost unnecessary to
talk on Facebook.

Additionally, Laura discussed spending time with friends in person regularly:

45
 I talk to people in my immediate friend group [online], sometimes because we both
happen to be on Facebook…But I see those [immediate friends] on a daily basis…like
my best friends who I am in law school with.

The second tier group was made up of friends or family members who do not live near

the participants or who, if they do live nearby, they do not engage with on a daily basis. The

participants connect with these individuals intermittently via in-person contacts, telephone, and

text or chatting, but not consistently and not daily. These relationships are important to the

participants but their engagement with this group is primarily through SNS. The participants do

not reflexively share deeply held feelings with this group, as they would with first tier

relationships, although there might be occasions when some are shared.

Lastly, the third tier consisted of everybody else in the participants' social sphere and was

described as being people with whom participants engage only through SNS and even then, only

in the most passive way, i.e. this group is the "everyone" who can see the participants' SNS

profiles and whose information the participants will review passively. This third tier of

relationship includes people who participants appear to be curious about however, they are not

people with whom they actively engage in person with on even a periodic basis and they may not

actively engage with them at all.

All participants also classified their friends and family as being in certain, specific social

groups. For example, many referred to "camp friends" and "friends from college." While some of

the people in those social groups were first tier friends or family members, the majority of them

were second or third tier friends. These social groups demonstrate the way in which participants

divided and categorized the people in their world; someone can be a first tier friend and also be a

camp friend. There was evident overlap in the tiering and the categorized grouping of friends and

family members.

46
 Participants were asked to speak about their offline relationships. When asked to share

what their relationships were like offline, "tell me about your offline relationships, " it became

evident that participants needed clarification and more specificity around what the question was

actually getting at. Participants made mention of boyfriends, family members, such as siblings

and cousins, and childhood networks. Andrew stated that he enjoys going to “bars, restaurants,

clubs…Broadway shows sometimes, sports games, everything…” with his friends when offline.

Similarly, other participants explained that they enjoy “city activities,” such as walking around

Manhattan and Brooklyn, shopping, and dancing. Rachel stated:

I have friends that I know from camp and friends from college and high school and I
interact with all of them in different ways. I see friends on the weekends and get meals
with them, I text friends, I will visit my family since they don’t live in New York,
catching up over meals and whatever. And I have a boyfriend and I’ll see him and
generally do activities with him to catch up and stuff.

Offline Friends — Same as Online Friends

The data showed that, with the notable exception of Katherine who uses dating SNS, all

of the participant’s relationships offline similar to with their relationships online. However,

although these friendships appeared to be the same online as they were offline, it is evident that

the degree to which they hang out with these friends varies. The major theme found was that the

majority of the participants, eleven, described their friendships as being the same online as they

were offline, i.e. first tier friends were first tier both online and offline, second tier were second

tier friends both online and offline, third tier were third tier on and offline. For example, John

stated that:

I would say…my online life is really like a digital reflection of my offline life. There are
definitely some people who I only interact with online, I have a few…But for the most
part, my close friends online are my close friends in real life, and my acquaintances
online are my acquaintances in real life.

47
The majority of participants stated that their offline first tier friends were also their friends on

SNS, the exception being Katherine who used dating SNS, and two male participants who used

SNS for business connections. Several other participants discussed friends from childhood with

whom they do not speak on a regular basis, i.e., second tier friends offline, but with whom they

are friends with on SNS, particularly Facebook.

The one participant who uses dating SNS, Katherine, stated that "none of her friends"

online are people she engages with offline. Katherine stated, "[on Tinder, I'm] talking to people

that I have never met and don’t know in-person … so they’re strangers, no one I know." Two of

the participants, both male, who used SNS for business, said that there were limited situations in

which they would engage with a stranger for business purposes and to build their professional

networks. For example, Andrew stated:

I won't randomly message someone I don't know unless I’m in need of something. Like
when my girlfriend was looking for a job, I would go through my Facebook to see where
these people were working or I’d go on LinkedIn and then go on Facebook, and then I’d
send [someone] a message and be like, ‘Hey can you do me a favor? If I emailed you my
girlfriend's resume, think you could push it to HR or something?

Sharing: Online and Offline

Within this second section of the interview, participants were asked about whether they

think how they act and what they share offline is similar to how they act and what they share

online. With the exception of the participant who used dating SNS, the data consistently showed

that the content of what was shared with each relationship tier offline was different than what it

was online. All participants stated that they communicated deeply held feelings and more

detailed information about their lives to their first tier friends but did so in forums other than

SNS. The majority of participants felt that their offline first tier, and sometimes second tier,

friendships and relationships were safe places where participants could disclose triumphs,

48
tribulations, and frustrations and that, as noted previously, they would not share such information

online. Ben, a filmmaker stated:

Offline I would tell someone, ‘Oh hey I’ve been learning a lot about journalism, I’ve
been learning a lot about film distribution, production, the world of documentary,’ and
I’ll reflect on other conversations I’ve had with other people… that’s stuff I most
definitely would not be sharing on say, my Facebook status.

When asked why he does not share these types of things online, Ben stated, "I don't know, I just

don't use it for that. I use [SNS] to keep track of things that are going on in my life… it's

bec[ome] a real practical thing.”

Differently, Katherine, who talked about using dating sites primarily, added that she feels

that the information she shared online is similar to information she shares offline:

They’re similar because… so I guess things that I would share and talk about with close
friends would include hobbies and plans for the future and activities and ideas, and those
are things I have shared with someone online.

Interestingly and consistent with the data, Katherine's sharing of hobbies and activities are not

deeply held feelings. This again shows that things shared on a public forum on SNS appear to be

less deeply held, personal feelings and more surface level feelings and thoughts.

Online Dating: An Outliner

Only one participant, Katherine, the woman who used dating SNS, talked about the ways

in which online relationships have strengthened not only her relationships offline, but her own

personal growth. She stated:

I really think that my online relationships on Tinder have benefited my personal

development, maybe emotionally, intellectually, because [on Tinder], you’re in an
environment where you can feel… free to, um, be honest? And let the conversation go
wherever it goes, you can talk about ideas, you’re able to talk to a bunch of different
personalities in a span of a month say, so that’s actually been a really beneficial
experience for me… And on Tinder, you can engage in more philosophical conversations
and you can say things that are very honest because you haven’t met this person in
person, so you can share deep ideas, and these things, um, I guess develop your
personality more. I think anytime you can engage with someone new and have

49
 meaningful, deep conversations grow you as a person. Like it just grows your person in
general on an intellectual and emotional level and I definitely think that translates to your
offline relationships.

When asked why she feels this way, Katherine stated, “because you’re not friends with them and

you feel like more comfortable to say whatever you want to say… so the conversations can go in

a more honest place.”

Online and Offline Relationships

The third and final phase of the interview was meant to connect the first two sections of

the interview. Participants were asked questions regarding their offline friendships and

relationships, and whether they perceive those relationships to either strengthen or suffer due to

their online relationships.

Reinforcing Previously-Existing Offline Relationships

The majority of participants stated that SNS acted as a reinforcement for a relationship

that already existed offline. SNS seemed to be a way to maintain or emphasize underlining

friendships. One participant, Laura stated

I think because [SNS] allow for us to communicate more when [we're] not together, it
reinforces my friendships with people I’m already [close] with… but I wouldn’t say it
made it what it wasn’t, you know? It just allows for a different way to
communicate…like it reinforce[s] what we already had established in-person. My online
friendships definitely allow for me to have… a certain amount of maintenance with my
friends.

Similar to Laura, John talked about SNS as being an additive to a friendship that already existed.

He also spoke about acquaintances with whom he might not even be in touch with if it were not

for SNS. He explained:

I would say for my close friends, our friendships are strengthened by our online
relationships, because um, it’s like another channel to interact and stay in touch and our
in-person interactions are different than our online interactions, so it’s additive, and
you’re getting more substance in the way. And with my acquaintances, I don’t know… I
am in touch with them more than I would be if we weren’t friends online. So that keeps a

50
 certain sense of continuity that wouldn’t be there if I was only seeing them once a month
or not often.

Ways in Which In-Person Relationships Suffer because of Online Relationships

Participants were also asked if they believe that their in-person friendships and

relationships had ever suffered because of their online friendships and relationships.

The themes found from this section included (a) feeling lied to, (b) feeling embarrassed by a

photo, and (c) feeling excluded from a photo's posting.

Trust

The data showed that five participants experienced feeling as though their offline

relationships had suffered because of their online relationship. The major theme here was

participants feeling that they had been lied to by family members or friends. A second way

participants expressed that their offline relationships suffered because of their online

relationships was by discovering that someone's offline persona is different from the way they

portray themselves online.

Two participants shared experiences where intimate partners were being untruthful with

them, and they found out through social networking sites. Melissa, a heterosexual woman shared:

When I was in my early 20’s, if I was dating a person and we were on the rocks, I might
be messaging an older boyfriend and then get back together with the current boyfriend,
and he might see those messages… I would see a significant other doing something
inappropriate on Facebook, like messaging another girl or seeing pictures of a weekend
where he said he was doing something else (laughs).

When Melissa was asked why she felt this type of experience with "a significant other" made her

relationship suffer, Melissa stated, "well it was rampant… it caused so much conflict between

[us]… I became the victim in the situation." Ana spoke similarly to Melissa with regard to a time

she discovered an ex-partner being dishonest to her. She stated:

51
 I once discovered that someone I was dating was dating someone else through his
Facebook. Our relationship ended shortly after (laughs), so that really made our
relationship… it also made my mental health suffer greatly.

A third participant, Alexa, described a time when she felt that she had been lied to online by a

friend; she spoke of an instance when a friend told her that she was busy but then posted statuses

online about what she was doing at that moment, causing Alexa to feel betrayed and lied to. She

stated:

In person, [a] person can say, “I’m busy,” but then online they might be like…posting
stuff… you can get much more information about what someone’s doing online than you
can in-person. Like they can be telling you one thing and then posting something else, so
that can be contradictory.

Similarly, Amanda spoke about a time when she felt that a friend was ignoring her because she

had not heard from him/her in some time, causing her to feel concerned about her friend's

whereabouts. Amanda was originally reflecting on ways that SNS allow her and her "girlfriends

to…cheer each other up by saying 'C'mon girl you can do it’ or ‘you look good.' Your friends are

your biggest cheerleaders." She then quickly transitioned, however, and stated:

The crazy thing is, like the way things are today, sometimes you won’t hear from a friend
for a little bit because we’re so busy or they’re ignoring you…but then later, you
[may]…see a picture of them post a picture up on Instagram.

Interestingly and different from Alexa, Amanda felt that seeing a post from a friend online after

having not heard from them offline felt reassuring. She stated, “[I think] to myself, 'okay good,

maybe they were going through something so I will give them time, but at least I know they’re

alive'."

The second way that participants described they felt lied to or betrayed was by

discovering that someone's offline persona is different from the way they portray themselves

online. Only two participants described this phenomenon but it was an important event for each

of them. Both participants, however, explained that the impact did not influence the friendship in

52
a permanent, long- term way but rather, was more of a fleeting feeling. Not one participant stated

that the impact was anything other than temporary, or that being lied to changed their

relationship permanently. As Amanda put it, "[those types of] situations…put a little bump in our

relationship, that's it."

Feeling Embarrassed by a Photo or Status Online

The data also revealed that four participants experienced feeling as though their offline

relationships suffered because of a photo that had been posted of them that they either did not

approve of, or wanted taken down due to feelings of embarrassment or shame. Two of these

Participants spoke about posting photos on Facebook of a group of people and having one of the

individuals in the photo become angry that the photo is publicly posted on a social networking

site. These two participants also talked about being upset by photos of them that other people had

posted and of feeling embarrassed by how they looked; they felt that they had been disrespected.

Both participants spoke about this occurring on Facebook. Ana shared:

Sometimes a friend will be like, ‘Take that picture down!’ and I get annoyed with them
because it’s like ‘who cares.’ Then they make you like crop their arm out of the picture or
something. It doesn’t cause a lasting effect but it’s just annoying in that moment…I think
they don't want to look bad online… like I know for me… I always try to like look so
happy in all my pictures and always being active and always uploading the most fun
things. I don't know, I think she just felt upset.

Additionally, Margaret shared:

I have definitely posted an ugly picture of a friend [online] that my friend did not like and
[made them get] upset, like posting ugly pictures of friends, or like [posting] a picture of
them throwing up [when they are] drunk. In the moment for a few hours, maybe, our
relationship suffered.

Three participants spoke about times when they got "upset" or experienced ruptures in

their offline relationships due to online posts that were about them and which felt embarrassing;

these three participants explained that the rupture was short-lived, making no mention of

53
temporary problems with trust in the relationship. Amanda spoke about a time when a friend felt

embarrassed by a status she posted on her Facebook that offended one of her close friends. She

stated that although the long-term effect on the offline friendship was minimal, it was still a

noteworthy rupture. Amanda stated:

[I once shared] an inside joke [online], but the other person might be offended by you
making that public and sharing it with people, even though they don’t know the joke. So
that’s a situation I’ve been in where it put a little bump in our relationship.

Feeling Excluded

Another theme that showed from the data was the feeling of exclusion in the context of

friend groups. One participant, Ben, talked about seeing a picture posted online from a group of

friends just to learn that he was not invited to the outing. He stated that relationships have

suffered in the past by means of "people posting pictures of them doing things with other people

at events that uh, I wasn’t invited to." When asked why this would impact his relationships Ben

stated, “well, I felt not thought of and excluded, you know."

Ways in Which In-Person Relationships Strengthen Because of Online Relationships

Participants were also asked if they believe that their in-person friendships and

relationships were ever strengthened because of their online friendships and relationships.

The themes found from the data included (a) connection with long distance friends and family,

(b) group photos posted online that resulted in increased offline engagement, (c) reinforcement

of important positive aspects of relationships and (d) personal development.

Connection with Long Distance Friends

Several participants stated that keeping up with family members and friends who did not

live close by or who were abroad was a major consideration in their use of SNS. The data

revealed that SNS allows for people to keep in touch when travelling or living overseas or for

54
friends to stay connected when one moves far away. Ben referenced this ability to stay connected

to friends abroad. He shared:

Well, when people are away abroad, it allows for some capacity of connection. It’s
definitely not the same as in-person but uh, it allows for continued conversation over
distance. Like when I was abroad, and now for my more long distance-y friendships.

Similarly, Amanda explained, “I love BBM because I talk to my cousin from Trinidad a lot and I

need to be plugged into her life. I like sharing pictures and videos and BBM allows us the ability

to do that.” Additionally, Andrew reflected that SNS allow him the ability to "talk to [his]

cousins who are overseas."

Group Photos Posted Online – Increasing Connectivity Offline

Many participants referred to times when photos were posted online and how they

improved the participant's offline relationships. Margaret shared an experience she had involving

a group of friends "she hadn't seen in awhile" but with whom she spent New Years Eve. She

stated,

[The next day], I posted a lot of group shots and then like everyone [got] to liking and
commenting on the picture. [We would] like [the picture] and then other people and their
friends from college and other random people we grew up with [would] like [the picture],
and then we [would start] talking in our group text and [be] like- Oh my God, we got so
many likes, that's so funny… and then we made plans to get together after New Years
again, and that definitely brought us closer.

Similarly, Andrew shared how photos posted online seem to allow the ability to reminisce with

friends about old memories when hanging out in person. He stated:

Pictures definitely strengthen my relationships offline… you’re capturing that moment in

time and then you go back 5 months later when you're together and laugh your ass off,
it’s definitely impactful and positive.

Rachel spoke about feeling as though photos posted on SNS allowed her to feel closer to her

boyfriend's extended family and to her parents. She stated:

55
 Sometimes I’ll share a photo [online] and my boyfriend’s aunt will comment like “So
good to see you!”… and she’s foreign and older so she’ll like ‘share’ photo’s that I post
and share it with her friends and be like ‘look at my nephew and his girlfriend,’ and I
think that in a way brings us closer when we're together…She's [able to] stay updated on
our lives and same with my parents. And sometimes I’ll share something on Facebook or
Instagram about a common shared experience and those people will like it out of the blue
and it’ll remind you like, ‘wow this is bringing us together because we have this shared
experience that we’re talking about in a way through this site.’

Personal Development

Katherine shared that her conversations shared online with men she is interested in dating

positively impact her relationships offline. Katherine stated:

I really think that my online relationships on Tinder have benefited my personal

development, maybe emotionally, intellectually, because you’re in an environment where
you can feel… free to, um, be honest? And let the conversation go wherever it goes, you
can talk about ideas, you’re able to talk to a bunch of different personalities in a span of a
month say, so that’s actually been a really beneficial experience for me.

Katherine continued:

I guess on Tinder you can engage in more philosophical conversations and you can say
things that are very honest because you haven’t met this person in-person so you can
share deep ideas, and these things, um, I guess develop your personality more.

She described enjoying conversations online that were "more philosophical" for the impact that

those conversations might have on her and the way in which "that translates to your offline

relationships”. Katherine was the only participant who expressed feeling as though her online

conversations and identity impacted her personal development offline.

Summary

The findings show that the way in which participants used SNS to build and maintain

interpersonal relationships depended entirely on whether those relationships fell into one of three

different relationship groups, the parameters of which emerged from the interview responses and

which were consistent across participants. This tiering of relationships into first, second, and

third tiers was a common theme among all participants and was the framework within which

56
their responses were placed. The data showed that these three tiers of relationships were all

created outside of SNS. It was discovered that the majority of participants described their

relationships with friends as having originated offline via in-person encounters, however brief.

The findings also showed a pattern that was gender-specific; the data showed that while all of the

men use SNS as a tool for developing businesses the women never spoke about the using SNS to

assist in the development of a business but, rather, spoke only about using it exclusively as a

social environment and tool.

Further reflection on the findings discussed in this section will be covered in more detail

in the final Discussion chapter. Additionally, examination of these results as they apply to earlier

research and Self Psychology will be covered in more depth. The strengths and limitations of the

study, and implications for future studies, will also be discussed in greater detail in the

Discussion chapter.

57
 CHAPTER V

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore how young adults who are avid users of social

networking sites (SNS) build and maintain interpersonal relationships. I became curious about

young adults’ perceptions of the ways in which social networking sites play a role in their ability

to build and maintain interpersonal relationships during my first year field clinical internship,

when I worked with adolescents and young adults. It became clear to me that social media was

shaping the way young adults connect, as this repeatedly came up in sessions. The perspectives

of the twelve, New York City-based young adults in this study were gathered during telephone

interviews and in-person interviews; the study was designed to elicit in-depth information about

participants’ experiences with relationships both online and offline. The findings in this study

provide valuable information, and suggest avenues for further investigation from a sample of

young adults, who make particularly heavy use of technology (Kolmes, 2012).

This chapter will discuss the findings of this study in greater detail in order to connect the

study’s findings with current literature and the theoretical information presented in the literature

review. This chapter will also include a brief discussion of the study’s limitations and strengths;

it will conclude with future implications of this study for social work practitioners and

researchers.

58
The Extent To Which Participants Felt That SNS Impacted Their Offline Relationships

Positively

The principal focus of this study was an exploration of the ways in which participants felt

that SNS played a role in their offline relationships. Participants were asked if they believe their

in-person friendships and relationships were ever strengthened because of their online

friendships and relationships. The data revealed that participants felt their offline relationships

were strengthened because of SNS, specifically due to SNS's ability to (a) allow for connection

with long distance friends and family, (b) allow them to increase their offline engagement by

posting photos online, (c) reinforce positive aspects of offline relationships and (d) deepen

personal development offline by engaging in stimulating conversations online.

Connection with Long Distance Friends

One major finding from this study was that the majority of participants, seven, shared the

feeling that SNS allowed them to remain connected and keep in touch with friends and family

members who lived overseas or who lived in the U.S. but not near the participant. This finding is

strongly supported by McKenna and Barghs (2000) who stated that in a recent poll of 1,000

young adult Internet users, interpersonal communication via the Internet was thought of as a

“quick and easy way to maintain contact with family and friends who live far away” (p.

58).Participants shared that SNS allowed for convenience and that its ability to reach friends and

family members overseas was a major reason why they used SNS. Additionally, Acar (2008)

stated “the more people communicated with network members, the better they [felt],” resulting

in “reduced stress and increased emotional support” (p. 67). Although the data from this study

did not reveal specifically an increase in emotional support, the data did show that participants

59
felt a strong sense of connection to those they were speaking to via SNS, particularly family

members.

SNS's Reinforcement of Positive Aspects of Offline Relationships

Many study participants believed that that SNS reinforced their offline relationships; the

majority of participants, seven, stated that SNS was a platform that helped them maintain offline

relationships. This connectedness allowed them to maintain a sense of stability with friends

living abroad. Two participants did, however, note that while SNS helped them to maintain

offline relationships, it did not change the nature of those offline relationships. Four participants

who had first or second tier friends or family members abroad or living far from New York felt

that SNS enabled them to keep up with the lives of loved ones. Both Acar (2008) and Zywica

and Danowski (2008) found that SNS give users a sense of connectedness that they do not find

offline. While the results of my study do not support this argument, it does in fact show that SNS

allow the maintenance and enhancement of long-term, distant friendships and relationships by

providing a free way to communicate with these people. Other than the cost of the device and an

Internet connection or a data package, a SNS is, in comparison to telephonic communication,

free. Unlike a telephone call for which the caller, and sometimes the recipient, is charged a per

minute fee in addition to equipment and periodic service charges, each SNS contact event with

an overseas friend or family member is free.

Personal Development

All twelve study participants supported the major findings of Zywica and Danowski

(2008) who stated that “affiliation can provide Internet users with pleasure from mental

stimulation, heightened self-esteem from praise, an opportunity to compare one’s self to others to

gain more self knowledge, and can also provide social support” (p. 8). While all of the

60
participants in this study indicated that SNS played a positive role in their lives, and thus

impacted their lives offline and strengthened their offline relationships, one participant in

particular, Katherine, who used dating SNS exclusively, shared that SNS deepened her personal

growth and development offline. Katherine was the only participant who expressed feeling as

though the conversations she had on Tinder positively impacted her personal growth and

development offline. Katherine's experience receiving validation can be applied to the self-

psychology term, twinship, defined as "the need to feel that there are other individuals in the

world who are similar to you, creating feelings of belonging and security” (Flanagan, 2008, p.

???). This supports the notion that one's online identity reflects his or her offline identity. The

connection between these two identities confirms Zywica and Danowski's (2008) data, which

states that SNS plays a constructive role in young adults' personal development.

The Extent To Which Participants Felt That SNS Impacted Their Offline Relationships

Negatively

In addition to the ways in which SNS played a role in strengthening offline relationships,

some participants noted that there were several ways in which SNS adversely impacted their

efforts to build and/or maintain offline relationships. The major themes revealed in this section

that impacted participants’ offline relationships included (a) betrayal, (b) embarrassment, and (c)

exclusion.

Betrayal

Trust was a major theme that five participants referenced. Two participants who

described being in long-term, intimate relationships described how SNS usage led to their

relationships ending permanently upon their discovering that their partners were cheating on

them. Additionally, both participants described that without SNS, they would not have known at

61
that time that their boyfriends were involved with other women. Neither participant defined what

"cheating" meant to them, however both women made it clear that their relationships

significantly changed and then ended soon after they discovered their boyfriend speaking to, in

one case, another girl and to, in the other case, an ex-girlfriend. Cravens et al.,(2013) conducted

a study with the purpose of exploring Facebook infidelity behaviors from the perspective of

individuals who were impacted by their partners’ infidelity behavior. The study focused

specifically on the role that social networking sites have in regards to relationship betrayal,

where participants (N = 90) shared stories about cheating, betrayal, and trust. While two

participants briefly spoke about discovering their partner's infidelity on a SNS, neither

participant discussed early warning signs of cheating, unlike Cravens et al., (2013). Cravens

etal., (2013) stated that participants in his study discussed verbal and nonverbal cues indicated by

their partner and the possibility of infidelity. These warning signs included "gut feelings…that

something was amiss with their partner or in their relationship," "changes in behavior, and

suspicious or secretive behavior" (p. 80). With this additional means of communication and

socializing via SNS comes an extra responsibility for potential self-restraint. SNS users are at

risk for discovering information online that they might otherwise not have exposure to,

regardless of what SNS they are using. Not only does information online add to one's everyday

knowledge, it also exposes behavior that would otherwise not be uncovered easily. It is evident

that SNS allow young adults an ability to track their partner’s loyalty and communication.

Embarrassment

The data also revealed four participants who experienced short-term ruptures with offline

friends due to photos that were posted of them on a SNS. Participants explained that they had

either not known their friend was posting the photo or that they disapproved of the photo,

62
particularly because they did not approve of the way in which they looked. Interestingly, as

discussed by Haferkamp et al., (2012), "online profiles perfectly accommodate…a need for self-

display, by offering the opportunity to consciously create, adapt, and edit one’s self presentation"

(p. 96). Because these participants described feeling as though the posted picture of them came

as a surprise, they lost their ability to control the way in which they presented themselves, which

then caused them to experience feelings of shame, disapproval, and embarrassment. Because

SNS appear to be controlled environments, when a disruption occurs, it may be viewed more

harshly than offline. It is notable that the participants in this study strived to avoid situations

online where their ability to selectively present themselves would be interrupted.

Exclusion

Lastly, another theme that was revealed from the data was the feeling of exclusion in the

context of friend groups; participants described seeing a picture on a SNS of a group of friends

and feeling left out and not thought of after learning that they had not been invited to the outing.

A study conducted by Filipkowski (2011) examined the ways in which exclusion on social

networking platform is associated with negative outcomes such as "lowered self-feelings [and]

aggression” (p. 1). Findings showed that ostracism on SNS caused psychological distress.

Further research must be conducted to support this study and the ways in which exclusion online

translates to self esteem offline.

In another recent study conducted by Hebl et al., (2012) examined race-based

discrimination via SNS, and the ways in which individuals are excluded from social communities

online. Findings showed that "people whose physical features are viewed as more stereotypical

of their group are particularly vulnerable to exclusion from meaningful social connections with

others outside their group(p. 1334). In many ways, these interesting findings align with the

63
results from this study. Though Hebl et als., (2012) study focused on a different demographic

pool of participants than this study, it is evident that SNS have the ability to accentuate a person's

feelings of exclusion by means of pictures and statuses posted. SNS expose users to offline

experiences, thus resembling real life.

Gender Differences

The data revealed a distinct and noteworthy gender difference among participants.

Out of the twelve participants in the study, three identified as male. All of the male participants

identified as heterosexual. All of the male participants revealed that they use SNS as a way to

develop a business or a career; none of the nine participants who identified as female spoke

about using how SNS supports them in cultivating their businesses or careers.

While reviewing the literature on SNS usage, there was not an abundance of prior

research on the difference in gender and SNS usage. While the small sample of this study makes

knowing if the patterns were just a random occurrence, it is still an interesting pattern that

suggests the need for further study. In a study conducted by Muscanell and Guadagno (2012),

238 undergraduate students completed an online survey in order to assess gender and personality

of SNS users. Results revealed that men were "more likely to network for careers online" while

women were more geared towards "activities that facilitate relationship maintenance" (p. 111).

Consistent with the results from my study, this gender difference, as discussed by Muscanell and

Guadagno (2012) may be "explained by gender role expectations," that men "ought to be more

adventurous [while]…women have been found to be more interpersonal and relationship

oriented online" (p. 111). It is possible that men who are more adventurous take risks and

network professionally online in an exploratory manner. Additionally, this study showed that

women were hesitant to disclose personal information about their identities online and "may be

64
more likely [to] interact with individuals they already know and trust offline" (p. 111). This is

also in line with the data revealed from my study, as eight out of the nine female participants

stated that they would not share vulnerable information such as personal information about

themselves or emotional events and feelings regarding it.

Ina mixed methods study conducted by Haferkamp et al., (2012), the motives of both

male and female SNS users were assessed. The results showed that men used SNS for

information seeking and professional networking while on the contrary, women's motives were

driven by "a more hedonistic perspective of personal enjoyment and self-presentation."

Interestingly and yet again, these results are in line with what was elicited from my study.

Self-Psychology: Grandiose Self

As discussed in the literature review, the first pole of self-psychology is known as the

grandiose self, when a person’s talents get mirrored back to them and help to form the core of

identity. Individuals who have a developed grandiose self are “vibrant, full of confidence,

hopeful, ambitious, and productive (Flanagan, 2008, p. 172).The grandiose self can be seen

through participants posting of activities, events, and accomplishments that they feel positive

about, such as something they have purchased or a vacation they are taking. Participants reported

that when they log onto social networking sites, they typically scroll through their newsfeeds,

browse pictures, like statuses, and read articles that other people post.

Self-psychology is a relevant theoretical lens to explore the relationships of young adults

both online and offline. Interestingly, the majority of participants expressed that they typically

log on to SNS and scroll through their newsfeeds. As discussed in the literature review,

selfobjects are defined as “people or things outside of the self, vitally necessary to every

individual as a source of mirroring, sources of perfection and grandeur to merge with, and as

65
similar selves to feel at one with” (Flanagan, 2008, p. 171). Specifically, when participants

scrolled and browsed through friend's newsfeeds online, they were able to receive a sense of

mirroring online, thus giving the self what it needs in order to become and remain cohesive,

validating one's sense of self, and experiencing a sense of sameness, alikeness, and being known

by another (Banai, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2005).

Interestingly, participants stayed away from sharing any vulnerabilities online, such as

deeply held feelings and/or photos of highly emotional events, specifically because of their

concerns around publicly revealing feelings of vulnerability, weakness, or sadness. Therefore,

participants avoided opportunities they perceived would not receive mirroring or self-verifying

feedback, such as comments or likes on photos. In other words, vulnerability only plays a

positive role when the person believes that there will be an opportunity for twinship. According

to Cast and Burke (2002), when individuals do not receive validating feedback, the opportunity

to be mirrored may be rejected, possibly causing damage to the self (Cast & Burke, 2002, p.

1047 as cited in Brown & Lohr, 1987; Burke & Stets, 1999; Ellison, 1993). There are

expectations that come with every online revelation, expanding the fact that SNS users can

manipulate and control the way in which they perceive information and also the way the

information reflects a selectively presented self. Although my study does not directly support

Cast and Burke's (2002) claim, it does support a clear link that SNS users avoid opportunities

that they perceive will not provide a chance for validation or mirroring.

Self-Psychology: Twinship

Twinship, or the need to feel that there are other individuals in the world who are similar

to you, creating feelings of belonging and security (Flanagan, 2008), is in line with the results

found in this study. SNS are a space where people can feel a sense of sameness with others. In

66
many ways, the act of liking a post or photo on a SNS displays twinship; when a user posts a

status or photo on a SNS and other users begin to interact, there is an immediate sense of relation

that is created and experienced by both parties. By making a connection, the status or photo is

oftentimes validated and an exchange between users may begin. Participants stated that upon

logging on to a SNS, they would immediately begin browsing their newsfeeds, specifically their

friends’ updates such as photos and statuses. One participant stated that every time a close friend

posted a new photo or status, she would either like it or comment on the photo or status. Another

participant explained that by liking something online, it acted as a nonverbal way of

acknowledging her friend's new photo, and acting as a form of validation for her friend.

True Self

SNS allows users to selectively present themselves through photos and posts that expose

certain aspects of themselves. The data showed, very clearly, that participants did not share

information about any hardships they are facing, any negative thoughts that they may be having,

or any very personal sad feelings that they may be experiencing, but rather, only shared

information online regarding positive activities such as a vacation taken or an accomplishment.

While Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons (2002) found that when compared to face-to-face

interactions, online users were better able to present aspects of their true self over the Internet

and feel accepted by others, the opposite was found in this study; participants were more willing

to present all aspects of themselves offline than they were able to online. Again, this is because

participants seemed to bypass opportunities online where one's self worth is in danger of being

misinterpreted. Simply put, one's reputation is constantly under scrutiny, both on and offline.

While SNS users have the ability to control what they post online, they cannot control the ways

in which others will interpret their post and the ways in which they will be mirrored by other

67
users. Gonzalez and Hancock (2011) examined the ways in which Facebook users selectively

present themselves online. Facebook and other SNS allow users an opportunity to share

information about the self in an asynchronous manner while "carefully selecting what aspects

they would like to emphasize" (p. 80). Results from this study are in line with "selective self-

presentation" as discussed by Gonzalez and Hancock (2011).The study goes on to discuss the

ways in which digital self-presentations improve self-esteem. More research is needed to learn

about the effects of selectively presenting oneself on SNS.

Study Limitations and Strengths

There are several limitations to the design and implementation of this research, the most

significant of which was its small sample size (n=12) and consequently, the findings in this

research are not generalizable to a larger population. In addition, its applicability to a larger

population is limited by the demographic profile of the participants; as has been true in other

studies in this area of research, the entire sample identified as heterosexual and well educated.

There was also a lack of racial diversity in the study. The majority of the participants,

nine, identified as White, two identified as African American/Black, and one identified as Asian.

While reviewing the literature on this topic, few studies obliged participants to disclose their

racial identity. There were, however, two notable studies (Zywica & Danowski, 2008;

Oldmeadow, 2012) in which the participants represented a diverse range of ethnicities, including

those who identified as white, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, African American, Indian/South Asian,

and "other", yet more than half of the participants in each of the studies identified as

white/Caucasian.

According to World Population (2014) 44 percent of New York City's population was

white,25.5 percent were African/American/Black, and 12.7 percent were of Asian decent.

68
Hispanics of any race represented about 28.6 percent of New York City’s population in year. The

demographic profile of the twelve participants in this study is similar to the demographic profile

of the NYC area.

A major practical limitation to this research included the broad questions and language

used in the questions participants were asked. The questions that I developed for my interview

were questions that were very open-ended with the intention of allowing the participant to do the

leading. However, because some of my questions were so open-ended, I found that participant's

were not clear as to what I was asking about. In these cases, I used my prompts to be more

specific. Particular questions required expansion, which at times led to differences in the

interview process between participants. One example refers to when participants were asked

"what are your offline relationships like?" It quickly became evident that this question required

clarification and more specificity for some participants. Another example of this refers to when

participants were asked to talk about the connection they felt between their online and offline

relationships. Again, this question required clarification for some of the participants, leading to

asking additional, scripted interview prompts to the participant. It is valuable to recognize that

these variations from one participant to the next may have impacted my results.

Another limitation is the undefined meaning of "logging on to SNS." It is evident from

the data that when participants were asked how many times they went online per day, how long

they stayed online per day, and how many hours they were online per day, participants had very

different perceptions of what it meant to be logged on to a SNS. For example, the one participant

who discussed logging on to SNS 100+ times per day for 30-40 minute interval clearly

miscalculated his average, as his total amount of time on SNS per day was 50 hours per day, an

amount that is clearly not feasible. In this case, the participant did explain that s/he "leaves it

69
[SNS] open all the time," so perhaps his/her definition of "logging on" to SNS was merely just

looking at a SNS that was always open on the computer screen. Other participants, however,

spoke of periodically checking their favorite SNS throughout the day, which meant that they

would log on and off several times a day. This loose definition of logging on was a significant

limitation to this study.

Another limitation to the study was that there seemed to be several missed opportunities

to follow up on statements that the participants made. For instance, when participants spoke of

how they used SNS to keep in touch with loved ones, perhaps that response should have been

followed by a question asking the participant how seeing their friend or family member in person

was impacted from that moment forward. Follow-up questions could have also included several

that asked how online relationships were impacted by their newfound connectedness offline. In

hindsight, there were several occasions when more information about the participant's

experiences and/or feelings could have been explored, thus revealing more qualitative data.

There are also numerous strengths in this study. This is a relevant, timely study. Social

networking sites have proven to be an integral part of young adults' lives. This research provided

an opportunity for young adults to think about the way in which social networking sites play a

role in their current relationships. Because logging on to social networking sites has become an

everyday habit for all of the participants, this study allowed for an open dialogue to express

feelings that are not always spoken of or externalized. As a result, a variety of participants shared

that they began to think about their relationship with SNS as a result of participating in this

study. This study has yielded significant and timely results, particularly for clinicians with who

work with young adults. It is imperative that clinicians continue or begin to deepen their

understanding of how their clients', specifically those who are young adults, use and experiences

70
online potentially play a role in their offline relationships. The results from this study show that

young adults feel as though SNS impacts offline relationships both positively and negatively,

however, the data shows that when SNS impact relationships negatively, it is typically temporary

and does not always harm the relationship long-term. However, in the case where participants

found out their partners were being unfaithful to them in their relationship, the relationship

ended, therefore impacting it long-term. Overall, the vast majority of participants shared that

SNS allow them to feel connected to offline friends, near or far. This is relevant to clinical social

work because SNS may be a supportive avenue for young adults to stay connected to loved ones

in their lives. As a clinician, it would be valuable to learn specifically about the ways in which a

client felt supported through SNS in order to encourage further connections and explore more

specific ways about how clients feel supported through these online connections. A potential

goal for treatment would be for the client to begin to connect their online experiences to their

offline friendships and relationships in hopes of developing a more cohesive self.

However, results also showed that SNS can be harmful to some offline relationships. As a

clinician, it would be important to learn about the client's experiences online and the ways in

which they impacted them offline. Gaining a richer understanding of the ways in which those

experiences translated to offline experiences would be valuable, as the goal of therapy would be

to uncover the specific ways in which the client's negative experiences were damaging to their

relationships. This may lead to goals around strengthening problem solving, communication, and

relationship building skills.

Additionally, examining the way in which young adults who are avid social networking

site users build and maintain interpersonal relationships is valuable to the social work profession

because it is important to have knowledge around the ways in which clinical social work practice

71
continues to be influenced by technology advancements. For example, a clinician might begin to

interpret the ways in which a client who is an avid SNS user identifies online, whether what they

are representing is an accurate portrayal of themselves or not, and how that impacts his or her

offline identity. While beginning formulation and assessment for a client who is an avid SNS

user, the clinician may want to learn about the client's childhood, examining self-psychology's

three poles, grandiosity, idealized parent images, and twinship. Because self psychology

proposes that the development of the self is central to all developmental processes, it would be

crucial that the clinician learn about who the client's self objects were as a child and currently.

Throughout treatment, a positive self object transference may develop between the client and

clinician. For example, the clinician may provide mirroring to a client who, perhaps, has never

received mirroring, in order for him/her to build a missing structural part of the self. The

clinician’s attunement and empathy towards he client will allow for this transference to develop

(Flanagan, 2008).

Implications and Conclusions

Implications of this study include the need for more research about the connection

between online identities and offline identities from young adults’ perspectives. The world of

social networking is continuing to evolve. Judging from recent SNS developments, one could

predict that SNS will continue to further expand. While studies exploring specific aspects of

social networking sites and interpersonal relationships exist, it is critical that future researchers

explore the cumulative and long-term impacts that these online interpersonal relationships have

on other areas of young adults' lives. Though this study cannot be generalized, further studies

should consider expanding the sample size to universalize the data, and to see if the trends found

in this study are typical for a larger group of young adults.

72
 Additionally, it became very clear from the data that there was a broad range of SNS and

that many of these websites differed quite drastically from one another. The term SNS clumps

together websites such as Facebook, Instagram, Google plus, and Tinder, four websites that are

very different from one another. Though they each share common elements of users creating a

profile and chatting with others on the site, they differ quite drastically in terms of how and why

someone might use them. For instance, while Facebook allows users to post unlimited

information, photos, and videos, Tinder only allows a user to post a maximum of five pictures

and a "bio" consisting of a sentence or short phrase. Tinder also actively encourage the user to

connect with strangers while Facebook makes suggestions of connecting users with other people

they may know through friends. The research findings of this study strongly suggest that when

investigating SNS usage, dating websites should be categorized as a separate, specific type of

SNS.

There is precedent in the research literature for circumscribing the sample. In Acar's

(2008) study of 451 undergraduate students, "a total of 24 people, who either claimed to have no

membership to any OSNS (online social networking site) or be the members of some other

OSNS except Facebook (e.g., Friendster, Hi5, Orkut, Xanga, Multiply, Xuqua, AOL,

LiveJournal, BlackPlanet, MSN Spaces) were dropped from the sample and not included in

further data analysis” (p. 71). This was because Acar's (2008) hypotheses sand research

questions were only related to Facebook usage. By eliminating of ONSN and other ONSN,

Acar's study was more specific. In hindsight, had the design of this study put Tinder into a

category separate from SNS such as Facebook and Twitter, and sought to recruit participants

who actively used dating sites, the findings would possibly have been more detailed. The

73
research question would have been addressed more broadly and as a result revealed more

nuance.

Social networking sites have had a tremendous impact on the way in which people of all

ages connect with one another. It is enlightening to identify the ways in which these twelve

young adults build and maintain offline relationships, and the role that SNS play in that

maintenance. This study sheds light on a subject matter that will continue to evolve in ways that

are unknown. Through the interview process, young adults were able to consider the role that

their SNS usage has played in their maintenance of interpersonal relationships. Furthermore,

young adults provided their insight and opinions about a platform that they constantly use yet

rarely discuss. This study offers insight into an area of connection, interpersonal relationships,

both online and offline, exploring more deeply what young adults share about themselves on

SNS and how they maintain relationships with others.

74
 References

Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of online social networking behavior: the case of

facebook. Journal Of Website Promotion, 3(1/2), 62-83.

doi:10.1080/15533610802052654.

Banai, E., Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2005). “Selfobject” needs in Kohut's self

psychology: Links with attachment, self-cohesion, affect regulation, and adjustment.

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 224-260.

Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. A., and Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?

Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of social issues,

58(1), 33.

Berzoff, J., Melano Flanagan, L., and Hertz, P. (2008). Inside out and outside in: Psychodynamic

clinical theory, practice and psychopathology, in multicultural contexts. Northvale, NJ:

Jason Aronson, Inc.

Blass, R. (2012). “On Winnicott’s clinical innovations in the analysis of adults”: Introduction to

a controversy. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 93(6), 1439-1448.

Boyd, D. and Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, p. 210-230. Available at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/asset/j.1083-

6101.2007.00393.x.pdf?v=1andt=ho1rlrneands=81a12e94f7fed8531679e118fa5c87d60

c5d 992 [Accessed: 15 Nov 2013].

Bowker, A., Moorman, J. (2011). The university Facebook experience: The role of social

networking on the quality of interpersonal relationships. The American Association of

Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 15. 1-23.

75
Cacioppo J., Christakis, N., Fowler, J. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of

loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6).

977-991. https://docs.google.com/a/smith.edu/viewer?url=http://fowler.ucsd.edu/

alone_in_the_crowd.pdf.

Cavazos, M. (2010). What is the meaning of interpersonal relationship?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/229362-what-is-the-meaning-of-interpersonal-

relationship/.

Common Sense Media. Is Technology Networking Changing Childhood? A National Poll. San

Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media; 2009. Available.

at:www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/CSM_teen_social_media_080609_FI

NAL.pdf. Accessed July 16, 2010.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A., and de Zúñiga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the web?: The intersection

of users’ personality and social media use. Computers In Human Behavior, 26(2), 247-

253.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003.

Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., and Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook infidelity: When poking

becomes problematic. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 35(1),

74-90. doi:10.1007/s10591-012-9231-5.

D' Amico, M. (1998). Internet has become a necessity, U.S. poll shows. CNNinteractive

[Internet magazine], http://cnn.com/tech/computing/9812/07/neednet.idg/index.htm.

DiLillo, D., and Gale, E. B. (2011). To Google or not to Google: Graduate students' use of the

Internet to access personal information about clients. Training And Education In

Professional Psychology, 5(3), 160-166. doi:10.1037/a0024441.

76
Epstein, J. (1983). Examining theories of adolescent friendships. In J.L. Epstein and N. Karweit

(Eds.), Friends in school: Patterns of selection and influence in Secondary schools. New

York: Academic Press.

Erikson, E. (1964). Insight and Responsibility. New York: Norton.

Flanagan, L. (2008). Inside out and outside in: Psychodynamic clinical theory, practice and

psychopathology, in multicultural contexts. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

Freedman, S. (1996). Role of selfobject experiences in affective development during latency.

Psychoanalytic Psychology, 13(1), 101-127. doi:10.1037/h0079640.

Gonzales, A. L., and Hancock, J. T. (2011). Mirror, mirror on my Facebook wall: Effects of

exposure to Facebook on self-esteem. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social

Networking, 14(1-2), 79-83. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0411.

Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A., and Kruck, J. (2012). Men are from Mars, women

are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking

sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 15(2), 91-98.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0151.

Heins, N. (2008). Implications of frequent online social network use for adolescent and

emerging adult social experiences. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Smith

College Libraries.

Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., and Johnson, B. D. (2013). The interrelationships

among attachment style, personality traits, interpersonal competency, and Facebook use.

Psychology Of Popular Media Culture, 2(2), 117-131.doi:10.1037/a0030946.

Kieffer, C. C. (2012). Heinz Kohut: The father of self psychology. Psyccritiques, 57(9),

doi:10.1037/a0027166.

77
Kohut, H., and Wolf, E. (1978). The disorders of the self and their treatment: An outline.

International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 59: 413-25.

Kolmes, K. (2012). Social media in the future of professional psychology. Professional

Psychology: Research And Practice, 43(6), 606-612. doi:10.1037/a0028678.

Lee, D. (2013). The role of attachment style in building social capital from a social networking

site: The interplay of anxiety and avoidance. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4),

1499-1509.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.012.

McKenna, K. A., and Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the

Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality And Social Psychology

Review, 4(1), 57-75. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6.

Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., Egan, K. G., Cox, E., Young, H., Gannon, K. E., and Becker,

T. (2011). Feeling bad on Facebook: Depression disclosures by college students on a

social networking site. Depression and Anxiety, 28(6), 447-455.doi:10.1002/da.20805.

Muscanell, L., and Guadagno, R. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and

personality differences in social networking use. Computers In Human Behavior, 28(1),

107-112. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.016.

National association of social workers Association of social work boards (2005). Standards for

technology and social work practice. Washington, DC.

Ogan, C. L., Ozakca, M., and Groshek, J. (2008). Embedding the Internet in the lives of college

students: Online and offline behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 26(2), 170-177.

doi:10.1177/0894439307306129.

O'Keeffe, G., and Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children,

adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800-804.

78
Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., and Kowert, R. (2012). Attachment style, social skills, and

Facebook use amongst adults. Computers In Human Behavior,

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006.

Park, L. (2007). Appearance-based rejection sensitivity: Implications for mental and physical

health, affect, and motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 490-504.

Pines, M. (1984). Reflections on mirroring. International Review Of Psycho-Analysis, 11, (27-

42).

Robins, R.W., Treniewski, K.H. (2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(3), 158-162.

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/emot/robins_trz.selfesteemd

evel_curidr2005.pdf.

Robins, R.W., Tracy, J.L., Treniewski, K.H., Potter, J., and Gosling, S.D. (2001). Personality

correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 463-482.

Rosenberg, Morris. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition.

Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Shaw, L. H., and Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: the relationship between Internet

communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support.

Cyber psychology and Behavior, 5(2), 157-171.doi:10.1089/109493102753770552.

Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., and Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and

relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it.

Psychology Of Popular Media Culture, 1(S), 2-15.doi:10.1037/2160-4134.1.S.2.

Social work portal: A resource took for social work. National Association of Social Workers.

http://www.naswdc.org/swportal.

79
Spies Shapiro, L. A., and Margolin, G. (2013). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and

adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical Child And Family Psychology Review,

doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0135-1.

Stefanone, M. A., Lackaff, D., and Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-

networking-site behavior. Cyber psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2),

41-49. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0049.

Toma, C. L., and Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality

And Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321-331.doi:10.1177/0146167212474694.

Tosun, L. (2012). Motives for facebook use and expressing “true self” on the Internet.

Computers In Human Behavior, 28(4), 1510-1517.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.018.

World population review. (2014). http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york-city-

population.

Winnicott, D. (1965). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. The Maturational Process

and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. New

York: International UP Inc. 140-152.

Wright, M. F., and Li, Y. (2011). The associations between young adults’ face-to-face prosocial

behaviors and their online prosocial behaviors. Computers In Human Behavior, 27(5),

1959-1962.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.019.

Zywica, J., and Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of facebookers: Investigating social enhancement

and social compensation hypotheses; predicting facebook™ and offline popularity from

sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic

networks. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1-

34.doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01429.x.

80
 Appendix A: Flyer

Volunteers Needed for Research Study

Looking for young adults who are avid social networking site users to talk about social
networking site use and online and offline friendships/relationships

More specifically:
 How often you go online and which social networking sites you visit
 How you communicate with others online
 How you build and maintain friendships and relationships both online and offline

To participate, you must:

 Be 18-30 years of age
 Live in NYC
 Log onto social networking sites at least 10 times/day
 Be able to communicate in English
 Be able to meet in person or talk on the telephone for approximately 1 hour

To learn more, contact the researcher of this study, Josselyn.

Appendix B: Study Research Information Sheet

Project Title:
The Exploration of Young Adults’ Online and Offline Interpersonal Relationships

Invitation:
My name is Josselyn Sheer and I am a Master of Social Work student at Smith College School
for Social Work. You are being asked to take part in a research study about your social
networking site usage, and whether or not you view your friendships and relationships as being
connected to your social networking site usage. I am looking for young adults who are avid
social networking site users. I’d like to learn more about how you build and maintain
relationships, how often you go online, what sites you visit, and your perceptions of the ways in
which your social networking site usage plays a role in your ability to build and maintain online
and offline relationships.

Time Commitment:
In this study, you will be asked to meet with me ONCE for 60 minutes and answer questions
about your social networking site usage.

81
I am looking for:
In order to participate, you must be 18-30 years of age, live in NYC, log onto social networking
sites at least 10/day, be able to communicate in English, and be willing to meet in person or talk
on the phone for one hour. If you decide to participate, you must read and fill out an informed
consent form.

Participants’ Rights:
You may decide to withdraw your participation in the research study at any time. You have the
right to ask that any data you have supplied to that point be withdrawn/destroyed. You have the
right to omit or refuse to answer or respond to any question that is asked if you. If you have any
questions as a result of reading this information sheet, please ask the researcher before the study
begins.

Confidentiality:
Confidentiality is assured. All names and identifying information will be protected.
For Further Information:
Please contact Josselyn at XXX-XXX-XXXX or [email protected].

82
 Appendix C: Informed Consent Form

School for social work

Consent to Participate in a Research Study
Smith College SSW ● Northampton, MA

………………………………………………………………………………….

Title of Study: The Exploration of Young Adults’ Online and Offline Interpersonal
Relationships
Investigator(s): Josselyn Sheer
Smith College School for Social Work
XXX-XXX-XXXX

………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………….

Introduction
 You are being asked to take part in a research study about your social networking site
usage, and whether or not you view your friendships and relationships as being connected
to your social networking site usage.
 I ask that you read this form and ask any questions that you may have before agreeing to
be in the study.

Purpose of Study
 The purpose of this study is to explore young adults' social networking site usage and
whether or not you view your friendships and relationships as being connected to your
social networking site usage.
 This study is being conducted as a thesis requirement for my master’s in social work
degree.
 Ultimately, this research may be published or presented at professional conferences.

Inclusion Criteria
 You were selected as a possible participant because you are 18-30 years old, live in New
York City, are English speaking, log onto social networking sites at least 10 times per
day, and are willing to meet in person or talk on the phone for approximately one hour.

Description of the Study Procedures

 If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to meet with me in a place convenient
for you (i.e. public library; coffee shop) to complete an interview. You will also be asked
to fill out a demographic form. You may also choose to speak with me via telephone to
conduct the interview. If you choose to meet in person, we will meet one time, and the
83
 interview will take approximately 60 minutes. If you choose to speak via telephone, we
will speak one time, and the interview will take approximately 60 minutes. I will ask you
a series of questions about your Social Networking Site use and your
friendships/relationships.

Risks/Discomforts of Being in this Study

 The study has the following risks. It is possible that you may become uncomfortable or
distressed when talking about online and offline relationships. Because this study is
voluntary, you can decide to end your participation by March 31, 2014. You will also
have the option of passing or choosing to not answer a question at any time during the
interview. At the end of this form, you will find a list of resources should you wish to
access any support services/resources. I will also go over the risks and benefits of
participating in this study before the interview begins.

Benefits of Being in the Study

 This study will allow you to think about and talk through ways in which you use social
networking sites. More specifically, you will have a chance to reflect on your motivations
for using social networking sites, and perhaps compare and contrast your online and
offline interactions. By sharing your stories, you will provide information on an
important topic that requires more information from young adults’ perspectives. If you
desire, you may receive the results to my study, and thus hear other young adults’
perceptions, perhaps providing more validation for your experiences.

Confidentiality
 The records of this study will be kept strictly confidential and in a secure location. After I
transcribe my tape-recorded interviews, I will destroy the tape recordings. Transcriptions
will be given codes and kept in a password protected computer document.
 Informed Consent Forms will be kept in a locked file cabinet for three years so that your
name is kept separate from any data.
 The demographic form that you fill out will be kept in a locked file cabinet for three
years separate from your signed informed consent form. Only your participant code will
be on the demographic form so that it will not be connected to your signed consent.

Payments
 You will not receive any financial payment for your participation.

Right to Refuse or Withdraw

 The decision to participate in this study is voluntary and entirely up to you. You have the
right to not answer any question, as well as to withdraw completely at any point during
the study. If you choose to withdraw, I will not use any of your information collected for
this study. You can withdraw up until March 31, 2014. If you choose to withdraw from
this study, you would contact me either by telephone or email.

Right to Ask Questions and Report Concerns

84
  You have the right to ask questions about this research study and to have those questions
answered by me before, during or after the research. If you have any further questions
about the study, at any time feel free to contact me, Josselyn Sheer, at [email protected]
or by telephone at XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you like, a summary of the results of the study
will be sent to you. If you have any other concerns about your rights as a research
participant, or if you have any problems as a result of your participation, you may contact
the Chair of the Smith College School for Social Work Human Subjects Committee at
(413) 585-7974.

Consent
 Your signature below indicates that you have decided to volunteer as a research
participant for this study, and that you have read and understood the information provided
above. You will be given a signed and dated copy of this form to keep, along with any
other printed materials deemed necessary by the study researcher.

………………………………………………………………………………….
Name of Participant (print): _______________________________________________________
Signature of Participant: _________________________________ Date: _____________
Signature of Researcher(s): Josselyn Sheer Date:

………………………………………………………………………………….

[if using audio or video recording, use next section for signatures:

1. I agree to be [audio] taped for this interview:

Name of Participant (print): _______________________________________________________

Signature of Participant: _________________________________ Date: _____________
Signature of Researcher(s): Josselyn Sheer Date:

2. I agree to be interviewed, but I do not want the interview to be taped:

Name of Participant (print): _______________________________________________________

Signature of Participant: _________________________________ Date: _____________
Signature of Researcher(s): Josselyn Sheer Date:

85
 Resources

1. Kings County Hospital Center’s Behavioral Health Center: Therapy on a sliding scale

from $15-20 a session. 718-245-2727.

2. Psychology Today Therapists who focus on relationship issues. Located in Brooklyn,

NY: http://www.jbfcs.org/programs-services/counseling-services/list-

programs/#.Upj5c5F92Gk

3. Psychology Today Therapists who specialize in addiction. Located in Brooklyn, NY:

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_results.php?spec=4andcity=Brooklynand

state=NY

4. Counseling Services at Jewish Board of Family Services (JBFCS):

http://www.jbfcs.org/programs-services/counseling-services/list-

programs/#.Upj5c5F92Gk

5. Theravive Therapists who focus on addiction treatment. Located in Manhattan, NY:

http://www.theravive.com/therapy/addiction-treatment-manhattan-ny

86
 Appendix D: Demographic Information

1. What is your age?

_______________

2. What is your gender?

____ Female ____ Male ____ Transgender

3. What is your race?

____ American Indian/Alaska Indian; ____ Asian; ____ Black/African American;

____ Hispanic/Latino; ____ Native American; ____ Hawaiian or other Pacific

Islander; ____ White; ____ Multiracial (please specify); ____ Other (please specify)

_____________________

4. What is your sexual orientation?

________________________________________________________________________

5. What is your highest level of education?

___ Some highschool; ____ Highschool; ____ GED or equivalent; ____ Some college;

____ 4-year college degree; ____ Master’s degree; ____ Doctoral degree;

____ Professional Degree

6. Who do you live with?

____ Parents/caregivers; ____ Alone; ____ Roommates; ____ Other (please specify);

____ Partner

7. What is your annual income? _

____ $0 - $20,000; ____ $20,000 - $30,000; ____ $30,000 - $40,000;

____ $50,000 - $75,000; ____ $75,000 - $100,000; ____ $100,000 - $150,000;

____ $150,000 +

87
8. What is your annual household income?

____ Less than $10,000 ; ____ $10,000 - $19,999; ____ $20,000- $40,000;

____ $40,000 - $60,000; ____ $60,000 - $80,000; ____ $80,000 - $100,000;

____ $100,000 - $150,000; ____ $150,000 +

9. What is your employment status?

____ Full time; ____ Part time; ____ Student only; ____ Unemployed; ____ Self-

employed; ____ Stay at home parent; __________________ Other (please specify)

10. What is your relationship status?

____ Single; ____ Married; ____ In a relationship; ____ Divorced;

____ Widow/widower; ____ Separated

11. Approximately or on average, how many times do you go online each day?

________________________________________________________________________

12. What social networking sites do you go on? List all:

________________________________________________________________________

13. How long do you usually stay online each time you log on?

________________________________________________________________________

14. Overall on average per day, how long are you online?

_____________________________________

88
 Appendix E: Interview Questions

“After reading a lot of literature on this topic, it has become clear to me that social media has

become a tremendous part of young adults’ lives. I’m specifically interested in the use of social

networking sites, which is a phrase used to describe any web site that enables users to create

public profiles and form relationships with other users. They can be used to describe web sites,

online forums, chat rooms, or other online social spaces. So some examples are Facebook,

Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Tumblr, Myspace, and Google Plus +. For the purposes of this

study, I’d like to learn about your social networking site usage. All of the questions that I will be

asking you are about when you are on a social networking site—not when you’re online doing

other things like downloading music, etc. I’m curious about what sites you go on, how often, and

your relationships online. Then I’d like to learn about your offline friendships and relationships.

So before we get started, do you have any questions for me?

1. So I’m wondering if you could tell me the reason(s) you like social networking sites?

2. What do you do on social networking sites?

Prompts:

a. Search for/join groups? Search for friends? Search for events? Networking

professionally?

b. Check/send/answer messages? Wallposts? Poke people?

c. Post pictures? Browse pictures?

3. Who do you talk to when you’re online?

a. Friends?

b. Acquaintances?

89
 c. Family?

d. People you don’t know?

4. What type of information do you share about yourself online and is it dependent on which

SNS you are on?

Prompts:

a. Do you only share positive information that you like about yourself?

b. Negative information, or things that you dislike about yourself?

c. Personal information?

d. Professional information?

e. Are you sharing things that are truthful?

f. Are you sharing things that are embellishing?

5. When do you typically share stuff about yourself?

a. When you are in need of support?

Bridge into—are these the sorts of things you would share offline?:

6. Could you tell me about the types of friendships and relationships you have offline? What are

those like?

a. Are they the same friends you interact with online?

b. What do you do with your friends?

c. What do you share about yourself with your friends?

d. Is it similar to how you act and what you share online?

Bridge into connecting the online and offline experiences:

7. I’m interested in your relationships online and your offline relationships.

90
a. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever suffered because of your

online friendships and relationships? How so?

b. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever strengthened because of your

online friendships and relationships? How so?

c. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever suffered by the amount of time

you spend online?

d. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever strengthened by the amount of

time you spend online?

e. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever suffered by what you do or say

online?

f. Have your in person friendships and relationships ever been strengthened by what

you do or say online?

91
 Appendix F: HSR Approval Letter

School for Social Work

Smith College
Northampton, Massachusetts 01063
T (413) 585-7950 F (413) 585-7994
January 8, 2014

Josselyn Sheer

Dear Josselyn,

You did a very nice job on your revisions. Your project is now approved by the Human Subjects
Review Committee.

Please note the following requirements:

Consent Forms: All subjects should be given a copy of the consent form.

Maintaining Data: You must retain all data and other documents for at least three (3) years past
completion of the research activity.

In addition, these requirements may also be applicable:

Amendments: If you wish to change any aspect of the study (such as design, procedures,
consent forms or subject population), please submit these changes to the Committee.

Renewal: You are required to apply for renewal of approval every year for as long as the study
is active.

Completion: You are required to notify the Chair of the Human Subjects Review Committee
when your study is completed (data collection finished). This requirement is met by completion
of the thesis project during the Third Summer.

Congratulations and our best wishes on your interesting study.

Sincerely,

Elaine Kersten, Ed.D.

Co-Chair, Human Subjects Review Committee
CC: Kelly Mandarino, Research Advisor

92
93