The Love Triangle (Dissertation)

The Love Triangle: The Pervasive Effects of Infidelity on Social Media in Modern Day Romantic Relationships

By Fiona Kee Yen Yen 29997372

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of Master of Communication and Media Studies School of Arts & Social Sciences Monash University Malaysia

2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Statement of Authorship ............................................................................................................................. 4 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Research Question .............................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Sub-research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Defining Relationship Satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Discrepant Relationships and Infidelity ............................................................................................ 10 2.3 Social Media’s Influence on Romantic Relationships ...................................................................... 12 2.4 Causes of Infidelity ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.5 Social Media, Infidelity and Alternative Partners............................................................................. 18 2.6 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 25 3.1 Hypothesis Development .................................................................................................................. 25 3.2 Research Methods ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.2.1. Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.2. The Participant Group and Sampling Criteria .......................................................................... 30 3.2.3. Measures and Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................ 32 3.2.4. Ethical Consideration ............................................................................................................... 33 CHAPTER 4: RESULT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 35 4.1 Sample Profile................................................................................................................................... 35 4.2 Data Results ...................................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1. Measure of satisfaction in relationships ................................................................................... 35 4.2.2. Infidelity Behaviours and Alternative Partners ........................................................................ 36 4.2.3. Mediation and Facilitation of Social Media ............................................................................. 37 4.3 Hypothesis Testing............................................................................................................................ 38 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION ................................................ 48 5.1 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 48 5.2 Limitation and Future Research Suggestions ................................................................................... 50 5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 51 References .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix A – Survey Questions............................................................................................................. 58 Appendix B – Explanatory Statement..................................................................................................... 66

2

ABSTRACT All romantic relationships face the risk infidelity, and with the rapid popularisation of social media while having it be heavily intertwined in our every day, it has become almost all too common where romantic partners are caught cheating byways of alternative relationships. Research has shown that relationship satisfaction plays a role in predicting infidelity amongst couples affected by attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance that began as a child and carried forward to their romances today. This study aims to determine what romantic partners “do” as a basis of justifying levels of satisfaction within their primary relationship and to offer an analysis of the experiences and practices of using social media as means of committing infidelity. Building on existing work on infidelity-related behaviours on social media, this study will attempt to answer: Does social media facilitate the engagement of infidelity amongst Malaysian young adults who are dissatisfied in their romantic relationships? In this context, the popularity of social networking sites has provided multiple routes that permit potentially harmful behaviours towards romantic relationships, such as communicating with alternative partners, which can create relationship conflict, breakups, or divorce. Within the framework of the interdependence and affordance theory, a thematic approach is used to make sense of the existing data and to draw systematic patterns by addressing social interactions and the quality of alternative partners, while illustrating the ‘how’ and ‘what’ the environment provides disloyal partners to commit infidelity. Analysis of the results demonstrated that when romantic partners are highly invested and are in committed relationships, they tend to devalue potential alternatives, but if satisfaction and/or investment falters, a romantic partner may begin to see more value in alternative relationships, which can be easily carried out through social networking sites.

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” – 1 Corinthians 13:1 First and foremost, all praises and thanks to the Big Man upstairs for His continuous shower of blessing, favour and inspiration throughout my research, for which without, none of this would be possible.

To my family, I thank you for your undying support, love, prayers and sacrifices for educating and preparing me for an amazing and bright future ahead.

To Dr. Tan Meng Yoe, I am truly grateful for the constant support, guidance and encouragement throughout the whole writing process. For with educators like you, the world will truly be a better and brighter place.

To the friends that have stuck by me through thick and thin, I thank you for going on this journey with me, and for making this chapter so much more enjoyable and memorable.

Lastly, to my dearest Michael, if I know what love is, it is because of you. Thank you for being the inspiration behind this entire research.

5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Humans are a pair-bonding species, and although romantic partners do not necessarily stay faithful to one partner, people are built to desire companionship and love. Relationships can be a great source of happiness or a potent source of distress, depending on whether satisfaction is met.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, he puts forward that people are motivated by five basic categories of needs, which includes the need for love and relationships (Hopper, 2020), while in psychology circles relationships are referred to as “the trump card of a person’s wellbeing”.

Many pieces of research have also shown that relationships are perhaps the most important factors of life satisfaction. All major theories of psychological well-being include positive relationships as a key element. On the other hand, dysfunctional relationships are one of the most common issues in therapy. Relationships are also implicit in a number of our life goals and key sources of meaning.

One of the very essential factors in maintaining a stable relationship is the preservation of high standards of satisfaction within a relationship. By recognizing the need to feel happy and responding to that need in a relationship will create a rewarding connection that can strike a balance between romantic partners' love for one another and promote independence within the relationship. Keizer (2014) states that satisfaction in a relationship is "a subjective appraisal of one's relationship which should not be perceived as a product, rather as a subjective perception and interpretation," while Rusbult and Buunk (1993) described relationship satisfaction as "an interpersonal measure of one's partner's positive feelings and an attraction to the relationship".

Although, the feeling of satisfaction in a relationship has many contributing factors that partners have to make with one another for a wholesome journey together, the level of contentment that partners experience together also plays an important role in the lifespan of the relationship. Since romantic relationships are a predominant aspect of human life, several hypotheses have been proposed regarding the various distinct fields in romantic relationships, and how different variables present in the relationship contribute to and determine ultimate satisfaction between partners.

Alternatively, there can also be dissatisfaction when the two romantic partners begin to have different expectations. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dissatisfaction as “expressing or 6

showing lack of satisfaction, or not being pleased or satisfied with someone or something�

(Merriam-Webster, n.d.). It is common for dissatisfaction to appear at some stage in the relationship, especially when romantic partners have been together for a period of time. This also usually happens when idealism ceases, and tell-tale signs of dissatisfaction are more likely to start emerging. Psychological studies have found that the main cause of divorce and dissolution of relationships is directly linked to the loss of intimacy. When intimacy decreases, either sexually or emotionally, it can be due to a lack of desire to be with a partner. In most situations, the satisfaction motive is generally lost due to the false expectations that life will remain the same as it was at the beginning of the relationship, even after being together for some time. More often than not, dissatisfaction has led many breakups of relationships and/or a possible quest for an alternate lover.

As a result, many victims of a discrepant partner often wonder ‘what really happens when people report lower satisfaction, commitment, quality of relationships, and higher perceived alternatives to relationships?’ According to Hillard, Knox and Weiser (2018), committed partners are most likely to be unfaithful in these relationships. If an unhealthy relationship progresses into infidelity, then this unfaithfulness is a declaration that something important is overlooked or mishandled in the relationship. This is viewed as a passive-aggressive way of expressing what is hidden or missing inside the ongoing relationship. Combining that with the anonymity, availability and accessibility of social networking platforms, social media can be both constructive and unfavourable (Perel, 2017). Some research has also shown that online environments can provide a prime place for online infidelity behaviour (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). Since its implementation into everyday life, social media has had a profound effect on the continuity and breakdown of numerous relationships, especially with features of interactive content to help individuals fulfil their every desire with just a click of a button.

Similarly, following years of social scientific research into relationships and infidelity and the recent rise in online infidelity on social networking sites, leading researchers such as Fisher (2019), Drouin (2016) and Perel (2016) tend to argue that our knowledge of relationships and our contribution to infidelity remains minimal. One such discrepancy is the relative lack of insight into the motivators and causes of online-infidelity behaviour. The main dependency in a 7

relationship is based on two processes: first, the correlation between satisfaction and the quality of alternate partners, and second, the affordances of social media and infidelity. The theory of interdependence provides further insight to romantic partners who are happy and in committed relationships by devaluing possible alternatives, but when satisfaction or commitment collapses, a romantic partner may begin to see interest in alternate relationships that can easily be encountered on social networking platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. It further proves the relevance and impact of social media has on everyday interactions. This is where this research draws its inspiration from.

The main aim of this research is to contribute to the sociology of relationships in the digital age, building on the existing research of relationships and infidelity and adding to the insightful work about the impact of social media. In various ways, writers have sought to present more evidence and understanding of infidelity in committed relationships with a critical investigation into married and cohabiting individuals. Their research emphasises on the complex and moral dilemmas involved in the satisfaction of the primary relationship, while this study seeks to investigate the practice and processes of attachment orientation and the opportunities available for infidelity to take place via social media, and to find out if such behaviour has indeed contributed to the better of the primary relationship, or deteriorated the primary relationship. It will focus on the experiences and perceptions of romantic partners in relation to their satisfaction and commitment to their primary relationship and their justifications for engaging in infidelity.

1.1 Research Question Does social media facilitate the engagement of infidelity amongst Malaysian young adults who are dissatisfied in their romantic relationships?

1.2 Sub-research Questions 1. Do different levels of relationship satisfaction impact the likelihood of engaging in social media infidelity-related behaviours?

2. Why do some dissatisfied romantic partners engage in alternative partners?

3. Does social media usage create new and easier opportunities for seeking out alternative partners?

8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, a thematic approach has been taken to define and understand the association between the levels of contentment between partners and their engagement infidelity behaviours, while exploring its relevance to promiscuous behaviours amongst romantic partners on social media. The following sub-sections are a consolidated reflection of the existing academic literature on infidelity behaviours with relation to the theory of interdependence and affordance.

2.1 Defining Relationship Satisfaction Relationship satisfaction has been a discussed topic of study for decades. Satisfaction is a fluid concept that can have a collection of definitions. Often used interchangeably with happiness, satisfaction can also mean pleasure and contentment. Rusbult, Martz and Agnew (1998) define satisfaction as “a corresponding effect of positive or negative experiences within a given relationship”. Undoubtedly, the word is intended to describe the fulfilling of the desires, wants and wishes of an individual. In terms of relationship satisfaction, it has been described by Rusbult and Buunk (1993) as “an emotional measure of positive feelings towards one's partner and an attraction to the relationship”, where the level of satisfaction relates to the degree at which “the individual gives a positive assessment of the relationship and feels the partner meets their essential needs” (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). As such, the primary conditions for relationship satisfaction derives from “a healthy degree of contentment, trust, intimacy, similarity, commitment, attribution and communication being fulfilled by a partner and maintaining a mutually beneficial role in the relationship” (“Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction,” 2018). However, Keizer (2014) clearly points out that relationship satisfaction should be “viewed as a subjective assessment of one's relationship, not to be confused as a property of the relationship, and should not be used as a product of the relationship, but as a subjective perception and opinion”. As such, partners and spouses are free to decide as to how satisfied they are with their courtship (Keizer, 2014). While academic literature may be limited to the sexuality variable toward relationship satisfaction, researchers have also examined sexual satisfaction for its association with the maintenance relationship contentment and maintenance of sexual contentment between partners. Harvey, Wenzel and Sprecher (2004) defined it as “the degree to which a person is satisfied or pleased with the sexual dimension of his or her relationship”, while Lawrence and Byers (1998) argued that it is “an appropriate response arising 9

from a retrospective evaluation of the positive and negative aspects of one's sexual relationship” (Harvey, Wenzel, & Sprecher, 2004, pp. 236). Miller and Tedder (2011) express that even though it is common to evaluate satisfaction based on partners’ desires for their relationship, it should not be the only measurement, and should be inclusive of the total degree of engagement and the willingness to overcome disputes together. Looking around at romantic partners in our environment, it has become evident that those whose expectations are fulfilled by their romantic partner would be satisfied with their given relationship, whereas, in comparison, those whose courtship is incompatible with their desires will feel dissatisfied.

2.2 Discrepant Relationships and Infidelity The varying degrees of attraction, affection and dedication of partners to one another is a common theme in all relationships. In other words, “one partner may be compared to the other partner, be more or less attracted, loved or committed to the partner” (Drouin, 2016; Perel, 2017). Researchers have found that differences between partners in their relationships have to do with lower relationship satisfaction in relation to intimacy and engagement (Sternberg & Barnes, 1985; Miller & Tedder, 2011). In addition, “the greater differences were correlated with lower relationship efficiency between individual ideal relations and actual relationship characteristics” (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999). There is also evidence for weaker relationship outcomes where “the individual characteristics of a partner, such as an appearance, decency and financial status, do not align with their ideal expectations” (Weiser, Hilliard, & Knox, 2018).

According to Weiser, Hilliard and Knox (2018) “discrepancies in other relationship domains appear to influence relationship quality and satisfaction”. For example, discrepancies of sexual desire are also linked to lower relationship satisfaction. Mark and Murray (2012) were able to do a study with 133 heterosexual couples who were in a relationship for at least one year and found that the greater the sexual conflict with their partner, the lower the satisfaction of the partnership.

Frost, McClelland and Dettmann (2017), on the hand, found that greater differences in sexual closeness such as the gaps between individuals' actual and ideal levels of sexual contentment are linked to lower levels of sexual satisfaction and orgasms than to actual sexual closeness ratings.

10

This focus on attraction, love, and commitment was rooted in Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, in which “consistency in the domains of intimacy, passion, and commitment are core dimensions in the prediction of relationship satisfaction” (Sternberg & Barnes, 1985). Focusing on more global relationship dimensions, high expectation plays an intrinsic role in the discrepancies in relationships on one’s real versus ideal partner. It has become apparent that “many people base their loyalty to a relationship on their anticipated future expectations with the partner rather than on their present satisfaction with the relationship” ("High Anticipation and Relationship Satisfaction," 2016), such couples will at some stage be let down by their high standards, which can contribute to resentment towards the relationship and its future. According to Miller and Tedder (2011), if either partner has high expectations for the relationship, “there is a tendency for them to expect their partner to meet their high standards”. Weiser, Hillard and Knox (2018) conducted a study on a partner’s real and ideal lover, at which this level of discrepancy differentiated between one who is valued by a partner, and one who values a partner, and found that partners who gave a lower evaluation to their partner that they were dating typically had fewer efforts to maintain the relationship (Weiser, Hilliard, & Knox, 2018). This outcome is unsurprising as it is typically influenced by both partners’ ideals and expectation.

Other research on discrepancies in relationships has also focused on uncertainty and insecurity between partners. Inadequate attention and transparency among romantic partners can cause insecurity to prevail within a relationship, jeopardizing any contentment available and giving rise to the prospect of the dissolution of relationships, or alternative relationships (Drouin, 2016).

People generally dislike uncertainty, and high levels of uncertainty often lead to unhappiness (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 201l). A more refined examination of discrepant relationships shows that there are four types of relational uncertainty. Knobloch and Solomon (1999) identified four distinct types of relational uncertainty: (a) behavioural uncertainty, referring to boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within the relationship; (b) mutuality uncertainty, referring to uncertainty about the reciprocity of feelings between partners; (c) future uncertainty, referring to uncertainty about the long-term future of the relationship; and (d) definitional uncertainty, referring to uncertainty about how the relationship is explained to third parties. It is beneficial to remove any uncertainty between partners to improve emotional trust in the relationship, which contributes to greater satisfaction for both romantic partners.

11

Miller and Tedder (2011) argued that “by obtaining this assurance creates for relational security that can be attributed through a person's position in the relationship and have an immense impact on the satisfaction of the relationship”. Rus and Tiemensma (2017) explains that this form of “assurance will also express one's loyalty to their partner”, as opposed to “low levels of commitment, which have been found to be positively linked to intimate and platonic alternative partners”.

Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for individuals to choose to remain in discrepant relationships because the outcome for doing so may be greater than confrontation. Drouin (2016) stated that “even if individuals are more or less attracted to, in love with, or committed to a partner, it is possible that the overall benefits from being in the relationship may exceed their expectations, and choose to continue these relationships”. However, if individuals are inconsistent or incompatible with regard to their attraction, love, or commitment towards their partner, they may be vulnerable to extradyadic involvements. Weiser, Hilliard and Knox (2018) highlighted that “negative relationship dynamics are strong predictor of infidelity, even when compared to individual differences and personality traits”. Gibson, Thompson, O’Sullivan (2016) also found that attraction to someone other than a current partner was a strong and significant predictor of infidelity.

2.3 Social Media’s Influence on Romantic Relationships The popularization of social networking sites has had a significant impact on romantic relationships. Since then, many people have relied on the assistance of social media to maintain relationship satisfaction with existing relationships and newly forged love connections. Rus and Tiemensma (2017) described social media as “a blanket term for internet applications that allow the exchange of user-generated content”, while social networking sites are “a type of social media with web-based services that allow the maintenance of social relations within a publicly visible social network”. Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are popular examples of social networking platforms, and according to MCMC (2018), these platforms are also widely used by Malaysians as a form of public journaling of one’s emotions, thoughts, and interests from their everyday life.

12

There are approximately 28.7 million active social media users in Malaysia (MCMC, 2018). The consumption of social media ranks the highest amongst young adults – people who are 24 to 39 years of age. MCMC recorded in 2018 that “Malaysians spend between one and four hours a day surfing the Internet” (MCM, 2018). This dependency for social media has grown exponentially over the last few years and has provided an accessible platform to a database of immeasurable information about various people, while effectively connecting these individuals to continuously stay informed about each other’s’ activities and social network and maintaining a strong interpersonal bond.

Like in all forms of relationships, there are a few main interplaying variables that lead to a wonderful relationship. Rus and Tiemensma (2017) noted that “adequate communication about one’s feelings, thoughts and behaviours towards the relationship is necessary”. Moreover, whether online or offline, communication must remain at the forefront because it is the very quintessence of every need being met, without it there is no relationship ("Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction," 2018, Guerrero, Anderson and Afifi, Miller and Tedder, 2011).

Past research on the subject of relationship satisfaction has also centred around different prosocial components that have been demonstrated to be noteworthy pointers of contentment within a relationship, which help “advance the relationship’s closeness, trust, and intimacy in the relationship” (Miller and Tedder, 2011). As indicated by Guerrero, Anderson and Afifi (2011), “the five essential prosocial support methodologies are positivity, openness, assurances, social networking, and task sharing”. A close relationship that contains “high levels of prosocial maintenance strategies tend to be stable and committed, and people appear to be more satisfied with their partners” (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 201l, Miller & Tedder, 2011) as relationships are consistently dependent on the communication between its members of the relationship.

Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn (2016) stated that “impression management techniques across social networking platforms like Facebook help to simplify intimate interactions, while openly sharing romantic relationship status”. Wilkerson (2017) found that these interactive apps on social media make it possible to 'multimediate,' a term coined by the four social networking apps of Tokunaga, and “post information such as photos, texts, and tell other users where they are, who they are, and what they are doing, allowing users to be connected with their social 13

networks”. In addition, Sosik and Bazarova (2014) identified that “communication content is essential to gain a sense of positivity, self-disclosure, and assurance that relationships can be enhanced and maintained”. Indeed, even mundane conversations like ‘what are you doing right now?’ or ‘compose a message’ can also “encourage relationship satisfaction as verbal immediacy is associated with closeness and assurance of relationships” (Sosik & Bazarova, 2014).

On the other hand, when there is poor communication, conflicts arise. A conflict “is a disagreement between two interdependent people” (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 201l, Miller & Tedder, 2011) as a result of “the way conflict is handled during a disagreement can lead to partners’ needs not being met” (“Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction,” 2018).

One of the major challenges faced by couples on social media is ‘integration’, a term used by Wilkerson (2017) to describe where “couples fail to distinguish with the presence and absence of 'us' and 'I' ”. Many partners find it impossible to find a satisfactory equilibrium. As oppose to discussing the issue and setting boundaries with each other, “many couples resort to inhibiting any form of discussion as means to limit discrepancies” (Weiser, Hilliard, & Knox, 2018). Miller and Tedder (2011) argued that “satisfied couples are more likely to discuss issues of disagreement, while dissatisfied couples are likely to minimize or avoid conflict”.

In a report by MCMC (2018), many Malaysian young adults express their views, emotions and ideas through self-disclosure online. Wilkerson (2017) states this mode of speech can be “both optimistic and destructive, based on how it is shared with the online audience”, because by posting too much “it can strip away the intimacy of relationships, but posting too little on social media will lead to outside speculation”. Tokunaga’s characteristics of social-networking sites found two more important factors to consider with online self-expression: First, recordability on social networking sites allows users to view archived information from a user profile, and second, achievability allows for information to be obtained anonymously without being geographically close to the person (Wilkerson, 2017). Brody, LeFebvre, & Blackburn, (2016) insist that such “archived information can be used as surveillance for or about partners in a relationship”. This type of “openness, transparency and collection of information on social media, combined with a low risk of detection, makes it appealing for surveillance and status

14

management, which can either increase or decrease commitment within a relationship” (Brody, LeFebvre, & Blackburn, 2016).

The main idea of social media is to share narratives that are often portrayed as positive and celebratory. Many of the postings spotted on social networking sites today are “influenced by a generated fear of missing out (FOMO)”, a term Silva (2018) describes as “created through social media addiction” (Silva, 2017). FOMO is “the act of sharing a modified digital version narrative of "Keeping up with the Joneses," which depicts positive and celebratory content on users' social profiles” and can “affect other people's views and how they see themselves and their lives” (Silva, 2018). The danger this FOMO has on dating partners is the creation of an illusion that masks a person’s true persona.

Granted, the technological landscape of communication has created “an illusion of many choices to fulfil the human needs for friendship, intimacy, and a sense of connection”, but through content development and online following, “everyone has the ability to cultivate relationships with people, be they friendly or intimate” (Jain, 2010). These social interactions in the online setting strengthen closeness amongst others and allow hyperpersonal communication to take place (Drouin, 2016; Jain, 2010). These form of interactions helps individuals “to idealize the core of the message, and take time to compose messages that reflect their best selves, and then translate messages in a way that seeks to strengthen the closeness of a relationship” (Drouin, 2016). The informal nature of social media has also made it possible to navigate the sphere of influence more easily and to create the ideal image of an individual (“Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction,” 2018; Drouin, 2016; Jain, 2010). However, dating apps like Tinder have “eliminated the mystery, and seduction narrative from relationships that are central to courtship” (Perel, 2017). As a consequence, many millennials are unfamiliar with the desire and mystery - critical feelings in courtship that without it can be difficult to sustain a long and fulfilling relationship.

2.4 Causes of Infidelity The most common and prevalent reason to dissolutions of relationships is due to acts of disloyalty and betrayal such as "cheating" or "infidelity". Abbasi (2019) describes infidelity as 15

“the behaviour in a relationship that includes at least one party who recognizes that there is a breach of accepted or inferred physical and/or emotional limits in their relationship”. A multitude of television series, romance novels, and movies draw on this heart-breaking reality of partnering with a disloyal partner. It's becoming so extreme that some people are now making up fake figures to sell their products or services for dealing with infidelity. Claims such as “percentages of relationships as high as 50% involve infidelity” is one common figure widely heard (Grohol, 2018). However, research estimates that “only 25% of men and 14% of women are cheating, with 20-60% of couples cheating in their lives” (Stieg, 2017).

Infidelity is not limited to simply being physically intimate with someone who is not a long-term partner, but there are other forms of promiscuous behaviour. Grohol (2018) states that “all the literature on psychological and self-help addresses common forms of infidelity involving onenight stands, romantic ties, long-term marriages, and philandering”, while past literature shows that there are “relational-only, sex-only, and mixed forms of physical and emotional infidelity”, but these groups do not generally exclusive to one another. The two frequently discussed forms of infidelity are sexual involvement and emotional involvement. Fisher (2014) describes “emotional infidelity, used interchangeably with romantic infidelity, as a non-sexual, emotional relationship and relational interaction with someone kept a secret from a romantic partner”, whereas “sexual infidelity is a physical exchange with no romantic involvement that is also kept a secret from the romantic partner”.

Romantic infidelity is described as the involvement of emotions, often found in internet relationships or long-distance relationships, where physical contact remains limited. Sexual infidelity, on the other hand, is the involvements between visits with sex workers to the engagement of different types of sexual activities during encounters. According to Drouin (2016), “emotional infidelity is most likely to be viewed as a betrayal because it breaks a partner 's trust by spending time with someone other than one's partner”. People’s attitudes that are more permissive in nature towards infidelity are more likely to engage in disloyal behaviour, regardless of gender. However, Blow and Harnett (2005) identified that “men are more able to differentiate between sex and love, while women are prone to combine physical and emotional involvement”. This is because “women have a stronger emphasis on romantic attachment and are 16

more likely to fall in love with the person they engage in infidelity with, while men consider infidelity partners merely as close friends” (Blow and Harnett, 2005).

The exploration of attachment orientation as a predictor of social media infidelity have expanded considerably over the past few years. According to Rus and Tiemensma (2017), the understanding of relational attachment is to broaden the understanding of emotional relations attached closely to anxiety attachment and avoidance attachment. Manson (2019) explains attachment as “the essence of human emotional connection that started as a child with our connection to our parents, and later affected our form of attachment to romantic partners”. It is understood that there are two forms of relationship attachment that exist: anxious attachment and avoidant attachment. Anxious attachment is “the intense need for closeness and fear of losing a romantic partner” (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017, Rus & Tiemensma, 2017). People with this attachment style often make use of behavioural attempts to draw their partners closer, and may even seek intimacy outside their relationship when their current partner feels their need for intimacy are not met. Avoidant attachment style is “the showing of isolation inside a romantic relationship and the desire for freedom” (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017, Rus & Tiemensma, 2017). These types of partners tend to keep an emotional distance from their partners and are the most likely to engage in casual sex, where physical and emotional intimacy are not necessarily intertwined.

Similarly, gender also plays a significant role in attachment patterns. Blow and Hartnett (2005) reported that people who scored higher on anxious attachment were more likely to indulge in infidelity while avoidant forms of attachment, which were seen more in males, were more vulnerable to infidelity. Likewise, the anxious attachment style was seen more in women, especially for those in highly satisfying relationships (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017).

Nevertheless, Steig (2017) observed that “current data shows that both men and women are almost equally likely to cheat on their partner”, a statistic which used to support men heavily in the past.

17

2.5 Social Media, Infidelity and Alternative Partners Rus and Tiemensma (2017) found that “the percentage of couples who meet online has doubled, with 35% of married couples in the United States beginning their relationships online from 2005 to 2012”. This has resulted in the term 'technoference', which gives rise meaning to the intrusion of every day technological interference in couple interactions or time spent together online (Abbasi, 2019). Using social networking platforms such as Facebook and Instagram enables “an image to be established by using it as a mediator to remove any negative direct contact” ("Effect of Social Media on Satisfaction Relationship," 2018). The time spent in the digital world has been known to be linked to social media addiction, a decrease in the quality of the primary romantic relationship, and increase the likelihood of physical and emotional infidelity. Flirting in the virtual world, according to Abbasi (2019), “elicits greater physical and sexual responses than encountered in face-to-face encounters”. Michael Rosenfeld conducted a study on the dramatic growth of online partners since the late 1990s, and he found that “in 2010 one-fifth of heterosexual couples and two-thirds of homosexual couples met online” (Drouin 2016).

Consequently, Perel (2017) argues that “the digital networking world makes intimate relationships simpler, and the online environment can enhance intimacy”.

Thus far, the internet has done a great job of exponentially “rising the pool of potential mates, giving everyone an unparalleled abundance of options” (Perel, 2017), and social networking sites have been able to “link like-minded individuals or reconcile individuals across the globe, and interaction tension is correlated with the recent and regular Facebook interaction” (Sosik & Bazarova, 2014). The digital web has provided ample choices, making sex and romance accessible, affordable and anonymous. Although this may be true, the countless options of possible alternative partners available may bring with it more uncertainty than good. Drouin (2016) performed an experiment between genders to find potential alternative spouses on people's social media pages and found that “on average women had three people with whom they would have a relationship and eight with whom they would have sex”, while “men had an average of eight with whom they would have a relationship and 26 with whom they would have sexual intercourse”.

18

In millennial terms, an alternative partner is also known as a 'back burners,' and it has been a popular topic of discussion recently. An alternative partner is described as “an adult who is interested in a romantic relationship with someone who already is in a committed relationship with another person” (Drouin, 2016). Many couples whose relationships were less satisfied and more ambivalent were more likely to engage in social media infidelity (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). In the experiment performed by Drouin (2016), “on average women had four back burners while men had eight alternative partners on standby”. This is because “Facebook predicts less marital happiness and an increased divorce rate”, which indicates that “social media could provide social support and incentives for unhappy marriages through infidelity” (McDaniel, Drouin & Cravens, 2017). Furthermore, the act of being involved with someone who is already in a relationship is known as ‘mate poaching’. According to Perel (2017), a study on single Americans who have accepted mate poaching reported that “60 % of men and 53% of women admitted they tried to pursue people from an engaged relationship in order to start a relationship with them”.

2.6 Theoretical Framework In order to make sense of the existing data and to draw systematic patterns on the associations between satisfaction and its contributions towards infidelity through social media, the theory of interdependence and affordance will be discussed in this portion of the theoretical framework. A theoretical framework is an analytical tool used as a structure to “hold or support a theory of a research study” (“Research Guides: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework,” 2019). Since theories are developed by researchers to explain a fact or situation that exist or happened, while comparing it and making assumptions, the theoretical framework is focused on existing knowledge, findings, and ideas. Hence, the purpose of a theoretical framework is to “introduce and describe the theory that explains why the research problem under study exists” (“Research Guides: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework,” 2019). For our theoretical framework we will be using two theories: First, the interdependence theory would address the social interaction between individuals and how it relates to the value of alternative partners. Second, the affordance theory will illustrate what the environment provides to couples and how it encourages infidelity between romantic partners.

19

Interdependence Theory Van Lange and Balliet (2014) explained that the interdependence theory is a theory about social exchange where “interpersonal relations are defined by interpersonal interdependence”, and more importantly it is the mechanism where “communication has the power to influence the perspective of one another’s experiences”. The interdependence theory was first founded by Harold Kelley and John Thibault. Since communication plays an important role in romantic relationships as it contributes greatly to the satisfaction between partners, it holds the ability for “understanding the structure of situations that underlies the activation of motives to help understand behaviour and social interaction between people” (P. Van Lange & Vuolevi, 2010).

According to Weiser, Hilliard and Knox (2018), the interdependence theory is also a theory about “patterns and assuming these patterns play a significant role in the processes, positions, and norms of relationships". The most important features of interpersonal relationships are “its situation structure and perception of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes” (Van Lange & Rusbult, 2008). As it is characterised by social interactive behaviour, it is meant that the interdependence theory is to identify the characteristics of social interactions within personal relationships, whereby human relationships are a scenario of cost and benefit with individuals seeking to reduce costs and maximize benefits within a relationship.

Social relationships can bring both rewards and cost to a relationship whereby people either consciously or subconsciously seek benefits in every relationship they encounter. The interdependence theory teaches that most often partners pursue relations that have benefits outweighing cost (see Figure 1.1). People often make mental notes of their rewards or benefits and costs associated with their relationships, and social exchanges between partners is dependable on factors such as comparison levels within a relationship to measure with the quality of an alternative partner.

20

Rewards

Cost

Outcome

Figure 1. The ratio of the rewards and costs in the relationship that determines the outcome value of a relationship

Weiser, Hilliard and Knox (2018) stated that “comparison levels can be conceptualized as an ideal relationship, or what people presume they deserve in a relationship”, whereas the quality of alternatives is the “desirability of another person outside the ongoing relationship”. To understand this in a broader sense, there are four types of costs and benefits described in the theory of interdependence: emotional, instrumental, opportunity and social (“Interdependence Theory,” n.d.). Emotional costs and benefits are the positive or negative emotions sustained during the relationship. Instrumental costs are the additional work that someone has to do because of a partnership, while instrumental benefits are the lessened work that the relationship reduces. Opportunity costs are when someone in a relationship needs to give up something and opportunities benefits are when something is earned because of the relationship. Social costs and benefits are determined by the partner's social standing and quality.

In every relationship, individuals devote “investments” such as time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. Drouin (2016) stated that these ‘investments’ refer to the “resources tied to the relationship that would be lost if the relationship ended”. Rus and Tiemensma (2017) examined three factors that interplay: the perceived costs and benefits of staying with a partner, assumptions about what one expects from the relationship, and perceived quality of alternative partners, as it contributes to happiness and high commitment. If a partner perceived more rewards than the cost in a relationship, and it matches or exceeds a partner’s expectation for the relationship, it results in satisfaction towards the relationship where the outcome is more than comparison levels, however, if a partner perceives more rewards than received it produces dissatisfaction where the outcome is less than comparison levels (see Figure 2). This concept is also reinforced by Drouin (2016), who outlined that people are constantly measuring the quality of their relationships in comparison to their investments made, whether consciously or subconsciously. If the benefits of the relationship 21

outweigh the costs then the relationship will usually continue, but if the costs are greater than the benefits and there are other options available, then the relationship will most likely dissolve (“Interdependence Theory,” n.d.). By combining all of these costs and benefits it can determine a relationship’s success.

Outcome > Comparison Levels

Outcome < Comparison Levels Figure 2. Interdependence Prediction

Additionally, the interdependence theory extends itself into the investment model to explore dependency between partners being affected by the size of investments and their levels of commitment. Investment size refers to the “magnitude and value of the resources attached to a relationship”, while commitment level is defined as “the intent to persist in a relationship, including long-term orientation toward the involvement as well as feelings of psychological attachment” (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; (Sulungbudi, 2017). According to Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998) the investment size “holds the potential to enhance commitment levels” because the act of investing “increases the negativity of ending a relationship”, serving as a “powerful psychological inducement to persist and maintain the relationship”. When a relationship grows, individuals become ever more dependent and develop a deeper commitment.

Commitment can be interpreted as a sense of loyalty as couples actively invest resources into their relationship as a means of dependency towards their partner with the expectation that doing so will strengthen it. Those who are in highly fulfilled and dedicated relationships “tend to devalue possible alternatives due to the high commitment and investments” they put into the relationship, which includes the commitment such as time, friends and family (Drouin, 2016; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). However, when readily available alternatives can prove the potential quality that is more desirable, it could result in higher incentives for extradyadic involvement. Social networking platforms provided a conceptualized idea of relationship goals while making it easier to search for possible alternatives.

22

Affordance Theory The affordance theory is the principle of what the environment can offer to the individual. James Gibson, the founder of the affordance theory, defined ‘affordance’ as “an entity that has the ability to be used in different ways, but certain species cannot use it in the same fashion” (Gibson, 1986/2015). Using the theory of affordance can provide an astute insight into partners’ social media usage for infidelity. Hutchby (2001) provides another perspective where affordance is “to make available specific sets of uses, subjecting those potential uses to various ranges of effects and limitations”. The usefulness of the affordance theory is in understanding it is as a process of relation, despite the object itself not changing its physical form, the individual has the power to decide its intentions and capabilities. In the digital spectrum, affordance has the potential to “combine a detailed knowledge of the limitations built into technologies, and the social context that triggers users’ experimentation and the testing of those limits” (Hopkins, 2016). Many romantic partners interact with their better halves or alternative partners throughout the day via technologies and the social context is carried out in the digital realm. Hopkins (2016) explains further that affordance in digital media “address the relationality of technology and humans in a way that speaks to these types of experiences”.

Gibson (2005) found that “people appear to adjust and change their environment in such a manner as to improve their affordance that best suits them, even though it makes it difficult for other species to survive in”. For example, individuals who are dissatisfied in certain areas of their relationship have the privilege to cease such opportunities to modify their ‘environment’ – or relationship. By using social media to engage in infidelity allows partners not only to satisfy what they lack by committing physical and/or emotional infidelity to meet their needs, but it is also the act of affording digital media to commit extradyadic behaviour. Social affordance is the term used “to link between individuals in the worldwide web, through information and social contacts” (Hopkins, 2016). In social networking sites, individuals are put at the middle of their own social circles with a clear list of contacts and a profile page showing personal information.

Hopkins (2016) goes on to explain that such networks offer a wide range of knowledge about the user and their activities, and at some point, may provide point-to-point interaction to the user, allowing them the ability to participate in social interactions. It has also become apparent with social affordance that individuals can “conveniently be connected to a variety of other people 23

with similar interests” (Jain, 2010; Perel, 2017; Wilkerson, 2017). While the digital world “does not have a co-presence, the interactions that have formed between users have evolved amid the absence of co-presence and hence the proliferation of a number of social networking sites” (Hopkins, 2016). It is despite this lack of face-to-face interaction that users are still able to develop close relations. According to Hopkins (2016), “people communicate with others through interactive channels, and to a degree these mediated experiences influence how they integrate their socio-cultural context with their behaviour and sense of identity”. Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are a perfect example of how they offer collaborative features for people with shared preferences to chat and share information with each other.

Affordances bring to light the relationship in which people use technology to interact and obtain information from one another while creating different experiences for everyone that uses it.

Gibson (1986/2015) conceptualises digital media and its users as “a collection, where the affordances are nodes that navigates interpersonal connections and evolving relationships”. With the rise of digital media, romantic partners can now easily connect with other individuals or search for alternate partners online through the accessibility and transparency of contents made available online. Such contents can be promoted and targeted through a number of social media channels. According to Gibson (1986/2015), the interactive features on social networking sites such as web discovery, content sharing and content aggregation allow multitudes of users to attract attention to themselves across the digital landscape. Content affordances have also made it possible for users to disseminate information through social links on a social network in a number of ways (Jain, 2010). Furthermore, social media has the ability for users to take and share content by collecting and using materials from a variety of sources to meet their personal needs. Depending on what users want, the disadvantage of the affordance theory is that social media can be used in a variety of ways to not only gather and disseminate information but to also find a new or alternative partner. Additionally, as users are allowed to manipulate the use of technology in ways that cater to each person’s needs, many other online users may fall vulnerable to the unkind and manipulative ways of those who wish to use such affordances disastrously. Creating for a betrayal of trust and a toxic environment.

24

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Hypothesis Development A growing research body has looked at the potential effects of social media use on romantic relationships, and for decades, extensive research has also been conducted to investigate the role of the relationship satisfaction and its contributions towards infidelity by partners. The findings from existing studies were fairly consistent where dissatisfaction with relationships was found to be the main source of most dissolutions of relationships. Most studies have found that discontent stems from poor communication and lack of understanding between both spouses and romantic partners (Rus & Tiemensma, 2017; Sosik & Bazarova, 2014; Wilkerson, 2017). Without addressing this phenomenon, the relationship becomes further strained by frustrations that may grow as a response, bring about the possibility of introducing problems from a past relationship or relationship transgressions, such as disputes or accusation of disloyal actions (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017).

Using the concept of Steve Duck (1998, 1992), there are four levels of disappointment in which the relationship may either be concurrent or combined: First, the intrapsychic phase is the process of "involving a person brooding over the discontentment of the relationship from his or her viewpoint"; second, the dyadic phase occurs when the couple is "confronted with disappointment felt by both partners in such a way that the dyad wants to address and assess it"; third, the social phase involving social networks where "all those whose lives intertwine with the couple or with one of their members"; and the fourth, is the grave-dressing process, where 'people' need to explain themselves to others and to offer an account of the break-up that puts them in a flattering light to society.” (“Relationship Dissolution,” n.d.). Many partners encounter disappointments during the lifespan of their relationship and attempt to cope in various ways. For example, the majority of partners who feel resentment towards their spouses or romantic partners, often turn to complain or reflecting to relieve the feeling of negativity in the relationship. If fulfilment is still not met, the individual progresses into the second step where he or she “may be determined to leave and proceed to do so, or both may want to give things another shot” (“Relationship Dissolution,” n.d.). The second phase of Duck's model, the social phase, is “the embodiment of this study, which can make or break the relationship because of those involved in the relationship who are not neutral observers, but who tend to comment on the 25

relationship”. According to Duck (1998, 1992), any dyad "needs to exist within such groups and is thus to some extent responsible" for the dissolution or acts of betrayal (“Relationship Dissolution,” n.d.).

According to Blow and Hartnett (2005), “increased unhappiness in the current relationship produces greater likelihood and motivation for participation in infidelity”. These acts of deception may involve allegations or confirmations of a partner's infidelity to communicate with alternate mates via invitations from acquaintances, posting on posts/pictures from others, covert contact, or engaging in cybersex (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). Therefore, the following three hypotheses are proposed on the basis of the aforementioned observations and discussion: H1 - Those with lower levels of relationship satisfaction would engage in social media infidelity-related behaviours.

In order to better understand the satisfaction and how it contributes to the level of fulfilment and contentment experienced by romantic partners, we decided to use the exploration of attachment orientation. Attachment orientation has helped in recognizing and broadening the scope to various forms of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in relationships that have led to the partners’ engagement in behaviours related to disloyal behaviour. It allows for a better understanding as to why some partners ‘do’ what they do and ‘why’ they do it. A variety of research has been carried out and identified that characteristics of attachment orientation have been known to affect many adult relationships. According to McDaniel, Drouin and Cravens (2017), for partners who exhibit a “stable attachment patterns or persona are confident depending on others and having others depending on them”, and usually “establish close, intimate relationships with their romantic partners”, while those who “exhibit unhealthy attachment behaviours show elevated levels of attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance”.

Thus far, there are two known types of attachments: anxiety attachment and avoidance attachment. Most adult romantic partners fall into either category, and in unusual cases, some individuals may even have characteristics of both types of attachment orientation. The anxious type of attachment is often described as anxious and stressed about their romantic relationships or partners. Manson (2019) described that “they need the partners' deep desire for closeness and 26

continuous reassurance in fear of losing themâ&#x20AC;?. In order to sustain their partnerships, they also rely on relational efforts to attract their spouses together, including engaging in "infidelityrelated behaviours to cause envy, or finding intimacy outside their relationships when their desire is not satisfied, or compensate for the lack in their primary relationships by forming a new relationship in" (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). In a study, Manson (2019) found that women were most likely to be categorised under the attachment anxiety category than men.

Alternatively, the avoiding attachment types often present a persona of separation ambience within their romantic relations. They also retain "an intimate distance from their partners, and are more likely to partake in casual sex where physical and emotional contact is not necessarily intertwined" (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). According to research done by McDaniel, Drouin and Cravens (2017), those with high attachment avoidance characteristics have a high tendency to show lesser commitment to their romantic partners in comparison to those with anxious attachment, and they are predicted to be the most likely to engage in emotional and physical infidelity. Manson (2019) finds that this attachment orientation affects mostly men than women to be evasive types.

Based on this understanding, the second section of the survey attempts to use relevant questions in the form of two subsections to answer this hypothesis. The first subsection aims to address the various degrees of relationship satisfaction of participants that they may encounter within their own relationship, while the second subsection aims to address the different forms of attachment orientation found in relationship partners while putting previous findings to the test.

H2 - The quality of emotional or sexual support received from alternative partners outweighs the primary relationship.

Based on the interdependence theory and research done by Drouin (2016), the bulk of the human population either consciously or subconsciously evaluates their partners consistently. Whether the evaluation itself is meant to compare as means of finding a new spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, or simply comparing certain aspects of the relationship, people are still continually assessing their status and positions to that of others. However, these forms of comparison are not limited to romantic partners only, but third-party individuals are also equally prone to mate 27

poaching – a pronounced trend of the intention of poaching away someone from a committed relationship (TED Guest Author, 2014). Therefore, it has become apparent that in order for a partner to decide to leave their original relationship for a new one, there has to be an increment or quality improvement for them to decide to do so.

Rusbult, Martz and Agnew (1998) discovered in their research on the interdependence theory, that “a highly happy and committed relationship allows for partners to devalue possible alternatives, but if happiness or commitment collapses, the individual may proceed to see more benefit in the alternative relationship”. In a situation where contentment with the relationship falters, a romantic partner would need to commit the act of infidelity in order to have the opportunity to evaluate if “the quality of emotional or sexual support received from alternative partners outweighs the primary relationship”. According to Blow and Harnett (2005), there are two commonly known forms of infidelity: emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity. Emotional infidelity is also often referred to as romantic infidelity, which is the act of communicating and socializing with someone else other than one’s partner, through their consistent presence to maintain the feeling of attraction. Sexual infidelity on the other hand, is described as a person’s motivation to seek copulation with one or a number of partners to satisfy their need for sexual intimacy. Yet, there can also be unusual incidents where relationships with an alternative partner combine both emotional and sexual infidelity, which seeks partners' emotional support and sexual gratification. It is important to note that not all circumstances of infidelity are caused by dissatisfaction in a relationship. Some partners who are satisfied in their romantic relationship may still engage in acts of cheating.

Based on this understanding, section three of the survey intends to examine partner’s infidelity behaviours. This portion of the survey is also divided into two subsections. The aim of the first subsection is to evaluate and understand if respondents have committed infidelity and if their partners have done the same as well. The second paragraph is to understand the quality alternative partners and how partners perceive their quality in comparison to that of their primary partner.

28

H3 - Social media usage mediates opportunities to encounter alternative partners for infidelity.

Social media has become very heavily intertwined with our everyday lives, and the convenience of social networking platforms has also made any form of infidelity very much available, affordable, and anonymous. According to Perel (2017), technology has “changed the way we date, select a potential partner and evaluate possible alternatives”. One of the main ingredients that have made social media popular is its convenience factor, which has created, established and aided in the maintenance of numerous current and countless new online relationships through methods of sharing images, interest, views and thoughts (Perel, 2017). However, according to Abbasi (2019, these every day “technological intrusions in couple interactions or time spent communicating with others can decrease quality in primary relationships, and paired with social media addiction, it promotes physical and/or emotional infidelity”. Some of the problems romantic relationships face in this digitized century is disloyal partners engaging in covet conversations, emotional communication, online dating, emotional engagement and cybersex online (Abbasi, 2019). Although, research has proven that to some extent “age is a determinant on infidelity via social media, where the older the age group are less likely to use Facebook to seek out alternative relationships”, however “the younger demographic prefers to take their chances and share more openly” (Abbasi, 2019). Additionally, McDaniel, Drouin and Cravens (2017) found that greater infidelity-related behaviour on “social media has been significantly associated with lower relationship satisfaction and greater ambivalence, as well as greater attachment and anxiety among both men and women”.

Based on this information, section four of the survey seeks to understand if social media does indeed mediate opportunities for partners to be disloyal and if social media is a breeding ground for cheaters. The items in this section seek to gather information on participant’s usage of social media while understanding their intentions with the online realm. The main objective is for participants to reflect on their time spent online and to also link their use to aspects of infidelity.

29

3.2 Research Methods 3.2.1. Data Collection Bhandari (2020), describes data collection as the method of "gathering observations or measurements to obtain first-hand information and insight into the research question". In order to answer the suggested research problem, a systematic approach was used to gather data from participants. An online survey was conducted to compile the data needed for this study. A total of one-hundred and four participants were recruited online using Qualtrics, a software specifically designed for data collection, distribution and analysis. The benefit of using surveys is that it provides the research more “understanding of the general characteristics or opinions of a group of people” (Bhandari, 2020). The cumulative sample selection period lasted three weeks, from 19 May 2020 to 9 June 2020.

The quantitative survey was distributed and published on various social networking platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and Tinder. The target group for this analysis was young adults from Malaysia. A total of 318 responses were collected, of which only 104 were fully completed and submitted. The majority of the answers had to be refused because the evidence used in these surveys were incomplete. The data analysis for this study will also be conducted using Qualtrics through its cross-tabulation analysis feature. Graphs and tables will also be used to develop and test the analysis.

3.2.2. The Participant Group and Sampling Criteria According to the University of Virginia, a participant group helps to “describe participants accurately and clearly while identifying specific categories”. A group of participants was used as the main research method in this study to obtain as much information as possible from the respondents. There were three main criteria that participants needed to meet in order to qualify for participation. Since the scope of the study was standardized to explain the various degrees of satisfaction in an intimate relationship and its connection to infidelity online, the first requirement to be chosen as a survey participant is to fall into one of these three categories: 1) An individual who is currently in a relationship, or 2) An individual who is married or 3) An individual who was in a committed relationship that ended no longer than six months ago. Guest, Namey and McKenna (2016) found that "a sample size of two to three groups is likely to capture 30

at least 80 per cent of themes of the subject." Furthermore, the aim of conducting the study was to target as many survey respondents as possible, while at the same time obtaining a better insight into their thoughts and perceptions about their own romantic relationships and attitudes towards social media infidelity.

The second demographic requirement for the participants of the survey participants was to be between the age range of 20 to 29 years. To ensure that formidable data was obtained from the participant classes, this age criterion was focused on Malaysia's use of social media, which ranks the highest among young adults aged 24 to 39. According to Abbasi (2019), there is a "strong association between social-networking site addiction, social media infidelity behaviour and age" where younger people "are more likely to take risks and communicate more openly via online than face-to-face interaction." In 2014, Lenhart and Duggan (2014), found that â&#x20AC;&#x153;42% of Americans aged 18 to 29 years indicated conflict in their relationship due to social media, while 25% of couples admitted that their partner has been distracted by their mobile phone when they spent time togetherâ&#x20AC;?. Applying this as a notable reason for social media habits linked to infidelity-related behaviours, the age established for the participant group needed to be as such.

The third eligibility criterion for the participant group was the duration of their current or previous relationship status, and ideally someone who has witnessed personal infidelity. A series of demographic questions were prepared in advance so that some guidance was given to the participants regarding the survey subject and questions. The following questions allowed each participant group to focus on their own personal relationships as well as evaluate their levels of satisfaction within the relationship while correlating it with their involvement or nonengagement in infidelity. Once the results were received, the information was collected for data and analysis. All the identities of participants were kept anonymous.

Preparations were made to disseminate surveys once the selection requirements had been defined and the permission for ethics had been given. Call for participants were planned by methods of social media posts on Facebook and Instagram that specifically articulated inclusion requirements, study goals, researcher contact information and a clear description of the type of participant groups needed for the study. A variety of key opinion leaders and social 31

media influencers have been approached to respond and support the online survey on their online platforms as well.

3.2.3. Measures and Questionnaire Design Four sections were included in the research questionnaire. The first section consisted of demographic survey questions such as age, gender, relationship status and duration of the relationship. The purpose of this demographic information was to collect information on the participants’ dating history. According to Allen (2017the reason for demographic questions in a survey is to "allow researchers to gain background information about their participants, which can provide more context for the survey data collected while allowing researchers to better describe their participants and interpret their data better".

Section two consists of two sub-sections regarding relationship satisfaction that analyses the different levels of satisfaction in participants’ relationship and what they think and feel about their prior or current relationship. The questions are on a rating scale. In the first subsection, participants completed the Couples Satisfaction Index (CSI) (Funk & Rogge, 2007) to measure their relationship satisfaction. For inclusivity across marital status, the words “spouse”, “girlfriend” and “boyfriend” to “partner” and from “marriage”, “current relationship” or “previous relationship” to “relationship”. The scale included 6-items that included questions such as (i.e. “How rewarding is your relationship with your partner”) with a 5-point rating scale (1 = not at all, 5 = completely). The second subsection is to measure adult romantic attachment, where participants completed the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale-Short Form (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007). The ECR-S has been slightly modified to ask participants to rate four statements on a rating scale (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree) concerning how they feel in their own personal romantic relationships. Two statements measured attachment anxiety (i.e. “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner”) and two statements measured attachment avoidance (i.e. “I am nervous when partners get too close to me”).

Section three also consisted of two subsections regarding infidelity behaviours. The first subsection is in “yes or no” scale points, while the second sub-section is a 5-point Likert scale (1 = a great deal, 5 = none at all). This instrument includes statements to assess infidelity within the 32

relationship. The scale includes an emotional and physical infidelity subscale (Pereira, Taysi, Orcan, & Fincham, 2013). Participants were informed to think about their perception and stance on the topic of infidelity, and if they were attracted to someone else besides their partner.

Questions included were “ (i.e. “ I have engaged in romantic or sexual infidelity”), they were also asked about their level of attraction (e.g., How attractive did your alternative partner(s)?); intimacy (i.e. “How emotionally and/or physically intimate were you with this person?”) and their thoughts about dissolving their primary relationship (i.e. “If I weren’t dating my partner, I would do fine – I would simply find another person/alternative partner”).

Section four, the last section of the survey, consisted of four statements regarding infidelityrelated behaviours on social networking platforms, which contains items such as (i.e. “I used a fake account or a different account to interact and attract romantic partners”), using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Drawing inspiration from the Social Media Infidelity-Related Behaviour (SMIRB) scale from McDaniel, Drouin, and Cravens, (2017) and the Investment Model Scale (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), the questions were aimed to identify the types of behaviours in which those who are unfaithful might engage in.

3.2.4. Ethical Consideration An ethical consideration is described as "the way individuals are affected" by something, in this survey, however, the subject is considered to be slightly sensitive due to its nature of "an accumulation of values and principles that address questions of what is good or bad in human affairs" ("What are ethical considerations?", 2010). According to the Australian Law Reform Commission (2010), ethical considerations help to find "reasons to act or refrain from acting; to approve or not approve behaviour; to believe or deny anything about virtuous or vicious conduct or good or evil rules." No matter the purpose of a survey, the researcher has to consider these five ethical principles, which include: “informed consent, voluntary participation, no harm, confidentiality and anonymity” ("Ethical Considerations," 2010). During the ethical approval process of this research it was understood that because the questions in the survey addresses topics of people’s infidelity engagement while still in romantic relationships, it can be of low risk knowingly that infidelity can also be a controversial issue for much of society. However, it was assured to all participants that all information provided in the online survey would not violate 33

their rights, nor would it give the participants any discomfort, and if it did, the participant could choose not to continue participating in the survey.

In addition, an explanatory statement was also presented at the beginning of the survey which explained the content of the research and the details of the relationship to be discussed within the survey which may be sensitive to some participants. The respondents were warned that their participation was implied consent, and were given the choice to leave the survey as they feel necessary. The participants were also given the researcher 's information should any problems arise. In the explanatory statement it declares all the essential statements and policies such as; research information, potential risks, confidentiality and data storage. The online survey required no personal details, only specifically the characteristics of their romantic relationships with their partners. Also, participants' 'anonymity' was thoroughly clarified in all forms as well.

34

CHAPTER 4: RESULT ANALYSIS The results of the quantitative analysis are reported in this chapter. Among other things, it will explain gender profiles’ and measure the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. In addition to that, results from the analysis will also help in the testing of the hypothesis. The data for this study were analysed using Qualtrics and its cross-tabulation feature.

4.1 Sample Profile The survey results from the 104 respondents showed the gender distribution of those who participated were 68 responses from women, whereas the remainder were from 35 male and 2 non-binaries. The mean age of females was 22.68 years old (SD = 2.68), the mean age of males was 25.17 (SD = 2.35), and the mean age of non-binaries was 23.50 (SD = 3.50) respectively.

Additionally, the age group with the largest rate of participation was age 20 with 26 respondents, and the age group with the lowest rate of participation was age 28 with 3 respondents. Of the 104 respondents, 62 (59.62%) are currently in a relationship, while 42 (40.38%) are not currently in a relationship. Additionally, among the four relationship duration options, 39 (37.50%) respondents were “more than 2 years” in a relationship, “1 to 2 years” had 31 (29.81%) respondents, “more than 6 months” had 18 (17. 31%) respondents, and “less than 6 months” had 16 (15.38%) respondents. Based on the results, on an average of 2.89 years (SD = 1.07), respondents that had been in a relationship with their current or previous partners. An analysis of respondents and their demographic statistics with respect to gender, age, relationship status and relationship duration, shows a significant majority of the participants are in a stable relationship fit for a rich data set.

4.2 Data Results 4.2.1. Measure of satisfaction in relationships As explained in the questionnaire design section, the first portion of the survey focuses on the participants’ perceptions about the satisfaction levels and investments made into their relationship. To understand the relevance of relationship satisfaction within an ongoing or prior relationship, a total of six items from the Couples Satisfaction Index (2007) was used to analyse this section of the survey. The samples showed most of the respondents were ‘somewhat’ or ‘almost completely’ satisfied with their relationship, with 50% of participants indicating they 35

were satisfied, and 20% indicating they were dissatisfied, while 30% were neutral towards their current or prior relationship. However, only 47% of respondents found their relationship with their partner rewarding and 23% did not, an average 3.39 felt that their partners did not meet their needs. Of the people who were satisfied with their relationship, 62% (SD = 1.03) have invested (i.e. time, effort and energy) into their relationship, while 25% of the respondents did not and 14% remained neutral. Additionally, the results also found that 51 respondents have had many aspects of their life linked to their current or former partner, while 26 did not and 27 remained neutral.

The second subsection of the relationship satisfaction section measured participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; adult attachment styles by completing the Experiences in Close Relation Scale-Short Form (ECR-S; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007). The data was analysed using a total of four items, of which two items reflected concern over-attachment anxiety and two items reflecting attachment avoidance. Given the survey had more female participants than males, it comes as no surprise that the results of the attachment styles leaned more towards attachment anxiety.

According to Manson (2019), women are "more likely to be more anxious than men", and one of the obvious signs of anxious attachment is their intense desire for reassurance and love. Thus, the survey indicated 91.30% of female participants and 8.70% males firmly decided that "I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner." Therefore, the analysis suggests that varying levels of satisfaction do not have a strong correlation towards attachment anxiety or avoidance.

4.2.2. Infidelity Behaviours and Alternative Partners The second part of the survey is divided into two subsections, the first subsection is focused on the engagement of the participants in infidelity, while the second is about determining the quality of an alternative partner. To better explain the results, the results were interpreted using the mental and physical infidelity subscale (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Based on the findings of all 104 participants, 56 respondents were involved in romantic infidelity, of which 34 were female respondents, 20 were male respondents and 2 were non-binary respondents. The results also show that 34 respondents had engaged in sexual infidelity, 16 of whom were female respondents, 17 were male respondents, and 1 was non-binary. From this statistic, it can be concluded that women are more likely to engage in romantic infidelity whereas in sexual 36

infidelity there is little to no gender difference. In order to achieve an even wider view of infidelity, it is found that 63% of female and 33% of male respondents had a partner engaged in romantic infidelity, while 55% of female and 42% of male respondents had a partner engaged in sexual infidelity. With regards to being aware of the indiscretions of one of the partners, 44 respondents believe that their partner is engaging in romantic infidelity, while 27 respondents believe that their partner is engaged in sexual infidelity.

The second subsection is intended to determine the characteristics of the ideal quality of an alternative partner for partners and their expectations for their extradyadic behaviour. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that people continue to rely on physical attractiveness for real-life dating and marriage choices. In accordance to Fugère (2017), "attraction appears to be a more important consideration in relationship choices than attributes such as temperament, schooling and intellect, since often people equate physical beauty with certain desirable characteristics with an appealing appearance." The findings indicate that 76% (SD = 1.24) of the respondents had an alternate companion that they considered to be desirable, and 65% of the respondents (SD = 1.29) thought that their desires for affection and companionship had been fulfilled.

Furthermore, the sample shows 69% of participants were emotionally intimate with their alternative partner, while 68% were sexually intimate. Moreover, insightful evidence suggests that only 59% of the respondents responded that if they weren't in their current or previous partnership, they would be better served to find someone else more attractive. Based on these results, it can be observed that, while dating couples are engaging in infidelity, they are clearly not content with their substitute partner because they are unable to satisfy their emotional and/or physical needs.

4.2.3. Mediation and Facilitation of Social Media Participants had been asked to describe their use of social media for infidelity in the last section of the survey. Some of the items included stem from the Investment Model Scale (1998), where a total of four items were specifically chosen to ask about the social media habits of the participants. 41% of the 104 participants (SD = 1.50; mean = 3.05) used social networking sites to attract and interact online with romantic interests, while 41% participants out of the 104 participants (SD = 1.63; mean = 2.99) also used social networking sites to chat and message with 37

romantic interests. However, 88% (92 respondents) do not agree to interact with romantic interests using a fake or different account. The data finds that most of the participants (62%) did not use social networking sites to engage and cultivate romantic online desires.

4.3 Hypothesis Testing H1 - Those with lower levels of relationship satisfaction would engage in social media infidelity-related behaviours.

To evaluate this hypothesis, we divided the testing into three sections. First, we identified the various satisfaction levels within the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; group. Using the statistical results (see Appendix A, Q5, question 6) the participant group can be divided into three categories: satisfied, unsatisfied and neutral, whereby 53% (n = 55) were generally satisfied with their relationship, while 16% (n = 17) were unsatisfied, and 31% (n = 31) were neutral towards their relationship.

Second, we had to understand if lower levels of satisfaction did indeed contribute to infidelity. A cross-tabulation between the two variables: one being the engagement in romantic infidelity and second being the engagement in sexual infidelity, with the question from the survey that asked participants about their perception on the levels of satisfaction within their relationship were analysed with each of the infidelity questions (see Appendix A, Q7, question 1 and 2). To formally test H1, we followed the pattern analysis used in Blow and Hartnett (2005), but the questions were changed to fit the demographic. The chart (Graph 1) below shows that 55% of satisfied respondents had engaged in romantic and sexual infidelity, while 15% of unsatisfied respondents engaged in romantic infidelity and 22% engaged in sexual infidelity, while the neutral group had 31% of respondents that engaged in both romantic and sexual infidelity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which implies strongly that satisfied people are the most likely to commit infidelity amongst the three relationship satisfaction groups.

38

Did Not Engage in Romantic Infidelity

Engaged in Sexual Infidelity

Did Not Engage in Sexual Infidelity

SATISFIED

34% 24%

31%

14%

22%

18%

15%

31%

52%

Engaged in Romantic Infidelity

55%

51%

55%

RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION AND INFIDELITY BEHAVIOURS

UNSATISFIED

NEUTRAL

Graph 1. A cross-tabulation between levels of participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; level of relationship satisfaction and their infidelity behaviour

In the third test, we aimed to examine the survey question about social media IR behaviour with relationship satisfaction levels. To properly assess the relationship of respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; engagement with infidelity via social media, it is necessary to understand their online interaction habits with people whom they are attracted to. A cross-tabulation was done with the three satisfactory levels (i.e. satisfied, unsatisfied, neutral) and the data results from the survey that asked participants about their usage of social networking to interact and attract romantic interests (see Appendix A, Q9, question 1). Based on the results from the strongly agree shown in the chart below (Graph 2), respondents from the satisfied group are strongly supportive (83%) of using social media to search and attract romantic interests online, while the neutral group (17%) was also just as supportive, as also seen in the agree and somewhat agree sections. In contrast, the respondents from the unsatisfied (0%) are the least favourable towards using social media to interact with romantic interests.

39

USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO AT TRACT ROMANTIC INTERESTS Unsatisfied

Neutral

65% 20%

15%

22%

17%

13%

33%

50%

46% 33% 21%

38% 23%

0%

17%

38%

65%

83%

Satisfied

STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

Graph 2

Another test was made to examine the relationship between satisfactory levels and the use of social media for communicating with romantic interests. The question from the survey that asked participants about using their social networking accounts to communicate with romantic interests (see Appendix A, Q9, question 3) was cross-tabulated with the three types of satisfactory levels.

Based on the results in the chart below (Graph 3), respondents from the satisfied group are again seen to be strongly supportive (80%) of using social media to connect with romantic interests, yet 20% of respondents who were unsatisfied remain less likely to agree to use social media to be in contact with romantic interests. The neutral group although does not strongly agree (0%) to the idea of communicating with romantic interests online, they do however agree (35%) and somewhat agree (50%) more favourably than the unsatisfied group.

40

USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO COMMUNICATE WITH ROMANTIC INTERESTS Unsatisfied

Neutral

32%

24% 10%

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

19%

19%

SOMEWHAT AGREE

25%

38%

44%

50% 17%

33%

AGREE

0%

15%

20%

35%

50%

66%

80%

Satisfied

STRONGLY AGREE

DISAGREE

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

Graph 3

Overall, the first graph proved that infidelity does happen at all levels of relationship satisfaction, with more favourable results towards the satisfied group. The second graph showed the satisfied group as more indulgent in activities to attract romantic interests online, with the neutral group following closely behind. The third graph showed similar results as well. Altogether, the result shows that at all three levels of satisfaction there are no exceptions to engaging infidelity by romantic partners. A possibility of the satisfied group of having a higher result in relation to the engagement in infidelity could be because their needs are being met by someone else other than their romantic partner, as opposed to those who were less satisfied that may not necessarily have an alternative person to help meet their needs. Nonetheless, the results show a significant evidence that despite any level of satisfaction within a relationship, romantic partners are capable of committing infidelity.

H2 - The quality of emotional or sexual support received from alternative partners outweighs the primary relationship.

To test prove this hypothesis, a few questions were selected based on their nature towards infidelity and identifying the values of an alternative partner. There are three parts to examining this hypothesis. First, we had to understand the type of support received by an alternative partner, and what was absent or cause for friction from the respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; romantic life. A cross-tabulation was made between those with attachment anxiety and avoidance, and the question from the 41

survey about participants’ emotional and physical intimacy with their alternative partner (see Appendix A, Q8, question 2 and 3). The question had a Likert format of answering, ranging from “a great deal” or “none at all”. From the results of the charts below (Graph 4), for emotional intimacy, majority (47.62%) of the respondents with attachment avoidance received a lot of emotional intimacy, in comparison to those that receive a little (9.52%) and none at all (9.52%).

In contrast, the majority (32.35%) of the respondents with attachment anxiety received a moderate amount of emotional intimacy, as opposed to those that received none at all (11.76%).

For physical intimacy (see Graph 5), majority (52.38%) of the respondents with attachment avoidance received a lot of emotional intimacy, while none at all (9.52%) were the minority.

Comparatively, the majority (35.49%) of the respondents with attachment anxiety received a moderate amount of emotional intimacy, as opposed to those that received a little (8.82%).

Therefore, it implies that respondents who received a lot to a moderate amount of emotional and physical intimacy from their alternative partner, with attachment anxiety having a generally unwavering statistics, and attachment anxiety being more varying in nature. Nonetheless, both received substantial support of emotional and sexual intimacy from their alternative relationships.

EMOTIONAL INTIMACY RECEIVED BY ALTERNATIVE PARTNER A lot

A moderate amount

A little

None at all

ATTACHMENT ANXIETY

9.52

19.05 9.52

11.76

14.29

20.59

20.59

14.71

32.35

47.62

A great deal

ATTACHMENT AVOIDANCE

Graph 4

42

PHYSICAL INTIMACY RECEIVED BY ALTERNATIVE PARTNER A lot

A moderate amount

A little

None at all

ATTACHMENT ANXIETY

9.52

14.29

14.29

9.52

17.65 8.82

11.76

26.47

35.49

52.38

A great deal

ATTACHMENT AVOIDANCE

Graph 5

To determine the question that falls in the quality and value of an alternative partner category, the second test for the hypothesis draws inspiration from Drouin (2016) who hypothesized that “the quality of alternatives is dependent on the investment made in the primary relationship”, where high investment means higher commitment. Hence, a cross-tabulation was conducted by comparing (see Appendix A, Q5, question 4) the investments (i.e. time, effort and energy) made in the primary relationship with (see Appendix A, Q8, question 5) romantic partners’ likelihood of “simply finding another person/alternative partner”. The chart below (Graph 6) found that, majority of respondents who were almost completely invested were also moderately (27.5%) likely to end the ongoing relationship and simply find a new partner. The who were completely invested (25%) were also moderately likely to find a new partner if the relationship ended, while those who were only somewhat invested were the most likely to find a new partner (23.08%) or moderately (23.08%) likely to find a new partner. The results imply that those who are or were completely invested in their ongoing or prior relationship are the most unlikely group of the three to find another partner was the relationship has ended, while those who are least somewhat invested are the most likely to find another partner was the relationship comes to an end.

43

INVESTMENTS IN A RELATIONSHIP VS. SIMPLY FINDING ANOTHER PARTNER A lot

A moderate amount

A little

19.23%

23.08% 15.38%

23.08% 17.50%

4.17%

13%

17%

17.50%

22.50%

25.00%

27.50%

A great deal

COMPLETELY INVESTED

ALMOST COMPLETELY INVESTED

SOMEWHAT INVESTED

Graph 6

Third, in another attempt to determine the quality of an alternative partner, an examination was made in comparison of the primary partner and the alternative partner. The two questions that were cross-tabulated are; “how has your needs for intimacy, companionship, etc. been fulfilled by your alternative partner” and “how well does your primary partner meet your needs”. Based on the results (Table 1), the highest percentage is 57.17% of romantic partners had their needs almost completely met by their ongoing relationship partners, and a lot of their needs met by an alternative partner. 42% of respondents from the participant group have their needs almost completely met by their primary partner and a great deal of their needs met by an alternative partner. Comparatively, those who had 0% of their needs completely met by their partner also received only a little care from their alternative partners, while those who received somewhat (50%) of their needs taken care of, they also received a little of their needs compensated by an alternative partner.

44

How has your needs for intimacy, companionship , etc. been fulfilled by an alternative partner?

A great deal A lot A moderate amount A little None at all Total

How well does your partner meet your needs?

Almost None at A little Somewhat Completely completely all 1 2 5 4 0 8.33% 16.67% 41.67% 33.33% 0% 0 6 12 4 1 0% 26.09% 57.17% 17.39% 4.35% 7 21.21%

10 30.30%

9 27.27%

5 15.15%

2 6.06%

4 28.57% 6 27.27% 18

7 3 50% 21.43% 6 6 27.27% 27.27% 31 35 Table 1

0 0% 3 13.64% 16

0 0% 1 4.55% 4

Total 12 23 33 14 22 104

In the first test, the graph 4 and graph 5 proved that those with a lot of attachment avoidance are most likely to engage in both romantic and sexual infidelity. As previously mentioned, individuals with high avoidance like to “express less commitment to their romantic partners” and “keep and emotional distance” (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017), there it is no surprise that the infidelity levels were higher in this attachment orientation group. The second test also proved that those who were completely invested in their relationship are less likely to go out looking for another partner, while those who were least invested had no trouble looking for a replacement.

Proving that “more investment equals to higher commitment” (Dr. Michelle Drouin, 2016). The final test provided further proof that whatever that cannot be obtained from the primary relationship can be replaced or substituted within the alternative relationship. For example, if the romantic partner was only almost completely satisfied, he or she would mostly have their needs met a lot in the alternative relationship. This implies that the lack of needs by majority of the respondents were found within romantic interests.

H3 - Social media usage mediates opportunities to encounter alternative partners for infidelity.

In order to assess this hypothesis, we refer directly to the social media section of the survey (see Appendix A, question Q9). A major part of the current findings suggests that "the internet has made sex and affairs accessible, affordable and anonymous" (Perel, 2017). It has also "provided 45

ample opportunities to cheat through social media apps via text messaging" (Dr. Michelle Drouin, 2016), and such social media applications acts as "a vehicle for communicating with alternative partners through friend requests, commenting on posts or pictures of others, and having covert communication" (McDaniel, Drouin, & Cravens, 2017). While this may be accurate, H3 is aimed at identifying the resources available online that allows romantic partners to find someone other than one's partner for infidelity. The findings from the survey indicate that previous research, when compared to the Malaysian population, may only be half accurate.

Only 38% (SD = 1.58; mean = 2.69) of the 104 respondents admitted to using social networking sites for infidelity because they are available, affordable and anonymous, compared to 63% (n = 65) of those who disagreed to using social media because it was convenient. Additionally, only 12% of respondents resorted to using a fake account or a different account to interact with romantic interest, while 88% (n = 92) of the results stated that did not rely on the use of fake account or a different account to attract their romantic interests. Alternatively, only 41% (n = 43) of the 104 participants (SD = 1.50; mean = 3.05) agreed to using social media to draw and engage with romantic interests online, and 41% (n = 43) of the 104 participants (SD = 1.63; mean = 2.99) have also used social networking sites to connect and communicate with romantic interests. According to Brody, LeFebvre and Blackburn (2016), the discrepant difference in survey results could may be due to the “passive use of social information within the web is a strong predictor of relational closeness as a form of direct communication”.

Overall, the result rules unfavourable to the hypothesis of social media mediating opportunities for infidelity. Based on McDaniel, Drouin, and Cravens (2017) study, there are a few explanations for the low percentage that may have attributed to the results, which included "few married or cohabiting individuals engage in online infidelity-related behaviours”, participants’ reluctance to provide participation, or the components of infidelity are not connected to social media use. However, two possible implications are discovered based on the results of this survey. First, although social media provides the convenience and a ripe interactive function to commit infidelity, respondents may choose not to engage in promiscuous behaviours online because working environments serve as a better host for potential partners. Blow and Harnett (2005) measured that "workplace opportunity could be a major contributor to the likelihood of 46

infidelity" because "individuals often spend a lot of time with others" who have the potential to become romantic interests due to proximity and convenience (Blow & Hartnett, 2005). Instead of finding love interests online, respondents could have already found and met their romantic interests, and preferred to use social networking sites as a strategy to attract and/or build a relationship. In addition, Brody, LeFebvre, and Blackburn (2016) also found that "online behaviours have the opportunity to happen at multiple stages of the relationship". Therefore, giving reason for a higher statistical result on the use of social media sites for chatting and interacting with romantic interests (see Appendix A, Q9, question 2 and 3). Second, respondents have disagreed consequently with using a fake account or another profile to communicate with romantic interests because, as mentioned earlier, respondents might already have fulfilled their romantic interests and may not need a fake account. Moreover, most internet users have the option of "co-building their own environment" where each person can "develop their own identity by their appearance, credibility, relationships, communities and interactions" on social media through the degree of their disclosure (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction,â&#x20AC;? 2018).

Given the demographic drawback of utilizing social media as a way of promoting and sustaining their discrepancy in relationships, a significant percentage (38%) of respondents (n = 39) prefer to rely on social media usage because it is a better alternative, whereas 12% prefer to use a false or separate account. According to Perel (2017), they may prefer this option because it allows users to "never meet each other until both parties have confirmed their interest in removing anxieties."

47

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION This chapter will address the research question, present correlations between the summary of the previous chapters and the data results, as well as the limitations of this study and future research recommendations on this research topic.

5.1 Discussion This study demonstrates that social media and to a lesser extent relationship satisfaction facilitates the engagement of infidelity among Malaysian young adults. In our sample as mentioned in H1, a large percentage of partners reported to be satisfied with their relationship, and only a small percentage admitted they were unsatisfied. Although, 55% indicated that they had indeed engaged in romantic and sexual infidelity respectively, more than 70% of the participants from the satisfied and neutral groups stated they had: shared intimate information with others online, chatted with romantic interests, and engaged in covert behaviours online and offline. These results suggest that many romantic couples/married individuals have engaged in infidelity-related behaviours online and/or offline, despite their levels of satisfaction within their relationships. As research has shown that “dissatisfaction in primary relationships increases the desire for infidelity” (Blow & Hartnett, 2005), and “discrepant relationships are not significantly associated with being open to either an emotional or sexual relationship with someone else” (Weiser, Hilliard, & Knox, 2018). These prevalence statistics were somewhat surprising as presumably dissatisfaction was the source of infidelity behaviours. However, regardless of the correlation between satisfactory levels and disloyalty, research has found that infidelity doesn’t necessarily signal an unhappy relationship (Perel, 2017) and having a back burner – a person an individual is romantically and/sexually involved with but are not in a current relationship with, but contact is maintained with the thought there might be some future connection, is “unrelated to commitment or investment in a current partner” (Dr. Michelle Drouin, 2016; Rus & Tiemensma, 2017). There are a few potential explanations for these findings.

First, our analyses have found that romantic couples/married individuals who were satisfied in their relationship were more likely to engage in infidelity-related social media behaviours than any other satisfactory group. The aim of this study initially was to examine the relationship between relationship dissatisfaction as a predictor of infidelity-related behaviours, with the 48

assumption that dissatisfied partners were the most likely to engage in infidelity. The results however have proven otherwise, as the satisfied group remains the most likely to engage in the attraction and interaction with romantic interests online. With consideration for McDaniel, Drouin, and Cravens (2017) research, we suggest that this relationship is likely bi-directional: those who are in satisfied relationships likely seek out these types of online interactions with others, and the interactions, in turn, creates for higher levels of satisfaction. These interactions allow for the partners’ needs to be continuously met while keeping satisfactory levels optimal.

Second, previous research has shown both attachment anxiety and avoidance were positively related to social media infidelity-related behaviours, only attachment avoidance emerged as a surprising predictor once other variables (i.e. relationship satisfaction and gender) were controlled. The findings align with McDaniel, Drouin, and Cravens (2017), who found that partners, attachment avoidance but not attachment anxious, will have less commitment towards their partner and maintain an emotional distance, predicting infidelity. Their research also finds that partners, with attachment anxiety not attachment avoidance, who engaged in infidelity behaviours predicted “hyperactivating strategies or behavioural attempts” to draw their romantic partners closer by inciting jealousy through disloyal behaviour (McDaniel, Drouin & Cravens, 2017). The majority of participants in our sample are women, and the data results find that the attachment orientation of participants are attachment anxiety, proving that Manson (2019) research of “women being more likely than men to be anxious” accurate, and giving rise to the reason why our sample group has engaged infidelity despite being happy with their partners.

Third, most of these previous studies on the investment model scale and relationship commitment predicted that highly committed individuals are more likely to contemplate the expected outcome of their actions and consider the possible ramifications of infidelity for themselves, the relationship, and their partner (Drigotas, Safstrom, & Gentilia, 1999). Based on our analyses, we realise that our sample matched half of Rusbult, Martz and Agnew (1998) findings: partners who were completely invested in their ongoing or prior relationship were very unlikely to find someone else once the relationship ended, and those who were least invested were most likely to find someone else as soon as the relationship has ended, yet these partners who were completely or incompletely invested still maintained a relationship with a romantic 49

interest outside their primary relationship. According to Drouin (2016), everyone is constantly evaluating the quality of their relationship, an alternative partner or the investments they have made. The difference is that “highly satisfied and committed relationships devalue potential alternatives” (Dr. Michelle Drouin, 2016), but less satisfied and committed partners or investments alter, they will see more quality in other relationships. Furthermore, individuals may choose to remain in discrepant relationships because the “outcome for doing so may be greater than their alternative relationships” (Weiser, Hilliard, & Knox, 2018). Further proving that satisfaction does not necessarily play a role in a successful relationship.

Finally, many existing studies have focused mainly on the association of social media and the escalation and de-escalation of romantic relationships, while few studies have examined the specific social networking behaviours that may be problematic in romantic relationships.

Therefore, we examined whether the prevalence of social media facilitates the engagement in infidelity. In our sample, we found that only a small percentage of partners reported using social media as a medium for infidelity behaviours, and fewer than 12% of partners stated they had used a fake or different account to send messages or chat with romantic interests. As previously mentioned, social media permits the creation of an identity different from one’s true self, allowing the user to create a difference presence or persona for their romantic partners (Sosik & Bazarova, 2014). Therefore, it has become apparent that partners do not rely on these flirtatious tactics to converse with romantic interest. The findings however align with the idea that instead, partners rely on social media as means to maintain the relationship with their romantic interests.

Our analyses showed that high a large percentage of partners’ social media usage was on interacting and chatting with romantic interests. Hence, we can conclude that social media does facilitate, and not mediate, the engagement of infidelity without relevance to relationship satisfaction.

5.2 Limitation and Future Research Suggestions As in the case with any research project, this research has limitations that restricted its generalizability. The first limitation of this study is that the responses collected do not indicate a representative sample for the entire population of Malaysian young adults. This is because the sample size of the research was low. Although the aim was to get a heterogenous sample, time 50

constrains and the sensitivity of the subject led to the distribution of surveys using the snowballing method. Secondly, there was difficulty in recruiting respondents who identified with the research question. The age group, relationship status and duration of relationship was too narrow and a selection of a broader demographic group could have resulted into a better analysis for this research. Thirdly, the gender gap obtained was too biased and did not represent a healthy sample of all genders. The collection of equal participants for each gender groups could have resulted into an even better analysis for this research. Fourthly, despite the proper measures taken to assure each participant, including presenting the explanatory statement at the beginning of the survey and promising anonymity, many of the participants that were recruited did not fully complete the survey, resulting in their data to be excluded. This could be due to their reluctance in discussing their relationship status and/or infidelity behaviours. It could also be due to their fear of social stigmas and discrimination from society. Finally, the online survey was only distributed in English, since the study was conducted in Malaysia, had the survey been translated into Mandarin and/or Malay a better diversification in responses would have been achieved.

The study provides numerous opportunities for future research in the field of relationships and communication. In future research, more research can be done to investigate romantic relationships’ lifespan and relational outcomes in online contexts, or social media’s influence to post-breakup adjustment in Malaysia. It would be interesting to examine how our demographics section, such as age, length of relationship, and proximity to partner, would correlate with better understanding of romantic relationships. Intuitively, we have a sense that such findings would have an influence on one’s comprehension about the relationships between other people and the digital world, and thus it would be interesting to test these intuitions with empirical data.

5.3 Conclusion The subject of “infidelity” never seems to escape romantic relationships. Romance novels and Hollywood movies have revel in its enticing and teeth-clenching dramas, but little investigation has been made towards the “why” and “how” it contributes to the betterment or worsening of the primary relationship, or if it has made partners to be better lovers. This research was developed to examine and understand infidelity as part of a practice and process found in many romantic relationships. Currently, the phenomenon of romance in the online world, combined with the role 51

social media plays in modern day romance has been a topic of interest as a potential source of relationship initiation, maintenance and dissolution, yet not much research has been contributed towards this topic in Malaysia. Furthermore, infidelity is seen as a taboo in many parts of the Asian culture. Hence, the aim of this research was to fill in the research gap and create an opportunity to have open discussion while shedding light on the topic for many Malaysians. The research analysis and discussion helped identify various reasons why and how partners commit infidelity, and its interplay between partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; satisfactory levels and attachment orientation. The study also allowed participants to reflect on their own relationships, while providing them with insight and opportunities to query their partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; loyalty and commitment. Finally, when compared to similar research done by McDaniel, Drouin and Cravens (2017), this study showed varying differences between Western and Asian approaches to dating and romance. Thus, proving that this research has provided new insight on the Malaysian dating culture and how they respond and use social media for infidelity. By determining these factors that motivates partners to endorse cheating behaviours, we can better understand the reasons behind the engagement of disloyal behaviours to undermine these practices and safeguard romantic relationships and our loved ones.

52

REFERENCES Abbasi, I. S. (2019). Social media addiction in romantic relationships: Does user’s age influence vulnerability to social media infidelity? Personality and Individual Differences, 139(2), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.038 Allen, M. (Ed.). (2017). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (4th ed., Vol. 1). Sage Publications, Inc. Bhandari, P. (2020, June 5). Data Collection | A Step-by-Step Guide with Methods and Examples. Retrieved from Scribbr website: https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/datacollection/ Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). INFIDELITY IN COMMITTED RELATI0NSHIPS II: A SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01556.x Brody, N., LeFebvre, L. E., & Blackburn, K. G. (2016). Social Networking Site Behaviors Across the Relational Lifespan: Measurement and Association With Relationship Escalation and De-escalation. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 205630511668000. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116680004 Dr. Michelle Drouin. (2016). Online love & infidelity. We’re in the game, what are the rules?

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQGjAp4GXU4 Dr. Rachna Jain. (2010, June 30). 4 Ways Social Media Is Changing Your Relationships.

Retrieved from Social Media Marketing | Social Media Examiner website: https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/4-ways-social-media-is-changing-yourrelationships/ Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An investment model prediction of dating infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.509 Effect of Social Media on Relationship Satisfaction. (2018, April 9). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from UKEssays.com website: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/effectsocial-media-relationship-7586.php?vref=1 Ethical Considerations. (2010). Retrieved from My-Peer Toolkit website: http://mypeer.org.au/monitoring-evaluation/ethical-considerations/ 53

Fugère, M. A. (2017, January 5). Why Physical Attraction Matters, and When It Might Not. Retrieved from Psychology Today website: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dating-and-mating/201701/why-physicalattraction-matters-and-when-it-might-not Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/08933200.21.4.572 Gibson, J. (2015). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8BSLBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP 1&ots=zOCaaKtk2r&sig=VPye7v80GeSW0N8uEgeVY_7Vxok&redir_esc=y#v=onepag e&q&f=false (Original work published 1986) Gottman, J. M. (2014). hat Predicts Divorce? : The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=1645357 (Original work published 1994) Grohol, J. M. (2018, July 8). How Common is Cheating & Infidelity Really? Retrieved from Psych Central website: https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-common-is-cheatinginfidelity-really/ Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2016). How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field Methods, 29(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x16639015 Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (2004). The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 236–241). Retrieved from https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qsl4AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA2 35&dq=definition+of+relationship+satisfaction&ots=Ut7tBrZ6GC&sig=eFv9XDkMZ9Z eCRzSYb2yFjdDZGI#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20relationship%20satisfaction& f=false High Expectation and Relationship Satisfaction. (2016, May 29). Retrieved from Family On Point website: https://familyonpoint.info/post-title/

54

Hopkins, J. (2016). The Concept of Affordances in Digital Media. Handbuch Soziale Praktiken Und Digitale Alltagswelten, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08460-8_67-1 Hopper, E. (Ed.). (2020, February 24). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Explained. Retrieved from ThoughtCo website: https://www.thoughtco.com/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4582571 Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, Texts and Affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0038038501000219 Interdependence Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved May 11, 2020, from www.alleydog.com website: https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/cite-my-term.php?term=Interdependence+Theory Keizer, R. (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Volume 3, D-E (A. C. Michalos, Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.

Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014, February 11). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media.

Retrieved from Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech website: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/ Manson, M. (2019, August 23). Attachment Theory. Retrieved from Mark Manson website: https://markmanson.net/attachment-theory McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. D. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelityrelated behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.031 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Dissatisfied. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissatisfied Miller, J., & Tedder, B. (2011). The Discrepancy Between Expectations and Reality: Satisfaction in Romantic Relationships (Thesis). Retrieved from https://psych.hanover.edu/research/Thesis12/papers/Millar%20Teddar%20Final%20Pape r.pdf Pereira, M. G., Taysi, E., Orcan, F., & Fincham, F. (2013). Attachment, Infidelity, and Loneliness in College Students Involved in a Romantic Relationship: The Role of Relationship Satisfaction, Morbidity, and Prayer for Partner. Contemporary Family Therapy, 36(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-013-9289-8

55

Perel, E. (2017, March 23). How technology has transformed how we connect — and reject — in the digital age. Retrieved from ideas.ted.com website: https://ideas.ted.com/how-techhas-transformed-how-we-connect-and-reject-in-the-digital-age/ Relationship Dissolution. (n.d.). Retrieved June 9, 2020, from Encyclopedia.com website: https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-andmaps/relationship-dissolution Research Guides: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Theoretical Framework.

(2019, May 9). Retrieved from USC Libraries website: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework Rus, H. M., & Tiemensma, J. (2017). “It’s complicated.” A systematic review of associations between social network site use and romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.004 Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An Interdependence Analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202 Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1998.tb00177.x Silva, C. (2018, February 6). Social Media’s Impact On Relationships And Self-Esteem.

Retrieved from Thriveglobal.com website: https://thriveglobal.com/stories/social-medias-impact-on-self-esteem/ Sosik, V. S., & Bazarova, N. N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior, 35(35), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.044 Stieg, C. (2017, March 16). How Common Is Cheating, Really? Retrieved from www.refinery29.com website: https://www.refinery29.com/enus/2017/03/145438/cheating-in-a-relationship-emotional-infidelity-statistics Sulungbudi, M. (2017). The Effects of Supplier Development, Relationship Variables and Market Orientation on Performance Improvement in the Indonesian Automotive Industry (Thesis;

56

pp. 1–330). Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1301&context=theses1 TED Guest Author. (2014, January 23). 10 facts about infidelity. Retrieved from ideas.ted.com website: https://ideas.ted.com/10-facts-about-infidelity-helen-fisher/ University of Virginia. (n.d.). Participant Groups. Retrieved from research.virginia.edu website: https://research.virginia.edu/irb-sbs/participant-groups Van Lange, P. A. M., & Balliet, D. (2014). Interdependence Theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 3, 251–272. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201022.n39 Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2008). Why We Need Interdependence Theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 2049–2070. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17519004.2008.00147.x Van Lange, P., & Vuolevi, J. (2010). Interdependence Theory. Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 463–465. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412972017.n140 Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041 Weiser, D., Hilliard, T., & Knox, D. (2018). “I thought you loved me too?”: Outcomes of discrepant involvement in romantic relationships. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 12(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v12i2.313 What are ethical considerations? (2010, July 23). Retrieved from Australian Law Reform Commission website: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-theprotection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/06-ethicalconsiderations/what-are-ethicalconsiderations/#:~:text=Ethics%20searches%20for%20reasons%20for Wilkerson, K. (2017). Social Networking Sites and Romantic Relationships: Effects on Development, Maintenance, and Dissolution of Relationships. Inquiries Journal, 9(3).

Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1576/social-networking-sitesand-romantic-relationships-effects-on-development-maintenance-and-dissolution-ofrelationships 57

APPENDICES Appendix A – Survey Questions

Start of Block: Demographics

Q1 Your gender:

▢ ▢ ▢

Male Female Non-binary / gender diverse

Q2 What is your age? ________________________________________________________________

Q3 Are you currently in a romantic relationship?

o Yes, I am. o No, I am not

58

Q4 What is/was the duration of your current or former relationship?

o None of the above. o less than 6 months o more than 6 months o 1 - 2 years o more than 2 years End of Block: Demographics Start of Block: Relationship Satisfaction

H1 The following questions ask about characteristics of your current or former romantic relationship. Please respond to each question using the scale below (for each question, select the

59

options that best reflects your response). Please answer openly and honestly, there are no right or wrong answers.

Q5 How well do the following statements describe satisfaction in your current or former relationship?

60

Not at all

A little

Somewhat

Almost completely

Completely

How rewarding is your relationship with your partner?

o

o

o

o

o

How well does your partner meet your needs?

o

o

o

o

o

To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?

o

o

o

o

o

How much have you invested (time, effort, and energy) into your relationship that you might lose if you ended the relationship?

o

o

o

o

o

How many aspects of your life have become linked to your current or former partner?

o

o

o

o

o

In general, how satisfied are you with your relationship?

o

o

o

o

o

61

Q6 The following statements are concerning about how you feel in your current or former relationships.

Strongly agree

Agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I get frustrated if my romantic partner is not available when I need them.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I am nervous when partners get too close to me.

o

o

o

o

o

o

Disagree

Strongly disagree

End of Block: Relationship Satisfaction Start of Block: Infidelity Behaviours

H2 The following questions ask about your characteristics of engaging in infidelity. Please respond to each question using the scale below (for each question, select the options that best reflects your response). Please answer openly and honestly, there are no right or wrong answers.

Q7 How well do the following statements describe your engagement in emotional and/or sexual infidelity during the course of your current or former romantic relationship?

62

Emotional infidelity is a non-sexual, emotional connection with someone that you keep a secret from your romantic partner.

Sexual infidelity is a sexual connection in an intimately physical and sexual manner that you keep a secret from your romantic partner.

Yes I have engaged in romantic infidelity I have engaged in sexual infidelity My partner has engaged in romantic infidelity My partner has engaged in sexual infidelity I suspect that my partner had engaged in romantic infidelity I suspect that my partner had engaged in sexual infidelity

o o o o o o

No

o o o o o o

Q8 This section is about your relations with an alternative partner. An alternative partner is an individual who is romantically involved with someone whom is already in a committed relationship with another person.

Please feel free to skip this question if you did not have an alternative partner during the course of your relationship.

63

How well do the following questions describe the quality of an alternative partner in your current or former relationship?

A great deal

A lot

A moderate amount

A little

None at all

How attractive did you find your alternative partner(s)?

o

o

o

o

o

How emotionally intimate were you with this person?

o

o

o

o

o

How physically intimate were you with this person?

o

o

o

o

o

How has your needs for intimacy, companionship, etc been fulfilled with this person?

o

o

o

o

o

If I weren't dating my current or former partner, I would do fine (be alright, happy, with no disappointments or setbacks...) - I would simply find another person/alternative partner appealing...

o

o

o

o

o

End of Block: Infidelity Behaviours Start of Block: Social Media

H3 The following questions ask about the characteristics of your social media usage. Please respond

64

to each question using the scale below (for each question, select the options that best reflects your response). Please answer openly and honestly, there are no right or wrong answers.

Q9 How well do the following statements describe your use of social media for infidelity?

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree

Strongly agree

I use social networking sites to interact and attract romantic interests.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I use a fake account or a different account to interact and attract romantic interests.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I use social networking sites to chat or message romantic interests online.

o

o

o

o

o

o

I use social networking sites for infidelity because it is available, affordable and anonymous.

o

o

o

o

o

o

End of Block: Social Media

65

Appendix B â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Explanatory Statement Title: The Love Triangle: The Pervasive Effects of Infidelity on Social Media and Relationship Dissatisfaction.

This information sheet is for you to keep.

My name is Fiona Kee, and I am currently enrolled in the Masters of Communications and Media Studies in Monash University Malaysia, researching on the engagement of infidelity through social media.

Currently, I am researching about how social media sites are used by dissatisfied romantic partners to engage in online infidelity. This means that I am interested to find out how social media is used to mediate opportunities to encounter alternative partners online, and to what extent does the quality of emotional and/or sexual support received by alternative partners outweigh the primary relationship.

I would like to invite you to participate in my research project. I am interested in receiving your response for my survey. I believe that your response would assist me in my research as I believe each individual has their own personal story to tell.

The study involves only one main component: â&#x20AC;˘

A survey which consists of a set of questions that are related to relationship satisfaction, infidelity behaviours and social media usage. I request that you answer the survey honestly as this is a sensitive topic that not many individuals would admit to. The estimated time to complete this survey is 5 to 15 minutes.

Participating in this study is voluntary and you are under no obligation to consent to participate. However, if you do consent to participate, you may only withdraw prior to having approved the relevant interview transcripts.

Your anonymity will be ensured throughout the entire research process. A pseudonym will be used for you and your internet identities (avatar name, blog title, etc.) for possible future publications. Only I, the researcher, and a research assistant, have access to your identity within the context of this research.

Storage of the data collected will adhere to the University regulations and kept on University premises in a locked cupboard/filing cabinet for 5 years. A report of the study may be submitted for publication, but individual participants will not be identifiable in such a report.

If you would like to be informed of the aggregate research finding, please contact: If you would like to contact the researchers If you have a complaint concerning the about any aspect of this study, please contact manner in which this research is being the Chief Investigator: conducted, please contact: 66

Dr Tan Meng Yoe School of Arts and Social Sciences Monash University Malaysia Email: tan.meng.yoe@monash.edu

Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) Building 3e Room 111 Research Office Monash University VIC 3800 Tel: +61 3 9905 2052 Fax: +61 3 9905 3831 Email: muhrec@adm.monash.edu.au

Thank you.

Ms Fiona Kee Master of Communications and Media Studies Dr Tan Meng Yoe School of Arts and Social Sciences Monash University Malaysia

67