THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY

When Flirting Turns Into Infidelity: The Facebook Dilemma

ABSTRACT

Facebook has become a vital part of daily living and a popular way of initiating, establishing, maintaining, and enhancing existing as well as new relationships, including illegitimate ones too. Facebook can promote relationship damaging behaviors such as flirting, sharing intimate details, establishing emotional intimacy, and engaging in sexual affairs. Emotional intimacy is a greater concern with Facebook than sexual intimacy. The maladaptive use of Facebook can lead to negative societal consequences such as social isolation, relationship distrust, lack of social cohesion, Facebook addiction, infidelity, and divorce. This article provides a theoretical synthesis of available evidence and highlights therapeutic strategies emerging from the research.

Relationships transpire from daily interactions irrespective of whether they occur online or in person. With the Internet connecting people across the globe, innumerable social networking websites compete for consumers’ attention. Facebook is currently the most popular and largest social networking website that allows people to communicate with friends, family, colleagues, and even strangers (Stenovec, 2015). The phenomenal rise of Facebook, in part, has to do with the users’ non-traditional mindset and per-ceived sense of ease in finding their love online. On average, as of September 2016, Face-book has 1.18 billion daily and 1.79 billion monthly active users (Facebook.com, 2016). Of the daily users, 84.9% access Facebook from outside the United States and Canada. Given these numbers, hypothetically, if Facebook were a country, it would be the most populous country in the world with China and India trailing behind.

Once logged in to the Facebook account, users can be catapulted to a virtual space crammed with an inordinate number of possible known and unknown con-nections. Facebook users craft their profiles using self-presentation tools to control and manipulate the impressions others form of them. A Facebook profile may dis-play information regarding the user such as birth date, hometown, sexual prefer-ence, contact information, education, relationship status, and so on. Interestingly, Facebook has more information about each of its user’s activities than the most

CONTACT Irum Saeed Abbasi  irum.abbasi@gmail.com  Psychology Department, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192.

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

2     I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

notorious spying governments (P. Marshall, 2012). The first contact between users occurs through a “friend request.” In an offline world, friends are usually people who are considered close. However, in the Facebook era, the term friend is rede-fined to include not only close friends but also acquaintances, colleagues, old class-mates, ex partners, and even strangers. After the initial friend request is accepted, the interactions among Facebook friends can then proceed to writing on the friend’s profile page, sharing photos, sending private messages, and playing group games.

The allure of being connected with the world can override the typical norms that govern social contact in our everyday lives. For example, the daily face-to-face interactions are often subtle in the beginning until familiarity develops. However, due to the absence of verbal and non-verbal cues in conjunction with Facebook’s advertised privacy policy, which encourages liberal information sharing, users may fall prey to sharing more than necessary information. On accepting a “friend” request, the users agree to give their virtual friends access to their Facebook profile, which contains public or private information, opinions, interests, and activities such as changes made to profiles, messages posted on walls, and additions of new contacts. A growing body of research suggests that excessive Facebook use and Facebook-specific behaviors result in negative societal and interpersonal conse-quences (Cravens & Whiting, 2014; Drouin, Miller, & Dibble, 2014, 2015; Elphin-ston & Noller, 2011; Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro, & Lee, 2013). Empirical research has shown a significant link between Facebook use and personality disor-ders, depression, and compulsive disorder (Rosen, Whaling, Rab, Carrier, & Cheever, 2013). Facebook-specific behaviors that contribute to relationship con-flicts and the clinical issues related to Facebook infidelity are addressed below. In this article, the term “user” refers to Facebook subscribed users. The terms “marital relationship” and “committed relationship” are used interchangeably to include married and unmarried couples who are in a committed relationship. The term “participating partner” is used for partners who are involved in the extra-dyadic transgressions, and the term “injured partner” is used for partners who are the vic-tims of such transgressions (Snyder, Baucom, & Gordon, 2008).

Facebook and committed relationships

Facebook is a medium that has gained a great deal of attention in terms of its contri-butions to marital conflicts and marital dissolution (Carter, 2015). The connection between Facebook use and romantic relationship problems may harken back to the famous chicken and egg problem. The questions that arise in this context are: Does excessive use of Facebook cause problems in a committed relationship? Or, is Face-book a potential hideout from relationship problems? Regardless of what comes first, it seems plausible that problems in the primary relationship may arise when partners compare their significant others and life in general to the digital lives of their virtual Facebook connections. It is also plausible that Facebook is one of the venues that are

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    3

used by dissatisfied partners to seek satisfactory social interactions. Ben-Ze’ev (2004) claims that spouses that possess societally defined satisfying and happy marriages may still engage in emotional and/or sexual communication for recreational pur-poses. In addition, many users face information explosion through Facebook feeds that contain every activity that their virtual friends have engaged in. To keep at par, the users may be inclined to share their activities, thus, completing the vicious cycle of virtual information overload. This constant exchange of information can overtax the user’s personal resources leading to Facebook intrusion or Facebook addiction disor-der (FAD), which shows addictive symptoms such as cognitive preoccupation, mood modifying experiences, deficient self-regulation, tolerance, neglect of personal life, concealing the addictive behaviors, and escapism (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). The main characteristic of Facebook intrusion is an extreme attachment to Facebook that inter-feres with relationship functioning and other day-to-day activities; it also signifies addictive core features such as withdrawal, relapse, reinstatement, and euphoria (Elphinston & Noller, 2011). As a result, excessive Facebook use complicates a com-mitted relationship and is associated with difficulties in maintaining satisfying rela-tionships (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Excessive Facebook use also negatively affects committed relationships through compulsive Internet use, Face-book-induced jealousy, ambiguous information presentation, partner’s surveillance of the Facebook page, and online portrayals of intimate relationships (for a review, see Abbasi, 2017). Recent relationship research shows that maladaptive Facebook use facilitates behaviors that can lead to physical and emotional infidelity, eventually resulting in a breakup or divorce (Clayton, Nagurney, & Smith, 2013; Cravens & Whiting, 2014; Valenzuela, Halpern, & Katz, 2014). In essence, excessive Facebook use is shown to affect the users’ psychological, social, and personal lives.

The amount of time spent on Facebook that is safe for a committed relationship is yet to be determined. Correlational research shows that merely having a Face-book profile has a significant association with adverse relationship consequences such as reduced marital satisfaction and divorce (Valenzuela et al., 2014). Also, simple interpersonal interactions with other users are reported to contribute to jealousy, suspicion, and conflict in a committed relationship (Clayton et al., 2013; Muise et al., 2009).

Significance of Facebook use in the current divorce rate

The underlying contribution of Facebook misuse on the rising divorce rate is becoming increasingly apparent. Empirical evidence suggests that increased Face-book use is positively correlated with marital problems and rising divorce rates. This remained true even after adjusting for economic and social variables that can potentially cause relationship troubles (Valenzuela et al., 2014). Therefore, Face-book is creating real-life dramas in committed relationships. In many cases, official divorce documents have increasingly listed Facebook infidelity as the grounds for divorce. For example, the American Association of Matrimonial Lawyers claimed

4     I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

that an increasing number of divorce cases cite Facebook as a contributing factor in the dissolution of marriage (Lumpkin, 2012). An increase in the Facebook use from 2008 to 2010 is positively correlated with a corresponding increase in divorce rates during the same period (Valenzuela et al., 2014). Furthermore, the Divorce Online website conducted surveys in 2009 and 2011 covering 5000 United King-dom divorce filings each time (Moscaritolo, 2012). The 2011 survey found that 33% of divorce filings cited Facebook as the reason behind the split, which was up from 20% reported in 2009. The most common reason for citing Facebook was related to the spouse’s inappropriate communications with other users. This upward trend is a testament of how transgressions on social media are increasingly driving committed partners apart. However, these studies only point to a correla-tion, not causation. It would be ethically wrong to experimentally manipulate part-ners’ Facebook usage to see if increased Facebook use affects a committed relationship.

The road to divorce via Facebook can take different routes. One possible route starts with flirtation. Extra-marital flirtation may seem more alluring online, espe-cially as Facebook streamlines users’ declared preferences and personal details making it easy for others to find their preferred match. Partner’s suspicion of the spouse’s involvement on Facebook may give rise to monitoring behaviors; evidence suggests that injured partners typically give equal significance to online and offline acts of infidelity while also experiencing comparable emotions (Cravens, Leckie, & Whiting, 2013; Whitty, 2008; Underwood & Findlay, 2004). Nonetheless, the par-ticipating partners simply deny the real-world consequences of their online infidel-ity (Carter, 2015). The emotional and/or sexual infidelity on Facebook may itself point to a deeper relationship problem such as the participating partner’s dimin-ishing interest in the existing relationship.

Flirtation

Flirtation with a spouse has positive benefits; however, a partner’s intentional engage-ment in the extra-dyadic flirtation leads to loss of trust and is also damaging to the com-mitted relationship (Frisby & Booth-Butterfield, 2012). Virtual flirtatious behaviors elicit physical and sexual reactions that are stronger than in a regular face-to-face inter-action (Alapack, Blichfeldt, & Elden, 2005). The distinction between “chatting” and “flirting” is often difficult to unravel. However, researchers contend that flirtation devel-ops into cheating when the first romantic signal is directed from a committed partner to an extra-dyadic partner (Alapack et al., 2005). In today’s world, having emotional and/ or sexual affairs through typed text with multiple online extra-dyadic partners is not only achievable but is also becoming increasingly customary (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). Accord-ing to a 2008 report by Pew Internet and American Life Project, approximately one in five adults use Facebook for flirting (as cited in Italie, 2010). Due to the absence of typi-cal social contextual cues and lack of physical presence, online communication can become increasingly uninhibited and aggressive and may uncover one’s deepest inti-mate thoughts and desires (Carter, 2015; Helsper & Whitty, 2010). Consequently, the

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    5

users may be inclined to engaging in questionable online communications and sharing intimate details, emotions, and personal secrets with others, which are otherwise reserved for the real-life significant other. DiOrio (2010) suggests that both male and female spouses are predisposed to engaging in inappropriate Facebook dialogue with the opposite sex. However, married women tend to be discreet about their online behaviors while married men tend to be relatively more overt.

Mate guarding

The presence of an extra-dyadic involvement does not necessarily constitute infidelity. In a consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationship, exclusivity is not expected, and involved partners agree to permit extra-dyadic romantic and/or sexual encounters. Based on a data from a large online survey comprising of 2,395 participants, only 5.3% reported to have a CNM relationship. A significantly larger number of those who reported to be in the CNM relationship were male and had non-heterosexual partners (Rubin, Moors, Matsick, Ziegler, & Conley, 2014). Irrespective of the CNM relationship agreement between partners, there is still a certain expectancy of sexual and emotional fidelity. For example, a couple in a CNM relationship may experience infidelity if casual extra-dyadic sexual encounters evolve into frequent sexual affairs (Whisman & Wagers, 2005). Notwithstanding the acceptance of CNM relationships in some couples, the majority of men and women expect their partners to be monogamous and engage in monitoring behaviors (mate guarding) to ensure their faithfulness (Helsper & Whitty, 2010). Interestingly, Facebook is increasingly used to investigate and monitor partner’s activities and this behavior is viewed as a crucial “self-preservation tool” (Bowe, 2010, p. 63). Covertly checking Facebook profiles is referred to as Facebook surveillance or social surveillance (Tokunaga, 2011). Evidence suggests that partners are motivated to discover information about their spouse, even if it is relationship threatening (Helsper

• Whitty, 2010). During the surveillance, a spying partner may uncover potential jeal-ousy-provoking information, which creates a vicious cycle where increased jealousy leads to heightened surveillance (Muise et al., 2009). This behavior may not constitute stalking; nevertheless, it may materialize as an “obsessional relational intrusion” (Chaulk & Jones, 2011, p. 245) that can destroy the peace of the spying partner.

Infidelity

Infidelity is defined as “interactions in a relationship in which at least one of the people engaging in it understands there to be a violation of agreed or implicit sexual and/or emotional boundaries within their couple relationship” (Daines, 2006, p. 48). Any form of infidelity facilitated by the Internet is referred to as Internet or online infidelity. Internet infidelity is linked with communication difficulties, projection, dif-ferentiation of self, intimacy issues, midlife crisis, and Internet addiction (Hertlein & Piercy 2006). Ben-Ze’ev (2004) claims that online relationships are a grave challenge to the offline marital relationships due to their covert, readily available, and inexpen-sive structure that offers individuals an escape from their primary relationships. Internet infidelity can be both, emotional and sexual (Henline & Lamke, 2003).

6     I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

Emotional infidelity refers to the committed partner’s emotional involvement with the extra-dyadic partner, and sexual infidelity refers to the committed partner’s sex-ual interactions with the extra-dyadic partner. Unlike real-world relationships, the relative lack of stability in cyberspace can generate intense and transitory emotions (Ben-Ze’ev, 2004). The feeling of emotional connection coupled with the developing intimacy supersedes the primary committed relationship, which fuels emotional infi-delity. Therefore, the emotional intimacy is the hallmark of online infidelity. Researchers believe that sexual infidelity is the strongest predictor of divorce (Tulane, Skogrand, & DeFrain, 2011). Nevertheless, the role of an emotional affair on marriage is comparable in its destructive value to the sexual affairs (Parker & Wampler, 2003), and is found to be the most common source of internet infidelity (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). A research study exploring the reasons behind extra-mari-tal affairs in 100 men found that only 8% reported sexual dissatisfaction while 48% reported emotional dissatisfaction as the root cause of their unfaithful behaviors (Neuman, 2002). Researchers also examined gender differences in the feelings of guilt after committing infidelity (Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas, & Cox, 2008). The results showed that men felt guiltier after committing sexual infidelity while women felt guiltier after committing emotional infidelity.

There is no clear definition of what constitutes Facebook infidelity. Due to this lack of clarity, the negative emotional, relational, mental, and spiritual impact of exchanging emotional and sexual content with the extra-dyadic partner is underes-timated. Facebook interactions can increase the possibility of Facebook infidelity due to the likelihood of the relationship occurring online and offline, concurrently (Cravens & Whiting, 2014). A primary factor in infidelity is the shared time a part-ner spends with a person outside marriage (Hertlein & Piercy 2006). It is no sur-prise that the shared time needed to develop a strong bond in a committed relationship is consumed by the compulsion to stay in touch with the Facebook friends; therefore, it potentially causes relationship conflicts. A construct called the “Facebook-related conflict” for the intimate primary relationship is introduced by Clayton et al. (2013), which is operationalized as “whether Facebook use increases relationship complications in intimate romantic relationships” (p. 718). Further research suggests that Facebook-related conflicts are negatively related to perceived relationship satisfaction, love, and commitment (Saidur-Rahaman, 2015).

Motivational factors contributing to the internet and Facebook infidelity

The proliferation of online flirtation leading to infidelity is evident from the popu-larity of many websites that facilitate extra-marital affairs and provide an artificial sense of intimacy to the cheating partners. Due to this convenient accessibility afforded by the Internet, having one or more online extra-marital relationships is easily achievable. Several models have been proposed to detail how online infidelity is different from offline infidelity. Young (1998) introduced the ACE (anonymity, convenience, escape) model to give a rationale behind the addictive nature of

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    7

online infidelity. Leiblum and D€oring (2002) proposed the triple C (communica-tion, collaboration, communities) engine that focuses on the interactive compo-nents of the Internet. Cooper (1998) proposed the triple “A” engine, which identified three factors of online infidelity namely accessibility, affordability, and anonymity. Accessibility is the available access to the Internet, affordability refers to the cost of engaging in Internet infidelity, and anonymity is the ease with which an individual can establish an identity on the Internet. The in-depth review of pub-lished research examining the factors contributing to Internet-related intimacy problems identified four more factors namely approximation, acceptability, ambi-guity, and accommodation (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). Approximation refers to the particular qualities of the Internet that replicate those of the physical world. Acceptability relates to the previously unaccepted offline behaviors that have gained acceptance in society through the Internet. Ambiguity refers to the blurred boundaries between an acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and accommodation refers to the traits of the individuals, particularly the discrepancy between the real and ought self that contributes to the Internet use. Further literature review on Internet infidelity also identified secrecy as the element that remained stable across studies (Hertlein & Piercy, 2006). Secrecy can be any number of actions such as closing chat sessions, deleting computer history, securing computers with pass-words, and putting up a false pretense of working when the partner walks in.

Many factors are common between the Internet and Facebook infidelities such as affordability, accessibility, ambiguity, approximation, acceptability, and accommoda-tion. However, anonymity is not specific to Facebook; even for the most clandestine profiles, users must share some information to send friend requests or engage in a con-versation. Nonetheless, some level of secrecy can be obtained through maintaining mul-tiple and/or fake accounts. Partners may be more irked by their spouse’s online communications with an offline friend than with a stranger in a chat room due to the increased possibility of that interaction continuing in the offline environment. Face-book infidelity is unique in the sense that it gives access to many public profiles of other users, thereby affording innumerable options of online interactions. The results from the qualitative study by Cravens and Whiting (2014) revealed that the participants felt ashamed and embarrassed from the acknowledgment that others learned about their partner’s unfaithful behaviors through Facebook. The study also revealed that some cheating partners, when caught in the act, played the role of the victim because they felt that their privacy was breached. Finally, participants also discussed Facebook-specific aspects of their cheating spouse’s retaliation tactics including de-friending and/or block-ing the partner, contacting and/or stalking the third party, and updating statuses with a reference to the couple’s developing relationship issues.

Netiquette

Ambiguous boundaries and lack of established guidelines regarding Facebook interac-tions can lead to significant marital problems. A qualitative study revealed that the

8     I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

extra-marital interactions on Facebook started casually, but developed into emotional and sexual interactions due to the addictive and seductive nature of Facebook commu-nications (Carter, 2015). Some typical characteristics of inappropriate Facebook-spe-cific behaviors included friending an ex-partner or an ex-spouse, sending private messages, friending attractive members, commenting on attractive users’ pictures, not allowing partners to be Facebook friends, and updating incorrect relationship statuses (Cravens et al., 2013). Therefore, it is vital for the health of the marital relationship to establish and agree on clear rules that are acceptable or unacceptable to both spouses. Through this agreement, each spouse can be cognizant of the online social conduct and the repercussions if those rules are not followed. Online interaction rules (unspoken and spoken) regarding what online behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable are referred to as netiquette (Helsper & Whitty, 2010). A study by Cravens (2013) revealed that couples rarely establish boundaries for Facebook use and in case any rules existed, they were implicit and presumed to be shared. Similarly, Helsper and Whitty (2010) examined whether married couples had similar views about appropriate and inappro-priate online behaviors (netiquette). The participants included 2,401 individuals and 992 couples who were asked to rate ten online activities that would potentially make them unhappy, not care, or happy if their partner engaged in those behaviors. The ten activities were subdivided into emotional infidelity, sexual infidelity, and other prob-lematic behaviors like gambling, gaming, and compulsive shopping. The results revealed that couples had the strongest agreement on infidelity behaviors like falling in love, engaging in cybersex, revealing intimate personal details, and flirting. However, falling in love with an extra-marital partner online and engaging in cybersex topped the list of unacceptable behaviors. Finally, the most disagreements were reported regarding other problematic behaviors like online shopping, gaming, and gambling. In a related study, Henline, Lamke, and Howard (2007) explored what online behaviors or activities are considered unfaithful for partners in an exclusive dating relationship. The results revealed that four online behaviors are rated as most unfaithful: online sex, emotional involvement, online dating, and other forms of online sexual interactions. In essence, the main element in the online betrayal is related to the partner sharing something with the third party that is considered exclusive to the public couple relationship (Daines, 2006).

Implications for family therapy/practice

Treating couples dealing with current or past online infidelity is complicated; therefore, it is important that therapists have a clear theoretical basis for not only the formulation of the problem but also for the treatment interventions (Daines, 2006). Facebook addic-tion disorder can be treated at a rehabilitation facility like the reSTART clinic, which is a 45-day program to wean people off their online addictions including Facebook depen-dency. During the 45-day period, individuals do not have any access to digital media while the therapists help them reconnect with the real world. However, the optimal treatment for couples facing relationship decline due to Facebook misuse may not likely

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    9

be “cold turkey”; most couples cannot afford a 45-day break from their responsibilities and also many adults would not agree to be controlled. Therefore, the relationship therapists specify workable everyday solutions for couples. The treatment section below specifies clinical issues and interventions to identify, prevent, and treat potential areas of conflict caused by Facebook use.

Currently, the strains on marriages have heightened in part due to the vulnera-bility afforded by the Internet, which offers accessibility, affordability, anonymity, approximation, acceptability, ambiguity, and accommodation. Infidelity is the most commonly cited reason for divorce and is considered the most difficult prob-lem to treat in couples; couples experiencing infidelity exhibit disproportionately high rates of severe conflicts and physical or verbal aggression than distressed cou-ples not experiencing infidelity (Snyder, Baucom, & Gordon, 2008). Notwithstand-ing infidelity is a poorly understood common phenomenon in marriages (Atkins, Baucom, & Jacobson, 2001), Facebook infidelity makes the treatment even more challenging due to the lack of clear boundaries, which is also one of the main clini-cal issues in treatment. Therefore, an initial step in therapy is to help the couple reevaluate their definition of Facebook infidelity and then focus on making an assessment of the situation, setting boundaries and rules, and processing emotions resulting from infidelity (Cravens et al., 2013; Cravens & Whiting, 2014). Assess-ment should include examining the relevant parties, each partner’s views about the behavior in question, understanding the severity of the infidelity, and the motiva-tional factors that resulted in infidelity (Cravens & Whiting, 2014). During the assessment, the therapists should discuss the location of the third party, inquire if there are any additional offline relationships, and whether there is a history of a previous relationship with the third party. Partners are more wary of third parties that can be contacted offline. This is illustrated in a study on treatment modalities, which revealed that therapists recognize an identifiable third party as a greater threat to the relationship than pornography (Hertlein & Piercy, 2008).

Partners differ considerably on what they consider a betrayal of agreed bound-aries, irrespective of whether those agreed boundaries were openly negotiated or implicitly assumed (Daines, 2006). It is the role of the therapist to negotiate these differences and facilitate open discussions including issues relating to whether passwords will be shared, pros and cons of sharing passwords, and whether each partner will have an opportunity to spend time on the other partner’s Facebook account. The goal of the therapist should be to let the couple ultimately decide what will work best for their relationship. Once an agreement is reached, the cou-ple should focus on communicating the agreed parameters with each other and discuss enforcement actions (Cravens & Whiting, 2014).

Another clinical issue is that the injured partners may feel uncomfortable or even incapable of expressing their emotions. Researchers contend that injured partners expe-rience a broad range of negative emotional and behavioral effects following the discov-ery of their partner’s infidelity such as partner’s violence, suicidal ideation, acute anxiety, depression, victimization, abandonment, overwhelming powerlessness, and

10    I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (Snyder, Baucom, & Gordon, 2008). Therefore, it is crucial for the therapists to assist them in identifying and expressing emotions stemming from their partner’s infidelity. The therapist may inquire with injured partners about the types of emotions they experienced after learning about their partner’s infidelity or ask them about the participating partner’s reaction towards those emotions, or ask if they think it is okay to feel such emotions under such circumstances (Cravens & Whiting, 2014). It is important to note that the participating partners also experience symptoms of mental illness (depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation), espe-cially if the discovery of their infidelity results in separation or divorce (Snyder, Baucom,

• Gordon, 2008). Therefore, the therapist should work, without prejudice, on both partners’ experienced emotions. Furthermore, the therapist’s countertransference reac-tions to the participating partner’s admission of infidelity pose another clinical issue. Daines (2006) contends that therapists need to be increasingly aware of their counter-transference, understand the cultural and social context in which couples operate, and also be aware of the resulting professional dilemmas. The effective management of diffi-cult countertransference reactions can help therapists treat couples with minimum intrusion from their subjective assumptions and values (Daines, 2006).

Clinical issues also arise when partners are seen separately in a confidential set-ting. In such a case, the therapist is not able to share relevant information in the couple session, which may hamper the treatment. One solution may include offer-ing a modified confidentiality agreement with a clause that allows the therapist to use any relevant information from the individual sessions in the couple sessions (Daines, 2006). Facebook is a repository of the users’ past and present activities; therefore, the therapists should discuss with their clients some ways to better man-age Facebook wall posts and status updates (Cravens & Whiting, 2014). Encourag-ing couples to express their unity on Facebook may also reduce relationship threats. Finally, the therapists should discuss the warning signs and factors that led to infidelity in order to help couples make meaning of the event (Cravens et al., 2013). It is important to note that the role of the therapist may not end if the cou-ple breaks up because Facebook continues to affect couples post-breakup. Researchers claim that Facebook content can be a significant source of distress for individuals post-breakup (Lukacs & Quan-Haase, 2015). Frequent exposure to an ex partner’s Facebook profile is associated with poorer emotional recovery and per-sonal growth even after considering the contributions of their offline exposure and well-established personality and relational factors (T. Marshall, 2012). Therefore, the therapist may continue to help clients by stressing the negative effects of secretly monitoring the ex partner’s profile and the delay in recovery caused by such surveillance.

Limitations and future directions

The present article focused on the effect of Facebook use on committed relation-ships. The studies included in the article only encompassed the committed

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    11

partners’ subjective reports and survey results. The authors did not find any pub-lished research that experimentally manipulated the amount of time partners spent on Facebook to see if changing time spent on Facebook caused any change in the relationship. Therefore, the studies mentioned are limited in their scope. The observed link between Facebook use and relationship troubles is correlational, not causal. The counter-argument that unsatisfied or abused partners may be spending more time on Facebook to find social support should also be considered. Future research can longitudinally measure partners’ Facebook usage and their marriage quality while also considering the role of other confounding variables such as chil-dren, finances, social pressures, religion, and stressors. Future studies can also track the behavioral pattern of individuals who officially start using Facebook at 13 years and see if their committed relationships are any different from those individuals who start using Facebook later in their life. Further research can provide guidelines and insights for the therapists, researchers, and Facebook administrators who can use the knowledge to promote a healthy and suitable Facebook use environment.

References

Abbasi, I. S. (2017). The pursuit of romantic alternatives online: Facebook friends as potential partners. Manuscript submitted for review.

Alapack, R., Blichfeldt, M. F., & Eden, A. (2005). Flirting on the internet and the hickey: A her-meneutic. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 52–61. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.52

Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Face-book addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 501–517. doi:10.2466/02.09.18. PR0.110.2.501-517

Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735–749.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bowe, G. (2010). Reading romance: The impact Facebook rituals can have on a romantic rela-tionship. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 1(2), 61–77.

Carter, Z. A. (2015). Married and previously married men and women perceptions of communi-cation on Facebook with the opposite sex: How communicating through Facebook can be dam-aging to marriages (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/37/00/ 3700817.html. (3700817)

Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns about Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 245–254. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9360-x

Clayton, R. B., Nagurney, A., & Smith, J. R. (2013). Cheating, breakup, and divorce: Is Facebook use to blame? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 717–720. doi:10.1089/ cyber.2012.0424

Cooper, A. (1998). The Internet and sexuality: Surfing into the new millennium. CyberPsychol-ogy & Behavior, 1, 187–193. doi:10.1089/pb.1998.1.187

Cravens, J. D. (2013). Social networking infidelity: Understanding the impact and exploring rules and boundaries in intimate partner relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Lubbock: Texas Tech University.

12    I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., & Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook & infidelity: When poking becomes problematic. Contemporary Family Therapy, 35, 74–90. doi:10.1007/ s1059101209231-5

Cravens, J. D., & Whiting, J. B. (2014). Clinical implications of internet infidelity: Where Face-book fits in. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(4), 325–339. doi:10.1080/ 01926187.2013.874211

Daines, B. (2006). Violations of agreed and implicit sexual and emotional boundaries in couple relationships – Some thoughts arising from Levine’s “A clinical perspective on couple infidel-ity.” Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21, 45–53. doi:10.1080/14681990500430011

DiOrio, C. (2010). Facebook becoming a new weapon in divorce battles. Hudson Valley Business Journal, 21(39), 17.

Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2014). Ignore your partners’ current Facebook friends; beware the ones they add! Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 483–488. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2014.02.032

Drouin, M., Miller, D. A., & Dibble, J. L. (2015). Facebook or memory: Which is the real threat to your relationship? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 18(10), 561–566. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0259

Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to Face It! Facebook intrusion and the implications for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyber Psychology, Behavior & Social Net-working, 14(11), 631–635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318

Facebook.com. (2016). Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

Fisher, M., Voracek, M., Rekkas, P. V., & Cox, A. (2008). Sex differences in feelings of guilt aris-ing from infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 436–446.

Frisby, B. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2012). The “how” and “why” of flirtatious communica-tion between marital partners. Communication Quarterly, 60(4), 465–480. doi:10.1080/ 01463373.2012.704568

Gershon I. (2010). The break up 2.0: Disconnecting over new media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-sity Press.

Helsper, E. J., & Whitty, M. T. (2010). Netiquette within married couples: Agreement about acceptable online behavior and surveillance between partners. Computers in Human Behav-ior, 26, 916–926. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.006

Henline, B. H., & Lamke, L. K. (2003, November). The experience of sexual and emotional online infidelity. Poster presented at the 65th Annual Conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Vancouver, Canada.

Henline, B. H., Lamke, L. K., & Howard, M. D. (2007). Exploring perceptions of online infidel-ity. Personal Relationships, 14, 113–128. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00144.x

Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2006). Internet infidelity: A critical review of the literature. Fam-ily Journal, 14(4), 366–371. doi:10.1177/1066480706290508

Hertlein, K. M., & Piercy, F. P. (2008). Therapists’ assessment and treatment of Internet infidel-ity cases. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 481–497. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2008.00090.x

Hertlein, K. M., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “As” contributing to Internet related inti-macy problems. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7, 207–230. Retrieved from http://cyberpsy chology.eu/view.php?cisloclankuD2010050202&articleD1

Italie, L. (2010, June 28). Facebook is divorce lawyers’ new best friend. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37986320/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/ t/facebook-divorce-lawyers-new-best-friend/#.V1pYqmM4mCQ

Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction: A review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 3528–3552.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY    13

Lee, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007, November). Judging you by the company you keep: Dating on social networking sites. In Proceedings of Group 2007. Sanibel Island, FL.

Leiblum, S. R., & D€oring, N. (2002). Internet sexuality: Known risks and fresh chances for

women. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 19–45).

New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

Lukacs, V., & Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: New scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 492–508. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1008540

Lumpkin, S. (2012, May 24). Can Facebook ruin your marriage? ABC World News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebookrelationshipstatus/story?iD16406245#.T8e029PE Marshall, P. (2012). What you say on Facebook may be used against you in a court of family

law: Analysis of this new form of electronic evidence and why it should be on every matri-monial attorney’s radar. Alabama Law Review, 63(5), 1115–1132.

Marshall, T. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with post breakup recovery and personal growth. Cyber Psychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 15 (10), 521–526. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0125

Marshall, T. C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G., & Lee, R. A. (2013). Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relation-ships, 20(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x

Moscaritolo, A. (2012). Facebook cited in third of U.K. divorces. PC Magazine, 1.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441–444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263

Neuman, M. G. (2002). Emotional infidelity: How to affair-proof your marriage and ten other

secrets to a great relationship. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Parker, T. S., & Wampler, K. S. (2003). How bad is it? Perceptions of the relationship impact of different types of internet sexual activities. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 25, 415.

Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Is Facebook creating “iDis-order”? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1243–1254. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.012

Rubin, J. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. D. (2014). On the margins: Considering diversity among consensually non-monogamous relationships. Journal fur€ Psy-chologie, 22(1), 1–23.

Saidur-Rahaman, H. M. (2015). Romantic relationship length and its perceived quality: Mediat-ing role of Facebook-related conflict. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 395–405. doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i3.932

Snyder, D. K., Baucom, D. H., & Gordon, K. C. (2008). An integrative approach to treating infi-delity. Family Journal, 16(4), 300–307. doi:10.1177/1066480708323200

Stenovec, T. (2015). Facebook is now bigger than the largest country on earth. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/facebook-biggest-country_n_6565428.html Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use

of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 705–713. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Tulane, S., Skogrand, L., & DeFrain, J. (2011). Couples in great marriages who considered divorcing. Marriage and Family Review, 47, 289–310. doi:10.1080/01494929.2011.594215.

Underwood, H., & Findlay, B. (2004). Internet relationships and their impact on primary rela-tionships. Behaviour Change, 21(4), 127–140. doi:10.1375/bech.21.2.127.55422

14    I. S. ABBASI AND N. G. ALGHAMDI

Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well- being and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 94–101. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.034

Whisman, M. A., & Wagers, T. P. (2005). Assessing relationship betrayals. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Special Issue: Treating Infidelity, 61(11), 1383–1391. doi:10.1002/jclp.20188

Whitty, M. T. (2008). Liberating or debilitating? An examination of romantic relationships, sex-ual relationships and friendships on the net. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1837– 1850. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.009

Young, K. (1998). Caught in the net: How to recognize the signs of Internet addiction and achiev-

ing strategies for recovery. New York, NY: Wiley.

Copyright of American Journal of Family Therapy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.