Content uploaded by Jennifer Flórez-Donado
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Flórez-Donado on Feb 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csmt20
Download by: [83.51.81.15] Date: 03 December 2017, At: 11:00
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
ISSN: 1468-1994 (Print) 1468-1749 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csmt20
Factors associated with Facebook jealousy in three
Spanish-Speaking countries
Nieves Moyano, María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes, Ariana Chiriboga & Jennifer
Flórez-Donado
To cite this article: Nieves Moyano, María del Mar Sánchez-Fuentes, Ariana Chiriboga
& Jennifer Flórez-Donado (2017) Factors associated with Facebook jealousy in three
Spanish-Speaking countries, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32:3-4, 309-322, DOI:
10.1080/14681994.2017.1397946
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397946
Published online: 20 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 13
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Factors associated with Facebook jealousy in three
Spanish-Speaking countries
Nieves Moyano
a
, Mar
ıa del Mar S
anchez-Fuentes
b
, Ariana Chiriboga
c
and
Jennifer Fl
orez-Donado
b
a
Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y de la Educaci
on, Departamento de Psicolog
ıa y Sociolog
ıa, Universidad de
Zaragoza, Huesca, Espa~
na;
b
Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Departamento de Psicolog
ıa del
Individuo, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia;
c
School of Psychology, Universidad de
Especialidades Esp
ıritu Santo, Guayaquil, Ecuador
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, control over one’s partner is easily maintained through
social networks, such as Facebook. The aim of this study was to
analyze the factors associated with Facebook-jealousy. We examined
a total sample of 1144 individuals distributed as follows: data from
Spain (n= 393), Colombia (n= 600), and Ecuador (n=151
individuals), with ages ranging from 14 to 42 years old. All
participants held nationality from one of the respective countries,
were currently or had been enrolled in a relationship, and both the
participant and his/her/their partner also had a Facebook account.
Participants completed an online survey with self-reported measures
to evaluate: self-esteem, partner conflicts and their strategies to cope
with them, romantic jealousy, and Facebook jealousy. Results show
that the propensity to experience jealousy in the relationship and low
self-esteem are related with more Facebook jealousy across the three
countries. For both, Spain and Colombia, strategies to cope with
partner conflicts are also associated with Facebook jealousy, in
particular lower levels of constructive strategies and higher
dominance are associated with greater Facebook jealousy. In short,
Facebook jealousy represents another way to manifest jealousy that
is influenced by both personal and relationship variables.
KEYWORDS
Facebook; Facebook jealousy;
jealousy; self-esteem; partner
conflict
Introduction
Currently, Facebook is the most relevant social network with the largest number of
active users, sometimes even surpassing Google (Anderson, Fagan, Woodnutt, &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2012). At the end of June 2017, Facebook had more than 2 billion
users (Facebook, 2017). Social networks have modifiedformsofcommunication,aswell
as the nature of interpersonal relationships (Bergdall et al., 2012; Fox & Warber, 2013;
Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). Torres-Salazar and Melamed (2016) indicate that
technology in society has generated changes in recent times by reconfiguring the inter-
action of people in the different scenariosandhaspromotedvariousfacilitiesand
solutions in daily living.
CONTACT Nieves Moyano nmoyano@unizar.es
© 2017 College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY, 2017
VOL. 32, NOS. 3–4, 309–322
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397946
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
The use of Facebook has been linked to positive aspects by satisfying interpersonal
aspects such as intimacy (Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch, 2011), social integration (Kalpidou,
Costin, & Morris, 2011; Morris, Reese, Beck, & Mattis, 2010), and satisfaction with life
(Seder & Oishi, 2009). Although, Madariaga, Lozano, and Eduardo (2016) found that social
support is greater through face-to-face communication compared to communication medi-
ated by information and communication technology. Facebook has also been associated
with negative factors. In the context of couple relationships, the use of Facebook has been
associated with feelings of jealousy (with women reporting higher levels) (Elphinston &
Noller, 2011;McAndrew&Shah,2013,Morrisetal.,2010; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011), con-
flicts, loss of privacy, rupture or divorce, physical abuse, and even crimes of passion (Muise,
Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Exposure through photos, videos, etc., through Facebook,
may trigger negative feelings in the relationship, which are expressed through monitoring a
partner’sprofile (see Hertlein, Dulley, Cloud, Leon, & Chang, this issue, for further infor-
mation regarding partner monitoring in online contexts).
Considering the expression of jealousy in several varying forms in offline environ-
ments, and that new forms of jealousy are likely emerging in the context of social net-
working, it is important to better understand the factors associated with jealousy,
particularly in online environments. In relation to this, the objective of the present study
was to examine how these factors: self-esteem, romantic jealousy, and coping strategies in
dealing with relational conflict, are associated with Facebook jealousy, across three Span-
ish-Speaking countries: Spain, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Literature review
It is important to highlight three characteristics of Facebook. First, Facebook increases the
amount of information people receive from their partners (photos, videos, likes, friends,
etc.). Second, it allows socially accepted control or supervision over the partner. Third,
information that may be relevant to the relationship is openly shown and can improve
the positive aspects, such as closeness in the relationship, or negative ones such as jealousy
(Muise et al., 2009). In a study by Muscanell, Guadagno, Rice, and Murphy (2013), it was
shown that the way in which privacy settings are used in Facebook publications impacts
the relationships, leading to jealousy, among other negative emotions. In short, Facebook
seems to act as reinforcing feelings of jealousy or conflict in the couple.
Romantic jealousy is a common and complex feeling for which it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish between normality and pathology. It can be defined as feelings that are charac-
terized by thoughts, emotions, and actions that are threatening to the stability or quality of a
relationship (Mullen, 1991) or the emotional reaction to a threat to the relationship (Pfeiffer
& Wong, 1989). Jealousy can be considered as one of the most frequent emotions or feelings
in relationships, as well as one of the most destructive factors in a relationship (Buunk &
Bringle, 1987). Jealousy has been associated with low levels of self-esteem. In this sense, sev-
eral studies show that individuals with low self-esteem tend to experience higher jealousy
(Cameron, Holmes, & Vorauer, 2009; DeSteno, Preyss, & Voracek, 2012; Kellett & Totter-
dell, 2013; Malagon, Cuestas, & Reyes, 2014; Murray et al., 2009). In addition, findings have
also indicated that jealousy is related to the quality of the relationship (Barelds & Barelds-
Dijkstra, 2007). Align with this, jealousy is associated with a greater number of conflicts
(Harris & Darby, 2010; Perles, San Mart
ın, & Canto, 2016; Perles, San Mart
ın, Canto, &
310 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Moreno, 2011), and aggressions (Ashton, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008; Harris & Darby,
2010;S
anchez, Mu~
noz, Nocentini, Ortega-Ru
ız, & Menesini, 2014).
Conflicts occur in any intimate relationship, and the way couples manage their relational
conflict is associated with aspects of the relationship quality (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, &
Campbell, 2002). Some particular conflict strategies may be associated with jealousy. For
example, studies using the Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1996) show that romantic jealousy is related with psychological tactics (Montes-
Berges, 2008). In Spanish samples, jealousy is highlighted as a variable related to violent
conflict resolution strategies in couples (Perles et al., 2011). Although the CTS has been a
widely used measure, other measures such as the Romantic Partner Conflict Scale (RPCS)
from Zacchilli, Hendrick, and Hendrick (2009) better represents what Canary (2000)called
“routine, normative episodes of relationship conflict”(p. 475). The six domains that the
RPCS assesses (Compromise, Avoidance, Interactional Reactivity, Separation, Domination,
and Submission) represent either constructive or destructive strategies, which are differently
associated with relationship variables such as love, communication, respect, or relationship
satisfaction, among others. In short, while constructive conflict strategies such as compro-
mise are positively related to communication, satisfaction, respect, and love, the destructive
strategies are negatively related to these variables (Zacchilli et al., 2009). Therefore, our
focus of interest, besides the link of jealousy and abusive behaviors, is to better understand
how both romantic conflict strategies and Facebook jealousy are linked.
Method
Participants
Data from three Spanish-speaking countries were recruited; namely, Spain, Colombia, and
Ecuador. We considered the following inclusion criteria: (1) nationality from Spain, Colom-
bia, or Ecuador; (2) being/or having been enrolled in a relationship, and (3) both the partic-
ipant and his/her/their partner having a Facebook account. From Spain, data from 415
individuals were recruited. However, data from 22 individuals were deleted considering
that the majority of scales were not answered or nationality was other than Spanish. There-
fore, data from 393 men and women were considered in the final sample. From Colombia,
initially, data from 646 subjects were collected; however, 46 data were deleted, because they
did not provide any answer, or their nationality was from a different Latin American coun-
try. From Ecuador, data from 169 individuals were recruited; however, data from 18 indi-
viduals were discarded considering any of the following reasons: no answers were provided,
they were not enrolled in a relationship (both currently and in the past), and/or not having
a Facebook account. Therefore, the final sample from Ecuador was composed of 151 indi-
viduals (see Table 1 for sociodemographic characteristics from each country).
Measures
Background questionnaire
In the background questionnaire, we gathered information on participants’nationality,
sex, age, sexual orientation, civil status, education, religion, whether they were currently
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 311
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
enrolled in a relationship (or in the past), and length of their relationship. Also, partici-
pants answered whether they and his/her/their partner have an active Facebook account.
Facebook jealousy scale (FJS; Muise et al., 2009)
This scale is composed of 27 items that assess the experience of jealousy in the specific
context of Facebook. This scale is answered using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Higher scores indicate greater jealousy in the context of
Facebook (e.g. “How jealous would you feel if your partner posted pictures of himself/her-
self that are sexually provocative?”). We used the global score as previously done by other
authors (Brem, Spiller, & Vandehey, 2015). Higher scores indicate higher Facebook jeal-
ousy. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha values for the total score were .95, .96, and .95 for
Spanish, Colombian, and Ecuadorian participants, respectively.
Romantic jealousy scale (RJS; White, 1976)
We administered the Spanish adaptation conducted by Montes-Berges (2008). The scale
consists of six items that assess the feelings of jealousy presented by one of the partners
(e.g. “How jealous do you get of your partner’s relationship with members of the opposite
sex?”). This scale is answered using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all jeal-
ous)to7(very jealous), for items one, two, four, and six; and a 5-point Likert scale, rang-
ing from 1 (never)to5(often) for the remaining items. Higher scores indicate greater
feelings of jealousy. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha values for the total score were .86, .86,
and .90 for Spanish, Colombian, and Ecuadorian participants, respectively.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of data from Spain, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Spain (n= 393) Colombia (n= 600) Ecuador (n= 151)
n(%) n(%) n(%)
Gender
Men 137 (34.9) 212 (35.3) 62 (41.1)
Women 256 (65.1) 387 (64.5) 89 (58.9)
Age range 14-42 14-40 15-42
M(SD) 25 (7.44) 24.70 (7.50) 22.30 (3.03)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual 375 (95.4) 558 (93) 143 (94.7)
Same-sex 8 (2) 9 (1.5) 3 (2)
Bisexual 7(1.8) 14 (2.3) 2 (1.3)
Other 2 (0.5) 11 (1.8) 3 (2)
Civil status
Single 214 (54.5) 329 (54.8) 132 (87.4)
Free union 88 (22.4) 128 (21.3) 11 (7.3)
Married 73 (18.6) 113 (18.8) 8 (5.3)
Divorced 4 (1) 8 (1.3) –
Education
No studies/primary 19 (4.8) 16 (2.7) –
Secondary 56 (14.2) 158 (26.3) 18 (11.9)
High degree 318 (80.9) 426 (71) 133 (88.1)
Religion
Christian/catholic 275 (70) 518 (86.3) 131 (86.8)
None 107 (27.2) 66 (11) 20 (13.2)
Other 7 (2.8) 8 (2.7) –
312 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989)
We used the Spanish version (Mart
ın-Albo, N
u~
nez, Navarro, & Grijalvo, 2007). This scale
is composed of 10 items that assess self-esteem (e.g. “I feel that I have a number of good
qualities”). This scale is answered using a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally
agree) to 4 (totally disagree), higher scores indicate lower self-esteem. The Spanish ques-
tionnaire showed good psychometric properties (Mart
ın-Albo et al., 2007). In this study,
Cronbach’s alpha values were .81, .75, and .90 for Spanish, Colombian, and Ecuadorian
participants, respectively.
Romantic partner conflict scale (RPCS; Zacchilli et al., 2009)
This scale has 39 items that assess daily conflict in couples. It is divided into six factors:
Compromise (“My partner and I collaborate to find a common ground to solve problems
between us”), Avoidance (“I avoid disagreements with my partner”), Interactional Reac-
tivity (“When my partner and I disagree, we argue loudly”), Separation (“When we dis-
agree, we try to separate for a while so we can consider both sides of the argument”),
Domination (“I try to take control when we argue”), and Submission (“I surrender to my
partner when we disagree on an issue”). This questionnaire is answered using a 5-point
Likert scale, ranging from 0 (totally disagree)to4(totally agree), higher score indicates a
better way to resolve conflicts. For each subscale, Cronbachs alpha values were, respec-
tively, for Spanish, Colombian, and Ecuadorian data as follows: Compromise: .92, .92, .91;
Avoidance: .82, .79, .76; Interactional Reactivity: .73, .81, .75; Separation: .77, .81, .77;
Domination: .81, .77, .77; and Submission: .86, .85, .87.
Procedure
Prior to data collection, we conducted the translation and adaptation for both, the FJS
(Muise et al., 2009) and the RCPS (Zacchilli et al., 2009), as they had not been validated
into Spanish. Therefore, we first conducted the translation and adaptation of both self-
reported measures. For this purpose, a forward translation was conducted from English to
Spanish (Mu~
niz, Elosua, & Hambleton, 2013) by two fluent English speakers. They then
evaluated the adequacy of the translation and agreed upon a first draft of the Spanish ver-
sion of the scale. Once, we had a first adaptation, both scales were sent to three experts in
psychometrics and/or sexuality who evaluated the adequacy of the items based on item’s
representativeness of the construct and the item’s comprehension. The experts rated the
items ranging from 1 (nothing at all)to4(very) using the table of specification of the
items. Once a final version for both scales was created, a pilot study was conducted, and
the scale was administered: 10 individuals from Spain, 12 from Ecuador, and 12 from
Colombia with ages ranging from 16 to 28 years old. Each participant fulfilled the ques-
tionnaire with suggestions, and after that, the corresponding researchers from each coun-
try discussed to each other the modifications and rewording needed for some of the items.
Participants completed the questionnaires online, from October 2016 to May 2017. The
link was distributed in social networks and by the news service of different universities
(namely University of Zaragoza, University de la Costa, and University of Especialidades
Esp
ıritu Santo). The first page of the survey included informed consent, information
about the principal investigator, the overall objective of the study, and the inclusion crite-
ria. Once individuals read the informed consent, they indicated whether they agreed to
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 313
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
take part in the study. If yes, they continued to answer the questionnaires. They were also
informed that their responses were anonymous, confidential, and that the data obtained
would be solely and exclusively processed for research purposes. The sample was collected
from the general population of Spain, Colombia, and Ecuador, through an incidental pro-
cedure. All participants were volunteers and no compensation was given.
Results
First, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance test to compare data from Spain,
Colombia, and Ecuador on each of the analyzed variables. The multivariate tests (Wilk’s
Lambda) were significant for all three samples F
(18, 2262)
= 42.01; p= .000, h
2
= .25. As can
be seen in Table 2, further univariate tests showed that, scores from all variables, except
RPCS-Avoidance, were significantly different across countries (see Table 2 for descriptive
statistics and significant differences across data from each country). Bonferroni corrected
post hoc comparisons indicated between which countries significant differences were
yielded.
In order to analyze the association between the examined variables, we conducted
Pearson correlations, independently for each country (see Tables 3–5). Similarly, for
both Spain and Colombia, the variables that were significantly associated with Face-
book jealousy were the following: romantic partner jealousy, self-esteem, and from
RCPS compromise, interactional reactivity, separation, domination, and submission.
Age, length of the relationship and RCPS-avoidance were not significantly associated
with Facebook jealousy. Therefore, individuals with a higher tendency to feel roman-
tic jealousy, lower self-esteem, lower collaboration to negotiate solutions in the rela-
tionship (compromise), higher verbal aggression and lack of trust between partners
(interactional reactivity), higher tendency to get separated when there is a conflict
(separation), and also higher domination and submission (taking control over the
partner or surrender during conflicts respectively) also report more jealousy in the
context of Facebook.
For Ecuador, a lower number of variables were significantly associated with Facebook
jealousy. In particular, age, that is as the age increases, Facebook jealousy decreases. Also,
romantic partner jealousy, interactional reactivity, domination, and submission were
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and significant differences across data from Spain, Colombia, and
Ecuador.
Spain Colombia Ecuador
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) F
(2.1139)
Facebook jealousy 60.67 (31.07)
1,2
88.10 (39.75)
1
81.82 (36)
2
70.67***
Romantic partner jealousy 12.26 (5.94)
1
15.49 (6.77)
1,2
12.92 (6.71)
2
31.68***
Self-esteem 19.86 (5.27)
1
18.77 (4.84)
1
27.84 (4.67)
1
199.78***
RPCS-Compromise 44.70 (8.74)
2
43.54 (9.91)
1
35.90 (8.83)
1,2
49.79***
RPCS-Avoidance 8.46 (2.80) 8.87 (2.66) 8.66 (2.62) 2.70
RPCS-Interactional Reactivity 8.83 (4.44)
1
10.21 (5.68)
1
7.38 (4.80)
1
21.04***
RPCS-Separation 7.52 (4.18)
1,2
9.38 (5.05)
1
8.86 (4.39)
2
18.79***
RPCS-Dominance 9.52 (5.16)
1,2
11.25 (5.72)
1
11.75 (5.11)
2
14.66***
RPCS-Submission 7.99 (4.60)
1
8.80 (5.04)
1
8.37 (4.78) 3.40*
Note: Similar subscripts indicate significant differences between groups.
***p<.001; *p<.05.
314 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
significantly associated with Facebook jealousy, in a similar direction to the one previously
described for Spain and Colombia.
Finally, we conducted separated linear regression analyses for data from each country
in order to examine which variables better predicted Facebook jealousy. We considered as
Table 3. Pearson correlations between the examined variables from Spain.
1 2345678 91011
(1) Age .29*** .05 .10* .04 ¡.11* ¡.04 .00 ¡.05 .10* .01
(2) Length of the
relationship
¡.04 ¡.10* ¡.03 ¡.04 ¡.05 .01 ¡.00 .05 ¡.06
(3) Facebook jealousy .54*** .15** ¡.24*** ¡.04 .36*** .15** .31*** .21***
(4) Romantic partner
jealousy
.04 ¡.20*** ¡.10* .31*** .04 .20*** .15**
(5) Self-esteem ¡.06 .07 .16** .11* .16** .18***
(6) RPCS-Compromise .16** ¡.27*** ¡.06 ¡.18*** ¡.17***
(7) RPCS-Avoidance ¡.04 ¡.02 .06 .24***
(8) RPCS-Interactional
Reactivity
.32*** .49*** .37***
(9) RPCS-Separation .35*** .21***
(10) RPCS-Domination .32***
(11) RPCS-Submission
***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.
Table 5. Pearson correlations between the examined variables from Ecuador.
1234567891011
(1) Age .49*** ¡.19* ¡.06 .07 .19* ¡.00 ¡.09 ¡.09 ¡.21** ¡.18*
(2) Length of the
relationship
.00 ¡.06 .03 .11 ¡.04 .07 ¡.08 ¡.12 ¡.17*
(3) Facebook jealousy .39*** .13 ¡.08 ¡.15 .25** .11 .23** .16*
(4) Romantic partner
jealousy
¡.07 .11 .26** .26** .02 .22** .08
(5) Self-esteem ¡.03 .10 .09 .10 ¡.05 .01
(6) RPCS-Compromise .40*** ¡.31*** .06 ¡.26** ¡.12
(7) RPCS-Avoidance ¡.17* .02 ¡.24** .03
(8) RPCS-Interactional
Reactivity
.23** .60*** .36***
(9) RPCS-Separation .28** .19*
(10) RPCS-Domination .50***
(11) RPCS-Submission
***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05.
Table 4. Pearson correlations between the examined variables from Colombia.
1234567891011
(1) Age .33*** .01 .03 .00 .09* .07 ¡.04 ¡.03 .00 .03
(2) Length of the
relationship
¡.07 ¡.12** ¡04 ¡.02 .02 ¡.07 ¡.00 ¡.02 ¡.02
(3) Facebook jealousy .51*** .15*** ¡.10* ¡.00 .37*** .17*** .35*** .22***
(4) Romantic partner
jealousy
.05 ¡.09 ¡.06 .39*** .13** .31*** .14***
(5) Self-esteem ¡.06 .08 .13** .11** .17*** .23***
(6) RPCS-Compromise .49*** ¡.07 .06 .00 .04
(7) RPCS-Avoidance ¡.05 .13** .01 .12**
(8) RPCS-Interactional
Reactivity
.43*** .56*** .39***
(9) RPCS-Separation .38*** .28***
(10) RPCS-Domination .45***
(11) RPCS-Submission
*** p<.001; **p<.01; * p<.05.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 315
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
predictor variables those that were previously significant. For Spain and Colombia, the
variables that better predicted Facebook jealousy were greater romantic partner jealousy,
lower self-esteem, lower compromise for negotiating conflicts, and higher dominance dur-
ing conflicts. They explained 38% and 32% of the variance for Spanish and Colombian
scores, respectively (see Tables 6 and 7).
For Ecuador, greater romantic partner jealousy and lower self-esteem were the best
predictors of Facebook jealousy. They explained 21% of variance (see Table 8).
Taken together, the strongest predictor of Facebook jealousy was the individual’s ten-
dency to feel jealous, combined with lower self-esteem. Conflict strategies were only
important to predict Facebook jealousy for Spanish and Colombian data.
Discussion
The goal of the present study was to examine the factors associated with Facebook jeal-
ousy in three Spanish-Speaking countries –Spain, Colombia, and Ecuador. Our findings
indicate that the propensity to experience romantic jealousy and low self-esteem are the
most important factors associated with Facebook jealousy across the three evaluated
countries. Strategies related to coping with the relationship conflicts are important only
for Spanish and Colombian couples. Particularly low ability to negotiate and find a solu-
tion during conflicts and being more dominant are predictors of Facebook jealousy. How-
ever, no significant association between partner conflicts and Facebook jealousy is
evidenced for the Ecuadorian sample.
Our study shows that men and women from Spain report lower levels of Facebook
jealousy, while Colombia’s participants reported the highest levels of Facebook
Table 6. Linear regression analysis in order to predict Facebook jealousy
in the Spanish sample.
Predictors RR
2
FBeta t
Romantic partner jealousy .61 .38 22.60*** .47 10.70***
Self-esteem .08 1.99*
RPCS-Compromise ¡.09 ¡2.18*
RPCS-Domination .12 2.47*
***p<.001; *p<.05.
Table 7. Linear regression analysis in order to predict Facebook jealousy
in the Colombian sample.
Predictors RR
2
FBeta t
Romantic partner jealousy .57 .32 28.63*** .41 11.16***
Self-esteem .08 2.25*
RPCS-Compromise ¡.08 ¡2.05*
RPCS-Domination .12 2.91**
*** p<.001; **p<.01; * p<.05.
Table 8. Linear regression analysis in order to predict Facebook jealousy
in the Ecuadorian sample.
Predictors RR
2
FBeta t
Romantic partner jealousy .46 .21 12.75*** .34 4.48***
Self-esteem .19 2.55*
***p<.001; * *p<.05.
316 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
jealousy and also romantic partner jealousy in comparison to Spain and Ecuador. Cer-
tain sexual behaviors or emotions are guided by cultural scripts (see Byers, 1996;
Emmers-Sommer et al., 2010). In this regard, Latin American countries are a special
case, as they often endorse relatively more rigid gender roles (Guti
errez-Quintanilla,
Rojas-Garc
ıa, & Sierra, 2010). In Spain, although sexual double standards still persists
(Sierra, Moyano, Vallejo-Medina, & G
omez-Berrocal, 2017), a study showed that 70%
of men and women report not to endorse jealousy romantic myths (P
erez, Fiol,
Guzm
an, & Basurto, 2010).
Although publications regarding jealousy are scarce in Colombia and Ecuador, some
knowledge regarding this phenomenon may emerge by focusing on the link between jeal-
ousy and violence. In Colombia, data from the National Institute of Legal Medicine and
Forensic Sciences in 2014 showed that pathological jealousy is often underneath some
expressions of violence (2014). Particularly, about 27% of victims of partner violence
reported that this violence was due to intolerance and jealousy. Aligned with this, a study
conducted in Ecuador (Boira, Carbajosa, & M
endez, 2016) indicated that jealousy is one
of the main causes of partner violence (together with machismo, alcohol and infidelity).
Finally, a study regarding online jealousy in Spain showed that online intrusiveness
(defined as the lack of respect to invade the privacy of one’s partner) influences individu-
als’involvement in physical and psychological dating aggression (S
anchez et al., 2014).
Little research has examined the factors associated with Facebook jealousy, as
Muise et al. (2009) have been pioneers in conducting research and providing a self-
reported measure. Some previous findings from these authors indicate that Facebook
jealousy is associated with the quality of the relationship. Similar to our findings, Utz
and Beukeboom (2011) highlighted that Facebook jealousy is linked to low self-
esteem, jealousy as a trait, and surveillance behaviors in the relationships. Also, low
self-esteem, independent of age, is associated with greater levels of jealousy (Kellett &
Totterdell, 2013).
Regarding the association between Facebook jealousy and romantic partner conflicts,
it is of interest that, especially for Spain and Colombia, the strategies to cope with con-
flicts are associated with Facebook jealousy. In particular, couples that employ more
positive strategies to solve their conflicts (such as compromise) feel less Facebook jeal-
ousy, while those who use more destructive strategies, such as being more verbally
aggressive or tend to be more focused on winning the conflicts over the partner (inter-
actional reactivity and domination respectively) experience more Facebook jealousy.
Previous research shows that individuals who tend to show more aggressiveness or with
lower abilities to manage conflicts tend to express more jealousy in their relationships
(Sebasti
an et al., 2010).
Limitations
Interpretations regarding our findings should consider the following limitations: First,
samples from each country are mostly young and hold higher degrees of education. Also,
participants were recruited through an incidental sampling procedure. Therefore, general-
ization of our findings to samples with other characteristics remains unknown. However,
this research can encourage others to emphasize how technology reflects our
relationships.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 317
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Research implications
Facebook jealousy is linked to both individual characteristics and relationship variables, in
which the individual proneness to experience romantic jealousy is highlighted as the main
predictive variable. In addition, although romantic jealousy was the most important vari-
able for the prediction of Facebook jealousy, culture is of relevance, as the partner conflict
strategies were differently associated with this phenomenon for each country. Therefore,
some relationship variables may or may not emerge as important related factors depend-
ing on other contextual aspects. Finally, this study may open up new horizons for research
regarding some emerging technology-related constructs. In particular, our findings indi-
cate a strong link between romantic jealousy and Facebook jealousy, which makes us won-
der whether this or other technology-related variables are actually a new phenomenon or
a classic phenomenon, which finds a new format of expression.
Future research should expand our knowledge regarding the parallelism between mani-
festations of sexuality in a “real”relationship context in comparison to a “virtual”context.
Does the virtual world represent our sexuality? What is similar? What is different? Why?
These questions may become more complex as the technology, whose development is
faster than our thoughts, reaches and goes beyond what are now unforeseen boundaries
and limitations (see McArthur & Twist; and Peterson & Twist, this issue, for a look at
future forms of technology and their potential impact on romantic relationships).
Conclusion
Technology provides new forms of expression of sexual and partner-related issues. In par-
ticular, social networking such as Facebook opens up the window to communicate with a
wide range of people (known, unknown, family, friends, ex-partners, etc.). Therefore, jeal-
ousy, and in particular Facebook jealousy, is likely to emerge as another manifestation of
jealousy associated with use. Our study, conducted in three Spanish-speaking countries,
Colombia, Spain, and Ecuador, show that the proneness to feel romantic jealousy is the
most relevant factor to predict Facebook jealousy, together, although with a most modest
association, with low self-esteem. Thus, individual characteristics are important in elicit-
ing the feeling of jealousy, which is then directed towards the partner.
The way partner conflicts are sorted out is also of relevance, in particular both con-
structive and destructive strategies (compromise and dominance, respectively), only in
the cases of Spain and Colombia. Therefore, trying to find a solution and to resolve con-
flicts in a specific way is negatively associated with Facebook jealousy, while trying to take
control over the partner and to “win”arguments is directly associated, as a way of being
abusive and taking control. Further research considering other dyadic variables, as well as
contextual issues that could improve our knowledge regarding cultural influence, should
be conducted.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend their appreciation to Taylor Oliver for her work with translation,
and colleagues who provided their revision and suggestions during the adaptation process of the
measures. Also, the authors and editor(s) extend further thanks to Ryan B. Peterson for his
318 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
additional technical edits to this paper prior to publication. Finally, we want to give thanks to all the
participants who took part in this study.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Notes on contributors
Nieves Moyano, PhD in Psychology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y de la Educaci
on, Departa-
mento de Psicolog
ıa y Sociolog
ıa, Universidad de Zaragoza, Huesca, Espa~
na.
Mar
ıa del Mar S
anchez-Fuentes, PhD in Psychology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales,
Departamento de Psicolog
ıa del Individuo, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia.
Ariana Chiriboga, Bachelor in Psychology, School of Psychology, Universidad de Especialidades
Esp
ıritu Santo, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Jennifer Fl
orez, Master in Psychology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Departamento de
Psicolog
ıa del Individuo, Universidad de la Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia.
References
Anderson, B., Fagan, P., Woodnutt, T., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2012). Facebook psychology:
Popular question answered by research. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1,23–37.
doi:10.1037/a0026452
Ashton, A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers: The
roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 557–
568. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9171-x
Barelds, D. P. H., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and
self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14,
176–188. doi:10.1002/cpp.532
Bergdall, A. R., Kraft, J. M., Andes, K., Carter, M., Hatfield-Timajchy, K., & Hock-Long, L. (2012).
Love and hooking up in the new millennium: Communication technology and relationships
among urban African American and Puerto Rican young adults. Journal of Sex Research, 49,
570–582. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.604748
Boira, S., Carbajosa, P., & M
endez, R. (2016). Miedo, conformidad y silencio: La violencia en las
relaciones de pareja en
areas rurales de Ecuador [Fear, conformity and silence: The violence in
partner relationships in rural areas of Ecuador]. Psychosocial Intervention, 25,9–17.
doi:10.1016/j.psi.2015.07.008
Brehm, S., Miller, R., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. (2002). Intimate relations. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Brem, M. J., Spiller, L. C., & Vandehey, M. A. (2015). Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are
associated with relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2831–2850.
doi:10.1177/0886260514554286
Buunk, B. P., & Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in love relationships. In D. Perlman & S. W. Duck
(Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 123–147). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a
program of research. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8,7–25. doi:10.1300/
J056v08n01_02
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 319
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Vorauer, J. D. (2009). When self-disclosure goes awry: Negative
consequences of revealing personal failures for lower self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 45, 217–222. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.009
Canary, D. J. (2000). Introduction to the special issue on relationship conflict. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 17, 475–477.
DeSteno, S., Preyss, A., & Voracek, M. (2012). Romantic jealousy and implicit and explicit self-
esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 52,51–55. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.028
Elphinston, R. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and the implications for
romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Network-
ing, 14, 631–635. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0318
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Farrell, J., Gentry, A., Stevens, S., Eckstein, J., Battocletti, J., & Gardener,
C. (2010). First date sexual expectations: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and
gender. Communication Studies, 61, 339–355. doi:10.1080/10510971003752676
Facebook. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/goodaddsup/?source=reminder_
notification&ref=notif¬if_t=goodwill_video_two_billion_video_reminder¬if_id=
1498821995894094
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An
exploratory study of emerging adults’perceptions, motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 16,3–7. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0288
Guti
errez-Quintanilla, J. R., Rojas-Garc
ıa, A., & Sierra, J. C. (2010). Comparaci
on transcultural de
la doble moral sexual entre estudiantes universitarios salvadore~
nos y espa~
noles [Cross-cultural
comparison of sexual double standard between Salvadorian and Spanish undergraduate stu-
dents]. Revista Salvadore~
na de Psicolog
ıa, 1,31–51.
Harris, C. R., & Darby, R. S. (2010). Jealousy in Adulthood. In S. L. Hart & M. Legerstee (Eds.),
Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 257–271). Oxford,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444323542.ch23
Kalpidou, M., Costin, D., & Morris, J. (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-
being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14,
183–189. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0061
Kellett, S., & Totterdell, P. (2013). Taming the greeneyed monster: Temporal responsivity to cog-
nitive behavioural and cognitive analytic therapy for morbid jealousy. Psychology and Psycho-
therapy, 86,52–69. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02045
Madariaga, C., Lozano, J., & Eduardo, J. (2016). El apoyo social en estudiantes universitarios y su
relaci
on con las comunicaciones cara a cara y las comunicaciones mediadas por las Tecnolog
ıas
de la Informaci
on y la Comunicaci
on (TIC) [Social support in undergraduate students and its
relationship with face-to-face communications and communications mediated by Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT)]. Psicogente, 19,47–62.
Malagon, L., Cuestas, J., & Reyes, I. (2014). UNIPILOTO. Retrieved fromhttp://polux.unipiloto.edu.
co:8080/00002118.pdf
Mart
ın-Albo, J., N
u~
nez, J. L., Navarro, J. G., & Grijalvo, F. (2007). The Rosenberg self-esteem scale:
Translation and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 458–
467. doi:10.1017/S1138741600006727
McAndrew, F. T., & Shah, S. S. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy over Facebook activity. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 29, 2603–2606. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.030
Montes-Berges, B. (2008). T
acticas para la resoluci
on de conflictos y celos rom
anticos en relaciones
ıntimas: Adaptaci
on y an
alisis de las escalas CTS2 y CR [Tactics to solve conflicts and romantic
jealousy in intimate relationships: Adaptation and analysis of the scales CTS2 and CR]. Estudios
de Psicolog
ıa, 29, 221–234.
Morris, J., Reese, J., Beck, R., & Mattis, C. (2010). Facebook usage as a predictor of retention at a
private 4-year institution. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 11,
311–322. doi:10.2190/CS.11.3.a
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does
Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 441–
444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263
320 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Mullen, P. E. (1991). Jealousy: The pathology of passion. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 158,
593–601. doi:10.1192/bjp.158.5.593
Murray, S. L., Leder, S., McClellan, J. C. D., Holmes, J. G., Pinkus, R. T., & Harris, B. (2009).
Becoming irreplaceable: How comparisons to the partners alternatives differentially affect low
and high self-esteem people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1180–1191.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.001
Muscanell, N. L., Guadagno, R. E., Rice, L., & Murphy, S. (2013). Don’t it make my brown eyes
green? An analysis of Facebook use and romantic jealousy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 16, 237–242. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0411
Mu~
niz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducci
on y adaptaci
on de los
tests: Segunda edici
on [Guidelines for translating and adapting tests: Second edition]. Psico-
thema, 25, 151–157. doi:10.7334/psicothema2013.24
National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences. (2014). Forensis: Datos para la Vida
[Forensis: Data for Life]. Colombia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.medicinalegal.gov.co/docu
ments/88730/1656998/Forensis§Interactivo§2014.24-JULpdf.pdf/9085ad79-d2a9-4c0da17b-
f845ab96534b
Perles, F., San Mart
ın, J., & Canto, J. (2016). Gender and conflict resolution strategies in Spanish
teen couples: Their relationships with jealousy and emotional dependency. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 32,1–26. doi:10.1177/0886260516651316
Perles, F., San Mart
ın, J., Canto, J., & Moreno, P. (2011). Inteligencia emocional, celos, tendencia al
abuso y estrategias de resoluci
on de conflictos en la pareja [Emotional intelligence, jealousy, ten-
dency towards abuse, and estrategias to solve partner conflicts]. Escritos de Psicolog
ıa, 4,34–43.
doi:10.5231/psy.writ.2011.6.5
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6, 181–196. doi:10.1177/026540758900600203
P
erez, V. A. F., Fiol, E. B., Guzm
an, C. N., & Basurto, V. F. (2010). El mito rom
antico de los celos y
su aceptaci
on en la sociedad espa~
nola actual [The romantic jealous myth and its acceptance in
the current Spanish society]. Apuntes de Psicolog
ıa, 28, 391–402.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middeltown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press.
Sebasti
an, J., Ortiz, B., Gil, M., del Arroyo, M. G., Hern
aiz, A., & Hern
andez, J. (2010). La Violencia
en las Relaciones de Pareja de los J
ovenes.¿ Hacia D
onde Caminamos? [Violence in Young Cou-
ples. What is the Way Ahead?]. Cl
ınica, 1,71–83. doi:10.5093/cc2010v1n2a1
Seder, J. P., & Oishi, S. (2009). Ethnic/racial homogeneity in college students’Facebook friendship
networks and subjective well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 438–443.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.009
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two- process view of Facebook use and related-
ness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 100, 766–775. doi:10.1037/a0022407
Sierra, J. C., Moyano, N., Vallejo-Medina, P., & G
omez-Berrocal, C. (2017). An abridged Spanish
version of Sexual Double Standard Scale: Factorial structure, reliability and validity evidence.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psycholog. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.05.003
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tac-
tics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,
283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001
S
anchez, V., Mu~
noz, N., Nocentini, A., Ortega-Ru
ız, R., & Menesini, E. (2014). Online intrusive-
ness, online jealousy and dating aggression in young adults: A cross-national study (Spain-Italy).
Maltrattamento e abuso all’infanzia, 16,47–65. doi:10.3280/MAL2014-003004
Torres, P., & Melamed, E. (2016). Uso de T-PACK como estrategia de transferencia de conoci-
miento en las universidades [Use of T-PACK as a knowledge transfer strategy among universi-
ties]. In J. Barboza, M. Romero, G. Ziritt, & J. Hern
andez (coord.), Docencia, Ciencia y
Tecnolog
ıa: Un enfoque desde el ser y el hacer [Teaching, Science and Technology: An approach
about being and making] (pp. 194–216). Cabimas, Venezuela: Fondo Editorial UNERMB.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 321
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic relationships:
Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication,
16, 511–527. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01552.x
White, G. L. (1976). The social psychology of romantic jealousy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of California, Los Angeles.
Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social
sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203–220. doi:10.1177/1745691612442904
Zacchilli, T. L., Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2009). The romantic partner conflict scale: A new
scale to measure relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 1073–
1096. doi:10.13072/midss.267
322 N. MOYANO ET AL.
Downloaded by [83.51.81.15] at 11:00 03 December 2017
