Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:12:48.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Social Networks and Relationship Maintenance

from Part III - Processes of Relationship Maintenance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2019

By
Susan Sprecher ,
Diane Felmlee ,
Jeffrey E. Stokes  and
Brandon McDaniel
Edited by
Brian G. Ogolsky  and
J. Kale Monk
Brian G. Ogolsky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
J. Kale Monk
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access

Summary

Relationships are embedded in broader social networks, including the family and friends of both partners. Covering contributions from several disciplines, this chapter discusses the role of social networks in the maintenance of intimate relationships. We first describe findings from the communication field showing how people use their social networks (such as through doing activities with mutual friends) as one of several strategies to maintain their relationships. Then, we discuss social psychological literature regarding how social networks affect both dyad members’ motivation to engage in various maintenance mechanisms that follow from their decision to commit. Furthermore, the social network can be instrumental in influencing pair members’ ability to maintain their relationship, including by giving advice to help repair relationships, which is also discussed in this chapter. We then turn to more macro-level issues regarding the compositional or structural dimensions of social networks and the ways in which they play a role in the maintenance of couples’ relationships. Variation in the processes of network influence on the maintenance of relationships is also considered, including how networks differentially influence relationship maintenance across the life course and through technology (e.g., social media).

Keywords

maintenancesocial networkssocial contextfamily and friendssocial environmentclose relationships
Type
Chapter
Information
Relationship Maintenance
Theory, Process, and Context
 , pp. 152 - 177
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., & Drigotas, S. M. (2001). Substituting the forest for the trees: Social networks and the prediction of romantic relationship state and fate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1042–1057.Google Scholar
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.Google Scholar
Agnew, C. R., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2015). Relationship maintenance and dissolution. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Simpson, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 581–604). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Shared participation in self-expanding activities: Positive effects on experienced marital quality. In Noller, P. & Feeney, J. A. (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 177–200). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ballantine, P. W., Lin, Y., & Veer, E. (2015). The influence of user comments on perceptions of Facebook relationship status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 50–55.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590.Google Scholar
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahistein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–199.Google Scholar
Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billedo, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social networking sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 152–157.Google Scholar
Blair, K. L., & Holmberg, D. (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 769–791.Google Scholar
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 953–961.Google Scholar
Bryant, C. M., Conger, R. D., & Meehan, J. M. (2001). The influence of in‐laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 614–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buunk, B. P. (2001). Perceived superiority of one’s own relationship and perceived prevalence of happy and unhappy relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 565–574.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 10135–10140.Google Scholar
Canary, D. J. (2011). On babies, bathwater, and absolute claims: Reply to Stafford. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 304–311.Google Scholar
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communications Monographs, 59, 243–267.Google Scholar
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.Google Scholar
Castañeda, A. M., Wendel, M. L., & Crockett, E. E. (2015). Overlap in Facebook profiles reflects relationship closeness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornwell, B. (2012). Spousal network overlap as a basis for spousal support. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 229–238.Google Scholar
Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., & GainesJr, S. O. (1997). Prescriptive support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 79–90.Google Scholar
Coyne, S. M., McDaniel, B. T., & Stockdale, L. A. (2017). “Do you dare to compare?” Associations between maternal social comparisons on social networking sites and parenting, mental health, and romantic relationship outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dailey, R. M., Hampel, A. D., & Roberts, J. B. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and commitment vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77, 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dailey, R. M., Pfiester, A., Jin, B., Beck, G., & Clark, G. (2009). On‐again/off‐again dating relationships: How are they different from other dating relationships? Personal Relationships, 16, 23–47.Google Scholar
Dainton, M. (2013). Relationship maintenance on Facebook: Development of a measure, relationship to general maintenance, and relationship satisfaction. College Student Journal, 47, 113–121.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2001). A relational uncertainty analysis of jealousy, trust, and maintenance in long‐distance versus geographically close relationships. Communication Quarterly, 49, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Routine and strategic maintenance efforts: Behavioral patterns, variations associated with relational length, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communication Monographs, 69, 52–66.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., & Gross, J. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25, 179–191.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255–271.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (2000). Predicting maintenance enactment from relational schemata, spousal behavior, and relational characteristics. Communication Research Reports, 17, 171–180.Google Scholar
Dainton, M., Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7, 88–98.Google Scholar
Daly, A. (2015). Generation validation: Why everyone just wants to be liked. Elle.com. Retrieved from www.elle.com/life-love/a14618/generation-validation/Google Scholar
Darvell, M. J., Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-monitoring behavior on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 717–722.Google Scholar
Dindia, K. (2000). Relational maintenance. In Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 286–299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M.E. (1972). Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo & Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 1–10.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Gray, R., Lampe, C., & Fiore, A. T. (2014a). Social capital and resource requests on Facebook. New Media & Society, 16, 1104–1121.Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.Google Scholar
Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014b). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 855–870.Google Scholar
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 Networking, 14, 631–635.Google Scholar
Emery, L. F., Muise, A., Dix, E. L., & Le, B. (2014). Can you tell that I’m in a relationship? Attachment and relationship visibility on Facebook. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1466–1479.Google Scholar
Etcheverry, P., Le, B., & Charania, M. (2008). Perceived versus reported social referent approval and romantic relationship commitment and persistence. Personal Relationships, 15, 281–295.Google Scholar
Felmlee, D. H. (2001). No couple is an island: A social network perspective on dyadic stability. Social Forces, 4, 1259–1287.Google Scholar
Felmlee, D. H., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Close relationships and social psychology: Intersections and future paths. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 365–376.Google Scholar
Fingerman, K., Miller, L., Birditt, K., & Zarit, S. (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1220–1233.Google Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Hui, C. M., Carswell, K. L., & Larson, G. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 3–7.Google Scholar
Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 771–794.Google Scholar
Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Faingataa, S. (2013). “Date nights” take two: The maintenance function of shared relationship activities. Personal Relationships, 21, 125–149.Google Scholar
Gray, P. B., Franco, C. Y., Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Romantic and dating behaviors among single parents in the United States. Personal Relationships, 23, 491–504.Google Scholar
Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., & Davis, J. L. (2008). Third-party forgiveness: (Not) forgiving your close others’ betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 407–418.Google Scholar
Green, J. D., Davis, J. L., & Reid, C. A. (2014). Third-party forgiveness: Social influences on intimate dyads. In Agnew, C. R. (Ed.), Social influences on romantic relationships: Beyond the dyad (pp. 171–187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2012). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile maintenance expectations, (over) dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media & Society, 14, 316–331.Google Scholar
Helms, H. M., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2003). Marital quality and spouses’ marriage work with close friends and each other. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 963–977.Google Scholar
Hogerbrugge, M. J. A., Komter, A. E., & Scheepers, P. (2013). Dissolving long-term romantic relationships: Assessing the role of the social context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 320–342.Google Scholar
Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview. In Burgess, R. L. & Huston, T. L. (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 3–28). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, G. L., Kennedy, D., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2014). A social network comparison of low-income black and white newlywed couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 967–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, J. F., & Rauer, A. J. (2014). Turning inward versus outward: Relationship work in young adults and romantic functioning. Personal Relationships, 21, 451–467.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. F., & Rauer, A. J. (2015). Marriage work in older couples: Disclosure of marital problems to spouses and friends over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 732–743.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. P., Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment: Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 160–177.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. (1982). Couple involvement and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 34–43.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (2003). Shared friendship networks and the life course: An analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples. Social Networks, 25, 231–249.Google Scholar
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.Google Scholar
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Keneski, E., & Loving, T. J. (2014). Network perceptions of daters’ romances. In Agnew, C. R. (Ed.), Social influences on romantic relationships: Beyond the dyad (pp. 126–147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K., Bangerter, L. R., Liu, Y., Polenick, C. A., Zarit, S. H., & Fingerman, K. L. (2017). Middle-aged offspring’s support to aging parents with emerging disability. The Gerontologist, 57, 441–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Klein, R. C. A., & Milardo, R. M. (2000). The social context of couple conflict: Support and criticism from informal third parties. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 618–637.Google Scholar
Lane, B. L., & Piercy, C. W. (2017). Making sense of becoming Facebook official: Implications for identity and time. In Punyanunt-Carter, N. & Wrench, J. S. (Eds.), The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 31–46). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Lane, B. L., Piercy, C. W., & Carr, C. T. (2016). Making it Facebook official: The warranting value of online relationship status disclosures on relational characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 1–8.Google Scholar
Larson, R., Mannell, R., & Zuzanek, J. (1986). Daily well-being of older adults with friends and family. Psychology and Aging, 1, 117–126.Google Scholar
Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). Assessing the measurement invariance of relational maintenance behavior when face-to-face and online. Communication Research Reports, 27, 30–37.Google Scholar
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2007). Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1036–1049.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. (1973). Social reactions and the formation of dyads: An interactionist approach to mate selection. Sociometry, 36, 409–418.Google Scholar
Lydon, J. E., & Quinn, S. K. (2013). Relationship maintenance processes. In Simpson, J. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 573–588). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacGeorge, E. L., & Hall, E. D. (2014). Relationship advice. In Agnew, C. R. (Ed.), Social influences on romantic relationships: Beyond the dyad (pp. 188–208). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansson, D. H. (2016). American grandchildren’s use of relational maintenance behaviors with their grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 14, 338–352.Google Scholar
Marsiglio, W., & Scanzoni, J. (1995). Families and friendships. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well being. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 85–98.Google Scholar
McDaniel, B. T., Coyne, S. M., & Holmes, E. K. (2012). New mothers and media use: Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 1509–1517.Google Scholar
McDaniel, B. T., Drouin, M., & Cravens, J. D. (2017). Do you have anything to hide? Infidelity-related behaviors on social media sites and marital satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 88–95.Google Scholar
McDermott, R., Fowler, J., & Christakis, N. (2013). Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: Social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample. Social Forces, 92, 491–519.Google Scholar
Milardo, R. M. (1982). Friendship networks in developing relationships: Converging and diverging social environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 162–172.Google Scholar
Milardo, R. M., & Helms-Erikson, H. (2000). Network overlap and third-party influence in close relationships. In Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 33–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 964–976.Google Scholar
Monserud, M. A. (2008). Intergenerational relationships and affectual solidarity between grandparents and young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 182–195.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2014). “Creeping” or just information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21, 35–50.Google Scholar
Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 343–367.Google Scholar
Oliker, S. J. (1989). Best friends and marriage: Exchange among women. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Payne, C. C. (2004). Wives’ domain-specific “marriage work” with friends and spouses: Links to marital quality. Family Relations, 53, 393–404.Google Scholar
Reczek, C., Liu, H., & Umberson, D. (2010). Just the two of us? How parents influence adult children’s marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1205–1219.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Caprariello, P. A., & Velickovic, M. (2011). The relationship superiority effect is moderated by the relationship context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 481–484.Google Scholar
Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 243–254.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., Monteiro, L., & Prada, M. (2017). Perceived parent and friend support for romantic relationships in emerging adults. Personal Relationships, 24, 4–16.Google Scholar
Rook, K. S. (2009). Gaps in social support resources in later life: An adaptational challenge in need of further research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 103–112.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the Internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547.Google Scholar
Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C. R., & Arriaga, X. B. (2012). The Investment model of commitment processes. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, volume 2 (pp. 218–231). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., & Verette, J. (1994). The investment model: An interdependence analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena. In Canary, D. & Stafford, L. (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 115–139). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., Van Lange, P. A., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521–545.Google Scholar
Sarkisian, N., Gerena, M., & Gerstel, N. (2007) Extended family integration among Euro and Mexican Americans: Ethnicity, gender, and class. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 40–54.Google Scholar
Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2016). Does singlehood isolate or integrate? Examining the link between marital status and ties to kin, friends, and neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 361–384.Google Scholar
Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2015). The ecology of relationships: Meeting locations and cohabitors’ relationship perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 141–160.Google Scholar
Seal, K. L., Doherty, W. J., & Harris, S. M. (2016). Confiding about problems in marriage and long-term committed relationships: A national study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42, 438–450.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. C., Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Wright, B. L. (2015). Don’t tell me who I can’t love: A multimethod investigation of social network and reactance effects on romantic relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78, 7–99.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. C., Hood, K. B., & Wright, B. L. (2014). Revisiting the Romeo and Juliet effect (Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz, 1972): Reexamining the links between social network opinions and romantic relationship outcomes. Social Psychology, 45, 170–178.Google Scholar
Slatcher, R. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: Creating closeness between couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 279–297.Google Scholar
Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Online dating & relationships. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships/Google Scholar
Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 804–820.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. (2011). The influence of social networks on romantic relationships: Through the lens of the social network. Personal Relationships, 18, 630–644.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. H. (1992). The influence of parents and friends on the quality and stability of romantic relationships: A three-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 888–900.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. H. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7, 325–340.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D. H., Orbuch, D. L., & Willetts, M. C. (2002). Social networks and change in personal relationships. In Vangelisti, A., Reis, H., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (Eds.), Stability and change in relationships (pp. 257–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviors: Critique and development of the revised relationship maintenance behavior scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303.Google Scholar
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217–242.Google Scholar
Stafford, L., Dainton, M., & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristics. Communications Monographs, 67, 306–323.Google Scholar
Stein, C. H., Bush, E. G., Ross, R. R., & Ward, M. (1992). Mine, yours and ours: A configural analysis of the networks of married couples in relation to marital satisfaction and individual well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 365–383.Google Scholar
Stewart, M. C., Dainton, M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Maintaining relationships on Facebook: Associations with uncertainty, jealousy, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 27, 13–26.Google Scholar
Stokes, J. E. (2016). The influence of intergenerational relationships on marital quality following the death of a parent in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 3–22.Google Scholar
Toma, C. L., & Choi, M. (2015). The couple who Facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 367–372.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My relationship is better than – and not as bad as – yours is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 32–44.Google Scholar
Veiel, H. O. F., Crisand, M., Stroszeck-Somschor, H., & Herrie, J. (1991). Social support networks of chronically strained couples: Similarity and overlap. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 279–292.Google Scholar
Vogl-Bauer, S. (2003). Maintaining family relationships. In Canary, D. J. & Dainton, M. (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 31–49). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Waldinger, R. J., Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., & Crowell, J. A. (2015). Security of attachment to spouses in late life: Concurrent and prospective links with cognitive and emotional well-being. Clinical Psychological Science, 3, 516–529.Google Scholar
Waller, W., & Hill, R. (1951). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999a). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations, 48, 263–269.Google Scholar
Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999b). Using paired data to test models of relational maintenance and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 175–191.Google Scholar
Widmer, E. D., Kellerhals, J., & Levy, R. (2004) Types of conjugal networks, conjugal conflict and conjugal quality. European Sociological Review, 20, 63–77.Google Scholar
Wildermuth, S. M. (2004). The effects of stigmatizing discourse on the quality of on-line relationships. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 73–84.Google Scholar
Wrzus, C., Hänel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 53–80.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×