Social media plays an important role in the maintenance of close relationships, especially in today’s age of technology. However, social media platforms can also threaten existing romantic relationships by using algorithms to expose committed people to attractive and desirable alternatives. The current study focused on TikTok as one platform that may amplify alternative threats through viewing thirst traps on one’s For You Page (FYP). Sixty-five dyads completed an online correlational survey including measures for both their own and perceptions of the partner’s evaluations of TikTok alternatives. Actor Partner Interdependence Modeling (APIM) was used to examine how the partner’s perceived interactions with TikTok alternatives were associated with relationship quality (trust and satisfaction) and if this association was moderated by perceived partner commitment. Additionally, a partner actively interacting with TikTok alternatives was negatively associated with relationship quality, and this effect was exacerbated when the alternative was perceived as dissimilar to the actor. These results have implications for understanding the impact of algorithmically-induced threats on romantic relationship stability and romantic relationship maintenance on the popular TikTok platform.
AndersonK. E. (2020). Getting acquainted with social networks and apps: It is time to talk about TikTok. Library Hi Tech News, 37(4), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-01-2020-0001
3.
BartonA. W.LavnerJ. A.StanleyS. M.JohnsonM. D.RhoadesG. K. (2020). “Will you complete this survey too?” Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000583
BevanJ. L. (2017). Liking, creeping, and password sharing: Romantic jealousy experience and expression and social networking sites. In Punyanunt-CarterN. M.WrenchJ. S. (Eds.), The impact of social media in modern romantic relationships (pp. 165–180). Lexington Books.
6.
BhandariA.BimoS. (2022). Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social Media + Society, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221086241
7.
BlackA. E. (2023). Responding to threatening online alternatives: Perceiving the partner’s commitment through their social media behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(5), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231186960
8.
BlackA. E.ReisH. T. (2022). Is my partner committed to me or tempted by others? Perceptions of the partner’s devaluation of alternatives. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 3, Article 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2022.100042
9.
BradyA.BakerL. R. (2022). The changing tides of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships: Recent societal changes compel new directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1), Article e12650. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12650
10.
BradyA.BakerL. R.MillerR. S. (2019). Look but don’t touch? Self-regulation determines whether noticing attractive alternatives increases infidelity. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000578
11.
Bucknell BossenC.KottaszR. (2020). Uses and gratifications sought by pre-adolescent and adolescent TikTok consumers. Young Consumers, 21(4), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-07-2020-1186
12.
CampbellL.SimpsonJ. A.KashyD. A.FletcherG. J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274006
13.
ChenJ.GeyerW.DuganC.MullerM.GuyI. (2009). Make new friends, but keep the old: Recommending people on social networking sites. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518735
14.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
17.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
18.
FleurietC.ColeM.GuerreroL. K. (2014). Exploring Facebook: Attachment style and nonverbal message characteristics as predictors of anticipated emotional reactions to Facebook postings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0189-x
19.
FramptonJ. R.FoxJ.BenningtonB. (2025). Jealousy, threat, and romantic rivals in parasocial romantic relationships. Psychology of Popular Media. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000589
20.
FunkJ. L.RoggeR. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572
21.
HockeyA.DonovanC. L.OverallN. C.BarlowF. K. (2022). Body image projection bias in heterosexual romantic relationships: A dyadic investigation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(7), 987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211025202
22.
JohnsonD. J.RusbultC. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 967–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.967
23.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford.
24.
KlugD.QinY.EvansM.KaufmanG. (2021). Trick and please. A mixed-method study on user assumptions about the TikTok algorithm. Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 (WebSci ’21), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447535.3462512
25.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
26.
LedermannT.RudazM.WuQ.CuiM. (2022). Determine power and sample size for the simple and mediation actor–partner interdependence model. Family Relations, 71(4), 1452–1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12644
27.
LeeA. Y.MieczkowskiH.EllisonN. B.HancockJ. T. (2022). The algorithmic crystal: Conceptualizing the self through algorithmic personalization on TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555601
28.
LemayE. P.Jr.ClarkM. S. (2008). How the head liberates the heart: Projection of communal responsiveness guides relationship promotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 647–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.647
29.
LengersdorffL. L.LammC. (2025). With low power comes low credibility? Toward a principled critique of results from underpowered tests. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459241296397
LydonJ. E. (2010). How to forego forbidden fruit: The regulation of attractive alternatives as a commitment mechanism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 635–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00283.x
32.
LydonJ. E.KarremansJ. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: A motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.011
33.
McCashinD.MurphyC. M. (2023). Using TikTok for public and youth mental health–A systematic review and content analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(1), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045221106608
34.
MercerJ.SmithC. (2025). Thirst trapping’: Digitised desire and the online sexual economy. In Sexualised masculinity (pp. 202–228). Routledge.
35.
MillerR. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 758–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758
36.
OwenJ.RhoadesG. K.StanleyS. M.MarkmanH. J. (2011). The revised commitment inventory: Psychometrics and use with unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32(6), 820–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X10385788
37.
ParryD. A.DavidsonB. I.SewallC. J. R.FisherJ. T.MieczkowskiH.QuintanaD. S. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), 1535–1547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
40.
RusbultC. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4
41.
RusbultC. 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(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101
42.
RusbultC. E.BuunkB. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 175–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000202
43.
ScherrS.WangK. (2021). Explaining the success of social media with gratification niches: Motivations behind daytime, nighttime, and active use of TikTok in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106893
44.
SeokC. B.SinS. C.FitrianaM.MutangJ. A.YeeH. K.WiderW.IsmailR. (2022). The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Perceived Relationship Quality Component (PRQC) inventory in the Malaysian context. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(7), 5447–5457. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/12881
45.
SharabiL. L.HopkinsA. (2021). Picture perfect? Examining associations between relationship quality, attention to alternatives, and couples’ activities on Instagram. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3518–3542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521991662
46.
SimpsonJ. A.FletcherG. J. O.CampbellL. (2001). The structure and function of ideals standards in close relationships. In FletcherG. J. O.ClarkM. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86–106). Blackwell.
47.
SongJ.HoweE.OltmannsJ. R.FisherA. J. (2023). Examining the concurrent and predictive validity of single items in ecological momentary assessments. Assessment, 30(5), 1662–1671. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221113563
48.
StarksT. J.MillarB. M.ParsonsJ. T. (2015). Correlates of individual versus joint participation in online survey research with same-sex male couples. AIDS and Behavior, 19(6), 963–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0962-1
49.
TaylorS. H.BrisiniK. S. C. (2024). Parenting the TikTok algorithm: An algorithm awareness as process approach to online risks and opportunities. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107975
50.
TaylorS. H.ChoiM. (2023). Lonely algorithms: A longitudinal investigation into the bidirectional relationship between algorithm responsiveness and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41(5), 1253–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231156623
51.
VanderDriftL. E.AgnewC. R. (2020). Interdependence perspectives on relationship main-tenance. In OgolskyB. G.MonkJ. K. (Eds.), Relationship maintenance: Theory, process, and context (pp. 15–28). Cambridge.
52.
WieselquistJ. (2009). Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347931
53.
WieselquistJ.RusbultC. E.FosterC. A.AgnewC. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 942–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942
54.
ZoppolatG.VissermanM. L.RighettiF. (2020). A nice surprise: Sacrifice expectations and partner appreciation in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(2), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519867145
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
