After relationship breakups, people must make difficult decisions about whether and how to convey this change in a networked environment. To understand and characterize behaviors around breakup disclosures, we analyzed survey responses from 119 US Facebook users who reported experiencing a recent breakup. Using mixed methods, we find that those perceiving Facebook as a more efficient disclosure medium are more likely to announce breakups. We show how media ideologies around Facebook breakup disclosures vary; yet people assume others hold similar beliefs about what is appropriate. We contribute to self-disclosure and online identity literature by identifying two new ways people engage in disclosure and self-presentation on social media: announcements, which highlight how social media can serve as efficient one-to-many disclosure sources, and private status change behaviors, a reflexive means of self-presentation. Understanding breakup disclosures provides insight into designing social media to better enable users to find support during difficult life transitions.
AndalibiNHaimsonOLDe ChoudhuryMet al. (2016) Understanding social media disclosures of sexual abuse through the lenses of support seeking and anonymity. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 3906–3918. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858096
2.
AndalibiNOzturkPForteA (2017) Sensitive self-disclosures, responses, and social support on Instagram: the case of #depression. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March, pp. 1485–1500. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243
3.
BackstromLKleinbergJ (2014) Romantic partnerships and the dispersion of social ties: a network analysis of relationship status on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work and social computing, Baltimore, MD, 15–19 February, pp. 831–841. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2531602.2531642
4.
BaltarFBrunetI (2012) Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Research22(1): 57–74.
5.
boydd (2010) Social network sites as networked public: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge, pp. 39–58.
6.
BrubakerJRHayesGRDourishP (2013) Beyond the grave: Facebook as a site for the expansion of death and mourning. The Information Society29(3): 152–163.
7.
CollinsNLMillerLC (1994) Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin116(3): 457–475.
8.
CorbinJStraussA (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
De ChoudhuryMMassimiM (2015) “She said yes!”—liminality and engagement announcements on Twitter. In: Proceedings of iConference 2015, Newport Beach, CA, 24–27 March. Available at: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73658
10.
De ChoudhuryMCountsSHorvitzE (2013) Major life changes and behavioral markers in social media: case of childbirth. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW ’13, pp. 1431–1442. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2441776.2441937
11.
DerlagaVJBergJH (2013) Self-Disclosure: Theory, Research, and Therapy. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
12.
DuckS (1982) A topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In: DuckS (ed.) Personal Relationships: Dissolving Personal Relationships. London: Academic Press, pp. 1–29.
13.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
14.
FieldTDiegoMPelaezMet al. (2009) Breakup distress in university students. Adolescence44(176): 705–727.
15.
FoxJTokunagaRS (2015) Romantic partner monitoring after breakups: attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(9): 491–498.
16.
FulkJ (1993) Social construction of communication technology. Academy of Management Journal36(5): 921–950.
17.
GarimellaKWeberICinSD (2014) From “I love you babe” to “leave me alone”—romantic relationship breakups on Twitter. In: arXiv:1409.5980 [cs]. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5980
18.
GershonI (2010a) Breaking up is hard to do: media switching and media ideologies. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology20(2): 389–405.
19.
GershonI (2010b) Media ideologies: an introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology20(2): 283–293.
20.
GershonI (2011a) The Breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over New Media. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
GershonI (2011b) Un-Friend my heart: Facebook, promiscuity, and heartbreak in a neoliberal age. Anthropological Quarterly84(4): 865–894.
22.
GoffmanE (1959) Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
HaimsonOLBowserAEMelcerEFet al. (2015a) Online inspiration and exploration for identity reinvention. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’15, pp. 3809–3818. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2702123.2702270
25.
HaimsonOLBrubakerJRDombrowskiLet al. (2015b) Disclosure, stress, and support during gender transition on Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, CSCW ’15, pp. 1176–1190. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2675133.2675152
26.
HaimsonOLBrubakerJRDombrowskiLet al. (2016) Digital footprints and changing networks during online identity transitions. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’16, pp. 2895–2907. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2858036.2858136
27.
HerronDMoncurWvan den HovenE (2016) Digital possessions after a romantic break up. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, NordiCHI ’16, pp. 36:1–36:10. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2971485.2971539
28.
HoganBQuan-HaaseA (2010) Persistence and change in social media. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30(5): 309–315.
29.
JiangLCBazarovaNNHancockJT (2011) From perception to behavior: disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research40(1): 125–143.
30.
LampinenALehtinenVLehmuskallioAet al. (2011) We’re in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’11, pp. 3217–3226. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979420
LearyMRKowalskiRM (1995) The self-presentation model of social phobia. In: HeimbergRG (ed.) Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 94–112.
33.
LukacsVQuan-HaaseA (2015) Romantic breakups on Facebook: new scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveillance. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 492–508.
34.
MarwickAboydd (2014) “It’s just drama”: teen perspectives on conflict and aggression in a networked era. Journal of Youth Studies17(9): 1187–1204.
35.
MassimiMDimondJPLe DantecCA (2012) Finding a new normal: the role of technology in life disruptions. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW ’12, pp. 719–728. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2145204.2145314
36.
MoncurWGibsonLHerronD (2016) The role of digital technologies during relationship breakdowns. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work and social computing, CSCW ’16, San Francisco, CA, 27 February–2 March, pp. 371–382. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2818048.2819925
37.
ReineckeLTrepteS (2014) Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: a two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior30: 95–102.
38.
RiméBFinkenauerCLuminetOet al. (1998) Social sharing of emotion: new evidence and new questions. European Review of Social Psychology9(1): 145–189.
39.
RobardsBLincolnS (2016) Making it “Facebook official”: reflecting on romantic relationships through sustained Facebook use. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–10.
40.
SasCWhittakerS (2013) Design for forgetting: disposing of digital possessions after a breakup. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’13, pp. 1823–1832. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2466110.2466241
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior7(3): 321–326.
43.
TomaCLChoiM (2015) The couple who Facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(7): 367–372.
44.
TongST (2013) Facebook use during relationship termination: uncertainty reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16(11): 788–793.
45.
TranTBJoormannJ (2015) The role of Facebook use in mediating the relation between rumination and adjustment after a relationship breakup. Computers in Human Behavior49: 56–61.
46.
VitakJKimJ (2014) You can’t block people offline: examining how Facebook’s affordances shape the disclosure process. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, pp. 461–474. ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2531602.2531672
