1. Realistic Mocked-Up Facebook Profiles Affect Peoples’ Cognitive Interpretations About Their Own Relationship Marian M. Morry, Tamara A. Sucharyna, & Sarah K. Petty Method Poster presented at the 2016 SPSP Conference, San Diego, CA. Questions or comments? Contact Marian_Morry@UManitoba.ca Discussion Results Participants  172 (80 males) heterosexual dating individuals, M age: 19.54 yrs., M rel. length: 22.94 months, 86% exclusively dating, 67% Caucasian Materials  Attachment : Avoidance α =.90, Anxiety α =.92 (Brennan et al., 1998)  Comparison Direction: We created two FB profiles by manipulating photos and wall posts  Upward Social Comparison Profile: kind, supportive posts from one’s romantic partner and photos displaying the happy couple  Downward Social Comparison Profile: posts conveying emotional distance in the relationship and photos displaying either individual with potential alternative partners.  RSCI : positive upward α =.92; positive downward α =.96; negative α =.94 (Morry & Sucharyna, in press)  Relationship Quality (RQ): commitment α =.83 (Murray et al., 2001), satisfaction α =.78 (Hendrick, 1988)  Attention to Alternatives (AtoA): active prowling α =.90, passive awareness α =.95, willful disinterest α =.86 (Miller et al., 2010) Hypotheses H1. Main effects of comparison direction (CD) and attachment on RSCI, RQ, and AtoA. H2. CD would have an indirect effect on RQ and AtoA through RSCI. H3. Attachment would have an indirect effect on RQ and AtoA through RSCI. Direct Effects:  Upward, compared to downward, comparisons predicted more negative and positive upward and fewer positive downward interpretations.  Higher avoidance predicted lower relationship quality and higher attention to alternatives. Indirect Effects:  Negative interpretations mediated all effects, pos. down mediated direction-satisfaction and pos. up mediated direction-commitment.  Positive upward interpretations mediated all anxiety-attention to alternative relations The effects of social comparison direction and RSCI replicate our off-line research. Social comparison interpretations are important additions to predict relationship quality & behavior. Future Directions: Can changing one’s interpretations influence relationship outcomes in a positive way? Does the type of positive interpretation trigger destiny (e.g., positive downward) or growth beliefs (e.g., positive upward)? Social comparisons are used to obtain information about one’s standing on an attribute, such as one’s romantic relationship, when lacking an objective measure (Festinger, 1954).  Facebook (FB) users share information about their romantic relationships posting a coupled up profile photo, relationship status, and status updates about the relationship (Christofides et al., 2012) which can be used for social comparisons. How individuals interpret these comparisons, using the Relationship Social Comparison Interpretation scale (RSCI), has implications for the self and one’s relationship (Morry & Sucharyna, in press).  The RSCI includes three interpretations:  Negative e.g., My relationship is not good enough  Positive upward e.g., There is hope for the future  Positive downward e.g., We’re doing better than them Attachment also impact cognitive, behavioral, and affective components of romantic relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Procedure: We measured attachment and then manipulated a relationship social comparison on Facebook (upward or downward comparison). We then examined whether the RSCI mediated their effects on relationship outcomes. Introduction H1 Hierarchical Regressions: RSCI – CD and attachment predicted the RSCI (Table 1). RQ - Lower avoidance predicted higher satisfaction (β = -.39) and commitment (β = -.61). Lower anxiety predicted higher satisfaction (β = -.30). AtoA - higher avoidance predicted more active prowling (β =.46) and passive awareness (β =.20) and less willful disinterest (β = -.46). Interpretation βΔR 2 β Negative.02*.10*** Direction.15*.13* Avoidance.19** Anxiety.23** Positive Downward.39***.01 Direction-.64***-.63*** Avoidance-.06 Anxiety-.05 Positive Upward.11***.03* Direction.33***.31*** Avoidance.03 Anxiety.19* Table 1. Social Comparison and Attachment as Predictors of the RSCI H2 Bootstrapping: RQ–Pos. upward interpretations mediated CD– commitment; whereas pos. downward interpretations mediated CD- satisfaction, and negative interpretations mediated both (Figure 1). AtoA (not shown) – Pos. upward interpretations mediated CD-active prowling, CD-passive awareness, and CD-willful disinterest; and negative interpretations mediated CD–active prowling. Figure 1. RSCI Mediating the Direction-Relationship Quality Relations Direction (0=Downward, 1 = Upward) Pos. Downward Negative Pos. Upward Satisfaction Commitment.26* -2.27***.91*** -.31***.07** -.01 -.64***.10.38** c = -.14 † (c’ =.11) c =.16 (c’ =.22) Negative 95% BC -.4519, -.0016 Pos Up 95% BC.1490,.6099 Negative 95% BC -.1921, -.0057 Pos Down 95% BC -.2881, -.0543 Figure 2. RSCI Mediating the Avoidance- Relationship Quality Relations H3 Bootstrapping: AtoA (not shown) – Pos. upward interpretations mediated anxiety-active prowling, anxiety-passive awareness, and anxiety-willful disinterest; negative interpretations mediated anxiety-willful disinterest and avoid.-willful disinterest H3 Bootstrapping: RQ - Negative interpretations mediated avoidance-satisfaction and avoidance-commitment (see Figure 2). Both negative and pos. downward interpretations mediated anxiety-satisfaction (not shown). Avoidance Pos. Upward Pos. Downward Negative Commitment Satisfaction Neg. 95% BC -.2274, -.0069 Neg. 95% BC -.1012, -.0145 c = -1.57*** (c’ =-1.50***) c = -.27*** (c’ =.22***).22** -.01.36**.07 -.33*.01.05*** -.22***