Professor Bengi Öner Özkan is a professor of social psychology in the Department of Psychology at Middle East Technical University. In this interview, she discusses digital boundaries in romantic relationships and the social dynamics of trolling. She explores how social media is changing intimacy, trust and fidelity, why couples need to discuss digital boundaries, and what psychology can tell us about trolling.
In your view, how has social media changed our understanding of intimacy, trust and fidelity in romantic relationships?
Social media has made it much easier to establish closeness and communicate. Dating and friendship platforms, in particular, allow people to connect readily with individuals they have never met. Yet this has also made relationship boundaries more complex.
Behaviour once considered private can now be displayed easily online. TikTok and X offer striking examples: even conduct that makes us think, “Surely this goes too far”, may attract attention, likes and engagement. Private messaging has also made direct contact faster and easier.
We can therefore no longer assess fidelity only through physical behaviour. Online relationships, messages, flirtatious exchanges and sometimes the way a person presents themselves can all affect trust and fidelity. People may also adopt false identities, give untrue information or impersonate somebody else. Social media is transforming not only communication but also our understanding of intimacy, trust, privacy and fidelity.
How should we define “infidelity on social media”? At what point do likes, private messages, flirtatious interactions, following an ex-partner or using a secret account become a boundary violation?
There is no single definition that applies to everyone because couples understand fidelity and boundaries differently. A like may not be infidelity in itself. Secret messages with romantic or sexual meaning, concealed flirtation or hidden emotional intimacy, however, may violate a boundary.
The key considerations are intention, secrecy and the limits a couple has agreed. Asking, “Would my partner be uncomfortable if they knew about this?” can be a useful guide.
What similarities and differences are there between digital and face-to-face infidelity in terms of their psychological effects?
Both may bring loss of trust, jealousy, anger, sadness and uncertainty about the relationship’s future. One of infidelity’s most significant psychological effects is damage to trust in a partner.
Digital infidelity may begin more easily and remain hidden for longer. Social media also enables continuous contact with a third person, making the behaviour easier to repeat and sustain.
How can couples’ differing expectations about boundaries on social media lead to conflict? How can healthy digital boundaries be established?
One partner may see following an ex as normal while the other experiences it as a threat. One may consider private messaging ordinary communication while the other sees emotional infidelity.
The problem can lie less in the behaviour itself than in the different meanings attached to it. Rather than assume shared boundaries, couples should ask openly, “Which behaviours make you uncomfortable?” and “What do we consider private?” Open communication can help them establish healthy limits.
How might jealousy, attachment styles, self-presentation and social comparison relate to infidelity on social media?
These factors may shape how people perceive and respond to possible infidelity online, but they should not be treated as simple causes. Social media exposes us continually to other people’s lives and invites comparison. On Instagram, people are especially inclined to share experiences that present a snapshot of happiness. For some, this may increase inadequacy, jealousy, dissatisfaction with their own relationship or a sense of threat.
Attachment styles may also matter. People with anxious attachment traits may be more sensitive to a partner’s online behaviour and seek more reassurance. Online behaviour, personality and relationship quality must be considered together.
Which individual and social psychological processes lie behind trolling? How do anonymity, group norms and online invisibility encourage it?
Trolling has no single cause. Low empathy, aggressive tendencies, impulsivity and enjoyment of provocation may all play a part.
The online environment matters too. Anonymity, or feeling less visible and accountable, can make behaviour that somebody would avoid face to face feel easier. Group norms are also influential. When an online community normalises aggression or ridicule, its members may adopt that behaviour more readily.
Does trolling affect only the person targeted, or can it also reshape trust and the ways people relate to one another in online communities?
Trolling can affect the whole community. In an atmosphere of persistent aggression and ridicule, people may feel less safe and become reluctant to share their views.
Over time, this can change trust, communication and group norms. Healthy dialogue weakens when people wonder, “Will I be attacked if I express my opinion here?”
Could trolling and social media infidelity share psychological mechanisms? What roles might impulsivity, reduced empathy, online disinhibition or a sense of distance from the consequences of one’s behaviour play?
Some mechanisms may overlap, particularly online disinhibition: behaving more freely or with less restraint online. When people cannot see another person’s face or immediate reaction, empathising and appreciating the consequences may become harder. Impulsivity may also play a part.
Trolling and digital infidelity should not, however, be treated as the same category of behaviour. They may share psychological processes, but their motivations and consequences differ.
Which questions do you think new research in these areas should focus on?
Research should move beyond “Who is unfaithful?” or “Who trolls?” to ask, “Under what conditions, and why?” It could examine how couples agree on social media boundaries and balance privacy with transparency.
Trolling research should consider not only an individual’s characteristics but also group norms and platform design. We need research that examines people and their digital environments together.
What is the most important advice you would give social media users and couples who want to build safer, healthier relationships online?
Do not assume digital boundaries are self-evident; discuss them openly. Rather than saying, “Don’t do that”, use “I” statements to explain why a behaviour feels uncomfortable and ask how you can set a boundary that helps both partners feel secure.
It is also important not to interpret everything online as a threat. Trust grows through open communication, mutual respect and agreed boundaries, not through constantly monitoring a partner.
