Download Encyclopedia of Cyber Behavior - EagleEye

Encyclopedia of
Cyber Behavior
Zheng Yan
University at Albany, USA
Volume I
Managing Director:
Senior Editorial Director:
Book Production Manager:
Development Manager:
Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Heather A. Probst
Sean Woznicki
Joel Gamon
Erika Gallagher
Jennifer Romanchak, Nicole Sparano
Nick Newcomer, Lisandro Gonzalez
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2012 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Encyclopedia of cyber behavior / Zheng Yan, editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book offers a complete look into the field of cyber behavior, surveying case studies, research, frameworks,
techniques, technologies, and future developments relating to the way people interact and behave online”-- Provided by
publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-0315-8 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-0316-5 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-0317-2 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Internet--Psychological aspects. 2. Computer networks--Psychological aspects. I. Yan, Zheng.
BF637.C45.E53 2010
302.23’1--dc23
2011044984
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
873
Chapter 72
Online Self-Disclosure
Behaviors
Holly H. Schiffrin
University of Mary Washington, USA
Melissa Falkenstern
Washington State University, USA
ABSTRACT
Self-disclosure, the sharing of personal information between communication partners, has long been
a topic of interest due to the large impact it plays in the development of interpersonal relationships
(Altman & Taylor, 1973). As the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) has increased, so
has the interest in the impact it may have on self-disclosure and relationship development. Several theories have been posited to explain the impact that the medium of communication has on self-disclosure.
Although some theories have predicted a negative impact of CMC on self-disclosure (Daft & Lengel,
1986; Kock, 2005), several researchers have found that CMC increases self-disclosure (McKenna &
Bargh, 2000; Valkenberg & Peter, 2009a; Walther, 1996). This article discusses the main theories that
explain the nature of online self-disclosure, the possible mechanisms by which CMC serves to increase
self-disclosure, and impact that online self-disclosure has on interpersonal relationships and well-being.
INTRODUCTION
Self-disclosure occurs when a person provides
(i.e., discloses) information about him/herself
to another person. The basic parameters of selfdisclosure include: (1) amount of information
disclosed; (2) intimacy of information disclosed;
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0315-8.ch072
and (3) duration of disclosure (Cozby, 1973). Examples include revealing minor personal details
such as preferences, opinions, or marital status,
to more intimate disclosures such as discussing
health status, personal secrets, or embarrassing behaviors. According to social penetration
theory, self-disclosure is a form of interpersonal
communication that is central in the development
and maintenance of relationships, which promote
Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
personal well-being (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Therefore, as society increases the use of electronic
media for interpersonal communication (e.g., email, instant messaging, and social networking
sites), it is important to examine the impact this
shift has had on self-disclosure behaviors as well
as the implications for interpersonal relationships
and well-being.
OVERVIEW
Self-disclosure has a long history of investigation by interpersonal communication researchers
because of its importance for relationship formation and personal well-being. Social penetration
theory suggests that relationships develop through
a process of reciprocal self-disclosure resulting in
intimacy and a close interpersonal bond (Altman &
Taylor, 1973). There is a reciprocal nature to selfdisclosure; the more people disclose about themselves, the more their communication partners will
disclose as well. High levels of self-disclosure
in dyads has been associated with higher levels
of reported liking by communication partners.
Similarly, people disclose more information to
friends than strangers and people who disclose
more information about themselves have more
friends than those who disclose less. Therefore,
it is not surprising that higher self-disclosure is
associated with better mental health. Although the
relationship is likely curvilinear, with levels of
disclosure that are too high associated with poor
mental health (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Traditionally, there have been two primary
methods for examining the amount, content, and
duration of self-disclosure (Cozby, 1973). First,
researchers have had participants complete selfreports describing their self-disclosure in specific
situations. Second, researchers have enlisted behavioral measures such as recording conversations
between two participants in a study or having
participants complete written self-descriptions.
Self-report measures have been criticized for their
874
lack of predictive validity for actual self-disclosure
when using behavioral measures. One reason
for the lack of correlation between self-report
and behavioral measures may be a response bias
on self-report measures (e.g,. a recall bias or a
social desirability bias). Another reason for the
discrepancy may be the communication recipient.
Self-report measures typically ask participants
about disclosure to their “best same-sex friend,”
whereas studies using behavioral measures of
self-disclosure often have participants disclosing
information to a stranger (e.g., the experimenter
or another participant). The research attempting
to assess self-disclosure online is also plagued
by these measurement issues first encountered
in offline studies.
Interpersonal communication research has
identified several factors that affect the amount,
content, and duration of self-disclosure in inperson settings (Cozby, 1973). First, women tend
to be both the initiator and recipient of more selfdisclosure than men. This difference is relevant to
online studies of self-disclosure because women
are more likely to be communicating online
(Valkenburg, Schouten, & Peter, 2005) and more
likely to participate in research studies in general
(Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1992). A second characteristic that affects self-disclosure is the socioeconomic status (SES) of the conversants. People
from a low-SES background tend to disclose less
information about themselves than people from
middle- or upper-SES backgrounds (Cozby, 1973).
The income differential is important given the
“digital divide” in access to computer-mediated
forms of communication in society. A third characteristic that has been widely examined in terms
of its relationship to self-disclosure is level of extraversion. People who are extraverts both initiate
and receive more self-disclosure than people who
are introverted (Cozby, 1973). Therefore, studies
of online self-disclosure behaviors should examine
the personal characteristics of participants in the
communication exchange.
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
Each time a new form of communication
technology is introduced, researchers express
concern over the impact it will have on the quality of communication and relationships (Ledbetter, Mazer, DeGroot, Meyer, Mao, & Swafford,
2011). In recent years, the use of the Internet for
interpersonal communication has expanded rapidly (PEW, 2007; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009a).
In 2007, approximately 86% of young adults
reported using the Internet occasionally or more
frequently (PEW, 2007). Therefore, researchers
have begun to examine how self-disclosure, and
subsequently relationship formation and personal
well-being, are affected when people participate
in computer-mediated communication (CMC)
rather than face-to-face (FTF) communication.
The research and theory on the impact of CMC
on self-disclosure, interpersonal relationships,
and well-being is in its infancy. Although it has
been studied for over 20 years by a variety of
researchers in multiple disciplines, there is still
considerable debate over the impact of online
communication. The debate may partially be due
to the constantly evolving nature of the communication technologies that are available as well as
how they are used by the public. However, two
generally opposing views have emerged. The first
view suggests that the nature of CMC should result
in less self-disclosure and, consequently, reduce
interpersonal relationship strength and personal
well-being. The opposing viewpoint has generated
research indicating that self-disclosure increases
during CMC compared to FTF communication.
Key researchers from these two camps will be
discussed as well as some of the factors that could
account for the discrepancies in their findings.
THEORIES PREDICTING
LESS SELF-DISCLOSURE
ONLINE THAN IN-PERSON
Daft & Lengel (1986) proposed the Media Richness Hypothesis, which classifies communication
media along a continuum based on four characteristics, including: (1) bandwidth/ability to convey
non-verbal cues; (2) speed of feedback; (3) message personalization; and (4) language naturalness.
They suggested that people attempt to match their
communication task to a form of media with the
appropriate level of richness on these four traits.
If a sub-optimal mode of communication is used,
then task performance will be adversely affected.
Walther & Parks (2002) reviewed studies testing
the Media Richness Hypothesis and concluded
that while studies that ask people to hypothetically
match media to communication task do support
the Media Richness Hypothesis, observational
studies of natural medium choice have not. A
major criticism of the theory comes from studies
finding that social influences (e.g., the culture
of e-mail in an office setting) shape people’s use
of a technology independent of the richness of
the medium. In the end, people’s perception of
appropriateness of CMC for a task, rather than
the objective features of the medium, seems to
be what is critical.
Kock (2005) offered the Media Naturalness
Hypothesis as an alternative to Media Richness.
He suggested that humans’ evolutionary history
makes FTF communication exchanges the most
natural and satisfying form of communication
(e.g., specialized areas of the brain for processing
facial expressions used during FTF exchanges).
FTF communication is characterized by (1) the
participants being physically co-located; (2)
synchronous responding; and (3) full access to
non-verbal cues such as facial expression, body
language, and tone of speech. Media Naturalness
has some similarities with Media Richness; however, the key outcomes of interest are different.
Whereas Media Richness is concerned with the
impact of media choice on task efficiency, Kock
has suggested that the more a form of media
diverges from FTF communication, the more it
increases cognitive burden during communication
due to lack of nonverbal cues, increases ambiguity of communication exchanges, and decreases
875
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
physiological arousal making CMC exchanges less
engaging than FTF. Some studies have found that
there is increased cognitive burden when using
CMC without a detriment in task performance,
which supports the media naturalness over Media
Richness Hypothesis. People were able to compensate for the shortcomings of communicating
through e-mail by writing well thought out and
focused responses.
Based on this hypothesis, Kock (2005) proposed that adding streaming video of a customer
service representative during an online inquiry
would result in higher perceived quality by customers due to reduced cognitive load resulting
from availability of the speaker’s nonverbal cues.
Although, this hypothesis remains to be tested,
the prediction contradicts research that has found
people rate a CMC partner more positively than
a FTF communication partner if they are not
presented with streaming video of their partner
(Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007). In addition, Walther & Boyd (2002; as cited in Walther
& Parks, 2002) concluded that it is erroneous to
assume in-person communication is always better
because there are characteristics of the Internet that
make it ideal for providing social support (e.g.,
access to experts, anonymity to avoid embarrassment, management of interaction, and 24/7 access).
Although neither the media richness nor media
naturalness hypotheses specifically address selfdisclosure as a specific outcome variable, both
would suggest that people should disclose less
information through CMC than in-person. From
the Media Richness perspective, the lack of nonverbal cues and asynchronous nature of CMC as
well as the reduced ability to convey personality
traits and use natural language indicate that electronic media are less rich for the task of relationship formation. Similarly, the Media Naturalness
Hypothesis suggests that FTF is always the most
optimal form of communication. Therefore, people
should be less likely to disclose personal information about themselves through CMC because it is
more cognitively effortful and less enjoyable. In
876
addition, the information that is disclosed is more
likely to be misinterpreted by the recipient, which
would reduce the effectiveness of the disclosure
for relationship formation or maintenance.
THEORIES PREDICTING
MORE SELF-DISCLOSURE
ONLINE THAN IN-PERSON
Suler (2004) coined the phrase “the online disinhibition effect” to summarize the notion that people
frequently do things online that they would not do
in person. He suggests that this disinhibition can
take either a benign (e.g., increased self-disclosure
or idealized representations of communication
partner) or a toxic (e.g., flaming or cyberbullying)
form. Suler hypothesizes that disinhibition occurs
due to the characteristics of the internet as well as
because people dissociate their online behavior
from their offline behavior (i.e., online actions
do not impact real life) and that lines of authority
are obscured on the Internet due to lack of nonverbal cues making people more willing to speak
or act out. The following research and theories in
three specific areas address why people may be
disinhibited and disclose more about themselves
online than in-person.
Characteristics of the Internet
that Affect Disclosure
McKenna and Bargh (2000) describe four major
characteristics of communication over the Internet
that differentiate it from in-person. First, there
is a great deal of anonymity to communicating
over the Internet that ranges from creating an
entirely false personal identity (e.g., posing as
someone older or a member of the opposite sex)
to simply interacting with people you do not know
personally. Second, physical distance no longer
poses a barrier to who people can meet and form
relationships with, which drastically increases the
number of potential interaction partners. Third,
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
CMC lacks visual cues available in-person, such
as attractiveness, body language, and facial
expressions. Finally, there is more control over
self-presentation due to asynchronous responding
and lack of time pressure to formulate a response.
Social Identity/Deindividuation (SIDE) theory
suggests that communicating without nonverbal
cues and in physical isolation promotes greater
group identity (e.g., strangers who belong to the
same news group; Spears & Lea, 1992). Early
researchers were concerned that this would lead
to deindividuation, resulting in anti-normative
behaviors and aggressive acts. Although “flaming” (i.e., posting or sending hostile messages on
the Internet) and cyber-bullying continue to be a
public concern and focus of study, experimental
research has not supported negative consequences
of deindividuation during Internet interactions
(Coleman, Paternite, & Sherman, 1999; Joinson,
2001). In fact, many studies have found benefits
of online communication. For example, people
tend to perceive themselves to be more similar
to their CMC partners than they actually are and
have more positive perceptions of their communication partner online than in person (Antheunis et
al., 2007; Bargh et al., 2002). These findings are
consistent with research on FTF self-disclosure
in which individuals who disclose more also rate
their partners as more agreeable and likeable than
those who disclose less (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Regardless of whether it occurs online or off-line,
self-disclosure seems to have a similar impact on
relationship development.
An additional benefit of CMC associated with
the characteristics of the Internet identified by
McKenna and Bargh (2000) has been increased
self-disclosure compared to FTF interpersonal
communication (Antheunis, et al., 2007; Boneva
et al., 2006; Coleman, et al., 1999; Gross et al.,
2002; Joinson, 2001; Schouten, Valkenburg,
Peter, & Antheunis, 2006; Tidwell & Walther,
2002). For example, Antheunis et al. (2007)
conducted an experiment by randomly assigning
participants to either a text-only CMC, a visual
CMC, or FTF communication conditions. They
found that participants in the text-only condition
disclosed more about themselves and asked more
questions about their communication partner,
which resulted in increased interpersonal attraction. Studies have also found that people not only
engage in more frequent self-disclosure online,
but also more intimate disclosure (Coleman et al.,
1999; Joinson, 2001), and that the intimacy of the
self-disclosure directly impacts the effects that
online self-disclosure has on the development of
relationships (Valkenberg & Peter, 2009a, 2009b).
The breadth and depth of self-disclosure observed
on the Internet indicates that it may be a viable
medium for developing intimate relationships and
increasing well-being.
Although some researchers suggest that it
is the lack of visual and non-verbal cues online
(i.e., cue deficits) that results in increased selfdisclosure (McKenna & Bargh, 2002; Suler,
2004), the Social Information Processing (SIP)
theory provides an alternate perspective (Tidwell
& Walther, 2002).Tidwell and Walther propose
that CMC participants compensate for the lack
of nonverbal cues through other means (e.g.,
content, style, and timing of messages) to reduce
interpersonal uncertainty, form impressions, and
develop relationships online.
Research supporting this theory has found
that although more complete impressions may
form faster during FTF interactions, overtime
relationships become indistinguishable from those
formed through CMC. Tidwell and Walther (2002)
found that CMC dyads engaged in more episodes
of self-disclosure and asked more questions, especially personal questions, than FTF partners.
They also rated their partners as more effective
communicators and more positively, in general,
than FTF dyads.
877
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
Hyperpersonal
Communication Theory
During the early days of Internet communication,
accounts of rapidly developing Internet romances
led Walther (1996) to suggest that the internet not
only allows for meaningful interpersonal communication, but that it often increases the amount and
quality of information shared between partners.
He proposed that the CMC leads to a phenomenon known as ‘hyperpersonal communication’
which he defined as “CMC that is more socially
desirable than we tend to experience in parallel
FTF interaction” (Walther, 1996, p.17) Walther
described four elements that affect online communication: the sender of message, the receiver,
the channel, and the feedback received about the
communication attempt.
The sender takes advantage of the characteristics CMC (e.g., lack of visual or nonverbal cues)
to control their self-presentation. While this allows
the sender to possibly be dishonest about his or her
identity, it may also have benefits which increase
the quality of the communication. Because there
are no visual cues in CMC, partners no longer
have to monitor their physical presentation (e.g.,
posture, looking interested, etc.) and can focus
more of their cognitive resources on the content
of the conversation.
The recipient of the message tends to develop
an overly idealized representation of the sender
by reading more meaning into smaller amounts
of information. This idealized representation may
stem from the group identity formed (see SIDE
theory) when communicating online that is magnified by the lack of nonverbal cues and physical
isolation compared to FTF group identity formation. In addition, people using CMC may further
idealize their communication partner because they
are using the internet to seek out interaction with
people whom they anticipate future FTF interaction. The idealization of the message sender by
the recipient leads to greater self-disclosure online
compared to in-person.
878
The properties of the communication channel
(e.g., asynchronicity) provide the sender with
more control over message construction than
in FTF settings. Asynchronicity also allows the
individuals communicating to respond when they
are not occupied with other obligations, leading
to a more relaxed communication environment,
which may further foster self-disclosure.
Finally, feedback from the receiver who has an
idealized representation of the sender results in a
self-fulfilling prophecy of responding behavior. As
the receiver’s impressions of the sender become
more and more positive, he or she reacts to his
or her partner in a more positive way, which in
turn impacts the quality of the communication.
Again this would imply increased self-disclosure
between CMC partners compared to FTF. As each
member’s perception of their partner becomes
more positive, they begin to behave more socially
and warmly in their interactions. This intensified
feedback loop further creates an environment in
which self-disclosure becomes more likely.
These four elements interact resulting in
increased self-disclosure among people communicating online compared to FTF to offset
the reduction in visual cues available (Tidwell &
Walther, 2002; Walther, 1996). The characteristics
of CMC often lead to increases in self-disclosure,
but only when positive impressions are formed.
Although some research has supported this theory,
it has been criticized for lacking an integrated
theoretical approach that explains the relationship
between the four components specified.
Internet-Enhanced Intimate
Self-Disclosure Hypothesis
Valkenburg and Peter (2009a, 2009b) have
examined the effects of Internet usage on wellbeing and existing relationships, with a focus on
self-disclosure through CMC. They proposed
the Internet-enhanced intimate self-disclosure
hypothesis, which predicts that the positive
impact of CMC on existing relationships can be
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
accounted for by the amount of intimate information one discloses online (Ellison, Steinfield,
& Lampe, 2007; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009a,
2009b). Valkenburg and Peter (2009a, 2009b)
describe intimate information as topics that are
not easily discussed, such as worries, secrets, or
embarrassing experiences. Their hypothesis has
three assumptions, including (1) self-disclosure
is more frequent during CMC than FTF; (2) more
self-disclosure enhances relationships; and (3)
stronger relationships result in greater personal
well-being. A longitudinal study of the effects of
CMC on the quality of future friendships found
that the relationship was completely mediated
by the amount of intimate information disclosed
when using CMC (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009b).
This provides substantial support for the intimate
self-disclosure hypothesis, where the quality (i.e.,
intimacy) of the disclosure is key in explaining
CMC’s impact on well-being and relationship
formation.
Valkenburg and Peter (2009a) summarize a
decade’s worth of research that supports the three
assumptions of the Internet-enhanced intimate
self-disclosure hypothesis. The research that
supports the first assumption (i.e., self-disclosure
occurs more frequently online) draws from the
“reduced cue” theories, which suggest that the
lack of non-verbal cues online reduce people’s
self-consciousness and increase the amount of
information they share about themselves, resulting
in hyperpersonal communication online (Walther,
1996). According to Valkenburg and Peter (2009a)
“the finding that online communication enhances
self-disclosure is one of the most consistent outcomes in CMC research” (p. 3). In examining
the relationship between CMC and friendship
quality, Valkenburg and Peter (2009b) found that
self-disclosure to existing friends through instant
messaging fully mediated this relationship.
In summary, people tend to disclose more
online than in-person and this self-disclosure
increases the quality of their existing relationships, which results in higher levels of personal
well-being. However, the researchers note the
limitations of this hypothesis. They suggest that
there are several variables that moderate the
relationship between CMC and well-being, such
as the type of technology used during communication attempt, the sex of the communicator, and
the communicators’ levels of social anxiety. First,
the Internet-enhanced intimate self-disclosure
hypothesis may only apply to situations in which
people are communicating online with their
existing friends rather than strangers. There are
specific forms of technology that are geared toward communicating with existing friends (e.g.,
instant messaging) that might be more beneficial
than those that are not. In terms of the sex of the
communicator, some research suggests that the
enhanced self-disclosure online might be more
likely to occur for boys than girls, because boys
are less likely to disclose FTF than girls, especially
during adolescence. Finally, the topic of how
people who are socially anxious use and benefit
from CMC is discussed further below.
Impact of Personality Characteristics
on Self-Disclosure
Researchers have examined some personality
characteristics that may moderate the amount of
self-disclosure people engage in online (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009a). The most frequently studied
characteristic is the extent to which someone
was introverted or extraverted; however, there is
disagreement in the literature over how this characteristic affects self-disclosure. Early speculation
suggested that CMC might serve as an alternate,
more comfortable mode of communication for
people who are shy, lonely, and introverted. Some
research has supported the social compensation
(i.e., poor-get-richer) hypothesis, which indicates
that people who are socially isolated or lonely will
benefit from using the Internet due to the physical
distance between them and the communication
recipient as well as the increased control over
self-presentation allowed through asynchronous
879
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
responding (LaRose, Eastin, & Gregg, 2001;
McKenna & Bargh, 1999 as cited in McKenna
& Bargh, 2000; Mesch, 2001; Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007b; Ward & Tracey, 2004; Wolak et
al., 2003). However, some studies have found no
benefits of Internet use among introverted persons
(Bonebrake, 2002; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007a).
In contrast, the social enhancement (i.e., the
rich-get-richer) hypothesis suggests that people
who are extraverted are more likely to benefit from
CMC because they use the Internet to build their
existing relationships. Several studies have also
supported the rich-get-richer hypothesis (Bryant
et al., 2006; Kraut et al., 2002; Liu & LaRose,
2008; Ma & Leung, 2006; Peter, Valkenburg, &
Schouten, 2005; Sheldon, 2008; Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007b; van den Eijnden et al., 2008). In
general, people who are more extraverted have
been found to disclose more than introverts on the
Internet resulting in greater well-being. However,
people who are introverted or socially isolated
typically disclosure more through CMC than
during FTF communication, which increases the
social support they receive (Peter et al., 2005;
Valkenburg & Peter, 2007b; Ward & Tracey,
2004). It appears that both groups disclose more
online compared to in-person benefiting their
relationships and well-being.
Ledbetter, Mazer, DeGroot, Meyer, Mao,
and Swafford (2011) attempt to explain the
discrepancies seen in the literature by examining the underlying motivations people have
for disclosing information online, specifically
on Facebook. They suggest that some people
prefer online self-disclosure because they lack
social competence and want to avoid in-person
interactions. This form of online self-disclosure
is associated with people who feel lonely and
depressed. Alternatively, people who have higher
communication competence are often motivated
to communicate online to promote social connections. Although online communication was
associated with relational closeness in people with
both types of motivation, there was a stronger
880
association between offline communication and
relational closeness than online communication
and relational closeness indicating that people
who are socially competent use multiple forms
of media to maintain their relationships.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Historically, researchers have viewed self-disclosure as a behavior that is beneficial and should
be fostered to enhance intimate relationships and
personal well-being. However, as early as 1973,
Altman and Taylor expressed concern over the
“tyranny of openness,” which they described as
the demand for full disclosure from others in all
social encounters. This concern seems even more
relevant today in the age of social networking sites
where not only is information disclosed through
words, but also through photographs and video of
participants posted, frequently, in real time. There
has been some research that suggests that too much
disclosure may negatively impact interpersonal
relationships (e.g., marital satisfaction) due to the
boredom it engenders. Therefore, future research
should investigate the consequences of this type
of extreme self-disclosure on interpersonal relationships and personal well-being.
In addition to the possible drawbacks that
over-disclosing may have on relationships and
well-being, longitudinal research is needed to
better understand the long-term impact that online
self-disclosure has on relationships. Most of the
literature has focused on the initial formation of
relationships; however, there is little research
that examines long-term effects of CMC on the
maintenance of either relationships formed online
or relationships established FTF. Areas of particular interest may be the use of CMC to maintain
friendships and even romantic relationships across
long distances. There is also a dearth of information on the effect that CMC has on relationships
among adults. The majority of current research
has focused on youth populations. It may be that
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
there is a different association between the role of
online self-disclosure and relationship formation
and well-being in different age groups, especially
given that CMC represents a shift in how relationships have traditionally formed and developed for
older generations.
The majority of research has classified any form
of online-communication (e.g., email, instant messenger, chat rooms, social networking sites, etc.) as
CMC. It may be beneficial to examine the impact
that specific forms of CMC have on self-disclosure
and relationship development. Research has also
focused on the role that personality variables such
as extraversion may play on the effect that CMC
has on self-disclosure and well-being, however
more research is needed to understand how specific types of CMC may interact with personality
variables to impact self-disclosure. Additionally
most of the research has compared CMC such as
email and instant messaging to FTF communication; however it may be more accurate to compare
certain types of CMC to letter writing, rather than
FTF conversations. Pennebaker, Colder, & Sharp
(1990) have found several benefits to writing (e.g.,
better health and accelerated coping), which may
be more comparable to CMC.
Lastly, although CMC is on the rise, with
more and more people using the internet to communicate with friends and family, people continue
to perceive CMC as a less effective and enjoyable way to communicate with others (Schiffrin,
Edelman, Falkenstern, & Stewart, 2010). Further
research is required to investigate the discrepancy
between the positive effects that CMC has been
found to have on self-disclosure and well-being
and people’s negative perceptions of CMC despite
increased reliance on CMC. These perceptions
may, in part, reflect the notion put forth in the
Media Naturalness Hypothesis in which non-FTF
communication increases cognitive load and decreases emotional reactivity, causing individuals
to have more negative perceptions of non-FTF
communication. Further research is required to
better understand the impact that CMC may have
on our cognitive resources and emotional reactivity. The use of physiological measures may be
particularly useful in this regard.
In the last few decades a significant body of
research has been generated to better understand
the effect that technology has on self-disclosure.
As technology continues to change the scope of
interpersonal communication, additional research
is required to better understand the ever evolving
nature of CMC. Although self-disclosure online
has received attention in the research, there continues to be debate over whether self-disclosure
is enhanced or diminished during CMC. Further
research is needed to examine how the mode of
communication (e.g., e-mail, instant messaging,
and social networking sites) and characteristics of
the communication partners (e.g., biological sex
and extraversion) affect self-disclosure online.
Understanding the impact of CMC on self-disclosure is critical given the role of self-disclosure in
relationship formation and maintenance as well
as subsequent interpersonal well-being.
REFERENCES
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Antheunis, M., Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J.
(2007). Computer-mediated communication and
interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of
three explanatory hypotheses. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 831–835. doi:10.1089/
cpb.2007.9945
Bargh, J., McKenna, K., & Fitzsimons, G. (2002).
Can you see the real me? Activation and expression
of the ‘true self’ on the Internet. The Journal of
Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. doi:10.1111/15404560.00247
881
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
Bonebrake, K. (2002). College students’ internet use, relationship formation, and personality
correlates. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(6),
551–557. doi:10.1089/109493102321018196
Boneva, B., Quinn, A., Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., &
Shklovski, I. (2006). Teenage communication in
the instant messaging era. Computers, phones,
and the internet: Domesticating information
technology (pp. 201–218). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bryant, A. J., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and
adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 577–592.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00028.x
Coleman, L. H., Paternite, C. E., & Sherman, R.
C. (1999). A reexamination of deindividuation
in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 51–65.
doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00032-6
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature
review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(2), 73–91.
doi:10.1037/h0033950
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational
information requirements, media richness, and
structural design. Management Science, 32(5),
554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
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. doi:10.1111/j.10836101.2007.00367.x
Gross, E., Juvonen, J., & Gable, S. (2002). Internet
use and well-being in adolescence. The Journal
of Social Issues, 58(1), 75–90. doi:10.1111/15404560.00249
882
Joinson, A. (2001). Self-disclosure in computermediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192. doi:10.1002/
ejsp.36
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings,
J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet
paradox revisited. The Journal of Social Issues,
58, 49–74. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00248
LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001).
Reformulating the internet paradox: Social cognitive explanations of internet use and depression.
Journal of Online Behavior, 1(2). Retrieved September 26, 2008 from the http://www.behavior.
net /JOB/v1n2/paradox.html
Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes
toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and
relational closeness. Communication Research,
38, 27–53. doi:10.1177/0093650210365537
Liu, X., & LaRose, R. (2008). Does using the internet make people more satisfied with their lives?
The effects of the internet on college students’ life
satisfaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(3),
310–320. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.0040
Ma, M. L., & Leung, L. (2006). Unwillingnessto-communicate, perceptions of the internet and
self-disclosure in ICQ. Telematics and Informatics, 23, 22–37. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2005.01.001
McKenna, K. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9
from cyperspace: The implications of the Internet
for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75.
doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
Mesch, G. (2001). Social relationships and internet
use among adolescents in Israel. Social Science
Quarterly, 82(2), 329–339. doi:10.1111/00384941.00026
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
Pennebaker, J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K.
(1990). Accelerating the coping process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3),
528–537. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.528
PEW. (2007). How young people view their
lives, futures and politics: A portrait of generation next. Retrieved September 26, 2008 from
http://people-press.org /report/300/a-portrait-ofgeneration-next.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1992). The volunteer subject. In Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L.
(Eds.), Artifacts in behavioral research. Oxford,
UK: University Press.
Schiffrin, H., Falkenstern, M., Edelman, A., &
Stewart, C. (2010). Associations among computermediated communication, relationships, and
well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 13(3), 299–306. doi:10.1089/
cyber.2009.0173
Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., &
Antheunis, M. (2007). An experimental test of
processes underlying self-disclosure in computermediated communication. Retrieved from www.
allacademic.com /meta/p169465_index.html
Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between
unwillingness-to-communicate and students’
Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology:
Theories, Methods, and Applications, 20(2),
67–75. doi:10.1027/1864-1105.20.2.67
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and
the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated
communication. In Lea, M. (Ed.), Contexts of
computer-mediated communication (pp. 30–65).
London, UK: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.
doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
Tidwell, L., & Walther, J. (2002). Computermediated communication effects on disclosure,
impressions, and interpersonal evaluations:
Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007a). Internet communication and its relation to
well-being: Identifying some underlying
mechanisms. Media Psychology, 9, 43–58.
doi:10.1080/15213260709336802
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007b). Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the
stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
12(4). Retrieved on May 15, 2009 from http://
jCMC.indiana.edu /vol12/issue4/valkenburg.html
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009a). Social
consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A
decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01595.x
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009b). The
effects of instant messaging on the quality of
adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal
study. The Journal of Communication, 59, 79–97.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x
Valkenburg, P. M., Schouten, A. P., & Peter, J.
(2005). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the
Internet. New Media & Society, 7(3), 383–402.
doi:10.1177/1461444805052282
van den Eijnden, R., Meerkerk, G., Vermulst,
A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R. (2008). Online
communication, compulsive internet use, and
psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
44(3), 655–665. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.655
883
Online Self-Disclosure Behaviors
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research,
23(1), 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered
out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. L.,
& Daly, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ward, C., & Tracey, T. (2004). Relation of shyness
with aspects of online relationship involvement.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
21(5), 611–623. doi:10.1177/0265407504045890
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2003).
Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth
who form close online relationships. Journal of
Adolescence, 26, 105–119. doi:10.1016/S01401971(02)00114-8
884
ADDITIONAL READING
Kraut, R. Brynin. M., & Kiesler, S. (2006). Computers, phones, and the internet: Domesticating
information technology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2009a). Social
consequences of the Internet for adolescents: A
decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1–5. doi:10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01595.x
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered
out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In Knapp, M. L.,
& Daly, J. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Wright, K. B., & Webb, L. M. (2011). Computermediated communication in personal relationships. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.