WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents’ Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting

8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting

1/25

Motivations & Self-Disclosure1

Running Head: Motivations and Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting

Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents

Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting


2/25

Motivations and Self-disclosure

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of motivations for online chatting and gender

factors in self-disclosure in adolescents online chatting. Participants were 260 high

school students who participated in online chatting (128 female, 132 male). The results

revealed that self-disclosure in online chatting differed by motivation, but gender was not

a significant variable for explaining self-disclosure.

2


3/25


Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents

Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting

In 2005, there were approximately 190 million registered ICQ (I seek you, a

form of online chatting) users around the world, with 8 million users logging in every

day. In Korea, nearly half of all citizens ages 13 to 55 report membership in at least one

of 10,000 chat sites (Ho, 2004). Among these users, the majority are teenagers. Although

uses of the Internet range from email, to the web search, to e-commerce, to electronic

newspapers, and to many other applications, no Internet use has a greater attraction for

young people than online chatting (Leung, 2001).

One important characteristic of online chatting is relationship formation. Users

exchange information with each other through online chatting via computer-mediated

communication (CMC). Some experts argue that CMC is limited in its ability to develop

relationships between people, because of the absence of social context cues and

nonverbal-cues (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991). On the contrary,

others have contended that people can make friends on the Internet without those cues,

because users adopt text-based information as a basis for impression formation and

relationship development (Lea & Spears, 1995; Walther, 1996; Walther & Burgoon,

1992). That is, the Internet is an adequate medium for communicating. However, the

more important thing for relationship development on the Internet is the extent to which

people can show or disclose themselves to others. Self-disclosure on the Internet is a

necessary norm in relationship formation and development.

Cozby (1973) defined self-disclosure as communication that offers information

about oneself. By means of the information that people disclose they can form

relationships characterized by trust, intimacy, and liking for each other. Self-disclosure

3


4/25


has significant implications for Internet usage; in addition to facilitating online

friendships, people can consult with people about topics rarely discussed in a face-to-face

(FtF) context and get commercial information by chatting with other consumers.

This research focuses on adolescents self-disclosure in online chatting. A few

CMC studies of self-disclosure commonly compare the differences in the level of self-

disclosure between FtF communication and CMC (Joinson, 2001; Mallen, 2003; Walther,

2002). They have shown that people can disclose personal information and develop

relationships through CMC, just as they can in FtF situations. However, the comparative

studies in CMC and FtF are limited in explanations for quantitative and qualitative

difference of self-disclose only within CMC. It raises a question about what factors

prompt people to disclose or discourage in online chatting? Disclosure could be

influenced by the actions of others, but the amount and type of information are controlled

by the individual disclosing (Omarzu, 2000). Therefore, disclosure is by nature an

individual strategic behavior (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Miller &

Read, 1987). A functional theory of disclosure assumes that self-disclosure is for

individual goals (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979). Based on that theory, this study explored

motivations for using online chatting and examined the effect of motivations on self-

disclosure in online chatting.

Relatively consistent findings in self-disclosure demonstrate that men generally

disclose less than women do (Dindia & Allen, 1992). However, the general tendency in

CMC has not yet been revealed. This research attempted to investigate the gender

difference in self-disclosure in online chatting and also the difference in each genders

self-disclosure between online and FtF communication.

4


5/25


Self-Disclosure

The research on self-disclosure has examined the phenomenon as a medium of

social exchange (Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969). In this social exchange perspective,

Disclosure is assumed to be inherently rewarding to receive and is also believed to

create an obligation in the listener to return the favor, either by disclosing in exchange or

by granting other boons to the discloser (Omarzu, 2000,p. 176). Social penetration

theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) also explains self-disclosure as the medium of social

exchange. According to social penetration theory, the level of self-disclosure depends on

each relationship in terms of rewards and costs. Individuals expect a reward from

receivers for self-disclosure and subsequently create obligations to reciprocate (Omarzu,

2000). This relationship is expressed as the norm of reciprocity and means offering

responses that match a partners previous communication (Daniel & Michael, 1993).

Typically, receiving disclosures increases liking for the discloser (Collins & Miller,

1994).

Many scholars have researched the reasons affecting self-disclosures in non-

mediated interpersonal communication. Various factors other than reciprocity explain

different levels of self-disclosure. First, much of the early research on self-disclosure

found gender differences. Rosenfeld (1979) argued, men avoid disclosure primarily to

maintain control over the social situation, and women avoid disclosure to prevent

personal hurt and relational problem (pp. 72-73). Other studies have shown that men

generally disclose less often than women do (Dindia & Allen, 1992). In terms of

disclosure via the Internet, Klemm and his colleagues (1999) found in researching a

cancer group that men gave more information to fellow support-group members, whereas

women engaged in more disclosure of their personal experiences and gave emotional

5


6/25


support. Owen, Yarbrough, Vaga, and Tucker (2003) found that both male and females

showed significant emotional and cognitive expression, and gender was nota statistically

significant main effect on expression; however, the interaction between gender and time

on those expressions was statistically significant. Another variable to explain different

levels of self-disclosure is individual characteristics, and researchers have investigated

the effect of personality. Cozby (1973) suggested a personality factor; personal

extraversion was positively related to self-disclosure.

The other perspective on self-disclosure is based on the functional theory.

According to this theory, each individual strategically controls self-disclosure in terms of

individual goals (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979). When disclosing, people selectively reveal

or withhold personal information to obtain their goal (Quattrone & Jones, 1978). This

functional approach promises to be a useful perspective to explore why or how users of

the Internet, especially in chat rooms, self-disclose.

Self-Disclosure in CMC

Self-disclosure is an important element in CMC, because it is necessary for the

formation of relationships. CMC takes the form of using email, computer, conferencing,

and chat systems, all of which differ from FtF communication, which relies in part on

nonverbal communication (Walther, 2002). Disclosing personal information using text in

CMC is one of the cues that users can get to know each other, because self-disclosure is

personal information that others are unlikely to discover from other sources (Trenholm &

Jensen, 1996). In order for users to form or develop relationships on the Internet, it can be

argued that the best way is to disclose personal information about them, including their

opinions, attitudes, moods, or emotions.

However, some people argue that the Internet has barriers to self-disclosure.

6


7/25


Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and McGuire(1986) found that CMC is a relatively

impersonal medium compared to FtF communication, so impression and relational

development might not be formed in online communication. Kiesler, Siegel, and

McGuire (1984) also stated that users of CMC have difficulty forming impressionsdue to

the lack of nonverbal cues in the medium. Another factor that hinders disclosure and

communicating self-information is anonymity. Anonymity could foster the sharing of

false information among Internet users.

However, Walther (1996) has argued that anonymity helps Internet users to

construct positive impressions. McKenna and Bargh (2000) also claimed that anonymity

produces positive effects on relationship on the Internet, because the Internet is like a

darkened room where people cannot see each other, so people are not hesitant to disclose

information about them. Other research has shown that online impressions and

relationships are possible within different levels of FtF. Walther and Burgoon (1992)

showed that groups using computer-mediated communication increased in several

relational dimensions to positive levels and that these subsequent levels approximated

those of face-to-face groups. In terms of self-disclosure, these theories presuppose that

there is no any barrier for people to disclose and recognize personal information with

each other to develop relationships through CMC.

A few studies in CMC have focused on self-disclosure.Haider (2002) found that a

positive relationship between self-disclosure and intimacy has been found in chat rooms.

Walther (2002) also explored self-disclosure among users as an effect of CMC based on

uncertainty reduction theory1 and found that CMC interactants produced significantly

higher proportions of self-disclosure. CMC researches had focused more on the

1 The uncertainty reduction theory explains, how communication functions to help usattain knowledge and understanding of ourselves and others (Berger & Bradac, 1982, p.5).

7


8/25


difference of level of self-disclosure between CMC and FtF. Joinson (2001) had shown

that significantly higher levels of spontaneous self-disclosure were found in CMC

compared to FtF meetings. Mallen (2003) also explored the level of self-disclosure

through online chatting compared with FtF communication, but there was no significant

difference in level of self-disclosure.

The comparative research on the difference in self-disclosure between CMC and

FtF demonstrated that people using CMC could disclose personal information and

develop relationships just as they can in FtF encounters. However, the limitation of the

investigations is in the explanations for why users disclose personal information and what

factors influence depth and breadth of self-disclosure in CMC. In addition to gender and

personality as factors that help explain levels of self-disclosure, this study investigated

motivations affecting self-disclosure based on the functional theory in CMC.

Motivations as Variables to Explain Self-Disclosure

Traditionally, motivations are posited to be associated with a set of psychological

motives. These psychological intentions prompt the audience to purposefully select

certain media, or media content, in order to seek gratification or satisfy a set of

psychological needs (Blumler, 1979). This uses and gratification perspective has been

applied to Internet research. In general, motivations for Internet usage are interpersonal

relations, information, and entertainment. Email, distribution lists, multi-user dungeons

(MUD), and chat have been considered communication tools on the Internet. Information

needs are associated with the use of E-commerce and electronic newspapers. However, a

particular medium does not always reflect a specific motivation. Users can use email as a

means of seeking information or entertainment. For instance, online chatting is basically

for developing relationships among users, but chats can also be used for exchanging daily

8


9/25


information (style of living, economic data, politics, and culture), entertainment (wasting

time, just for fun, taking a rest, escaping from stress or pressure), and pure relation

formation (making friends exploring love interests, meeting people who share common

hobbies or other interests, and the like).

This research hypothesized that the different motivations for online chatting affect

different levels of self-disclosure. According to the functional theory, communication

binds individuals with their environment. There are five bonding functions of

communication: fostering favorable impressions, organizing relationships,

constructing/validating conjoint worlds, expressing feeling and thoughts, and protecting

vulnerabilities (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988). Clark and Delia (1979) suggested other

functions for communication: to form communication strategies, as a solving instrument

for an identified problem, for developing interpersonal relationships, and for social

identity.

According to Rubin et al. (1988), people use interpersonal communication for

entertainment when they need to feel less tense, feel enjoyment, or a have a pleasant time

with other people. Leung (2001) also pointed out that, People communicate for

entertainment as it provides fun and good time. Others communicate for social interaction

as people need to share information with othersabout themselves (p. 485).

In summary, people use communication generally for interpersonal relationships,

entertainment, and information. These reasons are closely related to self-disclosure in

terms of functional theory. Berg and Archer (1982) found that people control the content

and duration of self-disclosure based on the nature of the disclosure. For example, if

people want to form interpersonal relationships with others, the content or style of their

self-disclosure might be different from people who have information or entertainment

9


10/25


motivations.Leung (2001) investigated why students have an immense interest in online

chatting. He found two categories of motives in online chatting: instrumental and

intrinsic. The intrinsicmotives includeaffection, inclusion, sociability, and escape,

whereas instrumental motives include entertainment and fashion. Park and Floyd (1996)

explored how often personal relationships form in Internet newsgroups and how close or

developed they become. They found that personal relationships were common, that

opposite-sex relationships were more common than same-sex relationship, and that the

depth dimension of relational development correlated with intimacy and self-disclosure.

Motivation that any research has not been to look at as a variable in self-

disclosure in online communication might determine a quantity and quality of self-

disclose. Accordingly, this research investigates users motivations for online chatting in

the context of the functional theory of self-disclosure.

Research Questions

The literature review has shown that self-disclosure is crucial to initiate or

develop interpersonal relationships on the Internet. This research looks at online chatting

as one CMC channel and explores which elements affect self-disclosure in online

chatting. This researcher considered three motivationsinterpersonal relationships,

entertainment, and informationas factors affecting self-disclosure, theoretically based

on functional theory. Motivations for online chatting influence the type and level of self-

disclosure. As a result, the following research question is proposed:

RQ1. Is there any difference in self-disclosure depending on motivations of online

chatting use?

Previous studies have shown that gender difference has had much focus, but

findings were not consistent. Self-disclosure in gender varied in online chatting and face-

10


11/25


to-face communication. To explore the Internet effect on self-disclosure, this study

examines differences between online and offline self-disclosurewithin each male and

female. In addition, one problem is that researchers only compared amount or types of

self-disclosure according to gender. This research exploresthe effect of interaction

between gender and motivations.

RQ2. Are there any differences in self-disclosure between online and face-to-face

communication within each male and female?

RQ3. Are there any differences between males and females in self-disclosure in

onlinechatting and face-to-face communication?

RQ4. Are there differences between males and females in self-disclosure based on

motivations?

Method

Procedure and Sample

Questionnaires were administered in class (with the permission of the instructors)

to a multistage stratified random sample of students at a large high school in Seoul, Korea

in April 2004. A total of 300 students completed the questionnaire. This research was

limited to individuals who had previously engaged in online chatting with unknown

people. Of the sample of 300, 260 had experienced online chatting. Therefore, 260

questionnaires ultimately were analyzed. Of the sample, 128 (49.2%) were female, and

132 (50.8%) were male. According to grade, 90 (35%) were in the 10th grade, 94 (36.2%)

were in the 11th grade, and 76 (29.2%) were in the 12th grade. The proportion of the

sample by level of chatting was 21.2% for more than once a day, 15% for once a day,

23.8% for three or four times a week, 19.2% for once every two weeks, 2.7% for

once a month, and 12.3% for a few times in a year. The amount of time spent in

11


12/25


online chatting in a week averaged more than 4 hours (M= 4.42, SD = 5.86). Most

students ranged between 1 hours and 10 hours (90.4%). The average time of each chat

ranged from less than 30 minutes (21.9%), more than 30 minutes and less than 1

hour (30.8%), 1 to 2 hours (28.5%), 2 hours to 3 hours (8.5%), and more than 3

hours (9.2%). The average time spent on the Internet in a day ranged from less than 30

minutes (11.9%), 30 to 1 hour (18.1%), 1 to 2 hours (38.5%), 2 hours to 3 hours

(16.9%), 3 hours to more than 4 hours (4.2%), and more than 4 hours (10.4%).

Motivations. The study of motivation in previous research of functional analyses

has focused on developing interpersonal relationships (Clark & Delia, 1979),

entertainment (Rubin et al., 1988), and information (Leung, 2001). The questionnaire for

measuring motivation in online chatting includes nine items that measure online use in

terms of interpersonal relationships, entertainment, and information. The items were

measured by using 7-point semantic differential scales. A factor analysis of the measure

was conducted and revealed three factors. The first factor was interpersonal relationships,

consisting of three items reflecting motivations to make new friends, communicate with

members in an online community, and make a friend of the opposite sex through online

chatting. This factor had an eigenvalue of 1.55 and explained 17.24% of the total

variance. Entertainment as motivation in online chatting was the second factor

(eigenvalue = 1.52, 16.8 % of variance). The factor included items that suggested

motivations for online chatting were to have fun, relax, or kill time. The third factor was

information, and it consisted of four items, reflecting the use of online chatting to learn

something, to get information about ones environment, and to find specific and

professional information economic, political, and cultural. The factors eigenvalue

12


13/25


was 3.00, and it explained 33.33% of the total variance. Each reliability for these three

factors was more than = .70.

In addition, this questionnaire included a nominal-level item about motivation to

more precisely measure what kind of motivation participants had when they most

recently connected to the Internet for the purpose of online chatting. One hundred twenty

participants reported that developing interpersonal relationships was the primary motive

for online chatting (46.5%), 110 students (42.3%) indicated entertainment as their main

purpose for online chatting, and 25 students (9.6%) said motivation of information

seeking was their main purpose for online chatting. This result implicates online chatting

is a tool primarily for interpersonal relationships or entertainment rather than information

seeking.

Self-Disclosure. The survey used Wheeless & Grotzs (1976) self-disclosure

scales revised by Lawrence (1979). The research on self-disclosure in CMC indicates that

Park and Floyd (1996) used Altman and Taylors (1973) scales of self-disclosure: depth

and breadth; Joinson (2001) used positive or neutral self-disclosure and negative self-

disclosure; and Walther (2002) operationalized self-disclosure as messages that reveal

personal information about the sender. The current research focuses on a multilevel

notion of self-disclosure, and uses five subsets of self-disclosure, as revised by Lawrence

(1979): intent to discloseawareness on the part of the communicator that he or she is

self-disclosing; amount of disclosureboth frequency and length of time, (3)

positivenegative nature of disclosure, control of depth of disclosureperceived

control of the general depth of the content of the self-disclosing, honestyaccuracy of

disclosure. The scales consist of 30 items, but I deleted 4 items that appeared to have a

similar meaning in Korean with other items.

13


14/25


The questionnaire asked participants to mark level of self-disclosure with 7-point

semantic differential scales after recalling their recent online chatting. Each item was

classified, and mean scores were computed to analyze motivational differences in self-

disclosure.

Results

Difference in Self-Disclosure by Motivation for Online Chatting

Students reported their motivation for self-disclosure after being prompted to

recall their most recent online chatting experience. The analysis of these finding was

limited to experiences in which students chatted with a stranger online rather than with an

acquaintance. To test Research Question 1, I conducted a One-Way ANOVA. The mean

of self-disclosure motivations for information (M= 3.64, SD = 1.39) was higher than

motivation for either entertainment (M= 3.0182, SD = 1.31), or interpersonal

relationships (M= 2.83, SD = 1.39), and this difference was statistically significant,F(2,

252) = 3.638,p = .028. There is also a significant difference,p = .02 (Tukey a), in intent

for self-disclosure between information motivation (M= 3.64) and interpersonal

relationship motivation (M= 2.83).

Secondly, there was a statistically significant difference in amount of self-

disclosureamong motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 3.90, SD = .82),

entertainment (M= 3.82, SD = .72), and information (M= 3.39, SD = 1.21),F(2, 252) =

3.96,p = .02. Respondents who had information motives in online chatting reported

statistically higher scores on the motivation scales than the group who had interpersonal

relationship motivation, (M= 3.90 vs.M= 3.39),p = .01 (Tukey a).

Thirdly, there was a statistically significant difference in depth of self-disclosure

among motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 2.97, SD = 1.13), entertainment

14


15/25


(M= 3.01, SD = 1.15), and information (M= 3.92, SD = 1.22),F(2, 251) = 7.349,p =

.001. The group who had information motivation in online chatting showed significantly

higher scores than the group with interpersonal relationship motivations (M= 3.92 vs.M

= 2.97),p = .001 (Tukey a).

Fourthly, the difference in negativepositive self-disclosure was statistically

significant among motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 3.32, SD = 1.30),

entertainment (M= 3.42, SD = .96), and information (M= 4.25, SD = 1.08),F(2. 251) =

7.01,p = .001. The difference between the group with information motivations and the

group of interpersonal-relationship motivations was statistically significant, with the

former disclosing more negativepositive self-disclosure in online chatting than the latter,

(M= 4.25 vs.M= 3.32),p = .001 (Tukey a).

Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in honesty-accuracy of

disclosureamong groups with interpersonal-relationship motivation (M= 4.20, SD = .66),

entertainment motivation (M= 3.97, SD = .55), and information motivation (M= 4.38,

SD = .70),F(2, 252) = 6.49,p = .002. The difference between the group with

information motivations and entertainment motivations was statistically significant, with

the former demonstrating more honesty-accuracy of disclosure, (M= 4.38 vs.M= 3.97),

p = .008 (Tukey a). There was also a statistically significant difference in honesty-

accuracy of disclosure between the group with interpersonal-relationship motivations and

the group of entertainment motivations, with the former showing more honest-accuracy

of disclosure, (M= 4.20 vs.M= 3.97),p = .013 (Tukey a). However, there was no

significant difference in disclosure between the groups who had information motivations

and interpersonal relationship motivations (M= 4.38 vs.M= 4.20). Figure 1 summarizes

all the previous findings.

15


16/25


Gender Difference in Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting and Face-to-Face

Communication

Many researches have discussed gender as a factor differentiating the types and

levels of self-disclosure. This research also analyzed gender differences in self-disclosure

in online chatting. To test the difference I conducted an independent-sample ttest.

First, there was no statistically significant difference in disclosure intentions

between males (M= 3.44) and females (M= 3.37),p = .66 (2-tailed, see Table 1). The

other types of self-disclosure did not have statistically significant difference between

males and females in online chatting, as Table 1 shows. Secondly, there was no

significant difference in disclosure intentions between males (M= 3.39) and females (M

= 2.98),p = .99 (2-tailed) in FtF communication. The other types of self-disclosure were

not significantly different between male and female in FtF communication.

Table 2 below shows the differences in self-disclosure between online chatting

and FtF communication for males and females. With males, amount, depth,

negative/positive, and honesty-accuracy of self-disclosure were statistically significant

between online chatting and FtF communication. For females, amount, depth, and

negative/positive of self-disclosure were significantly different between online chatting

and FtF communication.

Additionally, this study examined an interaction effect on self-disclosure between

motivations and gender (see Table 3). There is no interaction between motivation and

gender,F= .423,p = .65. There is a main effect of motivations on self-disclosure,F=

8.107,p = .000, but no main effect of gender on self-disclosure, F= .423,p = .003.

16


17/25


Discussion

The primary contribution of this study is that it shows the impact of motivations

on self-disclosure through CMC. The results demonstrate that self-disclosure in online

chatting is different among groups who have different motivations. In other words,

motivation is a meaningful variable that explains self-disclosure in CMC. This

investigation also provides evidence that online chatters with information motives score

higher in terms of levels of intent, depth, and negative-positive disclosure than the group

who had interpersonal-relationship motives.

These findings provide further support for the functional theory of self-disclosure,

which argues that people use self-disclosure for strategic purposes. People who use

online chatting to make a friend or form relationships with other people have a greater

need to convey positive impressions of them than do people who use online chatting to

obtain information. People who have information motivations are less sensitive of their

impression on others and they may not mind telling things about themselves. That is,

people limit their self-disclosure in different situations; thus, the findings indicate that

people who used online chatting for forming new relationships show low levels of intent

to self-disclose, depth of disclosure, and negativepositive disclosure. Although there

was no significant difference in honesty-accuracy of disclosures, the mean for

information motivations was higher than the mean for interpersonal relationship motives.

However, people who have interpersonal relationship motives might have a

greater need to talk more about themselves to other chatters than those who use online

chatting as means of getting a good impression and valuable information for developing

relationships. Therefore, the amount of disclosure was higher for people who had

17


18/25


motivation for developing interpersonal relationships than for those who had information

motivation.

This study also calls into question previous research on gender difference in self-

disclosure. When I measured respondents self-disclosure between men and female both

in online chatting and FtF communication, the results demonstrated that gender was not a

significant variable in both cases. However, each gender showed the difference in self-

disclosure between online chatting and face-to-face communication. The result showed

that males were more likely to disclose personal information in FtF communication than

in online chatting except for intention of self-disclosure. Females showed higher scores in

amount, depth, negative-positive of self-disclosure in face-to-face communication than in

online chatting, but there were no significant differences in intention and honest-accuracy

of self-disclosure between online chatting and FtF communication. The results indicate

that females and male express their feeling or personal information consciously in online

chatting like FtF communication. Moreover, females express their feeling or personal

information honestly and accurately without the difference between online and FtF

communication.

Consequently, as shown in the interaction between gender and motivations, only

motivation has an effect that explains self-disclosure in online chatting. However, in-

depth investigation about how different motivations relate to self-disclosure is needed. In

addition, future research needs to find out why some scales of self-disclosure show

differences between online and FtF communication, but others do not. This might be

explained by various features related to CMC characteristics such as anonymity,

deindividualization, or hypersocial effect, users personality as the factor of individual

difference, and different motivations between online and offline.

18


19/25

Motivations & Self-Disclosure

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal

relationship. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1982). Responses to self-disclosure and interaction goals.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 501-512.

Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982).Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in

interpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold.

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies.

Communication Research, 6, 9-36.

Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal

of Speech, 65, 187-206.

Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.

Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review.Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-

91.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial

behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior(pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.

Daniel, J. C., & Michael, J. C. (1993).Interpersonal communication. NY: ST. Martins

Press.

Derlega, V. J., & Grzelak, J. (1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In G. J. Chelune

(Ed.) Origins, patterns and implications of openness in interpersonal

relationships (pp. 151-176). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

19


20/25


Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex difference in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.

Durbrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon:

Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups.

Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.

Haidar, H. (2002). Internet friendships: Can virtual be real? (Doctoral dissertation, The

California School of Professional Psychology, 2002). UMI, 3052981.

Ho, Soyoung. (2004). Cheating chatter.Foreign Policy. p. 92.

Owen, J. E., Yarbrough, E. J., Vaga, A., & Tucker, D. C. (2003). Investigation of the

effects of gender and preparation on quality of communication in Internet support

groups. Computer in Human Behavior, 19, 259-275.

Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of

self-awareness and visual anonymity.European Journal of Social Psychology,

31, 177-192.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-

presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),Psychological perspectives on the self(Vol. 1, pp.

231-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-

mediated communication.American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Klemm, P., Hurst, M., Dearholt, S. L., & Trone, S. R. (1999). Gender differences on

Internet cancer support groups. Computer in Nursing, 17, 65-72

Lawrence, B. R. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am.

Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.

20


21/25


Lee, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? In J. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.),

Understudied relationships off the beaten track(pp. 197-240). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ.New Media & Society, 3,

483-500.

Mallen, M. J. (2003). Online versus face-to-face conversation: An examination of

relational and discourse variables.Psychotherapy, 40, 155-163

Marsh, A. (1997). Chat goes commercial.Forbes, 160, 46-48.

McKenna K.Y.A., & Bargh J. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the

Internet for personality and social psychology.Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 4, 57-75.

Miller, L. C., & Read, S. J. (1987). Why am I telling you this? Self-disclosure in a goal-

based model of personality. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure:

Theory, research and therapy (pp. 35-58). New York: Plenum.

Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when individuals

will self-disclose.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 174-185.

Park, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace.Journal of

Communication, 46, 80-98.

Quattrone, G.A., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Selective self-disclosure with and without

correspondent performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 511-

526.

Rosenfeld, L. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am.

Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.

21


22/25


Rubin, R., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of

interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14,

602-628.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in

computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 37, 157-187

Sproull, L. K., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in

organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.

Sproull, L. K., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections.New Ways of Working in the

Networked Organization. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (1996).Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA.

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A

relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.

Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,

and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.

Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure,

impression, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know another a bit at a time.

Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.

Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated

interaction.Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.

Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-

disclosure.Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346.

Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 13, 59-63.

22


23/25


Figure 1. Mean scores of self-disclosure by motivations.

Table 1. Gender Differences of Self-Disclosure both in Online and FtF.

Self-DisclosureScale

Online Chatting

Male Female

Sig. FtF

Male Female

Sig.

Intention 3.44 3.37 .666 3.39 3.39 .996Amount 3.65 3.59 .554 4.11 4.02 .247

Depth 3.50 3.56 .583 3.71 3.74 .820

Negative/Positive 2.95 3.00 .730 3.55 3.61 .695

Honest-Accuracy 4.12 4.10 .847 4.28 4.18 .257

23

Mean

05

1015202530354045

In te n t Am o u n t D e p th N e g a tive -Po s tive

H o n es ty-ac c u r a c y

Relation sh ipEntertainmentInformation

Types of Motivations

Scales of Self-disclosure


24/25


Table 2. Differences of Self-Disclosure between online chatting and FtF within eachMale and Female.

Self-Disclosure

Scale

Male

Online FtF

Sig.

Female

Online FtF

Sig.Intention 3.40 3.39 .980 3.37 3.99 .834Amount 3.65 4.11 .000

*3.58 4.02 .000*

Depth 3.52 3.71 .006*

3.55 3.74 .030*

Negative/Positive 2.90 3.58 .000*

3.00 3.62 .000*

Honest-Accuracy 4.12 4.29 .031*

4.10 4.18 .269

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Self-Disclosure.

***p < .001

Source df F p

Between subjects

Motivations(M) 2 8.107*** .053 .000

Gender (G) 1 .882 .003 .349

M X G 2 .423 .003 .656

Error 287

24


25/25

Documents

WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents’ Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting