Disclosure of College Students

Running head: DISCLOSURE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 1

“What Will They Think?”:

Disclosure of College Students With Family Members

DISCLOSURE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

2



Abstract

The present pilot study focuses on long distance familial relationships of college students.

Communication privacy management (Petronio, 2002) was used as a guiding lens. College

students embark on a journey when distancing themselves from family members, often

encountering new experiences. While previously literature has coined this life stage as the

emergent adult, its relation to disclosure has not been thoroughly analyzed. This study found that

during the stage of emergent adult, college students change their social media patterns as well as

their interpersonal communicational patterns with parents in order to simultaneously experience

autonomy and dependency.

Keywords: long-distance relationship, emerging adult, familial interpersonal relationship


3



Humans communicate every single day. Interpersonal communication, an arguably

intimate form of communication, occurs when people “are willing and able to maximize the

presence of the personal” (Stewart, Zediker, & Witteborn, 2005, p. 11). Interpersonal

communication is a necessary part of every person’s life because the quality of one’s personal

relationships affects the quality of their physical health (Stewart, 2012). Researching

interpersonal communication is necessary because of the significant role it plays in people’s

lives; it is important for researches to understand the details of this process.

In interpersonal relationships, self-disclosure, or the sharing of personal information with

others, is often present. Stewart (2012) lists various aspects of interpersonal communication, one

of which is involvement through self-disclosure, “I cannot enter a conversation clutching

myself” (p. 16). In order for a relationship to be interpersonal, there must be disclosure between

the two parties. The sharing may vary depending on the relationship, although constant fear of

disclosure will likely not lead to a strong interpersonal bond (Stewart, 2012). This self-disclosure

enhances the health benefits of interpersonal communication as it increases the intimacy that is

vital for the interpersonal quality. While self-disclosure can be a positive aspect of an

interpersonal relationship that increases the intimacy of the relationship, it can also be a negative

factor if an improper amount of information is disclosed (Petronio, 2013)

As previously stated, interpersonal relationships are necessary for positive physical

health. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) described six motives for interpersonal communication.

They are “pleasure, affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation and control” (p. 299). These various

traits likely promote a feeling of content within a person. It may seem that everyone would strive


4

for interpersonal relationships due to their positive aspects; however, interpersonal relationships

can be more difficult that less intimate relationships (Petronio, 2013). Both positive and negative

conflict can arise between two people and it requires negotiation to continue the relationship.

Interpersonal conflict, described as, “discrepancy in the behavioral expectations of two or more

people in a relationship” can place burden on individuals (Londahl, Tverskoy & D’Zurilla, 2005,

p.447). Personality styles can also create friction and lead to interpersonal problem solving,

which “focuses on the resolution of interpersonal conflicts”(Londahl, et. al. 2005. p. 447). These

aspects vary depending on their management; however, these relationships are vital to a healthy

and positive life.

Interpersonal relationships also vary in distance and membership. All relationships

provide different conflicts and struggles, although being separated by distance often requires a

change in relational norms (Petronio, 2013). This geographical factor is important due to the

large number of long-distance (LD) interpersonal relationships, such as commuter couples or

students away at college. A long-distance relationship (LDR) occurs between people who are

“separated by sufficient distance to make frequent face-to-face interaction difficult” (Guerrero,

Anderson & Afifi, 2013, p. 260). This present study focuses on LD family relationships.

College Life Stage Context

The transition from high school to college comes with increased freedoms for students

(Bearak, 2014; Reid & Carey, 2015). Many students engage in risky behaviors during this time,

including engaging in sexual activity, “substance use and risky behavior”, which can be

dangerous without guidance (Bearak, 2014; Burnett, Sabato, Wagner, & Smith, 2014, p. 330).

1,825 students each year die from alcohol-related injuries (“College Drinking”, 2014, n.p.). The

level of disclosure that students share with their family members may be crucial in encouraging


5

healthy habits and preventing injury of the student by case of risky behaviors. Over 20 million

American young adults go to college each year. (“Educational Statistics,” 2015, n.p.). While this

large number of students does not all move away form home, the relationship faces challenges

from both geographical factors and actions due to increased freedoms.

LDRs between young adults away at college and family members are important to study.

There is little research on familial LDR’s and college age students are a consistent group to

consider because they likely return home to see family members during breaks. This experience

lets us gain insight about similarities and differences in their communication when together and

apart. As opposed to LD friendships or romantic relationships, the lack of frequent

communication may not erode the relationships; rather remain stagnant until the two members

can reunite (Stahlstein, 2004). In other cases, the relationships function similarly in that the

communication is not constant and intimacy is growing throughout their time apart.

Long-Distance Relationships

The increasing amount of technology enabled LDRs. (Stahlstein, 2004). This study

explores LDRs between college students and their family members. In fall of 2015, an estimated

20.2 million students were enrolled in American universities (“Educational Statistics,” 2015,

n.p.). Not all of these students engaged in LDRs during the transition to college, however, 52%

of college students the same year were attending a college over 50 miles away from their home

(n.p.). While away at school, different steps are taken to maintain an intimate relationship

between children and their immediate family.

Students are living without parental guidance for the first time and often take on more

responsibility in all aspects of their lives, including making choices about food, daily actions,

and decision-making; and perhaps these decisions vary from decisions that would have been


6

made while living at home (Reid & Carey, 2015). This period of emerging adulthood, the period

when adolescents begin to make life changes that carry them into their adult lives, is associated

with these aforementioned changes (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015). In recent decades,

adolescents are making these changes later in life. As a result, “modern transition to adulthood is

becoming longer and uncertain as well as more “individualized” (Piumatti & Rabagleitti, 2015,

p. 242). The transition to college, however, forces this process to occur at a generally similar age,

around 17 or 18 years old. The relationships of students and their parents likely changes during

this transition period because of the new communicational patterns that occurr as well as the

lifestyle changes of the emerging adult (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015). Therefore, it is plausible

that the control of personal boundaries change.

After having been apart for some time, adolescents are likely be aware of how they

manage privacy with their long distance (LD) family members. They may share more or less

information than when together because the student is experiencing freedoms and may be

experimenting with new things they had not previously tried (Brooks, 2015). When the student

moves out of the home and the relationship becomes LD, the context, or situation, of the

relationship changes. Again, these changes may result in changes in the relationship as a whole

in how much is disclosed between the two parties (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015).

Researchers have given some scholarly attention to LDRs, particularly how individuals

effectively manage them, however, few studies have been conducted on LD family relationships.

Studies show that when relationships become LD, there are communicative changes made that

adjust to the distance between the members. For example, Merolla (2012) argues, “maintenance

behavior enactment can both increase and decrease perceived stress” (p. 775). The actions that

occur between members will strengthen or weaken the relationship.


7

Intimacy Between College Students and Family Members

Studies on LDR’s have investigated intimacy in these relationships and how it is

conceived, typically as “being developed and sustained through partners verbal and nonverbal

interaction, particularly in the forms of self-disclosures” (Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, &

Jorgensen, 1998, p. 505). The amount of information that a person discloses with others,

therefore, will impact the intimacy of the relationship. While increased disclosure is linked with

increased intimacy, individuals are often uneasy about disclosing information. Individuals may

avoid “disclosing out of fear of being rejected by others, creating a negative impression, losing

autonomy, and / or losing influence in a relationship” (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, Thompson,

Himes, & Clingerman, 2012, p. 666). Especially in a familial relationship where college aged

student’s likely want to make parents proud, they may avoid disclosing private information such

as risky behaviors to their parents. The communicative strategies vary and result in different

levels of intimacy, or connection through sharing information (Stahlstein, 20014).

Communication Privacy Management

This study will be rooted in communication privacy management theory (CPM), a lens

through which scholars have studied the negotiation of private information between interpersonal

relational parties. The theory argues that disclosure, the sharing of information, is both risky and

rewarding, leading people to create rules to guide their disclosure (Petronio, 2013). The theory

makes three assumptions about human nature: first, humans are choice makers. Second, humans

are rule makers and rule followers and humans choices and third, rules are based on a

consideration of others as well as the self (West & Turner 2007 p. 234). People make choices

and rules according to risks and benefits they perceive. According to Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin,

Thompson, Himes, and Clingerman (year), CPM argues, “individuals believe they own their


8

private information and have a right to control whether the information is disclosed as well as to

whom it is disclosed” (K p. 666). It argues that people have private information, information that

matters to them, and they manage it through different processes. The process of sharing the

information, private disclosure, does or does not occur with specific people based on a variety of

factors. Once this information is shared, the owner no longer has sole ownership over its

distribution. In order to maintain control of the information, rules may be created prior to

disclosure.

To better understand ownership and control, “CPM uses a boundary metaphor to

represent where private information is housed and how revealing and concealing is managed”

(Petronio, Helft & Child, 2013, p. 176). In the present study, we might come to learn that college

students create personal boundaries and manage control of the boundary with those around them.

Boundaries may change, however, when the familial relationships become LD. There are certain

risks involved when disclosing information to others and perhaps there will be increased risk

when the relationship becomes LD (Petronio, 2013). Individuals are less likely to reveal private

information if there are more risks involved, but there are also benefits that could influence them

from revealing, such as seeking advice (West & Turner 2007).

Parents unaware of these risks may assume they wish to have an intimate relationship and

be a part of the collective boundary, the group of co-owners of the information. After receiving

information, however, they may find themselves becoming a reluctant confidant, someone who

receives information and wishes they had not (Petronio, 2013). When information is shared,

boundary coordination often occurs, or the discloser’s co-construction and regulation of rules

surrounding information shared with receivers (Petronio, 2002). In order to maintain control of

the information, rules are set in place to assess who can have access to the information. If the co-


9

owner is left to make decisions regarding the information, boundary turbulence can occur: when

unwanted audience members gain access to private information (Petronio, 2002, p. 341).

Revealing another’s personal information can damage relationships and affect trust, but family

relationships are regarded as less fragile because they are usually involuntary.

CPM could help us understand the experiences and challenges of family members when

an adolescent member is at college. Stafford and Reske (1990) argue, “frequent communication

and high levels of self-disclosure are equated with relationship development and

intimacy…[and] communication leads to accuracy and understanding, which in turn produces

relational satisfaction” (pp. 274-275). Increased self-disclosure indicating relationship

development and intimacy, proves CPM an effective lens to view this LDR. This study aims to

understand how to college students maintain and negotiate their private information with their

parents while away at college.

Method

The present study is situated within the interpretive paradigm, therefore seeking rich and

detailed understandings of participants’ experiences and perceptions (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). I

conducted qualitative methods of data collection in order to understand participant’s LDR

experience.

Data Collection

This study was a pilot study, an initial investigation studying LDR’s among college

students. This study only focuses on familial relationships. A total of five individuals

participated in the research. In order to participate in the study, individuals had to have a family

relationship that meets the following features: (a) you are now LD from a family member with

whom you once lived, (b) you have experienced being LD for at least three months, (c) the


10

transition to LD took place no longer than five years ago, (d) your family member lives at least 1

hour away from you for the majority of the year.

Following the approval of our campus’s International Review Board, all participants

completed a brief survey about background material, including their sex, college year, age and

one specific family member to speak about. Of the participants who completed the survey (n=5),

all five were women. The research announcement did not solicit female participants, however,

only females responded to the call and were analyzed for this pilot study. Participant’s academic

studied varied in that four participants were seniors and one was a junior. Three participants were

21, two were 20. When asked to identify a current LD family relationship, all participants listed

their mother. Lastly, the LDR ranged from three months to four years.

Following the completion of the background survey, participants engaged in semi-

structured interviews about their LDR’s. Questions included: what channel of communication do

you use to communicate with your family member, describe any new relationship “rules” you

developed since becoming LD, how do you keep your relationship close when apart, and how, if

at all, did you adjust your privacy settings on your social media since becoming LD. The

interviews were transcribed verbatim and yielded 116 pages, single-spaced.

Data Analysis

I engaged in an individual process of qualitative thematic analysis with the goal of

determining themes or similarities in experiences across the interview. Themes were generated

inductively. To analyze the data, I read one transcript and created a list of patterns in the

communication between the participant and their family member. While reading the other four

interviews, I used the list as a tool for analyzing and finding similarities across the data set.


11

Following this process, I located exemplars so to support each similarity in order to test the

validity of the confusion as well as offer a rich description of the finding.

Findings

The present study attempted to answer the following research question: How do college

students maintain and negotiate their private information with their parents while away at

college. Analysis concluded that there are two contradicting sectors of the negotiation of private

information that college students take part in with their family members. First, participants

discussed wanting to keep their distance from family members, both with social media and

general conversation, in the attempt to become independent and move into adulthood. This desire

of distance leads to a lack of disclosure. The privacy generally involved topics such as

socializing with friends, drinking, and traveling. Second, participants countered their discussions

of keeping distance with also needing their parents in their lives for support and as friends.

Because students desired to maintain their relationship with parents, they engaged in disclosures

involving life skills, such as deciding factors of their future. Viewing these findings through a

lens of CPM allows for an accurate study of the negotiation of private information with parents

while college students are away at school.

Receiving an Experience

Participants categorized aspects of their lives into subdivisions and negotiating disclosure

based on where the information fit. The first category, keeping distance, showed participants

becoming adults as they transitioned their relationships with their family members. Moving from

living in their home to living on their own, relationships were negotiated and participants wanted

to feel they were prepared to be adults, rather than depend on their parents. The topics that were

kept from parents were mainly socializing with friends, drinking, and traveling. To showcase her


12

privacy, one participant discussed, “she probably doesn’t know as much about my life than she

did when I was living in the same house as her” (Participant 1). Inevitably, communication

decreased when participants moved away from their family members and began transitioning to

life on their own. Two main choices in the keeping distance sector included social media in

maintaining the experience and feeling the need to be an autonomous adult.

Social media in maintaining the experience. Participants discussed the changes made to

their social media accounts after becoming LD with their family members. All participants made

changes to their privacy settings in one form or another when the geographical change was made,

and the general reasoning for the changes was to prevent their parents from seeing aspects of

their private life. While participants were comfortable sharing information regarding school and

family, they yearned for distance regarding risqué aspects of their lives, such as drinking and

traveling with friends. One participant stated, “I have my mom blocked on Facebook…not

giving her full access to my things because she doesn’t need that” (Participant 1). Participants

felt that while it was necessary to communicate with family members in order to sustain the

relationship, disclosure was not always necessary, especially with aspects that family members

might not approve of. Participants kept their parents outside of the collective boundary with

certain aspects of the participant’s social media platforms and were not give the right of co-

owner of the information.

While the ability to use the social media platforms privacy settings is available, some

participants simply did not post certain things to their pages. For example, one participant

shared,


13

I won’t post things on Facebook that I don’t want my parents like I’ll…like I went out

with my friends, or went drinking or sometimes I go up to visit my boyfriend and I won’t

tell them so I don’t post anything about it. (Participant 3)

In order to keep their parents from becoming reluctant confidants and allow themselves to

remain autonomous, participants established rules about their social media accounts that gauged

how much information would be revealed to their parents.

Available privacy setting changes were also a way for participants to monitor which

information they disclose to their parents. Participants used a range of settings from blocking

parents to keeping them off of only some sections of their accounts. For example, a participant

who had various levels of monitoring for different platforms of social media stated, “I’m friends

with my mom on Snapchat, but I have her blocked from my story” (Participant 5). Because

Snapchat users can choose which pictures to send to others, but all friends see their story, this

change disclosed only chosen information to her family. One participant who had her mother

blocked from all forms of social media stated it was, ‘because she doesn’t really know me”

(Participant 2). The participant felt so strongly that her actions were different from those when

the relationship was geographically close, that her mother did not even know her. Previously,

when her mother was allowed in the collective boundary, “she always needed to add my friends

and know what they’re doing and then she texts me all of these things like ‘why are you

drinking?,’ ‘why are you doing this,’ ‘why is there a cigarette in your hand’” (Participant 2). In

transitioning to adulthood, participants made life changes they did not want their parents

knowing about.

At times, participants discussed these negotiated rules with their parents for disclosure

that they placed on their social media accounts. Some felt that it was important to make their


14

parents understand their reasoning behind blocking them or changing their privacy settings. For

example, one participant stated, “I also tell her it’s because she’s a Facebook stalker, so that’s it”

(Participant 5). Here, the private boundary was discussed with family members. Another

participant stated, “she is crazy about Facebook everything she does revolves around Facebook

and I want nothing to do with it” (Participant 4). Here, participants are allowed parents to

understand the boundary they were putting in place on their relationship. This tactic, although

placing parents outside of the collective boundary, may have helped negotiate conflict in that

parents were not upset or wondering why their children would not accept them on various social

media platforms.

Other participants did not discuss the lack of disclosure, avoiding the topic altogether.

For example, one participant described, “I don’t think she like she really doesn’t think I have her

blocked, she thinks I haven’t friended her yet” (Participant 3). While there was a negotiation of

disclosure, the mother did not know of her lack of disclosure, rather that it was something that

had not occurred for whatever reason. In addition to receiving an experience, students changed

their communication patterns to feel autonomous.

Being an autonomous adult. Aside from social media platforms, participants changed

their disclosure patterns in their family relationships because they feel they need to grow up and

become their own, autonomous adult. Participants felt that the transition to adulthood gave them

the ability to engage in actions that they may have previously needed permission for. They also

seemed to feel that they did not want their parents to feel they had control over them. One

participant explained, “sometimes it is easier just to do things under the radar than have

that…constant like barrage of questions and impatience” (Participant 1). In order for the

participants to feel autonomous in their transition to adulthood, it was necessary for them to be


15

able to do things without letting their parents be informed. If participants were doing something

without receiving permission first, it helped them “keep the stress off” (Participant 4) and allow

them to enjoy the activity more than if their parents were questioning their actions. This feeling

of wanting to grow up strongly relates to the social media aspect of the findings, although it goes

further in that it deals with all types of communication, not only computer-mediated

communication. Participants not only monitored and negotiated rules for disclosure of private

information on social media accounts, they created rules for communicating and deciding which

aspects of their life they would disclose and which aspects they would keep private. There is also

a divide because while the privacy allows participants to feel autonomous, blocking a parent on

social media requires less upkeep than remembering to not mention certain aspects of one’s life.

In addition to remaining autonomous, participants felt they were protecting family by not

disclosing certain information. For example, in terms of the risqué aspects of the participant’s

lives, many participants were afraid of making their parents reluctant confidants. For example,

one participant stated, “they are overprotective of me, but then they worry…she worries a lot”

(Participant 2). These emergent adults represented both sides of the life stage, not only wanting

autonomy, but also connection with family members.

Desiring a Close Relational

Although participants described keeping their parents out of their collective boundaries,

they also expressed they still needed their parents for both guidance and friendship. First, the

most common need that the participants had was for help with their future or with schoolwork. A

participant argued, “I guess now that I’m at school we talk more about school stuff, which is

more relevant, like getting a job (Participant 5). Similar dialogues stated that, “I kind of talk

about grad school with them”, (Participant 1) or email will be used as the form of


16

communication “if I’m asking her questions about school and want her to read my paper or

something” (Participant 3). These dialogues about school and work are reflective of the alternate

aspect of emerging adulthood that was previously discussed. While participants were striving to

be their own autonomous adults, they simultaneously needed the parental figure in their life to

guide them on important decisions.

Discussion between participants and their parents were not strictly school related.

Participants also disclosed about social issues. For example, one participant stated,

In my other relationships, especially like with my mom, like if my friends are making me

sad or like school is making me sad, you like really want that person there to like hug you

and stuff and that sucks. (Participant 2)

Family members were also described as friends and comforting to the participants, perhaps due

to the increased intimacy through disclosure. While there were conflicting dialogues present as

participants were trying to become adults and keep information from their parents they thought

would be disapproved of, they also treated their parents as confidants and co-owners of

information regarding issue they were having at school or with friends. Further, there were

frequent references to parents as friends. Participants referred to their parents as, “very, very

close. Very, very, very close” and “I’m really good friends with my mom” (Participant 3)

(Participant 1). One participant even shared, “I think she is an extension of myself. Like, there is

no one on this planet who understands me better and I just couldn’t live without her . . . I need

her like I need breathing” (Participant 5) Participants changed their disclosure patterns upon

becoming LD, attesting to the aspects of their life stage.

Additionally, participants felt that the geographical factor in their distance brought them

closer with their family members. While communication was difficult for all those interviewed,


17

aspects of both the individuals and the relationship grew due to the separation. For example, one

participant felt that although it was difficult to keep in contact with her mother, “I think it

actually benefited me personally because I became a lot less dependent on her when I went away

to school” (Participant 3). Because of the distance between the two people, the participants were

forced to do things on their own that they may have previously depended on a parent for.

Dialogues explained that while the negotiation was difficult when transitioning to a LDR, the

relationships are, “hard, but worth it” (Participant 1) or “sometimes difficult, but somehow

always staying strong” (Participant 3). While participants created rules regarding privacy for

parents, they still seek to keep parents a vital part of the their lives. In both help with schoolwork

and as a friend or companion, parents still played a vital role in their children’s lives and

participants still disclosed pieces of information to their parents, although there were always

steps taken to monitor this disclosure. While participants may not have wanted their parents in

their collective boundary for all information, they revealed that at times, they felt comforted by

having their parents as co-owners of information.

Discussion and Conclusion

While studies have been completed on areas of LD familial relationships, this study

furthers research regarding disclosure between college females and their mothers. Although not

an entirely intentional demographic, the analysis of transcripts regarding these relationships

proved the patterns of disclosure represent the life stage of the emerging adult. Students want to

be their own autonomous adult, although there is still a need for the guidance and companionship

of these significant figures. This finding is impactful in that it demonstrates which information is

shared with parents during college. As previously stated, the risky behaviors that students engage

in are not disclosed, therefore attesting to the need for student resources.


18

Further, social media played a large role in disclosure patterns. Parents may believe that

they are receiving information about their children behavior through social media accounts,

however, parents may not be aware that there are restrictions on their children’s profile.

Although this is a pilot study, 100% of participants changing their social media preferences for

parents are indicative of the thick boundaries students place with their parents regarding certain

information. There is a clear desire for privacy and viewing this study from the lens of Facework

Theory would be interesting in determining the reasoning behind withholding information.

Students may be trying to protect their positive face while simultaneously protecting their

parents negative face.

Moving forward as a full study, it would be beneficial to interview both mothers and

daughters. Interviewing only students was limiting in that they made assumptions about what

their parents did not know. While students may have thought they were keeping information

private, parents may have obtained the information without discussing it with their parents. In

addition, it would be interesting to learn how parents felt about the lack of disclosure from

students and what kinds of feelings arise from this thick boundary.

This current study has additional limitations. Moving forward, it would be interesting to

include men in the survey. It was not surprising that female participants spoke about their mother

when asked to identify an interpersonal familial relationship, although disclosures between

daughters and fathers as well as sons and fathers and sons and mothers would be an interesting

comparison. Further, it would be beneficial to survey college administrators and faculty

regarding the lack of disclosure. Students are engaging in the risky behaviors without telling

their parents and implementing a program that lists resources for troubled students would be

ideal. In this program, it would be necessary to avoid prohibiting these actions because students


19

are likely to engage in them regardless, rather to give students a place to seek help if they are

confused or concerned about themselves or their peers.


20

References

Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical

comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication

Research, 24, 501–535.

Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human

Communication Research, 12, 469–493.

Bearak, J. M. (2014). Casual contraception in casual sex: Life-cycle change in undergraduates’

sexual behavior in hookups. Social forces, 93. 483-513.

Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brooks, J. E. (2015). The impact of family structure, relationships, and support of African

American students’ collegiate experiences. Journal of black studies, 46. 817-836.

Burnett, A., Sabato, T., Wagner, L., Smith, A., (2014). The influence of attributional style on

substance use and risky sexual behavior among college students. College Student

Journal. 48. 325-332.

Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). The times of uncertainty: predicting the survival of long-

distance relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 581 – 606.

Londahl, E., Tverskoy, A., & D’Zurilla, T. (2005). The Relations of Internalizing Symptoms to

Conflict and Interpersonal Problem Solving in Close Relationships. Cognitive Therapy &

Research. 29. 445-462.

Fehr, B. (1999). Stability and commitment in friendships. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.),

Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 239–256). New York:


21

Kluwer Academic.

Guerroro, L., Anderson, P., & Afifi, W. Close encounters: Communicating in relationships. Los

Angelas, CA: Sage Publications.

Johnson, A., Becker, J., Craig, E., Gilchrist, E., & Haigh, M. (2009). Changes in friendship

commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships.

Communication Quarterly. 57. 395-415

Kennedy-Lightsey, C., Martin, M., Thompson, M., Himes, K., & Clingerman,. (2012)

Communication privacy management theory: Exploring coordination and ownership

between friends. Communication Quarterly. 60. 665-680

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of

New York Press.

Petronio, S., Helft, P., &Child, J. (2013). A case of disclosure: a communication privacy

management analysis. Journal of Public Health Research. 2. 175-179

Petronio, S., & Martin, J. (1986). Ramifications of revealing private information: A gender gap.

Journal of Clinical Psychology. 42. 499-504.

Piumatti, G., & Rabaglietti, E. (2015). Different types of emerging adult university students:

Role of achievement strategies and personality for adulthood self-perception and life and

educational satisfaction. Informational journal of psychology and psychological therapy.

15. 241-257.

Ravert, R. D., & Gomez-Scott, J. (2015). Why take risks? Four good reasons according to

emerging adult college students. Journal of adolescent research, 30. 565-585.

Reid, A. E. & Carey, K. B. (2015). Interventions to reduce college student drinking: State of the

evidence for mechanisms of behavior change. Clinical Psychology Review, 40. 213-224.


22

Roche, T., Jenkins, D., Aguerrevere, L., Kietlinski, R., & Prichard, E. (2015). Students’

perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate Facebook disclosures. Psi Chi Journal of

Psychological Research, 20. 86-96

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Interpersonal communication motives. In J. C.

McCroskey,

J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Personality and communication: Trait

perspectives (pp. 287-307). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in

long-distance relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 21, 699-710.

Stewart, J. (2012). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Stewart, J., Zediker, K., & Witteborn, Saskia. (2005). Together: Communicating interpersonally

(pp. 8-37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2007). Communication privacy management theory. In Introducing

communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 239-256). New York: McGraw

Hill.

(2015). Fast facts: National center for educational statistics. [Online Article] Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

(2014). College drinking: National institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. [Online Article]

Retrieved from: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-

occurring-disorders/college-drinking

Documents

Disclosure of College Students