Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SELF-DISCLOSURE IN LONG-DISTANCE FRIENDSHIPS:
A COMPARISON BETWEEN FACE-TO-FACE AND
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Communication
_______________
by
Hua Wang
Spring 2004
THE UNDERSIGNED FACULTY COMMITTEE APPROVES
THE THESIS OF HUA WANG:
___________________________________________ ____________ Peter A. Andersen, Chair Date Department of Communication ___________________________________________ Brian H. Spitzberg Department of Communication ___________________________________________ Minjuan Wang Department of Educational Technology
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Spring 2004
iii
© 2004
by
Hua Wang
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated
To my parents and brother
for encouraging me to pursue my dreams;
To my good friends
for embracing me with warmth and support;
and
To my caring husband
for walking me through all the ups and downs, joys and tears……
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude to the people who have
directly contributed to the completion of this thesis and made this happen.
Let me start by thanking the members of my committee. Dr. Peter Andersen, I
certainly could not have accomplished this much without your constant encouragement,
advice, and inspirations! You are one of the best professors I have ever met, and I do mean it!
I have learned so much from you through this process, from academic professionalism,
balanced lifestyle, to ways of communicating with other people and strategies for dealing
with different issues. You are truly a great mentor and role model. I’m really grateful to have
you as my committee Chair, and it’s been a great pleasure working with you!!!
I’m also indebted to Dr. Brain Spitzberg. Thank you for guiding me through the first
stages of writing my thesis proposal and giving me both general directions and detailed
feedback. More importantly, I want to thank you for allowing me to use your CMC
competence measures in my study and sharing with me your latest research results. You have
been an indispensable part of this project!
Finally, Dr. Minjuan Wang, I’m so glad that you agreed to be on my committee. Your
straight-forwardness, kind understanding, and confidence in me are greatly appreciated!
In addition, I would also like to thank Dr. Mei Zhong and Dr. David Dozier in our
department for their comments and assistance to an earlier version of this project.
Last but not least, many thanks to my husband Richard Huimin Ni. I could not have
gone this far without your love and support. Thanks for taking care of me and helping me out
all the time. Remember, I could not have produced “THIS baby” without you either!!! ☺
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
I. RATIONALE.................................................................................................................1
Long-Distance Friendship........................................................................................2
Literature Review.....................................................................................................3
Self-Disclosure in Friendship in General and LDF in Particular.......................5
Computer-Mediated Communication and LDF.................................................7
Email Usage .................................................................................................8
Online Instant Messenger Usage .................................................................9
CMC Disclosure in LDF..................................................................................10
Gender, Friendship, and Self-Disclosure .........................................................15
Self-Disclosure and Cultural Values................................................................17
Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality........................................................18
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...............................................................19
II. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................22
Participants.............................................................................................................22
Procedures..............................................................................................................23
Measures ................................................................................................................24
Self-Disclosure Measures ................................................................................24
CMC Competence Measures ...........................................................................25
7
CHAPTER PAGE
II. (continued)
Relationship Quality Measures ........................................................................25
Geographic Distance Measurement .................................................................26
Cultural Dimension Measures..........................................................................27
Statistical Analyses ................................................................................................27
III. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................29
Descriptive Analyses of LDFs ...............................................................................29
Research Question 1: Self-Disclosure in FtF versus CMC....................................30
Hypothesis 1: Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure ..............................................................................................................30
Research Question 2: Distance and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ..................30
Research Question 3: CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance .......30
Research Question 4: Relationship Initiation and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC.......................................................................................................................31
Hypothesis 2: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relational State in FtF and CMC .........................................................................................................31
Hypothesis 3: Gender and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC.................................32
Hypothesis 4: High- versus Low-Context Cultures and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC .........................................................................................................32
Hypothesis 5: Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC................................................................................................................32
Hypothesis 6: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC ........................................................................................33
Research Question 5: Contextual Influence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality ..............................................................................................33
Hypothesis 7: Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure ......33
Research Question 6: Influence of CMC Competence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality........................................................................................33
8
CHAPTER PAGE
IV. DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................35
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................35
Discussions on Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................37
Research Question 1: Self-Disclosure in FtF versus CMC..............................37
Hypothesis 1: Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure ........................................................................................................38
Research Question 2: Distance and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ............38
Research Question 3: CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance............................................................................................................39
Research Question 4: Relationship Initiation and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC..........................................................................................................40
Hypothesis 2: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relational State in FtF and CMC ...............................................................................................40
Hypothesis 3: Gender and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC...........................41
Hypothesis 4: High- versus Low-Context Cultures and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ...............................................................................................41
Hypothesis 5: Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ...................................................................................................42
Hypothesis 6: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC ..................................................................................42
Research Question 5: Contextual Influence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality ........................................................................................43
Hypothesis 7: Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure ........................................................................................................43
Research Question 6: Influence of CMC Competence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality ...............................................................43
Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................44
Practical Implications ............................................................................................44
Limitations ............................................................................................................46
9
CHAPTER PAGE
IV. (continued)
Suggestions for Future Studies .............................................................................47
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................49
APPENDICES
A. RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT SENT TO COMMUNICATION STUDENTS .................................................................................................................61
B. RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT SENT THROUGH ISC WEEKLY NEWSLETTER ...........................................................................................................63
C. EMAIL MESSAGE WITH LINK TO WEB SURVEY..............................................65
D. HELEN’S WEB SURVEY..........................................................................................67
E. TABLES ......................................................................................................................93
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................105
10
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. One-Factor Solution for FtF Self-Disclosure..................................................................94
2. One-Factor Solution for CMC Disclosure ......................................................................95
3. One-Factor Solution for CMC Competence ...................................................................96
4. One-Factor Solution for Relationship Quality................................................................97
5. Analysis of Variance for Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC............................................98
6. Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure.....................................98
7. Interrelations among FtF Self-Disclosure, CMC Disclosure, and Distance ...................98
8. Partial Correlation Coefficient for CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance ..........................................................................................................................99
9. Analysis of Variance for Relationship Initiation and FtF Self-Disclosure .....................99
10. Analysis of Variance for Relationship Initiation and CMC Disclosure .......................100
11. Correlation between Relational Stage and Self-Disclosure ..........................................100
12. Analysis of Variance for Gender and FtF Self-Disclosure ...........................................101
13. Analysis of Variance for Gender and CMC Disclosure................................................101
14. Analysis of Variance for High- versus Low-Context Culture and FtF Self-Disclosure..............................................................................................................102
15. Analysis of Variance for High- versus Low-Context Culture and CMC Disclosure .....................................................................................................................102
16. Correlation between Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ................................................................................................................103
17. Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC........103
18. Summary of Regression Analysis for Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC Predicting Relationship Quality .....................................................................................................103
19. Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure ....................................104
20. Partial Correlation Coefficient for Self-Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and CMC Competence ........................................................................................................104
1
CHAPTER I
RATIONALE
Friendship is an important element of people’s personal and social life. Friendship is
such a basic process that children begin to engage in complex social behaviors in the early
part of the second year of their life (Brownell & Carriger, 1990; Ross & Lollis, 1987) and
can distinguish friends from unfamiliar peers by the age of four (Hartup, 1983). Throughout
life, conceptions of friendship and its specific functions change depending on a variety of
factors such as age, gender, marital status, and work, but “what remains constant across the
life span is the significance of friendship to one’s physical and emotional well-being”
(Samter, 2003, p. 637).
Friendship holds a unique position among many other interpersonal relationships
including kin with certifiable blood ties, marriage under legal and /or religious warrants,
casual romantic relationships that are sexual in nature, and work relationships associated with
economic contracts (Rawlins, 1992). Although researchers have provided definitions and
characteristics of friendship in their own specifics, most would agree on at least three core
features: friendships are voluntary, equal, and reciprocal (e.g., Hays, 1988; Rawlins, 1992;
Samter, 2003; Wright, 1984). Some scholars refer to the person qua person perspective of
friendship in which friends perceive and treat each other as a unique individual (Suttles,
1970; Wright, 1974). Friendship can also be viewed as a type of relationship, “intended to
facilitate social-emotional goals of the participants, and may involve varying types and
degrees of companionship, intimacy, affection, and mutual assistance” (Hays, 1988, p. 395).
2
Friendship serves as a crucial factor in people’s personal development and social life.
Studies show that a lack of friends may cause numerous problems including academic
failure, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety, and fatigue (Fehr, 1996; Ladd, 1999).
Current literature has investigated different aspects of friendship, such as the
conceptualization or definition of friendship (e.g., Hays, 1988; Rawlins, 1992; Robin, 1985;
Wright, 1974), activities and intimacy related behaviors (e.g., Dindia & Allen, 1992; Reis,
1998), gender differences in friendship (e.g., Fehr, 1996; Wright, 1988, 1998), and various
friendship phases in one’s lifetime (e.g., Fehr, 1996; Rawlins, 1992). One domain that still
remains relatively unexplored is the long-distance friendship.
Long-Distance Friendship
In her seminal research, Rohlfing (1995) claimed that long-distance friendship (LDF)
as a type of long-distance relationship (LDR) is still under-studied, despite the fact that this
phenomenon has become prevalent with more and more people pursuing higher education or
professional careers, and immigrating to another country (Stafford, 1988). Existing studies
suggest LDFs are common; close to 90% of the subjects in Rohfing’s research reported
having at least one close, long-distance friend (Rohlfing, 1990; Rohlfing & Healey, 1991).
However, being separated by time and space is a substantial challenge to those who were at
one time proximal friends and who wish to maintain their relationships. Earlier studies found
that geographic separation was the most frequent reason people cited for friendship
dissolution (Parlee, 1979; Rose, 1984). Other studies investigating the consequences of
mobility on interpersonal communication showed that highly mobile individuals have fewer
friendships and experience greater level of anomie than proximal friendships (Hunt & Butler,
1972; Parks, 1977).
3
So what are the effects of geographic separation on friendship in today’s society?
Will new communication technologies make a difference in sustaining LDFs? How similar or
different are men and women when communicating friendship through both face-to-face
(FtF) and computer-mediated communication (CMC)? How much does culture influence this
phenomenon? This study attempts to understand how people communicate with their long-
distance friends in different contexts through the lens of self-disclosure.
Literature Review
Self-disclosure has been commonly defined as the verbal messages that people reveal
about themselves including personal information, experiences, thoughts, and feelings (e.g.,
Archer, 1980; Cozby, 1973; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Some scholars
insist that the revealed information be of an intimate or private nature, which is normally
hard to obtain unless disclosed by oneself (e.g., Dindia, 2000a; Goodstein & Reinecher,
1974; Pearce & Sharp, 1973). As Dindia (2000a) maintains,
While some information about one’s self is rather public … there is other information about one’s self that is rather private or intimate and is disclosed under special circumstances. This private, intimate information about the self ought to be the focus of both research and theorizing about self-disclosure. If this is not done, the term self-disclosure becomes vague and general … losing any special meaning (p.148).
Based on these discussions, FtF self-disclosure is specifically defined in the current
study as the encoding of verbal messages that reveal to other(s) private, intimate, and/or risky
personal information, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions without the use of
mediated channels. In comparison, CMC disclosure is defined as the text messages and
emoticons sent to other(s) through the Internet, conveying private, intimate, and/or risky
personal information, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions. There are also
4
categories of other potentially important disclosure such as self-disclosure via telephone or
mail that are not concerned with in this study.
One of the first theoretical explanations of self-disclosure was developed from social
penetration theory, which predicted that self-disclosure increases gradually as people
develop their relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Three basic dimensions of self-
disclosure were proposed: (1) breadth indicates the number of topics a person feels free to
discuss; (2) depth shows the intimacy of information disclosed; and (3) frequency means how
often self-disclosure occurs (Altman & Taylor, 1973). In addition, scholars also uncovered
other dimensions relevant to self-disclosure: valence refers to the extent to which a message
has good/bad implications for the sender, duration reflects how long two people spend
disclosing in a single conversation, and reciprocity implies whether communication matches
each others' levels of disclosure (e.g., Dindia, 2000b; Gilbert, 1976; Tolstedt & Stokes, 1984;
Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). A few researchers have pointed out that certain measures related
to time and proximity may not be relevant to examining self-disclosure in long-distance
relationships (e.g., Johnson, Becker, Wigley, Wittenberg, & Haigh, 2003). Therefore, the
dimensions that are comparatively more applicable to both FtF self-disclosure and CMC
disclosure would be: breadth, depth, valence, and reciprocity.
In her comprehensive reviews, Dindia (1997, 2000a) summarized four research
perspectives toward self-disclosure in personal relationships: (1) self-disclosure as a
personality trait and a stable characteristic of relationships, which attempts to identify
individual differences in self-disclosure and correlate with demographic variables (e.g.,
Archer, 1979; Jourard, 1971); (2) self-disclosure as a one-time action or event, which focuses
on individual communication messages or behaviors (e.g., Cline, 1983); (3) self-
5
disclosure as a transactional process, which views self-disclosure as a dynamic, continuous,
and circular process (e.g., Pearce & Sharp, 1973); and (4) self-disclosure as a dialectical
process, which adds contradictory forces such as openness versus closedness, expressiveness
versus protectiveness to the transactional perspective (e.g. Baxter & Montgomery, 1996,
2000; Petronio, 2000; Rawlins, 1992; Rosenfeld, 2000). This study adopted the perspective
that views self-disclosure as a dialectical process when proposing research questions.
Self-Disclosure in Friendship in General and LDF in Particular
Self-disclosure has constantly appeared on the listed core conceptions and values of
intimate relationships in general (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998; Roscoe,
Kennedy, & Pope, 1987; Waring, Tillman, Frelick, Russell, & Weisz, 1980), and friendship
in particular (Bradac, 1983; Bruess & Pearson, 1997; Davis & Todd, 1985; Helgeson,
Shaver, & Dyer, 1987). Monsour (1992) found that both women and men agreed on the
ordering of intimacy indicators in friendship, ranking self-disclosure and emotional
expressiveness highest on the list (cf., Helgeson et al., 1987).
Self-disclosure also plays a crucial role in relationship development and maintenance
(Derlega et al., 1993). Several studies suggested that individuals who reveal personal
information tend to initiate and form friendships because such disclosure signals a desire for
closeness (Collins & Miller, 1994; Fehr, 1996; Hays, 1984, 1985). Some researchers even
claimed that it is “hard to imagine how a relationship might get started without such self-
disclosure” (Derlega et al., 1993, p. 2). Considerable evidence shows that openness including
both routine talk and intimate conversation, and in many cases intimate self-disclosure alone,
is the most important maintenance behavior and predictor of relational closeness in
6
friendships (Afifi, Guerrero, & Egland, 1994; Fehr, 1996; Johnson, 2001; Rose, 1985;
Rosenfeld & Kendrick, 1984).
In the study of women’s LDFs, Rose (1984) found participants sustained their
relationships through “intimate self-disclosure about daily events” in their routine telephone
conversations. More recently and specifically, Johnson and associates (2001; Johnson et al.,
2003) discovered that self-disclosure is one of the most commonly reported perceptions of
relational closeness and relational maintenance behavior between college student subjects
and their long-distance friends. In other words, people intend to engage self-disclosure in
order to make themselves feel close to their friends. In LDRs, communication is often
focused on quality rather than quantity (Aron & Fraley, 1999).
However, some scholars view self-disclosure as a privacy regulation mechanism and
argue that revealing private information is risky because people are put into a potentially
vulnerable situation that would result in need of self-protection (Altman, 1975; Bochner,
1982; Derlega & Chaikin, 1977; Petronio, 1988, 1991). Rosenfeld (1979) and Hatfield (1984)
suggested people might keep away from intimate self-disclosure for several reasons such as
fear of exposure, abandonment, angry attacks, loss of control, destructive impulses, and/or
losing individuality. Studies also showed that people sometimes want to keep the intimacy
level of self-disclosure to a certain degree so that they could protect themselves from
emotional overload, increased conflict, and excessive dependence (Afifi & Guerrero, 1998;
Guerrero & Afifi, 1995). Van Horn el al. (1997) found in their LDR study that people tend to
disclose less and avoid bringing up sensitive or problematic issues during long-distance
communication than FtF interactions.
7
Computer-Mediated Communication and LDF
With the advances in communication technologies, people today have a wide variety
of ways to connect with each other. Some scholars claimed that given a greater number of
communication channels, the impact of geographic distance is decreasing, allowing people to
develop and maintain relationships with those who live too far away to meet face to face
frequently (Blieszner & Adams, 1992; Wood, 1995). People in LDRs mostly rely on letters,
telephone, and more recently computer-mediated communication.
According to Ferris (1997), computer-mediated communication is generally
understood as both task- and relationship-oriented communication conducted by computers,
which include asynchronous communication by the use of email, newsgroups, or an
electronic message board system, synchronous communication via online chat rooms, MUDs
and MOOs (Multi-user ‘places’) or instant messengers, and information retrieval, storage and
manipulation through computers and electronic databases. In a real break from traditional
long-distance communication media, CMC dramatically helps to overcome challenges and
difficulties associated with communication across time and distance (Baron, 1998; Pew,
2000; Sproull & Faraj, 1997). This partially explains why many people report that they make
fewer long-distance phone calls with friends and family after going online (Dimmick, Kline,
& Stafford, 2000; Pew, 2000).
Statistics from recent studies showed empirical evidence of the powerful impact of
CMC on relationship development (for a review, see Spitzberg, 2004, Table 1). Rumbough
(2001) reported that 10.6% of research subjects established a LDR and 43.6% have
maintained a LDF because of the Internet. In another study, 40% or more college students
sampled stated that their goal in meeting people online was friendship and 60% admitted that
they had met someone via the Internet, of which 26% became friendships (Knox, Daniels,
8
Sturdivant, & Zusman, 2001). McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) found that 54% of
respondents had met with an Internet friend face to face. And according to the Pew Internet
and American Life Project (2002), 72% of the college participants said most of their
communication on the Internet was with friends. In addition, of a wide variety of online
communication tools, email and instant messaging are suggested to be especially
interpersonal relating oriented given their user specific features (Baym, 2002).
Email usage. Since the creation of the World Wide Web, the Internet has been
widely diffusing all around the world. According to Nielsen/NetRatings (2003), the number
of global Internet users increased from 563 million people in Quarter 3, 2002 to 580 million
people in Quarter 4, 2002. The Internet, especially email, has been playing a key role in
many aspects of people’s life, such as information exchange and social interactions. By the
year of 2001, 55% of American adults accessed Internet and pursued a wide range of online
activities, and 48 million Americans were using e-mail as Internet’s prime communication
feature during an average day (Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001). More specifically, 92% of
teenagers aged 12 through 17 had been using the Internet sending or reading emails in a
recent study conducted among 754 youth (Pew, 2001). College students are frequently
looking for email, with 72% checking email at least once a day and two-thirds use at least
two email addresses (Pew, 2002). Furthermore, people are using email to enrich their
important relationships and enlarge their networks. A recent showed that 55% of Internet
users said their email exchanges had improved their connections to family members; 66%
said email had enhanced their communications with significant friends; and women tend to
make these statements more than men (Pew, 2000).
9
Online instant messenger usage. Instant messaging (IM) is one of the newest and
most popular forms of CMC. IM is commonly used on the Internet via online instant
messenger (OIM), which is a form of interactive text-related online communication software.
People of all walks of life have come to utilize OIM for communication.
Although email has been a predominant mode of CMC among those who are
involved in LDRs, more and more people, especially college students have begun to use
OIMs to communicate with their friends and romantic partners in another city or a country.
Besides the email characteristics of being economical, casual, time-flexible, and user
friendly, OIM additionally provides services enabling people to see who is online at the
moment, exchange instant messages in different languages, conduct a voice or video
conversation instead of typing, share pictures or any other files, allow a third member to join
the communication process, and visualize personal emotions (e.g., Cummings, 2002; Nardi,
Whittaker & Bradner, 2000). One of the main functions of OIM is to maintain a sense of
connection with friends and family. Another Pew study (2001) discovered that almost three-
quarters of online teens in the United States, roughly 13 million youth, had used an instant
messaging program; fully 90% of instant messengers said they used this Internet tool to stay
in touch with friends and relatives who do not live nearby; and 37% of online teens used IM
to write something they would not have said in person. In their ethnographic study, Chao and
Yang (2001) rather elaborated their online interactions, emotions, and changes in familial
relationships between sojourners and distance families via OIM.
As we can see, CMC has instigated a technological revolution and changed our
human society profoundly. Mostly conducted in organizational environment, early studies on
CMC tend to focus on its task-oriented functions (e.g., Culnan & Markus, 1987). However,
10
when one examines the developing civilization of virtual worlds, it becomes apparent that
interpersonal relationships have experienced a transformation from primarily through FtF
interactions to CMC (Merkle & Richardson, 2000). More and more scholars have realized
the importance of understanding the social impact of CMC on relational communication
(e.g., Baym, 2002; Chenault, 1998; Clark, 1998; Lea & Spears, 1995; Parks & Floyd, 1996;
Utz, 2000). Although CMC was not invented with interpersonal interaction in mind, the rise
of the Internet has clarified that this technology is fundamentally social (Parks & Roberts,
1998). The exponential growth of computer and Internet use has ushered in a new
information age that promises to redefine both our communication and our relationships
(Waugh, 1995).
CMC has automatically become an alternative solution to many problems or
challenges to LDRs and commonly used in LDFs (Dimmick, Kline, & Stafford, 2000; Pew,
2000; Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999). This study examines (1) LDFs initiated in FtF
context, which means people have got to know each other well face-to-face and they are
simply continuing their interpersonal relationships through CMC, (2) LDFs initiated in CMC
context, or mixed-mode relationships (MMRs), which means people establish relationships
on the Internet and maintain or even develop their relationships via both FtF interactions and
CMC (Walther & Parks, 2002), and (3) LDFs initiated through other possible communication
channels.
CMC Disclosure in LDF
Although long-distance relational communication has been mentioned in CMC
studies, how CMC affects LDFs is not yet well understood, especially with respect to the role
of self-disclosure. To date, only a few studies have covered CMC disclosure and a majority
11
of them focused on self-disclosure behaviors between strangers (e.g., Joinson, 2001;
McKenna et al., 2002; Rumbough, 2001; Sandlund & Geist-Martin, 2001; Tidwell &
Walther, 2002; Whitty, 2002). In the study on self-disclosure in CMC, Joinson (2001) found
significantly higher level of spontaneous self-disclosure in CMC compared to FtF overall,
significantly higher CMC disclosure among visually anonymous participants than non-
visually anonymous participants, and significantly higher levels of CMC disclosure when
heightened private self-awareness is combined with reduced public self-awareness. McKenna
et al. (2002) hypothesize that CMC increases self-disclosure and expression of one’s “true”
self because of its three important features: anonymity, lack of “gating features”, and
facilitation of locating those with shared interests. Results of their research showed evidence
that people who could better disclose their inner self to others online than in FtF context were
more likely to form close relationships on the Internet as well as moved their virtual
relationships into real life.. Tidwell and Walther (2002) suggested that participants interacted
in CMC context tend to use a greater proportion of more direct and intimate uncertainty
reduction behaviors than unmediated participants in the initial stage of relational
communication. Compared to FtF interactions, communication through CMC context
appeared to display greater self-disclosure and more depth and breadth of questions (Whitty,
2002). However, in a descriptive study, 25.7% of the survey respondents indicated that they
disclose personal information to strangers who are physically present, while only 12.4%
disclose personal information to strangers in a chat room (Rumbough, 2001). Sandlund and
Geist-Martin (2001) did not focus their study on self-disclosure, but their ethnographic
stories about reconnecting with their former lovers via email certainly showed the power of
12
CMC in terms of disclosing private, intimate, and even risky information and strong
emotions through the Internet.
Obviously, with the advent of CMC, people are given possibilities to exchange
information more quickly and instantly, express personal emotions and feelings more freely,
and even maintain or develop interpersonal relationships more efficiently. In addition to the
economic and convenient features, another characteristic of CMC more related to self-
disclosure is that computer-mediated messages can be stored in memory, replicated, retrieved
at later dates, and edited prior to sending, which would lead to interpersonal consequences
such as better organized and thought out statements than FtF communication (e.g., Walther,
1996). Some studies suggested that people are more likely to disclose via CMC than FtF
(Archer, 1980; Joinson, 1998, 2001; Rheingold, 1993). A growing body of literature (e.g.,
Baym, 2002) argues that people increasingly prefer to communicate and develop
interpersonal relationships through CMC in many occasions. Some researchers even
emphasize that the system we presently refer to as information technologies should be more
aptly named as relationship technologies, because the new machines of today are between
human beings rather than between man and nature, and not only material products but
feelings, emotions, and relations are being processed in these machines (Wood & Smith,
2001).
However, even though people are provided great opportunities to keep in touch with
their long-distance friends in a possibly more convenient way compared to letter and
telephone, this does not mean that CMC would necessarily become a safe and effective
relational communication environment for self-disclosure in LDFs and therefore contribute to
high relationship quality. In fact, whether or not CMC can be an effective context for
13
relational communication has been an issue of contention among scholars since the formation
of networked interaction began. Early research concluded computer usage drove people to
focus more on task-oriented messages and precluded the development of social relationships
among users (e.g., Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976). Many people think of CMC as a
substitute for or a temporary solution rather than the essence of the relationship. Research on
relational maintenance also provided evidence that people sometimes are using mediated
communication as a tool until they can be together again (e.g., Aylor, 2003; Rabby &
Walther, 2003). In a more recent study on cyberfeelings, Hack (1999) suggested that
although emotions exist in CMC and can be disclosed with varying intensity, it is apparent
that emotions are much more prevalent in FtF communication than in CMC, or in other
words, “CMC is not unemotional, but is clearly less emotional” (p. 102). Other studies
suggest that deception can distort the nature of disclosures, such as when people claim to be
younger, lighter, or somewhere they are not (see Cornwell & Lundgren, 2001; Knox et al.,
2001; Pew, 2001; Rumbough, 2001; Whitty, 2002).
At this point of time, theories developed in traditional communication contexts have
begun to be tested in CMC environment and the results vary depending on specific topics and
research design. Walther and Parks (2002) summarized some general theories that apply to
both interpersonal dynamics and CMC in terms of five approaches: (1) cues filtered out,
which emphasizes the impersonal nature of CMC because the lack of nonverbal cues (e.g.,
Culnan & Markus, 1987; Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986), and
this may infer that people are not likely to disclose in CMC than FtF; (2) cues to choose by,
which asserts that some types of messages might be conveyed more efficiently in one
medium than in another and people choose the Internet and FtF communication for
14
particular needs (e.g., Daft & Lengel, 1984; Daft, Lengel, & Refvino, 1987, Flaherty, Pearce,
& Rubin, 1998), and this may lead to an assumption that level of self-disclosure may be
related to how people look at different media and how the media can satisfy their particular
needs; (3) cues filtered in, which assumes that communicators are just as motivated to
reduce interpersonal uncertainty, form impressions, and develop affinity in CMC settings as
they are in other settings (e.g., Walther, 1992; Utz, 2000), emoticons are particularly studied
as widely accepted graphic representations of nonverbal cues on the Internet (e.g., Castellá,
Abad, Alonso, & Silla, 2000; Reid, 1991; Thomrson & Foulger, 1996; Walther & D’Addario,
2001), and this implies computer mediation may not influence people’s self-disclosure
behaviors; (4) cues about us, not you or me, which suggests that people online are likely to
set aside personal identity and adopt the appropriate social identity in order to find
acceptance among others (e.g., Lea & Spears, 1995; Postumes, Spears, & Lea, 1998); and
(5) cues bent and twisted, which suggests a hyperpersonal perspective of CMC (e.g.,
Walther, 1996; Wood & Smith, 2001). More recently, Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, and
Sunnafrank (2002) proposed a conceptual model for examining social information seeking in
CMC and new media. They argue that CMC may eliminate or reduce nonverbal and
contextual information; such communication environment offers new and unique alternative
mechanisms and advantages otherwise unavailable in FtF context for acquiring social
information about other people. Spitzberg (2004) addresses the important role of new media
in the formation and development of personal relationships and proposes a model and
measure of CMC competence. These approaches present a diverse but also complicated
context where CMC disclosure occurs.
15
Gender, Friendship, and Self-Disclosure
Several scholars suggested that women’s friendships engage more intimacy related
behaviors including self-disclosure, emotional expressiveness, and mere talk, whereas men’s
friendships tends to be inexpressive and activity-centered (e.g., Brehm, 1992; Fehr, 1996).
Some used similar descriptions of the dichotomy, such as talking versus doing (Caldwell &
Peplau, 1982), face-to-face versus side-by-side (Wright, 1988), and communal versus agentic
(Duck & Wright, 1993). However, as mentioned earlier, Monsour (1992) found a difference
in degree between men’s and women’s intimacy behavior, but really more similarity overall.
Also, in a more recent selective but representative review on gender differences in friendship,
Wright (1998) posited that differences in male and female’s friendships emerge in a context
of more fundamental similarities, and even when differences were found, they were often
small despite statistically significant comparisons. In other words, women’s and men’s
friendships are similar in more ways or to a greater degree than they are different. Studies
showed that as friendship grow closer, gender differences in communal characteristics like
intimate communication and companionship are even smaller (e.g., Candy-Gibbs, 1882;
Hays, 1985; Wright, 1982).
Very often exemplified as a typical intimacy related behavior, self-disclosure is a
central factor in research about gender differences in friendship. As Hill and Stull (1987)
stated, the relationship between self-disclosure and gender has been a topic of research for
which some of the clearest predictions have been made, yet some of the most confusing
results have been obtained.
The issue of gender differences in self-disclosure was first proposed in research
based upon Jourard’s Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSDQ). Jourard pointed out that there is
gender difference in self-disclosure, and basically women tend to disclose more private
16
information to others than men (Jourard, 1961; Jourard & Lasakow, 1958; Jourard &
Richman, 1963). Jourard attributed this difference to gender role, particularly because the
male gender role inhibits men’s self-disclosure (Jourard, 1971). However, narrative
reviewers who continued the investigation came to inconclusive results and suggested several
possible intervening factors: (a) situational factors including topic of disclosure, sex of target
(disclosure recipient), and relationship to target, (b) sex role attitudes, (c) sex role identity,
(d) sex role norms, and (e) measure of self-disclosure (Cozy, 1973; Hill & Stull, 1987;
Rosenfeld, Civikly & Herron, 1979). Unfortunately, no clear consensus has yet emerged:
more studies found greater self-disclosure by women, fewer others revealed greater self-
disclosure by men, and still some obtained no gender difference (Reis, 1998).
Despite all these controversial research findings, scholars claim that there are gender
differences in self-disclosure and generally females tend to self-disclose somewhat than
males do (e.g., Dindia, 2000b; Dindia & Allen, 1992; Reis, 1998). In 1990s, Dindia and
Allen (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of gender differences in self-disclosure. They located
205 studies involving 23,702 participants that tested the relationship between gender and
self-disclosure. Evidence showed that females self-disclose more than males, though the
difference is not as large as self-disclosure theorists and researchers have suggested.
Furthermore, Reis (1998) provided a meta-analytic summary of gender differences obtained
in eight studies with somewhat diverse sample subjects in varying locations and contexts:
Men’s same-sex interaction is substantially less intimate than is women’s same-sex
interaction, whereas opposite-sex interaction yields no consistent trend. Although self-
disclosure was not specifically tested in these eight studies, women were found more often
the targets of self-disclosure than men.
17
Self-Disclosure and Cultural Values
The meaning of self-disclosure and its functions in interpersonal communication may
vary in cultures possessing different value orientations (Nakanishi & Johnson, 1993). With
the tendency of globalization, studies today should take a worldwide view. A vast majority of
communication studies have been conducted in North American culture using Native
American populations. It is important to test the generalizability of existing theories and
principles in different cultural environments.
Hall (1976) posed two important concepts about context and meaning – in low
context culture (LCC), communication messages are conveyed mainly through explicit code
such as language, whereas people in high context culture (HCC) utilize mostly physical
context or nonverbal cues to imply their messages. This directly relates to self-disclosure
behavior in different cultures. Thus, people in LCC would rely on verbal expression in their
relational communication and are likely to disclose more than those in HCC.
Hofstede (1983, 1986; 2001) proposed some other fundamental cultural dimensions,
including individualism and collectivism. He proposed that individualistic cultures are more
self-oriented whereas collectivistic cultures are more group-oriented. The implications of
these cultural norms on self-disclosure suggest that people in individualistic cultures value
embody open expressiveness and interpersonal assertiveness while people in collectivistic
cultures tend to be more inexpressive, inscrutable, and even impassive, balancing between
expressing true emotion and desire by the individual and regulating that expression by
propriety (Nakanishi & Johnson, 1993; Rubin, Yang, & Porte, 2000; Yum, 1991).
Although LCC versus HCC and individualism versus collectivism are separate
different sets of concepts, they are also interrelated. People from LCC and individualistic
cultures have many similarities and people from HCC and collectivistic cultures also share
18
things in common. Typically, U.S. American and many other Western cultures (French,
German, etc.) are LCC and individualistic cultures while Asian (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) and
Middle Eastern cultures are HCC and collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1986; Triandis, 1995).
A number of cross-cultural studies have attempted to verify contrasting norms and
practices for self-disclosure. In the studies of self-disclosure in relationship maintenance,
Ting-Toomey (1991) found that Japanese exhibited a much lower level of self-disclosure in
both quality and quantity than North Americans and French. Similarly, self-reported
disclosure among Taiwanese was found lower than North Americans (Chen, 1995; Wolfson
& Pearce, 1983). In a meta-analysis of gender differences and intimacy behaviors cross five
cultures, Reis (1998) concluded that gender differences in intimacy are influenced by cultural
norms. More specifically, males from the United States, Germany, and the Netherlands
reported significantly higher intimacy with male than with female partners, whereas in
Jordan and Hong Kong, on average, men showed no differences as a function of partner sex
(Reis, 1998).
Although a considerable body of intercultural theory and research suggested the
expectations that people in HCC/collectivistic cultures report substantially less self-
disclosure than those in LCC/individualistic cultures, other research yielded conflicting
results. In a comparison study of self-disclosure among Chinese and North Americans,
Rubin, Yang, and Porte (2000) discovered that their data did not reveal any main effect for
cultural values in self-disclosure.
Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality
Relationship quality has been extensively investigated in long-distance romantic
relationship (e.g., Guldner & Swensen, 1995) and friendship (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993;
19
Rose & Roades, 1987; Nicotera, 1993), but not particularly in the context of LDF or directly
tested in relation to self-disclosure in FtF and CMC environment. In order to find out whether
the new information and communication technologies really make a difference in self-
disclosure between long-distance friends, it is very important to evaluate the overall
relationship quality perceived by people who are involved in both FtF and CMC contexts.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Self-disclosure is a dynamic and complicated process. The review of literature has
suggested that self-disclosure behaviors vary across different contexts. This research study
attempts to examine self-disclosure specifically in long-distance friendships, and compare
and contrast self-disclosure behaviors in FtF and CMC interactions for the first time. Looking
at this issue from a dialectical perspective, we should not ignore evidence from previous
research on both advantages and challenges to self-disclosure via CMC compared to FtF
communication. This discussion leads to my first research question:
RQ1: Among long-distance friends, are there differences in self-disclosure between
FtF and CMC contexts?
Although an individual’s self-disclosure behavior may or may not vary across
communication contexts, the personal tendency to self-disclose should be comparatively
stable, which leads to my first hypothesis:
H1: An individual’s level of FtF self-disclosure is positively correlated with CMC
disclosure in LDFs.
This study does not simply test the amount of self-disclosure in FtF and CMC
environments. More importantly, the study attempts to investigate the role and impact of new
information technologies in people’s lives, in terms of their self-disclosure behaviors. This
20
interest leads to the following two research questions in regard to the influence of geographic
distance on self-disclosure in LDFs:
RQ2: In both FtF and CMC contexts, what is the relationship between geographic
distance and self-disclosure in LDFs?
RQ3: Is the amount of CMC disclosure more important to relational quality in LDFs
of greater geographic distance?
Self-disclosure very often interacts with many situational variables, such as the
context of relationship initiation, relational stage, gender, and cultural background, etc.
Although prior studies yielded contradicting results, based on the overall conclusion drawn
from the literature, a research question and four hypotheses can be stated as below:
RQ4: Does the context of friendship initiation influence self-disclosure in FtF and
CMC?
H2: In both FtF and CMC contexts, self-disclosure is positively correlated with
relational stage.
H3: In both FtF and CMC contexts, females are more likely to disclose than males.
H4: In both FtF and CMC contexts, self-disclosure of people from low context
cultures is greater than those from high context cultures.
H5: In both FtF and CMC contexts, self-disclosure of people from individualistic
cultures is greater than those from collectivistic cultures.
Self-disclosure is not an independent relational behavior. In fact, prior research shows
that self-disclosure is closely related to relationship quality. In order to re-test the correlation
between these two variables in FtF context, and extend the examination to CMC
environment, the following two research questions and two hypotheses are proposed:
21
H6: In both FtF and CMC contexts, self-disclosure is positively correlated with
relationship quality.
RQ5: What combination of FtF and CMC contexts mediates the relationship between
self-disclosure and relationship quality in LDF?
H7: An individual’s CMC competence is positively correlated with CMC
disclosure.
RQ6: How does a person’s CMC competence mediate the relationship between self-
disclosure and relationship quality?
22
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
A total of 388 qualified respondents completed the present study within the time
period of December 2, 2003 to February 2, 2004. Research subjects were assured in advance
that (1) their participation be voluntary, (2) their answers to the questions be completely
anonymous, and (3) all the data collected be used only for the current study. They were also
notified that the Institutional Review Board at SDSU approved this study. Contact
information was given for further questions and concerns about the study.
Participants
Participants for this study were recruited from two sources. Close to 70% of the
research subjects were students who were enrolled in a basic communication course at SDSU
(either in Fall 2003 or Spring 2004 semester) with an extra credit incentive. Approximately
30% of the subjects were international students recruited through weekly electronic
newsletter from the International Student Center at SDSU. In order to qualify for the study,
all respondents had to be (1) 18 years of age or older, (2) enrolled at SDSU at the time of the
study, (3) have at least one friend living in another city, state, or country, (4) have physically
met their long-distance friends, and (5) have communicated with their long-distance friends
through the Internet.
A total of 418 students accessed the web survey for the study. However, 24
respondents were not qualified for the study, and 6 respondents did not complete a majority
of the questions on the survey, which reduced the actual sample size to 388 participants.
23
Among all the respondents who answered the demographic questions, close to 70% were
females and over 30% were males. The respondents aged from 18 to 42 (M = 20.40),
although 90% were under the age of 26. Participants for the study were from diverse cultural
backgrounds as they were raised in 43 countries and regions.
Procedures
Research announcements (see Appendix A & B) were sent to the target population
with basic information about general study topic, research purpose, significance, and security
assurance as well as a contact name and an email address. Students interested in participating
were encouraged to send a message to a designated email address for further instructions.
Thus, a list of email address of all potential subjects was obtained and a separate email
message (see Appendix C) with the link to a web survey was sent out to each person.
To measure self-disclosure between long-distance friends in both FtF and CMC
contexts, a web survey (see Appendix D) was developed through the SurveyMonkey.com
online research tool. The questionnaire contained 24 questions divided in eight sections
(introduction, qualification test, CMC competence, long-distance friend, self-disclosure in
FtF and CMC contexts, relationship quality, demographics, and extra credit info). All the
listed options or statements in a matrix question were randomly rotated to avoid response
order bias. Interested students could easily access the web survey by clicking on the link sent
via email and simply follow the instructions on the computer screen and click the button of
their choice. With the function of hyperlink on the Internet, the information system for this
web survey could automatically skip to the designated question according to the respondent’s
answer to previous question. In order to reduce response error, all respondents were notified
in advance that they would not be able to backward and change their answers once they
24
passed a screen. However, they would retain their right to exit the survey at any point and not
to complete the survey. Respondents taking the web survey for class extra credit were
instructed to send a message to a designated email address with their full names, class
instructor’s name, and/or class section number after they completed the study online. All this
extra credit information was kept separately from the web survey, so the study stayed
anonymous as the name lists were destroyed after being delivered to corresponding class
instructors. Once respondents finished the survey, they could choose “done” to contribute
their answers to the research database.
Measures
Self-Disclosure Measures
Three statements were developed for each one of the four self-disclosure dimensions
(breadth, depth, valence, and reciprocity) suggested by the literature. Wheeless and Grotz
(1976) proposed a 30-item questionnaire as multidimensional measurement of self-
disclosure. In a follow-up study, Wheeless (1978) revised the self-disclosure scales to include
40 items, which are grouped into five categories: (1) intended disclosure factor; (2) amount
factor; (3) positiveness-negativeness factor; (4) control of depth factor; and (5) honesty-
accuracy factor. Among those five categories, positiveness-negativeness factor and control of
depth factor match the two dimensions of self-disclosure in the present study: valance and
depth. Therefore, several questions from Wheeless original questionnaire were selected and
modified to the purpose of this study. Three new questions are created to measure the breadth
and reciprocity of self-disclosure in this study.
Data were collected from subjects on the four dimensions of self-disclosure in both
FtF and CMC contexts. However, factor analyses of FtF self-disclosure (see Table 1; all
25
tables shown in Appendix E) and CMC disclosure (see Table 2) both suggested that a
unidimensional scale would accomplish a much higher reliability of measurement. More
specifically, The Scree Plot tests indicated a one-dimension scale for both FtF self-disclosure
and CMC disclosure. No viable two, three, or four- dimensional structure merged from the
factor analyses. A 7-item scale of FtF self-disclosure (α = .82) merged as a one-factor
solution. Reliability for this single factor scale was the highest. A unidimensional same 7-
item scale of CMC disclosure (α = .81) was created and used for data analyses to make the
self-disclosure measures comparable between FtF and CMC contexts.
CMC Competence Measures
One of the primary goals of this research study is to examine the role of CMC in
relationship maintenance and disclosure. Hence, a set of measures that operationalize various
aspects of the CMC dimension of research subjects’ relationships and communication
activity were adopted from Spitzberg’s (2004) CMC competence measurement including
motivation, knowledge, skills, and outcomes. Two statements were selected from the items
testing each of the following dimensions or sub-dimensions: motivation, knowledge,
coordination, attentiveness, expressiveness, composure, appropriateness, and effectiveness.
The Scree Plot indicated a one-dimension scale. No viable multi-factor solutions emerged
from the facture analysis. Reliability for a single-factor unidimensional 15-item scale for
CMC competence measure (see Table 3) was the highest (α = .87) when one item was
deleted.
Relationship Quality Measures
Measurement of perceived relationship quality components, especially friendship
quality, was also incorporated into this research study. Nicotera (1993) suggested that
26
increasing intimacy, personal growth, and communication effectiveness are three major
characteristics of friendship quality. Specific measures may include tolerance, honesty,
caring, trustworthiness, humor, intelligence, responsibility, religion, self-discipline, and
resourcefulness (Moeneka & Nicotera, 1993). In a more recent study, Fletcher, Simpson, and
Thomas (2000) developed an inventory (PRQC) to evaluate different elements of relationship
quality. The 18-item inventory consists of six categories: (1) relationship satisfaction; (2)
commitment; (3) intimacy; (4) trust; (5) passion; and (6) love. Some of the questions were
modified to detect the relationship between online self-disclosure and quality of LDFs in this
study. Based on the three categories Nicotera (1993) suggested, three questions were selected
from PRQC and revised to measure each of the following: increasing intimacy, and
communication effectiveness. Three questions were created to examine the dimension of
personal growth. In an orthoginal factor analysis, the Scree Plot test indicated a one-
dimension scale. No viable multi-factor solutions emerged from the factor analysis. And a
single-factor unidimensional 9-item scale (see Table 4) was the most reliable measure for
relationship quality (α = .78).
Geographic Distance Measurement
Another important part of this study is to test the impact of geographic distance on
self-disclosure in LDFs in both FtF and CMC contexts. Research subjects were asked about
the location of their long-distance friends in the study. An online GIS system called “how far
it is” (http://www.indo.com/distance/) was used to measure the geographic distance between
these long-distance friends. This system uses the data from the US Census and a
supplementary list of cities around the world and the calculations are based on the latitude
and longitude of two places. If the respondent provided only the name of the state in the
27
United States, a city close to the center of the state was used for recoding purpose. And if
only given the name of the country or if the city in a country other than the United States was
not listed in the database, the capital city of the country was used for recoding purposes.
Cultural Dimension Measures
To explore cultural influence on self-disclosure behaviors in both FtF and CMC
environments, this study also attempted to test the relationships between respondent’s
cultural background and self-disclosure in LDFs. In the study, research subjects were asked
about country in which they were raised. A number for cultural background was assigned to
each respondent according to the Individualism score of the country in Hofstede’s (2001)
summary of country index scores. A different score in terms of high- versus low-context
culture was given to each respondent according to relevant literature (e.g., Andersen, 2000;
Hall, 1976).
Statistical Analyses
The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) was utilized for data analyses.
Twenty-four unqualified respondents and six incomplete records were deleted from the final
data file. Research questions and hypotheses were tested using Pearson Correlation
Coefficient, Partial Correlations, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Regression Analysis.
Differences and relationships among variables were considered statistically significant at .05
level of alpha error.
Power coefficients were computed for all non-significant findings. Cohen (1988)
outlines a methodological approach for determining power of statistical analyses in
28
behavioral sciences. These analyses report the percentage chance of committing a beta error.
The results of these findings are discussed in Chapter Three.
29
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
In this chapter, each research question and hypothesis is examined in sequential order.
Results of statistical analyses are reported accordingly.
Descriptive Analyses of LDFs
Although no specific research questions or hypotheses were asked about long-
distance friends in this study, the web survey yielded some important descriptive data about
these target people of self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts. Among 383 respondents
in the sample, the number of close, long-distance friends ranged from 1 to 200. The average
number was 10.9 and the mode was 5. A majority of LDFs started from face-to-face
interactions although the two friends may be apart from each other now as far as thousands of
miles. Telephone, email, and IM are the three primary communication channels in LDFs.
Surprisingly, one third of the respondents admitted that they always used IM to communicate
with their long-distance friends. Among 377 respondents in the sample, 66.3% of their long-
distance friends were females, and 33.7% were males. They ranged from 15 to 63, with a
mean of 21.3 and a mode of 18, and they were located in 35 countries and regions around the
world.
30
Research Question 1: Self-Disclosure in FtF versus CMC Context
The first research question asked if there are differences in self-disclosure between
FtF and CMC contexts. Results of one-way ANOVA (see Table 5) revealed that people tend
to disclose more in face-to-face (M = 29.76) than in a computer-mediated (M = 28.17)
context. [F (1/759) = 25.1; p < .001; eta² = .03].
Hypothesis 1: Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure
Correlation coefficients (see Table 6) confirmed H1 that an individual’s level of FtF
self-disclosure is positively correlated with CMC disclosure in LDFs. The test suggested a
strong positive relationship between disclosure in these two contexts (r = .58, n = 378, p <
.001, r² = .34).
Research Question 2: Distance and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Correlation coefficients (see Table 7) suggested that no relationship between
geographic distance and self-disclosure was detected in either FtF (r = -.04, n = 380, p =
.41) or CMC context (r = -.02, n = 376, p = .75). There was only about 60% chance of
detecting a small effect. However, the chance of detecting a medium or a large effect
exceeded 99%.
Research Question 3: CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance
Partial correlations were computed to test the influence of geographic distance on the
relationship between CMC disclosure and relationship quality (see Table 8). The relationship
31
between these two variables before controlling for the third variable “distance” (r = .522, n =
376, p < .001) was virtually identical after controlling for “distance” (r = .524, n = 373, p <
.001). To further examine the relationship, research subjects were divided into three groups
in terms of how far apart they are from their long-distance friends. Correlation coefficients
for each group showed that the closer long-distance friends are the stronger the relationship
between CMC disclosure and relational quality. But the differences between groups were not
discernible (closer distance group: r = .59, n = 127, p < .001; middle distance group: r = .47,
n = 123, p < .001; farther distance group: r = .46, n = 126, p < .001).
Research Question 4: Relationship Initiation and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Results of a one-way ANOVA indicated that the context of friendship initiation does
not influence self-disclosure behavior in either FtF or CMC environment. The results (see
Table 9) suggested that differences in FtF self-disclosure between LDFs initiated face to face
(M = 29.82), through CMC (M = 28.33), and other types of friendship initiation (M = 29.81)
were not statistically significant [F (2/381) = .92, p = .401]. Similar results (see Table
10) emerged in CMC disclosure that differences between LDFs initiated face to face (M =
28.09), through CMC (M = 29.53), and other types of friendship initiation (M = 28.56) were
not statistically significant [F (2/375) = .78; p = .461].
Hypothesis 2: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relational Stage in FtF and CMC
Correlation coefficients confirmed H2 that in both FtF (r = .54, n = 377, p <
.001, r² = .29) and CMC (r = .37, n = 377, p < .001, r² = .14) contexts, indicating that self-
disclosure is positively correlated with relational stage (see Table 11).
32
Hypothesis 3: Gender and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Results of a one-way ANOVA confirmed H3, that women (M = 30.51) tend to
disclose more than men (M = 28.13) do face-to-face [F (1/375) = 27.96; p < .001; eta² =
.07], and women (M = 28.52) also tend to disclose greater than men (M = 27.37) do in CMC
context [F (1/375) = 5.16; p = .024; eta² = .01] (see Table 12 and 13).
Hypothesis 4: High- versus Low-Context Cultures and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
According to the results of a one-way ANOVA (see Table 14 and 15), no difference
in self-disclosure was found between people from LCCs (M = 29.82) and those from HCCs
(M = 29.84) in FtF context [F (1/363) = .002; p = .966]. Nor did it indicate any difference in
self-disclosure between people from LCCs (M = 28.27) and HCCs (M = 28.17) in
CMC context [F (1/363) = .024; p = .876]. Therefore, H4 was not confirmed in this study.
There was only about 80% chance of detecting a small effect. However, the chance of
detecting a medium or a large effect exceeded 99%.
Hypothesis 5: Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Correlations failed to confirm H5 (see Table 16). No relationship was found between
self-disclosure and people’s cultural background based on Hofstede’s (1983, 1986, 2001)
conception of individualism versus collectivism in either FtF (r = .001, n = 373, p = .492) or
CMC context (r = .048, n = 373, p = .179). There was only about 60% chance of detecting a
small effect. However, the chance of detecting a medium or a large effect exceeded 99%.
33
Hypothesis 6: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC
Correlation coeffitients suggested there is a positive relationship between FtF self-
disclosure and relationship quality (r = .56, n = 378, p < .001, r² = .31) and between CMC
disclosure and relationship quality (r = .52, n = 378, p < .001, r² = .27). Therefore, H6 was
confirmed in the present study (see Table 17).
Research Question 5: Contextual Influence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality
According to a regression analysis, self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts is
important to relationship quality in LDFs (see Table 18). More specifically, FtF self-
disclosure accounts for 31.4% of the variance in relational quality. Beyond that, there is
additional unique variance associated with CMC disclosure. A combination of both FtF self-
disclosure and CMC disclosure accounts for 37.1% of the variance in relationship quality.
Hypothesis 7: Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure
Correlation coefficients (see Table 19) confirmed H7, that there is a positive
relationship between an individual’s CMC competence and CMC disclosure (r = .34, n =
377, p < .001, r² = .12).
Research Question 6: Influence of CMC Competence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality
Results of a partial correlation coefficient indicated that a person’s CMC competence
does not influence the relationship between CMC disclosure and relationship quality (see
Table 20). The relationship between these two variables before controlling for CMC
34
competence (r = .52, n = 376, p < .001) was not substantially different from after controlling
for CMC competence (rp = .47, n = 374, p < .001).
35
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, a summary of research findings is reported, followed with discussions
of each research question and hypothesis in detail. Then, both theoretical and practical
implications of this study are addressed. Lastly, limitations of the current study and
suggestions for future studies are provided.
Executive Summary
Long-distance friendship is a prevalent and increasing phenomenon. In today’s world,
virtually everybody has friends living in a different city, state, or country. This study
provides the following conclusions: Although a considerable amount of CMC studies have
suggested that people are more likely to disclose on the Internet than face to face, especially
between strangers, this study revealed contradictory results in LDFs. Among long-distance
friends, there is slight difference in self-disclosure between FtF and CMC contexts. Generally
speaking, people report that they tend to engage in somewhat more self-disclosure when they
communicate face to face than through the Internet. And women are slightly more self-
disclosive than men are in both contexts though there is little gender difference in the FtF
context. However, people’s self-disclosure tendency is relatively consistent across these
communication environments. So highly FtF disclosive people would still reveal
considerable personal or private information to their long-distance friends via the Internet.
Furthermore, self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts are found crucial to
relationship quality in LDFs. FtF self-disclosure is the primary predictor of high relational
36
quality and CMC disclosure holds an additional unique value to relationship quality as well.
Therefore, if people want to achieve a maximally satisfactory relationship with their long-
distance friends, they should engage in a certain degree of self-disclosure both face to face
and via the Internet.
The current study also presents a few interesting null findings. First, geographic
distance has no significant influence on self-disclosure behaviors or relationship quality in
LDFs. As Cairncross (2001) has suggested, once two people are separate, it really doesn’t
matter how far apart they are from each other. The death of distance shapes our future and
penetrates to almost every aspect of our life. Jackson (2002) discussed about blurred
boundaries and imagined interactions between human and computers. An imagined image of
one’s long-distance friend may have played a much more active role than physical distance in
the online communication of LDFs. This might help to explain the reason why CMC
disclosure was not found more important to relationship quality in LDFs of greater
geographic distance in the current study.
Second, a person’s cultural background and values do not have much influence on
self-disclosure behaviors in either FtF or CMC context. Contradicting to the findings of many
cross-cultural studies on self-disclosure of different cultural groups, self-disclosure trumps
culture in the present study, which suggests that the intimate nature of friendship may be
trans-cultural.
In addition, participants in the study started their LDFs through various
communication channels, but the context of relationship initiation has no impact on self-
disclosure in either FtF or CMC context. People who consider each other as more intimate
friends tend to disclose more than those who do not. Individuals with higher level of CMC
37
competence are more likely to disclose through the Internet, but CMC competence doesn’t
mediate the relationship between self-disclosure and relationship quality in this study.
Discussions on Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Question 1: Self-Disclosure in FtF versus CMC
Literature has suggested CMC disclosure is generally greater than FtF self-disclosure
between strangers. Results of this study showed the opposite among people who know each
other well: Among long-distance friends, people are likely to disclose more in FtF settings
than CMC. However, the medium produces a small effect accounting for only a bit over 3%
of the variation in disclosure. Therefore, people in LDFs do report disclosing more in FtF
communication, but only slightly more.
The present study yielded different results from many other research studies related to
CMC disclosure may be explained with following possible reasons: most CMC studies were
conducted among people who are not well acquainted. Thus, greater self-disclosure on the
Internet mainly resulted from the advantages of anonymity, lack of gating features, and other
similar factors. However, the influence of these factors would be excluded from the
interactions between long-distance friends who have already physically met each other and
just use computers to keep in touch and maintain their relationships. It’s actually reasonable
that people would be more disclosive when talking to their long-distance friends on less
frequent face-to-face meetings than via the Internet.
38
Hypothesis 1: Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure
Results of the study indicated that there is a strong positive relationship between an
individual’s level of FtF self-disclosure and CMC disclosure in LDFs. This suggests that self-
disclosure is a relatively consistent relational behavior across individuals. The type of
communication medium or context does not have much influence on one’s self-disclosure
decisions in LDFs.
This also showed the significant difference in self-disclosure behaviors between
strangers and acquaintances. An individual may be very shy or even have communication
anxiety when talking to people face-to-face but the same person may be perceived as
outgoing, humorous, and talkative when interacting with others online. Different
personalities can be revealed between strangers depending on the type of communication
medium. However, this may not be the same case to those who already know each other well
and take their relationships seriously. To long-distance friends, the variety of media is more
of an option for communication channels in the existing relationship, rather than ways of
attracting other people, although there is still a possibility that long-distance friends discover
something they would not be able to discover through another medium.
Research Question 2: Distance and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
The current study showed no relationship between geographic distance and self-
disclosure in either FtF or CMC context. Some studies may have suggested the important
role of geographic distance in LDRs, which implies that greater distance may lead to more
involvement in self-disclosure. However, results of this study do not support this position.
Once people are involved in LDFs, how far they are apart from their long-distance friends
39
does not have much influence on their self-disclosure behaviors when they get a chance to
meet face to face or communicate through the Internet. As Cairncross (2001) has suggested
in her book, in today’s society the death of distance has a profound impact on our lives.
Especially in the case of LDFs, people have a variety of channels to keep in touch with their
friends, maintain or even develop their relationships despite the challenges caused by
geographic separation. Given the results of this study, it really wouldn’t matter if an
individual’s long-distance friend in located in Los Angeles, in Tokyo, or just in the next door,
people would still disclose to their friends through these various communication channels in
order to maintain the existing relationships.
Research Question 3: CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance
Research question three further explored the influence of geographic distance on the
relationship between CMC disclosure and relationship quality. The original assumption was
that CMC disclosure might be more important to relationship quality in LDFs of greater
geographic distance. It is sound logic that when people are separated at greater distances, the
possibility of using CMC to maintain or develop their LDFs increases, and as people engage
more CMC disclosure, they might be more satisfied with their relationship. However, this
study suggests that distance does not influence the relationship between CMC disclosure and
people’s perceptions of their relational quality although examination among groups of
different geographic distances showed that LDFs at lesser distances people engage in slightly
more self-disclosure than those at greater distances.
Jackson (2002) examined the human-technology interface and some of the ways
people relate to computers. He discussed the dissolution of the boundaries between nature
and culture, humans and machines. As new technologies penetrate to every corner of our
40
daily lives, it not only changes our ways of communication, but influence our perceptions of
others during interactions. It is suggested that people tend to create an image of their
communication partner when they sit in front of a computer and start “talking” to a friend. In
fact, you may be chatting with a person sitting in the next door. This concept of imagined
interactions perhaps helps to explain the non-significant effect of physical distance.
Research Question 4: Relationship Initiation and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Research question four attempts to test the relationship between context of friendship
initiation and self-disclosure. The review of the literature mentioned that friendships are still
commonly initiated in FtF settings, but increasing number of people begin their relationships
through CMC and engage in MMRs. Would LDFs started from FtF context have greater FtF
self-disclosure? Or would LDFs initiated via the Internet have more CMC disclosure?
Results of this study did not show any relationship between the context of relationship
initiation and self-disclosure in either FtF or CMC context. This indicates the type of media
where two people start a LDF does not influence their later on self-disclosure behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relational Stage in FtF and CMC
Prior studies suggest that the more intimate two people perceive their relationship to
be, the more likely they engage greater self-disclosure. Results of this study supported this
relationship and extended it to LDFs and CMC environments. More specifically, the
respondents were asked in the study about how intimate they would consider their friendship
to be. They were offered five options: causal acquaintance, just friends, good friend, close
friend, or best friend. And the results suggest that among long-distance friends, the closer the
friendship is, the greater self-disclosure they would engage in both FtF and CMC contexts.
41
This is a moderately large effect as relational stage accounts for 14% of the variance in CMC
disclosure and 29% in FtF self-disclosure.
Hypothesis 3: Gender and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Although scholars have been debating whether or not there is gender difference in
self-disclosure, this study hypothesized that females tend to disclose more than males do in
both FtF and CMC contexts. Results of the study confirmed the hypothesis; however,
statistics indicate that this is a relatively small effect, as a difference accounting for 7% of the
variation in FtF self-disclosure and only 1% of the variation in CMC disclosure. Therefore,
women do disclose more than men do in both contexts, but only slightly more.
These results are also consistent with other research which has suggested that females
are less comfortable when communicating with invisible partner whereas they are reported
more interactive in FtF interactions. In the present study, women are more likely to disclose
then men are in both FtF and CMC settings. However, the gender difference is much larger in
FtF self-disclosure than in CMC disclosure.
Hypothesis 4: High- versus Low-Context Cultures and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Literature suggested that people from LCCs tend to disclosure more than those from
HCCs. However, results of this study did not report any difference between these two
variables in either FtF or CMC context. One possible reason would be previous cross-cultural
studies mainly focused on comparison and contrast of general self-disclosure behaviors
among people of different cultural backgrounds, whereas this study specifically examine self-
disclosure in LDFs and test the relationship between cultural influence and self-disclosure in
FtF and CMC contexts. Some cultural values may influence people’s self-disclosure in
42
general, but this may not be the case in LDFs. Is culture breaking down? Or is technology an
equalizer? The current study indicates that the intimate nature of friendship subsumes over
cultural differences when it comes to self-disclosure behaviors in LDFs. People from HCCs
can also be very explicit and expressive as those from LCCs when communicating with their
long-distance friends.
Hypothesis 5: Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC
Similar to hypothesis four, cross-cultural studies suggested that people from
Individualistic cultures might disclose more than those from Collectivistic cultures do.
However, results of this study did not support the hypothesis either. Once again, cultural
identities and behaviors guided by these values and perceptions did not have much influence
on self-disclosure in LDFs in either FtF or CMC setting. This cultural dimension is even
more subtle than high- versus low-context culture, which is more relative to the dependence
on verbal expressions in communication and self-disclosure behaviors. All the respondents in
the present study are young college students, studying in the United States. Considering their
age and educational background, it is reasonable that many traditional cultural values did not
show much influence among the group. In addition, the nature of these existing relationships
may also be more influential than culture.
Hypothesis 6: Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC
Results of the study indicated that there is a strong positive relationship between self-
disclosure and relationship quality in both FtF and CMC contexts. This confirms what
literature has suggested that self-disclosure is one of the most important factors that
43
contribute to relationship quality (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993; Rose & Roades, 1987;
Nicotera, 1993) and expanded the results to specifically contexts of LDFs and CMC. The
greater people disclose to their long-distance friends, no matter face to face or via the
Internet, the more satisfied they are with the relationship.
Research Question 5: Contextual Influence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality
Results of this study suggest that self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts is
important to relationship quality in LDFs. FtF self-disclosure is the primary factor, which
accounts for 31.4% of the variance in relational quality. And beyond that, there is an
additional unique variance associated with CMC disclosure. A combination of FtF self-
disclosure and CMC disclosure would account for 37.1% of the variance in relationship
quality. This suggests that if people want to keep their LDFs on a satisfactory level, they
should engage in both FtF self-disclosure and CMC disclosure.
Hypothesis 7: Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure
CMC literature suggested that if one person is competent in communicating with
others through the Internet, he or she may feel more comfortable to disclose more to others in
CMC environment. Results of the study confirmed that there is a moderate positive
relationship between CMC competence and CMC disclosure.
Research Question 6: Influence of CMC Competence on Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality
Research question six attempted to test how a person’s CMC competence mediates
the relationship between CMC disclosure and relationship quality. Results of the study did
44
not show any influence of CMC competence on the relationship between these two variables.
In other words, whether or not a person is competent in mediated communication via the
Internet, if he or she is likely to disclose more to others in CMC environment, a more
satisfactory relationship can be achieved in LDFs.
However, further examination indicated that in this population there is a ceiling effect
associated with CMC competence. Although the hypothetical mean value of CMC
competence should be 45, people who participated in the study showed much higher CMC
competence level (M = 61.37, SD = 7.068). In other words, virtually every respondent in the
study was competent in using CMC for communication in LDFs. This helps explain why
CMC competence did not have much influence on the relationship between CMC disclosure
and relationship quality.
Theoretical Implications
Theoretically the present study adds to a rich body of research on relational
communication and long-distance relationships, especially self-disclosure studies, in
traditional face-to-face context and extends it to the computer-mediated communication
environment. Literature shows that self-disclosure is a very important relational maintenance
strategy and is closed correlated with relational quality. The current study also proved that
self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts are crucial to the quality of LDFs.
In addition to testing traditional communication theories in a new context, this study
also attempts to answer several controversial research questions. For instance, there have
been debates about gender differences in FtF self-disclosure. The present study not only
confirmed that there is gender difference in self-disclosure, but females tend to disclose
slightly more than males do in both FtF and CMC contexts.
45
Additionally, the impact of geographic distance in today’s society, particularly on
long-distance relationships was examined. Although the overall trend in the world is that the
influence of geographic distance is diminishing, scholars hold different opinions with regard
to the role of distance in long-distance relational communication. The results of this study
suggest that geographic distance is no longer a factor in the degree self-disclosure in LDFs.
Once people are separate, or in other words are involved in long-distance relational status, it
does not matter how far they are apart from each other.
As the review of CMC literature shows, relational communication behaviors have
not yet been well-studied. Research on self-disclosure in CMC context is limited to people
who do not know each other or romantic relationships on the Internet. The present study
helps to better understand the prevalent relational phenomenon of LDFs and CMC disclosure
behaviors between people who know each other well and significantly value their
relationships.
Looking at LDFs from an intercultural communication perspective, the current study
took an important step and tested cultural influence on self-disclosure behaviors in both FtF
and CMC contexts. And the research findings suggest that we take self-disclosure as a human
factor rather than a culture-specific factor.
Practical Implications
The research findings of this study also provide practical information for the people
in LDFs. Although the present study was not designed to examine the prevalence of this
phenomenon, the descriptive data reported in the early session of research results would help
give a general picture of LDFs in today’s society.
46
More importantly, these findings reinforce the importance of self-disclosure in FtF
communication as well as in CMC context and how such a combination would lead to
relationship quality. People should not assume there would be difficulties or challenges when
it comes to LDRs. Self-disclosure can help maintain LDFs despite geographic distance. And
different cultural backgrounds should not inhibit people from enhancing their friendship
through self-disclosure either.
Limitations
The present study has a number of limitations. First, the structure of research
participants is somewhat unbalanced. Close to 70% of the respondents were U.S. American
undergraduate students and a majority of those were from European descent. Although today
more females attend college than males do, women were still slightly over-represented in the
sample of this study.
A second limitation of the study lies in the web survey. A number of potential
respondents were excluded from the sample for not completing a major part of the
questionnaire. There are certain factors in conducting a research study online that are beyond
the researcher’s control. Computer breakdown, Internet browser error, personal security
system may all eliminate people from completing the survey. Also, having matrix questions
with many statements may reduce the respondent’s interest in answering the questions and
cause more response error.
In addition, the study used self-reported survey as research methodology. Speaking
from psychological perspective, all self-disclosure reported in the study is measured as
perceived behaviors rather than actual behaviors. And many studies (e.g. Floyd, 1998; Hook,
Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003) have shown that people tend to associate self-
47
disclosure with intimacy, which means they would naturally think self-disclosure as part of
intimacy which leads to intimate relationship – LDF in this case.
Finally, the role of target person is an important variable in testing self-disclosure.
And given the information about the country a respondent was raised in, more cultural
dimension scores could be entered to the data file for further analyses. However, given
constraint timeframe, this study did not touch on those topics.
Suggestions for Future Studies
Future studies on this topic may further explore the differences in self-disclosure in
both FtF and CMC contexts in terms of how the behaviors vary in different dimensions of
self-disclosure with a better multi-factor measurement. In stead of a self-reported survey
questionnaire, other type of quantitative research methodology can be used to code actual
self-disclosure behaviors in order to reduce respondents’ perceptional bias.
In addition, the target person has been suggested as an important factor to self-
disclosure. Given time constraint, research questions or hypotheses were not included in
relation to the target person, and many other possible dynamics between target influence and
associated variables. Future studies should provide descriptive analyses about the long-
distance friends chosen as the target for self-disclosure and further research questions and
hypotheses should be proposed and tested. For example, are gender differences consistent
across dyads with different gender combinations? Would the cultural background of the
target person impact self-disclosure?
Furthermore, the few null findings provided by the current study are worth further
investigations. Same or similar research questions about the influence of geographic distance,
cultural values, and CMC competence on self-disclosure and its relationship with friendship
48
quality should be replicated among different groups and even a larger number of people.
Hofstede’s country scores for cultural dimensions other than individualism versus
collectivism can also be added to the research data to detect the influence of other factors on
self-disclosure in both FtF and CMC contexts.
The current study only aimed exploring the differences in self-disclosure between FtF
and CMC settings in LDFs. However, other types of mediated communication, such as
telephone, can also be added to future studies in order to provide a better and complete
picture to help explain where CMC stands on the relational maintenance in LDRs and how it
functions differently from other channels.
49
REFERENCES
Afifi, W. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Some things are better left unsaid II: Topic avoidance in friendships. Communication Quarterly, 46, 231-249.
Afifi, W. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Egland, K. L. (1994, June). Maintenance behaviors in same-
and opposite-sex friendships: Connections to gender, relational closeness, and equity issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Iowa City, IA.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory,
and crowding. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Andersen, P. A. (2000). Cues of culture: The basis of intercultural differences in nonverbal
communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 258-270). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Archer, R. L. (1979). Anatomical and psychological sex differences. In G. J. Chelune and
Associates (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 80-109), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Archer, R. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in
social psychology (pp. 183-204). London: Oxford University Press. Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self:
Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140-160. Aylor, B. (2003). Maintaining long-distance friendships. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton
(Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp.127-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron, N. S. (1998). Letters by phone or speech by other means: The linguistics of e-mail.
Language and Communication, 18, 133-170. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogs and dialectics. New York:
Guilford. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (2000). Rethinking communication in personal
relationships from a dialectical perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.),
50
Communication and personal relationships (pp. 31-53). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Baym, N. K. (2002). Interpersonal life online. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.),
Handbook of new media (pp. 62-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bradac, J. J. (1983). The language of lovers, flowers, and friends: Communicating in social
and personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 141-162. Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Brownell, C., & Carriger, M. (1990). Changes in cooperation and self-other differentiation
during the second year. Child Development, 61, 1164-1174. Bruess, C. J. S., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in marriage and adult
friendship. Communication Monographs, 64, 25-46. Cairncross, F. (2001). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is
changing our lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles,
8, 721-732. Candy-Gibbs, S. E. (1982, November). The alleged inferiority of men’s lose relationships:
An examination of sex differences in the elderly widowed. Paper presented at the annual scientific meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, Boston.
Castellá, V. O., Abad, A. M. Z., Alonso, F. P., & Silla, J. M. P. (2000). The influence of
familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 141-159.
Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus
Chinese: A comparative study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 84-91. Clark, L. S. (1998). Dating on the net: Teens and the rise of “pure” relationships. In S. G.
Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated communication and community (pp.159-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cline, R. J. (1983, November). Promising new directions for teaching and research: Self
disclosure. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech Communication Association, Washington, D.C.
51
Chao, I. L. & Yang, N. H. (2001, November). 10 o’ clock date: Let’s go Yahoo! Revealing and managing on-line emotions in a Taiwanese distance family. Paper presented to the Ethnography Division of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
Chenault, B. G. (1998, May). Developing personal and emotional relationships via computer-
mediated communication. CMC Magazine. Retrieved September 7, 2000 from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1998/may/chenault.html
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79,
73-91.
Culnan, M. J., & Markus, M. L. (1987). Information technologies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420-443). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cummings, J. N. (2002). Moving beyond media: A comparison of face-to-face, phone, email,
and instant messaging content. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
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 (vol. 6, pp. 191-233). Greewich, CT: JAI.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection,
and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11, 355-368.
Davis, K. E. & Todd, M. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases, and
relationship description. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding Personal Relationships (pp.17-38). London: Sage.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. (1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships.
Journal of Social Issues, 33, 102-115. Dimmick, J., Kline, S. L., & Stafford, L. (2000). The gratification niches of personal e-mail
and the telephone: competition, displacement, and complementarity. Communication Research, 27 (2), 227-248.
52
Dindia, K. (1997). Self-disclosure, identity, and relationship development: A transactional/dialectical perspective. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 411-426). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Dindia, K. (2000a). Self-disclosure, identity, and relationship development: A dialectical
perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 147-162). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Dindia, K. (2000b). Sex differences in self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and self-
disclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124. Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about
conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267. They found that "Self-disclosure is much less frequent in everyday life than assumed on the basis of laboratory work".
Duck, S., & Wright, P. H. (1993). Reexamining gender differences in friendship: A close
look at two kinds of data. Sex Roles, 28, 709-727. Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferris, P. (1997). What is CMC? An overview of scholarly definitions. Computer-Mediated
Communication Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2002 from http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/jan/ferris.html
Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K. J., & Rubin, R. R. (1998). Internet and face-to-face
communication: Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250-268.
Floyd, K. (1998). Intimacy as a research construct: A content-analytic review. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22, 28-32.
Gilbert, S. J. (1976). Empirical and theoretical extensions of self-disclosure. In G. R. Miller (ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication, (pp. 197-215). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goodstein, L. & Reinecker, V. (1974). Factors affecting self-disclosure: A review of the
literature. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 7, 49-77. Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance
in family relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 276-296.
53
Guldner, G. T., & Swensen, C. H. (1995). Time spent together and relationship quality: Long-distance relationships as a test case. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 313-320.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press. Hartup, W. W. (1983). Peer relations. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology, Vol 4: Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 103-196). New York: Wiley.
Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924. Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships
(pp. 391-408). London: John Wiley & Sons. Helgeson, V. S., Shaver, P., & Dyer, M. (1987). Prototypes of intimacy and distance in same-
sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 195-233.
Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1987). Gender and self-disclosure: Strategies for exploring the
issues. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research and therapy (pp. 81-100). New York: Plenum Press.
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions.
In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expectations in cross- cultural psychology (pp. 335-355). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hofstede, G. (1986). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we?
Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 462-472.
Howard, P. E. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and nights on the Internet: The impact
of a diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 383-404. Hunt, G. J., & Butler, E. W. (1972). Migration, participation, and alienation. Sociology and
Social Research, 56, 440-452. Jackson, M. (2002). Familiar and foreign bodies: A phenomenological exploration of the
human-technology interface. Royal Anthropological Institute, 8, 333-346. Johnson, A. J. (2001). Examining the maintenance of friendships: Are there differences
between geographically close and long-distance friends? Communication Quarterly, 49, 425-436.
54
Johnson, A. J., Becker, J., Wigley, S., Wittenberg, E., & Haigh, M. (2003, May). What
geographic distance can illustrate about relational closeness: Close long-distance friendships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Diego.
Joinson, A. N. (1998). Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet. In J.
Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (pp. 43-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
Jourard, S. M. (1961). Age trends in self-disclosure. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 7,
191-197.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley.
Jourard, S. M., & Lasakow, P. (1958). Some factors in self-disclosure. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 56, 91-98. Jourard, S. M., & Richman, P. (1963). Disclosure output and input in college students.
Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 9, 141-148. Knox, D., Daniels, V., Sturdivant, L., & Zusman, M. E. (2001). College student use of the
internet for mate selection. College Student Journal, 35, 158-160. Ladd, G. W. (1999). Peer relationships and social competence during early and middle
childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 333-359. Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238-1251.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over
computer networks. In J. Y. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understanding relationships: Off the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKenna, K. Y.A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the
Internet: What’s the big attraction. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-32.
55
Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187-192.
Moemeka, A. A. & Nicotera, A. M. (1993). The friendship formation process in Nigeria: A
preliminary study of cultural impact, communication pattern, and relationship variables. In A. M. Nicotera (ed.), Interpersonal communication in friend and mate relationships (p. 107-124). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Monsour, M. (1992). Meanings of intimacy in cross- and same-sex friendships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 277-295. Nakanishi, M., & Johnson, K. M. (1993). Implications of self-disclosure on conversational
logics, perceived communication competence, and social attraction. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 204-221). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant
messaging in action. Retrieved March, 12, 2002, from Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2000) http://www.research.att.com/~stevew/outeraction_cscw2000.pdf
Nicotera, A. M. (1993). Summary of studies on the theory of friendship and consideration of
implication. In A. M. Nicotera (ed.), Interpersonal communication in friend and mate relationships (pp. 125-138). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Nielsen/NetRatings (2003, February 20). Global Internet population grows an average of
four percent year-after-year. Retrieved May 9, 2003 from http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_030220.hk.pdf
Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: links
with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.
Parks, M. R. (1977). Anomie and close friendship communication networks. Human
Communication Research, 4, 48-57. Parks, M. R. & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication,
46, 80-97. Parks, R. R., & Roberts, L. D. (1998). ‘Making MOOsic’: The development of personal
relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517-537.
Parlee, M. B. (1979). The friendship bond. Psychology Today, 113, 43-54.
56
Pearce, W. B., & Sharp, S. M. (1973). Self-disclosing communication. Journal of Communication, 23, 409-425.
Petronio, S. (1988, November). The dissemination of private information: The use of a
boundary control system as an alternative perspective to the study of disclosures. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, New Orleans, LA.
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of
managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311-335.
Petronio, S. (2000). The boundaries of privacy: Praxis of everyday life. In S. Petronio (Ed.),
Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2000, May 10). Tracking online life: How women
use the Internet to cultivate relationships with family and friends. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved January 10, 2003 from http://www.pewinternet.org
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2001, June 20). Teenage life online: The rise of the
instant-message generation and the Internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved December 8, 2002, from http://www.pewinternet.org
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2002, September 15). The Internet goes to college:
How students are living in the future with today's technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved December 8, 2002, from http://www.pewinternet.org
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-
effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715.
Rabby, M. & Walther, J. (2003). Computer-mediated communication effects on relationship
formation and maintenance. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp.141-162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ramirez, Jr. A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-
seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28, 213-228.
Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
57
Reid, E. (1991). Electropolis: Communication and community on Internet Relay Chat. Unpublished honors thesis, Department of History, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Reis, H. T. (1998). Gender difference in intimacy and related behaviors: Context and process.
In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Robin, L. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: HarperCollins. Rohlfing, M. E. (1990, November). Communicating long-distance friendship. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). “Doesn’t anybody stay in one place anymore?” An exploration of the
under-studied phenomenon of long-distance relationships. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track (Vol. 6) (pp. 173-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rohlfing, M. E., & Healey, A. C. (1991, May). Keeping the tie that binds: The
communication patterns of geographically separated female friends. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Miami.
Roscoe, B., Kennedy, D., & Pope, T. (1987). Adolescents' views of intimacy: Distinguishing
intimate from nonintimate relationships. Adolescence, 22, 511-516.
Rose, S. & Roades, L. (1987). Feminism and women’s friendships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 243-254.
Rose, S. M. (1984). How friendships end: Patterns among young adults. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 1, 267-277. Rose, S. M. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology of homosociality.
Sex Roles, 12, 63-74. Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Overview of the ways privacy, secrecy, and disclosure are balanced
in today’s society. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Civikly, J. M., & Herron, J. R. (1979). Anatomical and psychological sex
differences. In G. J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 80-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
58
Rosenfeld, L. B., & Kendrick, W. L. (1984). Choosing to be open: An empirical investigation
of subjective reasons for self-disclosing. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 326-343.
Ross, H., & Lollis, S. (1987). Communication within infant social games. Developmental
Psychology, 23, 241-248. Rubin, D. L., Yang, H., & Porte, M. (2000). A comparison of self-reported self-disclosure
among Chinese and North Americans. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 215-234). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumbough, T. (2001). The development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships
through computer-mediated communication. Communication Research Reports, 18, 223-229.
Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B. R.
Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637-684). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sandlund, E. & Geist-Martin, P. (2001). A blast from the past: Emotions in e-motion in the
email reconstruction of past love. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications.
London: John Wiley. Spitzberg, B. H. (2004, February). Preliminary development of a model and measure of
computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence. Paper presented to the Communication Theory Interest Group, Western States Communication Association Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex, and databases: The net as a social technology.
In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 35-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sproull, L. & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512. Stafford, L, (1988, October). Communication in long-distance relationships. Paper presented
at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Stafford, L., Kline, S. L., & Dimmick, J. (1999). Home e-mail: Relational maintenance and
gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 659-669.
59
Suttles, G. D. (1970). Friendship as a social institution. In G. J. McCall, M. McCall, N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles, & S. Kurth (Eds.), Social relationships (pp. 95-135). Chicago: Aldine.
Thompson, P. A., & Foulger, D. A. (1996). Effects of pictographs and quoting on flaming in
electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 225-243. Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on
disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the
United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29-46. Tolstedt, B. E., & Stokes, J. P. (1984). Self-disclosure, intimacy, and the depenetration
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 84-90. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in
virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1 (1). Retrieved April 29, 2003 from http:// www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html
Van Horn, K. R., Arnone, A., Nesbitt, K., Desilets, L., Sears, T., Giffin, M., & Brudi, R.
(1997). Physical distance and interpersonal characteristics in college students’ romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 15-24.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interactions: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersoanl interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43. Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message
interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 323-345.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated
communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waring, E. M., Tillman, M. P., Frelick, L., Russell, L., & Weisz, G. (1980). Concepts of
intimacy in the general population. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168, 471-474.
60
Waugh, A. L. (1995). Relational computer mediated communication: Impression forming, uncertainty reduction, competence, satisfaction and attraction. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-
disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 338-346. Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and
interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157. Whitty, M. T. (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open, supportive and honest people
are in chat rooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 343-352. Wolfson, K., & Pearce, W. B. (1983). A cross-cultural comparison of the implications of
self-disclosure on conversational logics. Communication Quarterly, 31, 249-256. Wood, J. T. (1995). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal
relationships. Detroit: Wadsworth. Wood, A., & Smith, M. (2001). Online communication: Linking technology, identity, and
culture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wright, P. H. (1974). The delineation and measurement of some variables in the study of
friendship. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 5, 93-96. Wright, P. H. (1982, February). The development and selected applications of a conceptual
and measurement model of friendship. Paper presented at the Texas Tech University Conference on Families and Close Relationships, Lubbock, TX.
Wright, P. H. (1984). Self referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 114-130. Wright, P. H. (1988). Interpreting research on gender differences in friendship: A case for
moderation and a plea for caution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 367-373.
Wright, P. H. (1998). Toward an expanded orientation to the study of sex differences in
friendship. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication: Critical essays and empirical investigations of sex and gender in interaction (pp. 41-63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yum, J. O. (1991). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and
communication patterns in Eat Asia. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (5th ed., pp. 66-77). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
61
APPENDIX A
RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT SENT TO
COMMUNICATION STUDENTS
62
Research Announcement Hello, My name is Helen. I'm a graduate student in the School of Communication at SDSU. I’m currently working on my Master’s thesis about long-distance friendships. This research study attempts to understand how people communicate with their long-distance friends in different contexts. Today, in order to pursue higher education, develop professional careers, and immigrate to different countries, more and more people are separated from their friends and involved in long-distance relationships. However, this prevalent phenomenon of long-distance friendship is still under-studied. So do YOU have at least one friend who lives in another city, state, or country? Have you both met your long-distance friend in person and communicated through the Internet? And are you currently enrolled in SDSU? If ALL your answers to the questions above are yes, then I would really appreciate it if you could spare 10 minutes of your time to help me out. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. All your responses will remain anonymous. And all the information collected will be used only for this study. This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact them at [email protected] or 619-594-6622. If you are interested in participating in this study, please send an email to [email protected] Thank you very much! Sincerely, Helen
63
APPENDIX B
RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT SENT THROUGH
ISC WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
64
Your help needed
My name is Helen. I'm a graduate student in the School of Communication at SDSU. I’m currently working on my Master’s thesis about long-distance friendships. This research study attempts to understand how people communicate with their long-distance friends in different contexts. Today, in order to pursue higher education, develop professional careers, and immigrate to different countries, more and more people are separated from their friends and involved in long-distance relationships. However, this prevalent phenomenon of long-distance friendship is still under-studied. So do YOU have at least one friend who lives in another city, state, or country? Have you both met your long-distance friend in person and communicated through the Internet? And are you currently enrolled in SDSU? If ALL your answers to the questions above are yes, then I would really appreciate it if you could spare 10 minutes of your time to help me out. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. All your responses will remain anonymous. And all the information collected will be used only for this study. This study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact them at [email protected] or 619-594-6622. If you are interested in participating in this study, please send an email to [email protected] Thank you very much! Sincerely, Helen
65
APPENDIX C
EMAIL MESSAGE WITH LINK TO WEB SURVEY
66
Helen's Web Survey on Long-Distance Friendships Hello, I'm conducting this web survey for my Master's thesis on long-distance friendships, and your response would be appreciated. Here is a link to the survey: [SurveyLink] Please be noted that once you start the survey online, you can NOT go back and change your answers. If you choose to exit the survey in the middle of the questionnaire, you won't be able to complete the study. If you encounter any problem with the web survey, please feel free to email me. Thanks for taking time to help me out and good luck with everything! Sincerely, Helen
67
APPENDIX D
HELEN’S WEB SURVEY
68
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Introduction
Welcome! My name is Helen. I'm a graduate student in the School of Communication at San Diego State University. This research study attempts to understand how people communicate with their long-distance friends in different contexts. Let me assure you that (1) your participation is completely voluntary; (2) all your responses will remain anonymous; and (3) all the information collected will be used only for this study. The survey takes about 10 minutes. I would really appreciate your time and input! Also, please be noted that this study has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact them ([email protected] and 619-594-6622).
Next >>
69
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Qualification Test To start off with, I need to find out if you are eligible for this study. Please test your qualification by answering the following questions: 1. Are you 18 years of age or older?
Yes No
2. Are you currently enrolled at SDSU?
Yes No
3. Do you have at least one friend who lives in another city, state, or
country?
Yes No
4. Have you physically met your long-distance friend?
Yes No
5. Have you ever communicated with your long-distance friend through the
Internet?
Yes No
Next >>
70
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section A-Intro This first section asks about your use of CMC technologies. CMC stands for computer-mediated communication. Examples of CMC include interactions through the Internet or World Wide Web, email, chat room, BBS, online instant messenger, etc.
Next >>
71
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >>
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding your use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies. Please use the 5-point scale below: 1 = not at all true of me 2 = mostly not true of me 3 = neither true nor untrue of me, undecided 4 = mostly true of me 5 = very true of me not at all mostly not
neither / undecided mostly very
I manage the give and take of computer-mediatedinteractions skillfully
I am very articulate and vivid in my CMC messages
I show concern for and interest in the person I'm conversing with in CMC
I use an assertive style in my CMC writing
I'm very familiar with e-mail and communication networks
I generally get what I wantout of my CMC interactions
I am very motivated to usecomputers to communicatewith others
I know when and how to close down a topic of conversation in CMC dialogues
72
I am expressive in my CMCconversations
My CMC messages are written in a confident style
My CMC messages are appropriate to the situation
I avoid saying things through CMC that might offend someone
I am very knowledgeable about how to communicate through computers
I ask questions of the other person in my CMC
I am effective when using CMC technologies
I enjoy communicating using computer media
Next >>
73
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section A-2
Approximately, how many close, long-distance friends do you have right
now? (Please use your best estimate!)
Next >>
74
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section B-Intro
Now, please pick a friend with ALL of the following characteristics: * who lives in another city, state, or country * with whom you have both face-to-face and computer-mediated communication experience * who is not your primary romantic partner or "a friend with benefits" Please write down the first name, nickname, or a pseudonym of your long-distance friend below, and keep this person in mind when you answer the rest part of this questionnaire!
The long-distance friend I choose to complete this study is called:
Next >>
75
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section B-1
How did you get to know this long-distance friend?
through face-to-face interactions
through communication via Internet
through other channels
Where is your long-distance friend located now?
City:
State/Province: Country:
Zip Code:(only for the areas in the U.S.)
Next >>
76
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section B-2
How often do you communicate with your long-distance friend through the following channels? never seldom sometimes usually always
online instant messenger letters blog email telephone chat room pager face to face
Next >>
77
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section C-1a
Now, please think of a typical situation when you reveal to your long-distance friend FACE TO FACE about private, intimate, and/or risky personal information, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Remember these questions are about FACE TO FACE communication!
Next >>
78
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements based on the face-to-face interactions between you and your long-distance friend?
strongly disagree
somewhat disagree
neutral / undecided
somewhat agree
strongly agree
My long-distance friend always lets me know about his/her feelings
I tend to reveal "good" feelings about myself
I tell my long-distance friend personal opinions about sensitive issues
Keeping our conversations on a superficial level is all right
There are certain topics I do not discuss with this long-distance friend
I talk about all kinds of issues with my long-distance friend
I share feelings with my long-distance friend when I'm happy, but not when I'm sad
I know my intimate disclosure to this long-distance friend will be rewarded
79
I tell this long-distance friend aboutthings I normally would not tell others
Our conversations usually cover a variety of topics
I do not say anything that might ruin our long-distance friendship
My long-distance friend discloses about the same amount as I do
Next >>
80
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section C-2a
Now, please think of a typical situation when you reveal to your long-distance friend through communication on the INTERNET about private, intimate, and/or risky personal information, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Remember these next questions are about communication via the INTERNET!
Next >>
81
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >>
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements based on the online communication between you and your long-distance friend?
strongly disagree
somewhat disagree
neutral / undecided
somewhat agree
strongly agree
My long-distance friend always lets me know about his/her feelings
I tend to reveal "good" feelings about myself
I tell my long-distance friend personal opinions about sensitive issues
Keeping our conversations on a superficial level is all right
There are certain topics I do not discuss with this long-distance friend
I talk about all kinds of issues with my long-distance friend
I share feelings with my long-distance friend when I'm happy, but not when I'm sad
I know my intimate disclosure to this long-distance friend will be rewarded
I tell this long-distance friend aboutthings I normally would not tell others
Our conversations
82
usually cover a variety of topics
I do not say anything that might ruin our long-distance friendship
M long-distance
yfriend discloses about the same amount as I do
Next >>
83
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section D-Intro
This next section asks about the FRIENDSHIP between you and the long-distance friend you chose for this study.
Next >>
84
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
strongly disagree
somewhat disagree
neutral / undecided
somewhat agree
strongly agree
I feel close to my long-distance friend
I feel emotionally distant from my long-distance friend
Overall, the communication is effective between my long-distance friend and I
I have developed into a better person because of this long-distance friend
I am unhappy with my long-distance friendship
This long-distance friend takes more than he/she gives
I have learned a lot from my long-distance friend
I am satisfied with my long-distance friendship
85
I have warm feelings toward my long-distance friend
Next >>
86
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section E-1
This last section asks about some information about YOU and YOUR LONG-DISTANCE FRIEND.
What is your sex?
female male
What is the sex of your long-distance friend?
female male
What is your age?
What is the age of your long-distance friend?
Next >>
87
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> What country were you raised in?
the United States
Other (please specify)
What country was your long-distance friend raised in?
the United States
Other (please specify)
Which of the following is your primary cultural background?
Which of the following is your long-distance friend's primary cultural
background?
What is your current relational status with your long-distance friend?
casual acquaintance
just friend
good friend
close friend
best friend
Next >>
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Section F
88
Are you taking COMM103 (Oral Communication) class this semester?
Yes No
Next >>
89
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Extra Credit
If you are taking this web survey for extra credit in COMM103 class, please send an email to Helen at [email protected] RIGHT NOW! In the subject field, please type in: Subject: Helen's Web Survey In the text, please provide the following information: 1) your first name AND last name, 2) your COMM103 instructor's name, 3) your COMM103 section number (if known for sure) Your name will be sent to your instructor to confirm that you completed this web survey. Please be noted that you will NOT be able to receive the extra credit if the information you provided in the email to Helen is INCOMPLETE or INCORRECT.
Next >>
90
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Information Confirmation
When you come to this screen, you should have already sent the confirmation email to Helen. If NOT, please go back and send the email following the instructions.
Are you sure the information you provided in the email to Helen is both
COMPLETE and ACCURATE?
Yes No
Next >>
91
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >> Congratulations!
Congratulations! You have just completed the web survey! Once you click the "Next" link below, your answers will be automatically sent to Helen.
Next >>
92
Helen's Web Survey Exit this survey >>
Thank you so much for your time! Have a nice day!
Done
93
APPENDIX E
TABLES
94
Table 1 One-Factor Solution for FtF Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Item Original Statement Component Loading
FTFSDD1
(FtFSD depth1)
I tell my long-distance friend personal opinions about sensitive issues
.764
FTFSDR3
(FtFSD reciprocity3)
My long-distance friend always lets me know about his/her feelings
.757
FTFSDB1
(FtFSD breadth1)
I talk about all kinds of issues with my long-distance friend
.750
FTFSDB3
(FtFSD breadth3)
Our conversations usually cover a variety of topics
.679
FTFSDD3
(FtFSD depth3)
I tell this long-distance friend about things I normally would not tell others
.654
FTFSDR2
(FtFSD reciprocity2)
I know my intimate disclosure to this long-distance friend will be rewarded
.580
FTFSDR1
(FtFSD reciprocity1)
My long-distance friend discloses about the same amount as I do
.564
FTFSDB2R
(FtFSD breadth2 reverse)
There are certain topics I do not discuss with this long-distance friend
.492
FTFSDV3
(FtFSD valence3)
I share feelings with my long-distance friend when I'm happy, but not when I'm sad
-.451
FTFSDD2R
(FtFSD depth2 reverse)
Keeping our conversations on a superficial level is all right
.413
FTFSDV1
(FtFSD valence1)
I tend to reveal "good" feelings about myself .262
FTFSDV2
(FtFSD valence2)
I do not say anything that might ruin our long-distance friendship
----
________________________________________________________________________
95
Table 2 One-Factor Solution for CMC Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Item Original Statement Component Loading
CMCSDR3
(CMCSD reciprocity3)
My long-distance friend always lets me know about his/her feelings
.774
CMCSDB1
(CMCSD breadth1)
I talk about all kinds of issues with my long-distance friend
.771
CMCSDD1
(CMCSD depth1)
I tell my long-distance friend personal opinions about sensitive issues
.762
CMCSDB3
(CMCSD breadth3)
Our conversations usually cover a variety of topics
.740
CMCSDD3
(CMCSD depth3)
I tell this long-distance friend about things I normally would not tell others
.647
CMCSDB2R
(CMCSD breadth2 reverse)
There are certain topics I do not discuss with this long-distance friend
.549
CMCSDV3
(CMCSD valence3)
I share feelings with my long-distance friend when I'm happy, but not when I'm sad
-.499
CMCSDR1
(CMCSD reciprocity1)
My long-distance friend discloses about the same amount as I do
.462
CMCSDR2
(CMCSD reciprocity2)
I know my intimate disclosure to this long-distance friend will be rewarded
.459
CMCSDD2R
(CMCSD depth2 reverse)
Keeping our conversations on a superficial level is all right
.456
CMCSDV1
(CMCSD valence1)
I tend to reveal "good" feelings about myself .243
CMCSDV2
(CMCSD valence2)
I do not say anything that might ruin our long-distance friendship
-.063
________________________________________________________________________
96
Table 3 One-Factor Solution for CMC Competence ________________________________________________________________________ Item Original Statement Component Loading
CMCOEF2 (CMC outcome-effectiveness2)
I am effective when using CMC technologies
.730
CMCSCD2 (CMC skill-coordination2)
I manage the give and take of computer-mediated interactions
.677
CMCM2 (CMC motivation2)
I am very motivated to use computers to communicate with others
.662
CMCSEX2 (CMC skill-expressiveness2)
I am expressive in my CMC conversations.
.661
CMCSCD1 (CMC skill-coordination1)
I know when and how to close down a topic of conversation in CMC dialogues
.656
CMCK1 (CMC knowledge1)
I am very knowledgeable about how to communicate through computers
.654
CMCM1 (CMC motivation1)
I enjoy communicating using computer media
.624
CMCSEX1 (CMC skill-expressiveness1)
I am very articulate and vivid in my CMC messages
.618
CMCK2 (CMC knowledge2)
I am very familiar with e-mail and communication networks
.598
CMCOAP2 (CMC outcome-appropriateness2)
My CMC messages are appropriate to the situation
.553
CMCSAT1 (CMC skill-attentiveness1)
I ask questions of the other person in my CMC
.545
CMCOEF1 (CMC outcome-effectiveness1)
I generally get what I want out of my CMC interactions
.541
CMCSAT2 (CMC skill-attentiveness2)
I show concern for and interest in the person I'm conversing with in CMC
.528
CMCSCP1 (CMC skill-composure1)
I use an assertive style in my CMC writing
.495
CMCSCP2 (CMC skill-composure2)
My CMC messages are written in a confident style
.465
CMCOAP1 (CMC outcome-appropriateness1)
I avoid saying things through CMC that might offend someone
.191
________________________________________________________________________
97
Table 4 One-Factor Solution for Relationship Quality ________________________________________________________________________
Item Original Statement Component Loading
RQIT2
(RQ intimacy2)
I feel close to my long-distance friend .723
RQCE1
(RQ communication effectiveness1)
Overall, the communication is effective between my long-distance friend and I
.712
RQPG3
(RQ personal growth3)
I have learned a lot from my long-distance friend
.683
RQCE3
(RQ communication effectiveness3)
I am satisfied with my long-distance friendship .673
RQPG2
(RQ personal growth2)
I have developed into a better person because of this long-distance friend
.643
RQCE2R
(RQ communication effectiveness2 reverse)
I am unhappy with my long-distance friendship .643
RQIT3R
(RQ intimacy3 reverse)
I feel emotionally distant from my long-distance friend
.513
RQPG1R
(RQ personal growth1 reverse)
This long-distance friend takes more than he/she gives
.512
RQIT1
(RQ intimacy1)
I have warm feelings toward my long-distance friend
.493
________________________________________________________________________
98
Table 5 Analysis of Variance for Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ________________________________________________________________________
Channel of Self-Disclosure (CHANNEL) M SD N ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FtF 29.76 4.164 382
CMC 28.17 4.572 378________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHANNEL 480.235 1 25.131 <.001 .032
14965.242 759
652734.000 760 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 6 Correlation between FtF Self-Disclosure and CMC Disclosure __________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 ___________________________________________________________________________
n = 378
1. FtF Self-Disclosure ---- .578**
2. CMC Disclosure ---- ___________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001 Table 7 Intercorrelations among FtF Self-Disclosure, CMC Disclosure, and Distance ______________________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
1. FtF Self-Disclosure ---- .578** -.042
2. CMC Disclosure ---- -.016
3. Distance ---- _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001
99
Table 8 Partial Correlation Coefficient for CMC Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and Distance ______________________________________________________
Zero Order Partials _____________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _______________________________________________________________________________
1. CMC Disclosure ---- .522** -.017
2. Relationship Quality ---- -.013*
3. Distance ---- _______________________________________________________________________________
Controlling for DISTANCE _____________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 _______________________________________________________________________________
1. CMC Disclosure ---- .524**
2. Relationship Quality ---- _______________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001, * p < .05 Table 9 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Initiation and FtF Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Context of Friendship Initiation (KNOW) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FtF 29.82 4.114 351
CMC 28.33 5.420 15
Other 29.81 4.004 16 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KNOW 31.742 2 .915 .401 .005
6605.843 381
344908.000 382 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
100
Table 10 Analysis of Variance for Relationship Initiation and CMC Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Context of Friendship Initiation (KNOW) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FtF 28.09 4.633 347
CMC 29.53 3.852 15
Other 28.56 3.759 16 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
KNOW 32.444 2 .775 .461 .004
7879.164 377
307826.000 378 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 11 Correlation between Relational Stage and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC _____________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _______________________________________________________________________________
1. FtF Self-Disclosure ---- .578** .536**
2. CMC Disclosure ---- .371**
3. Relational Stage ---- _______________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001
101
Table 12 Analysis of Variance for Gender and FtF Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Respondent’s Sex (RESPSEX) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
female 30.51 3.857 261
male 28.13 4.428 116 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RESPSEX 456.463 1 27.959 <.001 .069
6578.727 376
340917.000 377 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 13 Analysis of Variance for Gender and CMC Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Respondent’s Sex (RESPSEX) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
female 28.52 4.742 261
male 27.37 4.091 116 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RESPSEX 106.987 1 5.162 .024 .014
7879.135 376
307042.000 377 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
102
Table 14 Analysis of Variance for High- versus Low-Context Culture and FtF Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Respondent’s Culture (CONTEXTR) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
high-context culture 29.84 3.174 69
low-context culture 29.82 4.224 296 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONTEXTR .030 1 .002 .966 .000
5949.425 364
330561.000 365 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 15 Analysis of Variance for High- versus Low-Context Culture and CMC Self-Disclosure ________________________________________________________________________
Respondent’s Culture (CONTEXTR) M SD N ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
high-context culture 28.17 3.850 69
low-context culture 28.27 4.570 296 ________________________________________________________________________
Source Sum of Sq. df F p Eta Sq. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONTEXTR .484 1 .024 .876 .000
7168.312 364
298447.000 365 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
103
Table 16 Correlation between Individualism versus Collectivism and Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC ________________________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _______________________________________________________________________________________________
1. FtF Self-Disclosure ---- .578** .001
2. CMC Disclosure ---- .048
3. High- vs. Low-Context Culture ---- _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001 Table 17 Correlation between Self-Disclosure and Relationship Quality in FtF and CMC ________________________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _______________________________________________________________________________________________
1. FtF Self-Disclosure ---- .578** .562**
2. CMC Disclosure ---- .522**
3. Relationship Quality ---- _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001 Table 18 Summary of Regression Analysis for Self-Disclosure in FtF and CMC Predicting Relationship Quality _______________________________________________________________________
Variable R R Sq. Adjusted
R Sq. F Change df1 df2 p __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Step 1
FtF Self-Disclosure .562 .315 .314 173.212 1 376 <.001
Step 2
FtF Self-Disclosure
CMC Disclosure
.612 .374 .371 35.113 1 375 <.001
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
104
Table 19 Correlation between CMC Competence and CMC Disclosure ____________________________________________
Variables 1 2 _________________________________________________________________
n = 378
1. CMC Disclosure ---- .343**
2. CMC Competence ---- _________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001 Table 20 Partial Correlation Coefficient for Self-Disclosure, Relationship Quality, and CMC Competence ____________________________________________________________
Zero Order Partials ____________________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 3 _________________________________________________________________________________________
1. CMC Disclosure ---- .522** .343**
2. Relationship Quality ---- .295**
3. CMC Competence ---- __________________________________________________________________________________________
Controlling for CMCCOMP ____________________________________________________________
Variables 1 2 __________________________________________________________________________________________
1. CMC Disclosure ---- .469**
2. Relationship Quality ---- __________________________________________________________________________________________ Note: ** p < .001
105
ABSTRACT
106
ABSTRACT
Long-distance friendship (LDF) is still under-studied, despite the fact that this
phenomenon has become prevalent in today’s society. This research study attempts to
examine self-disclosure behaviors in LDF through both face-to-face (FtF) interactions and
computer-mediated communication (CMC) channels and understand social impact of new
information technologies on relational communication between long-distance friends.
Specifically, relationships between self-disclosure and geographic distance,
relationship stage, gender, cultural values, and friendship quality are tested in both FtF and
CMC contexts. Research subjects were recruited from the students at SDSU and a web
survey was used for data collection.
Results of the study suggest that people tend to disclose slightly greater in FtF
settings than in CMC environment and women are likely to reveal personal or private
information to others slightly more than men do. Geographic distance does not influence self-
disclosure behaviors in either FtF or CMC context in LDFs. Once people are separate, it does
not matter how far apart they are from each other. However, both FtF self-disclosure and
CMC disclosure are important to friendship quality at all distances. If people engage in
greater self-disclosure, they are likely to achieve higher relationship quality. An individual’s
cultural background and values do not have much impact on self-disclosure behaviors among
long-distance friends in either FtF or CMC context. A person’s CMC competence level is
correlated with CMC disclosure, but it has not much influence on the relationship between
CMC disclosure and relationship quality.
