wrightjessica-effects of motivations and gender on adolescents’ self-disclosure in online chatting
Post on 06-Apr-2018
227 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
1/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure1
Running Head: Motivations and Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents
Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
2/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of motivations for online chatting and gender
factors in self-disclosure in adolescents online chatting. Participants were 260 high
school students who participated in online chatting (128 female, 132 male). The results
revealed that self-disclosure in online chatting differed by motivation, but gender was not
a significant variable for explaining self-disclosure.
2
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
3/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents
Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
In 2005, there were approximately 190 million registered ICQ (I seek you, a
form of online chatting) users around the world, with 8 million users logging in every
day. In Korea, nearly half of all citizens ages 13 to 55 report membership in at least one
of 10,000 chat sites (Ho, 2004). Among these users, the majority are teenagers. Although
uses of the Internet range from email, to the web search, to e-commerce, to electronic
newspapers, and to many other applications, no Internet use has a greater attraction for
young people than online chatting (Leung, 2001).
One important characteristic of online chatting is relationship formation. Users
exchange information with each other through online chatting via computer-mediated
communication (CMC). Some experts argue that CMC is limited in its ability to develop
relationships between people, because of the absence of social context cues and
nonverbal-cues (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991). On the contrary,
others have contended that people can make friends on the Internet without those cues,
because users adopt text-based information as a basis for impression formation and
relationship development (Lea & Spears, 1995; Walther, 1996; Walther & Burgoon,
1992). That is, the Internet is an adequate medium for communicating. However, the
more important thing for relationship development on the Internet is the extent to which
people can show or disclose themselves to others. Self-disclosure on the Internet is a
necessary norm in relationship formation and development.
Cozby (1973) defined self-disclosure as communication that offers information
about oneself. By means of the information that people disclose they can form
relationships characterized by trust, intimacy, and liking for each other. Self-disclosure
3
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
4/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
has significant implications for Internet usage; in addition to facilitating online
friendships, people can consult with people about topics rarely discussed in a face-to-face
(FtF) context and get commercial information by chatting with other consumers.
This research focuses on adolescents self-disclosure in online chatting. A few
CMC studies of self-disclosure commonly compare the differences in the level of self-
disclosure between FtF communication and CMC (Joinson, 2001; Mallen, 2003; Walther,
2002). They have shown that people can disclose personal information and develop
relationships through CMC, just as they can in FtF situations. However, the comparative
studies in CMC and FtF are limited in explanations for quantitative and qualitative
difference of self-disclose only within CMC. It raises a question about what factors
prompt people to disclose or discourage in online chatting? Disclosure could be
influenced by the actions of others, but the amount and type of information are controlled
by the individual disclosing (Omarzu, 2000). Therefore, disclosure is by nature an
individual strategic behavior (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Miller &
Read, 1987). A functional theory of disclosure assumes that self-disclosure is for
individual goals (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979). Based on that theory, this study explored
motivations for using online chatting and examined the effect of motivations on self-
disclosure in online chatting.
Relatively consistent findings in self-disclosure demonstrate that men generally
disclose less than women do (Dindia & Allen, 1992). However, the general tendency in
CMC has not yet been revealed. This research attempted to investigate the gender
difference in self-disclosure in online chatting and also the difference in each genders
self-disclosure between online and FtF communication.
4
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
5/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Self-Disclosure
The research on self-disclosure has examined the phenomenon as a medium of
social exchange (Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969). In this social exchange perspective,
Disclosure is assumed to be inherently rewarding to receive and is also believed to
create an obligation in the listener to return the favor, either by disclosing in exchange or
by granting other boons to the discloser (Omarzu, 2000,p. 176). Social penetration
theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) also explains self-disclosure as the medium of social
exchange. According to social penetration theory, the level of self-disclosure depends on
each relationship in terms of rewards and costs. Individuals expect a reward from
receivers for self-disclosure and subsequently create obligations to reciprocate (Omarzu,
2000). This relationship is expressed as the norm of reciprocity and means offering
responses that match a partners previous communication (Daniel & Michael, 1993).
Typically, receiving disclosures increases liking for the discloser (Collins & Miller,
1994).
Many scholars have researched the reasons affecting self-disclosures in non-
mediated interpersonal communication. Various factors other than reciprocity explain
different levels of self-disclosure. First, much of the early research on self-disclosure
found gender differences. Rosenfeld (1979) argued, men avoid disclosure primarily to
maintain control over the social situation, and women avoid disclosure to prevent
personal hurt and relational problem (pp. 72-73). Other studies have shown that men
generally disclose less often than women do (Dindia & Allen, 1992). In terms of
disclosure via the Internet, Klemm and his colleagues (1999) found in researching a
cancer group that men gave more information to fellow support-group members, whereas
women engaged in more disclosure of their personal experiences and gave emotional
5
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
6/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
support. Owen, Yarbrough, Vaga, and Tucker (2003) found that both male and females
showed significant emotional and cognitive expression, and gender was nota statistically
significant main effect on expression; however, the interaction between gender and time
on those expressions was statistically significant. Another variable to explain different
levels of self-disclosure is individual characteristics, and researchers have investigated
the effect of personality. Cozby (1973) suggested a personality factor; personal
extraversion was positively related to self-disclosure.
The other perspective on self-disclosure is based on the functional theory.
According to this theory, each individual strategically controls self-disclosure in terms of
individual goals (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979). When disclosing, people selectively reveal
or withhold personal information to obtain their goal (Quattrone & Jones, 1978). This
functional approach promises to be a useful perspective to explore why or how users of
the Internet, especially in chat rooms, self-disclose.
Self-Disclosure in CMC
Self-disclosure is an important element in CMC, because it is necessary for the
formation of relationships. CMC takes the form of using email, computer, conferencing,
and chat systems, all of which differ from FtF communication, which relies in part on
nonverbal communication (Walther, 2002). Disclosing personal information using text in
CMC is one of the cues that users can get to know each other, because self-disclosure is
personal information that others are unlikely to discover from other sources (Trenholm &
Jensen, 1996). In order for users to form or develop relationships on the Internet, it can be
argued that the best way is to disclose personal information about them, including their
opinions, attitudes, moods, or emotions.
However, some people argue that the Internet has barriers to self-disclosure.
6
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
7/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Siegel, Dubrovsky, Kiesler, and McGuire(1986) found that CMC is a relatively
impersonal medium compared to FtF communication, so impression and relational
development might not be formed in online communication. Kiesler, Siegel, and
McGuire (1984) also stated that users of CMC have difficulty forming impressionsdue to
the lack of nonverbal cues in the medium. Another factor that hinders disclosure and
communicating self-information is anonymity. Anonymity could foster the sharing of
false information among Internet users.
However, Walther (1996) has argued that anonymity helps Internet users to
construct positive impressions. McKenna and Bargh (2000) also claimed that anonymity
produces positive effects on relationship on the Internet, because the Internet is like a
darkened room where people cannot see each other, so people are not hesitant to disclose
information about them. Other research has shown that online impressions and
relationships are possible within different levels of FtF. Walther and Burgoon (1992)
showed that groups using computer-mediated communication increased in several
relational dimensions to positive levels and that these subsequent levels approximated
those of face-to-face groups. In terms of self-disclosure, these theories presuppose that
there is no any barrier for people to disclose and recognize personal information with
each other to develop relationships through CMC.
A few studies in CMC have focused on self-disclosure.Haider (2002) found that a
positive relationship between self-disclosure and intimacy has been found in chat rooms.
Walther (2002) also explored self-disclosure among users as an effect of CMC based on
uncertainty reduction theory1 and found that CMC interactants produced significantly
higher proportions of self-disclosure. CMC researches had focused more on the
1 The uncertainty reduction theory explains, how communication functions to help usattain knowledge and understanding of ourselves and others (Berger & Bradac, 1982, p.5).
7
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
8/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
difference of level of self-disclosure between CMC and FtF. Joinson (2001) had shown
that significantly higher levels of spontaneous self-disclosure were found in CMC
compared to FtF meetings. Mallen (2003) also explored the level of self-disclosure
through online chatting compared with FtF communication, but there was no significant
difference in level of self-disclosure.
The comparative research on the difference in self-disclosure between CMC and
FtF demonstrated that people using CMC could disclose personal information and
develop relationships just as they can in FtF encounters. However, the limitation of the
investigations is in the explanations for why users disclose personal information and what
factors influence depth and breadth of self-disclosure in CMC. In addition to gender and
personality as factors that help explain levels of self-disclosure, this study investigated
motivations affecting self-disclosure based on the functional theory in CMC.
Motivations as Variables to Explain Self-Disclosure
Traditionally, motivations are posited to be associated with a set of psychological
motives. These psychological intentions prompt the audience to purposefully select
certain media, or media content, in order to seek gratification or satisfy a set of
psychological needs (Blumler, 1979). This uses and gratification perspective has been
applied to Internet research. In general, motivations for Internet usage are interpersonal
relations, information, and entertainment. Email, distribution lists, multi-user dungeons
(MUD), and chat have been considered communication tools on the Internet. Information
needs are associated with the use of E-commerce and electronic newspapers. However, a
particular medium does not always reflect a specific motivation. Users can use email as a
means of seeking information or entertainment. For instance, online chatting is basically
for developing relationships among users, but chats can also be used for exchanging daily
8
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
9/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
information (style of living, economic data, politics, and culture), entertainment (wasting
time, just for fun, taking a rest, escaping from stress or pressure), and pure relation
formation (making friends exploring love interests, meeting people who share common
hobbies or other interests, and the like).
This research hypothesized that the different motivations for online chatting affect
different levels of self-disclosure. According to the functional theory, communication
binds individuals with their environment. There are five bonding functions of
communication: fostering favorable impressions, organizing relationships,
constructing/validating conjoint worlds, expressing feeling and thoughts, and protecting
vulnerabilities (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988). Clark and Delia (1979) suggested other
functions for communication: to form communication strategies, as a solving instrument
for an identified problem, for developing interpersonal relationships, and for social
identity.
According to Rubin et al. (1988), people use interpersonal communication for
entertainment when they need to feel less tense, feel enjoyment, or a have a pleasant time
with other people. Leung (2001) also pointed out that, People communicate for
entertainment as it provides fun and good time. Others communicate for social interaction
as people need to share information with othersabout themselves (p. 485).
In summary, people use communication generally for interpersonal relationships,
entertainment, and information. These reasons are closely related to self-disclosure in
terms of functional theory. Berg and Archer (1982) found that people control the content
and duration of self-disclosure based on the nature of the disclosure. For example, if
people want to form interpersonal relationships with others, the content or style of their
self-disclosure might be different from people who have information or entertainment
9
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
10/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
motivations.Leung (2001) investigated why students have an immense interest in online
chatting. He found two categories of motives in online chatting: instrumental and
intrinsic. The intrinsicmotives includeaffection, inclusion, sociability, and escape,
whereas instrumental motives include entertainment and fashion. Park and Floyd (1996)
explored how often personal relationships form in Internet newsgroups and how close or
developed they become. They found that personal relationships were common, that
opposite-sex relationships were more common than same-sex relationship, and that the
depth dimension of relational development correlated with intimacy and self-disclosure.
Motivation that any research has not been to look at as a variable in self-
disclosure in online communication might determine a quantity and quality of self-
disclose. Accordingly, this research investigates users motivations for online chatting in
the context of the functional theory of self-disclosure.
Research Questions
The literature review has shown that self-disclosure is crucial to initiate or
develop interpersonal relationships on the Internet. This research looks at online chatting
as one CMC channel and explores which elements affect self-disclosure in online
chatting. This researcher considered three motivationsinterpersonal relationships,
entertainment, and informationas factors affecting self-disclosure, theoretically based
on functional theory. Motivations for online chatting influence the type and level of self-
disclosure. As a result, the following research question is proposed:
RQ1. Is there any difference in self-disclosure depending on motivations of online
chatting use?
Previous studies have shown that gender difference has had much focus, but
findings were not consistent. Self-disclosure in gender varied in online chatting and face-
10
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
11/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
to-face communication. To explore the Internet effect on self-disclosure, this study
examines differences between online and offline self-disclosurewithin each male and
female. In addition, one problem is that researchers only compared amount or types of
self-disclosure according to gender. This research exploresthe effect of interaction
between gender and motivations.
RQ2. Are there any differences in self-disclosure between online and face-to-face
communication within each male and female?
RQ3. Are there any differences between males and females in self-disclosure in
onlinechatting and face-to-face communication?
RQ4. Are there differences between males and females in self-disclosure based on
motivations?
Method
Procedure and Sample
Questionnaires were administered in class (with the permission of the instructors)
to a multistage stratified random sample of students at a large high school in Seoul, Korea
in April 2004. A total of 300 students completed the questionnaire. This research was
limited to individuals who had previously engaged in online chatting with unknown
people. Of the sample of 300, 260 had experienced online chatting. Therefore, 260
questionnaires ultimately were analyzed. Of the sample, 128 (49.2%) were female, and
132 (50.8%) were male. According to grade, 90 (35%) were in the 10th grade, 94 (36.2%)
were in the 11th grade, and 76 (29.2%) were in the 12th grade. The proportion of the
sample by level of chatting was 21.2% for more than once a day, 15% for once a day,
23.8% for three or four times a week, 19.2% for once every two weeks, 2.7% for
once a month, and 12.3% for a few times in a year. The amount of time spent in
11
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
12/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
online chatting in a week averaged more than 4 hours (M= 4.42, SD = 5.86). Most
students ranged between 1 hours and 10 hours (90.4%). The average time of each chat
ranged from less than 30 minutes (21.9%), more than 30 minutes and less than 1
hour (30.8%), 1 to 2 hours (28.5%), 2 hours to 3 hours (8.5%), and more than 3
hours (9.2%). The average time spent on the Internet in a day ranged from less than 30
minutes (11.9%), 30 to 1 hour (18.1%), 1 to 2 hours (38.5%), 2 hours to 3 hours
(16.9%), 3 hours to more than 4 hours (4.2%), and more than 4 hours (10.4%).
Motivations. The study of motivation in previous research of functional analyses
has focused on developing interpersonal relationships (Clark & Delia, 1979),
entertainment (Rubin et al., 1988), and information (Leung, 2001). The questionnaire for
measuring motivation in online chatting includes nine items that measure online use in
terms of interpersonal relationships, entertainment, and information. The items were
measured by using 7-point semantic differential scales. A factor analysis of the measure
was conducted and revealed three factors. The first factor was interpersonal relationships,
consisting of three items reflecting motivations to make new friends, communicate with
members in an online community, and make a friend of the opposite sex through online
chatting. This factor had an eigenvalue of 1.55 and explained 17.24% of the total
variance. Entertainment as motivation in online chatting was the second factor
(eigenvalue = 1.52, 16.8 % of variance). The factor included items that suggested
motivations for online chatting were to have fun, relax, or kill time. The third factor was
information, and it consisted of four items, reflecting the use of online chatting to learn
something, to get information about ones environment, and to find specific and
professional information economic, political, and cultural. The factors eigenvalue
12
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
13/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
was 3.00, and it explained 33.33% of the total variance. Each reliability for these three
factors was more than = .70.
In addition, this questionnaire included a nominal-level item about motivation to
more precisely measure what kind of motivation participants had when they most
recently connected to the Internet for the purpose of online chatting. One hundred twenty
participants reported that developing interpersonal relationships was the primary motive
for online chatting (46.5%), 110 students (42.3%) indicated entertainment as their main
purpose for online chatting, and 25 students (9.6%) said motivation of information
seeking was their main purpose for online chatting. This result implicates online chatting
is a tool primarily for interpersonal relationships or entertainment rather than information
seeking.
Self-Disclosure. The survey used Wheeless & Grotzs (1976) self-disclosure
scales revised by Lawrence (1979). The research on self-disclosure in CMC indicates that
Park and Floyd (1996) used Altman and Taylors (1973) scales of self-disclosure: depth
and breadth; Joinson (2001) used positive or neutral self-disclosure and negative self-
disclosure; and Walther (2002) operationalized self-disclosure as messages that reveal
personal information about the sender. The current research focuses on a multilevel
notion of self-disclosure, and uses five subsets of self-disclosure, as revised by Lawrence
(1979): intent to discloseawareness on the part of the communicator that he or she is
self-disclosing; amount of disclosureboth frequency and length of time, (3)
positivenegative nature of disclosure, control of depth of disclosureperceived
control of the general depth of the content of the self-disclosing, honestyaccuracy of
disclosure. The scales consist of 30 items, but I deleted 4 items that appeared to have a
similar meaning in Korean with other items.
13
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
14/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
The questionnaire asked participants to mark level of self-disclosure with 7-point
semantic differential scales after recalling their recent online chatting. Each item was
classified, and mean scores were computed to analyze motivational differences in self-
disclosure.
Results
Difference in Self-Disclosure by Motivation for Online Chatting
Students reported their motivation for self-disclosure after being prompted to
recall their most recent online chatting experience. The analysis of these finding was
limited to experiences in which students chatted with a stranger online rather than with an
acquaintance. To test Research Question 1, I conducted a One-Way ANOVA. The mean
of self-disclosure motivations for information (M= 3.64, SD = 1.39) was higher than
motivation for either entertainment (M= 3.0182, SD = 1.31), or interpersonal
relationships (M= 2.83, SD = 1.39), and this difference was statistically significant,F(2,
252) = 3.638,p = .028. There is also a significant difference,p = .02 (Tukey a), in intent
for self-disclosure between information motivation (M= 3.64) and interpersonal
relationship motivation (M= 2.83).
Secondly, there was a statistically significant difference in amount of self-
disclosureamong motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 3.90, SD = .82),
entertainment (M= 3.82, SD = .72), and information (M= 3.39, SD = 1.21),F(2, 252) =
3.96,p = .02. Respondents who had information motives in online chatting reported
statistically higher scores on the motivation scales than the group who had interpersonal
relationship motivation, (M= 3.90 vs.M= 3.39),p = .01 (Tukey a).
Thirdly, there was a statistically significant difference in depth of self-disclosure
among motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 2.97, SD = 1.13), entertainment
14
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
15/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
(M= 3.01, SD = 1.15), and information (M= 3.92, SD = 1.22),F(2, 251) = 7.349,p =
.001. The group who had information motivation in online chatting showed significantly
higher scores than the group with interpersonal relationship motivations (M= 3.92 vs.M
= 2.97),p = .001 (Tukey a).
Fourthly, the difference in negativepositive self-disclosure was statistically
significant among motivations for interpersonal relationships (M= 3.32, SD = 1.30),
entertainment (M= 3.42, SD = .96), and information (M= 4.25, SD = 1.08),F(2. 251) =
7.01,p = .001. The difference between the group with information motivations and the
group of interpersonal-relationship motivations was statistically significant, with the
former disclosing more negativepositive self-disclosure in online chatting than the latter,
(M= 4.25 vs.M= 3.32),p = .001 (Tukey a).
Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in honesty-accuracy of
disclosureamong groups with interpersonal-relationship motivation (M= 4.20, SD = .66),
entertainment motivation (M= 3.97, SD = .55), and information motivation (M= 4.38,
SD = .70),F(2, 252) = 6.49,p = .002. The difference between the group with
information motivations and entertainment motivations was statistically significant, with
the former demonstrating more honesty-accuracy of disclosure, (M= 4.38 vs.M= 3.97),
p = .008 (Tukey a). There was also a statistically significant difference in honesty-
accuracy of disclosure between the group with interpersonal-relationship motivations and
the group of entertainment motivations, with the former showing more honest-accuracy
of disclosure, (M= 4.20 vs.M= 3.97),p = .013 (Tukey a). However, there was no
significant difference in disclosure between the groups who had information motivations
and interpersonal relationship motivations (M= 4.38 vs.M= 4.20). Figure 1 summarizes
all the previous findings.
15
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
16/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Gender Difference in Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting and Face-to-Face
Communication
Many researches have discussed gender as a factor differentiating the types and
levels of self-disclosure. This research also analyzed gender differences in self-disclosure
in online chatting. To test the difference I conducted an independent-sample ttest.
First, there was no statistically significant difference in disclosure intentions
between males (M= 3.44) and females (M= 3.37),p = .66 (2-tailed, see Table 1). The
other types of self-disclosure did not have statistically significant difference between
males and females in online chatting, as Table 1 shows. Secondly, there was no
significant difference in disclosure intentions between males (M= 3.39) and females (M
= 2.98),p = .99 (2-tailed) in FtF communication. The other types of self-disclosure were
not significantly different between male and female in FtF communication.
Table 2 below shows the differences in self-disclosure between online chatting
and FtF communication for males and females. With males, amount, depth,
negative/positive, and honesty-accuracy of self-disclosure were statistically significant
between online chatting and FtF communication. For females, amount, depth, and
negative/positive of self-disclosure were significantly different between online chatting
and FtF communication.
Additionally, this study examined an interaction effect on self-disclosure between
motivations and gender (see Table 3). There is no interaction between motivation and
gender,F= .423,p = .65. There is a main effect of motivations on self-disclosure,F=
8.107,p = .000, but no main effect of gender on self-disclosure, F= .423,p = .003.
16
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
17/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
Discussion
The primary contribution of this study is that it shows the impact of motivations
on self-disclosure through CMC. The results demonstrate that self-disclosure in online
chatting is different among groups who have different motivations. In other words,
motivation is a meaningful variable that explains self-disclosure in CMC. This
investigation also provides evidence that online chatters with information motives score
higher in terms of levels of intent, depth, and negative-positive disclosure than the group
who had interpersonal-relationship motives.
These findings provide further support for the functional theory of self-disclosure,
which argues that people use self-disclosure for strategic purposes. People who use
online chatting to make a friend or form relationships with other people have a greater
need to convey positive impressions of them than do people who use online chatting to
obtain information. People who have information motivations are less sensitive of their
impression on others and they may not mind telling things about themselves. That is,
people limit their self-disclosure in different situations; thus, the findings indicate that
people who used online chatting for forming new relationships show low levels of intent
to self-disclose, depth of disclosure, and negativepositive disclosure. Although there
was no significant difference in honesty-accuracy of disclosures, the mean for
information motivations was higher than the mean for interpersonal relationship motives.
However, people who have interpersonal relationship motives might have a
greater need to talk more about themselves to other chatters than those who use online
chatting as means of getting a good impression and valuable information for developing
relationships. Therefore, the amount of disclosure was higher for people who had
17
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
18/25
Motivations and Self-disclosure
motivation for developing interpersonal relationships than for those who had information
motivation.
This study also calls into question previous research on gender difference in self-
disclosure. When I measured respondents self-disclosure between men and female both
in online chatting and FtF communication, the results demonstrated that gender was not a
significant variable in both cases. However, each gender showed the difference in self-
disclosure between online chatting and face-to-face communication. The result showed
that males were more likely to disclose personal information in FtF communication than
in online chatting except for intention of self-disclosure. Females showed higher scores in
amount, depth, negative-positive of self-disclosure in face-to-face communication than in
online chatting, but there were no significant differences in intention and honest-accuracy
of self-disclosure between online chatting and FtF communication. The results indicate
that females and male express their feeling or personal information consciously in online
chatting like FtF communication. Moreover, females express their feeling or personal
information honestly and accurately without the difference between online and FtF
communication.
Consequently, as shown in the interaction between gender and motivations, only
motivation has an effect that explains self-disclosure in online chatting. However, in-
depth investigation about how different motivations relate to self-disclosure is needed. In
addition, future research needs to find out why some scales of self-disclosure show
differences between online and FtF communication, but others do not. This might be
explained by various features related to CMC characteristics such as anonymity,
deindividualization, or hypersocial effect, users personality as the factor of individual
difference, and different motivations between online and offline.
18
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
19/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationship. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1982). Responses to self-disclosure and interaction goals.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 501-512.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982).Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in
interpersonal relationships. London: Edward Arnold.
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies.
Communication Research, 6, 9-36.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 65, 187-206.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review.Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-
91.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial
behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior(pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
Daniel, J. C., & Michael, J. C. (1993).Interpersonal communication. NY: ST. Martins
Press.
Derlega, V. J., & Grzelak, J. (1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In G. J. Chelune
(Ed.) Origins, patterns and implications of openness in interpersonal
relationships (pp. 151-176). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
19
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
20/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex difference in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.
Durbrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon:
Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups.
Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 119-146.
Haidar, H. (2002). Internet friendships: Can virtual be real? (Doctoral dissertation, The
California School of Professional Psychology, 2002). UMI, 3052981.
Ho, Soyoung. (2004). Cheating chatter.Foreign Policy. p. 92.
Owen, J. E., Yarbrough, E. J., Vaga, A., & Tucker, D. C. (2003). Investigation of the
effects of gender and preparation on quality of communication in Internet support
groups. Computer in Human Behavior, 19, 259-275.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of
self-awareness and visual anonymity.European Journal of Social Psychology,
31, 177-192.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-
presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),Psychological perspectives on the self(Vol. 1, pp.
231-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-
mediated communication.American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
Klemm, P., Hurst, M., Dearholt, S. L., & Trone, S. R. (1999). Gender differences on
Internet cancer support groups. Computer in Nursing, 17, 65-72
Lawrence, B. R. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am.
Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.
20
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
21/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
Lee, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? In J. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.),
Understudied relationships off the beaten track(pp. 197-240). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on ICQ.New Media & Society, 3,
483-500.
Mallen, M. J. (2003). Online versus face-to-face conversation: An examination of
relational and discourse variables.Psychotherapy, 40, 155-163
Marsh, A. (1997). Chat goes commercial.Forbes, 160, 46-48.
McKenna K.Y.A., & Bargh J. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
Internet for personality and social psychology.Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75.
Miller, L. C., & Read, S. J. (1987). Why am I telling you this? Self-disclosure in a goal-
based model of personality. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure:
Theory, research and therapy (pp. 35-58). New York: Plenum.
Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when individuals
will self-disclose.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 174-185.
Park, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace.Journal of
Communication, 46, 80-98.
Quattrone, G.A., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Selective self-disclosure with and without
correspondent performance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 511-
526.
Rosenfeld, L. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am.
Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.
21
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
22/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
Rubin, R., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of
interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14,
602-628.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in
computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 37, 157-187
Sproull, L. K., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in
organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492-1512.
Sproull, L. K., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections.New Ways of Working in the
Networked Organization. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (1996).Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A
relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure,
impression, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know another a bit at a time.
Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated
interaction.Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-
disclosure.Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346.
Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 13, 59-63.
22
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
23/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
Figure 1. Mean scores of self-disclosure by motivations.
Table 1. Gender Differences of Self-Disclosure both in Online and FtF.
Self-DisclosureScale
Online Chatting
Male Female
Sig. FtF
Male Female
Sig.
Intention 3.44 3.37 .666 3.39 3.39 .996Amount 3.65 3.59 .554 4.11 4.02 .247
Depth 3.50 3.56 .583 3.71 3.74 .820
Negative/Positive 2.95 3.00 .730 3.55 3.61 .695
Honest-Accuracy 4.12 4.10 .847 4.28 4.18 .257
23
Mean
05
1015202530354045
In te n t Am o u n t D e p th N e g a tive -Po s tive
H o n es ty-ac c u r a c y
Relation sh ipEntertainmentInformation
Types of Motivations
Scales of Self-disclosure
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
24/25
Motivations & Self-Disclosure
Table 2. Differences of Self-Disclosure between online chatting and FtF within eachMale and Female.
Self-Disclosure
Scale
Male
Online FtF
Sig.
Female
Online FtF
Sig.Intention 3.40 3.39 .980 3.37 3.99 .834Amount 3.65 4.11 .000
*3.58 4.02 .000*
Depth 3.52 3.71 .006*
3.55 3.74 .030*
Negative/Positive 2.90 3.58 .000*
3.00 3.62 .000*
Honest-Accuracy 4.12 4.29 .031*
4.10 4.18 .269
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Self-Disclosure.
***p < .001
Source df F p
Between subjects
Motivations(M) 2 8.107*** .053 .000
Gender (G) 1 .882 .003 .349
M X G 2 .423 .003 .656
Error 287
24
-
8/3/2019 WrightJessica-Effects of Motivations and Gender on Adolescents Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting
25/25
top related