Motivations & Self-Disclosure1 Running Head: Motivations and Self-Disclosure in Online Chatting

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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 2 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 3 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 4 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 selfdisclosure 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 selfdisclosure 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 5 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 nonmediated 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 6 support. Owen, Yarbrough, Vaga, and Tucker (2003) found that both male and females showed significant emotional and cognitive expression, and gender was not a 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 7 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 impressions due 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 us attain knowledge and understanding of ourselves and others (Berger & Bradac, 1982, p. 5).

Motivations and Self-disclosure 8 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 9 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 others about 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 10 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 intrinsic motives include affection, 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 selfdisclosure in online communication might determine a quantity and quality of selfdisclose. 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 selfdisclosure. 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-

Motivations and Self-disclosure 11 to-face communication. To explore the Internet effect on self-disclosure, this study examines differences between online and offline self-disclosure within each male and female. In addition, one problem is that researchers only compared amount or types of self-disclosure according to gender. This research explores the 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 online chatting 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 12 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 13 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 selfdisclosure; 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 14 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 selfdisclosure. 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 selfdisclosure among 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 15 (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 disclosure among 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 honestyaccuracy 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 16 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 t test. 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.

Motivations and Self-disclosure 17 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

Motivations and Self-disclosure 18 motivation for developing interpersonal relationships than for those who had information motivation. This study also calls into question previous research on gender difference in selfdisclosure. 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 selfdisclosure 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, indepth 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.

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 19 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, 7391. 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

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 20 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 selfpresentation. 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 computermediated 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.

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 21 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 goalbased 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, 511526. Rosenfeld, L. (1979). Self-disclosure avoidance: Why I am afraid to tell you who I am. Communication Monographs, 46, 63-74.

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 22 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 selfdisclosure. 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.

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 23

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

45 40 35 30 25

Types of Motivations
Relationship En tertainmen t Information

Mean

20 15 10 5 0 In te n t Am o u n t De p th N e g a tive - H o n e s tyPo s tive a c c u ra c y

Scales of Self-disclosure

Table 1. Gender Differences of Self-Disclosure both in Online and FtF. Self-Disclosure Scale Intention Amount Depth Negative/Positive Honest-Accuracy Online Chatting Male 3.44 3.65 3.50 2.95 4.12 Female 3.37 3.59 3.56 3.00 4.10 .666 .554 .583 .730 .847 Sig. Male 3.39 4.11 3.71 3.55 4.28 FtF Female 3.39 4.02 3.74 3.61 4.18 .996 .247 .820 .695 .257 Sig.

Motivations & Self-Disclosure 24 Table 2. Differences of Self-Disclosure between online chatting and FtF within each Male and Female. Male Self-Disclosure Scale Intention Amount Depth Negative/Positive Honest-Accuracy Online 3.40 3.65 3.52 2.90 4.12 FtF 3.39 4.11 3.71 3.58 4.29 Sig. .980 .000 * .006 * .000 * .031 * Female Online 3.37 3.58 3.55 3.00 4.10 FtF 3.99 4.02 3.74 3.62 4.18 Sig. .834 .000* .030* .000* .269

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Table 3. Analysis of Variance for Self-Disclosure. Source Motivations(M) Gender (G) M X G Error ***p < .001 df 2 1 2 287 F Between subjects 8.107*** .882 .423 .053 .003 .003 p .000 .349 .656