American Communication Journal
2014 FALL (Volume 16, Issue 2)
Comparing Relationships among Self-disclosure, Social
Attraction, Predictability and Trust in Exclusive Facebook and
Exclusive Face-to-Face Relationships
Pavica Sheldon*
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Loretta Pecchioni
Louisiana State University
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among trust, predictability, selfdisclosure, and social attraction in two types of relationships: exclusive Facebook friendships and
exclusive face-to-face friendships. The term exclusive was described as being a very close relationship
conducted primarily through one medium of interaction. Three hundred seventeen college students
completed a survey reporting their levels of social attraction, self-disclosure, predictability, and trust
with an exclusive Facebook friend and an exclusive face-to-face friend. Results show that trust and
predictability have the most influence on how much participants disclose both on Facebook and faceto-face. In addition, they are more socially attracted to those friends to whom they self-disclose more.
However, individuals disclose more to, and have more trust in, their face-to-face friends.
KEYWORDS: Interpersonal relationships, self-disclosure, trust, social attraction, social network sites
__________________________________________________________________________________
*Contact information: Please address all communication to the corresponding author. Pavica
Sheldon, PhD, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Morton Hall 342-C, Huntsville, AL 35899,
pavica.sheldon@uah.edu
1
According to traditional theories of relationship development, physical and geographical proximity
and information about the physical appearance of individuals are necessary pre-conditions for the
development of social relationships (Gennaro & Dutton, 2007). As a consequence, cues-filtered-out
theories (Culnan & Markus, 1987) suggest that because of the reduced number of contextual and
nonverbal cues available in text-based online social interactions, some forms of computer-mediated
communication (CMC) are less personal than face-to-face (FTF) activity. The cues-filtered out
theories, however, have been challenged by later studies that support a more interpersonal aspect of
CMC, arguing that people do disclose personal information, and therefore develop relationships online,
just as they do face-to-face (e.g., Cho, 2006; Walther, 1996).
Self-disclosure – defined as “any message about the self that a person communicates to
another” (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976, p. 338) – has been viewed as central to the development and
maintenance of close relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973). We do not communicate personal
information to everybody, but only to those people whom we trust and whose behavior we can predict
(Steel, 1991). Individual trust, out of different personality factors, is the most influential in predicting
self-disclosure (Foubert & Sholley, 1996). In addition to trust, however, other studies suggest that
perceptions of attraction may drive self- disclosure in both face-to-face and computer-mediated
relationships (Collins & Miller, 1994; Craig & Wright, 2012).
Although a number of studies have looked at the relationships between trust, self-disclosure
and social attraction in face-to-face relationships, few studies have focused on Facebook relationships.
As mediated relationships become more common, it is important to test not only how people selfdisclose through social network sites like Facebook, but also how their disclosures are similar to and
different from those made face-to-face. Do individuals have more trust in and attraction to their
Facebook friends or face-to-face friends? The answer to this question can help us better understand the
effects a medium can have on relationship development and maintenance.
Review of Literature
The roles of trust and predictably with regard to self-disclosure have been the focus of
communication theory and research. Trust is critical in understanding when people choose to share
personal information with others and when they choose secrecy (Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & PaineSchofield, 2011; Wheeless & Grotz, 1977). Trust is important for the development of intimacy and
commitment in both offline and online relationships (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). Wheeless
and Grotz (1977) and Larzelere and Huston (1980) found a positive correlation between trust and the
amount, depth, and honesty of self-disclosure in face-to-face relationships. Ang and Lee (2000) and
Metzger (2006) found that trust was a key factor in determining purchasing behavior and disclosure
behavior to a mock music CD e-commerce site. Although relationships are built upon the trust, no
studies have focused on the relationship between trust and self-disclosure on Facebook. Considering
that Facebook friendships are often based on initial face-to-face contact, it is hypothesized that:
H1: Trust predicts how much friends disclose to each other on Facebook and face-to-face.
According to Rotenberg’s (1995) interpersonal trust framework, participants who trust each
other depend on each other to act in a reliable and honest fashion. Trust is therefore related to
predictability of another person’s behavior. In a study looking at “best” Facebook friendships, Sheldon
(2009) found that the more certain we are about another person’s behavior, the more we trust them.
This relationship, however, might not always work very well. If a person knows that his or her friend
consistently behaves unfavorably, he or she might not trust that friend. In other words, not all
2
predictability yields trust, but can also yield mistrust (Nooteboom, 2002). This study proposes that the
opposite relationship might actually work better, that is:
H2: Trust predicts the certainty of a friend’s behavior, both on Facebook and face-to-face.
According to the uncertainty reduction theory (URT, Berger & Calabrese, 1975), individuals
self-disclose to those whose behavior they can predict. Although they may not be able to use the same
cues that are available face-to-face, Facebook friends might rely on the observation of another person’s
profile, reading their wall posts and information section, in order to learn more about the friend.
Haythornthwaite (2005) discussed the ways in which information and communication technologies
open up new pathways of communication between individuals who otherwise might not have the
opportunity. For instance, individuals engage in self-presentational behaviors on Facebook and
Twitter, communicating identity through short text and images. These identity cues can be assessed,
just as one’s style of dress or color of skin can be studied. Online profiles, such as those found on
Facebook, can serve as online markers of identity and thus reduce uncertainty between people (Dyer,
2013). It is therefore hypothesized that:
H3: Predictability of friends’ behavior is related to how much friends disclose to each other,
both on Facebook and face-to-face.
Consistent with social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), progress to more and more
intimate levels of disclosure is a function of a favorable reward/cost ratio, and therefore accompanied
by increased attraction (McAllister & Bregman, 1983). Pellegrini, Hicks, and Meyers-Winton (1978)
argued that increased depth of self-disclosure is associated with the motivation to win reciprocal
approval or liking. While studying users of social network sites, Antheunis, Valkenburg and Peter
(2010) found that social attraction results from perceived “rewards” that can be obtained through direct
interaction and self-disclosure, or from passive observations of the target person. This study
hypothesizes that:
H4: Self-disclosure predicts the amount of social attraction between both Facebook friends and
face-to-face friends.
The overall model (Figure 1) addresses the interrelationships among these variables being tested using
structural equation modeling to support or reject these four hypotheses.
However, the question still remains: how much trust, predictability and self-disclosure exists
between exclusive Facebook friends as opposed to exclusive face-to-face friends, and does Facebook
as a “cues-rich” medium contribute to more self-disclosure between friends, or do they still disclose
more to their offline buddies?
Walther (1992) suggested that without nonverbal cues, communicators adapt their relationship
behaviors to the remaining cues available in CMC, focusing on content and linguistic strategies, and
attending to chronemic and typographic cues such as emoticons (Walther, 2006; Walther &
D’Addario, 2001). According to the hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1995), individuals compensate for
the limitations of CMC by over-personalizing their interactions and actually disclosing more than they
do face-to-face. Henderson and Gilding (2004) also found that individuals reported higher levels of
self-disclosure to their online friendships. In face-to-face relationships, they noted, appearance can get
in the way of intimacy. Another group of researchers (e.g., Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, 2002; Mesch
& Talmud, 2006) found the opposite results. Offline relationships are characterized by higher
3
interdependence, and greater breadth and depth of self-disclosure. Online relationships are not a
substitute for offline ones.
H1
H4
Self-disclosure
Trust
H2
Social attraction
H3
Predictability
Figure 1. Hypothesized trust-predictability-self-disclosure-social attraction model
Trust is another concept for which mixed results have been identified. Although some
researchers (Bos, Olson, Gergle, Olson, & Wright, 2002; Feng, Lazar, & Preece, 2004) have argued
that people are more trusting of each other face-to-face than through text chat, Obremski (2008) argued
that this may not be true within the context of Facebook relationships. If a person trusts another in real
life, he or she might trust that same person on Facebook and vice versa. In this study, we propose that
these contradictory findings might not be due just to the type of the medium individuals use to
communicate, but also the type of relationship they have. It is possible that the frequency of contact
between friends also influences how much they disclose to each other. However, we also know that
Facebook resembles face-to-face communication more than the previous types of online applications
because of the increased richness of the environment.
Again, by asking the same participant about his or her two close relationships maintained through two
different media, this study tries to clarify these inconsistencies:
RQ1: Is there a difference in the amount of self-disclosure and trust between exclusive
Facebook friends and exclusive face-to-face friends when controlling for the frequency of
interaction?
Methodology
Participants
The sample consisted of 120 men (37.9%) and 197 women (62.1%) enrolled in various courses at a
large research university in the United States. The average participant’s age was 20 (Mage = 20.33, SD
= 1.77), ranging from 17 to 30 years. There were 81 first year students, 100 sophomores, 115 juniors,
and 21 seniors. Most respondents identified themselves as European American or White (n = 252,
79.5%), followed by African-Americans (n = 36, 11.4%), and Asian-Americans (n = 10, 3.2%),
approximating enrollment numbers at this university.
4
Procedure
The pre-condition to participate in an online survey was to be an active Facebook user. Participation
was voluntary and students received research credit. Previously, a small group of seven college
students filled out a pre-test questionnaire to check for the face and content validity. The study was
approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.
The online questionnaire asked participants to think about a friend who belongs in one of two
categories: 1) an exclusive Facebook friend, and 2) an exclusive face-to-face friend. For an exclusive
Facebook friend, respondents were asked to think about a particular good friend whom they contact
exclusively through Facebook (by messages, chats and wall posts) and never, or rarely, communicate
face-to-face (e.g., a friend who lives far away or is hard to reach). For an exclusive face-to-face friend,
respondents were asked to think about a particular good friend whom they talk to only face-to-face and
never through Facebook wall posts or messages (e.g., a friend who does not have a Facebook account).
Examples of whom the participants described as their exclusive Facebook friends included a friend
who moved away, went to school with him or her, or who they met at a summer camp. Examples of
exclusive face-to-face friends included best friend, girlfriend or boyfriend, neighbor, or co-worker.
Their choice of friends indicates that for most respondents, Facebook friendships are “lapsed
friendships” (Parks, 2010).
Measures
For each friend, participants had to respond to items from the social attraction instrument, selfdisclosure, predictability, and dyadic trust instrument, as well as provide information on the length of
the relationship and frequency of interaction. Unless otherwise noted, all answers were measured on a
5-point Likert type scale (5 = strongly agree, and 1 = strongly disagree).
Social Attraction. Social attraction was measured using the “social attraction” component of
McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) Interpersonal Attraction Scale (IAS) for which high internal
reliability coefficients for various dimensions have been reported (e.g., Krikorian, Lee, Chock, &
Harms, 2000; McCroskey & McCain, 1974; Wheeless, Frymier, & Thompson, 1992). Example items
included, “He(she) is a friend of mine” and “We have never established a personal friendship with
each other.” Three items were reverse coded. For exclusive Facebook friends M = 4.02, SD = .63, and
alpha = .68, while for exclusive face-to-face friends M = 4.42, SD = .63, and alpha = .76.
Self-disclosure. Self-disclosure was measured by Parks and Floyd’s (1996) depth dimension of
self-disclosure. This scale is topic-free and has been used in numerous studies (e.g., Craig & Wright,
2012; Yum & Hara, 2005) to measure self-disclosure online. For depth of self-disclosure with
exclusive Facebook friends, M = 3.67, SD = .96, and alpha = .89, while for exclusive face-to-face
friends, M = 4.34, SD = .79, and alpha = .90.
Predictability. Perceptions of predictability and understanding were examined using Parks and
Floyd’s scale (1996) with six items (e.g., “I am very uncertain about what this person is really like,”
and “I can predict this person's thoughts very well”), two of which were reverse coded. For exclusive
Facebook friends, M = 3.41, SD = 1.02, and alpha = .95, while for exclusive face-to-face friends, M =
4.22, SD = .77, and alpha = .95.
Trust. Larzelere and Huston (1980) created the Dyadic Trust Scale that measures trust with
respect to a particular person and reported an alpha reliability of .93. Trust in a Facebook and a faceto-face friend was measured with four items of which one item was reverse coded. Example items
included “There are times when my friend cannot be trusted,” and “I feel that my friend can be counted
on to help me.” For exclusive Facebook friends, M = 3.85, SD = .8, alpha = .89, while for exclusive
face-to-face friends, M = 4.21, SD = .79, and alpha = .87.
Duration of Relationship. Duration of relationship was measured with a single item: “How long
have you known each other?” Respondents were asked to indicate the amount of time measured in
5
days, months, or years. The duration of the relationship for both types of friends was an average of 6
years, for exclusive Facebook friend (M = 6.43, SD = 5.41), and for exclusive face-to-face friend (M =
6.02, SD = 5.57).
Frequency of Communication. Frequency of communication was measured with one question,
“How often do you communicate through Facebook/face-to-face?” Responses ranged from “Less than
once a week” to “Several times per day.” Most respondents (47.9%) indicated that they communicate
with their exclusive Facebook friend less than once a week, and only 15% respondents indicated that
they communicate with each other every day or several times per day. For an exclusive face-to-face
friend, 42% respondents indicated that they communicate with each other every day or several times
per day, and 29% that they communicate with each other two-three times per week.
Data Analysis
For both types of friendships, the four hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling
(SEM) with the method of maximum likelihood. SEM was selected as a statistical methodology
because of its several advantages over regression modeling, including: more flexible assumptions
(particularly allowing interpretation even in the face of multicollinearity); use of confirmatory factor
analysis to reduce the measurement error; better model visualization; the desirability of testing models
overall rather than coefficients individually; and, the ability to test models with multiple dependents
(Garson, 2009).
Research question 1 was analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA).
Before calculating MANCOVA, it was checked to see if the covariate was highly correlated with the
dependent variable. If that was not the case, multivariate technique was performed without a control
variable.
Results
On average, participants indicated that they spend 107 minutes (1.78 hours) per day on Facebook (SD
= 82.18), ranging from a minimum of 0 minutes to a maximum of 420 minutes (8 hours). The average
number of Facebook friends in the sample was 568 (SD = 371), with the lowest number of 16 friends
to the highest number of 2,300 friends.
Tables 1 and 2 provide the correlation matrices of the variables included in the model as
presented in Figure 1. All variables of the structural model were significantly related with each other.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used to test the
hypotheses. Results showed that the overall fit of the final measurement models was good for both
exclusive Facebook friendships [χ² (317)/df = 2.31, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .06] and exclusive
face-to-face friendships [χ² (317)/df = 2.24, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .06)]. Therefore, the two
structural models were examined following Kline’s (2005) guidelines for the acceptance of model fit.
The two structural models (see Figures 2 and 3) had an excellent fit, showing the support for all four
hypotheses (Table 3).
6
Table 1
Correlations Among All Variables in Exclusive Facebook Friendship Model
1. Social attraction
2. Self – disclosure
3. Predictability
4. Trust
Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01
1
1.0
.58**
.47**
.51**
2
3
4
1.0
.75**
.69**
1.0
.55**
1.0
Table 2
Correlations Among All Variables in Exclusive Face-to-Face Friendship Model
1. Social attraction
2. Self – disclosure
3. Predictability
4. Trust
Note. *p < .05; ** p < .01
1
1.0
.52**
.41**
.47**
2
3
4
1.0
.71**
.62**
1.0
.53*
1.0
7
Goodness of fit summary: χ² (317)/df = 2.28, CFI=.97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .06
Figure 2. Self-Disclosure between Facebook friends
8
Goodness of fit summary: χ² (317)/df = 2.26, CFI=.97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .06
Figure 3. Self-disclosure between face-to-face friends
Table 3
Summary of Path Coefficients for Models Representing Facebook and Face-to-Face Relationships
Path Analysis
Trust
Trust
Predictability
Self-disclosure
Note. * p < .01
→ Predictability
→ Self-disclosure
→ Self-disclosure
→ Social attraction
Exclusive Facebook Exclusive
Face-toFriend
face Friend
.58*
.53*
.46*
.51*
.54*
.43*
.74*
.61*
9
Thus, the analyses support all four hypotheses: increased trust leads to greater self-disclosure (H1) and
predictability (H2), greater predictability leads to greater self-disclosure (H3), and greater selfdisclosure leads to greater social attraction (H4). In order to answer the first research question—is
there a difference in the amount of self-disclosure and trust between exclusive Facebook friends and
exclusive face-to-face friends when controlling for the frequency of interaction – a MANCOVA was
computed using IBM SPSS. Results showed a significant interaction effect for the frequency of
communication and type of relationship on self-disclosure (Wilks’ Lambda = .97; F (8,1246) = 2.63, p
= .007, partial η² =.017). Mean comparisons revealed that face-to-face friends discussed more intimate
topics than did Facebook friends, resulting in a statistically significant difference (MFTF = 4.34; MFB =
3.67, F (4, 623) = 4.73, p < .001). Similar findings were found for trust. Participants reported that they
trust their face-to-face friends more than their Facebook friends (MFTF = 4.21; MFB = 3.85, F (4, 623)
= 2.85, p < .05).
Discussion
Results show that all four hypotheses were supported. First, the findings indicate that the more trust
individuals have in their exclusive Facebook friends and their exclusive face-to-face friends, the more
they self-disclose to them and the more they can predict their behavior. These findings are in line with
earlier face-to-face studies (Foubert & Sholley, 1996; Steel, 1991) that suggested that of all personality
factors trust is the most influential in predicting self-disclosure. The same seems to hold true on
Facebook. Trust and predictability have the most influence on how much friends choose to disclose to
each other, both on Facebook and face-to-face (H1). These findings support Walther’s (1996) claims
that online and offline relational development are very similar. How is this possible in a limited-cues
environment? As Tidwell and Walther (2002) explained, individuals adapt their communicative
behavior in limited-cue environments, using different content and linguistic strategies (e.g., checking
another person’s profile page on Facebook).
H2 was also supported. Predictability of the Facebook friend’s behavior and predictability of
the face-to-face friend’s behavior is related to how much they disclose to them. Uncertainty reduction
theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) can help explain this finding. Uncertainty reduction can be
accomplished through active, passive, or interactive strategies. While we often cannot see our
Facebook friends in person, we can observe their behavior by focusing on their status updates, the
photographs they choose to post, as well as the biographic information posted on their profiles. We
can also reduce the uncertainty of their behavior by verbally disclosing to them. According to Axiom 1
of URT, increased verbal communication results in easier prediction of another person’s reaction,
which in turn results in more verbal communication.
Similarly, while attraction drives self-disclosure (Craig & Wright, 2012), self-disclosure on
Facebook, as this study shows, also drives more attraction (H4). What makes people like the person to
whom they self-disclose online? First, we tell secrets to people hoping they will like us more. Some
research has suggested that those who disclose intimate secrets tend to be more liked than those who
do not (Collins & Miller, 1994). However, it is not just that we disclose to those that we like, we tend
to like them more because we have self-disclosed to them. This finding was true in both exclusive
face-to-face and exclusive Facebook relationships in this study. Possibly, disclosure may not have
much to do with another person, but more about the feelings friends experience after disclosure.
Humans like to talk about themselves. Talking produces a catharsis, a good feeling. Humans willingly
self-disclose because self-disclosure has a reward value comparable to those of food and sex (Tamir &
Mitchell, 2012). People enjoy self-disclosure if they know other people are listening. All of these go
along with self-promoting opportunities of social networking sites.
10
However, when comparing the amount of self-disclosure and the amount of trust between two
pairs of friends, this study shows that respondents trust and self-disclosure less to their Facebook
friends (RQ1). However, before jumping to a conclusion about online relationships’ quality, it is
important to notice that Facebook friendships in this study were not close friendships. In fact, most
respondents indicated that their exclusive Facebook friend is a long-distance friend. On the other hand,
their exclusive face-to-face friend is often their best friend. Therefore, rather than claiming that
relationships developed and maintained through social network sites include less self-disclosure and
trust because of the medium itself, it is important to remember that respondents had in mind two
different types of friend (close vs. long-distance). Future research should study how the same two
friends communicate on Facebook versus face-to-face while studying their need for interpersonal
communication.
Future research may also take advantage of alternative measures for self-disclosure, thus
expanding the concept by measuring not only depth of self-disclosure, but also amount, honesty or
accuracy, and intentionality of self-disclosure with one or more Facebook or face-to-face friends. It is
also important to control whom the participants chose as their “exclusive” Facebook friend, and their
“exclusive” face-to-face friend. One way to control this would be to ask participants to access their
Facebook page at the time of an experiment and record their interaction with a friend. Also, future
work should differentiate between types of Facebook friends. Are “exclusive Facebook friends”
individuals who are close or casual friends? Future studies could limit the choice of a friend by
specifying individuals who interact with each other using only one medium throughout the course of
their relationship. Trust and predictability are important concepts to study, especially in the digital age
where relationships develop, are maintained, and even dissolve online.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winstron.
Anderson, T. A., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online
romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57, 153-172. doi:
10.1080/10510970600666834
Ang, L., & Lee, B.-C. (2000). Influencing perceptions of trustworthiness in Internet commerce: A
rational choice framework. Proceedings of Fifth CollECTer Conference on Electronic
Commerce, 1–12. Brisbane, Australia.
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through social network
sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction. Computers in
Human Behavior, 26, 100-109. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a
developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1,
99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G., & Wright, Z. (2002). Effects of four computer-mediated
communications channels on trust development. In Proceedings of Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (p. 135-140).
Cho, S. (2006). Effects of motivations and gender on adolescents’ self-disclosure in online chatting.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Communication Association, Dresden,
Germany.
11
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
Craig, E., & Wright, K. B. (2012). Computer-mediated relational development and maintenance on
Facebook. Communication Research Reports, 29, 119-129. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2012.66777
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., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships.
Communications of the ACM, 45, 103–108.
Dyer, K. (2013). Should I message them first?: How Facebook plays a role in college students’
relationships. Unpublished undergraduate thesis.
Feng, J., Lazar, J., & Preece, J. (2004). Empathic and predictable communication influences online
interpersonal trust. Behavior and Information Technology, 23, 97-106.
Foubert, J., & Sholley, B. K. (1996). Effects of gender, gender role, and individualized trust on selfdisclosure. In Handbook of gender research (pp. 277-288). Carte Madera, CA: Select Press.
Garson,
G.
D.
(2009).
Structural
equation
modeling.
Retrieved
from
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm
Gennaro, C. D., & Dutton, W. H. (2007). Reconfiguring friendships: Social relationships and the
Internet.
Information,
Communication
&
Society,
10,
591-618.
doi:
10.1080/13691180701657949
Henderson, S., & Gilding, M. (2004). ‘I've never clicked this much with anyone in my life’: Trust and
hyperpersonal communication in online friendships. New Media & Society, 6, 487-506. doi:
10.1177/146144804044331
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
Communication & Society, 8(2), 125-147. doi: 10.1080/13691180500146185
Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T. B., Paine-Schofield, C. B. (2011). Privacy, trust, and selfdisclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction, 25, 1-24. doi: 10.1080/07370020903586662
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Krikorian, D. H., Lee, J., Chock, T. M., & Harms, C. (2000). Isn’t that spatial?: Distance and
communication in a 2-D virtual environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
5(4). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol5/issue4/krikorian.html
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding interpersonal
trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42(3), 595-604. doi:
10.2307/351903
McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1983). Self-disclosure and liking: An integration theory
approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 202-213 doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.ep7383154.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech
Monographs, 41, 261-266. doi: 10.1080/03637757409375845
Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of offline and online relationships: The role of
multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society, 22, 137-148.
doi: 10.1080/01972240600677805
Metzger, M. J. (2006). Effects of site, vendor, and consumer characteristics on web site trust
and disclosure. Communication Research, 33(3), 155–179. doi: 10.1177/0093650206287076
Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, foundations, functions, failures and figures. Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
12
Obremski, C. (2008). The interplay of real life and Facebook in defining interpersonal romantic
relationships. Retrieved from http://www.collino.net/papers/pdf/Collin Obremski-The Interplay
of Real Life and Facebook.pdf
Parks, M. (2010). Who are Facebook friends? Exploring the composition of Facebook friend
networks. Presented at the International Communication Association, Singapore.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46,
1-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01462.x
Pellegrini, R. J., Hicks, R. A., & Meyers-Winton, S. (1978). Effects of simulated approval-seeking and
avoiding on self-disclosure, self-presentation, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of
Psychology, 98(2), 231-241.
Rotenberg, K. J. (1995). The socialization of trust: Parents’ and children’s interpersonal trust.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18, 713–726.
Sheldon, P. (2009). I'll poke you. You’ll poke me! Self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability
and trust as important predictors of Facebook relationships. Cyberpsychology: Journal of
Psychosocial
Research
on
Cyberspace,
3(2),
article
1.
http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111101&article=1
Steel, J. L. (1991). Interpersonal correlates of trust and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports,
68, 1319-1320.
Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding.
PNAS, 109(21), 8038-8043. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202129109
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated effects on disclosure, impressions, and
interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication
Research, 28, 317-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003
Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental
observations over time. Organizational Science, 6, 186–203. doi: 10.1287/orsc.6.2.186
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and
hyperpersonal
interaction.
Communication
Research,
23,
3–43.
doi:
10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or :( and the Net :('s
with You, :) and You :) alone. In V. Manusov, & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
nonverbal communication (pp. 461-479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in
computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324-348. doi:
10.1177/089443930101900307
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure.
Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00494.x
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257. doi: 10.1111/j.14682958.1977.tb00523.x
Wheeless, L. R., Frymier, A. B., & Thompson, C. A. (1992). A comparison of verbal output and
receptivity in relation to attraction and communication satisfaction in interpersonal
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 40, 102-115. doi: 10.1080/01463379209369826
Yum, Y., & Hara, K. (2005). Computer-mediated relationship development: A cross-cultural
comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1). Retrieved from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/yum.html.
13
AUTHORS’ DETAILS
Pavica Sheldon is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Arts at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville.
Loretta Pecchioni is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at
Louisiana State University.
14