Testing Relationship Development between Recently ...

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48 ISSN: 2147-3366 (Print) 2148-7502 (Online) DOI: 10.15340/2147336621902

Research Article

Testing Relationship Development between Recently Added Facebook Friends Pavica Sheldon1* 1 University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA Abstract: The aim of the present study was to explore how two friends disclose to each other on Facebook and if self-disclosure is related to social attraction and predictability of a friend’s behavior. Using data from a survey of 317 participants, structural equation modeling analyses revealed that individuals who are socially attracted to each other would discuss a variety of topics on Facebook. The more intimate Facebook discussions are, the more certain new friends feel about each other’s behavior and attitudes. However, the breadth dimension of self-disclosure was not related to predictability. Similarly to intimate disclosure, it is not enough to just talk about a variety of topics to increase predictability of behavior. Users of social network sites can use a variety of other tactics to reduce uncertainty. Overall, this study argues that some aspects of the social penetration and uncertainty reduction theories could be applied to Facebook relationships. However, we need to find better measures to assess mediated social attraction and mediated self-disclosure. Keywords: Uncertainty reduction theory, Facebook, self-disclosure, social attraction *Pavica Sheldon, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Commucation Arts Department, Morton Hall 342C, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA Email: [email protected]

Introduction For millions of people around the globe, social media have become the unavoidable part of their daily lives. The most popular social media are social network sites (SNS) that individuals use to maintain relationships with friends and family (Sheldon, 2008). Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social network sites (SNSs) as web-based applications allowing three functions: “1) users construct a public or semi-public profile; 2) present a list of other users to whom an individual is connected; and 3) view and follow that list and the lists of others within the system” (p. 211). Social network sites are particularly useful for strengthening weak ties (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). The most popular SNS is Facebook. In his study Parks (2010) found that acquaintances, lapsed friendships, and “friends of others” account for over half of all Facebook contacts. Only 10% of all contacts were judged by users as being very close or strong relationships. These numbers are not unusual and resemble an average person’s number of close face-to-face friends. Research by Craig and Wright (2012) and Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, and Tong (2008) supported the notion that existing interpersonal communication theories work in a social network setting. Craig and Wright (2012) examined the role of perceived similarity and social attraction on self-disclosure on Facebook, and they found that computer-mediated relational development and face-to-face relational development are quite similar. Craig and Wright (2012) also urged for the expansion of the model so it includes other variables. Therefore, the focus of the current study was to find out how two friends disclose to each other on Facebook and if selfdisclosure is related to social attraction and predictability of a friend’s behavior. The answers to this question can help us better understand the effects a medium can have on the relationship development and maintenance, especially in the light of recent studies suggesting that Facebook

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

39

may be especially well-suited for accruing bridging social capital (Ellison, Vitak, Gray, & Lampe, 2014). Acar (2008) argued that online social networks, more popularly known as social network sites (SNS), are not only larger than regular social networks but also structurally different since they are not highly influenced by demographic factors, such as income and attractiveness. An average Facebook user has several times more friends on Facebook than in real life (Acar, 2008; Sheldon, 2008), because of a perceived lower risk of accepting new members, ease of requesting a membership, social desirability (positive feeling of online popularity) and failure to exclude members who are no longer contacted (Acar, 2008, p. 77). Lack of anonymity and the physical proximity of the users in SNS distinguishes them from other forms of CMC (Acar). Social media scholars suggest that technological tools such as social network sites assist us in maintaining friendship relationships with more individuals and therefore for strengthening weak ties (Donath, 2007; Donath & Boyd, 2004; Ellison et al., 2007). Numerous studies have been conducted in the area of interpersonal relationships to describe how friendships develop from these acquaintanceships (Chan & Cheng, 2004). According to Parks and Floyd (1996), interpersonal relationships of all types are usually conceptualized as developing from the impersonal to the personal along a series of relatively specific dimensions: an increase in interdependence, breadth and depth of the interaction, a shared communicative code change (specialized ways of communicating), an interpersonal predictability and understanding, and a continued relationship into the future. To understand newly created Facebook friendships, this study employs uncertainty reduction and social penetration theory. Theories of relationship development Uncertainty reduction theory (URT) (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) posits that interpersonal relationships develop as individuals reduce uncertainty about each other’s behavior. To reduce uncertainty, individuals engage in various information-seeking strategies (Berger, Gardener, Parks, Schulman, & Miller, 1976): 1) passive strategies including observing a target person’s behavior; 2) active strategies involving proactive efforts to gain knowledge about another person; and 3) interactive strategies or direct communication with a target. Antheunis, Valkenburg, and Peter (2010) examined which uncertainty reduction strategies the members of social network sites have used to gain information about a person whom they have recently met. They discovered that the passive uncertainty reduction strategy was most commonly used among the users of Hyves, a Dutch site similar to Facebook; however, the interactive strategy was the only strategy that effectively reduced the level of uncertainty. Tidwell and Walther (2002) found that interactive strategies can be easily utilized in both a face-to-face and computer-mediated context, while passive and active strategies have possibilities to be applied in a computer-mediated context. Channels such as social network sites were frequently reported to be useful regardless of whether the target was well known or less known, unlike phone calls, e-mails and face-to-face communication that were useful depending on the relationship between the target and seeker. SNSs were reported as useful for learning about all types of targets (Westerman, Van Der Heide, Kline, & Walther, 2008). One of interactive strategies for uncertainty reduction is self-disclosure (Berger et al., 1976), defined as intentional sharing of information about oneself, including personal experiences, ideas and attitudes, feelings and values. According to social penetration theory (SPT; Altman & Taylor, 1973), relationship development is a gradual process, systematic and predictable, while self-disclosure is at its core. Altman and Taylor used the metaphor of an onion to explain selfdisclosure. Disclosure begins on the outer layer and proceeds to the core of the onion. The penetration can be viewed along two dimensions: breadth and depth. Breadth consists of superficial information about ourselves that we share with other people early in the relationship (e.g., preferences in music, clothing, food, etc.). It often refers to the number of various topics discussed. Depth is defined as the degree of intimacy that guides topic discussions. It typically includes strong feelings, values, and beliefs. A number of studies conducted in both face-to-face and computer-mediated settings found that it is attraction toward the stranger that determines the subject’s willingness to disclose (Collins & Miller, 1994; Craig & Wright, 2012; Levine, 2000; Ramirez et al., 2002). Traditional approaches to disclosure-liking relationships predict that individuals who generally disclose generally like others; and individuals also disclose more to those they like (Miller, 1990). According to Theorem

40

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

5 of URT (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), people disclose intimate information to those they like and withhold intimate information from those whom they do not like. Ellison, Vitak, Gray and Lampe (2014) argued that social affordances of Facebook “make it easier for individuals to invest in and extract social resources from their network and to access Friends of Friends, who may provide novel informational resources.” (p. 868) Social capital, according to them, is developed through relationship maintenance behavior which on Facebook includes congratulating or sympathizing with others. Donath (2007) talked about “social grooming” or activities that signal attention, build trust and create expectations of reciprocal attention. Those might include public comments such as “Happy Birthday”. Tufekci (2008) argued that social grooming is a desire to stay in touch with friends and curiosity about others. According to McCroskey and McCain (1974), social attraction reflects our desire to develop a friendship with that person. Based on current knowledge in this area, this study predicts that users would disclose more to a Facebook friend to whom they are socially attracted. For instance, they might view another person’s info page to learn about their interests, hobbies, and political views. If those are similar to their own, they might be more willing to self-disclose. In fact, similarity is one of the main predictors of social attraction (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Early studies of relationship development have reported that self-disclosure is rewarding to a recipient, and people will give more rewards to those whom they like (e.g., Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969). The following hypothesis is then proposed: H1: Social attraction and self-disclosure between recently added Facebook friends will be positively related. According to social penetration theory, at the beginning of any relationship, people explore with a number of different topics (the breadth) to find out what they have in common with another person. Gradually, as the relationship develops, they start disclosing more intimate information (the depth). Altman and Taylor (1987) argued that as relationships move toward intimacy, a wide range of topics is discussed (breadth), with several of the topics to be intimately discussed (depth). Thus, it is expected that the breadth and depth of self-disclosure would be positively related: H2: Breadth and depth of self-disclosure between recently added Facebook friends will be positively related. Social penetration theory can explain self-disclosure in social media relationships as well (e.g., Antheunis et al., 2010; Craig & Wright, 2012). For instance, among the Dutch users of Hyves, Antheunis et al. found that interactive uncertainty reduction strategy, including self-disclosure, reduces the information seeker’s level of uncertainty most effectively. When uncertainty decreases, predictability increases. In the context of Facebook relationships, this means that the more intimate information friends disclose on Facebook, the less uncertain they feel about each other’s behavior. For example, if a friend says that he/she does not like pasta, I know that he/she would not like to dine in an Italian restaurant. The following hypothesis is then proposed: H3: Self-disclosure and predictability will be positively related. A survey of individuals in exclusively online romantic relationships found that the length of time the relationships lasted and the amount of time spent communicating with one’s partner correlated with perceived commitment, intimacy, and trust (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006). Meeting face-to-face prior to communicating online helped to promote trust (Zheng et al., 2002). Other studies reported that information disclosure increased the impression of trustworthiness (Christophides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009). According to Axiom 6 of URT (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) – “when people have things in common, they are more likely to reduce uncertainty about the other.” On Facebook, for example, if I like someone, I will most likely look up their “basic info” on Facebook, their photos and previous posts. This will help me in understanding how they will behave in the future. In other words, I will be able to predict how they are going to behave. Therefore, this study proposes that: H4: Social attraction between recently added Facebook friends and predictability of each other’s behavior will be positively related. Methods Participants and procedure The sample consisted of 120 men (37.9%) and 197 women (62.1%) enrolled in various courses at

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

41

a large research university in the United States. The average participant’s age was 20 (SD = 1.77), ranging from 17 to 30 years. Two hundred and two (79.5%) were Caucasian or White, followed by African-Americans (n = 36, 11.4%), and Asian-Americans (n = 10, 3.2%). In order to participate in the study, participants had to be current, active members of the Facebook community. To prevent a carry-over effect, answer choices were randomized for each participant. Participation was voluntary and students received research credit. The study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Measures Participants first had to think about an individual whom they had added most recently as a Facebook friend and to whom they talk only through Facebook (e.g., met at a friend’s party). They had to think about their new relationships, rather than people from the past that they have known for years before adding them as a Facebook friend. Participants indicated that they have known their Facebook friend for an average of 3.7 months (Mn = 3.72). Using five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree), four latent constructs – social attraction, breadth of self-disclosure, depth of self-disclosure, and predictability – were measured in this study. First, social attraction was measured using the “social attraction” component of McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) Interpersonal Attraction Scale (IAS). Six items measuring social attraction were included (e.g., “He (she) is a friend of mine,” “We have never established a personal friendship with each other”). Three items were reverse coded. Cronbach’s alpha was .67 (M = 3.04; SD = .63). A higher mean represented more social attraction to a person. Self-disclosure to a recently added Facebook friend was measured by Parks & Floyd’s (1996) scale. Although other scales exist (e.g., Joinson, 2001; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976) to measure selfdisclosure in both an online and offline environment, this study used the Parks and Floyd (1996) breadth and depth scale because it captures disclosure to another person more directly than other scales and is topic-free. Respondents were asked to report only self-disclosure on Facebook that happened through a private message or a wall post to another person. Original scale items were therefore reworded to match recently added Facebook friends (e.g., “I try not to tell this person anything intimate or personal about myself on Facebook”, “Our Facebook communication is limited to just a few specific topics”). One item in the breadth dimension and three items in the depth dimension were reverse coded (Mbreadth = 2.57; SD = .94, Cronbach’s alpha = .76; Mdepth = 2.00; SD = .82, Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Finally, predictability was examined using Parks and Floyd’s scale (1996) with five 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 (M = 2.00; SD = .87, Cronbach’s alpha = .94). A higher number on the predictability scale meant that a person has lesser uncertainty about their partner. Participants were also asked to report their age and gender, as well as the duration of relationship. Results Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 predicted that individuals who report high levels of social attraction with their most recently added Facebook friend will also report having greater breadth of selfdisclosure with that friend (H1) - which would also mean more intimacy of self-disclosure (H2) and greater predictability of their friend’s behavior (H3 and H4). Table 1 provides the correlation matrix of the variables included in the model (Figure 1). Integrating the literature and hypotheses described above, the proposed research model (Figure 1) was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM has several advantages over regression modeling, including: its 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). Confirmatory factor analysis of four constructs was first conducted. Results showed that the overall fit of the final measurement models was good (χ²/df = 3.28, CFI =.95, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08.) However, three items measuring social attraction loaded poorly on the social attraction construct and were dropped from the structural model. Those included: “It is difficult to meet and talk with him/her,” “He/she just does not really fit into my circle of offline friends,” and “We have never established a personal friendship with each other.” After dropping the items, reliability of social attraction scale increased, Cronbach’s alpha = .71. One item measuring predictability of a

42

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

friend’s behavior (“I can accurately predict how this person will respond to me in most situations”) also loaded poorly on the predictability construct and was excluded from further analysis. Subsequently, reliability of scale increased, Cronbach’s alpha = .942. Following the confirmatory factor analysis, dependent relationships were established between the latent constructs of social attraction, breadth of self-disclosure, depth of selfdisclosure, and predictability. The structural model was analyzed using the maximum likelihood estimation model. The proposed model yielded a satisfactory fit (χ²/df = 2.05; p < .01; CFI = .97, TLI = .96; RMSEA = .05; Figure 2). The significance of path coefficients was examined for all variables in the model (Table 2). Two paths were not significant. One hypothesis was fully supported (H2), two were partially supported (H1 and H3), and one was not supported (H4). First, social attraction was positively related to the breadth of self-disclosure, but it was not related to the depth of self-disclosure (H1 partially supported). A very strong relationship (β = .89) existed between the breadth and depth of self-disclosure, meaning that the more topics recently added Facebook friends discuss, the more intimate they become (H2 supported). Although there was no significant relationship between the breadth dimension of self-disclosure and predictability, there was a strong relationship between depth of self-disclosure and predictability (β = .72) – even when controlling for the duration of the relationship between two Facebook friends; r(313) =.68, p =.000 (H3 partially supported). In addition, the relationship between social attraction and predictability was significant but negative, r(313) = -.36, p .05) – but it was positively related to predictability, r(317) =.13, p = .022. Discussion This study makes several contributions to understanding self-disclosure and relationship development through a social network site. First, individuals who are socially attracted to each other would discuss a variety of topics on Facebook. Both social exchange (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and social penetration theory suggest that information exchange is central to liking and the formation of relationships (Limperos, Tamul, Woolley, Spinda, & Sundar, 2014). In this study, liking means that two friends discuss a variety of different topics; however, those discussions were not intimate. Theorem 5 of uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) also suggests that people tend to disclose intimate information to persons they like. However, in this study, there is no relationship between social attraction and the depth dimension of selfdisclosure. This important finding indicates that for intimate self-disclosures on Facebook, having a social attraction for another person is not enough. People do not like to reveal too much too soon about themselves. According to social penetration theory, liking reflects the development of intimacy through disclosure across a period of time (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Disclosure can also be risky as a discloser gives up some degree of privacy when sharing information with others (Altman, 1975), especially those that belong in a circle of “friends of a friend” on Facebook. According to the functional model of self-disclosure in social media (Bazarova & Choi, 2014), the differences in dyadic disclosures might be understood through the analysis of goals that people seek and rewards that they attain through disclosure. New Facebook friends might be afraid that too much intimate disclosure will make them less attractive to another person. Most Facebook friendships are weak ties, therefore, less social relevant that strong ties. In fact, a comparison of participants’ self-disclosure on two dimensions indicates that they report greater breadth with their newly added Facebook friend than depth. This could also be expected in initiating stages of the relationship. According to social penetration theory, as relationships move toward intimacy, a wide range of topics is discussed with some of those on an intimate level (Altman & Taylor, 1987). Another noteworthy finding is a high social attraction score between newly added Facebook friends. This score is especially high (3.04) when compared to self-disclosure (2.57 for breadth and 2.0 for depth), also measured using a 5-point Likert scale. It is possible that respondents who have just added each other as a Facebook friend rely on the “liking” factor more than anything else, since they knew each other for the least amount of time. This liking might also be the result of having a mutual friend. In open-ended questions, participants in this study report that their new Facebook friend is often a “friend of a friend” or “girlfriend/boyfriend of a friend.” Therefore,

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

43

it is likely that participants belong in the same social community and have similar views and interests that contributed to a social attraction on Facebook. Zhao, Grasmuck, and Martin (2008) advocated the concept of “anchored relationships,” which are online relationships based on offline connections. Having mutual friends on Facebook can help new friends be more socially attracted to each other, assuming the common ground and mutual interests. This again reflects the bridging ties characteristic of social network sites (Ellison et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2014) In line with earlier research (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Antheunis et al., 2010; Parks & Floyd, 1996), the findings of this study show that the more intimate Facebook discussions are (the depth of self-disclosure), the more certain new friends feel about each other’s behavior and attitudes. These findings support Axiom I of uncertainty reduction theory. Discussing private feelings and beliefs can help increase predictability of another person’s behavior. This is a novel finding but it is reasonable to expect it considering that beliefs can aid in predicting somebody’s behavior. However, the breadth dimension of self-disclosure was not related to predictability. Similarly to intimate disclosure, it is not enough to just talk about a variety of topics to increase predictability of behavior. In this study we have tested only self-disclosure as a way of reducing uncertainty about a Facebook friend. Users of social network sites can use a variety of other tactics to reduce uncertainty. For example, they can observe another person unobtrusively via his or her personal profile (Walther, 2008) or ask a third person about the user that they have just added as a Facebook friend. Lower score on the depth of self-disclosure in our study might also be expected considering the tenets of social penetration theory, which argues that in initial stages, face-to-face relationships have narrow breath and shallow depth. As relationships move toward intimacy, a wide range of topics is discussed with some of those on an intimate level (Altman & Taylor, 1987). In this study, it was also hypothesized that social attraction and predictability would be related; in contrast to what this study predicted, the relationship between the two variables was negative. Social attraction itself will not lead to increased predictability. Antheunis et al. (2010) found that, to increase predictability, interactive strategies (e.g., self-disclosure) are the most effective ones in social network friendships, although passive strategies (observing somebody’s behavior on Facebook) are most often used. In this study, the depth of self-disclosure was the only factor that could successfully predict another Facebook friend’s behavior. Due to limited non-verbal and contextual cues, this makes sense. Regardless of the medium in which they develop, relationships require time. The more time a person spends interacting with another person, the closer they become. In accordance with the mere exposure effect, our analysis shows that the longer that they knew each other, the more predictable the behaviors of friends were. Physical proximity is therefore not important in online relationships, but rather how often friends contact each other and how long they have known each other (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002; Wellman & Gulia, 1999). If long-distance Facebook friends do not interact often through Facebook status and messages, it is unlikely that they will feel close and intimate. The major limitation is the lack of researcher’s control over whom the participants chose as a “recently added Facebook friend.” Although participants were offered an example of the type of friend who would belong into this category, individuals in the study might not choose a friend that would belong into desired category. One way to deal with this problem is to delete a case if the participant describes a person who does not fit into the test category. Finally, this study has focused only on newly created Facebook friendships. As Walther (1992) stated, if given enough time, relationships can become personal online. In our study, despite the shortness of the relationship, relationship dynamics follow the face-to-face relational trajectory (social attraction leads to greater breadth of self-disclosure, greater breadth leads to greater depth, and greater depth leads to more predictability). Future studies should take advantage of alternative measures for self-disclosure, thus expanding the concept by measuring not only breadth and depth of self-disclosure, but also the amount, honesty, or accuracy and intentionality of self-disclosure with one or more Facebook friends. They could examine long-term Facebook friends as well as their off-line disclosure and contact. In addition, three items measuring social attraction loaded poorly on the social attraction construct and were dropped from the structural model. It is possible that McCroskey and McCain’s (1974) interpersonal attraction scale cannot effectively measure mediated interpersonal attraction. Despite a number of studies reporting high internal reliability coefficients for the McCroskey and McCain scale, this study is not the first one to have low reliability scores for social

44

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

attraction component when applied to Facebook relationship. Craig and Wright (2012) reported a .75 value and Sheldon (2009) reported .76 value for the social attraction scale. Overall, this study contributes to existing literature about self-disclosure and relationship maintenance by examining recently initiated Facebook friendships. While some predictions about online relationships were obtained from theories of interpersonal communication and relationship development, which were initially proposed by Parks and Floyd (1996), we have to find better measures to assess mediated social attraction and mediated self-disclosure.

References Acar, A. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of online social networking behavior: The case of Facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3, 62-83. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winstron. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. Roloff & G. Miller (Ed.), Interpersonal processes (pp. 257-277). London, England: Sage Publications. 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 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.005 Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64, 635-657. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12106  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 Berger, C. R., Gardener, R. R., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R. (1976). Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 149-171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T.  (1998).  Attraction and close relationships.  In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 193-281).  New York: McGraw-Hill. Boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/

vol13/issue1/Boyd.ellison.html

Chan, D. K.-S., & Cheng, G. H.-L. (2004). A comparison of offline and online friendship qualities at different stages of relationship development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 305-320. doi: 10.1177/0265407504042834 Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different processes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 341-345. 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: 10.1080/08824096.2012.667777 Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 231251. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.x Donath, J. S., & Boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71-82. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168. Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

45

Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855-870. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12078 Garson, G. D. (2009). Structural equation modeling. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/ PA765/structur.htm Jiang, C. L., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). The disclosure-intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research, 37, 58-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.x 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. Levine, D. (2000). Virtual attraction: what rocks your boat. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 3, 565-573. doi: 10.1089/109493100420179. Limperos, A. M., Tamul, D. J., Woolley, J. K., Spinda, J. S., & Shyam Sundar, S. (2014). “It’s Not Who You Know, but Who You Add:” An investigation into the differential impact of friend adding and selfdisclosure on interpersonal perceptions on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 496-505. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.037 McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266. doi: 10.1080/03637757409375845 McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S. & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00246 Miller, L. C. (1990). Intimacy and liking: Mutual influence and the role of unique relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 50-60. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.50 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 Ramirez, A., Jr., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human Communication Research, 28, 213-228. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00804.x Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20, 67-75. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105.20.2.6 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, article 1. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. 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 Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook, and MySpace. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 544-564. doi:10.1080/13691180801999050 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. (2008). Social information processing theory. In L. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite, (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication. Multiple perspectives. London: Sage. Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 167–194). New York: Westerman, D., Van Der Heide B, Klein, K., & Walther, J. (2008). How do people really seek information about others? Information seeking across Internet and traditional communication channels. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 751-767. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00418.x 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

46

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59–63. Zhao, S, Grasmuck, S. & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816-1836. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012 Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2002). Trust without touch: jumpstarting longdistance trust with initial social activities. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.

Social Media Studies 2015; 2(1): 39-48

47

Table 1. Correlations Matrix of Constructs 1 1.00 -.07 -.02 .10 .13*

Duration of relationship Social attraction Self disclosure - breadth Self disclosure - depth Self disclosure - predictability

2

3

4

5

1.00 .59** .52** .31**

1.00 .69** .57**

1.00 .68**

1.00

Table 2. Summary of Path Coefficients for Self-Disclosure on Facebook Model Path Analysis

A New Facebook Friend

Social attraction → Breadth of self-disclosure

.85**

Social attraction → Depth of self-disclosure

ns

Breadth of self-disclosure → Depth of self-disclosure

.89**

Breadth of self-disclosure → Predictability Depth of self-disclosure → Predictability

ns .72**

Social attraction → Predictability

-.36*

Note. ** p < .01; * p