Predictors and Social Consequences of Online Interactive Self-Disclosure: A Literature Review from 2002 to 2014

Abstract

Computer-mediated communication has become ubiquitous in the lives of today's youth. The current review synthesizes recent findings regarding adolescents' and young adults' online interactive self-disclosure, with a particular emphasis on the direct antecedents and effects. Three broad categories of predictors are discussed, including demographic information and internal states, dispositional factors, as well as contextual factors. In addition, the synthesis of studies exploring consequences of online interactive self-disclosure indicates positive outcomes for social-related constructs. The article concludes with recommendations for future research, including the analysis of actual computer-mediated exchanges and longitudinal research that takes into account the dynamic process of self-disclosure over time and across media.

Introduction

The youth have become the most prominent users of the Internet. Approximately 93% of adolescent American respondents reported going online in 2009,¹ and 98.6% of the 16- to 24-year-old Canadians surveyed in 2012 indicated that they have used the Internet.² With the influx of younger users, social purposes have come to top the list for online media.^3,4 It is not surprising that researchers have been interested in the integration of prosocial computer-mediated communication (CMC) within social interactions. Research examining CMC before 2002 reported negative consequences, such as higher levels of loneliness, social isolation, depression, and stress.^5,6 After 2002, CMC has been associated with positive effects for social constructs, including friendship quality,^7,8 social connectedness,⁹ and social support.¹⁰ The shift in the use of CMC with new to existing friends has been credited as the differentiating factor for the outcomes.⁵ As adolescents have increasingly embraced CMC as a tool for socialization, CMC now supplements offline interactions with friends^9,11 rather than replaces quality time with peers.⁹

Although CMC may facilitate various components of friendships, self-disclosure has received much attention. Current technology makes it easy and convenient for friends to stay connected and for users to form new friendships by providing a comfortable environment to disclose personal information.¹² There are various perspectives, such as the stimulation hypothesis, social information processing theory, and hyperpersonal perspective of CMC, as well as supporting evidence, which indicate that the lack of nonverbal information associated with online chatting may decrease inhibitions (see Nguyen et al.¹³ for a review). For example, the sharing of personal information occurs online because self-disclosure becomes the only available means to communicate; also, online self-expression does not have the costs and social sanctions that are placed on face-to-face interactions. Although youth typically report greater self-disclosure with existing friends if the exchanges occur in person compared with online,^3,14 CMC is often preferred when discussing sensitive topics.¹¹ Self-disclosure is also often greater online than offline when considering meetings between strangers or acquaintances (Desjarlais et al. 2015, unpublished manuscript).¹⁵

Since adolescents are expressing themselves in a personal manner to some extent over the Internet, CMC has potential implications for intimacy development and psychosocial adjustment. In general, self-disclosure is a central feature of adolescent and adult friendships and an important component of one's feelings of intimacy.^16,17 In turn, close adolescent friendships contribute to well-being, self-esteem, and the quality of adult relationships.^16,18,19 To understand the effect of online self-disclosure, if any, within youth development and individual differences related to online self-disclosure, a review is necessary to collate the knowledge acquired. Therefore, the purpose of the present review is to synthesize current knowledge regarding interactive online self-disclosure to ascertain the consequences of disclosing information during CMC for psychosocial well-being, identify predictors of engagement, and suggest directions for future research.

Method for Literature Review

To examine online interactive self-disclosure among youth, we conducted a search on PsycInfo and Google Scholar using keywords that were variants of self-disclosure (i.e., “self-disclosure,” “disclose,” “intimacy”) in conjunction with online communication (i.e., “computer-mediated communication,” “instant messaging,” “computer,” “online,” “chat,” “Internet”). Search engine features were used to focus the search to the following inclusion criteria: publication year (January 2002^a to May 31, 2014), empirical study, and sample comprising adolescents (12–17 years) and/or young adults (18–25 years). Since the goal of the review was to include youth, we did not want to exclude relevant articles because a small portion of the sample would not be classified as a young adult. At the same time, however, to be confident that the majority of the sample would be classified as young adults, we required the entire sample to comprise university students with a mean age less than 23 years.

Abstracts were read for the 244 articles that resulted from the searches, and relevant articles (n = 50) were selected to read in entirety. Exclusion of articles based on a review of the abstracts was due to the exploration of passive rather than the targeted interactive self-disclosure.^b We also examined related articles from reference lists included in the studies resulting from the above search and articles known to the authors. A total of 29 articles that matched the inclusion criteria were selected for the current literature review.

Summary of Literature: Online Interactive Self-Disclosure Among the Youth

A summary of the methodologies

The characteristics of the samples, partner relationships, and measures of online self-disclosure varied across studies (Table 1). Overall, 12 studies sampled adolescents only, four studies included both adolescents and young adults, and 13 studies consisted of only university students. The majority of the studies examined online self-disclosure with partners whom they had existing friendships (n = 20). For the remaining nine studies, researchers explored online self-disclosure with an unacquainted partner. Participants were asked to communicate online with either a peer they met for the first time in the laboratory or a same-sex female confederate, respond to messages sent by a hypothetical partner, or reflect on their last message with an unknown partner. In regard to measuring online self-disclosure, researchers used a variety of methods to determine either a general score or scores for dimensions (e.g., depth, breadth, and frequency) of disclosure. A questionnaire, which asked participants to report how much they usually tell a specified person about a given number of intimate topics, was most popular, followed by Wheeless and Grotz's⁴⁹ self-disclosure scale or a variant of this scale. Other methods included coding utterances for personal information, identifying self-disclosure as a theme during a focus group, or using other self-reported measures for breadth and depth. Only one study manipulated self-disclosure, including it as an independent rather than dependent variable.

Table 1.

Summary of Methodologies for the Journal Articles Included in the Literature Review

Author	Sample age	Relationship to partner	Self-disclosure indicator
Antheunis et al.²⁰	17–31, M = 21	Unacquainted cross-sex partner	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Antheunis et al.²¹	17–31, M = 21	Unacquainted cross-sex partner	Coded utterances
Blau²²	7–17, M = 11	Existing relationships	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Bonetti et al.²³	10–16, M = 13	Existing relationships	Perceived value of CMC
Brunet and Schmidt²⁴	17–23, M = 19	Unacquainted same-sex female partner	Coded utterances
Bryce and Fraser²⁵	9–19	Existing relationships	Theme (focus group)
Cheng et al.²⁶	93% 18–24	Existing relationships	Self-disclosure index
Chiou²⁷	15–24, M = 20	Hypothetical partner	Willingness to reciprocate
Chiou and Wan^28,b	16–25	Existing relationships	Sexual self-disclosure scale for Taiwanese adolescents
Cho²⁹	high school students	Recall conversation with unknown partner	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Forgas³⁰	M = 19–20	Hypothetical partner	Coded utterances for self-disclosures
Hu et al.³¹	M = 21	Existing relationships	Miller social intimacy scale (MSIS)
Huang and Yang³²	13–18	Existing relationships	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Iacovelli and Johnson³³	17–36, M = 19	Unacquainted partner (confederate)	Manipulated self-disclosure
Jiang et al.³⁴	17–27, M = 20	Unacquainted partner (confederate)	Coded utterances
Koutamanis et al.^35,b	10–17	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Leung³⁶	18–36, M = 20	Existing relationships	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Peter et al.³⁷	9–18, M = 13	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Pornsakulvanich et al.³⁸	18–41, M = 20	Existing relationships	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Punyanunt-Carter³⁹	77.8% 19–26	Existing relationships	Revised self-disclosure scale^a
Schouten et al.⁴⁰	10–18, M = 14	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Schouten et al.⁴¹	17–31, M = 21	Unacquainted cross-sex partner	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Valkenburg and Peter⁴²	10–16	Existing relationships	Perceived value of CMC
Valkenburg and Peter^43,b	10–17	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Valkenburg et al.^44,b	10–17	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Wang et al.⁴⁵	15–19, M = 17	Existing relationships	Perceived value of CMC
Weidman et al.⁴⁶	M = 19	Existing relationships	How much they tell a specified person about given topics
Yang et al.⁴⁷	15–24, M = 18	Existing relationships	Online sexual self-disclosure scale for adolescents
Yum and Hara⁴⁸	18–31, M = 20	Existing relationships	Relationship development scale

The scale was based on the self-disclosure scale by Wheeless and Grotz.⁴⁹

Longitudinal study.

CMC, computer-mediated communication.

Synthesis of results

The 29 articles included in the present literature review involved explorations of the predictors and outcomes associated with online interactive self-disclosure. The popular statistical procedures used to test researchers' hypotheses included correlations,^{22,36,45,46,48} regression,^{20,21,31,32,34,38,41} path analysis,^28,35,37 structural equation modeling,^40,42–44 and parametric tests for group means (t-tests, ANOVAs, and MANOVAs).^{26–30,33,34,39,47} Among the studies, greater attention has been devoted to the antecedents of online self-disclosure, which we classified into three broad categories: (a) demographic information and internal states, (b) internal factors, and (c) contextual factors. The majority of studies exploring consequences of online self-disclosure focused on social-related constructs. In addition to summarizing the literature, links to relevant CMC perspectives and research, as well as offline self-disclosure studies beyond the 29 articles, are included.

Predictors of online self-disclosure

Demographic variables and internal states

First, researchers examined variability in online self-disclosure due to age and gender. Mirroring offline interactions with friends,⁵⁰ cross-sectional and longitudinal studies typically show that maturation from pre- to late adolescence is characterized by increases in the intimacy of online self-disclosure.^23,25,40,44 Although one study reported no relationship between age and online self-disclosure,²² this finding is not necessary contradictory to the aforementioned. The latter sample comprised predominately of preadolescents whose average age was 3 years younger than the above-mentioned studies. During preadolescence, there may be much variation in self-disclosure behaviors since the youth are typically beginning to value and engage in meaningful self-disclosure as part of their friendships.¹⁶ Therefore, as adolescents become more skilled and involved in intimate relationships over time, there is greater reliance on self-disclosure, both online and offline, for the maintenance of friendships. Moreover, older adolescents perceive self-disclosure online as less risky than younger counterparts,²⁵ which may extend from stronger social skills related to self-disclosure, such as knowing when, how much, and to whom to disclose to online and offline.

CMC provides opportunities for males and females to comfortably disclose personal information. Indeed, males perceive the Internet as enhancing breadth and depth of self-disclosures over face-to-face encounters to the same degree as females.⁴² Thus, any inhibitions adolescent boys have regarding sharing personal information about themselves may be reduced during online communication. Interestingly, some studies reported greater self-disclosure online for males than females when considering their existing relationships^22,28,45,47 or a hypothetical partner.²⁷ In contrast, others provide evidence for the reverse pattern. One group of researchers asked adolescents to indicate how much they tell a friend about particular intimate topics during CMC and they found that adolescent females disclosed more intimate information than males.^37,40,44 Similarly, female university students also reported greater frequency and more intimate self-disclosures online with an unacquainted partner than males.³⁹ Potentially, to understand the relationship between gender and online self-disclosure, researchers may have to explore more complex relationships. For example, Desjarlais and Willoughby⁷ indicate that the advantage of using computers with friends, including online chatting, is only apparent for adolescent boys when social anxiety is high. Among adolescent boys with high social anxiety, friendship quality was positively related to the use of computers with friends. Since participation in organized sports did not relate to friendship quality, the findings suggest that the benefits for boys' friendships are attributable to more than simple bonding through shared activities, such as increased self-disclosure. Thus, the interaction between gender and participant dispositions may need to be considered.

Gender and age also have been considered as moderating variables when examining correlates with online self-disclosure. Researchers have examined various models that include online self-disclosure as a predictor, outcome, or mediating variable. Despite slight variations in the strengths of the relationships, all models yielded a good fit for both genders and the adolescent age groups examined.^{35,37,40,42–44}

Second, the frequency of CMC use also has been investigated as a potential predictor of self-disclosure. Consistently, increases in CMC use are associated with greater frequency and depth of self-disclosures online.^{22,31,35,36,42,43,45} To investigate the directionality of this relationship, Valkenburg and Peter⁴³ conducted a cross-lagged analysis of CMC use and online self-disclosure over 6 months. Findings indicate that CMC use predicts greater online self-disclosure 6 months later, but not the reverse, suggesting that the features of CMC stimulate self-disclosure. The disclosure benefits associated with CMC, however, are prevalent only when adolescents and young adults adopt an interpersonal relationship motivation.^29,32,38 When seeking new or building existing relationships, individuals may strategically use self-disclosure behaviors to achieve their goals.²⁹ Consistent with these findings, adolescents with already low friendship quality who spend more time on the Internet for nonsocial purposes develop more internalizing problems.⁵¹

Third, current emotional state is related to online self-disclosure. In three experiments, Forgas³⁰ asked participants to write statements that described oneself to a partner, which the researcher coded for intimacy level, breadth, and valence. Across the experiments, they found that those in a positive mood disclosed more intimate and positive information as well as a wider variety of information about themselves than those in a negative mood. However, a mild negative effect enhanced reciprocity of self-disclosure. The authors concluded then that positive and negative moods have differential benefits in social relationships.

Internal factors

Longitudinal studies show consistency in self-disclosure over time, between dimensions, and across media. Specifically, online and offline self-disclosure was positively related over time,^28,40,44 there was stability in breadth and depth of self-disclosure over 6-month intervals,^28,44 and the perceived value of CMC for breadth and depth was positively related.^42,44 Despite support for the concept of a general high self-discloser, findings suggest that some individuals may benefit from CMC for disclosing personal information more than their peers. In particular, social anxiety and loneliness were both positively related to perceived value of CMC for breadth and depth among adolescents⁴² and general depth of self-disclosure among university students.⁴⁶ Similarly, duration and frequency of online communication were positively related to self-disclosure for adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety,⁴⁵ and some intimate topics were discussed more frequently online by lonely adolescents compared with their nonlonely peers.²³ Furthermore, although a direct negative relationship between introversion and online self-disclosure was observed among adolescents, benefits for CMC were shown when considering a social compensation motive.³⁷ In other words, introverted adolescents used CMC more frequently to compensate for lacking social skills than extroverted individuals, and displaying this social compensation motive was associated with more frequent CMC and increased online self-disclosure. Overall, online communication tends to benefit those who experience challenges in social situations, including high levels of social anxiety, introversion, or loneliness, and therefore the findings support the social compensation hypothesis (i.e., especially introverted or socially anxious individuals turn to CMC to overcome their shyness [Desjarlais et al. 2015, unpublished manuscript]⁴²).

To investigate the mechanism in the relationship between social anxiety and online self-disclosure, Schouten et al.⁴⁰ asked adolescents about their perceptions related to the relevance of CMC-reduced nonverbal cues and controllability. In support of the reduced cues theory, findings demonstrated that socially anxious individuals attached greater relevance to CMC attributes, thereby resulting in higher disinhibition and heightened online self-disclosure. Similarly, a study involving conversations between unacquainted strangers reported that shyness was associated with lower levels of prompted self-disclosures when a web camera was present during CMC, but not for text-only CMC.²⁴ Socially anxious individuals often avoid eye contact⁵² and thus the aforementioned attributes may create an environment in which users feel less inhibited to share personal information.

On the other hand, support also has been offered for the rich-get-richer hypothesis, which states that individuals with strong social skills turn to CMC as another venue to connect with others, which further enhances relationships and social skills (Desjarlais et al. 2015, unpublished manuscript).⁴² Specifically, findings from a cross-sectional survey study show that loneliness was negatively related to frequency of online self-disclosure.³⁶ In a longitudinal study of adolescents' offline social skills, Koutamanis et al.³⁵ reported a reciprocal positive relationship over 6 months between adolescents' ability to initiate offline relationships and online self-disclosure with a close friend. Hence, those with already strong social skills disclose more online, which further strengthens their social skills.

Contextual factors

Anonymity of CMC has been proposed to facilitate disclosure of personal information.⁵³ However, anonymity tends to enhance self-disclosure only in relatively uncomfortable contexts. For example, Brunet and Schmidt²⁴ coded female university student conversations that took place in the laboratory with an unacquainted peer for spontaneous and prompted self-disclosures. The conversations took place with or without the inclusion of a web camera and among individuals with high and low levels of social anxiety. Higher self-reported shyness was associated with fewer prompted self-disclosures when a web camera was present during the online chat; whereas, there was no relationship between shyness and self-disclosure when visual information was not made available. In another context, when discussing highly intimate information of a sexual nature with a cyber friend, adolescents were more willing to disclose information when only a picture or nickname was presented to their partner in comparison with a streaming web camera video.²⁷ Therefore, anonymity is particularly beneficial for individuals with high social anxiety who are relatively uncomfortable in social situations.

Studies examining the relationship between characteristics of one's partner and online self-disclosure show effects for relationship intimacy, gender, and online behavior. First, female adolescents and young adults were more willing to reciprocate intimate information during CMC with an acquaintance rather than a friend, but there were no differences observed due to relationship intimacy among males.⁴⁷ This finding is partially consistent with offline self-disclosure research, which indicates that disclosure of positive experiences during face-to-face interactions also can depend on a partner's relationship status.⁵⁴ Second, female partners³⁰ and cross-sex partners, especially for longer relationships,²⁶ elicited greater self-disclosure among university students than males or same-sex partners. There is consistent evidence that individuals reciprocate their partner's self-disclosures, matching in frequency and intimacy level.^30,34 According to Dindia and Allen,⁵⁵ the high disclosure by females may encourage partners, both males and females, to disclose more information. Finally, there is evidence that people will disclose information when directly questioned about a private issue,⁴¹ supporting the hypothesis that when visual information is not available during CMC, people reduce uncertainty about one another by relying on interactive strategies such as direct questioning.^56,57

Consequences of online self-disclosure

Overall, there is support that CMC benefits rather than detracts from social well-being. In particular, research has reported positive relationships between online self-disclosure and the following: closeness to friends in general³⁸ and when CMC was used with offline friends,⁴² online friendship formation,³⁷ sharing positive statements about one's partner, which signify liking or attraction,²¹ greater perceived support,³³ and various relationship qualities, including trust, understanding, and commitment across a variety of cultures.⁴⁸ Benefits of CMC also extend offline. Specifically, online self-disclosure was related to increases for offline self-disclosure^28,40,44 and one's ability to initiate offline relationships over 6-month intervals, supporting the Internet-induced social skills hypothesis.³⁵ Only one study reported no relationship between self-disclosure and friendship quality among adolescents.⁴⁵ Similar benefits have been reported for offline self-disclosure, including feelings of closeness,⁵⁸ initiation skills,⁵⁹ emotional support,⁶⁰ and friendship quality.⁶¹ Thus, self-disclosure regardless of the medium facilitates the development and maintenance of adolescent and young adult friendships.

Self-disclosure during CMC has also been explored as a mediating variable in the relationships between CMC use and social consequences. Results indicate that online self-disclosure mediates the relationship between CMC use and offline self-disclosure,⁴⁴ quality of adolescent offline friendships,⁴³ and social attraction to CMC partners.²⁰ There is support for the relationships between the aforementioned outcomes and CMC use within the larger body of literature that did not directly examine self-disclosure as a mediating factor.^7,9,37,62 However, research identifies additional consequences associated with CMC, for which self-disclosure offers an explanation for the relationship, but has yet to be directly investigated, including more social support^10,63 and enhanced well-being.⁶²

Summary

Since the overwhelming popularity of the Internet for communicating with others, antecedents and effects related to online self-disclosure have received attention. Predictors of online self-disclosure have been the primary focus, including situational and dispositional factors, as well as demographic variables and internal states. Also explored, but to a lesser degree, have been social consequences of online self-disclosure. Overall, CMC use appears advantageous for friendships because of the additional opportunities the Internet provides for quality interactions. Generally, the findings of online self-disclosure studies are consistent with results corresponding to offline self-disclosure. Similar variables correlate with online and offline interactions, including gender of participant, gender of partner, disclosure behavior of partner, friendship quality, social skills, and emotional support. However, CMC appears especially beneficial for those who exhibit challenges in social situations, particularly if they find that CMC compensates for their lacking social skills and all visual information is concealed from one's partner. Overall, adolescents and young adults appear to use CMC to support the development of intimacy and their connection to others.

Future Directions for Research

Research topics

The 29 articles included in the review focused on the disclosures of a single person or the dyad as a single unit and thus the dynamic interaction between partners was largely ignored. In other research, although Jiang et al.⁶⁴ asked participants to chat online with unacquainted individuals in small groups three separate times during a semester, they still collapsed self-disclosure into a single score overall for each participant. Self-disclosure is a process that unfolds in a single episode or over an extended period of time, with past experiences influencing future conversations.⁶⁵ Comparisons among the stages of a conversation would provide an understanding of within-person changes in online self-disclosure.⁴¹ Moreover, in accordance with Greene et al.,⁶⁵ research should be conducted on the process of self-disclosure within a single computer-mediated interaction or over a series of online exchanges. Although there is much research regarding the positive effects of the features of CMC for facilitating self-disclosure (e.g., lack of visual information and more control), research is needed on how the features impact the decision-making process for disclosing information. For example, immediate behavioral, emotional, and cognitive reactions by the recipient of the disclosure are important determining factors of the discloser's experience of intimacy.⁶⁵ However, disclosers forfeit an immediate reaction during CMC because of a delay in responses (even if only due to the time required to type a message), and the lack of visual information prevents feedback of nonverbal information. It is unknown then whether the process of self-disclosure differs online in comparison with face-to-face conversations, possibly to compensate for a lack of immediate (nonverbal) reaction.

The process of self-disclosure should also be explored over time and across media. It is fairly accepted that adolescents have incorporated technology into their daily social interactions and that they do so to maintain existing friendships. While much is known regarding differences in self-disclosure during online versus face-to-face encounters, more attention can be focused on the crossover between the two media. Some researchers have explored the effect of initial brief online meetings on a single subsequent face-to-face encounter (Desjarlais et al. 2015, unpublished manuscript).⁶⁶ However, participants were partnered with a stranger and asked to get acquainted in the laboratory. Therefore, it is relatively unknown how intimate online and offline interactions are interconnected among offline friends.

Researchers suggest that CMC affords users opportunities to rehearse social skills.⁴² To effectively interact with peers, adolescents can use CMC to learn and practice self-disclosure skills, including what, how much, when, and to whom to disclose personal information.^30,44 However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this perspective, and social skills related to disclosure of personal information have received little attention. The following questions still remain to be addressed: Do adolescents actually learn about effectively disclosing personal information when communicating online with friends and/or strangers? Does practice of disclosing information during CMC supplement, replace, or alter social skill development that takes place during face-to-face social interactions? If social skills are enhanced by online exchanges, then do they subsequently transfer offline?⁴⁵ How similar/different are the social norms regarding self-disclosure between online and offline interpersonal interactions and how do they affect adolescents' social skills and intimacy development?

Research methods

There has been an obvious call for more longitudinal research to investigate the consequences of online self-disclosure for social development among adolescents and young adults.^37,40,42 Within the current literature review, the longest study occurred over a 12-month period, in which participants completed measures thrice, separated by 6-month intervals.⁴⁴ Although cross-sectional studies have provided empirical support for correlates of online self-disclosure, theoretical arguments can be made for the constructs being either an antecedent or an effect of online self-disclosure. Therefore, longitudinal studies are necessary for distinguishing between casual relationships and covariance and identifying reciprocal relationships with online self-disclosure. In addition, more long-term studies are required to increase knowledge regarding the effects of adolescents' online self-disclosure for their adult relationships.

A benefit of CMC is that the exchanges are documented. Actual online conversations could provide a wealth of information of how adolescents talk with each other in natural settings. Although research in the current review has examined the actual content of online exchanges,²⁴ none explored the actual interactions beyond the laboratory. There also is a need for natural setting observations between unacquainted partners. Schouten et al.⁴¹ suggests that different underlying mechanisms may be evident between CMC use and self-disclosure when partners are forced to get acquainted in the laboratory than when they voluntarily select their conversational partner. For example, outside the laboratory, people meet voluntarily and empirical support could be provided for similarity as a mediating factor for online self-disclosure, which showed no correlation when forced to chat in the laboratory.⁴¹

Methods that have been underutilized in online self-disclosure research have been diary studies and think-aloud procedures, which can tap into adolescents' mental process. In diary studies, participants can report on their experiences after specific events and the think-aloud procedure requires participants to verbally share their thoughts and reactions during the conversational process. Using these techniques has the potential to increase understanding of online self-disclosure regarding decision-making factors, immediate reactions, fluctuations within a conversation, as well as the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes.

Conclusion

During adolescence, the development and maintenance of friendships relies on sharing personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Interactive online communication provides an additional context to traditional exchanges for self-disclosure with existing and new friends. Similar to offline self-disclosure research, the literature points to several similar predictors that facilitate self-disclosure online and several positive influences of CMC on adolescents' psychosocial development. Future research can build on the current antecedent and effect models by examining the dynamic process of online interactive self-disclosure, the integration with offline interactions, and the development of social skills. To be able to investigate such topics, research should be conducted with multilevel data and should take advantage of technology capability for recording actual conversations both in and outside the laboratory.

Notes

a. The year 2002 was chosen as the earliest in accordance with the claim of Kraut et al.⁹ (and supporting findings) that the use of the Internet to supplement youths' socializations with offline friends rather than just formulate new relationships was becoming popular. Although not perfect, the restriction on the publication date was used to aid in the inclusion of articles in which the online activities of participants likely represent the behaviors of today's youth.

b. Adolescents use both passive (i.e., posting personal information without necessarily receiving a response from recipients, such as email, social networking sites, and blogs) and interactive (one-on-one communication in real time such as instant messaging) strategies to connect with others online. To retain a focused review given the vast literature on both passive and interactive strategies, we selected research that explored only self-disclosure of an interactive nature.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Lenhart

, Purcell

, Smith

, et al. (2010) Social media & mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Social_Media_and_Young_Adults_Report_Final_with_toplines.pdf (accessed June 25, 2014).

Statistics Canada. (2013) Canadian Internet use survey, Internet use, by age group and household income for Canada, provinces and census metropolitan areas (CMAs) (Table 358-0152). www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick-choisir?lang=eng&p2=33&id=3580152 (accessed on June 25, 2014).

Davis

. Friendship 2.0: adolescents' experiences of belonging and self-disclosure online. Journal of Adolescence, 2012; 35:1527–1536.

Davis

. Young people's digital lives: the impact of interpersonal relationships and digital media use on adolescents' sense of identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:2281–2293.

Kraut

, Patterson

, Lundmark

, et al. Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?. American Psychologist, 1998; 53:1017–1031.

Nie

, Erbring

. (2000) Internet and society: a preliminary report. www-2009.timeuse.org/information/studies/data/downloads/usa/1999/PreliminaryReport.pdf (accessed on June 7, 2014).

Desjarlais

, Willoughby

. A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys and girls' computer use with friends and friendship quality: support for the social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010; 26:896–905.

Subrahmanyam

, Šmahel

. (2011) Intimacy and the internet: relationships with friends, romantic partners, and family members. In Subrahmanyam

, Šmahel

, eds. Digital youth: the role of media in development. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 81–102.

Kraut

, Kiesler

, Boneva

, et al. Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 2002; 58:49–74.

10.

Wolak

, Mitchell

, Finkelhor

. Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 2003; 26:105–119.

11.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Online communication among adolescents: an integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011; 48:121–127.

12.

Amichai-Hamburger

, Kingsbury

, Schneider

. Friendship: an old concept with a new meaning?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:33–39.

13.

Nguyen

, Bin

, Campbell

. Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: a systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; 15:103–111.

14.

Schiffrin

, Edelman

, Falkenstern

, et al. The associations among computer-mediated communication, relationships, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010; 13:299–306.

15.

Hammick

, Lee

. Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 33:302–310.

16.

Berndt

. (1989) Obtaining support from friends during childhood and adolescence. In Belle

, ed. Children's social networks and social supports. New York, NY: John Wiley Sons, Inc., pp. 308–331.

17.

Hartup

. (1996) Cooperation, close relationships, and cognitive development. In Bukowski

, Newcomb

, Hartup

, eds. The company they keep: friendships in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 213–236.

18.

De Goede

, Branje

, van Duin

, et al. Romantic relationship commitment and its linkages with commitment to parents and friends during adolescence. Social Development, 2012; 21:425–442.

19.

Marion

, Laursen

, Zettergren

, et al. Predicting life satisfaction during middle adulthood from peer relationships during mid-adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013; 42:1299–1307.

20.

Antheunis

, Valkenburg

, Peter

. Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: an experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2007; 10:831–836.

21.

Antheunis

, Schouten

, Valkenburg

, et al. Interactive uncertainty reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 2012; 39:757–780.

22.

Blau

. Application use, online relationship types, self-disclosure, and Internet abuse among children and youth: implications for education and Internet safety programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2011; 45:95–116.

23.

Bonetti

, Campbell

, Gilmore

. The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children's and adolescents' online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010; 13:279–285.

24.

Brunet

, Schmidt

. Is shyness context specific? Relation between shyness and online self-disclosure with and without a live webcam in young adults. Journal of Research in Personality, 2007; 41:938–945.

25.

Bryce

, Fraser

. The role of disclosure of personal information in the evaluation of risk and trust in young peoples' online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014; 30:299–306.

26.

Cheng

, Chan

, Tong

. Qualities of online friendships with different gender compositions and durations. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2006; 9:14–21.

27.

Chiou

. Adolescents' reply intent for sexual self-disclosure in cyberspace: gender differences and effects of anonymity and topic intimacy. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2007; 10:725–728.

28.

Chiou

, Wan

. Sexual self-disclosure in cyberspace among Taiwanese adolescents: gender differences and the interplay of cyberspace and real life. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2006; 9:46–53.

29.

Cho

. Effects of motivations and gender on adolescents' self-disclosure in online chatting. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2007; 10:339–345.

30.

Forgas

. Affective influences on self-disclosure: mood effects on the intimacy and reciprocity of disclosing personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011; 100:449–461.

31.

, Wood

, Smith

, et al. Friendships through IM: examining the relationship between instant messaging and intimacy. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2004; 10:00.

32.

Huang

, Yang

. A study of online misrepresentation, self-disclosure, cyber-relationship motives, and loneliness among teenagers in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2013; 48:1–18.

33.

Iacovelli

, Johnson

. Disclosure through face-to-face and instant messaging modalities: psychological and physiological effects. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2012; 31:225–250.

34.

Jiang

, Bazarova

, Hancock

. From perception to behavior: disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 2011; 40:125–143.

35.

Koutamanis

, Vossen

, Peter

, et al. Practice makes perfect: the longitudinal effect of adolescents' instant messaging on their ability to initiate offline friendships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:2265–2272.

36.

Leung

. Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ “I Seek You” use. Cyberpsychology Behavior, 2002; 5:241–251.

37.

Peter

, Valkenburg

, Schouten

. Developing a model of adolescent friendship formation on the Internet. CyberPsychology Behavior, 2005; 8:423–430.

38.

Pornsakulvanich

, Haridakis

, Rubin

. The influence of dispositions and Internet motivation on online communication satisfaction and relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 2008; 24:2292–2310.

39.

Punyanunt-Carter

. An analysis of college students' self-disclosure behaviors on the Internet. College Student Journal, 2006; 40:329–331.

40.

Schouten

, Valkenburg

, Peter

. Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents' online self-disclosure: developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 2007; 10:292–315.

41.

Schouten

, Valkenburg

, Peter

. An experimental test of processes underlying self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111601&article=3 (accessed June 2, 2014).

42.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 2007; 43:267–277.

43.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents' existing friendships: a longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 2009; 59:79–97.

44.

Valkenburg

, Sumter

, Peter

. Gender differences in online and offline self-disclosure in pre-adolescence and adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2011; 29:253–269.

45.

Wang

, Jackson

, Zhang

. The mediator role of self-disclosure and moderator roles of gender and social anxiety in the relationship between Chinese adolescents' online communication and their real-world social relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2011; 27:2161–2168.

46.

Weidman

, Fernandez

, Levinson

, et al. Compensatory Internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012; 53:191–195.

47.

Yang

, Yang

, Chiou

. Differences in engaging in sexual disclosure between real life and cyberspace among adolescents: social penetration model revisited. Current Psychology, 2010; 29:144–154.

48.

Yum

, Hara

. Computer-mediated relationship development: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2005; 11:133–152.

49.

Wheeless

, Grotz

. Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 1976; 2:338–346.

50.

Bauminger

, Finzi-Dottan

, Chason

, et al. Intimacy in adolescent friendship: the roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2008; 25:409–428.

51.

Selfhout

, Branje

, Delsing

, et al. Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: the role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 2009; 32:819–833.

52.

Albano

, DiBartolo

, Heimberg

, et al. 1995. Children and adolescents: assessment and treatment. In Heimberg

, Liebowitz

, Hope

, Schneier

, eds. Social phobia: diagnosis, assessment and treatment. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, pp. 387–425.

53.

Walther

. Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996; 23:3–43.

54.

Derlega

, Anderson

, Winstead

, et al. Positive disclosure among college students: what do they talk about, to whom, and why?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2011; 6:119–130.

55.

Dindia

, Allen

. Sex differences in self-disclosure: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1992; 112:106–124.

56.

Berger

, Calabrese

. Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1975; 1:99–112.

57.

Tidwell

, Walther

. Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 2002; 28:317–348.

58.

McNelles

, Connolly

. Intimacy between adolescent friends: age and gender differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1999; 9:143–159.

59.

Buhrmester

, Furman

, Wittenberg

, et al. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988; 55:991–1008.

60.

Simpkins

, Parke

, Flyr

, et al. Similarities in children's and early adolescents' perceptions of friendship qualities across development, gender, and friendship qualities. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 2006; 26:491–508.

61.

Rose

. Co-rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development, 2002; 73:1830–1843.

62.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Online communication and adolescent well-being: testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1169–1182.

63.

Wellman

, Haase

, Witte

, et al. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 2001; 45:436–455.

64.

Jiang

, Heng

, Choi

BCF

. Privacy concerns and privacy-protective behavior in synchronous online social interactions. Information Systems Research, 2013; 24:579–595.

65.

Greene

, Derlega

, Mathews

. 2006. Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In Vangelisti

, Perlman

, eds. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 409–427.

66.

McKenna

, Green

, Gleason

. Relationship formation on the Internet: what's the big attraction?. Journal of Social Issues, 2002; 58:9–31.