Use of communication technologies in romantic relationships

Abstract

Self-disclosure is vital to the maintenance and development of personal relationships, but research regarding the use of communication technologies (CTs) for self-disclosure in relationships is mixed. This study extends previous research on the topic by examining associations between reduced-cue CT use, relationship development, and self-disclosure in specific conversations in proximal romantic relationships. Participants (N = 64) reported on each conversation with their partners over a 4-day period. Use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation was negatively associated with self-disclosure breadth and depth in that conversation. Furthermore, the negative association between text-based CT use (text messaging, instant messaging, and e-mail) and self-disclosure breadth was weaker at higher levels of relationship development, and the negative association between voice-based CT use (telephone) and self-disclosure depth was stronger at higher levels of relationship development. These findings suggest that CTs function differently in proximal romantic relationships than in previous studies of interactions between strangers and that relationship development is an important factor in understanding self-disclosure via CTs.

Keywords

Communication technologies relationship development romantic relationships self-disclosure

Self-disclosure, or the communication of information about oneself that is not publicly available (Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969), is vital to the development and maintenance of close relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Hays, 1984; Yum & Hara, 2005). Both face-to-face (FtF) and mediated self-disclosure are associated with a variety of beneficial outcomes in relationships, including closeness (e.g., Aron, Melinat, Aron, & Vallone, 1997; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), relational quality (e.g., Hendrick, 1981; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009), and certainty (e.g., Prisbell & Andersen, 1980; Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Although communication technologies (CTs) such as e-mail and text messaging provide an alternative to FtF self-disclosure, previous research examining self-disclosure via CTs has been inconsistent (for a review, see Nguyen, Bin, & Campbell, 2012). Experimental research using zero-history dyads (in which participants do not have a preexisting or ongoing relationship) generally supports the hypothesis that self-disclosure breadth and depth are higher via CTs than via FtF communication (Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, 2013). When ongoing relationships are examined, however, the association between CT use and self-disclosure is inconsistent (e.g., Buote, Wood, & Pratt, 2009; Chan & Cheng, 2004; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006; Schiffrin, Edelman, Falkenstern, & Stewart, 2010). It is, consequently, unclear precisely when and how self-disclosure is related to CT use in ongoing relationships. Given the increasing use of CTs in relationships (Boase, Horrigan, Wellman, & Rainie, 2006), clarifying these associations is crucial to understanding communication in close relationships.

Understanding motivations for and outcomes of CT use in ongoing relationships requires attention to characteristics of both the mode of communication (i.e., FtF or a given CT) and the relationship itself. As Walther and Ramirez note, “the study of [computer-mediated communication] is best premised on the interactions of time, cues, and interpersonal motivations on the relational functions which it may reflect” (2010, p. 267). Relational partners’ concerns about and experience with one another likely impact the ways in which they use CTs. Specifically, theories of relationship development such as social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and Knapp’s (1978) staircase model posit that changes in the content of interactions characterize relationship development (e.g., Altman & Taylor, 1973; Knapp, Ellis, & Williams, 1980; Tokunaga, 2009; Yum & Hara, 2005). As relationships develop, people also encounter different concerns regarding self-presentation (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Kunkel, Wilson, Olufowote, & Robson, 2003; Wilson, Kunkel, Robson, Olufowote, & Soliz, 2009). Given evidence that people will strategically employ CTs to manage personal or relational goals (e.g., Joinson, 2004; O’Sullivan, 2000; Rettie, 2009), it is likely that people use CTs differently at different levels of relationship development. The current study draws on research regarding both relationship development and features of CTs to propose an integrated perspective on CT use in ongoing relationships. In particular, proximal romantic relationships provide a unique opportunity to examine these processes because partners have the opportunity to communicate on a regular basis both FtF and via CTs.

Self-disclosure via CTs

In close relationships, self-disclosure can both express and increase intimacy (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) identifies the self-disclosure dimensions of breadth and depth as particularly relevant to relationship development and maintenance. Self-disclosure breadth refers to the number of content domains or facets of their personalities on which people disclose, whereas self-disclosure depth refers to the intimacy of information in a given content domain (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Taylor & Altman, 1987). Self-disclosure breadth has been associated with certainty (Tidwell & Walther, 2002), intimacy (Tolstedt & Stokes, 1984), and feelings of safety in relationships (Prisbell & Andersen, 1980), and self-disclosure depth has been associated with closeness (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), relational quality (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009), and certainty (Tidwell & Walther, 2002).

Strangers communicating via text-based CTs such as instant messaging tend to disclose with greater frequency (Antheunis, Valkenburg & Peter, 2007; Joinson, 2001; Tidwell & Walther, 2002) and intimacy (Jiang et al., 2013; Tidwell & Walther, 2002) than do those communicating FtF. These findings have been attributed to the fact that CTs offer fewer cues (e.g., verbal, vocal, or visual information) relative to FtF communication. As Baym observed, “The notion of reduced social cues remains central” to the study of communication technologies (2002, p. 38). One test of this idea found that self-disclosure occurs more frequently in text-based than in video-based interactions (Joinson, 2001), suggesting that a reduction in cues might encourage self-disclosure.

Two mechanisms appear to be responsible for this effect. First, reduced-cue CTs can reduce self-consciousness (Matheson & Zanna, 1988; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), thereby encouraging self-disclosure (Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007). For example, adolescents who perceive the reduction of cues (relative to FtF communication) in instant messaging to be more important report greater self-disclosure via instant messaging (Schouten et al., 2007). Second, social information that is often provided nonverbally is absent in reduced-cue CTs (Burgoon et al., 1999). Research using social information processing theory finds that strangers communicating via instant messaging compensate for this lack of social information by using self-disclosure to reduce uncertainty and increase intimacy (Tidwell & Walther, 2002). Thus, reduced-cue CTs are thought to encourage self-disclosure both because they reduce the self-consciousness that might accompany self-disclosure and because self-disclosure provides a particularly effective means of relationship development in a reduced-cue environment.

In the context of ongoing relationships, however, findings from survey research examining self-disclosure via CTs have been inconsistent (Nguyen et al., 2012). Some evidence suggests that people use CTs to self-disclose in ongoing relationships. For example, one study of college students’ e-mail messages found that openness (i.e., self-disclosure) was the most frequent relationship maintenance behavior in e-mails with family members and friends, and the second most frequent with romantic partners (Johnson, Haigh, Becker, Craig, & Wigley, 2008). A survey of adolescents also found that a significant minority of the sample perceived their Internet-based communication as greater in both breadth and depth than their FtF communication (most reported no difference; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). Other research, however, has found that self-disclosure via CTs is lower than (Chan & Cheng, 2004; Schiffrin et al., 2010) or equivalent to (Buote et al., 2009; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006) self-disclosure in FtF communication.

In contrast to experimental studies of zero-history dyads, research examining ongoing relationships often asks people about their general patterns of interaction in online and offline relationships (e.g., Buote et al., 2009; Chan & Cheng, 2004; Peter & Valkenburg, 2006; Schiffrin et al., 2010), as opposed to particular interactions between relational partners. Examining overall (i.e., not relationship specific) CT use or asking about people’s general impressions of their self-disclosure online and offline provides valuable insight into general use and perceptions of CTs. What is less clear, however, is when and how people use reduced-cue CTs for self-disclosure in specific relationships. In ongoing relationships, relationship development is likely to be important to the use of reduced-cue CTs for self-disclosure.

Relationship development, self-disclosure, and CT use

Because self-disclosure via CTs appears to be tied to issues of self-consciousness and uncertainty, it is likely that as relationships develop and these concerns dissipate (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Cupach & Metts, 1994; Taylor & Altman, 1987), people are less likely to prefer reduced-cue CTs to FtF communication. This process provides a potential explanation for the inconsistent findings reviewed above. Additionally, patterns within particular types of relationships could be masked by the variability that is probably introduced when people report on their general use of CTs or nominate online and offline friends without controlling for the nature of these relationships. Such a perspective would be consistent with research regarding interpersonal relationships and, specifically, relationship development.

Relationship development is accompanied by changes in partners’ communication. Specifically, as relationships develop, self-disclosure breadth and depth are expected to increase (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Knapp, 1978). In support of this prediction, relationship development was related to both the breadth and depth of topics discussed in a longitudinal study on friendships (Hays, 1984), and a study of unacquainted dyads found that the breadth and depth of participants’ disclosures increased as time passed (Taylor, Wheeler, & Altman, 1973). Such changes in self-disclosure as relationships develop have been observed in both FtF- and CT-based relationships (Chan & Cheng, 2004).

Although people strategically employ reduced-cue CTs in relationships (Joinson, 2004; O’Sullivan 2000), people’s goals and motivations change as they acquire more knowledge about their relational partners (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Cupach & Metts, 1994). As a result, people probably use CTs in different ways or for different reasons. As outlined above, reduced-cue CTs allow people to better manage their self-presentation and mitigate self-consciousness, and self-disclosure can provide social information that is lacking in reduced-cue CTs. Relationship development, however, potentially influences these processes because as relationships develop, self-consciousness and concerns regarding self-presentation tend to decline, and partners have more knowledge about each other (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Cupach & Metts, 1994).

At lower levels of relationship development, people tend to be highly concerned with maximizing positive experiences and minimizing negative experiences but have relatively little information about their partners with which to do so. The possibility of saying or doing the wrong thing is high (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). As a result, people often perceive interactions at lower levels of development as high in threat to their face (i.e., the self-image they present in interaction; Cupach & Metts, 1994) from rejection or imposition (Cupach & Metts, 1994; Kunkel et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2009). Relationship development also reduces uncertainty and, consequently, the need for social information (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), which is predominately provided by nonverbal cues (Burgoon et al., 1999).

For similar reasons, relationship development appears to be related to people’s tendencies to use various CTs in relationships. Previous research on long-distance friendships has found that the proportion (but not frequency) of communication that occurs over e-mail—as opposed to the telephone—decreases as relationship development increases (Utz, 2007) and that e-mail is perceived as less useful for communication in personal relationships than is the telephone or FtF communication (Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, 2002). Furthermore, the tendency for relationships initiated on the Internet to transition to the telephone and then to FtF communication (e.g., McKenna & Bargh, 2000; Parks & Floyd, 1996) is thought to reflect partners’ willingness to trade initial control in interaction for more personal communication (McKenna & Bargh, 2000). In the context of proximal romantic relationships, use of reduced-cue CTs is likely to be lower, as a proportion of total communication, at higher levels of relationship development. Partners are less concerned with self-presentation and face threat in more developed relationships, so they should be less likely to employ reduced-cue CTs to communicate with their partners.

Research questions and hypotheses

As outlined above, CTs appear to encourage self-disclosure because they allow people to reduce self-consciousness and face threat and because people use self-disclosure to compensate for a lack of social information. However, the extent to which reduced-cue CTs are used for self-disclosure in proximal romantic relationships likely varies. Self-consciousness and face concern are lower in more developed relationships, and social information is less important. Partners in more developed relationships should therefore report lower use of reduced-cue CTs. Additionally, associations between reduced-cue CT use and self-disclosure should be attenuated in more developed relationships.

Hypothesis 1: Relationship development is negatively associated with the proportion of total communication that occurs via reduced-cue CTs.

Research Question 1: What is the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure breadth in that conversation?

Research Question 2: What is the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure depth in that conversation?

Hypothesis 2: Relationship development moderates the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure breadth in that conversation. When relationship development is higher, this association is weaker.

Hypothesis 3: Relationship development moderates the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure depth in that conversation. When relationship development is higher, this association is weaker.

Previous research on the association between self-disclosure and CT use has tended to examine text-based CTs such as instant messaging. However, if (as the research reviewed above suggests) a reduction in cues relative to FtF communication is responsible for associations between self-disclosure and CT use, then these associations should extend to other reduced-cue CTs. Therefore, both text-based (e.g., instant messaging) and voice-based (e.g., the telephone) CTs are examined in the current study.

Intimate self-disclosures are unlikely to comprise a large proportion of total communication in relationships (e.g., Duck, Rutt, Hurst, & Strejc, 1991), and CTs are often used for routine everyday communication (Boneva & Kraut, 2002; Tong & Walther, 2010). However, these uses do not preclude the possibility of associations between reduced-cue CT use, self-disclosure, and relationship development. To help account for potential variations in conversations and relationships, a diary method of data collection was used. This method allows for the assessment of everyday communication in relationships across a wider range of conversations and situations than when single conversations are studied, thereby providing data that are more representative of the relationship as a whole (Duck et al., 1991) and allowing for the examination of within-person variation in communication processes (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003).

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 64, age M = 20.90, SD = 3.20, range: 18–43) were recruited from undergraduate courses and included 57 women and 7 men in proximal (i.e., not long distance) romantic relationships. It was emphasized during recruitment that the relationship did not have to be long term, committed, or serious, but could be at any level of intimacy as long as the participant considered it to be romantic in nature. Participants reported a mean relationship length of 2.46 years (SD = 2.40, range: .17–13.00), and 11 participants reported cohabiting with their partners. Five participants reported same-sex partners. Participants received monetary compensation of US$20 (US$5 after completion of the introductory session and US$15 upon returning the conversation logs) per person in exchange for their participation in the study. Participants reported on a mean of 14.52 (SD = 5.80, range: 6–29) conversations during the 4-day study period.

Procedure

Participants reported on the communication mode used, self-disclosure, and other variables not included in the current study for each conversation with their romantic partners over a 4-day period. Four days was judged to be sufficient time to gather a range of conversations from participants while minimizing response burden. For each conversation they had with their partners that lasted 5 min or more, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire as soon as possible after the conversation occurred. The inclusion of a 5-min minimum for conversations was drawn from previous research on daily interactions (Erickson, Newman, & Pincus, 2009) and was judged to be adequate to capture everyday conversation in participants’ relationships. To encourage participants to complete the conversation logs promptly, the logs were provided in small paper booklets that participants could easily carry with them. Participants were provided with four booklets, one for each day of the study. Booklets included an instruction page (described below) and 15 copies of the conversation log questionnaire.

At the beginning of the study, participants came to a computer lab to complete a baseline questionnaire and receive instructions for completing the conversation logs. This procedure allowed participants to clarify any questions or concerns at the beginning of the study. Participants received an e-mail 4 days after their introductory sessions reminding them when their conversation logs were due. Conversation logs were due 1 week after participants’ introductory sessions at the same time and location as their introductory sessions. Participants were instructed to complete 4 days in a row if possible but were allowed 1 week to complete the 4 days of conversation logs to allow for the potential that participants would forget to fill out their logs or not interact with their partners on some days.

Instructions for participants’ completion of the conversation logs were drawn from previous diary studies of routine conversations (e.g., Aubé, 2008; Duck et al., 1991; Erickson et al., 2009; Overall & Sibley, 2008; Sibley & Overall, 2008) that have used Wheeler and Nezlek’s (1977) instructions for participants to document all conversations in which interactants attend to each other, converse, and adjust their responses based on the other person. As outlined by Wheeler and Nezlek (1977), participants were advised that simply sitting next to someone or exchanging greetings does not count as a conversation. Because the definition of a conversation might be less clear when using text-based CTs such as e-mail or text messaging, participants were provided with additional instructions to aid them in determining what constitutes a conversation. Conversations were described as typically having multiple messages exchanged per person in a single block of time (usually via synchronous modes such as FtF communication or the telephone) or over a range of time (usually via asynchronous modes such as e-mail or text messaging). Participants were told that simply sending or receiving a message without the other person responding was not considered a conversation. Participants were asked to complete the conversation logs for all conversations with their partners and to complete the measures as soon as possible after each conversation. In addition to being delivered verbally, these instructions were included on the first page of each conversation log booklet.

Materials

Relationship development was assessed in the introductory session using the 20-item Interpersonal Solidarity Scale (Wheeless, 1978), which assesses “the degree of psychological, social, and perhaps even physical closeness between people” (Wheeless, 1978, p. 145). While self-disclosure is related to interpersonal solidarity, “increased self-disclosure is not a guarantee of higher solidarity” (Wheeless, 1978, p. 49); conceptually, self-disclosure can function to reflect and increase relationship development but is not interchangeable with relationship development (Derlega et al., 1993). The scale includes such items as “We are very close to each other” and “We share a lot in common.” All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); participants’ mean score was 6.25 (SD = .67). The scale exhibited excellent reliability (α = .91).

Control variables

In the introductory session, participants reported their age, sex, partner’s sex, relationship length, and whether or not they cohabited with their partner.

Communication mode

For each conversation, participants were asked to indicate the mode of communication via which each conversation occurred from the following options: FtF communication (n = 435), telephone (n = 144), written letters or notes (n = 0), e-mail (n = 5), instant messaging (n = 21), text messaging (n = 272), video phone (n = 15), social network sites (n = 21), or other (n = 16). As described above, the hypotheses and corresponding analyses focused on text-based CTs (i.e., written letters or notes, e-mail, instant messaging, and text messaging), voice-based CTs (i.e., telephone), and FtF communication. Two dummy codes were created to compare text-based and voice-based CTs to FtF communication. For the first, text-based CTs were coded as 1 and voice-based CTs and FtF communication were coded as 0. For the second, voice-based CTs were coded as 1 and text-based CTs and FtF communication were coded as 0. Other modes of communication (video phone, social network sites, and “other”) were not included in the analyses.

Self-disclosure depth and breadth were assessed by adapting the subscales of Parks and Floyd’s (1996) measure of online relationship development, which has previously been used to examine both online and offline self-disclosure (e.g., Tokunaga, 2009). To minimize response burden because respondents were expected to complete the conversation log several times per day, 2 items from each subscale were used. These items were chosen because they exhibited high loadings on their respective factors in confirmatory factor analysis in a pretest using the full scale. For self-disclosure breadth, the items included were, “Our communication was limited to just a few topics” (reverse scored) and “Our communication ranged over a variety of topics.” For self-disclosure depth, the items included were, “I told this person things about myself that he or she could not get from any other source” and “I did not tell this person anything intimate or personal about myself” (reverse scored). Possible responses were on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants’ mean scores were 3.98 (SD = 2.04) for self-disclosure breadth and 4.88 (SD = 1.69) for self-disclosure depth. The self-disclosure breadth measure exhibited excellent reliability (α = .96), and the self-disclosure depth measure exhibited acceptable reliability (α = .74).¹

Results

Hypothesis 1 addressed overall CT use in participants’ relationships and was tested using multiple regression analysis. Research Questions 1 and 2 and Hypotheses 2 and 3 addressed CT use and self-disclosure at the level of the conversation and were tested using multilevel modeling. SPSS v. 22 was used for all analyses. For each multilevel model, Satterthwaite degrees of freedom are reported rounded to the nearest integer. Analyses controlled for age and whether or not partners cohabited; relationship length and sex were omitted from the analyses because they were not significant in any of the models tested.² All continuous predictors were centered at their respective grand means to aid interpretation of the results (Kreft, de Leeuw, & Aiken, 1995). Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for study variables.

	M (SD)	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	20.90 (3.20)	.28*	−.01	.02	−.31*	.01	−.06
2. Cohabiting (yes = 1, no = 0)			.26*	.09	−.46**	.03	.01
3. Relationship development	6.25 (.67)			−.04	−.36*	.07*	.08*
4. Proportion voice based	.18 (.20)				−.26*	−.08*	−.06
5. Proportion text based	.33 (.19)					−.08*	−.04
6. Self-disclosure breadth	3.98 (2.04)						.26**
7. Self-disclosure depth	4.88 (1.69)

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Use of reduced-cue CTs

Hypothesis 1 was that relationship development is negatively associated with the proportion of communication that occurs via reduced-cue CTs. This hypothesis was tested using multiple regression. Proportions of text-based and voice-based CT use were calculated by dividing the number of conversations that occurred via each type of CT by the total number of conversation participants reported during the study period (voice based: M = .18, SD = .20; text based: M = .33, SD = .19). Age, whether or not participants cohabited with their partners, and relationship development were included as predictors for each type of CT use. As shown in Table 2, there was a marginally significant trend toward participants in more developed relationships reporting lower use of text-based CTs as a proportion of their total communication (β = −.22, p = .07). Proportion of communication via voice-based CTs was not associated with relationship development (β = −.07, p = .60).

Table 2.

Regression of proportion of CT use on relationship development.

	Voice-based CTs (df = 60)		Text-based CTs (df = 60)
	β	t	β	t
Age	−.004	−.03	−.21	−1.80⁺
Cohabiting (yes = 1, no = 0)	.10	.74	−.28	−2.24*
Relationship development	−.07	−.52	−.22	−1.86⁺

Note. CT: communication technology.

⁺ p < .10; *p < .05.

Self-disclosure breadth

Research Question 1 asked about the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure breadth. Hypothesis 2 was that the association between self-disclosure breadth and use of a reduced-cue CT would be moderated by relationship development, such that this association would be weaker in more developed relationships. A multilevel model with self-disclosure breadth as the outcome variable was used to test these associations. Age, whether or not participants cohabited with their partners, and relationship development were Level 2 predictors. Communication mode was a Level 1 predictor and, as described above, consisted of two dummy-coded variables to compare FtF communication to text-based and voice-based CTs. The interactions between these dummy-coded variables and relationship development were also included as Level 1 predictors. As shown in Table 3, self-disclosure breadth was negatively associated with use of both text-based (b = −1.66, SE = .15, t(860) = −11.14, p < .001) and voice-based (b = −1.48, SE = .19, t(865) = −7.64, p < .001) CTs. Compared to FtF conversations, participants reported discussing a narrower range of topics when they used text-based or voice-based CTs.

Table 3.

Multilevel model predicting self-disclosure breadth from relationship development and CT use.

Predictor	df	b (SE)	t
Age	52	−.03 (.03)	−.85
Cohabiting (yes = 1, no = 0)	58	.02 (.27)	.08
Relationship development	245	−.32 (.23)	−1.38
Used voice-based CT	865	−1.48 (.19)	−7.64**
Used text-based CT	860	−1.66 (.15)	−11.14**
Used Voice-based CT × Relationship Development	860	.48 (.33)	1.46
Used Text-based CT × Relationship Development	865	.60 (.26)	2.28*

Note. CT: communication technology.

*p < .05; **p < .001.

The interaction between relationship development and use of text-based CTs was significant (b = .60, SE = .26, t(865) = 2.28, p = .02). Following Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations, this interaction was decomposed by examining the association between use of text-based CTs and self-disclosure breadth at 1 SD above and below the mean for relationship development. As depicted in Figure 1, at lower levels of relationship development, the association between use of text-based CTs and self-disclosure breadth was negative (b = −2.06, SE = .24, t(864) = −8.47, p < .001). At higher levels of relationship development, this association was also negative but was weaker than at lower levels of relationship development (b = −1.27, SE = .21, t(860) = −5.95, p < .001). This finding suggests that the difference in self-disclosure breadth via text-based CTs and FtF communication is smaller at higher levels of relationship development. The interaction between relationship development and use of voice-based CTs was not significant (b = .48, SE = .33, t(860) = 1.46, p = .14).

Figure 1.

Interaction of relationship development and text-based CT use on self-disclosure breadth. CT: communication technology.

Self-disclosure depth

Research Question 2 asked about the association between use of a reduced-cue CT in a conversation and self-disclosure depth. Hypothesis 3 was that the association between self-disclosure depth and use of a reduced-cue CT would be moderated by relationship development, such that this association would be weaker in more developed relationships. A multilevel model with self-disclosure depth as the outcome variable was used to test these associations. Age, whether or not participants cohabited with their partners, and relationship development were Level 2 predictors. Communication mode was a Level 1 predictor and, as described above, consisted of two dummy-coded variables to compare FtF communication to text-based and voice-based CTs. The interactions between these dummy-coded variables and relationship development were also included as Level 1 predictors. As shown in Table 4, self-disclosure depth was negatively associated with use of both text-based (b = −.85, SE = .12, t(850) = −7.20, p < .001) and voice-based (b = −.59, SE = .16, t(865) = −3.72, p < .001) CTs. Participants reported disclosing less personal or intimate information when using text-based or voice-based CTs than when using FtF communication.

Table 4.

Multilevel model predicting self-disclosure depth from relationship development and CT use.

Predictor	df	b (SE)	t
Age	58	−.04 (.04)	−1.17
Cohabiting (yes = 1, no = 0)	63	.14 (.32)	.42
Relationship development	160	.32 (.23)	1.39
Used voice-based CT	865	−.59 (.16)	−3.72**
Used text-based CT	850	−.85 (.12)	−7.20**
Used Voice-based CT × Relationship Development	856	−.54 (.26)	−2.07*
Used Text-based CT × Relationship Development	849	−.16 (.21)	−.78

Note. CT: communication technology.

*p < .05; **p < .001.

The interaction of relationship development and use of text-based CTs on self-disclosure depth was not significant (b = −.16, SE = .21, t(849) = −.78, p = .44). However, there was a significant interaction between relationship development and use of a voice-based CT (b = −.54, SE = .26, t(856) = −2.07, p = .04). As described above, this interaction was decomposed by examining the association between self-disclosure depth and use of a voice-based CT at 1 SD above and below the mean for relationship development. As depicted in Figure 2, contrary to expectations, the association between self-disclosure depth and use of voice-based CTs was not significant at lower levels of relationship development (b = −.24, SE = .24, t(855) = −.98, p = .33) but was negative at higher levels of relationship development (b = −.94, SE = .22, t(865) = −4.23, p < .001). This finding suggests that the difference in self-disclosure depth via voice-based CTs and FtF communication is smaller at lower levels of relationship development.

Figure 2.

Interaction of relationship development and voice-based CT use on self-disclosure depth. CT: communication technology.

Discussion

The findings from this study provide insight into CT use and self-disclosure in proximal romantic relationships. In addition to addressing the question of associations between CT use and self-disclosure in specific conversations in these relationships, the findings expand on previous research by examining voice-based CTs and by exploring the role of relationship development in self-disclosure via CTs. Overall, the findings suggest that participants preferred FtF communication to reduced-cue CTs for self-disclosure but that relationship development is a potentially important factor in this preference.

There was a nonsignificant trend toward participants in more developed relationships using text-based CTs less frequently as a proportion of their total communication. This pattern is consistent with previous research on long-distance friendships that finds that the proportion of e-mail, relative to the telephone, decreases as relationships become more developed (Utz, 2007). Because overall CT use was examined at the level of the individual (not the conversation) using multiple regression, the sample size was small (N = 64), resulting in low statistical power. This sample size had power of .44 to detect the observed association of β = −.22 between relationship development and text-based CT use; β = .34 would have been required to achieve power of .80. Furthermore, cohabitation status was the primary predictor of use of text-based CTs. This finding suggests that the extent of proximity (even when all participants were in proximal, as opposed to long-distance, relationships) was important to participants’ use of text-based CTs. It is noteworthy that, on average, over half of participants’ conversations occurred via CTs. This finding points to the centrality of CTs in many proximal relationships and suggests that understanding the role of CTs in relational communication is key to an understanding of close relationships.

In contrast with some previous research, use of a text-based or voice-based CT in a conversation was associated with lower self-disclosure breadth and depth in that conversation. Although previous research using strangers has found that using a reduced-cue CT encourages self-disclosure (e.g., Antheunis et al., 2007; Joinson, 2001; Tidwell & Walther, 2002), survey research has been less clear (e.g., Peter & Valkenburg, 2006; Schiffrin et al., 2010). The current study suggests that this association might be reversed in the context of proximal romantic relationships. People tend to perceive that CTs are less useful than FtF communication for personal topics (Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999). It is also important to note that (unlike in experimental studies) partners in proximal relationships have a choice of whether to use FtF communication or reduced-cue CTs and might choose to use FtF communication for conversations in which they anticipate high levels of self-disclosure. This finding suggests that instead of assuming that reduced-cue CTs foster increased self-disclosure, research on CT use and self-disclosure needs to account for not only the potential effects of CTs on communication but also relational partners’ motives for using CTs or FtF communication. In the context of proximal relationships, relational considerations might override potential self-presentational benefits of CTs.

Relationship development moderated the association between use of text-based CTs and self-disclosure breadth, such that this association was weaker at higher levels of relationship development. Consistent with expectations, this finding suggests that differences between reduced-cue CTs and FtF communication were less important in more developed relationships, which are characterized by increased knowledge of and experience with one’s partner. Participants in less developed relationships reported greater self-disclosure breadth when they communication FtF than when they communicated with text-based CTs. Because participants presumably anticipated ongoing interaction with their partners, they might have preferred FtF communication for getting-to-know-you conversations that cover a range of topics because FtF communication offers nonverbal information that could be used to more easily reduce uncertainty about their partners (Burgoon et al., 1999).

Relationship development also moderated the association between use of voice-based CTs and self-disclosure depth. Participants in more developed relationships reported larger differences in self-disclosure depth via voice-based CTs and FtF communication. In less developed relationships, participants might have used voice-based CTs such as the telephone to engage in conversations that involve intimate or personal self-disclosures. This finding and the research reviewed above suggest that voice-based CTs might provide a useful mode of self-disclosure to increase intimacy in a less developed relationship while minimizing potential rejection or face threat, which is particularly salient in escalating relationships (e.g., Kunkel et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2009). In more developed relationships, when face threat is less of a concern, people might be more likely to reserve intimate or personal self-disclosures for FtF communication.

Although recruitment emphasized that potential participants’ romantic relationships did not need to be close, committed, or exclusive, relationship development was still generally high. In relationships that are just beginning, use of a voice-based CT might be associated with greater self-disclosure depth at those lowest levels of relationship development and (as observed) associated with less depth at higher levels of relationship development. This pattern of associations would be consistent with the idea that higher relationship development is associated with less self-disclosure depth via voice-based CTs but inconsistent with the idea that differences in self-disclosure via voice-based CTs and FtF communication disappear at high levels of relationship development. Instead, participants in more developed relationships appeared to be the least likely to self-disclose via voice-based CTs.

It is also noteworthy that findings regarding relationship development differed for self-disclosure breadth and depth. Previous research has found that text-based CTs are often perceived as less personal and less suitable for personal relationships than either the telephone or FtF communication (e.g., Cummings et al., 2002; Stafford et al., 1999). It is possible that participants saw text-based CTs such as text messaging (which was the dominant text-based CT used by this sample) as an inappropriate mode of discussing intimate topics in romantic relationships, whereas norms regarding the telephone are more permissive of those types of conversations. In contrast, text-based CTs might be more useful for wide-ranging getting-to-know-you conversations early in relationships (though participants still appeared to prefer FtF communication for these purposes).

Theoretical implications

Overall, the current study advances research on CT use in ongoing relationships in two ways. First, it offers an explanation for inconsistencies in previous survey research and between survey research using ongoing relationships and experimental research using zero-history dyads. Self-disclosure is closely tied to the development of close relationships and can function to fulfill partners’ goals in those relationships (Derlega et al., 1993). Thus, research on self-disclosure via CTs must pay careful attention to the nature of the relationships being studied. Similarly, attention to the everyday communication patterns in relationships (as opposed to people’s perceptions of those patterns) is important to understanding CT use in relationships. The current study suggests that, for at least some relationships, self-disclosure via CTs may be less common than previous research has indicated.

Second, relationship development helped explain participants’ use of reduced-cue CTs for self-disclosure. This finding highlights the utility of drawing from research on both relational communication and CTs to provide a more integrated perspective on self-disclosure via CTs. Theories of relationship development such as social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) and Knapp’s (1978) staircase model can be combined with theories of self-disclosure in exclusively online relationships such as social information processing theory (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther & Burgoon, 1992) to generate more specific hypotheses about when and how CTs are used for self-disclosure in proximal relationships. This integrated perspective can help elucidate the role of CTs in the escalation and maintenance of close relationships.

Limitations and future directions

Although the current study has several strengths, including the use of a diary methodology that examined specific conversations within relationships, limitations also exist. First, the method employed in the current study does not allow for directional claims regarding associations between reduced-cue CT use, self-disclosure, and relationship development. In ongoing relationships, people regularly engage in interactions with their partners and often have a choice of which communication mode to use in those interactions, so the associations between CT use and conversational outcomes are complex. Such associations are likely attributable to a range of co-occurring factors, including strategic use of CTs to achieve desired conversational outcomes (Joinson, 2004; O’Sullivan, 2000), routine use of frequently used communication modes (Timmerman, 2002), and effects of the technology (Antheunis et al., 2007; Joinson, 2001). Contradictions between the current findings and previous experimental findings underline this likelihood. For example, it is possible that people choose whether to use reduced-cue CTs or FtF communication based on the level of self-disclosure they anticipate occurring in the interaction.

Second, the predominance of women in the sample potentially limits the study’s generalizability. Women and men tend to use CTs differently. For example, compared to men, women report greater communication quality when using instant messaging (Ramirez & Broneck, 2009) and more expansive friendship networks when using text messaging (though not higher contact frequency or intimacy; Igarashi, Takai, & Yoshida, 2005). Women are also slightly more likely to self-disclose than are men (Dindia & Allen, 1992), though this difference might shrink in romantic relationships (Derlega et al., 1993). It is also unclear whether the opportunity to mask nonverbal cues in reduced-cue CTs might differentially favor men and women. Women tend to be more nonverbally expressive than men (Hall, Carter, & Horgan, 2000), so they might benefit more from the ability to mask their nonverbal cues via reduced-cue CTs.

Finally, the actual content of participants’ conversations was not recorded. CTs are frequently used for routine communication such as coordinating meeting times (Boneva & Kraut, 2002) as well as for more strategic purposes such as mitigating face threat (O’Sullivan, 2000), risk of rejection (Joinson, 2004), and self-consciousness (Matheson & Zanna, 1988; Schouten et al., 2007). The current study found that, overall, participants self-disclosed with less breadth and depth when they used reduced-cue CTs than when they used FtF communication. However, particular topics (e.g., conflict, small talk, and expressing affection) might exhibit different patterns. It is also possible that particular topics are carried through multiple conversations (e.g., starting a fight FtF in the morning, text messaging about the issue while at work, and resolving the issue later over the phone). The current perspective would predict that relationship development would play a role in which communication modes partners used and how they communicated while using them, but the precise nature of this process is not addressed by the current study. Although this study contributes to existing literature by explicating the role of relationship development in CT use and self-disclosure in proximal romantic relationships and providing a basis for further work in this area, future research should expand in this direction with more detailed examinations of message content.

Conclusion

Self-disclosure is key to relationship development and maintenance (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Hays, 1984; Yum & Hara, 2005), and CTs are increasingly popular means for communication in close relationships (Boase et al., 2006). Understanding when and how proximal romantic partners use CTs to self-disclose can help researchers develop a better understanding of development and maintenance processes in close relationships. The current study contributes to this goal by using participants’ reports of each conversation with their proximal romantic partners over a 4-day period to examine associations between reduced-cue CT use, self-disclosure, and relationship development. The findings highlight the importance of accounting for partners’ relationships and suggest that FtF communication might be preferred for self-disclosure in some relationships, but the extent of this preference is tied to characteristics of the relationship.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Altman

Taylor

D. A.

(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Antheunis

M. L.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 831–835. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9945

Aron

Melinat

Aron

E. N.

Vallone

R. D.

(1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.

Aubé

(2008). Balancing concern for other with concern for self: Links between unmitigated communion, communion, and psychological well-being. Journal of Personality, 76, 101–133.

Baym

N. K.

(2002). Interpersonal life online. In Livingstone

Lievrouw

(Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs (pp. 62–76). London, England: Sage Publications.

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

Boase

Horrigan

J. B.

Wellman

Rainie

(2006). The strength of Internet ties. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/˜/media//Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Internet_ties.pdf.pdf

Bolger

Davis

Rafaeli

(2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579–617.

10.

Boneva

Kraut

(2002). Email, gender, and personal relationships. In Wellman

Haythornthwaite

(Eds.), The Internet in everyday life: The information age (pp. 372–403). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

11.

Bonito

J. A.

Ruppel

E. K.

Keyton

(2012). Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Research, 43, 443–467. doi:10.1177/1046496412437614

12.

Buote

V. M.

Wood

Pratt

(2009). Exploring similarities and differences between online and offline friendships: The role of attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 560–567.

13.

Burgoon

J. K.

Bonito

J. A.

Bengtsson

Ramirez

Jr Dunbar

N. E.

Miczo

(1999). Testing the interactivity model: Communication processes, partner assessments, and the quality of collaborative work. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 33–56.

14.

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.

15.

Cummings

J. N.

Butler

Kraut

(2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45, 103–108.

16.

Cupach

W. R.

Metts

(1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

17.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

18.

Dindia

Allen

(1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106–124. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106

19.

Duck

Rutt

D. J.

Hurst

M. H.

Strejc

(1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267.

20.

Erickson

T. M.

Newman

M. G.

Pincus

A. L.

(2009). Predicting unpredictability: Do measures of interpersonal rigidity/flexibility and distress predict intraindividual variability in social perceptions and behavior? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 893–912. doi:10.1037/a0016515

21.

Hall

J. A.

Carter

J. D.

Horgan

T. G.

(2000). Gender differences in nonverbal communication of emotion. In Fischer

A. H.

(Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. (pp. 97–117). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Hays

R. B.

(1984). The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 75–98. doi:10.1177/0265407584011005

23.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1981). Self-disclosure and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1150–1159.

24.

Igarashi

Takai

Yoshida

(2005). Gender differences in social network development via mobile phone text messages: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 691–713. doi:10.1177/0265407505056492

25.

Jiang

L. C.

Bazarova

N. N.

Hancock

J. T.

(2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40, 125–143.

26.

Johnson

A. J.

Haigh

M. M.

Becker

J. A. H.

Craig

E. A.

Wigley

(2008). College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long-distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 381–404. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00401.x

27.

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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.36

28.

Joinson

A. N.

(2004). Self-esteem, interpersonal risk, and preference for e-mail to face-to-face communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 472–478. doi:10.1089/cpb.2004.7.472

29.

Knapp

M. L.

(1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

30.

Knapp

M. L.

Ellis

D. G.

Williams

B. A.

(1980). Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Communication Monographs, 47, 262–278.

31.

Kreft

I. G. G.

de Leeuw

Aiken

L. S.

(1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_1

32.

Kunkel

A. D.

Wilson

S. R.

Olufowote

Robson

(2003). Identity implications of influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 382–412.

33.

Matheson

Zanna

M. P.

(1988). The impact of computer-mediated communication on self-awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 221–233. doi:10.1016/0747-5632(88)90015-5

34.

McKenna

K. Y. A.

Bargh

J. A.

(2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4, 57–75.

35.

Nguyen

Bin

Y. S.

Campbell

(2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. CyberPsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15, 103–111. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0277

36.

O’Sullivan

P. B.

(2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26, 403–441.

37.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2008). When accommodation matters: Situational dependency within daily interactions with romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 95–104. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.005

38.

Parks

M. R.

Floyd

(1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication, 46, 80–97.

39.

Parks

M. R.

Roberts

L. D.

(1998). “Making MOOsic”: The development of personal relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 517–537. doi:10.1177/0265407598154005

40.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2006). Individual differences in perceptions of Internet communication. European Journal of Communication, 21, 213–226.

41.

Prisbell

Andersen

J. F.

(1980). The importance of perceived homophily, level of uncertainty, feeling good, safety, and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 28, 22–33.

42.

Ramirez

Broneck

(2009). ‘IM me’: Instant messaging as relational maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 291–314. doi:10.1177/0265407509106719

43.

Rettie

(2009). SMS: Exploiting the interactional characteristics of near-synchrony. Information, Communication & Society, 12, 1131–1148. doi:10.1080/13691180902786943

44.

Schiffrin

Edelman

Falkenstern

Stewart

(2010). The associations among computer-mediated communication, relationships, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 299–306. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0173

45.

Schouten

A. P.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 10, 292–315. doi:10.1080/15213260701375686

46.

Sibley

C. G.

Overall

N. C.

(2008). The boundaries between attachment and personality: Localized versus generalized effects in daily social interaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1394–1407. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.004

47.

Stafford

Kline

S. L.

Dimmick

(1999). Home e-mail: Relational maintenance and gratification opportunities. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 659–669.

48.

Taylor

D. A.

Altman

(1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In Roloff

M. E.

Miller

G. R.

(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 257–277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

49.

Taylor

D. A.

Wheeler

Altman

(1973). Self-disclosure in isolated groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 39–47. doi:10.1037/h0034233

50.

Tidwell

L. C.

Walther

J. B.

(2002). Computer-mediated communication 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

51.

Timmerman

C. E.

(2002). The moderating effect of mindlessness/mindfulness upon media richness and social influence explanations of organizational media use. Communication Monographs, 69, 111–131.

52.

Tokunaga

R. S.

(2009). High-speed Internet access to the other: The influence of cultural orientations on self-disclosures in offline and online relationships. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38, 133–147.

53.

Tolstedt

B. E.

Stokes

J. P.

(1984). Self-disclosure, intimacy, and the depenetration process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 84–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.84

54.

Tong

S. T.

Walther

J. B.

(2010). Relational maintenance and CMC. In Wright

K. B.

Webb

L. M.

(Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 98–118). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

55.

Utz

(2007). Media use in long-distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 694–713.

56.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43, 267–277.

57.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2009). The effects of instant messaging on the quality of adolescents’ existing friendships: A longitudinal study. Journal of Communication, 59, 79–97. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01405.x

58.

Walther

J. B.

Burgoon

J. K.

(1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50–88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x

59.

Walther

J. B.

Ramirez

(2010). New technologies and new directions in online relating. In Smith

S. W.

Wilson

S. R.

(Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research. (pp. 264–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

60.

Wheeler

Nezlek

(1977). Sex differences in social participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 742–754.

61.

Wheeless

L. R.

(1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143–157. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x

62.

Wilson

S. R.

Kunkel

A. D.

Robson

S. J.

Olufowote

J. O.

Soliz

(2009). Identity implications of relationship (re)definition goals: An analysis of face threats and facework as young adults initiate, intensify, and disengage from romantic relationships. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 28, 32–61.

63.

Worthy

Gary

A. L.

Kahn

G. M.

(1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59–63. doi:10.1037/h0027990

64.

Yum

Y.-O.

Hara

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