Self-Disclosure, Interpersonal Relationships, and Stickiness of Online Communities
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2015, Pages: 71-78
Received: Feb. 25, 2015; Accepted: Mar. 9, 2015; Published: Mar. 17, 2015
Views 4043      Downloads 289
Authors
Ying-Wei Shih, Department of Information Management, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan
Meng-Hsu Hsu, Graduate Institute of Technology Management, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung City, Taiwan
De-Chih Lee, Department of Information Management, Da-Yeh University, Dacun, Changhua, Taiwan
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Online communities change the way people interact. Due to the high diversity of online communities, how to maintain and increase user participation is an important issue for the administrators of those sites. This study first examines propensity to trust, need for affiliation, and exhibitionism as antecedents to self-disclosure and relationship maintenance and further explores the effects of self-disclosure and relationship maintenance on intimacy as well as the relation of intimacy to stickiness. By convenience and snowball sampling, 503 valid responses to an online questionnaire were collected. Data was analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 7.0. Results indicate that need for affiliation and exhibitionism have positive effects on self-disclosure, that propensity to trust and need for affiliation are antecedents to relationship maintenance, that self-disclosure and relationship maintenance contribute to intimacy, and that intimacy reinforces stickiness to online communities.
Keywords
Propensity to Trust, Need for Affiliation, Exhibitionism, Self-Disclosure, Relationship Maintenance, Intimacy, Stickiness
To cite this article
Ying-Wei Shih, Meng-Hsu Hsu, De-Chih Lee, Self-Disclosure, Interpersonal Relationships, and Stickiness of Online Communities, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2015, pp. 71-78. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20150402.16
References
[1]
DigiTimes (2014). Embracing social commerce. URL: http://www.bnext.com.tw/article/view/id/30634, retrieved at March, 2014.
[2]
Market Intelligence and Consulting Institute (2013). Analyses of user activities in online communities using PC and mobile devices. URL: http://mic.iii.org.tw/aisp/reports/reportdetail.asp?docid=CDOC20130724012&doctype=RC&smode=1, retrieved at March 18, 2014.
[3]
Market Intelligence and Consulting Institute (2014). Analyses of use of online communities (II). URL: http://mic.iii.org.tw/aisp/reports/reportdetail.asp?docid=CDOC20140505002&doctype=RC, retrieved at June 3, 2014.
[4]
Yeh, R. C., Lin, Y.-C., Tseng, K.-H., Chung, P., Lou, S.-J., & Chen, Y.-C. (2013). Why do people stick to play social network sites?: An extension of expectation-confirmation model with perceived interpersonal values and playfulness perspectives. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 457, 37-46.
[5]
Zhou, T., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2010). The effect of flow experience on mobile SNS users' loyalty. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(6), 930-946.
[6]
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35-59.
[7]
Sun, T., & Wu, G. (2011). Traits, predictors, and consequences of Facebook self-presentation. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 419-433.
[8]
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2008). Fundaments of trust management in the development of virtual communities. Management Research News, 31(5), 324-338.
[9]
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
[10]
Jha, S. (2010). Need for growth, achievement, power and affiliation: Determinants of psychological empowerment. Global Business Review, 11(3), 379-393.
[11]
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331-351.
[12]
Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., & Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or megaphone?: How relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2004-2012.
[13]
Rose, P., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Greatness feels good: A telic model of narcissism and subjective well-being. In S. P. Shohov (Ed), Advances in Psychology Research, Vol. 31 (pp. 3-26). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
[14]
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook?: An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1658-1664.
[15]
Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 103-111.
[16]
Park, N., Jin, B., & Jin, S.-A. A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on relational intimacy in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1974-1983.
[17]
Bippus, A. M., & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends' perceptions. Communication Reports, 16(2), 113-123.
[18]
Thelwall, M., & Wilkinson, D. (2010). Public dialogs in social network sites: What is their purpose? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 392-404.
[19]
Ellison, N. B., Vitak, J., Gray, R., & Lampe, C. (2014). Cultivating social resources on social network sites: Facebook relationship maintenance behaviors and their role in social capital processes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 855-870.
[20]
Rau, P.-L. P., Gao, Q., & Ding, Y. (2008). Relationship between the level of intimacy and lurking in online social network services. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2757-2770.
[21]
Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction. Journal of Sex Education & Therapy, 22(1), 7-14.
[22]
Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771-1778.
[23]
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725-737.
[24]
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.
[25]
Hsu, C.-L., Liu, C.-C., & Lee, Y.-D. (2010). Effect of commitment and trust towards micro-blogs on consumer behavioral intention: A relationship marketing perspective. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 8(4), 292-303.
[26]
Hwang, Y. (2011). Is communication competence still good for interpersonal media?: Mobile phone and instant messenger. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 924-934.
[27]
Taddei, S., & Contena, B. (2013). Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online self-disclosure? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 821-826.
[28]
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Research note: Individual differences in perceptions of Internet communication. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 213-226.
[29]
Tsai, H.-T., Huang, H.-C., & Chiu, Y.-L. (2012). Brand community participation in Taiwan: Examining the roles of individual-, group-, and relationship-level antecedents. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 676-684.
[30]
Hollenbaugh, E. E. (2010). Personal journal bloggers: Profiles of disclosiveness. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1657-1666.
[31]
Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50-58.
[32]
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents' and adolescents' online communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 267-277.
[33]
Vitak, J. (2012). The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 451-470.
[34]
Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media: Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635-657.
[35]
Bauminger, N., Finzi-Dottan, R., Chason, S., & Har-Even, D. (2008). Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 409-428.
[36]
Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2002). Close online relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Adolescence, 37(147), 441-455.
[37]
Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior: Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 130-147.
[38]
Lee, Y., & Kwon, O. (2011). Intimacy, familiarity and continuance intention: An extended expectation-confirmation model in web-based services. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(3), 342-357.
[39]
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society: An International Journal, 18(5), 385-401.
[40]
Hsu, C.-W., Wang, C.-C., & Tai, Y.-T. (2011). The closer the relationship, the more the interaction on Facebook?: Investigating the case of Taiwan users. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (7-8), 473-476.
[41]
Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2006). Online friendship formation, communication channels, and social closeness. International Journal of Internet Science, 1(1), 29-44.
[42]
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 143-157.
[43]
Lin, J. C.-C. (2007). Online stickiness: Its antecedents and effect on purchasing intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(6), 507-516.
[44]
Yang, K.-Y., & Heh, J.-S. (2007). The impact of Internet virtual physics laboratory instruction on the achievement in physics, science process skills and computer attitudes of 10th-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(5), 451-461.
[45]
Yusoff, M. S. B. (2011). Psychometric properties of the learning approach inventory: A confirmatory factor analysis. Education in Medicine Journal, 3(2), e24-e31.
[46]
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[47]
Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(2), 263-275.
[48]
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
[49]
Seyal, A. H., Rahman, M. N. A., & Rahim, M. M. (2002). Determinants of academic use of the Internet: A structural equation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 71-86.
[50]
Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.
[51]
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
[52]
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186