Page 1
0
How motivations of online self-disclosure affect friend’s
relationship closeness: An investigation in Facebook
BY
Ho Yin Ha
12022179
Information Systems and e-Business Management Concentration
Yiu Tsz Wing Joanne
12021776
Information Systems and e-Business Management Concentration
An Honours Degree Project Submitted to the
School of Business in Partial Fulfillment of the
Graduation Requirement for the Degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours)
Hong Kong Baptist University
Hong Kong
April 2014
Page 2
1
Acknowledgement
We would like to take this opportunity to express our honest thanks to our supervisor,
Dr. Christy, M.K. Cheung. Her valuable opinion and support provide us a clear
direction on our project and make us confidence to overcome all the challenges.
Moreover, we would like to express our thankfulness to all the respondents who have
helped us to finish our survey. Without their help, we cannot work on our research
analysis.
Page 3
2
Abstract
Facebook has been regarded as the most popular social networking site in Hong Kong.
For the majority of people, Facebook performs an unbelievable online social platform
for individuals’ profile building and social connection. For others, it also brings some
influences on relationship maintenance between existing friends. Despite an increasing
interest in using Facebook on the interpersonal relationship issue, only a few IS
literature studies observed the relationship between online self-disclosure, online
communication and relationship closeness. Our study aims to explore the use of
Facebook Motivations based on Social Exchange Theory in order to explain the effect
of self-disclosure on relationship closeness, especially for the oversea friendship
maintenance. We examined our model with a sample of 208 active Facebook members
among Hong Kong university students. The results present a strong support to the
hypotheses. Relationship building is the main motive to determine online
self-disclosure, however, the effect of online self-disclosure on online communication
is weak. In addition, online communication is also found significant in determining
relationship closeness. This research paper provides a theoretical explanation of online
self-disclosure and interpersonal relationship on Facebook usage. The results enhance
Social Networking Sites’ developers, the government, users and the researchers in
understanding the effect of online self-disclosure on relationship closeness.
Keywords: Social Networking sites, Self-disclosure, Online self-disclosure, Online
communication, Relationship closeness
Page 4
3
Content
Page
1. Introduction 4
2. Literature Review 6
2.1 Social Exchange Theory 6
2.2 Social Networking Sites 9
2.3 Self-disclosure 10
2.4 Online Self-Disclosure 11
2.5 Online Communication 12
2.6 Relationship Closeness 16
3. Research Model and Statement of Hypothesis 18
3.1 Perceived Privacy Risk and Online Self-disclosure 19
3.2 Perceived Benefits and Online Self-disclosure 20
3.3 Online Self-disclosure and Online Communication 22
3.4 Online Communication and Relationship Closeness 22
4. Research Methodology 24
5. Data Analysis and Result 27
5.1 Measurement Model 27
5.2 Structural Model 30
6. Discussion 33
6.1 General Discussion 33
6.2 Implication for Research and Practice 36
6.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions 39
7. Conclusion 42
8. Appendix 43
Page 5
4
2 Introduction
In recent decade, social networking sites (SNSs) have transformed as an essential
part in our daily lives, playing an irreplaceable role in online social connection. SNSs
give rise to a new era of communication behavior, as well as forms of friendship among
adolescent friendships (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). SNSs allow members to create their
online profile, establish social network, and disclose updates about themselves (Lenhart
et al., 2007). Recent study revealed that over 75% American adolescents are
participating in more than one social webpage (e.g. Blog, Facebook) for sharing
information and interacting with others (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith and Zickuhr, 2010).
Over 1 billion users registered at Facebook.com, and the majority of users log on to
Facebook every day (Facebook, 2012). It is undeniably SNSs have brought remarkable
changes on our social interactions.
The proliferation of SNSs has drawn attention in the academia. Scholars are
attempting to explore the effects of information technology on interpersonal
relationship (Bouillion Diaz, Thompson, & DeGennaro, 2010). For example, Whitty
(2008) indicates that self-disclosure fosters and strengthens interpersonal relationships.
Ledbetter (2009b) suggests that attitude toward online self-disclosure (OSD) and
attitude toward online social connection (OSC) are two important factors motivating
media-use patterns in interpersonal relationships (Ledbetter, 2009). Wright and his
colleagues (Wright, Craig, Cunningham, Igiel, & Ploeger, 2008) further reveal that the
breadth and depth of self-disclosure are associated with increased interdependence and
predictability. To sum, current research focuses only on the impacts of self-disclosure
in relationship building and intimacy.
Page 6
5
However, limited attention has been given to examine the associated risks and
effect of self-disclosure on overseas relationships. Why users divulge their personal
information online despite the potential privacy risks perceived, and whether practicing
self-disclosure online sustain and foster overseas relationship remains as an
unanswered myth.
To address this research gap, we draw upon social exchange theory (SET), and
propose a research model that examines the factors and impact assented with online
self-disclosure.
Specifically, we endeavor to answer the following research questions.
1. What are the factors associated with online self-disclosure?
2. How self-online disclosure influence the oversea relationship closeness
We expect this study contributes the academia and community in several ways.
From a theoretical perspective, this study teases out the myth of how SNSs users
evaluate and balance the perceived benefits and risks of practicing online
self-disclosure. It also reveals impact of online self-disclosure on overseas relationship
closeness. From a practical perspective, this study shed lights for SNSs developers to
sustain their competitive edges by improving the site performance and fulfilling users’
needs.
The rest of the paper is structured as below. First, we analyze the literature related
to self-disclosure, online communication and relationship closeness. Second, we
elaborate the research model and hypotheses. Third, we introduce the research
Page 7
6
methodology and provide the statistical results. Finally, we discuss the findings,
contributions and directions for further research.
2. Literature Review
Prior literature provides us with a rich foundation on which to build a research
model to examine online self-disclosure and relationship closeness on Facebook usage.
In this section, we first provide a brief review of research on social exchange theory
and describe the concept of social networking sites and self-disclosure. We then
elaborate on the concept of online commination and relationship closeness and
discuss the underlying theoretical framework.
2.1 Social Exchange Theory
The assumption of Social Exchange Theory (SET) refers to formation and
maintenance of relationships by gaining the benefits from the exchanging process,
which applies subjective evaluation on cost and rewards in interpersonal relationships
(Buunk and Schaufeli, 1999; Homan, 1958; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). The
adaptability and predictive power of Social Exchange Theory has been demonstrated
across different online contexts, such as in online learning ability, e-retailing and
online review sites. For example, Lin et al. (2010) found key motivations of virtual
teams’ online learning ability within business organizations, suggesting the factor,
team commitment and task conflict is salient of online learning ability. In the same
vein, we believed that Social Exchange Theory would be an appropriate and
applicable theory to examine current phenomenon. Table 1 summarized the selected
literature of using Social Exchange Theory in online context.
Page 8
7
Table 1 Selected Literature of using Social Exchange Theory in Online Context
Study Objective Context Factors extracted Decision Variable Sample Finding
Lin et al.
(2010)
To examine key drivers of
online learning ability of
organization team
Online
learning
ability
Team commitment
Task conflict
Relationship
conflict
Online learning
ability
437
professionals
on virtual
teams within
Taiwan’s IT
industry
Online learning
ability is positively
and directly
influenced by team
commitment and task
conflict
Jin et al.
(2010)
To examine how
members’ commitment to
an online
communities(OC)
develops in the context of
OCs hosted by firms and
freely available to anyone
Online
communities
Sociability
Usability
Perceived social
benefit
Perceived
functional benefit
Commitment to
online
communities
595 South
Korea
residents
aged 18
years old or
above
Members’ perceived
social benefits from
active OC
participation led to an
affective
commitment to the
OC
Xiao et al.
(2012)
To understand the
mechanism of knowledge
exchange in the virtual
community from the
social perspective
Online
Social
Networks
Perceived trust
Outcome
expectation
Knowledge
Exchange
248
experienced
online
community
users
Online social
attributes of the
Internet users are key
facilitators in
knowledge exchange
Page 9
8
Anaza et
al. (2013)
To explain customer
citizenship behavior in a
highly technological
e-retailing context
e-retailing Facilitating
conditions
Familiarity with
e-store
Satisfaction with
e-retailer
Loyalty to e-retailer
Commitment to
e-retailer
E-customer
citizenship
behaviors
186
e-shoppers
e-customer
familiarity with an
e-store and
facilitating conditions
provided by an
e-retailer influence
e-customers’
e-satisfaction,
e-loyalty, and
e-commitment with
an e-retailer
Munzel
and Kunz
(2014)
To understand who
contributes and why
different types of
contributors generate and
leverage social capital on
online review sites
Online
review sites
Altruism based on
positive /negative
experience
Venting negative
feelings
Social bonding
Economic
incentives
Intrinsic fun and
enjoyment
Electronic
word-of-mouth
693
contributors
on a hotel
review site
Multipliers display a
higher tendency to
interact and connect
with other
like-minded
individuals
Page 10
9
2.2 Social Networking Sites
The first Social Networking Site (SNS) was called sixdegrees.com in 1997 (Boyd
& Ellison, 2007). SNS is a web-based platform formed within a virtual community,
such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace. Each profile is unique and enables users to
“type oneself into being” (Sunden, 2003). SNSs facilitate people to create their
ideal-self through their SNS profile. In the composition of SNSs, friends are the
fundamental elements and play an essential role. A remarkable characteristic of SNSs is
that they allow users to become visible in social networks and develop connections
between individuals. As a result, SNS is a place which allows participants to disclose
their personal information to create a user-profile, search out other users on that
particular website based on shared connections, and then contact with those users
within the constraints of that site (Boyd & Ellison, 2007).
A number of academic scholars have attempted to examine SNSs in several
perspectives, such as cultural difference in motivations for using SNS (e.g., Kim,
Sohn & Choi, 2011), conceptualization of SNSs (e.g., Boyd & Ellison, 2007), uses and
gratifications theory of SNSs (e.g., Acquisti et al. 2006 ), identity in SNSs (e.g., Zhao,
Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008), trust and privacy in SNSs (e.g., Dwyer & Hiltz, 2007),
self-disclosure in SNSs (Dwyer et al., 2007; Donath and Boyd, 2004), social capital in
SNSs (e.g., Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), effect of profile information in
SNSs (e.g., Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008), and gender
effect in SNSs (e.g., Barker, 2009).
In recent decade, scholars have examined SNSs in self-disclosure and relationship
closeness. For instance, McCarty, Prawitz, Derscheid, and Montgomery (2011)
investigate that adolescents who use Facebook frequently are likely to affect their
Page 11
10
interpersonal communication with others. That is to say, online interaction weakens
social relationships with others (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Kiesler, Mukopadhyay &
Scherlis, 1998). The above studies suggested that SNSs are harmful for interpersonal
relationship. However, Boyd (2007) indicated that SNSs act as a fundamental role in
changing the meaning and methods of social connectivity. Individuals enjoy sharing
their personal information in SNSs. Sheldon (2009) also suggested that the more a
person discloses in the public environment of the SNS, the more social connections
they are able to create. This study showed that disclosing in SNS brings positive effects
on interpersonal relationship and social participation.
Although several studies have attempted to investigate self-disclosure and
relationship closeness in the context of SNSs, the factors derived to relationship
closeness between friendships in SNSs environment have been overlooked in. Thus
there is a need to enrich current understanding of SNSs social connection by exploring
the self-disclosure factors derived from the SNSs environment.
2.3 Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure refers to ‘any message about the self that a person communicates to
another’ (Wheeless and Grotz, 1976). In the past, researchers considered self-disclosure
as an individual verbally revealing of themselves to others (Derlega, Metts, Petronio &
Margulis, 1993). Altman & Taylor (1973) reveal that self-disclosure is a psychological
term which means that individuals display more information with others can result in a
closer relationship. Thus, self-disclosure improves and maintains interpersonal
relationships.
Page 12
11
2.4 Online self-disclosure
SNSs have changed human behaviors in these few years. Some research has shown
that individuals are intended to use SNSs such as Facebook to maintain contact with
friends and family, as well as rebuilding the relationship with old friends (Smith, 2011).
A number of empirical studies began to focus on self-disclosure in terms of SNSs.
Besides disclosing personal information on SNSs, individuals also share private
information such as hobbies, relationship status and life attitude or anything interesting
to their lives. (Gross and Acquisti 2005; Krasnova et al. 2010).
Prior study mostly investigate the motivation of using SNSs or SNSs
self-disclosure. For example, Krasnova et al. (2010) found convenience of maintaining
relationships is the most influential motives of information disclosure on SNSs.Most of
the research apply Users and Gratifications Theory to examine those phenomenon as
the theoretical foundation.
Uses and Gratifications Theory is based on the premise that individuals perceive
media as a way to fulfill their needs and result in gratification (Lariscy et al. 2011) while
Acquisti et al. (2006) indicate that there are increasing numbers of users are aware of
privacy risk which associated with social media and some users argues they feel there
has trade-off in between privacy risk and returns for disclosure (Culnan and Armstrong,
1999). Precedent literature studied the phenomenon into two perspectives: 1. Cost and
benefits of self-disclosure 2. Gratifications gain from media use. For example,
Krasnova et al. (2010) mentioned that online self-disclosure behavior involved benefits
and costs of information disclosure. The study utilizes Social Exchange Theory and
Privacy Calculus Theory to evaluate the phenomenon of what factors will motivate
users to disclose personal information, as well as suggests that interpersonal
Page 13
12
relationships are based on evaluating the cost and benefit of online self-disclosure.
Table 2 summarized prior literature on motivations of using SNSs or online
self-disclosure.
2.5 Online Communication
With the growth of popularity of SNSs, many people have intended to change their
communication behavior from traditional to Online. Online communication is
conceptualized by Munn (2011), which is defined as the interaction within the virtual
environment system to be found on shared activity and has significant implications for
the way where friendships can be created. According to Boyd (2007), adolescents use
SNSs such as Facebook and MySpace to hang out in a more public way. They share
their photos with friends, give comments to each other, and keep attention to the closest
friends on their profiles. Therefore, online communication means “interactions”
between participants in social networking sites, including commenting, sharing, and
disclosing.
Online communication has long been debated in several perspectives, such as the
effect of online communication on user’s well-being (Nie, Hillygus, & Erbring, 2002;
Shklovski, Kraut, & Rainie, 2004), relationship between online communication and
self-disclosure (Ledbetter, 2009b), the effect of online communication on interpersonal
relationship (Locke, 1998; Linigstone 2008), relationship between age and online
communication (Lenhart et al., 2005), the effect of gender difference in online
communication (e.g., Gross, 2004; Kraut et al., 1998; Lenhart et al., 2005; Valkenburg
et al., 2005).
Page 14
13
Table 2 Selected Literature on Motivations of Using SNSs or Online Self-disclosure
Study Objective Theory Factors extracted Decision Variable Sample Finding
Krasnova et
al. (2010)
To understand what
motivates users to
disclose personal
information
Social Exchange
Theory
Privacy Calculus
Theory
Convenience of
maintaining
relationships
Relationship
building
Self-presentation
Enjoyment
Perceived
privacy risk
Online
self-disclosure
Focus group:
16 students
under aged 30
Primarily motivated
to disclose because
of the convenience
of maintaining and
developing
relationships and
platform enjoyment
Posey et al.
(2010)
To propose an online
community
self-disclosure
model
Social Exchange
Theory
Social Penetration
Theory
Cross-Cultural
Theory
Social influence
to an online
community
Reciprocity
Privacy risk
Inclination
toward
reciprocity
Self-disclosure French and
British work
professionals
Social influence to
use an online
community
increases online
community
self-disclosure
positively
Kim et al.
(2011)
To examine the
motives and patterns
of using SNSs
Uses and
Gratifications
Theory
Seeking friends
Seeking
convenience
Use of SNSs College
students US
and Korea
Major motives for
using SNSs are
similar between two
Page 15
14
among college
students in US and
Korea
Seeking social
support
Seeking
information
Seeking
entertainment
countries
Whiting and
Williams
(2013)
To explore and
discuss the uses and
gratifications that
consumer receive
from using social
media
Uses and
Gratifications
Theory
Social interaction
Information
seeking
Pass Time
Entertainment
Relaxation
Communicatory
utility
Convenience
utility
Uses and
gratifications for
using social media
25 in-depth
interviews
with
individuals
who use social
media
Identified 10 uses
and gratifications
for using social
media
Hollenbaugh
and Ferris
(2014)
To explore the uses
of Facebook for
self-disclosure
behavior utilizing
the uses and
gratifications
perspective
Uses and
Gratifications
Theory
Virtual
community
Companionship
Exhibitionism
Relationship
maintenance
Passing time
Self-disclosure Facebook
users
Big Five personality
factors, self-esteem,
social cohesion, and
motives contribute
to self-disclosure
dimensions
Page 16
15
Many scholars have paid attention in studying the online communication,
particular in self-disclosure and relationship closeness. For example, Locke (1998)
examined that online communication weakens the closeness of adolescents’ existing
friendships. The reason is that the ease of online communication might encourage
people to spend more time alone, chatting online with strangers or forming superficial
“drive by” relationships, at the expense of deeper discussion and companionship with
family and friends (Putnam, 2000). However, stimulation hypothesis is suggested in an
indirect attitude, which indicates in helping to stimulate the closeness of existing
friendships among adolescents. The stimulation hypothesis illustrates that the online
communication create an environment to push users to disclose their personal profile in
a more easy and intimate way, which stimulates to form a close friendships in return.
According to Altman and Taylor (1973), the relationship maintenance can be
determined by two types of online communication, which are breadth (content areas of
communication) and depth (intimacy level of communication) (Knapp & Vangelisti,
2000). Breadth of communication offers interaction partners with a vital means to
explore common topics and interests, which is the entrance to be more intimate in
communication. Depth of communication is important for the growing and keeping a
close relationship. Linigstone (2008) found that online hang out is similar to offline
counterpart, to allow adolescents strengthen their peer group membership and define
their relationship with the peer. Some studies also indicated that the adolescents’ online
communication brings a positive effect on friendship (Subrahmanyam & Smahel, 2011;
Valkenburg & Peter, 2009, 2011).
The current literature review concerning on online communication and
interpersonal relationship are available in IS study. However, only a few studies pay
attention on the effect of self-disclosure on online communication. Therefore, it is
Page 17
16
essential to understand more in this perspective in our report.
2.6 Relationship Closeness
Recently, many scholars have been focusing on relationship closeness and
investigating in different relationship types, such as friendship, romantic and family
relationships (Vangelisti and Caughlin, 1997). Our conceptualization of relationship
closeness is a kind of interpersonal relationship and closeness to be regarded as a
subjective experience of emotional affinity, intimacy, and psychological bonding with
another person (Aron, Mashek, & Aron, 2004). According to interpersonal solidarity
concept, it is an affective aspect of interpersonal relationships, such liking, trust,
frequent interaction and similarity (Wheeless, 1987).
In the IS literature, relationship closeness has been gained lots of interested in
several aspects, such as definition of relationship closeness (Aron, Mashek, & Aron,
2004; Vangelisti and Caughlin, 1997) online communication and relationship closeness
(Ledbetter, 2009a) and different social ties on online relationship closeness
(Haythornthwaite, 2005).
A majority of studies on exploring relationship closeness in IS perspective are
concerning on self-disclosure and online communication. For example, Wheeless
(1976) indicated that self-disclosure positively drives close relationship. Another study
also found that self-disclosure is a good approach to perform intimate and close
relationship (Collins & Miller, 1994). By disclosing more personal information, people
can achieve more understanding and trust from others. In this way, the relationship
tends to be stronger and closer, depending on which personalities and relationship
phrases you are located (Altman and Taylor 1973; Derlega and Grzelak 1979). On the
Page 18
17
other hand, according to the augmentation hypothesis, online communication should
enhance real-world social relationship by offering opportunities for social
connectedness, expansion of social networks and exposure to individuals and
information that enhance political awareness and civic engagement (Katz & Rice, 2002;
Turke, 1995). From the above studies, social networking sites tend to be a platform to
connect self-disclosure and relationship closeness by offering a platform for users to
share personal information and interact with others. However, there are a limited
number of theory-guided studies on the effect of online communication on relationship
closeness, especially in the closeness between remote friendships. The influence of
online communication has been overlooked on many IS literature studies.
Page 19
18
4. Research Model and Statement of Hypothesis
We develop a research model to explain antecedents of online self-disclosure in
order to explain the effect on relationship closeness. Applying the Social Exchange
Theory, we systematically define two independent explanatory paths for online
self-disclosure: 1. Perceived benefits and 2. Perceived privacy risks. These two
dimensions include the cognitive decision to disclose users’ information and further
extend the model to examine the effect of online communication on relationship
closeness on theoretical based. Figure 1 depicts the components of the research model
and the interrelationships. Justifications and hypotheses are discussed as follows.
Figure 1 Research Model
Page 20
19
3.1 Perceived privacy risk and online self-disclosure
The definition of perceived privacy risk is ‘the expectation that a high potential for
loss is associated with the release of personal information to others in their electronic
communities’ (Malhotra et al., 2004, p. 341). Prior study indicates privacy concerns is
a main factor that individuals affect their decision of releasing information online
(Malhotra et al., 2004; Awad & Krishnan, 2006). This phenomenon naturally expand to
online self-disclosure. Individuals may not disclose any sensitive information if they
perceived the costs of disclosing is too high. In other words, if individuals find it risky
to disclose personal information online, they will disclose less information (Posey et al.,
2010). Similarly, we believe that individuals with a higher level of privacy risk
associated with online self-disclosure will disclose less personal information in SNSs.
Then, the hypothesis is highlighted as below:
H1a: Users’ perceived privacy risk is negatively related to their self-disclosure
behavior on Facebook.
3.2. Perceived benefits and online self-disclosure
Krasnova et al. (2010) identify four benefits that promote online self-disclosure,
namely convenience in relationship maintenance, relationship building,
self-presentation and enjoyment.
3.2.1 Convenience in relationship maintenance
The convenience features of SNSs help individuals to develop and maintain
relationships with other friends (Ahn et al.,2007). It definitely provides a convenient
access to the platform that obviates much time, effort and money. Users can
communicate with friends in a convenience and efficient way. SNSs help users
Page 21
20
maintaining large number of friends at the same time when comparing with traditional
communication tools, such as sending mail and telephone call.
Time saving is one type of convenience that motivates individuals to disclose their
personal information (Hui et al., 2006). Prior study suggests that convenience is an
important aspect of SNSs to understanding friends (Kim et al. 2011). Hann et al. (2007)
also indicate users are willing to abandon their privacy to enjoy more convenience. In
other words, convenience to maintain relationships motivate users to use SNSs to
disclose information without regarding the existing privacy risk. This leads to the
following hypothesis,
H1b: Users’ beliefs regarding a network’s ability to aid them in conveniently
maintain relationships are positively related to their self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.2.2 Relationship building
In addition to SNSs help to maintain existing relationship, it also provides
opportunities to develop and supports new relationships and rebuilds relationships with
old friends (Smith, 2011). Ellison et al. (2007) found the reasons of college students
engage in Facebook because of accumulating social capital by providing useful
perspectives and information to new contacts. This means there has positive
relationship between participate in Facebook and online self-disclosure. Based on
interpersonal theories ground, an intention to build a new friendship is often closely
related to disclosure information which is information helps sending desired signals to
let others begin contacts (Gibbs et al., 2006; Lampe et al., 2007). This leads to the
following hypothesis,
Page 22
21
H1c: Users’ beliefs regarding relationship-building opportunities on Facebook
are positively related to their self-disclosure on Facebook.
3.2.3 Self-presentation
Self-presentation is the main component why users participate in SNSs (Boyd,
2007 :11). Users can express the self-image they want to be and try to manage the
impression to others (Zarghooni, 2007). It has a possibility on controlling that could
not possess during face-to-face that only ideal information will be disclose (Ellison et
al.,2006). This action can benefit social interactions (Leary, 1996). Users can share
achievements and experiences by photos or status on their Wall or disclose personal
information to represent who they are to draw others’ attention. A study indicated that
benefits of self-representation can influence users’ participation positively (Krasnova
et al., 2008). This leads to the following hypothesis,
H1d: Users’ beliefs regarding self-representation benefits are positively related to
their self-disclosure on Facebook
3.2.4 Enjoyment
Teo et al. (1999) views individuals will participate in a specific behavior if
something brings enjoyment and fun. SNSs provide and develop pleasure and hedonic
online platform that encourage users to disclose their details and personal information.
Prior study report people enjoy discussions in Internet communities (Hui et al., 2006;
Muniz and O’Guinn, 2011). For example, statistics show 35% of daily active users
playing Facebook games is on each month, most popular apps such as Candy Crush
Saga, Farmville (Facebook.com, 2013). This demonstrate Facebook can provide an
online platform that induce users to participate and disclose. Krasnova et al. (2009)
Page 23
22
reveal a significant relationship between the participation for SNSs enjoyment benefits
and self-disclosure. This leads to the following hypothesis,
H1e: Users’ enjoyment of platform use is positively related to their self-disclosure
behavior on Facebook.
3.3 Online Self-disclosure and Online Communication
Online self-disclosure is conceptualizing as “any message about the self that a
person communicates to another”in the online environment (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976).
Personal identities can be altered by the online environment, such as those are likely to
disclose more their information compared to other means of communication
(Christofides et al., 2009 and Gibbs et al., 2006). Individuals are probably to
communicate online via SNSs to be motivated by online self-disclosure. SNSs aim to
gratify self-disclosure, such as the website structure of Facebook allowing users
sharing photos, leaving comments and establishing individual profile (Zuckerberg,
2008). Self-disclosure acts as fundamental motivations to foster online interpersonal
communication more generally. By disclosing more information, it also encourages
others to interact and make contacts with that user. This leads to the following
hypothesis:
H2: Self-disclosure is positively related to online communication.
3.4 Online communication and Relationship Closeness
Relationship closeness has obtained attention as an outcome variable associated
with various types of online communication behaviors, such as online relational
maintenance (Ledbetter, 2009a), duration of Internet use (Mesch & Talmud, 2006), and
Page 24
23
both frequency of online communication and depth of online self-disclosure
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). All these studies show a fact that is online communication
can enhance the quality of friendship.
SNSs permit social contact across time, distance, and personal circumstances. It
allows people to connect with distant as well as friends, to interact with others to
maintain friendships by sharing information. According to stimulation hypothesis
emphasizes that the newest Internet-based communication technologies are designed
to support communication with existing friends. As a result, more time spent on online
communication is used to maintain and deepen existing friendships, which eventually
enhances in closeness (Bryant et al., 2006; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007) Recent studies
have explored that online communication can enhance real-world friendship quality
and well-being when users communicate with their existing friends (Morgan & Cotten,
2003; Shaw & Gant, 2002; Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). Kraut et al. (2002) also
supports the Internet effects on offline social involvement, they examined that online
communication stimulates the closeness of adolescents’ existing friendships. This
leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Online communication positively predicts relationship closeness
Page 25
24
4. Research Methodology
The research model was investigated the antecedents and predictions of online
self-disclosure based on existing social network sites, Facebook. Facebook
(www.facebook.com), one of the most popular social network sites in Hong Kong,
provides the users with an online platform to connect with friends. We believe that
Facebook is appropriate for current study as penetration rate is very high to among all
social network sites. In this study, university students are targeted which is highly
interactive on Facebook and most of them have overseas friends. Details of data
collection methods, demographic data and measures will be discussed in the following
sections.
4.1 Data collection
We used www.qualtrics.com to develop our online survey. In this study, the sample
frame was students studying university in Hong Kong who have used Facebook and
have an overseas friend. A convenience sample was used by sending an invitation
messages with online survey URL to university students through Facebook chat
messages to participate in this study.
4.2 Sample profile
A total of 244 usable questionnaires were collected in this study. Among 244
respondents, 60% was female and 40% was male. A majority of our respondents (75%)
were aged between 18 and 22. 76% of our respondents use Facebook several times a
day. Details demographic information is shown in Table 4.
4.3 Measures
The constructs of interest in this study included Perceived Privacy Risk, Convenience
Page 26
25
in Relationship Maintenance, Relationship Building, Self-presentation, Enjoyment,
Online Self-disclosure, Online Communication and Relationship Closeness. We used
established measures from previous literature (See Appendix 8.2). All constructs were
measured using multi-item scales and were carried out by a seven-point Likert scale,
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Table 3 Construct Definitions
Constructs Item Item Text
Convenience of
Maintaining Existing
Relationships
(Chiu, Hsu, &
Wang, 2006)
CRM1 Facebook is convenient to inform all my friends
about my ongoing activities
CRM2 Facebook allows me to save time when I want
to share something new with my friends
CRM3 I find Facebook efficient in sharing information
with my friends
New Relationship
Building
(Krasnova et al.,
2010)
RB1 Through Facebook I get connected to new
people who share my interests
RB2 Facebook helps me to expand my network
RB3 I get to know new people through Facebook
Self-presentation
(Walther, Slovacek,
&Tidwell, 2001)
SP1 I try to make a good impression on others on
Facebook
SP2 I try to present myself in a favorable way on
Facebook
SP3 a Facebook helps me to present my best sides to
others
Enjoyment
(Nambisan & Baron,
2007)
ENJ1 When I am bored I often login to Facebook
ENJ2 I find Facebook entertaining
ENJ3 I spend enjoyable and relaxing time on
Facebook
Perceived Privacy
Risk
(Malhotra et al.,
PPR1 a I fear that something unpleasant can happen to
me due to my presence on Facebook
PPR2 I find it risky to publish my personal information
Page 27
26
2004) on Facebook
PPR3 Please rate your overall perception of privacy risk
involved when using Facebook (very safe is 1 –
very risky is 7)
Online
Self-disclosure
(Krasnova et al.,
2010)
SD1 I have a comprehensive profile on Facebook
SD2 I find time to keep my profile up-to-date
SD3 I keep my friends updated about what is going
on in my life through Facebook
SD4 When I have something to say, I like to share it
on Facebook
Online
Communication
(Lenhart and
Madden’s, 2007)
OC1 I write on my friend’s wall
OC2 I send my friend a private message
OC3 I communicate with the friend in a Facebook
group
OC4 a I “poke” my friend
OC5 I comment on my friend’s photographs
OC6 I comment on my friend’s status
Relationship
Closeness
(Vangelisti and
Caughlin’s, 1997)
RC1 How close are you to this person?
RC2 How often do you talk about personal things with
this person?
RC3 How satisfied are you with your relationship with
this person?
RC4 How important is your relationship with this
person?
RC5 How much do you like this person?
RC6 How important is this person’s opinion to you?
RC7 How much do you enjoy spending time with this
person?
a removed during model fitting process
Page 28
27
Table 4 Demographic Information
Demographic Information Number Percentage
Total respondents: 208
Gender:
Male 83 40%
Female 125 60%
Age:
<18 1 0%
18-22 156 75%
23-27 49 24%
28-32 2 1%
>32 0 0%
Year Experience of Using Facebook:
Less than 1 year 1 0%
1-2 years 2 1%
2-3 years 20 10%
3-4 years 32 15%
4-5 years 55 26%
More than 5 years 98 47%
Using Frequency:
Less than once a week 5 2%
Once a week 6 3%
Several times a week 15 7%
Once a day 23 11%
Several times a day 159 76%
Using Hours Per Day:
Less than 30 minutes 62 30%
30 minutes to 1 hour 65 31%
1-2 hours 47 23%
2-3 hours 19 9%
Over 3 hours 15 7%
Facebook Friends Number:
<200 16 8%
201-400 53 25%
401-600 56 27%
601-800 37 18%
801-1000 20 10%
>1000 26 13%
Page 29
28
Devices to access Facebook:
Personal computer 43 21%
Mobile 159 76%
Tablet 6 3%
Purpose of Using Facebook:
1. Check out how your friends are
doing
175
2. Chat 127
3. Update profile to pass time 83
4. Play games 69
5. Find new friends 89
Besides Facebook, contact oversea friend with other
channel:
Mobile communication apps 165 78%
Telephone 65 31%
Video conferencing 60 28%
Other social media platform 39 18%
Email 29 14%
Letter 14 7%
Time spend with oversea friend on Facebook:
Less than 1 hour 179 85%
1-2 hours 31 15%
2-3 hours 1 0%
Relationship Improved Through Using Facebook:
Yes 79 38%
No 129 63%
Page 30
29
5. Data Analysis and Result
In this section, we used SmartPLS 2.0 to conduct statistics analysis in the study.
PLS technique provides a better explanation for complex relationships and is widely
adopted by IS academic research. Following the two-step analytical approach, we first
conducted the psychometric assessment of model (Hair et al., 1998). Second, we tested
on the proposed research model. Using this approach, we have a higher confidence that
the conclusion on structural relationship is drawn from a set of measurement
instruments with desirable psychometric properties.
5.1 Measurement model
Table 5 illustrates the results of the measurement model of composite reliability
(CR), average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs. In addition, it shows the
loadings, t-values, means and standard deviation of all items. We used convergent
validity and discriminant validity as the indicators to examine the quality of
measurement model.
5.1.1 Convergent Validity
Convergent validity refers to the degree to which measurement items of a scale
correlate with each other that are related in reality. It was examined by using of the
composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE). The critical
values for CR and AVE are 0.70 and 0.50 respectively (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
According to our result, all constructs fulfill the acceptable levels of CR and AVE. As
shown in Table 1, CR and AVE are ranging from 0.74 to 0.97 and from 0.60 to 0.88
respectively. For the item loadings, all of them meet the recommended level and higher
than 0.50.
Page 31
30
Table 5: Psychometric Properties of Measures
Construct Item Loading t-value Mean St. dev
Convenience in relationship
maintenance
CR = 0.90,AVE = 0.76
CRM1 0.86 25.49 5.86 0.81
CRM2 0.92 53.36 5.81 0.84
CRM3 0.83 21.87 5.61 0.95
Enjoyment
CR = 0.87,AVE = 0.68
ENJ1 0.80 18.04 5.77 1.11
ENJ2 0.85 22.72 5.41 1.03
ENJ3 0.84 24.69 5.11 1.16
Online communication
CR = 0.92,AVE = 0.71
OC1 0.83 32.18 3.13 1.54
OC2 0.84 34.37 3.73 1.56
OC3 0.68 14.80 2.76 1.55
OC5 0.93 97.61 4.00 1.66
OC6 0.92 90.24 3.87 1.63
Perceived privacy risk
CR = 0.74,AVE = 0.60 PPR2 0.93 6.10 5.48 1.14
PPR3 0.58 2.19 4.54 1.40
Relationship building
CR = 0.93,AVE = 0.81
RB1 0.92 65.62 4.21 1.53
RB2 0.90 52.09 4.58 1.47
RB3 0.89 47.36 3.57 1.66
Relationship closeness
CR = 0.97,AVE = 0.81
RC1 0.93 83.95 4.30 1.58
RC2 0.89 49.26 4.10 1.71
Page 32
31
RC3 0.82 23.23 4.63 1.49
RC4 0.94 71.09 4.35 1.60
RC5 0.89 51.52 4.75 1.41
RC6 0.92 68.42 4.34 1.52
RC7 0.90 54.56 4.67 1.47
Self-disclosure
CR = 0.88,AVE = 0.65
SD1 0.69 14.70 3.73 1.56
SD2 0.83 26.77 3.25 1.48
SD3 0.86 42.65 4.39 1.59
SD4 0.84 34.28 4.35 1.68
Self-presentation
CR = 0.94,AVE = 0.88 SP1 0.93 68.82 5.25 1.06
SP2 0.94 73.67 5.04 1.20
Notes: CR-Composite Reliability,
AVE-Average Variance Extracted
5.1.2 Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity is the degree to which the measurement does not a correlate
with other construct. It is indicated by low correlations between the measure of interest
and the measure of other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). To examine the
discriminant validity, the squared root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct should be greater than the correlations between it and all other constructs.
From Table 6, the square root of AVE for each construct is higher than the correlations
between them and all other constructs. From the result, the discriminant validity of all
measurements is adequate and acceptable.
In the current study, robust evidence of convergent validity and discriminant
validity was found with these data.
Page 33
32
Table 6: Correlation Matrix and Psychometric Properties of Key Constructs
CRM ENJ OC PPR RB RC SD SP
Convenience in relationship
maintenance (CRM) 0.87
Enjoyment (ENJ) 0.36 0.82
Online communication (OC) 0.25 0.22 0.84
Perceived privacy risk (PPR) 0.02 -0.06 -0.12 0.77
Relationship building (RB) 0.25 0.20 0.20 -0.07 0.90
Relationship closeness (RC) 0.11 0.13 0.61 0.08 0.05 0.90
Self-disclosure (SD) 0.33 0.39 0.38 -0.19 0.40 0.09 0.81
Self-presentation (SP) 0.38 0.29 0.12 -0.03 0.35 0.08 0.40 0.94
Notes: Italicised diagonal elements are the square root of AVE for each construct.
Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between constructs.
5.2 Structural model
To measure the structural model, we use the bootstrap re-sampling procedure to
estimate and test the relationships between the hypothesis factors. Figure 2 displays the
overall explanatory power, estimated path coefficients and associated t-values of the
paths of the research model.
As show in Figure 2, the model explains 34.1 percent of variance in online
self-disclosure; 14.8 percent of variance in online communication and 37.8 percent of
variance in relationship closeness. All hypothesized paths in the research model are
statistically significant.
The result of the study indicated that perceived privacy risk, convenience in
relationship maintenance, relationship building, self-presentation and enjoyment have
positive direct effects on online self-disclosure. Relationship building is the most
significant exogenous variables of self-disclosure with a path coefficient of 0.246 and
Page 34
33
t-value of 3.930, followed by enjoyment (β=0.235, t=3.687), self-presentation
(β=0.203, t=3.620) and perceived privacy risk (β=-0.157, t=2.362). Convenience in
relationship maintenance is least significant and negative variable with a path
coefficient of 0.112 and t-value of 1.883.
Self-disclosure is significant and positive predictor of online communication with a
β=0.375 and t-values of 6.179. Online communication is also significant factor of
relationship closeness (β = 0.615, t=14.185).
Figure 2 Result of the Research Model
Note: p<0.01*, p<0.05**, p<0.01***, n.s. not significant
Page 35
34
Table 7 summarizes the results of all the hypothesis evaluation, including the path
coefficient and conclusion. According to the analysis, the discussion and implications
of the results are expounded in the coming sections.
Table 7 Summary of the Result
Hypothesis Path Path
Coefficient
Conclusion
H1a Perceived privacy risk
Online self-disclosure
-0.157**
(t=2.362)
H1a is
supported
H1b Convenience in
relationship Online
self-disclosure
0.112*
(t=1.883)
H1b is
supported
H1c Relationship building
Online self-disclosure
0.246***
(t=3.930)
H1c is
supported
H1d Self-presentation
Online self-disclosure
0.203***
(t=3.620)
H1d is
supported
H1e Enjoyment Online
self-disclosure
0.235***
(t=3.687)
H1e is
supported
H2 Online self-disclosure
Online communication
0.375***
(t=6.179)
H2 is
supported
H3 Online communication
Relationship
Closeness
0.615***
(t=14.185)
H3 is
supported
Variance explained (R2)
Online self-disclosure 0.341
Online communication 0.148
Relationship Closeness 0.378
Page 36
35
6. Discussion
The objective of this study is to enhance our theoretical understanding in how the
effects of online self-disclosure on online communication to determine the relationship
closeness. Social exchange theory is adopted to explain the model and consists of eight
constructs, including perceived privacy risk, convenience in relationship maintenance,
self-presentation, enjoyment, online self-disclosure, and online communication and
relationship closeness.
The results show that the online communication is significantly determined by online
self-disclosure. It also positively moderates the relationship between the four
antecedents (convenience in relationship maintenance, self-presentation, and
enjoyment) and online self-disclosure, perceived privacy risk indirectly via online
self-disclosure. It also found that online communication significantly predicts
relationship closeness.
6.1 General Discussion
6.1.1 Perceived benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook
We have examined four perceived benefits that promote self-disclosure on
Facebook. Surprisingly, the results are different from previous research model
(Krasnova et al., 2010). Prior study indicated convenience in relationship
maintenance is the most significant and relationship building is the least significant. It
is opposite to our result. The following will discuss this phenomenon based on
present human behaviors and Facebook functionality.
We discover that relationship building is the most significant factor of online
self-disclosure on Facebook. The main reasons is that Facebook enhance Adding
Page 37
36
Friends features recently that convenience users to adding friends. Nowadays, it is
rare to see people adding strangers as most of the users have privacy concerns.
However, people always use Facebook to extend their network by adding
acquaintance. In the past time, if they want to add a friend they have already known
offline, users is required to search them out. Facebook always keep improving on
users’ experience. It introduced two effective functions called “People I may know”
and “Suggested friends”. Facebook always show suggested friends that are highly
relevant to you on News Feed, after adding a new friend. This is very convenience for
the users to send friend requests and understand those acquaintance through online
social networks. In offline channel, it is not easy to build relationship by ask
acquaintance phone numbers. On Facebook, people are more open minded to accept
friends request and building relationship from updates and give comments or likes.
Thus, Facebook maximize the utility of building new relationship on this platform.
In addition, users found enjoyment of using Facebook is also an important
motives following by relationship building. User’s perception on Facebook usage is
changing from getting familiar with friends to sharing interesting posts on walls. It
explains younger generations love to share the precious moment experience to getting
other attentions while some people prefer to share news or funny pictures on their
wall. Facebook is like an online news platform. This is not only fulfill the hedonic
need of the provider but also enhance the enjoyment of the receiver by reading posts
from others.
The third significant motive of Facebook self-disclosure is self-presentation. Younger
generation tone have their way to communicate with peer groups. Youths want to
disclose an ideal self to friends in order to get a closer relationships (Mckenna et al.,
Page 38
37
2002).Users can create an ideal image on Facebook, such as posting better out
looking photos, sharing the achievements to draw attention and increase the
likeability to them.
The least significant among benefits is convenience in relationship maintenance.
Although Facebook is the market leader among all SNSs, the growth of online
communication tools is keep increasing. Whatsapp, Skype, WeChat, these tools
enhance the convenience to keep contact with friends. Moreover, as mentioned before,
the use of Facebook is keep changing to news platform. Therefore, the importance of
convenience in relationship maintenance is opposite as previous research model
(Krasnova et al., 2010) and it becomes the least significant motive of online
self-disclosure on Facebook.
6.1.2 Perceived privacy risks of self-disclosure on Facebook
In this current study, perceived privacy risk is significant to online self-disclosure.
This means users concern about the existing risk while using Facebook. Facebook is
becoming commercial. Many companies are using Facebook to advertise on the news
feeds or Fanpage. This may increase users’ perceived privacy risk as they are required
to access their profile if they want to join the campaign. Users’ may concern about
their personal information will disclose to third party or using the information for
other purposes illegally. Therefore, less perceived privacy risk induce users’ disclose
more information on Facebook.
6.1.3 Online self-disclosure of online communication on Facebook
According to the result, online self-disclosure is a significant factor to predict online
communication. Online self-disclosure means “any message about the self that a
person communicates to another” in the online environment Wheeless & Grotz, 1976).
Page 39
38
By disclosing more information, it can help individuals to build up their personal
profile in social networking sites. Moreover, users can disclose their information, such
as sharing photos and thought, with others by using SNSs in order to gain others’
responses or interactions in return. For example, Facebook allows users to share photos
and comment on another user’s wall. It is the features of SNSs to attract users to
disclose their information. The purpose is to enhance users to participate in the website
and interact with others through the communication on that website. Therefore, for
online communication, online self-disclosure is an important factor because of the
website design.
6.1.4 Online Communication of Relationship Closeness on Facebook
Online communication is also a significant factor to determine relationship closeness.
With the frequency in online communication, individuals become getting more
understanding in each other. Increasing in online communication which is the
interactions can enhance the quality of friendship (Bryant et al., 2006; Valkenburg &
Peter, 2007). For example, by posting more photos on the others wall or sending a
private message to others in Facebook, it give an opportunity to others to know more
about you. Such a situation is definitely helpful in remote friendship. Therefore, online
communication contributes to develop and maintain a relationship between existing
friends.
6.2 Implication for Research and Practice
6.2.1 Implication for research
This study aims to enriches existing IS literature by exploring the online
self-disclosure behavior among Hong Kong university students on Social Networking
Sites. Specifically, we proposed a model of the effect of online self-disclosure on
Page 40
39
relationship closeness and explained its development through cost and benefit of using
Facebook (such as self-presentation, enjoyment).
First, extend a model in the online self-disclosure between remote friendships.
Although online self-disclosure and relationship closeness are the popular issues
among the IS literature study, limited scholar concentrate the attention on remote
friendship. Therefore, we aims to investigate the relationship between
online-disclosure and relationship closeness among oversea friendship by contributing
two constructs (online communication and relationship closeness) on Krasnova et al.
(2010)’s research model. Lots of IS literature indicates a positive relationship on online
self-disclosure and relationship closeness. Also, many studies support the relationship
between self-disclosure and online communication. Hence, we enriched Krasnova et al.
(2010)’s research model by extending the model. We believed that it can enhance the
understanding in the relationship maintenance of remote friendship.
Second, understand Hong Kong university students’ online self-disclosure
behavior. In our study, our targeted audience is Hong Kong university students.
Therefore, we test and verify our model in Hong Kong through the most popular Hong
Kong social networking sites. Our study can provide with the insights to the further
researchers in understanding online self-disclosure behavior about Hong Kong
university students.
6.2.2 Implication for social networking site’s developers
According to our study result, online communication is a significant predictor of
relationship closeness. It demonstrates that online communication play a vital in social
networking site in term to friendship maintenance. Here, we suggest an improvement
Page 41
40
to SNSs, improving its communication function on mobile app. With the dramatic
growth in the technology development, social Networking sites are threatened by
over-the-top (OTT) content. It is a type of mobile applications and acts as the
communication tool to connect people. Therefore, social networking sites should be
improved its communication to be more convenient in order to attract people using
SNSs. We suggest adding the video-conferencing in the SNSs. For example, Facebook
can add the video-conferencing function on their mobile app - Facebook messenger. As
a result, it is beneficial individuals communicate with their oversea friends. The
relationship will be enhanced in result.
6.2.3 Implication for the Government
From our study, perceived privacy risk is a significant indictor in performing a
negative relationship toward online self-disclosure. It explains that individuals are not
willing to disclose their personal information online since the uncertainty on privacy
risk. Therefore, we suggest some recommendations for the government to improve
such situation.
First, monitoring the Internet security. The government can act as a leader to guide
the industry in security protection. For example, the government can employ some IS
experts to monitor the security of the Internet and to strengthen the Internet security. It
helps to prevent the online privacy problems. Moreover, it also gives the credibility to
the citizen since the government is concerning the online privacy, which helps to
reduce their uncertainty on online privacy.
Second, regulating privacy ordinance in Internet aspect. The government can
regulate the privacy ordinance to prevent the online privacy problems. In recent, the
Page 42
41
privacy ordinance is not up to date. The government should pay their attention on the
online environment and regulate the ordinance. With a heavy penalty, it can prohibit
individuals to act illegally. As a result, citizen can build their credibility on using SNS.
6.2.4 Implication for global citizen
Based on our study statistical data, it indicates that online communication is
significant to determine relationship closeness. For citizen, our model demonstrates
that the effect of online communication is beneficial on relationship closeness. To
maintain the relationship with existing oversea friends, we suggest people can use
social networking sites as the communication tool to interact and connect with each
other. With the frequency in online communication, it probably assists them to
maintain a remote friendship.
6.3 Limitations and future research directions
Although we found some implications from our study. There are several
limitations that draw our attention, and it could be addressed in future.
Low variance: The report result variance is below 0.4 on three constructs
(online self-disclosure, online communication, relationship closeness). This
means the antecedents cannot totally supported the consequences. We
suggest future researches also consider the factors in different perspectives in
order get a full picture of explanation.
i) Motivations to online self-disclosure
In this current study, we only investigated the factors on self-motivation. We
suggest technological factors (e.g. accessibility) and sociological factors (e.g. peer
Page 43
42
influence) should be considered.
ii) Online self-disclosure to online communications
Besides self-disclosure to trigger online communication, there are some other
factors may lead to online communication. For example, users have a habit to have
communication with friend on a regular basis, users has intimate relationship with
friends that does not require any disclosure, users have intention to find their friends
after they disclose update posts on Facebook or users directly find their friend with
purposes. We suggest future research can consider these factors to enrich to model.
iii) Online communications to relationship closeness
Besides communication on Facebook, individuals always use other channel to
reach their friends, such as face-to-face communication, other online communication
tools (Whatsapp, Skype, WeChat). Moreover, we measured online communication
based on frequency only. It cannot determine the quality of the communication.
Therefore, the depth of communication is also an important considerations to affect
relationship closeness.
Problems of cross-sectional data: Due to limited time in current study, some
rare conditions cannot efficiently be studied using cross-sectional data. For
example, Facebook updates new features frequently. This may lead to
differentiate the cause and effect result. We suggested future researches done by
longitudinal study, such as collect data on every month.
Limited on one SNS: As our model is trying to explain all SNSs. This current
study only investigated on Facebook. The explanatory and predictive power is
Page 44
43
not enough. We suggest future researches use the same model to test on other
SNSs.
Convenience sampling: Bias may exist. We have collected 208 samples to be our
representative, but it is not enough to explain all Hong Kong university students
phenomenon. Moreover, we did not have an even mix on gender (Male 40%,
Female 60%) to bring more diversity to group. We suggest sample size should
increase and equal number on each gender for the future researches.
Page 45
44
7. Conclusion
In summary, our study can be divided into two phrases. The first phrase is to focus
on identifying the antecedents of online self-disclosure. The second phrase is to
concentrate on exploring the effect of online self-disclosure on relationship closeness
through online communication. In our study, it provides a remarkable insight which is
the changing behavior in online social networking sites’ users. Our model is extended
from Krasnova et al. (2010) research model. Surprisingly, the result of current study is
different from Krasnova et al. (2010), we think the online environment is changing
rapidly and it affects the human behaviors’.
Among four perceived benefits to online disclosure, all are significant and
positively related to online self-disclosure. Relationship building is the most
significant motivation to online self-disclosure.
In addition, our finding demonstrates that online communication is a positive
indicator of relationship closeness since their relationship is significant correlated. It
can provides a good insight for IS literature pay more attention on this area.
For the practical perspective, our study contributes some vital insights for three
different perspectives. For social networking sites, they can know where they should
pay more attention for improvement in order to enhance the users’ involvement. For
the government, they should reduce the publics’ privacy uncertainty. For global citizen,
we recommend them to use social networking sites as the communication tool to
maintain oversea friendship.
Page 46
45
8. APPENDIX
8.1 Reference
Ahn, Y.-Y., Han, S., Kwak, H., Moon, S., & Jeong, H. (2007). Analysis of
Topological Characteristics of Huge Online Social Networking Services. Paper
presented at the International World Wide Web Conference Committee.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Altman I. and D. Taylor. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Social
Relationships. America: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Anaza, N. A., & Zhao, J. (2013). Encounter-based antecedents of e-customer
citizenship behaviors. The Journal of Services Marketing, 27(2), 130-140.
Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including other in the
self. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy,
27-41.
AWAD NF and KRISHNAN MD. (2006). The personalization privacy paradox: an
empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be
profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly 30(1), 13–28.
Barker, V. (2009) Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: the
influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem, CyberPsychology
and Behavior, vol. 12, no.2, pp. 209-213.
Behavior, 6(2), 133–141.
Boneva, S. S., Quinn, A., Kraut, R. E., Kiesler, S., & Shklovski, I. (2006).Teenage
communication in the instant messaging era. In R. E. Kraut (Ed.), Information
technology at home, 612–672
Bouillion Diaz, L., Thompson, C. C., & DeGennaro, D. (2010). Leisure and
technological influences. In M. B. Spencer, D. Swanson, & M. Edwards (Eds.),
Adolescence: Development during a global era. Philadelphia: Elsevier.
Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck: Exposure, invasion and social
convergence, Convergence 14(1): 13–20.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and
scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Bryant JA, Sanders-Jackson A, Smallwood AMK. IMing, text messaging, and
adolescent social networks. J Comput Mediat Commun 2006;11:577–92.
Buunk, B.P. and ,Schaufeli, W.B. (1999) Reciproeity in Interpersonal Relationships:
An Evolutionary Perspective on its Importance for Health and Well-being. In: W.
Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychalogy, Vol. 10,
pp. 260-291.
Page 47
46
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M-H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006). Understanding Knowledge
Sharing in Virtual Communities: An integration of social capital and social
cognitive theories, Decision Support Systems 42(3): 1872–1888.
Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2009). Information disclosure and
control on Facebook: Are they two sides of the same coin or two different
processes? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 341-345.
Computer-mediated Communication. Communication Research, 28(1),
Cozby, P.C. 1973. "Self-Disclosure: A Literature Review," Psychological Bulletin
(79:2), p. 73.
Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P. (1999). Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural
Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An empirical investigation, Organization Science
10(1): 104.
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology
Journal, 22(4), 71-82. development and validation. Communication Monographs
76(4): 463–486.
Dwyer C, Hiltz SR, Passerini K (2007) Trust and privacy concern within social
networking sites: a comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In: Proceedings of
the Thirteenth Americas conference on information systems
Ellison, N., Heino, R. and Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing Impressions Online:
Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2).
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook
‘‘Friends’’ Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites,
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4).
Facebook. (2012). Newsroom Retrieved November 15, 2012, from
http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts .
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online
personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and
perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152-177.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal
relationships. In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of
personal relationships, New York: Cambridge University Press, pg. 409-427.
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649.
Gross, R., and Acquisti, A. 2005. "Information Revelation and Privacy in Online
Social Networks," ACM, pp. 71-80.
Hall, A. E. , 2009-05-20 "College Students’ Motives for Using Social Network Sites
and Their Relationships to Users’ Personality Traits" Paper presented at the
Page 48
47
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott,
Chicago, IL Online
Hann, I.-H., Hui, K. L., Lee, S.-Y. T., & Png, I. P. L. (2007). Overcoming
Information Privacy Concerns: An information processing theory approach.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 13-42.
Hollenbaugh, E. E. and A. L. Ferris (2014). "Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the
role of traits, social cohesion, and motives." Computers in Human Behavior
30(0): 50-58.
Homans, G.C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange, American Journal of Sociology
63: 597–606.
Hui, K.-L., Tan, B. C. Y., & Goh, C.-Y. (2006). Online Information Disclosure:
Motivators and Measurements. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 6(4),
415-441.
Internet usage. Omega, International Journal of Management Science., 27, 25-37.
Interpersonal Solidarity," Human Communication Research (4:2), pp. 143-157.
Jin, B., Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. (2010). What makes online community members
commit? A social exchange perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology,
29(6), 587.
Jourard, J. M. (1971). The transparent self (2nd ed.). New York : Van Nostrand.
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Syntopia: Access, civic involvement, and social
interaction on the Net. In H. C. Haythornthwaite & B. Wellman (Eds.), The
Internet in everyday life (pp. 114–138). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using
social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college
students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365-372.
Knapp, M., & Vangelisti, A. (2000). Interpersonal communication and human
relationships. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Krasnova, H., Kolesnikova, E., & Gunther, O. (2009). It Won't Happen To Me!:
Self-Disclosure in Online Social Networks. Americas Conference on Information
Systems, 343.
Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., & Hildebrand, T. (2010). Online social
networks: why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 109-125.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Craw- ford, A.
(2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 49–74.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A Familiar Face(book): Profile
Page 49
48
elements as signals in an online social network. Paper presented at the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, USA.
Leary, M. R. (1996). Self Presentation: Impression Management and Interpersonal
Behaviour. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2009a). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance
behavior: Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human
Communication Research, 35, 130-147.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2009b). Measuring online communication attitude: Instrument
development and validation. Communication Monographs, 76, 463-486.
Lemmens, J. S., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). The effects of pathological
gaming on aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(1), 38-47.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy and online social networks: How
teens manage their online identities and personal information in the age of
MySpace. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are
leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew
Internet & American Life Project.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
LenhArt, A., purceLL, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young
adults. Retrieved from the Pew Internet & American Life Project,
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Social Media and Young Adults.aspx.
Lin, C., Chiu, C., Joe, S., & Tsai, Y. (2010). Assessing online learning ability from a
social exchange perspective: A survey of virtual teams within business
organizations. International Journal of Human - Computer Interaction, 26(9),
849.
Locke, J. L. (1998). The de-voicing of society: Why we don’t talk to each other
anymore. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information
Systems Research 15(4), 336–355.
McCarty, C., Prawitz, A. D., Derscheid, L. E., & Montgomery, B. (2011). Perceived
safety and teen risk taking in online chat sites. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking, 14, 169-174.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation
on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.
Mesch, G., & Talmud, I. (2006). The quality of online and offline relationships: The
role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society,
Page 50
49
22, 137-148.
Morgan, C., & Cotten, S. R. (2003). The relationship between Internet activities and
depressive symptoms in a sample of college freshmen. CyberPsychology &
Muniz, A., & O'Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research,
27, 412-432.
Munn, N. J. (2012). The reality of friendship within immersive virtual worlds. Ethics
and Information Technology, 14(1), 1-10.
Munzel, A., & Kunz, W. H. (2014). Creators, multipliers, and lurkers: Who
contributes and who benefits at online review sites. Journal of Service
Management, 25(1), 49-74.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in Virtual Customer Environments:
Implications for product support and customer relationship management,. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42-62.
Nie, N. H., D.S. Hillygus, and L. Erbring. (2002). Internet Use, Interpersonal
Relations and Sociability: A Time Diary Study. In B. Wellman & C.
Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Internet and Everyday Life (pp. 215-243)
Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online
community self-disclosure model: The case of working professionals in France
and the U.K. who use online communities.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. Simon and Schuster: New York, NY.
Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Worthy, Morgan; Gary, Albert L.; Kahn, Gay
M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 13(1), Sep 1969, 59-63.
Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship
between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and
perceived social support. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157–170.
Shklovski, I., Kraut, R. &Rainie, L. (2004) The Internet and social participation:
contrasting cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses, Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, vol. 10, no. 1
Smith, A. (2011). Why Americans use social media: Social networking sites are
appealing as a way to maintain contact with close ties and reconnect with old
friends. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and
offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 420-433.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 7,
321-326.
Teo, S. H., Lim, K. G., & Lai, Y. C. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
Page 51
50
Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Turke, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online
communication and their closeness to friends. Developmental Psychology, 43,
267-277.
Valkenburg, P. M., Schouten, A. P., & Peter, J. (2005). Adolescents’ identity
experiments on the Internet. New Media and Society, 7, 383–402.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (1997). Revealing family secrets: The influence of
topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
14, 679-707.
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C. L., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a Picture Worth a
Thousand
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The
role of friends’ behavior on evaluations of individuals’ Facebook profiles: Are we
known by the company we keep? Human Communication Research, 34, 28–49.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported
self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3, 338-346.
Wheeless, L.R. 1978. "A Follow Nup Study of the Relationships among Trust,
Disclosure, and
Whiting, A., & Williams, D. (2013). Why people use social media: A uses and
gratifications approach. Qualitative Market Research, 16(4), 362-369.
Words? Photographic Images in Long-term and Short-term
Wright, K., Craig, E., Cunningham, C., Igiel, M., & Ploeger, N. (2008). Will you (still)
be my friend?: Computer-mediated relational maintenance on Facebook.com.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication
Association, San Diego, CA.
Xiao, H., Li, W., Cao, X., & Tang, Z. (2012). The online social networks on
knowledge exchange: Online social identity, social tie and culture orientation.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 15(2), 4-24.
Zarghooni, S. (2007). A Study of Self-Presentation in Light of Facebook.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook:
Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24(5), 1816–1836.
Page 53
52
8.2 Questionnaire Design
Survey on the Use of Facebook
Facebook使用習慣之問卷調查
We are final year students who are majoring in Information Systems and e-Business Management (BBA) in HKBU. We are conducting a survey
on user behavior on Facebook. Our research aims to examine user behaviors in Facebook. Please kindly spare about 10-15 minutes to complete
this questionnaire. All data collected will be used for academic purpose only. Thank you.
你好！我們是香港浸會大學主修資訊系統及電子商貿管理學(工商管理學士)的三年級生。我們正進行有關 Facebook使用行為習慣的問卷調查，是次研究目的冀望探討 Facebook 用戶在社交網絡的行為。請用 10 - 15分鐘完成以下問卷，表達你的寶貴意見。所收集資料只作學術研究之用，多謝！
Disclaimer:
This questionnaire constitutes part of a student’s individual academic research work for an Honors Project in partial fulfillment of the BBA
graduation requirement. While the Hong Kong Baptist University respects and abides by the Privacy Data Ordinance, it is the student’s
responsibility to comply with the Ordinance during every aspect of the project. Please contact the sender of this questionnaire for specific details.
Please ignore this questionnaire if you have responded or are not interested in responding to it. Thank you.
聲明:
本問卷為工商管理學畢業要求之學術論文當中學術研究的一部分，香港浸會大學尊重及恪守個人私隱條例，學生亦有責任於專題研習中遵守此項條例。如有任何查詢，歡迎聯絡此問卷之聯絡人。如閣下已經完成本問卷或沒有興趣完成本問卷，請忽略本問卷。謝謝！
Please contact Kate Ho via email [email protected] or Joanne Yiu via email [email protected] for any enquiry.
如有任何疑問，請電郵至 Kate Ho [email protected] 或 Joanne Yiu [email protected] 。
Page 54
53
1. Do you have a Facebook account?
你是否擁有一個 Facebook帳戶？
□ Yes (Jump to question 2)是(請回答第 2題) □ No (The end of the questionnaire)不是(本問卷已結束)
2. Do you have a friend(s) who lives in overseas region in your Facebook friend list? (NOT including friends that you just meet online )
你是否於 Facebook聯絡人中有一位於海外居住的朋友？ (不是於網上認識)
□ Yes (Jump to question 2) 是(請回答第 2題) □ No (The end of the questionnaire)不是(本問卷已結束)
Part 1: Perceptions on Facebook
Instructions: Please use the scale on the right to indicate your agreement on each statement.
根據以下的描述，選擇最適合你的程度。
Strongly
Disagree
強烈不
同意
Disagree
不同意
Somewhat
Disagree
稍微不同意
Neutral
沒有意
見
Somewhat
Agree
稍微同意
Agree
同意
Strongly
Agree
強烈同意
3. Facebook is convenient to inform all my friends about my
ongoing activities
Facebook可以方便我通知朋友有關我的最新動態
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Facebook allows me to save time when I want to share something
new with my friends
Facebook令我節省時間，更容易與朋友分享最新消息
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I find Facebook efficient in sharing information with my friends
我認為在 Facebook與朋友分享資訊是有效率的
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 55
54
6. Through Facebook I get connected to new people who share my
interests
透過 Facebook，我可以結識到與我有共同興趣的新朋友
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Facebook helps me to expand my network
Facebook幫助我擴展人際網絡
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I get to know new people through Facebook
我在 Facebook上結識新朋友
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I try to make a good impression on others on Facebook
我嘗試在 Facebook給予他人一個好形象
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I try to present myself in a favorable way on Facebook
我嘗試在 Facebook上展示會受人歡迎的一面
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. When I am bored I often login to Facebook
當我感到沉悶時，我通常都會登入 Facebook
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I find Facebook entertaining
我認為 Facebook具娛樂性
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I spend enjoyable and relaxing time on Facebook
我享受使用 Facebook的時間，並感到放鬆
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Overall, I fear that something unpleasant can happen to me due to
my presence on Facebook
整體而言，我擔心因為使用 Facebook而可能發生的不愉快事
件
15. I find it risky to publish my personal information on Facebook
在 Facebook上披露我的個人資料是危險的
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 56
55
16. Please rate your overall perception of privacy risk involved when
using Facebook (very safe is 1 – very risky is 7)
使用 Facebook時的私隱危機評分 (1為最安全，7為最危險)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. Facebook is open and receptive to the needs of its members
Facebook開明地樂於接受用戶的需求
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. Facebook makes good-faith efforts to address most member
concerns
Facebook致力能解決大部分用戶的憂慮
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Facebook is also interested in the well-being of its members, not
just its own
Facebook除關注自身的業務發展外，同時亦關注用戶利益
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Facebook is honest in its dealings with me
在我使用 Facebook的經驗中，Facebook給我一個誠實可靠的
形象
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. Facebook keeps it commitments to its members
Facebook能遵守對用戶的承諾
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. Other Facebook members do care about the well-being of others
Facebook用戶之間會彼此關心
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Other Facebook members are open and receptive to the needs of
each other
Facebook用戶之間樂於接受其他用戶的需要/需求
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Other Facebook members are honest in dealing with each other
Facebook用戶之間的交流誠實可靠
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 57
56
25. Other Facebook members are trustworthy
Facebook用戶是可信的
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. I feel in control over the information I provide on Facebook
我認為我可以控制我在 Facebook上提供的資料
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Privacy settings allow me to have full control over the
information I provide on Facebook
Facebook的私隱設定讓我可以全權控制我提供的資料
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. I feel in control of who can view my information on Facebook
我可以控制誰有權限可以看到有關我的 Facebook資料
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. I have a comprehensive profile on Facebook
我在 Facebook有一個完整個人檔案
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. I find time to keep my profile up-to-date
我時常更新我的個人檔案
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31. I keep my friends updated about what is going on in my life
through Facebook
我會透過 Facebook分享消息，讓朋友知道我最新的生活動態
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. When I have something to say, I like to share it on Facebook
我會選擇 Facebook作為我分享感受的渠道
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 58
57
Part 2: Overseas friend’s relationship
第二部份: 與海外朋友的關係
Instructions: Please go to www.facebook.com and login to your account. Go to your profile, and look at your friend list. Please think of A
FRIEND who lives overseas when you complete the remaining part of the survey.
指引: 請瀏覽 www.facebook.com 及登入你的帳戶，進入個人專頁並瀏覽朋友名單，請選擇一位於海外居住的朋友以完成餘下問卷。
33. What is the gender of this friend?
這位朋友的性別？
□ Male男 □ Female女
34. How old is this friend?
他/她的年齡是？
□ <18 □ 18-22 □ 23-27 □ 28-32 □ >32
35. What was your last time you met this friend face to face?
你與他/她最後一次見面的時間？
□ Less than 1 year □ 1-2years □ 2-3years □ 3-4 years □ 4-5 years □ More than 5 years
□ 少於一年 □一至兩年 □兩至三年 □三至四年 □四至五年 □多於五年
36. How would you describe your relationship with this friend? (Tick one)
請形容你興他/她的關係？(只選一項)
□ Casual friend 普通朋友
□ Close friend 親近朋友
□ Best friend 至親密友
Page 59
58
□ Acquaintance 認識的人
□ Romantic partner (non-married) 交往關係(非已結婚)
37. Besides Facebook, do you contact this friend using other channels? (Multiple Answers)
除了 Facebook, 你使用甚麼途徑聯絡他/她？ (可選擇多於一個答案)
□ Telephone電話
□ Email電郵
□ Letter書信
□ Video conferencing software 視像通話軟件 (e.g. Skype)
□ Mobile communication apps手機電訊應用程式 (e.g. Whatsapp, WeChat, Line…)
□ Social media platforms其他網上社交平台 (e.g. Twitter, Weibo etc…)
□ Others其他 (please specify: ______________) (請指出: ______________)
38. BEFORE your friend moved overseas, how often did you contact him/her?
在他/她未移居海外前，你與他/她聯絡的頻密程度是？
□ Never 從不 □ Less than Once a Month 一個月少於一次 □ Once a Month 一個月一次
□ 2-3 Times a Month一個月兩至三次 □Once a Week 一星期一次 □ 2-3 Times a week 一星期兩至三次 □ Daily 每天
39. AFTER your friend moved overseas, how often do you contact him/her?
在他/她移居海外後，你與他/她聯絡的頻密程度是？
□ Never 從不 □ Less than Once a Month 一個月少於一次 □ Once a Month 一個月一次
□ 2-3 Times a Month一個月兩至三次 □Once a Week 一星期一次 □ 2-3 Times a week 一星期兩至三次 □ Daily 每天
Page 60
59
40. On average, how much time do you spend with your friend on Facebook each time?
平均每次 Facebook聯繫，你會花多少時間與他/她交流？
□ Less than 1 hour 少於一小時 □ 1-2 hours 一至兩小時 □ 2-3 hours 兩至三小時 □ 3-4 hours 三至四小時 □ More than 4 hours
多於四小時
Please indicate how often you communicate with this friend, using the Facebook features as described below.
根據以下使用 Facebook的特徵，請描述你與你那位朋友溝通的頻密程度。
Never
從不
Very
Rarely
甚少
Rarely
較少
Occasionally
偶爾
Sometimes
有時
Frequently
經常
Very
Frequently
頻密
41. I write on my friend’s wall
我在他/她的個人頁面留言
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. I send my friend a private message
我傳送個人訊息給他/她
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43. I communicate with the friend in a Facebook group
我在 Facebook群組裡與他/她溝通
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. I “poke” my friend
我「戳」他/她
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45. I comment on my friend’s photographs
我在他/她的照片留言
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. I comment on my friend’s status
我在他/她的狀況留言
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 61
60
Please use the scale on the right to indicate your agreement on each statement regarding your friendship with this friend. (Minimum is 1 -
maximum is 7)
根據以下友誼關係的描述，選擇最適合你與你那位朋友的友好程度。(1為最低，7為最高)
48. How close are you to this person?
你與他/她的親密程度是？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. How often do you talk about personal things with this
person?
你經常與他/她談論私人話題？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. How satisfied are you with your relationship with this
person?
你滿意與他/她的關係嗎？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51. How important is your relationship with this person?
你與他/她的關係的重要程度？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. How much do you like this person?
你喜歡他/她的程度？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53. How important is this person’s opinion to you?
他/她的意見對你的重要程度？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54. How much do you enjoy spending time with this
person?
你有多享受與他/她交流的時間？
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 62
61
Part 3: Open-ended Questions
第三部份: 開放式題目
Do you think your relationship with this friend has been improved through the use of Facebook? Why or why not?
使用 Facebook後，你覺得與他/她的關係有否改進？為什麼？
Part 4: Usage experience on Facebook
第四部份: Facebook的使用經驗
55. How long have you been a Facebook user?
你成為 Facebook的用戶有多久？
□ Less than 1 year □ 1-2years □ 2-3years □ 3-4 years □ 4-5 years □ More than 5 years
□ 少於一年 □ 一至兩年 □ 兩至三年 □ 三至四年 □ 四至五年 □ 多於五年
56. On average, how often do you use Facebook?
你平均使用 Facebook的次數？
□ Less than once a week 一星期少於一次 □ Once a week 一星期一次 □ Several times a week 一星期數次
□ Once a day 一天一次 □ Several times a day 一天數次
57. On average, how long do you spend on Facebook per day?
你平均每天使用 Facebook的時間有多久？
□ Less than 30 minutes 少於三十分鐘 □ 30 minutes – 1 hour 三十分鐘至少於一小時
Page 63
62
□ 1-2 hours 一小時至兩小時 □2-3 hours 兩小時至三小時 □ Over 3 hours 多於 3小時
58. What devices do you frequently use to access Facebook?
你大多數使用甚麼工具登入 Facebook？
□ Personal computer 個人電腦 □ Mobile 手機 □ Tablet 平板電腦 □ Other 其他
59. How many Facebook “friends” do you have?
你的 Facebook有多少位朋友？
□ < 200 □ 201-400 □ 401-600 □ 601-800 □ 801-1000 □ >1000
60. What do you mostly use Facebook for? (Please rank it, 1 is the most and 5 is the least, CANNOT at the same level)
你使用 Facebook的目的通常是？ (請排次序，1是最常，5是最少，不可同一程度)
___ Find new friends 尋求新朋友
___ Play games 玩遊戲
___ Chat (including comments and wall) 聊天 (包括留言及專頁)
___ Check out how your friends are doing (photos, walls etc) 了解朋友的動態 (相片，個人頁面更新等等)
___ Update your profile to pass time更新個人檔案以打發時間
Page 64
63
Part 5: Personal Information
第五部份: 個人資料
Gender 性別: □ Male 男 □ Female 女
Age 年齡: □ <18 □ 18-22 □ 23-27 □ 28-32 □ >32
就讀 University 大學:
□ HKU □CUHK □ HKBU □ HKPolyU □ HKUST □ CityU □ HKLU□ HKIEd
□ OUHK □ HKSYU □Other:____________________________________
The End
問卷完畢
Thank You
謝謝你的參與
![Disclosure Practices, Enforcement of Accounting Standards ......DISCLOSURE PRACTICES 239 3. Hypotheses 3.1 HOW VARIATIONS IN DISCLOSURES AFFECT ANALYSTS’ FORECASTS Holland [1998]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/60f76d60e08bff7ddb2d8a5b/disclosure-practices-enforcement-of-accounting-standards-disclosure-practices.jpg)
