Knowing Me, Knowing You: An Investigation of Cross-Sex

Uncertainty Reduction Strategies and Self-Disclosure in

Computer-Mediated Communication in USM

KOH PHEI SZE (P-KOM0068/12)

ABSTRACT
This study investigates relationships between privacy concerns, uncertainty reduction
behaviour and self-disclosure among computer-mediated communication (CMC) users who
are unacquainted individuals to each other in social networking sites, drawing on uncertainty
reduction theory. A conceptual model integrating privacy concerns and Internet experience
with uncertainty reduction strategies and amount of self-disclosure had proposed and then
test this model in USM with randomly choose who have ever involved in knowing stranger
online through social networking sites (N = 377). The study findings confirm that the
frequency of use of uncertainty reduction strategies is predicted by three sets of privacy
concernspersonal security, misrepresentation, and recognition as well as internet
experience. The theoretical implications of these findings had explored for our understanding
of uncertainty reduction and self-disclosure processes in CMC contexts.
KEYWORDS: Uncertainty reduction, Computer-mediated communication, Privacy Concerns

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The popularity of social network sites had incresed impressively. There are 17 million Internet
users in Malaysia (Dehsi, 2011), 80% of the users browse social networking sites. According
to statistics, Malaysia Internet users spents 20 hours per week to online. Most of them will
spent some times to browse social networking sites. Social network sites (e.g., Facebook
and Blogger) specifically aim at building and maintaining social networks. These sites are
usually open or semi-open systems. Everyone is welcome to join but new members have to
register. The sites typically allow members to create an online profile containing self1

descriptions, react to the profiles of other members, and become "friends" with other
members (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2006; Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2007). Initial
interactions between unacquainted individuals increasingly take place online when they
become friends. In initial interactions, partners are driven by a need to reduce uncertainty
and form impressions of each other (Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011).
Because of many nonverbal cues may not be available online, interaction partners have to
rely on different strategies to reduce uncertainty and to form impressions of each other
(Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002).
Berger and Calabrese (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011) argue that, when strangers meet,
their primary concern is one of uncertainty reduction or increasing predictability about the
behaviour of both themselves and others in the interaction" (p. 100). These authors
hypothesize that, in order to reduce their acute uncertainty, initial interactants engage in high
levels of information-seeking. To the extent that such attempts are unsuccessful,
conversation is presumed to remain effortful and, in extreme instances, only marginally
coherent (Berger, 1986). Moreover, if persons are unable to "get to know" each other, the
likelihood they will develop a more enduring relationship is reduced, since high levels of
uncertainty are posited to induce low levels of liking (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).
Social network sites belong to the latest generation of Computer-Mediated Communication
(CMC) environments. Tidwell and Walther (2002) found that CMC conversations exhibited a
greater proportion of self-disclosure and question asking, resulting in greater attributional
confidence and perceived conversation effectiveness. Moreover, they found that CMC
conversations were characterized by more intimate self-disclosure than face-to-face
conversations.
In initial text-based CMC conversations, interaction partners are able to adapt to the
reduction in nonverbal cues by using other cues to convey social information and thus form
impressions of each other (Pena & Hancock, 2006; Walther, 1992). More specifically, the
reduced nonverbal cues of CMC lead conversation partners to use uncertainty reduction
strategies, such as self-disclosure and question asking (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011).
As online technologies, and the communicative affordances they offer, become central in
many individuals social practices and daily experiences, privacy concernswhat to disclose,
to whom, and how to ensure that others are disclosing honestly in returnare increasingly
salient (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). Based on the previous research statement, this
study will look on which concern lead to greater uncertainty reduction strategies.
2

The number of people interact using social media increase day by day. This study will mainly
explore how USM students began their initial interaction with unacquainted opposite sex
communication partners. When we have no idea about a person, we will feel unsecure and
therefore, we will try to know more about the particular person. The way to know more is
related with uncertainty reduction strategies. The study starts with the motivation they want to
explore about one person: privacy concern (personal security, misrepresentation,
recognition) and internet experience. This study will also test which concern will motivate
them to increase the use of uncertainty reduction strategies. Lastly, this study will examine
the relationship between uncertainty reduction and amount of self-disclosure.
This investigation attempted to measure uncertainty and amount of self-disclosure for each
other during initial interaction. The goal of this study is to investigate relationships between
privacy concerns, uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure between unacquainted
computer-mediated communication (CMC) users. Specifically, this study focuses on the use
of uncertainty reduction strategies between cross-sex dyads when initial interaction
happened online. This study investigated the prevalence of two interactive uncertainty
reduction strategies (i.e., question asking and question/disclosure intimacy) in reduced-cue
settings.
This study draws on uncertainty reduction theory (Berger, 1979; Berger & Calabrese, 1975)
to investigate the uncertainty reduction strategies employed by unacquainted communication
partners in order to alleviate privacy concerns and look on how they develop initial interaction
in the condition which lack of nonverbal cues through CMC.

2.0 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

Uncertainty reduction strategies use when unacquainted individuals meet in the condition of
lack of cues. There are three types of friendship dyads build in social networking sites:
female-female, male-male and female-male. The interesting part is the female-male session.
Therefore, the research is enhanced in cross-sex friendships built in USM through CMC.
According to Gibbs, Ellison & Lai (2011), women are less likely to disclose online than men.
To test the validity of the statement made, USM as place set to make the survey.
The explosive growth of social networking sites use has provided exceptional opportunities
for humans to mediate their communication and thus their relationships in new ways (Pratt,
3

Wiseman, Cody & Wendt, 1999). Social networking sites related to CMC environments. CMC
is separated to two: text-based CMC and visual CMC. In this study, focal area will be in textbased CMC because it is important to look on how uncertainty reduction strategies use when
there is a condition lack of nonverbal cues with the presence of privacy concerns and internet
experience.
There are many studies did in western countries on the area of online dating and making
friend in cyberspace, since there is a huge number of Internet users in our country, a study to
look on how they perceive the presence of a stranger in their social network site and start the
initial interaction is needed. When people interact with another which they have no idea on
the background and anything else, they will seek to search and know more. Information
seeking process is help in reducing uncertainty towards a person. This study focuses on the
presence of privacy concerns and internet experience brings to uncertainty reduction
strategies use. Text-based CMC happened with the absence of nonverbal cues. The
unacquainted persons, cross-sex dyads who wish to know more about another will try to run
uncertainty reduction strategies. Here, the study will also look on which gender self-disclose
more when meet with stranger.
Previous qualitative research has found that people who engage in a dynamic process of
rewriting their profiles to better appeal to desired potential friends as well as developing rules
for assessing the credibility of others identity claims while recursively applying these rules to
their own self-presentation (Ellison et al., 2006; Heino; Whitty, 2008). Other research has
demonstrated that CMC users engage in information-seeking strategies to reduce
uncertainty and warrant identity claims in other contexts such as email communication, ecommerce, and SNSs (cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). This study
wishes to explore whether the same types of information-seeking strategies are employed by
the unacquainted person and test a set of factors that may predict the use of such strategies.

3.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In general, this study aims at examining the presence of privacy concerns and internet
experience on the initial interaction between unacquainted individuals in computer-mediated
communication through social networking sites effect the use of uncertainty reduction
strategies and amount of self-disclosure.

Specifically the project is assessing the four issues:

1. To examine the relationship between privacy concerns and uncertainty reduction
strategies in CMC.
2. To examine the relationship between internet experience and uncertainty reduction
strategies in CMC.
3. To examine the relationship between uncertainty reduction strategies and amount of
self-disclosure in CMC.
4. To investigate which gender more likely to disclose online.
At the end of this section, it would be useful to state some of the research questions to
accompany the above-mentioned objectives.
1. What is the relationship between privacy concerns and uncertainty reduction
strategies in CMC?
2. What is the relationship between internet experience and uncertainty reduction
strategies in CMC?
3. What is the relationship between uncertainty reduction strategies and amount of selfdisclosure in CMC?
4. Which gender more likely to disclose online?

4.0 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This study will firstly contribute to the development of uncertainty reduction theory, testing the
validity of its premises and focus on what cause to uncertainty reduction strategies use.
While there have been many studies conducted on the uncertainty reduction strategies in
online context in western countries, there are only few studies conducted in Malaysia since
the usage of social networking sites had increased day by day. This study focuses in USM
students who used to meet stranger online and make friends with them. The initial interaction
between them will be the main focal area in the research. Through the study, we can know
the trend in social networking sites when cross-sex dyads meet online and start the initial
interaction. This study hopes to contribute, through its findings, the social networking sites
users especially those text-bas4d CMC users can know more on how to develop uncertainty
reduction strategies and what cause to develop it.

5.0 RESEARCH SCOPE

This study has limited its scope specifically in testing the use of uncertainty reduction
strategies and amount of self-disclosure with the prevalence of privacy concerns and internet
experience. The whole study will be only conducted in USM area and the target respondents
are USM students who ever involve in making friends with people opposite sex online. This
study aims to identify refined mechanisms that CMC users use to form impressions and to
reduce uncertainty in text-based communication.

6.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

6.1 Introduction
This session will delve into and discuss literature related to uncertainty reduction
theory and computer-mediated communication (CMC), including the meaning by past
researches and discussing how they related with the study.

6.2 Uncertainty Reduction

Initial interaction among strangers is theorized to be motivated primarily by the goal of
reducing uncertainty, both in relation to making ones own behaviour and the
behaviour of others more predictable and providing explanations for such behaviour
(Berger & Calabrese, cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011).
Communication plays a key role in this process as it is through communication that
uncertainty is reduced. Interpersonal relationships develop among strangers as
interactants communicate to reduce their uncertainty and get to know each other by
gaining greater knowledge and mutual understanding. Uncertainty leads to
information-seeking behaviour, as individuals are motivated to monitor other peoples
behaviour in social situations and engage in a variety of strategies to find out more
about others, such as observation, asking questions, or communicating to encourage
others to reveal more about themselves (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011).
Due to the absence of many traditional cues about identity and insufficient immediate
feedback, it may be more challenging to engage in uncertainty reduction strategies in
online settings. Research has shown that interpersonal relationships are indeed
developed through CMC as predictability and understanding of a partners behaviour
increases as well as demonstrating the use of particular uncertainty reduction
6

strategies in email communication, e-commerce, and SNSs (cited in Antheunis,

Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011).
CMC users adapt to the reduction of nonverbal cues by using language-based
strategies to reduce uncertainty such as online chatting without face-to-face and form
impressions of each other. Although originally developed to explain social attraction
and relationship development in initial face-to-face interactions, uncertainty reduction
theory provides a useful addition by specifying the mechanisms that reduce
uncertainty in initial interactions (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). Uncertainty
reduction theory poses that, when people meet, they are motivated to form
impressions of each other in order to reduce the uncertainty they have about the
other person. Uncertainty reduction is the gathering of information that allows the
information seeker to predict someones attitudes and behaviour. Lower levels of
uncertainty, in turn, may increase ones liking and affection for his or her
communication partner (cited in Antheunis, Valkenburg & Peter, 2010).
Based on the uncertainty reduction strategies that conversation partners can employ
in CMC, three strategies can be distinguished by which conversation partners form
impressions of each other in CMC (Tidwell & Walther, cited in Antheunis, Valkenburg
& Peter, 2010). The first two strategies focus on self-disclosure and question asking,
respectively. First, conversation partners may ask questions in order to procure
answers with which to reduce uncertainty. Second, they may use self-disclosure as
an uncertainty reduction strategy because self-disclosure of ones self elicits selfdisclosure from the target person, due to the norm of reciprocity (Jourard, 1971)..
The third strategy is question/disclosure intimacy, which relates to the depth of the
questions and self-disclosures made in the conversation. Question asking and selfdisclosure are quite often employed in initial communication because, in the first
phases of acquaintanceship, people disclose non-intimate information about a broad
range of topics. In more advanced phases of relationship formation, however, people
tend to deepen their communication and disclose more intimate aspects of
themselves (Altman & Taylor, cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter,
2011). Therefore, question/disclosure intimacy may be higher in reduced cue settings
(Walther, 1996).
According to Berger and Kellermann (1983), in the present investigation, it was
expected that persons who talked for six minutes face to face would be less uncertain
7

about each other than those who met for only two minutes. This idea applies in the
study which the longer the unacquainted individuals chat online, the less uncertainy
among them. To the extent that strangers become more familiar with each other as
conversation progresses, uncertainty should decay in an approximately linear way
across initial interaction; that is, use some suitable strategies to know more about the
particular individual which the CMC user wants to make friend with.
Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) is among the most heuristic
approaches to impression formation and initial relational development in online
settings. URT presumes that partners encounter each other physically when they
interact. This aspect is not the central focus of this theory (or others on impressions
and attraction) and might be dismissed as theoretically irrelevant (Lea & Spears, cited
in Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2006). Even though URT explicitly includes nonverbal
affiliative behaviours in its calculus, these are substitutable with verbal behaviours.
However, tests of URT have been conducted using text-based CMC, necessarily
involving the conventionally obvious aspect of seeing ones partner with lack of
nonverbal cues and potentially gleaning data from physical appearances and other
nonverbal indicators (Douglas, 1990).
According to URT, uncertainty reduction is the exchange and collection of information
that allows one to predict anothers attitudes and behaviours (Berger & Calabrese,
cited in Byron & Baldridge, 2007). In reducing uncertainty, people create impressions
mental models that help them to make sense of people and situations (Srull &
Wyer, cited in Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2006). The more information one gets
about ones partner, the less uncertainty he or she has. The mechanisms by which
they exchange information, however, may be limited in CMC settings. URT predicts
that individuals use passive, active, and interactive strategies as a means of reducing
uncertainty. Berger (1979) and Berger, Gardner, Parks, Schulman, & Miller (1976)
identified three passive strategies, two active strategies, and three interactive
strategies, that people utilize in order to acquire information about others. Which of
these strategies are employed, and when, depends in part on politeness and
situational appropriateness requirements.
Passive strategies are those in which the information seeker collects information
about the target without affecting the targets or other actors behaviour. Passive
strategies refer to how the CMC user observes and get more understanding about the
particular unacquainted individuals background and details without the persons
8

knowledge. The active, yet indirect strategies differ from the passive strategies in that
they involve proactive efforts to gain knowledge about another person (Berger, 1979).
Active strategies are strategies how the CMC user gets to know more about the
particular unacquainted individual by asking the people around the person which may
be his or her friends or family members. Interactive strategies for uncertainty
reduction require direct and obtrusive exchanges with targets. Interactive strategies
are strategies use by CMC users directly towards the particular unacquainted
individual such as question asking the particular person about their personal details
like their name and age. After a certain level of interactive action, the CMC users will
self-disclosure about themselves.
All of the strategies suggested by Berger and colleagues may be utilized in CMC.
Deception detection, however, tends to be considered unreliable in CMC (Donath,
1999; Van Gelder, 1985, cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). No
matter reliable or not, people used to detect deception through some strategies like
observation to detect nonverbal sign of deception. This is the matter of trust. Unless
target individuals contradict either themselves or known facts, deception detection is
less likely employed in a CMC environment because its nothing necessary to check
deeply about a person since the initial point is just to make friend with them. This
leaves verbal interrogation (i.e., question asking) and self-disclosure as the
uncertainty reduction strategies most available in CMC. Questions and disclosures
are both readily deployed in CMC. Personal questions can easily be posed in text.
Self-disclosures may also be effective in CMC settings. They not only provide
impression-bearing information, but the process of disclosing creates a demand, so
that the recipient feels obligated to respond in kind, typically generating return
disclosures from the target individual (Jourard, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011).
In one exception, Joinson (2001) found greater self-disclosure in CMC, although
these findings were largely in response to experimental variations in public and
private self-awareness or videoconferencing; question-asking, as a means of
interpersonal knowledge acquisition, was not regarded. In a sense, the relative
unavailability of strategies in common CMC settings provides a scope condition to
URT: The of questioning and self-disclosure should be those most relied upon for
acquiring knowledge in CMC. The question remains whether CMC users will use
more interactive strategies as an accommodation to the lack of other means or
whether they will simply mirror the same proportion of interactive uncertainty

reduction in their conversations (although other theories question whether

interpersonal impressions are even sought through CMC, much less how).

6.3 Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is defined as any communicative

transaction that occurs through the use of two or more networked computers
(McQuail, 2005). While the term has traditionally referred to those communications
that occur via computer-mediated formats (e.g., instant messaging, email, chat
rooms), it has also been applied to other forms of text-based interaction such as text
messaging. Research on CMC focuses largely on the social effects of different
computer-supported communication technologies. Many recent studies involve
Internet-based social networking supported by social software.
It is well known that text-based CMC such as email, computer conferencing, and chat
systems differ from face-to-face (FtF) communication in several respects, the most
apparent of which is that the written medium precludes the exchange of nonverbal
cues that accompany FtF speech. Other perspectives suggest that CMC users rely
on alternative mechanisms to accomplish these barriers such as uncertainty
reduction strategies like more questions asking. Early research suggested that people
using CMC were prevented from gaining impressions due to the lack of nonverbal
cues in the medium (Kiesler, cited in Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2006). Other
research shows that online impressions and relationships are developmental,
operates within different temporal frames than FtF communication (Walther, 1993;
Walther & Burgoon, 1992, cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011).
The social information processing (SIP) theory of CMC (Walther, 1992) argues that
without nonverbal cues, CMC users

adapt their relational behaviours to the

remaining cues available in CMC such as content and linguistic strategies, as well as
chronemic (Walther & Tidwell, 1995) and typographic cues (Walther & DAddario,
cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). Few studies have examined by what specific
means users adapt to the medium in order to seek and to exhibit uncertaintyreducing, impression-bearing cues.
A related approach, the hyperpersonal perspective of CMC, argues that the absence
of nonverbal cues, as well as editing capabilities, identity cues, and temporal
10

characteristics may prompt CMC users to engage in selective self-presentation and

partner idealization, enacting exchanges more intimate than those of FtF counterparts
(cited in Byron & Baldridge, 2007). Contemporary CMC environments differ in the
extent to which they support the exchange of nonverbal cues. Although some CMC
applications, such as e-mail, are predominantly text based, other environments offer
additional cues. For example, social network sites offer self-descriptions, photos, and
wall postings that may all be used to passively observe social information, which may
help to form impressions (cited in Antheunis, Schouten, Valkenburg & Peter, 2011).
Moreover, instant messaging conversations frequently include audio or video (Peter,
Valkenburg, & Schouten, 2007). Therefore, it is increasingly relevant to compare
impression formation and uncertainty reduction mechanisms across communication
channels that differ in the number of nonverbal cues they convey (Ramirez et al.,
2002).
The reduced nonverbal cues in CMC would cause online interpersonal relationships
to require more time to develop than traditional face-to-face relationships because
CMC users need time to adjust to the constraints of the medium (Walther,). However,
when people are motivated to get to know each other, for example, by the task they
conduct or by anticipated future interaction (Walther, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai,
2011), they may quickly adopt verbal cues to reduce uncertainty and form
impressions. This eventually leads to levels of attraction similar to face-to-face
communication.
When nonverbal cues are added to a communication channel, the amount of social
information that can be communicated increases (Walther, cited in Gibbs, Ellison &
Lai, 2011). Therefore, adding nonverbal cues to an interaction will likely result in a
reduced need to use language based strategies to form impressions of each other
because many other cues are available with which people may reduce uncertainty
and form impressions of each other (e.g., gestures, clothing style). Therefore, the use
of language-based strategies to reduce uncertainty is likely to be higher in text-based
CMC than in face-to-face communication.
Many early reports on the characteristics of CMC focused on limited bandwidth that
reduces the number of cues from which social actors draw to create meaning from
messages. Bandwidth is the number of communication channels associated with a
particular type of medium (Walther, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). Of these early
studies, one by Kiesler, Zebrow, Moses, and Geller (1985) compared synchronous
11

CMC with face-to-face (FtF) groups. The researchers found that CMC participants
tended to evaluate each other less favorably than FtF participants did when making
subjective personal impressions about each other. They also found the computermediated setting was perceived by participants as more dispassionate and more
uninhibited than FtF settings.
CMC is often perceived as a lean communication medium, i.e., having less immediate
feedback, fewer sensory cues, less personalization, and restricted language variety
(Daft & Lengel, 1984,1986; El-Shinnawy & Markus, 1997; Schmitz & Fulk, 1991).
Walther (1995) has argued, however, that these early studies do not account for the
contradictory findings of some field research where "warm collegial relations" and
"growing friendships" have been displayed. To that end, Walther (1992) has produced
a systematic body of work dedicated to examining the performed an experimental
study that demonstrated how the relational qualities of a CMC group would eventually
approximate those exhibited by a FtF group, in spite of limited bandwidth; they just
occurred at a slower pace. This resulted in their observation that "the depersonalizing
effects of CMC may be limited exclusively to initial interactions, especially among
unacquainted partners" (1992, p. 55). Also, Walther (1995) noted that CMC groups
were found to be more task oriented due to the methodological limitation of premature
closure, where experiments were cut off before other more socio emotional phases
and messages occurred.
In a related commentary, Palmer (1995) contended that the perception of "distance"
in CMC may stem not only from restricted channel availability, but also from
distractions that keep users from processing relational information because they are
busy maintaining or controlling the medium itself. Once users achieve a level of
mastery with the technology, it becomes "transparent," thus allowing them to devote
more of their conscious awareness toward the interpretation of message meanings
and less of their conscious awareness toward issues such as the correct cursor
placement on the screen needed to transmit an e-mail message. Transparency is an
important competency for users to gain in order to reduce the effects of distance. As
larger numbers of users have acquired this sense of transparency, the overall
perception of distance has been minimized, and a growing consensus has recognized
that some types of CMC are potentially useful venues for the development of
interpersonal relationships (Palmer, 1995; Walther, 1992, 1995).

12

The relationships formed through CMC are influenced by, but not predicated on, the
medium chosen to communicate people's messages. According to Palmer (1995), it is
this social orientation that dominates human behaviour and actively seeks a
connection with others, despite whatever media restrictions apply. He wrote, " as long
as two humans are using a CMC medium, even if it is limited in channel capacity to
written forms, they will find ways to make the medium interpersonal" (p. 288).
In fact, Walther (1996) noted positive aspects of this asychronicity when he stated,
"asynchronous interaction may thus have the capacity to be more socially desirable
and effective as composers are able to concentrate on message construction to
satisfy multiple or single concerns at their own pace" (p. 26). In a research piece that
bolsters Walther's observations, Rintel and Pittam (1997) noted that one of the
particular effects of time on interaction management is the maximization of
impression management between partners due to pretransmission composition and
editing. Thus, while social networking site is asynchronous, it retains a variety of
essential interpersonal components. Individuals can actively manage their selfpresentation concerns while communicating through CMC (Rintel & Pittam, cited in
Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2006), making it a useful and strategic tool for developing
and/or maintaining human relationships.

Gender:
13

Male
Female

Privacy Concerns:
- Personal Security
- Misrepresentation
- Recognition

Internet
Experience

Uncertainty
Reduction
Strategies

Amount of
Selfdisclosure

Figure 1. Conceptual model of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure

6.4 Hypotheses
Ramirez et al. (2002) identified several factors that may influence the use of
information- seeking strategies: communicator related, situationcontext related, goal
related, information related, and technology related (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai,
2011). Of these factors, communicator-related features (such as personality
characteristics, skills, and preferences) are likely to provide the greatest source of
variance among unacquainted individuals who wish to make friend online (who are,
for the most part, using the same technology, communicating in the same context,
pursuing similar goals of forming relationships, and seeking similar types of
information). For this reason, the study focuses on a set of communicator-related
factors that are likely to influence uncertainty reduction strategies in CMC: privacy
concerns and Internet experience. I hypothesize that these factors are likely to
influence CMC users to make friend onlines motivation and ability to engage in
uncertainty reduction strategies.

14

Privacy concerns: CMC users face a variety of vulnerability risks related to several
types of concerns, which are likely to create uncertainty about potential friend online.
It follows that the more salient these risks are to participants, the more motivated they
will be to try to verify information about others before opening up to them, in order to
reduce uncertainty about others identity claims (and reduce their own vulnerability).
Firstly, disclosing personal information online can pose risks to ones physical and
emotional safety because it can result in threats such as identity theft or stalking
(Gross & Acquisti, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). Secondly, an online profile
created by CMC users with no private setting will expose their details to unintended
audiences

and will accidentally reveal all personal data to third parties such as

photograph and personal daily activities. Indeed, Rosen, Cheever, Cummings, and
Felt (2008, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011) found that the majority of potential
unacquainted individuals to become friend were reluctant to tell their social networks
that they were using social networking sites to know more friends (though another
recent study found that 70% of CMC users had disclosed their involvement to friends
and family (Stephure, Boon, MacKinnon, & Deveau, 2009). Thirdly, disclosure will
cause risks to individuals due to the possibility of deception or misrepresentation of
others in their profiles or online communication. If one reveals more about
themselves, it is more easier for others to make similarity about their own. A recent
study found that the revelation of private information in ones Facebook profile
enabled others to obtain knowledge about the target person and use it to create a
sense of homophily in subsequent interaction (Hancock et al., cited in Ellison,
Steinfield & Lampe, 2006). Therefore, self-disclosure can consider as dangerous
because third parties may use the information or details they get as their own details.
They duplicate the information or details about others. As a conclusion, the people
who with more privacy concerns will experience in greater uncertainty due to the
suspicion about the veracity of others disclosures, which may inhibit their
reciprocation of disclosure. Privacy concerns may thus provide greater motivation for
users to engage in information-seeking activities to protect themselves from potential
risks (Metzger, cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011) because such activities give users
more information about their communication partners and may lower their uncertainty
about them. More specifically, users with greater privacy concerns are more likely to
seek information about potential friend, in order to verify that such individuals do not
pose a threat to their personal security, that they are representing themselves
honestly and accurately, and that they do not represent a risk to ones social or
professional standing (such as might be the case if one inadvertently pursued a work

15

colleague or social acquaintance). On the basis of this prediction, this study expects
that users who are more concerned about their privacy in online.

H1: CMC users with greater concerns about (a) personal security, (b)
misrepresentation, and (c) recognition will engage in increased levels of
uncertainty reduction strategies.

Internet experience: Internet experience has been predicted to increase disclosure

and information-seeking behaviour in the e-commerce context (Metzger, 2007).
Similarly, this study predicts that prior Internet experience may serve as an important
source for the information seeking strategies that CMC users use to reduce
uncertainty. The internet experience is not meant how great they are in using
computer tools such as Adobe Photoshop, email, Microsoft Word, Facebook and
others. The experience is referred to how longer they involve in internet activities like
frequency of browsing online news, online shopping, online banking and more. The
person who used to browse internet and do activities frequently through internet will
face a variety of peoples behaviours. To deal with different kind of people, they need
uncertainty reduction strategies because CMC is different with face to face
communication. Therefore, individuals are likely to develop a generalized set of
strategies related to information-seeking and uncertainty reduction on the basis of
their experience engaging in other types of online activities, such as doing online
research, shopping, or e-banking. For example, users who encounter inaccurate
information from the websites they visit may be more aware of the need to verify the
credibility of online information and thus be prompted to construct a strategy of
double checking information using multiple websites (cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai,
2011). Likewise, those with a wider scope of Internet experience may also be more
familiar with information-seeking strategy in other Internet contexts (Griffiths, 2003;
Griffiths & Brophy, 2005)to verify others profile information or disclosures. Internet
literacy, defined as the ability to access, understand, critique, and create information
and communication content online (Livingstone, 2008, p. 110), is predicted by
Internet users actual online skills (Hargittai, 2005). This suggests that those who
participate in a greater variety of online activities will have a greater ability to access
information and content across different online contexts. This study predicts that such

16

users will be more likely to engage in information-seeking and uncertainty reduction

strategies.

H2: CMC users with greater Internet experience will engage in increased levels
of uncertainty reduction strategies.

Self-disclosure has been defined as any message about the self that an individual
communicates to another (Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The high
frequency of disclosing own personal details plays an important role in relationship
development. Self-disclosure helps individuals to collect data and information about
the potential friends. During initial interaction, people are less disclose because dont
know the unacquainted individual much. But after the process of uncertainty
reduction, people are more likely to self-disclose because they have an idea towards
the potential friend. CMC will cause to many uncertainty because users unable to
guess and know more about the potential friend due to lack of nonverbal cues.
Therefore, self-disclosure helps individuals collect information about prospective
partners and make forecasts about the viability of potential relationships (Derlega et
al., cited in Gibbs, Ellison & Lai, 2011). CMC users who engage in greater uncertainty
reduction behaviour will have less uncertainty about potential friend and will thus
open up more in their interactions with them, assuming they are confident in the
veracity of the information they have received. Reciprocity norms lead to increased
mutual self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships (Derlega, Winstead, Wong, &
Greenspan, 1987), but in the online context concerns about the veracity of the
disclosed information may hinder this process and inhibit reciprocal self-disclosure.
Uncertainty reduction is likely to provide an important middle step that helps alleviate
such concerns and provokes more self-disclosure, as individuals gain confidence in
the information provided by the other person through verification activities that do not
reveal misrepresentation by the target. Thus, this study proposes that CMC users
who engage in more uncertainty reduction strategies will report greater amounts of
self-disclosure with those they meet online.
H3: CMC users who engage in increased levels of uncertainty reduction
strategies will report greater amounts of self-disclosure in their interactions.

17

Gender was included given the wealth of research on the impact of sex differences on
self-disclosure (Dindia, 2000) and was assessed through one of the demographic
questions. Women were less likely to disclose than men ( = .17, p < .001)(Gibbs, et
al, 2011). It is because women will easily feel unsecure than men, they have no dare
to disclose all personal details when the first meet. Jourard (1975) concluded in his
research on sex differences in self-disclosure that women disclose more than men
because the male sex role inhibits men's self-disclosure. To test whether which is the
accurate and best to describe the situation in USM, researcher finalised and
hypothesid that:

H4: Women are less likely to disclose online than men.

7.0 RESEARCH PLAN AND METHODOLOGY

7.1 Conceptual Definition
Uncertainty reduction theory operates on the basic hypothesises that unacquainted
individuals who meet online will start to reduce uncertainty with the prevalence of
privacy concerns and internet experience (Gibbs et al., 2011). From these
hypothesises, it can thus be seen that the five basic variables are privacy concerns
(personal security, misrepresentation, recognition), internet experience, uncertainty
reduction strategies, amount of self-disclosure, gender.
This studys conceptualisation of the five variables is as follows:
1. Privacy concerns
Privacy concerns separated into 3 categories, they are personal security,
misrepresentation and recognition. Privacy concerns are the independent
variables. Personal security is referring to individual security awareness to the
danger. If individual discloses all own information in the social networking sites will
lead to many problems such as identity theft and unintended audiences.

18

Therefore, many people will hide their own personal details for safety. Initial
interaction with a stranger will make individual took the first step to ensure either
the particular person can be friend or just a stalker. Misrepresentation is referring
to image and identity of the particular person is represented the real person but
not a fake. Normally, profile picture or self-description can lead us to wrong
information. Recognition is some information which can let other people to
recognize the individual. For an example, the feature of the individuals face like
got a pair of big eyes can be the recognition point for others. All these
independent variables are affecting the relationship with uncertainty reduction
strategies.
2. Internet experience
Internet experience works as independent variable. Internet experience is not
referred to how great a person can use the tools in the internet. It is referring to
the past experiences they met while making friends online. For an example,
internet users who encounter inaccurate information from the websites they
visited may be aware of the need to verify the credibility of online information and
thus be prompted to construct a strategy of doubles checking information using
other alternatives.
3. Uncertainty reduction strategies
Ramirez et al. (2002) had described four strategies to measure uncertainty
reduction strategies that unacquainted individuals might use to verify the
credibility of others they meet online. The four categories are extractive, active,
passive and interactive. Uncertainty reduction in this study acts as dependent
variable and independent variable too. The first set tests on the relationship
between privacy concerns, internet experience and uncertainty reduction
strategies and here it works as dependent variable. The second set tests on the
relationship between uncertainty reduction strategies and amount of selfdisclosure and here it works as independent variable.
4. Amount of self-disclosure
Self-disclosure helps to collect information about others. Unacquainted individuals
who engage in greater uncertainty reduction behaviour will have less uncertainty
about potential friends and will thus open-up more in their interactions with the
particular person, assuming they are confident in the veracity of the information
they have received. Amount of self-disclosure is the dependent variable in this
study.

19

5. Gender
Gender placed in demographic question. It functioned as control variable in this
study. Gender is use to test and survey on which gender is more likely to disclose
online.

7.2 Operational Definition

The independent variables and dependent variable are operationalised in the form of
closed-ended items. The first conceptualisation, privacy concerns, is operationalised
in separated form as shown as below:
1. Personal security
Spitzberg and Hooblers (2002) cyberstalking scale is using to access a range of
making friends online concerns related to personal safety. There will be 9 items
under this session and in response to the question prompt; How concerned are
you about the following? rated on a 5-point scale with the response options
ranging from 1 = not at all concerned to 5 = very concerned. The items have
shown as below:
a) Someone I meet through social networking sites will send me threatening
written messages or images.
b) Someone I meet through social networking sites will stalk my profile
frequently.
c) Someone I meet through social networking sites provide false information
about themselves.
d) Someone I meet through social networking sites hides some attempts behind
me.
e) I use discretion before posting information or commenting about anything
through social networking sites.
f) I use strong and unique passwords for my own account.
g) I always be careful with who I add as a "friend," or what groups or pages I join.
h) I configure privacy settings to allow only those people you trust to have
i)

access to the information you post.

I always review a site's privacy policy.

2. Misrepresentation
2 items will be issued under this session. 5-point Likert scale is using to answer
the questions where response options ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. Items include:
a) Someone I meet through online will be very different from their profile.
b) Someone I meet through online will have exaggerated some of their qualities.

20

3. Recognition
3 items will be included on a 5-point Likert scale where response options ranged
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Items include:
a) I am concerned that people I know professionally will see my profile in social
networking site and recognize me.
b) I am concerned that people I know can recognize me through my profile
picture.
c) I am concerned that people I know can recognize me through the status
update of mine.
The second conceptualisation, internet experience, is operationalised into index
values range from 0 to 10 and based on 10 activities. The ten activities are reading an
online news site, looking for health/medical information, updating a personal website
blog, shopping online, online dating activities, searching for movie, playing online
games, downloading new songs, fund transferring and weather checking.
The third conceptualisation, uncertainty reduction strategies, is operationalised
into 10 items, 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 =never miss it. To measure
uncertainty reduction strategies, an index of five information-seeking or informationappraisal strategies that unacquainted individual might use will be constructed to
verify the credibility of others they meet online for initial interaction. These strategies
mapped onto the categories described by Ramirez et al. (2002), as follows:
a) Extractive
- I often google the unacquainted individuals name online.
- I often google the unacquainted individual online activities such as whether their
own a blog or any personal space to know about them.
b) Active
- I often save the chat history to check for consistency.
- I often save emails to check for cinsistency.
c) Passive
- I often compare photos to written/demographic description in their profile.
- I often look on the comment they write in their status
d) Interactive
- I often ask follow-up questions in email or chat to see if they are who they say they
are.
- I often ask same questions in different way to look on the validity of answer they
gave
e) Interactive
- I often ask questions on the phone about what they said in a profile, email or IM.

21

- I often ask questions about their details.

The forth conceptualisation, amount of self-disclosure, is operationalised into 5point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. There are 5
items under this session:
a) I usually communicate about myself for fairly long periods at a time with those I
b)
c)
d)
e)

meet online.
I often discuss my feelings about myself with those I meet online.
I often tell the new friend about my own background.
I always share my family problems with the friend who I never meet offline.
I like to write my personal detail in the info description column.

The fifth conceptualisation, gender, is operationalised in the demographic questions

session.

7.3 Method and Instrument

A quantitative methodology will be used to collect the data necessary to prove or
disprove the hypotheses that have been put forth in the previous chapter; specifically
a survey methodology, conducted via a face-to-face self-administered questionnaire.
This

study draws

on

quantitative

research

methodology and

close-ended

questionnaire will be the tool to collect the data from the respondents in USM.
Respondents are who willing to take part in the survey and complete the
questionnaire. The initial screening questions asked whether they ever involved in
knowing unacquainted individuals in social networking sites through text-based CMC.
If they answer yes, then they will be given a questionnaire and answer the questions
obtained. Those who help in completing the survey will receive RM2 incentive.
The survey instrument was constructed using a combination of established scales
and original items informed by the literature on privacy, information seeking, and self
disclosure in interpersonal and online relationships. The survey was pilot tested (n =
52) to validate original scales and clarify question wording. All scales were validated
through factor analysis using Varimax rotation and retaining Eigenvalues of 1 or
greater (all identified a 1-factor solution), followed by reliability analysis. Responses to
all related questions and ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree,
unless specified otherwise.

22

7.4 Sampling
Convenience sampling is chosen because researcher unable to get the real number
of people who involved in social networking sites activities, therefore researcher will
be in certain place and passes the questionnaire to whoever in that particular place
such as library. But there will be an initial screening question to ask the passer-by to
ensure if they have involved in any social networking sites and ever make friend with
stranger, they are qualified to fill in the questionnaire. The target population is USM
students which contains 20,000 people and the number of respondents is 377
(n=377). 500 questionnaires will be attributed to get the exact 377 respondents which
filled in according to what to survey. All respondents are social networking sites users.
Margin of error is 5% and confidence level is 95%. All the respondents will answer the
questionnaires attributed.

8.0 Data Analysis

The data collected in this survey will be analysed using the Predictive Analytics Software
(PASW) suite, formerly known as the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

8.1 Coding
Due to the fact that this studys questionnaire consists of entirely closed-ended
questions, the coding, which is set of instructions that will be used in the process of
converting data into a format that PASW can understand (Pallant, 2005), will be quite
simple. Coding, for this study, mainly involves the coding of the various responses to
questions related to the independent and dependent variables of privacy concerns,
internet experience, uncertainty reduction strategies and amount of self-disclosure, as
well as for variables such as gender, year of using social networking sites and so
forth. The possible responses for these variables need to be converted to numbers
23

before they can be entered into SPSS. Pallant (2005) provides an example related to
the variable of gender: the two possible responses for this question, male and female,
are converted (coded) into numbers, so that 1=males, 2=females (p. 14), and so on.
The responses to the questions in this study will be coded in a similar manner. For
instance, the 5 Likert items for the scale measuring attitudes towards forensic science
will be coded as follows: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree,
5=strongly agree. To provide another example, the five responses for uncertainty
reduction strategies will be coded as follows: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=occasionally,
4=often, 5=never miss it. This coding of the responses and scale will allow for the
variables to be measured on the interval scale of measurement required for the
statistical analysis that will be conducted.

8.2 Level of Measurements

This study will utilise both nominal and interval levels of measurement in the
gathering and analysis of its data. The nominal level of measurement is often used for
discrete data that only names or identifies differing characteristics without any regard
to the value of said characteristics (Keyton, 2006, p. 99). Examples include sex,
gender, political affiliation, employment status, and so on (Keyton, 2006). In this
study, the nominal level of measurement will be used for basic demographic data
such as gender and ethic. Ethic will not be tested in this survey, and are only included
so as to provide demographic data. While gender will be used as control variables on
the amount of self-disclosure to look on which gender is more likely to disclose online.
The scales used to determine the personal security concern, misrepresentation,
recognition and uncertainty reduction strategies as well as the presence of the mount
of self-disclosure will be measured on the interval level of measurement. The interval
level of measurement is used due to the fact that the distances between respondents
responses to particular items is important for the purposes of this survey; Baxter &
Babbie (2004) point out that, in situations such as these, the interval level of
measurement is appropriate, while also pointing out that many of the variables used
in communication research are used at the interval level (p. 116). The use of intervallevel measurement fulfils one of the criteria of parametric statistics, namely that the
dependent variables are measured with interval-level or ratio-level measures (Baxter
& Babbie, 2004).

24

8.3 Exploratory Data Analysis, reliability analysis and univariate analysis

Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) involves the use of graphs intended to let us see
what may be happening over and above what we have already described (Tukey, as
cited in Gelman, 2004, ), and plays a particularly important role in the search for
unanticipated areas of model misfit (Gelman, 2004). Some of the graphical methods
used in EDA include histograms, scatterplots, boxplots and line graphs (Pallant,
2006).
Conducting EDA is particularly important for assessing the normality of scores in the
dependent variable and to detect any outliers, which are cases with values well
above or below the majority of other cases (Pallant, 2006, p. 58). It is also important
in testing whether the data meets the assumptions of the statistical technique that is
to be used. Multiple regression analysis is particularly sensitive to outliers (Pallant,
2005); conducting EDA is thus an important step in determining the suitability of the
data and eliminating any outliers that might interfere with the multiple regression
analysis.
Reliability analysis is an essential measure to perform which allows the properties of
measurement scales to be studied. This is where the use of multiple indicators is
encouraged as it generates a more precise and reliable responses. Examples of
statistics that can be used to test on reliability of the data coded from the content
analysis are Cronbachs alpha, Cohens Kappa, and Kuder-Richardson.
This study will employ Cronbachs alpha for inter coder reliability test. The minimum
acceptable alpha value for the reliability analysis should be greater than 0.7 (> 0.7).
Meanwhile, univariate analysis is another necessary measure to calculate the central
tendency and the dispersion of the coded framing variables. There are three most
common types of measure of central tendency; mode, median, mean. The types of
univariate analysis to be conducted in this study are mean, mode, median, frequency
and percentage on each frame coded in the content analysis. These analyses are
important to answer all the research questions in this study. While to present the
output, table, bar chart, and pie chart are practical to be used.

8.4 Bivariate/multivariate analysis to be used

25

The statistical analysis to be used in this proposed study is multiple regression

analysis. Multiple regression analysis is used in this study due to the nature of the
hypotheses that this study aims to test, which involve testing two differing
independent variables in relation to one dependent variable and comparing the
correlation of the two variables in order to determine which independent variable is
the stronger predictor of the dependent variable. According to Pallant (2005), one of
the types of research questions that multiple regression is used to answer is which
variable in a set of variables is the best predictor of an outcome (p. 140), which is the
exact type of research question put forth in this study. One of characteristics of
regression analysis that also supports its use in this study is that it is well suited to
testing the relationship between naturally-occurring variables that are not manipulated
via experimental design (Keyton, 2006), which is the case with the variables in this
study.
The first step in interpreting the results of multiple regression analysis is to determine
whether there exists a significant relationship between any of the independent
variables and the dependent variable. If the significance level of R2, the squared
multiple correlation coefficient (R) that indicates correlation, is less than the alpha
value of .05, it means that at least one of the relationships among the variables is
significant (Keyton, 2006, p. 225). If statistical significance is reached, the strength of
the relationships will then be determined and compared based on the standardised
beta weights (or beta coefficients, ) provided by the statistical analysis. The value of
these beta weights, much like r in correlation, ranges from -1.00 to +1.00. A beta
value of +1.00, for instance, indicates that a change of one standard deviation in the
predictor variable is associated with a change of one standard deviation in the
criterion variable (Keyton, 2006, p. 225) and that this change is in an identical
direction. A negative beta value would indicate the same relation except in opposite
directions. The size of the number indicates the strength of the independent variables
contribution towards the dependent variable. The p value of these variables is also
important: if this p value is less than the alpha value of .05, it indicates that the
particular variable is making a significant unique contribution to the prediction of the
dependent variable (Pallant, 2005, p. 153).

While the R value in multiple regression also indicates the direction and strength of
the correlation, comparisons between the correlations of two separate independent
variables are done based on the standardised beta weights instead of the R values

26

because these beta weights have been converted to the same scale, which allows for
direct comparison between variables (Pallant, 2005). The R values, on the other
hand, are not standardised and are often based on different units of measurement,
which precludes the possibility of direct comparison between two or more
correlations. Despite this, R values are still important in determining correlation and
strength of correlation, and are interpreted in a similar manner to the r values in
Pearsons r based on guidelines set out by Guilford (as cited in Keyton, 2006, p. 219):

R value
< 0.20
0.20 0.40
0.40 0 .70
0.70 0 .90
> 0.90

Strength of correlation
Slight, almost negligible relationship
Low correlation; definite but small relationship
Moderate correlation; substantial relationship
High correlation; marked relationship
Very high correlation; very dependable relationship

The expected result of this statistical analysis is the presence of significant

relationships between both independent variables of privacy concerns and internet
experience and the dependent variable of uncertainty reduction strategies for the first
set of regression coefficient, and also that the second set of regression coefficient for
amount of self-disclosure, that is the independent variable of uncertainty reduction
strategies, the dependent variable of amount of self disclosure and the control
variable of gender.

27

References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violation in
close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 365-392.
Antheunis, M.L., Schouten, A.P., Valkenburg, P.M. & Peter, J. (2011). Interactive uncertainty
reduction strategies and verbal affection in computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 1-24.
Antheunis, M. L., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Getting acquainted through social
network sites: Testing a model of online uncertainty reduction and social attraction.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 100-109.
28

Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday,
11(9). Retrieved
September
8,
2007,
from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/barnes/index.html
Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain outcome values in predicted relationships: Uncertainty
reduction theory then and now. Human Communication Research, 13, 34-38.
Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in
interpersonal relations. London: Edward Arnold.
Berger, C .R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human
Communication Research, 1, 99-11.
Berger, C. R., & Douglas, W. (1981). Studies in interpersonal epistemology: HI. Anticipated
interaction, self-monitoring, and observational context selection. Communication
Monographs, 48, 183-196.
Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Parks, M. R., Schulman, L., & Miller, G. R. (1976).
Interpersonal epistemology and interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.),
Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 149-171). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berger, C. R., & Kellermann, K. A. (1983). To ask or not to ask: Is that a question? In R. N.
Bostrom (Ed,), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 342-368), Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Berger, C, R,, & Kellermann, K, A. (1985), Personal opacity and social information
acquisition: Seek, but yet may not find. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the International Communication Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Berger, C, R,, & Perkins, J, W, (1978), Studies in interpersonal epistemology: Situational
attributes in observational context selection. In B, D, Ruben (Ed,), Communication
yearbook 2 (pp, 171-184), New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Berger, C, R,, & Perkins, J, W, (1979), Studies in interpersonal epistemology: IL Selfmonitoring, involvement, facial affect, similarity, and observational context selection.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association,
San Antonio, Texas.
Byron, K., & Baldridge, D. C. (2007). E-Mail recipients impressions of senders likability: The
interactive effect of nonverbal cues and recipients personality. Journal of Business
Communication, 44, 137-160.

29

Clatterbuck, G, W, (1979), Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction.

Human Communication Research, 5, 147-157.
Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding online attraction.
Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 7-14.
Couch, D., & Liamputtong, P. (2007). Online dating and mating: Perceptions of risk and
health among online users. Health, Risk, & Society, 9, 275-294.
Dehsi, D. (2011). Google to boost market presence in Malaysia. The Star Online. Retrieve on
1 December, 2012,from
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?
file=/2011/1/27/business/7878539&sec=bus iness
Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close
relationship. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship
beginnings (pp. 153-174). New York: Psychology Press.
Derlega, V., Winstead, B., Wong, P., & Greenspan, M. (1987). Self-disclosure and
relationship development: An attributional analysis. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 172187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dindia, K. (2000). Sex differences in self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and selfdisclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing
the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Donath, J. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P.
Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 2959). New York: Routledge.
Donzella, B, (1988), A test of the empirical claims of uncertainty reduction theory. Paper
presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Douglas, W. (1987). Question-asking in same- and opposite-sex initial interactions: The
effects of anticipated future interaction. Human Communication Research, 14 (2),
230-2.
Douglas, W. (1990). Uncertainty, information-seeking, and liking during initial interaction.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 66-81. Douglas, W. (1994). The
acquaintanceship process: An examination of uncertainty, information seeking, and
social attraction during initial conversation. Communication Research, 21, 154-176.
Duck, S, W,, & Craig, G, (1975), Effects of type of information upon interpersonal attraction.
Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 157-164.

30

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks
and social capital: The role of Facebook. Paper presented at the 56th Annual
Conference of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C.-H. (2011). First comes love, then comes Google: An
investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies and self-disclosure in online dating.
Communication Research, 38, 70-100.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In
A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp.
409-427). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, J. R. (2003). Evaluation of the JISC information environment: Student perceptions
of services. Information Research, 8(4). Retrieved June 20, 2007, from
http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper160.html
Griffiths, J. R., & Brophy, P. (2005). Student searching behaviour and the Web: Use of
academic resources and Google. Library Trends, 53, 539-554.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks.
Proceedings of WPES05 (pp. 71-80). Alexandria, VA.
Harvey, J. H., Wells, G. L., & Alvarez, M. D. (1978). Attribution in the context of conflict and
separation in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New
directions in attribution research 2 (pp. 235-260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated
communication revisited. Communication Research, 28, 325-347.
Hancock, J. T., Toma, C. L., & Fenner, K. (2008). I know something you dont: The use of
asymmetric personal information for interpersonal advantage. Proceedings of the
ACM 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 413-416). San
Diego, CA.
Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science
Computer Review,23, 371-379.
Heisler, J., & Crabill, S. (2006). Who are stinkybug and packerfan4? Email pseudonyms
and participants perceptions of demography, productivity, and personality. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1). Retrieved June 20, 2009, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/heisler.html

31

Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of selfawareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177
192.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New
York, NY: John Wiley.
Kellermann, K. (1986). Anticipation of future interaction and information exchange in initial
interaction. Human Communication Research, 13, 41-75.
Kellermann, K., & Berger, C. R. (1984). Affect and social information acquisition: Sit back,
relax, and tell me about yourself. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 8
(pp. 412^145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Keyton, J. (2006). Communication Research: Asking Questions, Finding Answers. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer
mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.

Kraut, R., Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula, J., Kiesler, S., & Scherlis, B. (1999). Information
and communication: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. Information
Systems Research, 10, 287303.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N. B., & Steinfield, C. (2007). A familiar Face(book): Profile elements as
signals in an online social network. Paper presented at the Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321341.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1995). Love at first byte? Building personal relationships over
computer networks. In J. T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Understudied relationships: Off
the beaten track (pp. 197-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ling, S. C., Chuan, L., Yian, T. B. C., Yani, S., & Huaping, C. (2007). Getting to know
websites through
uncertainty reduction strategies: Which strategies are used
more, and which are better? An empirical study of first-time visitors. Proceedings of
2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile
Computing, WiCOM 2007 (Article No. 4340726, pp. 3840-3843).

32

Livingstone, S. (2008). Internet literacy: Young peoples negotiation of new online

opportunities. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected
(pp. 101-122). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the
Internet: Whats the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Communication privacy management in electronic commerce. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2). Retrieved June 5, 2007, from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/metzger.html
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of
romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human
Communication Research, 10, 55-79.
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication,
46, 80-97.
Pena, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). An analysis of instrumental and socio-emotional content in
online multi-player videogames. Communication Research, 33, 92-109.
Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal
relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries?
SIDEeffects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25,
689715.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer
mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341371.
Pratt, L., Wiseman, R. L., Cody, M. J., & Wendt, P. F. (1999). Interrogative strategies and
information exchange in computer-mediated communication. Communication
Quarterly, 47, 4666.
Ramirez, A., Walther, J. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Sunnafrank, M. (2002). Information-seeking
strategies, uncertainty and computer-mediated communication: Toward a conceptual
model. Human Communication Research, 28, 213-228.

33

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in
computer-mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 37, 157187.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the social in computermediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated
communication (pp. 30-65). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1989). Person Memory and Judgment. Psychological Review, 96,
58-83.
Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet initiated
relationships: Associations between age and involvement in online dating. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 658-681.
Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of
uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 13, 3-33.

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on

disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another
a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317-348.
Toma, C., Hancock, J. & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of
deceptive self- presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1023-1036.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in
virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1. Retrieved February 8, 2002, from http://
www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n1/utz.html
Van Gelder, L. (1985, October). The strange case of the electronic lover. Ms. Magazine.
Reported in C.Dunlop & R. Kling (Eds.) (1991), Computerization and controversy:
Value conflicts and social choices (pp. 364375). Boston: Academic Press.
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52-90.
Walther, J. B., & DAddario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message
interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer
Review, 19, 323345.
Walther, J. B., Slovacek, C., & Tidwell, L. C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words?
Photographic images in long term and short term virtual teams. Communication
Research, 28, 105134.
34

Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L., & Shulman, H. (2009). Self-generated versus
other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication:
A test of warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229-253.
Wheeless, L. R. (1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and
interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4, 143-157.
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported selfdisclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346.
Whitty, M. (2008). Revealing the real me, searching for the actual you: Presentations of
self on an internet dating site. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1707-1723.
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal
communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 159). New York: Academic Press.

35