Content uploaded by Ina Blau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ina Blau on Feb 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 45(1) 95-116, 2011
APPLICATION USE, ONLINE RELATIONSHIP TYPES,
SELF-DISCLOSURE, AND INTERNET ABUSE AMONG
CHILDREN AND YOUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS
INA BLAU
University of Haifa
ABSTRACT
This study explores the relationships between Internet abuse (IA)—self-
disclosure, online application usage, and relationship types—traditional
long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode. An online ques-
tionnaire was administered to 2884 children and youth. According to the
hypotheses, applications differed in their relationships with participant
IA and self-disclosure: the usage of some applications was related to both
IA and self-disclosure; the usage of others related only to IA or neither
to IA nor self-disclosure. IA and self-disclosure correlated with problematic
participant online activities (e.g., sending photos of one to online acquain-
tances, visiting sites with inappropriate contents), but did not affect educa-
tional activities (e.g., studying online with classmates, preparing homework,
or getting information). Participants reported the highest level of online
communication in traditional long-distance relationships, lower level in
purely virtual, and the lowest level in migratory mixed-mode relationships.
Participant IA and self-disclosure positively influenced online communi-
cation, but not interactions with the relationship type.
INTRODUCTION
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides a social setting for satis-
fying people’s needs of companionship and belongingness (Morahan-Martin
95
Ó2011, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/EC.45.1.e
http://baywood.com
& Schumacher, 2003). Different online tools offer a variety of choices to meet new
people, communicate, and develop close relationship with others (Pornsakulvanich,
2005). However, some people experience problems through over-engaging
in Internet-related activities. This study explores the relationships between
Internet abuse (IA)—self-disclosure, and the usage of different online tools among
Israeli children and youth—as well as discusses its implication for education
and Internet safety programs. In addition, the study investigates whether the
participant IA and self-disclosure differ according to online relationship
type—traditional long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode. The
next section defines IA and discuses the difference between IA and Internet
addiction. Following that, self-disclosure in online communication is compared
to self-disclosure in offline environment. The introduction section concludes by
discussing three types of online inter-personal relationships: traditional long-
distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode.
Internet Abuse
There is no standard term for describing Internet-related problems; a number
of terms have been used, including Internet addiction, Internet dependency,
Internet abuse, compulsive Internet use, pathological Internet use, and prob-
lematic Internet use (see Morahan-Martin, 2008). Goldberg, who established
criteria for Internet addiction in the 1990s, did it as a joke and still does not believe
in the existence of Internet addiction (Suler, 2004). But the term Internet addiction
has become very popular. Almost 10% of adult Internet users in a large online
survey identified themselves as Internet addicts (Cooper, Morahan-Martin,
Mathy, & Maheu, 2002). In Germany, a camp was established to help children
addicted to the Internet (Moore, 2003). Some people identify themselves as
addicted to a specific tool; e.g., about 42% of participants in Yee’s (2002) study
said they are addicted to online games. Although some researchers question the
concept of Internet addiction, research has confirmed that some users do develop
serious problems from their use of the Internet and have established factors
related to problematic Internet use.
Some researchers refer to Internet behavior not as a clinical disorder, but
on a continuum from normal to disturbed usage (Caplan, 2005; Morahan-Martin
& Schumacher, 2000), or the continuum of deficiencies in self-regulation
(LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003). In a similar vein, in this article the term “internet
abuse” (IA) will be adopted. IA refers to “patterns of using the Internet that
result in disturbances in a person’s life but does not imply a specific disease
process or addictive behavior” (Morahan-Martin, 2008, p. 34) and has been
studied in predominantly non-pathological populations (LaRose et al., 2003).
Estimates of the incidence of IA widely differ between culture and depends
on the participant age: from less than 1% of U.S. adults (Aboujaoude, Koran,
96 / BLAU
Gamel, Large, & Serpe, 2006) and less than 2% of youth in Finland and Norway
(Johansson & Götestam, 2004; Kaltiala-Heino, Lintonen, & Rimpelä, 2004)
to 5.9% of university students (Chou & Hsiao, 2004) and 11.7% of high school
students in Taiwan (Lin & Tsai, 2002).
Although the Internet is increasingly used by children and youth both
within teaching sessions and during their spare time on the Internet, there is a
shortage of educationally-oriented studies focused on IA (Castiglione, 2008;
Morgan & Cotten, 2003). Adolescents are particularly prone to IA because of
the availability of the technology within educational settings as well as psycho-
logical and developmental factors associated with teens (Kandell, 1998; Moore,
1995). Studies of educational implications of IA have shown a negative relation-
ship between IA and educational performance (Kubey, Lavin, & Barrows,
2001). However, it remains unclear whether IA affects educational performance
because of the time spent on the net detracts from the time spent studying,
or because low performance students seek to immerse themselves in virtual
environments as a way of coping with the reality (Castiglione, 2008).
Research on IA mostly does not distinguish between specific applications of
Internet use (Morahan-Martin, 2008). Davis (2001) proposed the distinction
between the generalized and specific IA types. Generalized IA is not linked to
any specific online activity and associated with the unique CMC patterns. Specific
IA involves abuse of a specific content area; e.g., online gambling or sexual
behaviors. Some specific forms of IA (e.g., online interactive games) are unique
to the Internet (Charlton & Danforth, 2007). Others (e.g., pathological gambling
or compulsive sexuality) are technologically enabled variants of established
pathologies (Morahan-Martin, 2005).
A weakness of the research regarding the IA is the lack of a uniform set of
empirically validated criteria (Morahan-Martin, 2008). Young’s (1996, 1998)
eight criteria for IA were modified from the DMS criteria for pathological
gambling (see Table 1). According to Young, in order to be diagnosed with IA,
the person needs to meet at least five of the eight criteria. Morahan-Martin
(2008) points out that, excluding the face validity, studies do not report about
other types of validity for Young’s criteria. Beard and Wolf (2001) use the
same criteria, but claim that for being diagnosed with IA, a person must fulfill
all the first five criteria and at least one of the last three criteria. Thatcher
and Goolam (2005) used instead the Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire
(PIUQ). This questionnaire has 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale and
according to factor analysis has three factors: online preoccupation, adverse
effects from Internet use, and a preference for online social interactions.
Persons who scored 70-100 on PIUQ scale are identified as high risk for
IA. This study used a questionnaire having eight 5-point Likert scale items
based on Young’s criteria of IA and adopted for children and youth popula-
tion (Table 1).
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 97
QA: 2004 or 2000?
QA: Need ref. in ref.
section
Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure refers to information about the self that a person communicates
to others (Archer, 1980; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Joinson,
2001a, 2001b; Joinson & Paine, 2007). The message may include thoughts,
feeling, and experiences (Derlega et al., 1993; Joinson, 2001b; Joinson & Paine,
2007; Sillence & Briggs, 2007; Suler, 2004). The sharing of personal information
with others is essential for the formation of close relationships (Altman & Taylor,
1973).The conclusion of a meta-analysis of the research about self-disclosure and
98 / BLAU
Table 1. Criteria Modified by Young and This Study
Questionnaire Items
Criteria for IA (Young, 1996)
This study items:
IA questionnaire for youths
1. Is preoccupied with the Internet
(think about previous online
activity or anticipate next online
session)
2. Needs to use the Internet with
increasing amounts of time to
achieve satisfaction
3. Has made unsuccessful efforts
to control, cut back, or stop
Internet use
4. Is restless, moody, depressed,
or irritable when attempting to
cut down or stop Internet use
5. Has stayed online longer than
originally intended
6. Has jeopardized or risked the
loss of significant relationship,
job, educational, or career oppor-
tunity because of the Internet
7. Has lied to family members,
therapist, or others to conceal
the extent of involvement with
the Internet
8. Uses the Internet as a way of
escaping from problems or of
relieving a dysphoric mood (e.g.,
feelings of helplessness, guilt,
anxiety, depression)
When I am online, I anticipate the next
time I will be online
I tend to want to spend increasing
amounts of time online
I have made unsuccessful attempts to
reduce the amount of my online
activities
When I cannot be online, it makes me
feel irritable or moody
My family or people I live with think that
I stay online longer that I need to
Because of the time I stay online,
suffers activities I need to or want to
do, e.g., homework, extra-curricular
activities, meeting friends
I lie to my family, friends, or others
about the amount of my online
activities
Being online helps me to escape from
everyday problems
the development of relationships was that it is a reciprocal process for both
intimates and strangers (Dindia, 2002).
Online self-disclosure is similar to an offline one in some important features
(Barak & Suler, 2008): self-disclosure is reciprocal (Barak & Gluck-Ofri, 2007;
Joinson, 2001b; Rollman & Parente, 2001) and people disclose more personal,
sensitive, and intimate information about themselves communicating with those
they can relate to (Barak & Gluck-Ofri, 2007; Leung, 2002).
However, research has also showed that self-disclosure is deeper and occurs
faster on an online compared to offline environment (Barak & Bloch, 2006;
McCoyd & Schwaber Kerson, 2006). High level of self-disclosure in online
communication is a result of anonymity in written CMC (McKenna & Bargh,
2000) and explained by the online disinhibition effect (Lapidot-Lefler, 2009;
Suler, 2004).
Children and youth are immersed in different media (Wartella, O’Keefe, &
Scantlin, 2000) and spend much of their spare time on the Internet, seeking
information, playing games, and talking with friends on a daily basis. They enjoy
making friends online, the ability to disguise identity in textual communication,
and talk in real time to a diverse type of people (Leung, 2001; Turkle, 1995).
Despite the widespread use of the Internet by children and youth, the questions
regarding their willingness to promote communication in cyberspace via self-
disclosure and its relation to abusive Internet usage remain open.
Online Relationships
According to Stafford (2005), there are three types of online relationships:
traditional long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode. Traditional
long-distance relationships refer to people who meet face-to-face and use online
as well as offline communication to stay in touch (e.g., communicating online
with family and friends). Purely virtual relationships refer to people who meet
online and stay in touch through CMC only (e.g., communicating with similar
others from around the world). Migratory mixed-mode refers to relationships
between people who first meet online and then also engage in face-to-face
interactions (e.g., meeting an acquaintance from a dating site offline). Most of the
research on interactions via CMC has examined one type of relationship—either
the traditional long-distance relationship, migratory mixed-mode, or purely
virtual relationship (Rabby & Walther, 2003; Walther & Parks, 2002). However,
little is known how people in different types of online relationships use specific
applications and how they differ in their online behavior (Pornsadulvanich,
2005). In Pornsadulvanich’s study, over 90% of participants were in traditional
long-distance relationships and fewer than 10% were in purely virtual rela-
tionships or migratory mixed-mode. Due to this proportion, only two types
of online relationships were investigated: traditional long-distance relation-
ships versus non-traditional relationships (i.e., purely virtual relationships and
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 99
QA: Need these 2 refs. in ref.
section
migratory mixed-mode). The findings showed differences in the amount of
self-disclosure in favor of traditional long-distance relationships. According to
Pornsadulvanich (2005), the influence of relationship type on online communi-
cation and its interaction with other variables deserves further investigation.
Study Goals and Hypotheses
This study attempts to explore the relationships between IA, self-disclosure, and
online applications use among children and youth. In addition, the study investi-
gates whether the participant IA and self-disclosure differ according to online rela-
tionship type—traditional long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode.
The study hypotheses are:
1. Applications would differ in their relationships with participant IA and
self-disclosure. The usage of some applications would correlate with both
IA and self-disclosure; the usage of others would correlate only with IA
or neither with IA nor self-disclosure.
2. Both IA and self-disclosure would correlate with problematic/dangerous
participant online behavior (e.g., visiting sites with inappropriate contents,
providing a school address and home address to online acquaintances,
sending photos of oneself to online acquaintances), as well as with the
exposure of the participants to unpleasant online experiences (e.g., receiv-
ing messages, pictures, or videos that make them feel uncomfortable).
However, it is unlikely that studying online with classmates, using Internet
for preparing homework, or for getting information would cause disturb-
ances in the person’s life, or result in disclosing much personal and intimate
information about themselves. Therefore, IA and self-disclosure would
not correlate with educational online activities.
3. Participants would report the highest level of online communication in
traditional long-distance relationships, lower level in purely virtual, and
the lowest level in migratory mixed-mode relationships. Participant self-
disclosure (Pornsadulvanich, 2005) and IA would positively influence
online communication. However, self-disclosure (Dindia, 2002) and IA
would not interact with the relationship type. Thus, in all online relationship
types (traditional long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode
relationships) participants high in IA and in self-disclosure would report
higher level of online communication with others compared to the partici-
pants low in IA and self-disclosure.
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 2,884 Israeli children and youth Internet users
who completed an online questionnaire posted on an Internet Safety Day
100 / BLAU
website; 1,448 of the participants (51%) were males. Figure 1 shows the
distribution of participant age (Range: 7-17, Median: 11, Mean: 11.05, SD: 1.44,
Skewness 0.73).
Instruments
IA Questionnaire
Participants indicated the degree of their agreement with each statement
using the 5-point Likert scale ranges from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 =
“strongly agree.” Factor analysis combines all the items into a single factor
(Table 2).
Internal consistency of the questionnaire was high—Cronbach’s alpha for
the eight items was .89. All the items (Table 3) were included into the IA index
(Range: 1-5, Mean: 2.40, SD: 1.16, Median: 2.14, Skewness 0.54).
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 101
Figure 1. Distribution of participant age (n= 2,884).
102 / BLAU
Table 3. Reliability Statistics for IA Items
IA Items
Cronbach’s
alpha if
item deleted
1. When I am offline, I anticipate the next time I will be online
2. For feeling good, I need to stay more and more hours online
3. I have made unsuccessful attempts to reduce the amount of
my online activities
4. When I cannot be online, it makes me feel irritable or moody
5. My parents or other family members think that I stay too much
online
6. Because of the time I stay online, I don’t do things that I need to
or want to do, e.g., homework, extra-curricular activities, meeting
friends.
7. I lie to my family, friends, or others about the amount of my
online activities
8. Being online helps me to escape from everyday problems
.86
.86
.85
.86
.87
.88
.87
.86
Table 2. Factor Loadings of Eight IA Items (n= 2,884)
IA Items Factor
loading
2. I tend to want to spend increasing amounts of time online
1. When I am offline, I anticipate the next time I will be online
3. I unsuccessfully tried to reduce the amount of my online
activities
4. When I cannot be online, it makes me feel irritable or moody
8. Being online helps me to escape from everyday problems
5. My family or people I live with think that I stay online longer than
I need to
6. Because of the time I stay online, suffers activities I need to or
want to do, e.g., homework, extra-curricular activities, meeting
friends
7. I lie to my family, friends, or others about the amount of my
online activities
.812
.796
.795
.783
.762
.720
.661
.654
Self-Disclosure
The Revised Self-Disclosure Scale was adopted in order to measure infor-
mation about themselves that participants communicate to others (Wheeless,
1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). This study used the Hebrew version of the
questionnaire (Lapidot-Lefler, 2009). Participants indicated the degree to which
the items reflect how they communicate online using a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” Revised Self-
Disclosure Scale contains 31 items, tapping five dimensions of self-disclosure:
intended disclosure, amount, positive-negative, depth, and honesty. Studies
measured self-disclosure in chat among university students in Hong Kong
(Leung, 2001) and Israel (Lapidot-Lefler, 2009) using a shorter version of the
scale containing 19 statements. This study focused on three dimensions of the
scale—depth, intent, and honesty—and excluded amount as well as positive-
negative self-disclosure. These dimensions were less relevant for the participants,
since the study explored general online self-disclosure, in contrast to previous
studies investigating self-disclosure in communication via a specific medium
(e.g., chat, or even in conversation with a specific partner).
Revised Self-Disclosure Scale has, typically, been a valid and reliable measure.
Studies have provided evidences of the construct validity of the Revised Self-
Disclosure Scale (Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976; Wheeless, Nesser, &
McCroskey, 1986). High internal validity was reported for the original version
of the scale (Martin & Anderson, 1995; Wheeless, 1978). For the short version
in online settings (Leung, 2002) Cronbach alphas ranged from .59 to .80. The
researcher reported Cronbach’s alpha .59 for the intent dimension; however,
according to the factor analysis, only two statements were included in this dimen-
sion. Therefore, it was preferable to report a Pearson correlation instead of
Cronbach’s alpha. Some studies reported a coefficient alpha for the overall
scale and it was acceptable –.78 (Myers & Johnson, 2004), including a coefficient
for the Hebrew version –.76 (Lapidot-Lefler, 2009). The overall internal con-
sistency for the nine items used in this study was similar—Cronbach’s alpha of
.77. Table 4 shows reliability statistics for the short self-disclosure scale used
in this study. All the items were included in the self-disclosure index (Range: 1-5,
Mean: 2.71, SD: 0.72, Median: 2.50, Skewness 0.56).
Application Usage and Online Behavior
Participants indicated the degree to which they use different applications or
behave in a certain way online using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very much.”
Procedure
An online questionnaire was published on the Internet Safety Day (ISD)
website for Israeli children and youth 2 weeks before the international ISD was
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 103
celebrated on February 9, 2010. During the ISD, students are exposed at schools
to activities promoting safe surfing; therefore, the questionnaire was closed
before this date.
RESULTS
Since the sample was large (n= 2884), even very small correlations were
mostly statistically significant. Therefore, only correlation coefficients higher
than .20 were taken into consideration and for these correlations the standard-
ized effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported.
Statistically significant correlation was found between the participant IA and
self-disclosure, r= .39, d= 0.85. Youth who used the Internet in a more abusive
way also reported more self-disclosing online communication. Participant age
was not related neither to IA, r= .11 nor self-disclosure, r= .08. Mann-Whitney U
104 / BLAU
Table 4. Reliability Statistics for Self-Disclosure Items
Dimension Self-disclosure items
Cronbach’s
alpha if
item deleted
Depth
Honesty
Intent
I often disclose online intimate, personal things
about myself without hesitation.
I feel that I sometimes do not control my self-
disclosure of personal or intimate things I tell
about myself online. [R]
Once I get started, I intimately and fully reveal
myself online in my self-disclosure.
My statements online about my feelings, emotions,
and experiences are always accurate
self-perceptions.
I always feel completely sincere when I reveal online
my own feelings and experiences.
I intimately disclose online who I really am, openly
and fully.
When I express my personal feelings online, I am
always aware of what I am doing and saying.
When I am self-disclosing online, I am consciously
aware of what I am revealing.
When I reveal online my feelings about mysef, I
consciously intend to do so.
.74
.76
.71
.73
.72
.70
.75
.74
.75
test was conducted for gender comparisons, since according to the Levene’s
test, equal variances were not assumed. The results showed significant gender
differences in both IA, Z= –7.23, p< .001, d= 0.26, and self-disclosure, Z= –7.57,
p< .001, d= 0.28. Boys reported more abusive Internet usage and more self-
disclosing online interactions with others (Mean: 2.55 for IA and 2.81 for self-
disclosure) compared to girls (Mean: 2.25 for IA and 2.61 for self-disclosure).
The general Internet usage among the participants was 3.33 hours per day
(SD: 2.54). General usage of the Internet highly correlated with IA, r= .45,
d= 1.00, but did not correlate with self-disclosure, r= .17. Zero correlation
was found between the participant age and the daily Internet usage, r= -.01.
Mann-Whitney Utest was conducted for the gender comparisons, since according
to the Levene’s test, equal variances were not assumed. The results showed
significant gender differences in general Internet usage, Z= –5.65, p< .001,
d= 0.24. Boys reported more daily Internet usage (Mean: 3.61 hours) compared
to girls (Mean: 3.02 hours).
Regarding the first research hypothesis, Table 5 showed means and standard
deviations for the usage of different applications, as well as Pearson correla-
tions between IA, self-disclosure, application usage, and the effect size for the
correlations started from .20.
As can be seen from the results, the participants reported a high level of play-
ing online games, using Facebook, searching data on the net, and especially on
YouTube. In contrast, the degree of reading and writing blogs, using Twitter,
online video applications, and Virtual Reality was low. Using tools like Twitter,
photo sharing applications, online video, virtual reality, or blogs significantly
correlated with both IA and self-disclosure. Using other tools, such as Facebook,
messenger, YouTube, watching TV shows online correlated only with IA, but
not with self-disclosure. The usage of e-mail, forums, playing online computer
games, searching information, or reading news online did not correlate neither
with participant IA nor self-disclosure.
Concerning the second research hypothesis, Table 6 shows means and standard
deviations for the participant self-reported online behavior, as well as Pearson
correlations between IA, self-disclosure, self-reported online behavior, and the
effect size for the correlations started from .20.
As the data shows, the participants widely used the Internet for getting infor-
mation and preparing homework, but less for studying with their classmates.
They reported safe online behavior: very few of them send their photo, provide
a school or a home address to online acquaintances. Educational online activities
such as studying online with classmates, using Internet for preparing homework,
and for getting information, did not correlate neither with IA nor self-disclosure.
However, both IA and self-disclosure significantly correlated with problematic
and even potentially dangerous behavior as staying late online, visiting sites
with inappropriate contents, providing a school address and home address to
online acquaintances, and sending photos of one to online acquaintances. In
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 105
Table 5. Pearson Correlations between IA, Self-Disclosure, and Self-Reported Application Usage (n= 2,884)
IA Self-disclosure
Application used Mean SDrdrd
Searching data
Using Facebook
Using ICQ or Messenger
Using e-mail
Reading other blogs
Writing my blog
Reading messages in forums, including class forum
Writing messages in forums, including class forum
Searching on YouTube
Using sharing applications (e.g., Kazza, Emule)
Using photo sharing applications (e.g., Flikr, Picasa)
Using Twitter
Using Internet voice applications (e.g., Skype)
Using Internet video applications (e.g., ooVoo)
Playing online games
Using Virtual Reality applications (e.g., Second life)
Reading news online
Watching TV shows online
3.62
3.94
2.76
3.15
1.86
1.59
2.74
2.29
3.91
2.44
3.07
1.42
2.35
1.77
4.23
1.67
2.23
3.29
1.21
1.60
1.75
1.51
1.36
1.22
1.53
1.45
1.33
1.59
1.69
1.09
1.57
1.32
1.12
1.27
1.44
1.42
.11
.26
.27
.17
.29
.30
.12
.17
.29
.28
.40
.29
.30
.32
.13
.29
.15
.28
0.53
0.56
0.61
0.63
0.61
0.58
0.87
0.61
0.63
0.68
0.61
0.58
.04
.12
.17
.11
.22
.25
.10
.17
.14
.20
.28
.29
.21
.26
.05
.28
.14
.19
0.45
0.52
0.41
0.58
0.61
0.43
0.53
0.58
106 / BLAU
Table 6. Pearson Correlations between IA, Self-Disclosure, and Online Behavior
IA Self-disclosure
Online behavior Mean SDrdrd
Studying online with classmates
Using Internet for preparing homework
Using Internet for getting information
Visiting sites with inappropriate contents
Staying late online
Providing a school address to online acquaintances
Providing a home address to online acquaintances
Sending my photos to online acquaintances
Using a nickname with online acquaintances
Receiving messages that make me feel uncomfortable
Receiving pictures that makes me feel uncomfortable
Receiving videos that makes me feel uncomfortable
2.92
3.97
3.88
1.50
2.55
1.48
1.34
1.34
2.31
1.65
1.49
1.46
1.38
1.28
1.31
1.09
1.51
1.09
0.94
0.99
1.62
1.14
1.05
1.04
.13
.13
.18
.40
.58
.40
.36
.36
.18
.39
.34
.36
0.87
1.42
0.87
0.77
0.77
0.85
0.72
0.77
.12
–.03
.02
.37
.31
.43
.43
.40
.06
.34
.37
.38
0.77
0.65
0.95
0.95
0.87
0.72
0.77
0.82
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 107
addition, IA and self-disclosure exposed youth to problematic behavior of other
Internet users: They received messages, pictures, and videos that make them
feel uncomfortable.
In order to investigate the influence of IA and self-disclosure on relationship
types, ANOVA Repeated Measures tests were conducted. For the statistical
analysis, the participants were divided into two groups using the median scale
score of self-reported IA and self-disclosure indexes—participants scored high
versus low in IA and participants scored high versus low in self-disclosure.
The participants who received the median score were defined as low in IA
and self-disclosure.
Regarding the third research hypothesis, Table 7 shows descriptive statistics
for the reported relationship types, separately for the participants high and low
in IA.
Table 8 presents results of the analysis of variance for the effect of online
relationship type, IA level, and their interaction on participant self-reported online
communication with others.
As can be seen from the data, statistically significant main effects were found
for the influence of the online relationship type and IA level. Post-hoc tests
showed that the participant online communication significantly differed between
the relationship types, and the effect size was large: self-reported online com-
munication was the highest in traditional long-distance relationships (M: 3.79),
108 / BLAU
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for the Online Relationship Types
for the Participants High and Low in IA
Online relationship type
Participants low in IA
(n= 1,370): Mean (SE)
Participants high in IA
(n= 1,514: Mean (SE)
Traditional long-distance
Purely virtual
Migratory mixed-mode
3.45 (0.04)
1.44 (0.04)
1.05 (0.02)
4.13 (0.04)
2.40 (0.03)
1.48 (0.02)
Table 8. The Influence of the Online Relationship Type, IA Level,
and Their Interaction on the Participant Online Communication
Factor Fdfph2
Online relationship type
Participant IA level
Interaction
3949.33
506.22
40.31
2,2881
1,2882
2,2881
< .001
< .001
< .001
.58
.15
.01
lower in purely virtual relationships (M: 1.92), and the lowest in migratory
mixed-mode (M: 1.27, ps < .001). The participants widely communicated online
with their offline acquaintances, but minimally used the Internet for making
online acquaintances, and almost never met their online acquaintances offline.
In general, participants high in IA reported about higher level of online com-
munication (M: 2.76) compared to the participants low in IA (M: 1.98, p< .001).
The interaction between the two variables was statistically significant as a result
of the large sample size. However, the effect size of the interaction was almost zero
and the participants high in IA reported about higher level of online communi-
cation compared to the participants low in IA in all online relationship types.
Table 9 shows descriptive statistics for the participant online relationship types,
separately for the participants high and low in self-disclosure.
Table 10 presents results of the analysis of variance for the effect of online
relationship type, self-disclosure level, and their interaction on participant self-
reported online communication with others.
As can be seen from the data, statistically significant main effects were found
for the influence of the online relationship type and self-disclosure level. Post hoc
tests showed that the participant online communication significantly differed
between the relationship types: it was the highest in traditional long-distance
relationships (M: 3.82), lower in purely virtual relationships (M: 1.96), and the
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 109
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for the Participant Online Relationship Types
for the Participant High versus Low in Self-Disclosure
Online relationship type
Participants low
in self-disclosure
(n= 1,504): Mean (SE)
Participants high
in self-disclosure
(n= 1,380: Mean (SE)
Traditional long-distance
Purely virtual
Migratory mixed-mode
4.61 (0.04)
2.54 (0.03)
2.07 (0.02)
4.97 (0.04)
3.38 (0.03)
2.50 (0.02)
Table 10. The Influence of the Online Relationship Type, Self-Disclosure Level,
and Their Interaction on the Participant Online Communication
Factor Fdfph2
Online relationship type
Self-disclosure level
Interaction
3940.75
656.36
35.04
2,2881
1,2882
2,2881
< .001
< .001
< .001
.58
.10
.01
lowest in migratory mixed-mode (M: 1.29, ps < .001); the effect size was large.
In general, participants high in self-disclosure reported about higher level
of online communication (M: 3.63) compared to the participants low in self-
disclosure (M: 3.08, p< .001). Although the interaction between the two variables
was statistically significant as a result of the large sample, the effect size of the
interaction was very low and the patterns of self-disclosure in different online
relationship types were similar to the finding regarding general self-disclosure.
DISCUSSION
This study explored the relationships between IA, self-disclosure, general
Internet usage, the use of specific applications, and relationship type (tradi-
tional long-distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode) among children
and youth.
The results showed that the general usage of the Internet correlates with IA,
but not with participant self-disclosure. Children and youth who use the Internet
in an abusive way did so without providing much information about themselves
to others. It seems that reporting the average daily time spent online, children
and youth participants were generalizing and somewhat affected by their
opinion whether they do or do not have Internet-related problems. Although
people sometimes claim they are “addicted” to the Internet, those who are highly
engaged and spend a large amount of time in online activities cannot be con-
sidered pathological in the absence of detrimental effects on their lives (Charlton
& Danforth, 2004; Morahan-Martin, 2008).
Regarding the use of specific online tools, according to the first research
hypothesis, usage of some applications correlated with both IA and self-
disclosure; the usage of others correlated only with IA or neither with IA nor
self-disclosure. These findings emphasize the importance of studying IA and
self-disclosure in specific applications instead of the Internet usage in general.
Using tools such as Twitter, photo sharing applications, online video tools, virtual
reality, or blogs was related to both IA and self-disclosure. The use of these
applications is immersing and might stimulate the participant IA. Self-disclosure
is a built in feature of these tools and it is essential for a successful blogger
(Blau, Mor, & Neuthal, 2009), Twitter, or avatar owner, as well as for users
publishing their photos on the net or showing their real face to others during the
video chat sessions. Using applications such as Facebook, messenger, YouTube,
and watching TV shows online was related only to IA, but not to self-
disclosure. Some of these tools are one-way communication channels (e.g.,
watching online TV or searching on YouTube, without interactions with other
users, for example, through writing comments), and therefore do not support
self-disclosure. However, these applications are immersive similarly to offline TV
and therefore stimulate IA. Other applications in this category (e.g., Facebook
and messenger), are very interactive and widely include sharing information and
110 / BLAU
thoughts. Moreover, the process of online writing stimulates self-disclosure
(McKenna & Bargh, 2000). It is possible that multitasking that is spread among
youth is responsible for shallower multiple communications and having less
self-disclosure compared to deeper one-to-one interactions.
Different explanations for the low level of self-disclosure among Facebook
users versus the high level of self-disclosure using Twitter can be suggested.
Facebook users have a personal profile, while Twitter application has a virtual
representation similar to an avatar in SecondLife. Therefore, the difference can
indicate that the participants can “hide” their identity behind anonymity in some
of the Internet applications. According to the alternative explanation, Facebook
users choose an appropriate level of self-disclosure, defining which information
is available to all their online friends and which information is for close friends
only. However, using Twitter, the same messages describing sender’s actions
or thoughts are transmitted to all the audience and can explain the high level
of self-disclosure reported by the participants.
The use of e-mail, forums, playing online games, searching information, and
reading news online did not correlate neither with IA nor self-disclosure. The
Internet may be heavily used without having negative effects and excessive
Internet use alone does not qualify as IA, which is defined in terms of disturb-
ances in a person’s life associated with Internet usage (Charlton & Danforth,
2004; Morahan-Martin, 2008). The study results showed that even playing online
games—on average the application most heavily used by almost 3,000 children
and youth in this study—was unrelated to having the Internet-associated disturb-
ances in their life. As expected, searching information, reading news, or playing
computer games (in contrast to multiplayer socially interactive games)—activities
excluding human communication—were unrelated to self-disclosure. Interest-
ingly, writing e-mails or posting in forums (including class forums) did not
stimulate the participant self-disclosure. It seems like participants, mostly ele-
mentary school students, used e-mails and forums for educational purposes rather
than for casual communication.
The analysis of the relationships between IA, self-disclosure, and application
usage has implications for education. Some educators opine in favor of using
certain applications for learning purposes arguing that children or adolescences
“are already there.” Based on the findings, it seems that it would be better to
minimize the use of some tools (e.g., Facebook or Instant Messaging) from
educational environments because of the relationships between their usage and
the participant IA, regardless of the causality question (whether the application
usage stimulate IA, or for some reason participants with IA predispositions are
likely to use this application). It is recommended to include in educational
environment tools, the usage of which was unrelated to IA and self-disclosure
(e.g., data searching, explaining and brainstorming via class forums and e-mails,
as well as using experimental simulations; similar to computer games) in order
to promote student inquiry.
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 111
Consistent with the second research hypothesis, both IA and self-disclosure
correlated with problematic and even dangerous participant online activities
(e.g., visiting sites with inappropriate contents, providing a school address and
home address to online acquaintances, or sending photos of one to online acquain-
tances). Moreover, the study participants high in IA and self-disclosure were
exposed to unpleasant online experiences (e.g., receiving messages, pictures,
or videos that make them feel uncomfortable). The finding regarding the
potential danger of self-disclosure is consistent with data explored by Internet
safety survey among U.S. youth (Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2006).
However, IA and self-disclosure were not related to educational online activities
(e.g., studying online with classmates, using Internet for preparing homework,
or for getting information). These findings have implications for educational
Internet usage in general and for Internet Safety programs in particular. For
general education, the findings indicate that learning-oriented Internet usage—
seeking information or communicating with other students—is unlikely to cause
IA. For Internet safety programs, discussions and activities exploring the potential
danger of visiting sites with inappropriate contents, staying late online, providing
a school address and home address to online acquaintances, and sending photos
of oneself to online acquaintances are recommended.
Accordingtothethird research hypothesis and consistent with Pornsadulvanich’s
(2005) findings, participants reported that online communication was the
highest in traditional long-distance relationships, lower in purely virtual, and the
lowest in migratory mixed-mode relationships. IA and self-disclosure positively
influenced the reported online communication with others in all online rela-
tionship types. Thus, participants high in IA and self-disclosure interacted online
with others more than ones with low IA and self-disclosure in traditional long-
distance, purely virtual, and migratory mixed-mode relationships. The results
are consistent with Dindia’s (2002) meta-analysis which found that self-
disclosure is essential for the formation of close relationships for both inti-
mates and strangers. This study’s results regarding the widespread purely virtual
relationship type among youth high in self-disclosure has implications for
Internet safety programs. It is important to remember that many types of online
behaviors considered risky are becoming normative—many young Internet users
have posted personal information online and have had online acquaintances.
Presenting prevention information, it is important to frame educational messages
appropriately. Instead of adapting the command approach (“don’t talk to strangers
online!”), focusing on harm reduction and recognizing accepted online behavior
is recommended (“many children are meeting people online; remember that it is
important and easy to hide your identity and personal information”).
The main limitation of this study is the exclusive use of a quantitative method-
ology. In future exploration of issues related to educational implications of
IA and self-disclosure, a qualitative treatment paying attention to user experience
is recommended.
112 / BLAU
REFERENCES
Aboujaoude, E., Koran, L. M., Gamel, N., Large, M. D., & Serpe, R. T. (2006).
Potential markers for problematic internet use: A telephone survey of 2,513 adults.
CNS Spectrums, 11, 750-755. Retrieved September 3, 2010, from http://www.
cnsspectrums.com/aspx/articledetail.aspx?articleid=648
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Archer, J. L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In D. Wegner & R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in
social psychology (pp. 183-204). London: Oxford University Press.
Barak, A., & Bloch, N. (2006). Factors related to perceived helpfulness in supporting
highly distressed individuals through an online support chat. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 9, 60-68.
Barak, A., & Gluck-Ofri, O. (2007). Degree and reciprocity of self-disclosure in online
forums. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 407-417.
Barak, A., & Suler, J. (2008). Reflections on the psychology and social science of
Cyberspace. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research,
applications (pp. 1-12). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beard, ?., & Wolf, ?. (2001). ______________________
_______________________________
Blau, I., Mor, N., & Neuthal, T. (2009). Open the windows of communication: Promoting
interpersonal and group interactions using blogs in higher education. Interdisciplinary
Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 233-246.
Caplan, S. E. (2005). A social skill account of problematic Internet use. Journal of
Communication, 55, 721-736.
Castiglione, J. (2008). Internet abuse and possible addiction among undergraduates: A
developing concern for library and university administrators. Library Review, 57,
358-371.
Charlton, J. P., & Danforth, D. W. (2004). Differentiating computer-related addictions
and high engagement. Human Perspectives in the Internet Society: Culture,
Psychology and Gender, 4, 59-68.
Charlton, J. P., & Danforth, D. W. (2007). Distinguishing addiction and high engagement
in the context of online game playing. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1531-1548.
Chou, C., & Hsiao, M.-C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure
experience: The Taiwan college students’ case. Computers & Education, 35, 65-80.
Cooper, A., Morahan-Martin, J., Mathy, R., & Maheu, M. (2002). Toward an increased
understanding of user demographics in online sexual activities. Journal of Sex and
Marital Therapy, 28, 105-129.
Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers
in Human Behavior, 17, 187-195.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self disclosure. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Dindia, K. (2002). Self-disclosure research: Knowledge through meta-analysis. In
M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication
research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 169-186). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johansson, A., & Götestam, K. G. (2004). Internet addiction: Characteristics of a ques-
tionnaire and prevalence in Norwegian youth (12-18 years). Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 45, 223-229.
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 113
QA: Please supply ref. or
delete from text
QA: 2000 or 2004?
Joinson, A. N. (2001a). Knowing me, knowing you: Reciprocal self disclosure and
Internet-based surveys. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 587-591.
Joinson, A. N. (2001b). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of
self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31,
177-192.
Joinson, A. N., & Paine, C. B. (2007). Self-disclosure, privacy and the Internet.
In A. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. D. Reips (Eds.), Oxford
handbook of Internet psychology (pp. 237-252). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, A. (2004). Internet addiction? Potentially
problematic use of the internet in a population of 12-18 year old adolescents. Addiction
Research and Theory, 12, 89-96.
Kandell, J. J. (1998). Internet addiction on campus: The vulnerability of college students.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1, 11-17.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate aca-
demic performance decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 51,
366-382.
Lapidot-Lefler, N. (2009). An examination of the impact of anonymity, invisibility, and
lack of eye-contact on inducing the online disinhibition effect. Doctoral dissertation.
Department of Counseling & Human Development, University of Haifa, Israel. [in
Hebrew].
LaRose, R., Lin, C. A., & Eastin, M. S. (2003). Unregulated Internet usage: Addiction,
habit or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225-253.
Leung, L. (2001). College student motives for chatting on “ICQ.” New Media and Society,
3, 1-19.
Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (“I Seek You”) use. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 5, 241-251.
Lin, S., & Tsai, C. C. (2002). Sensation seeking and internet dependence of Taiwanese
high school adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 411-426.
Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father-young adult relationship:
Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 43,
119-130.
McCoyd, J. L. M., & Schwaber Kerson, T. (2006). Conducting intensive interviews
using email: A serendipitous comparative opportunity. Qualitative Social Work, 5,
389-406.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of
the Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75.
Moore, D. W. (1995). The emperor’s virtual clothes: The naked truth about the Internet
culture. Chapel Hill, NC: Alonquin.
Moore, T. (2003, August). Camp aims to beat web addiction. BBC News. Retrieved
September 3, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3125475.stm
Morahan-Martin, J. (2005). Internet abuse: Addiction? Disorder? Symptom? Alternative
explanations? Social Science Computer Review, 23, 39-48.
Morahan-Martin, J. (2008). Internet abuse: Emerging trends and lingering questions. In
A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications
(pp. 32-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
114 / BLAU
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of patho-
logical Internet use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 16,
13-29.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and social uses of the Internet.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 659-671.
Morgan, C., & Cotten, S. R. (2003). The relationship between activities and depres-
sive symptoms in a sample of college freshmen. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6,
133-142.
Myers, S. A., & Johnson, A. D. (2004). Perceived solidarity, self-disclosure, and trust
in organizational peer relationships. Communication Research Reports, 21, 75-83.
Pornsakulvanich, V. (2005). Testing a uses and gratifications model of online rela-
tionships. Doctoral dissertation. College of Communication and Information, Kent
State University.
Rabby, ?., & Walther, ?. (2003). ______________________
_________________________________
Rollman, B., & Parente, F. (2001). Relation of statement length and type and type of
chat room reciprocal communication on the Internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4,
617-622.
Sillence, E., & Briggs, P. (2007). Please advise: Using the Internet for health and financial
advice. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 727-748.
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential relationships.Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7,
321-326.
Thatcher, A., & Goolam, S. (2005). Development and psychometric properties of the
Problematic Internet Use Questionnaire. South African Journal of Psychology, 35,
793–809.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Examining characteristics
and associated distress related to Internet harassment: Findings from the second
youth Internet safety survey. Pediatrics, 118, 1169-1177.
Yee, N. (2002, October). Ariadne—Understanding MMORPG Addiction. Retrieved
September 3, 2010, from http://www.nickyee.com/hub/addiction/home.html
Young, K. S. (1996, August). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical
disorder. Paper presented at the 104th annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder.
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1, 237-244.
Walther, ?., & Parks, ?. (2002). ________________________
_______________________________
Wartella, E., O’Keefe, B., & Scantlin, R. (2000, May). Children and interactive media:
A compendium of current research and directions for the future. _________: Markle
Foundation.
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
self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338-346.
EDUCATION AND INTERNET SAFETY PROGRAMS / 115
QA: Please supply ref. or
delete from text
QA: Please supply ref. or
delete from text
QA: Please supply location
of publisher
Wheeless, L. R., Nesser, K., & McCroskey, J. C. (1986). The relationships of self
disclosure and disclosivenesss to high and low communication apprehension. Com-
munication Research Reports, 3, 129-134.
Direct reprint requests to:
Ina Blau, Ph.D.
Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education
Department of Information and Knowledge Management
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
e-mail: ina.blau@edtech.haifa.ac.il
116 / BLAU
