Self-disclosure is defined as any communication about the self which is divulged to others (Cozby, 1973). The act of disclosing is an integral part of social
communications and relationship development, and has been researched in both online and offline contexts. Research suggests that individuals have a tendency to disclose more in an online social context (Tidwell & Walther, 2002). This is said to be a consequence of increased anonymity and a heightened sense of self-
awareness (Joinson, 2001), which leads to hyperpersonal interaction (see Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model - Walther, 1996). However, increased self- disclosure is still apparent in SNSs despite the non-anonymous context they employ. Thus anonymity may be sufficient but not necessary for such behaviours. For instance, Sheldon (2009) argues that frequent use of Facebook, increases trust between individuals, and this in turn promotes increased self-disclosures on the site.
Self-disclosure as a measurable construct can be viewed in multiple ways. For instance, Jourard (1971) discusses topics of disclosure, where disclosing attitudes, interests or work information are classified as easier disclosures, whilst talks of one’s money, personality or body are classified as riskier disclosures. Wheeless (1978) on the other hand, suggests that type of self disclosure should be classified under the dimensions of honesty, amount, conscious intent and positive or
Page | 73 negative valence, rather than topics of discussion. The latter distinction is of
particular interest in the current context. The measurement of honesty is of high importance within the online environment, whereby users may self-disclose misleading information in an effort to improve their self-presentation (Lea & Spears, 1995). Furthermore, the individual subscales allow initial insight into potential consequences of disclosure on well-being. For instance, it has been suggested that large amounts of negative self-disclosure can have a detrimental effect on relationship formations, with the ‘listener’ being burdened by such disclosures or unable to consistently respond in the desired manner (Greene, Derlega & Mathews, 2006).
It is suggested that motivations behind communication may affect willingness to self disclose (Gibbs, Ellison & Heino, 2006). For instance, those hoping to estabilish long term offline relationships with those they meet online may be more honest in their disclosures. Thus it is logical that different personalities will have differing views on what to expect from CMC relationships and this may also affect
willingness to disclose. Individual differences have been found to exist in self- disclosure behaviours. For instance, in a meta-analysis, Dindia and Allen (1992) report that women have a tendency to self-disclose more than men. However, although extraversion appears to significantly correlate with self-disclosure, research has struggled to associate additional personality traits due to methodological difficulties in quantifying these variables without the
implementation of a behavioural measure (Cozby, 1973). Although, research does suggest that socially anxious individuals moderate their level of disclosure
(Meleshko & Alden, 1993), which may indicate a potential link with neuroticism or sociotropy.
Page | 74
4.1.2.2LURKING
Users of Internet applications can either be active or passive in their engagement within a site. However, this should be considered as a continuum rather than a distinction. Those who regularly use a specific application but do not or rarely contribute through posting are known as ‘lurkers’ (Rafaeli, Ravid & Soroka, 2004). Operationally, a specific time frame may be given (e.g. no postings within 12 weeks of usage; Nonnecke & Preece, 2000); yet official definitions tend to avoid such constraints. Whittaker, Terveen, Hill and Cherny (1998) argue that lurking is still a method of participation. However, those who post are thought to be more satisfied by the applications they use, and feel closer to the community as a membership group (Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, 2004). Furthermore, intimacy levels differ between lurkers and posters (Rau et al., 2008), with posters tending to be more invested in interactions and more affected by others’ opinions (Schlosser, 2005).
Lurking is not a minority behaviour. A study by Nonnecke and Preece (2000) found that 12% of discussion lists explored held over 90% lurker levels. Yet accurate levels are difficult to measure, and fluctuate between media. When results were broken down they suggested a possible 46% lurker-level for health-related discussions lists, but 82% lurker-level for software support discussions lists (Nonnecke & Preece, 2000). Those signed onto a software support discussion list may be looking for generic software problems and so use the answers of others to gratify their informational needs, whereas those in the health discussion will want more personalised support. In line with the uses and gratifications approach, this perhaps demonstrates that a number of lurkers remain ‘silent’ if they are able to gain gratification from the application without posting. However, a large number of additional reasons for lurking have been identified. From a survey of over 200
Page | 75 lurkers (Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, 2004), several categories of lurking have been raised. These reasons have been validated in additional studies (e.g. Küçük, 2010). Reasons include, not having a need or reason to post, still weighing up group dynamics or communication strategies before posting, believing their contribution is not of worth, technical or physical constraints, privacy/spam fears, social loafing (Latané, Williams & Harkins, 1979) due to contributions of others, and dislike for the current group dynamics or believing not to fit in (Küçük, 2010; Nonnecke & Preece, 2001; Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, 2004).
As personality is thought to influence level of participation in social situations (Matthews, Dreary & Whiteman, 2009), it seems likely that personality may be able to predict likelihood of lurking tendencies. However, research has yet to link the current explored personality variables with lurking in this way. Similar studies exploring personality variables however have found significant results. Caspi, Chajut, Saporta and Beyth-Marom (2006) associated the Big Five with
participation behaviours, and found that those who actively chose to lurk in an online learning environment were higher in neuroticism. Tan (2011) found that those high in shyness were more likely to lurk in an SNS environment.
Furthermore, Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, (2004) found that approximately 28% of lurkers believed themselves to be shy and many were anxious about posting, which suggests that those with a high neuroticism score are perhaps more prone to lurking behaviours. Following on from the literature review, introverts and high neuroticism scorers are more likely to share their real me online, yet it appears that high neuroticism scorers may still be apprehensive to post. This may be why they prefer more solitary behaviours such as blogging. Lurkers do not seem to demographically differ to posters in terms of age, gender, education and
Page | 76 employment (Preece, Nonnecke & Andrews, 2004). It appears that individual
differences are important but may play a role secondary to context (Caspi et al., 2006; Tan, 2011). Indeed Nonnecke and Preece (2001) argue that personal characteristics form just one of four themes of categories which affect lurking behaviour. Nonetheless exploring lurking behaviours with the current personality variables will be useful in ascertaining participation levels and may aid in the explanation of subsequent behaviours.