CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 16, Number 6, 2013 ORIGINAL ARTICLES

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0553

Lonely People Are No Longer Lonely on Social

Networking Sites: The Mediating Role
of Self-Disclosure and Social Support

Kyung-Tag Lee, PhD, Mi-Jin Noh, PhD, and Dong-Mo Koo, PhD

Abstract

Most previous studies assert the negative effect of loneliness on social life and an individual’s well-being when
individuals use the Internet. To expand this previous research tradition, the current study proposes a model to test
whether loneliness has a direct or indirect effect on well-being when mediated by self-disclosure and social
support. The results show that loneliness has a direct negative impact on well-being but a positive effect on self-
disclosure. While self-disclosure positively influences social support, self-disclosure has no impact on well-being,
and social support positively influences well-being. The results also show a full mediation effect of social support
in the self-disclosure to well-being link. The results imply that even if lonely people’s well-being is poor, their well-
being can be enhanced through the use of SNSs, including self-presentation and social support from their friends.

Introduction themselves to others.3,13 SNSs are used to facilitate studying,

forming new relationships, maintaining preexisting personal

O ne of the most important reasons people use the

Internet is to communicate with other people.1 Past
research has focused on the well-being of people who use the
Internet. Research regarding people’s well-being was origi-
nally derived from using the Internet for both positive and
negative effects,2,3 and showed mixed conclusions. Pessimis-
tic views assert that the use of the Internet and social
networking sites (SNSs) have a negative effect on social life
and well-being.4,5 Nie5 argues that the time spent on the
Internet displaces time spent offline socializing with family
and doing face to face activities. However, other research
asserts that Internet use can be effective at building high
quality friendships and have a positive impact on well-
being.6–9 These conflicting arguments are yet to be resolved
and suggest that there is a certain mechanism in which indi-
vidual traits such as loneliness have an influence on well-
being, referring to an individual’s cognitive and affective
evaluation of his/her life.10,11
The aim of this study was to concentrate on how Internet
communication in terms of SNSs changes the well-being of
individuals. The Internet has been used as a communication
tool. The Internet provides information and a plethora of
ways to establish and build relationships with others and
help people connect and communicate.12,13 SNSs refer to Web
sites that not only display visually articulated lists of one’s
social connections, but also provide technological features,
including public profiles through which users can present
ties, engaging in self-presentation, looking at photos and user
profiles of other people, commenting on messages posted by
others, avoiding boredom, passing the time, and procrasti-
nating.1,12,14 These activities help individuals reduce loneli-
ness and accumulate personal social capital, including
emotional satisfaction, access to information, increasing one’s
well-being, and so on.10,15
However, one point worth noting is that associated with
studies on social communication is the conceptualization of
users’ well-being. Some studies have conceptualized well-
being as a construct being comprised of various measures,
which include an individual’s traits such as depression,
loneliness, smaller social circles, and overall life satisfaction.16
In this case, individual characteristics have been conceptual-
ized as a dependent variable.16 On the other hand, several
studies have identified individual traits as a key concept in
predicting users’ well-being or happiness.14,17 Loneliness is a
key construct in predicting well-being and is defined as an
unpleasant feeling in which a person feels a strong sense of
emptiness, yearning, distress, and solitude resulting from
an inadequate quantity or quality of social relationships.18
Treating loneliness as either a dependent or an independent
variable should not be a problem, since authors can approach
these topics using different perspectives. However, the effect
produced by loneliness—whether it has a positive or negative
effect on well-being—has yet to be resolved. In this study,
loneliness was treated as an independent variable affecting

School of Management, Kyungpook National University, Buk-Gu, Daegu, Republic of Korea.

413
414
FIG. 1. Research model and test results.
well-being. To fill the gap found in previous research studies,
the research model shown in Figure 1 is proposed.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
With respect to online interactions, studies have shown
that the effect produced by loneliness is inconclusive. Skues
et al.12 attest that lonely students report having more Face-
book friends. Ellison et al.13 show that undergraduate stu-
dents using Facebook tend to experience higher levels of
well-being. However, other researchers suggest that loneli-
ness has a negative impact on well-being.17,19–21 Ceyhan and
Ceyhan19 show that loneliness is associated with problem-
atic use of the Internet. Kim et al.21 stipulate that lonely
people lack social skills, and thus engage in and develop
compulsive Internet use behaviors. Displacement theory
suggests that the Internet takes away time from the users for
social activities and thus replaces social ties, which hinders
the well-being of Internet users.6,16,21,22 Accordingly, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Loneliness is negatively related to well-being.
Meanwhile, Weiser23 shows that Internet use driven by
communicative use is positively associated with well-being.
Stimulation theory suggests that lonely people may engage
more in activities provided by the Internet, since the Internet
provides an opportunity to gain access to and interact with
other individuals online via SNSs.6 This opportunity in-
creases that individual’s well-being. Skues et al.12 explain this
based on social compensation theory, which implies that
users use social media to compensate for the lack of offline
relationships.
Several empirical studies have shown that loneliness in-
fluences well-being indirectly. Kim and Lee14 demonstrate
that (a) the number of Facebook friends has a positive as-
sociation with well-being; (b) positive self-presentation has a
positive effect on well-being; but (c) honest self-presentation
indirectly affects well-being mediated by perceived social
support. Skues et al.12 show that loneliness is directly related
to an increased number of friends. Lee et al.10 demonstrate
that the time spent on a SNS is not related to well-being; the
amount of self-disclosure on SNSs is positively related to
well-being. All these results imply that, with respect to the
use of social media, the impact of loneliness on well-being is
mediated by self-disclosure and/or social support. In other
words, unlike the Internet, the mechanism for loneliness
influencing well-being may have been changed with the
LEE ET AL.
advent and more frequent use of SNSs. In the present study,
it is proposed that loneliness may have a positive impact on
well-being when mediated by self-disclosure and social
support.
One of the distinctive characteristics of SNSs is self-
disclosure. Online interactions using SNSs foster more self-
disclosure, and a user reveals oneself more compared to face to
face interactions.10 Self-disclosure means communicating per-
sonal information, thoughts, and feelings with other people.24
On SNSs, people have opportunities to engage in self-disclosure
using profile construction, status updates, photo management,
message posting, replying to messages posted by their friends,
and so on.14 According to Kalpidou et al.,15 people use SNSs to
maintain established social capital, rather than developing
new relationships. This suggests that people who want their
relationships not to be disconnected may engage in self-
presentation. The stimulation and social compensation the-
ory implies that the lonelier an individual is, the more he/she
is likely to interact with others online via SNSs in order to gain
access to and interact with others using the self-disclosing
feature.12 Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis
is proposed;
H2: Loneliness is positively related to self-disclosure.
Meanwhile, Gonzales and Hancock25 put forward the ar-
gument that self-disclosure enhances self-esteem. People who
tend to disclose themselves on SNSs are interested in bridg-
ing, bonding, and maintaining social capital.13,15 One of the
resources people accumulate on SNSs is social support. Social
support is the cognitive, perceptual, and transactional process
of initiating, participating in, and developing online interac-
tions or means of online interactions to seek beneficial out-
comes.26 Valkenburg et al.27 show that adolescents who use
an SNS tend to have more reactions from their friends on their
profile. Studies show that people who disclose their identities
on their SNSs are more likely to receive social support. In
addition, disclosure begets disclosure, such that people who
receive intimate disclosures feel obligated to respond with a
personal disclosure of equal intimacy.28 These discussions
imply that self-disclosure may be positively associated with
social support.
H3: Self-disclosure is positively related to social support.
However, with respect to empirical results, the effects
produced by self-disclosure are not clear. A few studies show
that people who receive higher levels of social support may
experience higher levels of well-being.10,14,29 However, Kim
and Lee14 show that honest self-presentation has a positive
effect on social support but not on well-being. The results
may signify that the effect of self-disclosure on well-being
may be mediated by social support. This result implies that
people with honest self-presentation have a long term per-
spective in socializing and want others to support their social
identities, which influence well-being. In addition, previous
studies have observed that being attached to friends and
partners is a source of well-being.14,30 Accordingly, the fol-
lowing two hypotheses are proposed:
H4: Social support is positively related to well-being.
H5: Self-disclosure is positively related to well-being.
LONELINESS, SELF-DISCLOSURE, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND WELL-BEING 415

Table 1. Tests for Convergent Validity

Item Factor Composite Variance

Construct Measurement items means loadings reliability extracted Alphas

Loneliness How often do you feel alone? 4.14 0.76 0.92 0.67 0.96
How often do you feel that your interests and ideas 3.41 0.85
are not shared by those around you?
How often do you feel that your relationships with others 3.49 0.86
are not meaningful?
How often do you feel that no one really knows you well? 3.44 0.86
How often do you feel that there are no people 3.27 0.86
you can turn to?
Self- I often disclose personal things like text or photos about 3.28 0.82 0.83 0.62 0.91
disclosure myself (on SNSs).
I often discuss my feelings about myself (on SNSs). 3.96 0.87
I fully reveal myself in my self-disclosure (on SNSs). 4.32 0.81
Social There is someone (on SNSs) I can talk to about the 4.09 0.82 0.96 0.80 0.88
support pressures in my life.
There is at least one person (on SNSs) that I can share 4.50 0.89
most things with.
When I’m feeling down, there is someone (on SNSs) 4.58 0.93
I can lean on.
There is someone (on SNSs) I can get emotional support from. 4.62 0.94
There is at least one person (on SNSs) that I feel I can trust. 4.75 0.93
There is someone (on SNSs) that makes me feel worthwhile. 4.42 0.87
Well-being In general, I am satisfied with my life. 5.13 0.91 0.88 0.71 0.82
Compared to most of my peers, I am satisfied with my life. 5.02 0.89
The conditions of my life are excellent. 5.05 0.85

Method and Results Measures

Participants
The present study used the questionnaire survey approach
to collect data for testing the validity of the model and the
hypotheses proposed. We used Facebook users as the most
relevant sample. Facebook has achieved dramatic growth as
one of the most well-known SNSs in Korea. We collected data
from various student groups, including students from grad-
uate courses and undergraduate classes from two major
universities in a large southeastern city of South Korea. Par-
ticipants consisting of 141 female and 124 male students with
a mean age of 26.84 (SD = 7.70). Most respondents (57.0%)
were in their twenties. The vast majority of respondents used
Facebook, with 70.9% of them using Facebook more than
once a day.
Two tests to examine common method bias were used.
First, we performed an exploratory factor analysis by en-
tering all measurement items. The results showed that
the largest variance explained by an individual factor was
< 25%. Podsakoff and Organ claimed that if the variables all
load on one factor or one factor explains the majority of the
variance, common method variance may be a problem.31
The results show that neither a single factor nor a general
factor accounts for the majority of the covariance in the
measures. Second, we performed a confirmatory factor
analysis by modeling all items as the indicators of a single
factor, and the results show poor fitness. Method biases are
assumed to be substantial if the hypothesized model fits the
data.32 The results of both tests indicate that common
method bias is not a significant problem for the current
study.
All items used in the present study were adopted from
previous studies validated with a pilot test and measured using
a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’
to 7 = ‘‘strongly agree.’’ Loneliness was measured with five
items adopted from Russell’s UCLA Loneliness Scale.33 Self-
disclosure adopted the depth of self-disclosure,34–36 and it was
measured with three items from Wheeless and Grotz37 and
Leung.36 Social support was measured with six items used by
Shakespeare-Finch and Obst.38 Well-being was measured with
the three items used in previous studies by Lyubomirsky and
Lepper.39 All measurement items and their psychometric
properties can be found in Table 1.
Results
A structure equation modeling approach was used. Con-
vergent and discriminant validity of the measures were
checked using confirmatory factor analysis provided by the
structural equation model in AMOS 7.0. AMOS was used, since
it allows the user to test relationships among several concepts,
with basic principles that are easy to comprehend and an un-
derlying framework not too different from many other statis-
tical techniques, such as ANOVA or multiple regressions.40 The
convergent validity was checked using loadings, Cronbach’s
alphas, composite reliability, and variances extracted.41 Results
of the measurement model were acceptable. Compared with
the recommended values suggested by Hair et al.,42 most of the
fit statistics showed that the measurement model fit well to the
data. All the statistics showed that the measures adopted in this
study have convergent validity. All factor loadings were > 0.4,
alphas and composite reliability > 0.7, and variances extracted
416
> 0.5. Discriminant validity was tested by comparing squared
correlations against the extracted variances. All squared cor-
relations were less than the extracted variances. This result
implies that the shared variances among variables (squared
correlation coefficients) were less than the extracted variances
by each construct (extracted variances), verifying discriminant
validity.
AMOS 7.0 was adopted to test the hypotheses proposed. As
shown in Figure 1, all fit measures had a good fit with the data.
The results shown in Figure 1 demonstrate that all hypotheses,
with the exception of H4, were supported. As an additional
confirmation for testing whether social support mediates the
impact of self-disclosure on well-being, a chi square difference
test was performed. The chi square value of the research model
proposed in the present study (v2 = 241.94 with df = 115) was
compared with the chi square value of the modified model
(v2 = 240.90 with df = 114), in which the path from self-disclosure
to well-being is removed. The difference in the chi square val-
ues with the difference in degrees of freedom being 1 was not
statistically significantly (Dv2 = 1.049; p = 0.20). Taken together
with the nonsignificant path coefficient (b = 0.08, p = 0.30), no
difference in the chi square values implies that the effect of self-
disclosure on well-being is fully mediated by social support.
Discussion
Several points are noteworthy. First, loneliness had a
negative effect on well-being. This is consistent with most
previous studies.21,43 The results imply that lonely people feel
lower levels of well-being. Second, loneliness positively in-
fluences self-disclosure. Our results imply that lonely people
usually lack social skills in an offline context, and rely on
SNSs to compensate for their unsuccessful offline relation-
ships.16,17 Third, self-disclosure is positively associated with
social support. The results suggest that when lonely people
disclose their feelings, mood, and status information, they
want their friends to respond and react.27,28 Social response
theory says that the responses an individual receives would
influence the probability of further advancement of the rela-
tionship.44,45 Fourth, social support positively influences
well-being. The result implies that the greater the amount of
social support received, lonely people feel more increased
levels of well-being. Fifth, self-disclosure has no direct effect
on well-being. This result is one of the most significant find-
ings in the present study. The result implies that the effect of
self-disclosure on well-being is fully mediated by social
support. This result is not consistent with previous studies.14
The results imply that when people use SNSs, they tend to
establish strong ties online, and strong ties support high
quality friendships and social companionship, which ulti-
mately enhance their well-being.46
Conclusion
The current study proposed a model to test whether lone-
liness has a direct or indirect effect on well-being when me-
diated by self-disclosure and social support. The results imply
that even if lonely people feel lower levels of well-being, the
well-being of these people can be enhanced by the use of SNSs.
The results suggest that when people who are very lonely use
SNSs and engage in self-disclosure, they may have opportu-
nities to receive social support from people they already know
and accordingly feel increased levels of well-being.
LEE ET AL.
These results have a couple of theoretical implications.
First, the results found in the current study suggest the pos-
sibility that loneliness may not be an obstacle in building and
enhancing well-being. Many studies have suggested that
lonely people lack social communication skills and tend to
stick to compulsive Internet use, resulting in negative life
outcomes.20,21,23,47 Displacement theory suggests that the
Internet takes time away from social activity and replaces
social ties, which in turn hinders an individual’s well-being,
that is, increases depression and reduces social circles.16
Lonely people have a higher preference for online interac-
tions, since they perceive that online communication is rela-
tively less risky and easier than face to face communication,
since it has greater anonymity.48–50 The anonymous user feels
safer, more efficacious, more confident, and more comfort-
able with online interactions and relationships than with
traditional social activities.51 However, the present results
suggest that lonely people can show feelings, status, and in-
dividual information, receive support from their online
friends, and feel enhanced well-being. The present results
imply that the role of loneliness in previous studies is dif-
ferent. Second, the current study reveals that social support
plays an important role between self-disclosure and well-
being. Many researchers have demonstrated a positive re-
lationship between self-disclosure and well-being.10,52
However, the current results demonstrate that lonely people
engage in SNSs in order to communicate with and receive
support from their friends, which ultimately reduce or over-
come their feeling of loneliness. This result suggests that
self-disclosing itself is not enough. Self-disclosure should
accompany reactions and support from their acquaintances
in order for the users of SNSs to feel enhanced well-being. The
reactions that lonely people experience from their friends
within the site are a key mechanism in increasing feelings of
well-being.
The results found in this study also have practical impli-
cations. First, as societies mature, people are more likely to
live alone and marry at later ages. Singles thus feel loneli-
er.53,54 According to Simenauer and Carroll,54 loneliness is
perceived by singles, especially those who are single by cir-
cumstance, as the greatest disadvantage of being single. Be-
haviors by singles are described as compensating behaviors
as they try to cope with loneliness.53 Singles may seek a
completely busy life to compensate for their loneliness.55 The
lack of relationships with friends or family members causes
singles to form more intricate casual networks of support in
an online environment in order to increase their overall life
satisfaction.56 The present study suggests that interventional
treatment may induce lonely individuals or singles to engage
in interactions with their friends using SNSs to overcome
their feelings of loneliness. Second, marketers from various
industries may target these lonely individuals as a potential
market. Jacobs et al.57 suggest that salespeople who encour-
age customers’ social self-disclosure are most likely to de-
velop long-term relationships. Thus, marketers should
provide a brand community to help people find others with
similar hobbies, post theirs moods and statuses, reply to
others’ disclosure, and repost others’ comments. According to
Gupta et al.,58 virtual communities function as potential
channels for advertising brand names and promotions, im-
proving store image, product development, gauging de-
mand, and increasing barriers to entry for competitors.
LONELINESS, SELF-DISCLOSURE, SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND WELL-BEING
However, the present findings should be interpreted with
caution for several reasons. First, the study used a small sized
sample for convenience. The respondents did not include
people with diverse ranges of age and professions, which
might not have represented all users of SNSs. Thus, future
studies should include users from diverse backgrounds.
Second, the aim of the present study was to investigate the
effect produced by loneliness on well-being. Other person-
ality traits and situational variables may moderate the links
proposed in the present study. Personality traits and situa-
tional variables closely linked to SNSs should be investigated
further in future studies. Third, the present study focused on
SNS use. However, there are many different points between
the Internet and SNS use due to anonymity. Therefore, future
studies should compare different effects between Internet use
and SNS use. Fourth, the current study measured social
support as giving support with one dimension. However,
social support has a reciprocal nature, which is reflected in
bidirectional support. Future research should measure social
support with multidimensional scales.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Bargh JA, McKenna KYA. The Internet and social life. An-
nual Review of Psychology 2004; 55:573–90.
2. Valenzuela S, Park N, Kee KF. Is there social capital in a
social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life
satisfaction, trust, and participation. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication 2009; 14:875–901.
3. Boyd DM, Ellison NB. Social network sites: definition, history,
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-
nication 2007; 13:210–30.
4. Schiffrin H, Edelman A, Falkenstern M, et al. The associa-
tions among computer-mediated communication, relation-
ship, and well-being. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social
Networking 2010; 13:299–306.
5. Nie NH. Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet:
reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Sci-
entist 2001; 45:420–35.
6. Valkenberg P, Jochen P. Online communication and ado-
lescent wellbeing: testing the stimulation versus the dis-
placement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2007; 12:1169–82.
7. Liu X, LaRose R. Does using the Internet make people more
satisfied with their lives? The effects of the Internet on col-
lege students school life satisfaction. CyberPsychology &
Behavior 2008; 11:310–20.
8. Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, et al. Internet paradox re-
visited. Journal of Social Issues 2002; 58:49–74.
9. Shaw LH, Gant LM. In defense of the Internet: the rela-
tionship between Internet communication and depression,
loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. Cy-
berPsychology & Behavior 2002; 5:157–70.
10. Lee G, Lee J, Kwon S. Use of social networking sites and
subjective wellbeing: a study in South Korea. CyberPsy-
chology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:151–5.
417
11. Diener E, Lucas RE, Oishi S. (2005) Subjective wellbeing: the
science of happiness, and self-satisfaction. In Snyder CR,
Lopez SJ, eds. Handbook of positive psychology. New York:
Oxford University Press, pp. 63–73.
12. Skues J, Williams B, Wise L. The effects of personality traits,
self-esteem, loneliness, and narcissism on Facebook use
among university students. Computers in Human Behavior
2012; 28:2414–19.
13. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook
‘‘friends’’: social capital, and college students’ use of online
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication 2007; 12:1143–68.
14. Kim J, Lee JR. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of
the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on
subjective wellbeing. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social
Networking 2011; 14:359–64.
15. Kalpidou M, Costin D, Morris J. The relationship between
Facebook and the wellbeing of undergraduate college stu-
dents. CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking
2011; 14:183–9.
16. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Social consequences of the Internet
for adolescents. Current Directions in Psychological Science
2009; 18:1–5.
17. Kraut R, Patterson M, Lundmark V, et al. Internet paradox:
a social technology that reduces social involvement and psy-
chological wellbeing. American Psychologist 1998; 53:1017–31.
18. Peplau LA, Perlman D. (1982) Perspectives on loneliness. In
Peplau LA, Perlman D, eds. Loneliness: a sourcebook of current
theory, research and therapy. New York: John Wiley, pp. 1–18.
19. Ceyhan A, Ceyhan E. Loneliness, depression, and computer
self-efficacy as predictors of problematic Internet use.
CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007; 11:699–701.
20. Caplan SE. Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and
problematic Internet use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2007;
10:234–42.
21. Kim J, LaRose R, Peng W. Loneliness as the cause and the
effect of problematic Internet use: the relationship between
Internet use and psychological wellbeing. CyberPsychology
& Behavior 2009; 12:451–5.
22. Brenner V. Psychology of computer use: XLVII. Parameters of
Internet use, abuse and addiction: the first 90 days of the In-
ternet usage survey. Psychological Reports 1997; 80:883–98.
23. Weiser EB. The function of Internet use and their social and
psychological wellbeing. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2001;
4:723–43.
24. Archer JL. (1980) Self-disclosure. In Wegner D, Vallacher R,
eds. The self in social psychology. London: Oxford University,
pp. 183–204.
25. Gonzales AL, Hancock JT. Mirror, mirror on my Facebook
wall: effects of exposure to Facebook on self-esteem.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011;
14:79–83.
26. LaCoursiere SP. A theory of online social support. Advances
in Nursing Science 2001; 24:60–77.
27. Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP. Friends networking
sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and
social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2006; 9:
584–90.
28. Berg JH, Derlega VJ. (1987) Themes in the study of self-
disclosure. In Derlega VJ, Berg JH, eds. Self-disclosure: theory,
research, and therapy. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 1–8.
29. Ko HC, Kuo FY. Can blogging enhance subjective wellbeing
through self-disclosure? CyberPsychology & Behavior 2009;
12:75–9.
418
30. Myers DG. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people.
American Psychologist 2000; 55:56–67.
31. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational
research: problems and prospect. Journal of Management
1986; 12:531–44.
32. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Patil A. Common method variance in
IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a
reanalysis of past research. Management Science 2006;
52:1865–83.
33. Russell D. The UCLA Loneliness scale: reliability, validity,
and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment 1996;
66:20–40.
34. Collins NL, Miller LC. Self-disclosure and liking: a meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 1994; 116:457–74.
35. Moon Y. Intimate exchanges: using computers to elicit self-
disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research
2000; 26:323–39.
36. Leung L. Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (‘‘I Seek You’)
use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2002; 5:241–51.
37. Wheeless LR, Grotz J. Conceptualization and measurement
of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Re-
search 1976; 2:338–46.
38. Shakepeare-Finch J, Obst PL. The development of the 2-way
social support scale: a measure of giving and receiving
emotional and instrumental support. Journal of Personality
Assessment 2011; 93:483–90.
39. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective hap-
piness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. So-
cial Indicators Research 1999; 46:137–55.
40. Kline RB. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford.
41. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation mod-
els with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research 1981; 18:39–50.
42. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate data
analysis: a global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
43. Moody J. Peer influence groups: identifying dense clusters in
large networks. Social Networks 2001; 23:261–83.
44. Nass, CI, Moon Y. Machines and mindlessness: social
responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues 2000; 56:
81–103.
45. Altman I, Taylor DA. (1973) Social penetration: the development
of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
LEE ET AL.
46. Helliwell, JF, Putnam RD. The social context of well-being.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London
Series B 2004; 359:1435–46.
47. Amichai-Hamburger Y, Ben-Artzi E. Loneliness and Internet
use. Computers in Human Behavior 2003; 19:71–80.
48. Davis RA. A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological
Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior 2001; 17:187–
95.
49. Morahan-Martin J, Schumacher P. Incidence and correlates
of pathological Internet use among college students. Com-
puters in Human Behavior 2000; 16:13–29.
50. McKenna KYA, Green AS, Gleason MEJ. Relationship for-
mation on the Internet: what’s the big attraction? Journal of
Social Issues 2002; 58:9–31.
51. Caplan SE. Preference for online social interaction: a theory
of problematic Internet use and psychological well-being.
Communication Research 2003; 30:625–48.
52. Bane CMH, Cornish M, Erspamer N, et al. Self-disclosure
through weblogs and perceptions of online and ‘‘real-life’’
friendships among female bloggers. CyberPsychology, Be-
havior, & Social Networking 2010; 13:131–9.
53. Donthu N, Gilliland DI. The single consumer. Journal of
Advertising Research 2002; 42:77–84.
54. Simenauer J, Carrol D. (1982) Single: the new Americans. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
55. Barkas JL. (1980) Single in America. New York: Ahteneum.
56. Cockrum J, White P. Influences on the life satisfaction of
never-married men and women. Family Relations 1985;
34:551–6.
57. Jacobs RS, Hyman MR, McQuitty S. Exchange-specific self-
disclosure, social self-disclosure, and personal selling. Jour-
nal of Marketing Theory & Practice 2000; 9:48–62.
58. Gupta S, Kim HW, Shin SJ. Converting virtual community
members into online buyers. CyberPsychology, Behavior, &
Social Networking 2010; 13:513–20.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Dong-Mo Koo
School of Management, Kyungpook National University
80 Daehak-Ro
Buk-Gu, Daegu 702-701
Republic of Korea
E-mail: unlimited@knu.ac.kr