Current Psychology (2021) 40:4785–4790

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00420-9

Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Moderating role of online

moral foundations
Kalu T. U. Ogba 1 & Ike E. Onyishi 1,2 & JohnBosco Chika Chukwuorji 1

Published online: 21 August 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Empirical studies in western and non-western cultures support the link between self-disclosure and intimacy. However, certain
factors may either strengthen or weaken the relationship between online self-disclosure and intimacy. Due to the pervasive nature
of information and communication technology (ICT) and the social media, the present study examined whether online moral
foundations can moderate such an established association in an undergraduate student sample in Nigeria. Four hundred and ten
undergraduate students (45% males and 55% females) participated in the study. They completed the following self-report
behavioural questionnaire measures: Online Self-Disclosure Questionnaire, Online Moral Foundations Questionnaire, and a
modified form of FAP Intimacy Scale. Data was analyzed using Hayes’ regression-based PROCESS module for moderation
analysis. Result showed that self-disclosure was positively associated with intimacy but the relationship of online moral foun-
dations and intimacy was not significant. Online moral foundations significantly moderated the relationship between online self-
disclosure and intimacy such that high self-disclosure was associated with greater intimacy for students who reported low and
moderate levels of online moral foundations, but not for students with high online moral foundations. Findings highlight the need
to make young people develop a balanced and holistic understanding of morality in order to effectively function in their
interpersonal relationships.

Keywords Intimacy . Love . Moral foundations . Self-disclosure . Undergraduates

Introduction purpose of the present study is to extend previous research

by examining the relationship between self-disclosure and in-
Intimacy refers to the warmth of closeness, emotional connec- timate relationships. More importantly, we seek to examine
tion, and bonding to one’s relational partner (Ng 2017) which whether online moral foundations moderate the link between
may be expressed by way of offering and receiving emotional self-disclosure and intimate relationship.
support, mutual understanding, intimate communication, etc.
(Sternberg and Grajek 1984). Intimacy is the life wire of inti-
mate relationships - a fundamental human need (Baumeister
Online Self-Disclosure and Intimate
and Leary 1995), which is considered evolutionally important
Relationships
for wellbeing, survival and procreation (Constant et al. 2018;
Malouff et al. 2012; Schoebi and Randall 2015). The experi-
Self-disclosure is one construct which plays a central role in
ences of intimate relationships are a universal phenomenon,
the development and maintenance of interactions between in-
their manifestations are shaped by a variety of personal, social
timate partners (Reis and Shaver 1988; Horne and Johnson
and cultural factors (Fallahchai et al. 2017; Ng 2017). The
2018). Extensive research variously document the relationship
between self-disclosure and intimacy (Collins and Miller
1994; Gibbs et al. 2006; Laurenceau et al. 1998; Laurenceau
* JohnBosco Chika Chukwuorji
johnbosco.chukwuorji@unn.edu.ng
and Kleinman 2006; Laurenceau et al. 2004; Park et al. 2011).
Berg and Derlega (1987) noted that disclosure from one part-
1
Department of Psychology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu ner may lead to disclosure by the other partner such that indi-
state 41000, Nigeria viduals who receive intimate disclosure feel obligated to re-
2
Department of Psychology, University of Muenster, spond with a personal disclosure of equal intimacy. In the
Muenster, Germany same vein, individuals not only tend to be more attracted to

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

4786
those who disclose to them, but they also tend to be more
attracted to those to whom they disclose (Collins and Miller
1994). Theory and research on self-concealment - an instance
of boundary regulation in the maintenance of privacy (see
Chastain et al. 2014) are also considered relevant informative
in understanding self-disclosure. For instance, Corsano et al.
(2017) reported that the quality of one’s friendship affects the
extent of secrecy from friends, irrespective of one’s gender.
Similarly, various self-esteem dimensions were found to exert
varying influence on secrecy from friends with interpersonal
and emotional self-esteem having a protective effect; academ-
ic and familiar self-esteem being detrimental; whereas duties
and bodily self-esteem exert a null or weak effect (Musetti and
Corsano 2019).
Apart from disclosure of personal information in face-to-
face communication, the Internet has provided an avenue
through which people also interact and share any kind of infor-
mation. A number of studies have documented how, why and
the kind of information people disclose online as well as the
consequences of disclosing certain information (e.g., Gibbs
et al. 2006; Krcmar et al. 2015; Lin and Utz 2017;Park et al.
2011; Ma et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2018).
Researches have shown that people are not only reluctant to
divulge high-risk information about themselves, but they are
also particularly averse about doing so when the disclosure
involves information about emotions and feelings (Acquisti
et al. 2015; Kelly and McKillop 1996; Lane and Wegner
1995; Larson and Chastain 1990; Reis and Patrick 1996).
However, online interaction tends to reduce such reservations
and individuals tend to disclose some information to people
online more than they would do in face-to-face interactions
(Gibbs et al. 2011; Stritzke et al. 2004). Divulging of informa-
tion during online dating have been associated with many neg-
ative outcomes including deception, sexual risks, violence and
physical risks (Couch et al. 2012). Understanding of when and
how to disclose information online is therefore necessary in
reducing the risks associated with divulging of sensitive infor-
mation to people during online interaction.
Although Internet related studies as it concerns online self-
disclosure and intimacy abounds in Western and some non-
Western cultures (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2011; Namkee et al. 2011).
Namkee et al. (2011) investigated the relationship between
self-disclosure and intimacy in the context of Facebook.
Using data from an online survey, structural equation model-
ing analyses revealed that self-disclosure amount and positiv-
ity were associated with greater intimacy, while self-
disclosure honesty and intent were unrelated with intimacy.
Gibbs et al. (2011) tested a conceptual model integrating pri-
vacy concerns, self-efficacy, and Internet experience with un-
certainty reduction strategies and amount of self-disclosure on
an American sample of online dating participants. Gibbs and
colleagues found that frequency of uncertainty reduction strat-
egies mediated the link between online dating concerns and
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:4785–4790
amount of self-disclosure in online contexts. However, little is
known concerning online self-disclosure and intimacy among
Nigerian undergraduate samples. Recently, most Nigerian uni-
versities have established Internet facility with sole aim of
improving academic enterprise, but it has been noted that stu-
dents also spend most of their time on social media like
FaceBook, WatsApp, Twitter, U-tube etc. sharing and disclos-
ing personal information to classmates and friends around the
world (Cheung et al. 2011). Hence, this study became very
important and critical to the understanding of the need to instil
good online moral virtues to undergraduate students.
Online Moral Foundations and Intimate
Relationships
One possible factor that could determine how people disclose
information during online dating is level of moral foundations.
Moral foundations explain those codes of behaviour, values
and ethics of life that are judged modest and guide one’s be-
haviour. Recent research indicates that moral foundations are
not necessarily impartial, but are derived from individual level
dispositions (Hedarics and Kende 2017). It is therefore, ex-
pected that while communicating on the Internet, those who
have high moral foundations may likely be reserved and cau-
tious in the manner with which they divulge personal infor-
mation unlike those who have low moral foundations. The
theory of Communication Privacy Management Model
(CPM) (Petronio 1991) explains the strategic regulation of
privacy boundaries by individuals for the purpose of control-
ling their autonomy and vulnerability. It is based on three
assumptions: (a) when people reveal information about issues
that matter deeply to them, they must find a way to regulate
their communication to manage the possible risk to them-
selves; (b) they do this by erecting protective boundaries that
control information flow between themselves and others; and
(c) in the process, they use decision making rules to determine
when to disclose, to whom, and how much. According to this
theory, the ‘decision making rule to determine when to dis-
close, to whom, and how much’ may now be based on moral
foundations (Greene 2000; Greene et al. 2006). Therefore, we
hypothesized that moral foundations would moderate the re-
lationship between self-disclosure and intimacy.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 410 undergraduates (191, 46.6% males and
219, 53.4% females) of a Nigerian university in the south
eastern region. The survey was conducted using self-report
questionnaires in August 2017. The researchers approached
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:4785–4790 4787

the students in their classrooms and requested them to take effects (Hayes 2013), and it is preferable to ordinary
part in a study on intimate relationship. Eligibility criteria for regression analysis in moderation research. PROCESS
participation in the study was being in a romantic relationship conducts regression-based path analysis and creates
at the time of the study (married, engaged, dating, or cohabit- product terms to analyze interaction effects, automatical-
ing). It is worthy of note that intimacy is a central topic in the ly centering the predictor variables prior to analysis.
romantic relationships literature (Bagarozzi 2001; Heller and The Hayes PROCESS is currently the most acceptable
Wood 1998; Ifeagwazi and Chukwuorji 2011; Vangelisti and method in tests of moderation in psychological research
Beck 2007). Only those who gave informed consent were and management sciences (see Aydogmus et al. 2017;
given the questionnaire for completion. A response rate of Jyoti and Kour 2017; Chukwuorji et al. 2018; Onyedire
91.1% was recorded. The participant’s age ranged between et al. 2019). If a product term (that is, interaction of
18 years to 27 years with a mean age of 22.5 years (SD = predictor and moderator) was significant, it would mean
2.92). that the association between the relationship variable
(e.g., self-disclosure) and the criterion variable
Measures (intimacy) was either stronger or weaker in the presence
of the moderator(s) (e.g., online moral foundations).
Self-disclosure was assessed using the 25-item Self-
Disclosure Scale (SDS) (Jourard 1971). Participants were
requested to think about ways in which they communi-
cate with people online and respond to the statements Results
that followed. Responses were made using a 4-point
Likert format of: Have revealed in full and complete In Table 1, being female was associated with higher self-dis-
detail (RF) (3) to Have lied or misrepresented (HL) (0). closure. Age was not related to any of the variables in the
Sample item is “The facts about my sexual life”. The analysis. Online self-disclosure was not related to online mor-
SDS was reported to have a good reliability index al foundations.
(α = .87). In this research, α of the scale was .75. High Table 2 showed that online self-disclosure was a significant
score on this measure indicates high self-disclosure. predictor of intimacy. The B indicated that each one unit rise in
The 32-item Moral Foundation Questionnaire (Graham self-disclosure was associated with .33 increase in intimacy.
et al. 2011) was used as a measure of some foundations of Online moral foundations was not significantly associated with
morality such as harm/care, fairness/reciprocity; ingroup/loy- intimate relationships. The interaction effect of self-disclosure
alty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Responses were in and online moral on intimacy was significant, indicating that
5-point Likert format of Not all relevant (0) to Extremely online moral foundations moderated the link between online
relevant (5). Sample item is “I would call some online infor- self-disclosure and intimacy. The slopes in Fig. 1 showed that
mation wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural”. Yilmaz the positive association between online self-disclosure and inti-
et al. (2016) reported α of .81. We obtained an α of .88. High macy was significant at low online moral foundations {B = .48,
score on the MFQ indicates high online moral foundations. t(410) = 7.51, p = .000, 95%CI = .36–.61} and moderate online
Intimacy was measured using the 14-item Intimacy Scale moral foundations {B = .33, t (410) = 4.83, p < .000,
(Leonard et al. 2014) developed for both clinicians and re- 95%CI = .20–.47}. At high online moral foundations, online
searchers to assess intimacy-related behaviour. Participants self-disclosure was not significantly associated with intimacy
were asked to rate how the listed statements were true or not {B = .19, t (410) = 1.68, p = .095, 95%CI = −.03, .41).
about them with respect to their relationship with someone
online. Items have response options of not at all (0) to
completely (6). Sample item is “I felt comfortable telling this Table 1 Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations of demographic
person things that I do not tell other people”. Adequate psy- variables, online self-disclosure, online moral foundations, and intimacy
chometric properties were reported for intimacy measure with
Variables Range Mean SD 1 2 3 4
an α of .87 (Leonard et al. 2014). We obtained an α of .73.
High score on the Intimacy Scale indicates higher intimacy. 1 Gender – – – –
2 Age (years) 16–32 22.49 2.97 −.04 –
Data Analysis 3 Self disclosure 12–58 37.42 6.89 .21** .05 –
4 Online Moral 67–160 119.40 29.14 .08 −.07 −.06 –
Analysis of the obtained data for the study was carried 5 Intimacy 25–70 44.53 7.74 .04 .08 .32*** .03
out using the Hayes’ regression-based PROCESS macro
***
for SPSS. The robust PROCESS macro for SPSS is p < .001; ** p < .01
suitable for measuring the moderation or interactive Gender (0 = male; 1 = females)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

4788 Curr Psychol (2021) 40:4785–4790

Table 2 Hayes’ process macro results for the test of hypotheses low, the relationship between disclosure and intimacy be-
Variable B t p 95%CI comes strong. Those who have high online moral foundations
do not easily give-in to the communication (disclosure) of
Online Self-disclosure (OSD) .34 4.78 .000 [.20, .48] personal information, feelings and thoughts (Derlega et al.
Online moral (OM) .02 1.36 .174 [−.01, 05] 1993), which would have been an essential process of forming
OSD X OM .01 2.43 .016 [.01, .05] and maintaining intimacy. Moral values set the standard by
Gender −.31 −.42 .672 [−1.77, 1.14] which people define what is desirable, good or bad, beautiful
Age .13 1.07 .286 [−.11, .38] or ugly (Henslin 2008) and exhibit various behaviours in ac-
cordance with morally set standard of behaving. Thus, those
higher in online moral foundations have moral values that
Discussion guide their preference and makes them more self-aware, and
so self-conscious that they monitor what they disclose
The aim of this study was to examine the association between (Shaffer and Tomarelli 1989) and to whom they disclose.
online self-disclosure and intimacy, and whether online moral This is quite unlike those who have low online moral founda-
foundations moderate such relationship among Nigerian un- tions. In as much as self-disclosure is a potent means of
dergraduate students. As expected, online self-disclosure was achieving intimacy for the young adults, self-exposure during
positively associated with intimacy and this finding is consis- online conversation is associated with possible negative ef-
tent with studies in related literature (Gibbs et al. 2006; fects such as deception, sexual and physical risks (Couch
Laurenceau et al. 1998; Laurenceau and Kleinman 2006; et al. 2012) because participants in online dating may not have
Laurenceau et al. 2004; Park et al. 2011). As a dynamic pro- adequate information about their partners as often observed in
cess individuals in intimate relationships disclose personal face-to-face dating relationships. Moral foundation, in this
information, thoughts, and feelings to one another; and usual- sense, becomes a positive protective factor for the individuals
ly interpret the response as understanding, validating and car- during online intimate relationships. This finding may not be
ing (Laurenceau et al. 1998). Thus, the openness of commu- generalizable to individuals who engage in face-to-face inti-
nication and sharing of deep personal matters, interests, and mate relationship. Previous studies (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2011;
concerns contributes in enhancing the obligation of individ- Stritzke et al. 2004) have shown that individuals have less
uals to their intimate partners. retrains in divulging information during online communica-
Further findings showed that online moral foundations tion than in face-to-face communication, hence, online moral
moderated the relationship between online self-disclosure foundations may not necessarily moderate the relationship
and intimacy. In particular, online self-disclosure was not as- between self-disclosure and intimacy in such context.
sociated with intimacy among those who have high online Our study has contributed to fill the gap in the literature as
moral foundations. In other words, when moral foundation is most of the existing studies have been conducted in Western

Fig. 1 Interaction slope showing

the moderating effect of online
moral foundations on self-
disclosure and intimacy

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Curr Psychol (2021) 40:4785–4790
cultures using Western samples. This study on a sample from a
developing country is important for improving the state of
current knowledge. However, our study has some limitations
such as the small undergraduate sample size and cross-
sectional design which precludes wide generalisations and
causal explanations of the findings. Future studies should con-
sider a larger and more inclusive sample size with possibly, a
longitudinal framework. In conclusion, it is essential to make
young people develop a balanced and holistic understanding
of morality in order to effectively function in their interper-
sonal relationships, especially in challenging contexts.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interests.
References
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and
human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–
514.
Aydogmus, C., Camgoz, S. M., Ergeneli, A., & Ekmekci, O. T. (2017).
Perceptions of transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The
roles of personality traits and psychological empowerment. Journal
of Management & Organization, 28, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/
jmo.2016.59.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (2001). Enhancing intimacy in marriage: A clinician's
guide. London: Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Berg, J. H., & Derlega, V. J. (1987). Self-disclosure: Theory, research,
and therapy. New York: Plenum Press.
Chastain, R., Larson, D. G., Hoyt, W. T., & Ayzenberg, R. (2014). Self-
concealment research and theory: An integrative review. Presented
at APA 2014 Annual Conference at Washington, DC.
Cheung, C. M., Chiu, P. Y., & Lee, M. K. (2011). Online social networks:
Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior,
27(4), 1337–1343.
Chukwuorji, J. C., Uzuegbu, C. N., Agbo F., & Ifeagwazi, C. M. (2018).
Different slopes for different folks: Gender moderates the relation-
ship between empathy and narcissism. Current Psychology, First
online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9881-z.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475.
Constant, E., Christophe, V., Bodenmann, G., & Nandrino, J. (2018).
Attachment orientation and relational intimacy: The mediating role
of emotional competences. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-018-0062-x.
Corsano, P., Musetti, A., Caricati, L., & Magnani, B. (2017). Keeping
secrets from friends: Exploring the effects of friendship quality,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
4789
loneliness and self-esteem on secrecy. Journal of Adolescence, 58,
24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.010.
Couch, D., Liamputtong, P., & Pitts, M. (2012). What are the real and
perceived risks and dangers of online dating? Perspectives from
online daters: Health risks in the media. Health, Risk & Society,
14(7–8), 697–714.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self
disclosure. Newbury Park: Sage.
Fallahchai, R., Fallahi, M., Chahartangi, S., & Bodenmann, G. (2017).
Psychometric properties and factorial validity of the dyadic coping
inventory - the Persian version. Current Psychology, 38, 486-496
Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9624-6.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in
online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-dis-
closure, and perceived success in internet dating. Communication
Research, 33(2), 152–177.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Lai, C. H. (2011). First comes love, then
comes Google: An investigation of uncertainty reduction strategies
and self-disclosure in online dating. Communication Research,
38(1), 70–100.
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H.
(2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
Greene, K. (2000). Disclosure of chronic illness varies by topic and target:
The role of stigma and boundaries in willingness to disclose. In S.
Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp.
123–135). New York: Psychology Press.
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in
personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409–
427). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York:
Gullford Press.
Hedarics, M., & Kende, A. (2017). The dimensions of generalized prej-
udice within the dual-process model: The mediating role of moral
foundations. Current Psychology, 37, 731-739 Online First. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9544-x.
Heller, P. E., & Wood, B. (1998). The process of understanding intimacy:
Similarity, understanding, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 24(3), 273-288.
Henslin, J. M. (2008). Sociology: A down to earth Approach (9thed.).
Boston: Pearson International.
Horne, R. M., & Johnson, M. D. (2018). Gender role attitudes, relation-
ship efficacy, and self-disclosure in intimate relationships. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 37–50.
Ifeagwazi, C. M., & Chukwuorji, J. C. (2011). Mediating effect of self-
efficacy on attachment styles and intimacy among students.
International Journal of Communication, 13, 122-133.
Jourard, S. (1971). Self-disclosure. An experimental analysis of the trans-
parent self. Canada: Wiley.
Jyoti, J., & Kour, S. (2017). Factors affecting cultural intelligence and its
impact on job performance: Role of cross-cultural adjustment, ex-
perience and perceived social support. Personnel Review, 46(4),
228–235.
Kelly, A., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal
secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450–465.
Krcmar, M., van der Meer, A., & Cingel, D. P. (2015). Development as an
explanation for and predictor of online self-disclosure among Dutch
adolescents. Media, 9(2), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17482798.2015.1015432.
Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of
secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237–
253.
4790
Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment:
Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 439–455.
Laurenceau, J.-P., & Kleinman, B. M. (2006). Intimacy in personal rela-
tionships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of personal relationships (pp. 637–653). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy
as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, part-
ner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal
exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1238–1251.
Laurenceau, J. P., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R.
(2004). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: Current status and
future directions. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of
closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Leonard, R. C., Knott, L. E., Lee, E. B., Singh, S., Smith, A. H.,
Kanter, J., Norton, P. J., & Wetterneck, C. T. (2014). The
development of the analytic psychotherapy intimacy scale.
Psychological Record, 64, 647–657.
Lin, R., & Utz, S. (2017). Self-disclosure on SNS: Do disclosure intimacy
and narrativity influence interpersonal closeness and social attrac-
tion? Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 426–436.
Ma, X., Hancock, J., & Naaman, M. (2016). Anonymity, intimacy and
self-disclosure in social media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3857-
3869). ACM.
Malouff, J. M., Coulter, K., Receveur, H. C., Martin, K. A., James, P. C.,
Gilbert, S. J., Schutte, N. S., Hall, L. E., & Elkowitz, J. M. (2012).
Development and initial validation of the four-factor romantic rela-
tionship scales. Current Psychology, 31(4), 349–364.
Musetti, A., & Corsano, P. (2019). Multidimensional self-esteem and
secrecy from friends during adolescence: The mediating role of
loneliness. Current Psychology, First online. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-019-00180-6.
Namkee, P., Borae, J., & Seung-A, A. J. (2011). Effacts of self-disclosure
on relational intimacy in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 1974–1983.
Ng, T. K. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the
intimacy, passion, and commitment scale. Current Psychology,
Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9731-4.
Onyedire, N. G., Chukwuorji, J. C., Orjiakor T. C., Onu, D. U., Aneke, C.
I., & Ifeagwazi, C. M. (2019). Associations of dark triad traits and
problem gambling: Moderating role of age among university stu-
dents. Current Psychology, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-018-0093-3, 1, 12.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curr Psychol (2021) 40:4785–4790
Park, N., Jin, B., & Jin, S. A. A. (2011). Effects of self-disclosure on
relational intimacy in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(5), 1974–1983.
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoreti-
cal model of managing disclosure of private information between
marital couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311–335.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Intimacy as an interpersonal process.
In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–
389). Chichester: Wiley.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In
S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–
389). New York: Wiley.
Schoebi, D., & Randall, A. K. (2015). Emotional dynamics in intimate
relationships. Emotion Review, 7(4), 342–348.
Shaffer, D. R., & Tomarelli, M. M. (1989). When public and private self-
foci clash with self-consciousness and self-disclosure reciprocity
during the acquaintance process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 765–776.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 345–356.
Stritzke, W. G., Nguyen, A., & Durkin, K. (2004). Shyness and computer-
mediated communication: A self-presentational theory perspective.
Media Psychology, 6(1), 1–22.
Vangelisti, A. L., & Beck, G. (2007). Intimacy and fear of intimacy. In L.
L’Abate (Ed.), Low-cost approaches to promote physical and mental
health: Theory, research, and practice (pp.395-414). New York:
Spring Science & Business Media.
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L. A., & Zhang, D. J. (2011). The mediator role of
self-disclosure and moderator roles of gender and social anxiety in
the relationship between Chinese adolescents’ online communica-
tion and their real-world social relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(6), 2161–2168.
Yilmaz, O., Harma, M., Bahcekspili, H. G., & Cesur, S. (2016). The
validation of the moral foundations questionnaire in Turkey and its
relation to cultural schemas of individualism and collectivism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 149–154.
Zhang, X., Liu, S., Chen, X., Wang, L., Gao, B., & Zhu, Q. (2018). Health
information privacy concerns, antecedents, and information disclo-
sure intention in online health communities. Information &
Management, 55(4), 482–493.
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com