Volume 10, Issue 3 (11-2023)                   Human Information Interaction 2023, 10(3): 42-57 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

sokout S, slampanah M, karam afroz M J, mousavi F. Model of the antecedents and consequences of students self-disclosure in the educational environment. Human Information Interaction 2023; 10 (3)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3132-en.html
Educational Management, Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad university of Kermanshah, Kermanshah, IRAN.
Abstract:   (2615 Views)
purpose:  The purpose of this research was to present a model of the antecedents and consequences of self-disclosure in the country's educational environment.
Although self-disclosure, its effective factors and consequences have special value from the aspect of many sciences such as counseling, educational management, educational sciences, psychology, etc., and numerous studies have been conducted on it, but a careful review of the research literature proved that so far no comprehensive and written study with a mixed approach and in the form of providing an integrated model has been done that has investigated the dimensions of this concept, its effective factors and consequences. Each of the existing studies have investigated one or more variables affecting self-disclosure separately. Therefore, according to the existing study gap, according to the history of the researcher's educational activity as a teacher and understanding the importance of self-disclosure in order to maintain the mental health of students of this country, the concern arises that in addition to a comprehensive look at the conducted researches, with an in-depth perspective, analyze this structure, its components, factors affecting it and its consequences in the educational environment of the country. Therefore, the main object of this research is "providing a model of the antecedents and consequences of self-disclosure in the educational environment of the country". In this research, the researcher intends to present effective factors and possible consequences in the form of a conceptual model.
Methodology: The methodology of this research is quantitative-descriptive. The sample of the current research is the first high school students of selected Tehran areas. These areas were selected by multi-stage cluster sampling method. According to subject of this research and the studied population (target), the sample size is selected according to the application of structural equations software, in the number of 600 students of the first secondary school in Tehran. For this purpose, the city of Tehran was first divided into five regions of North, South, East, West and Center by cluster sampling method. Then, from these five regions (regions 1, 5, 6, 8, 16), schools were selected as a cluster and then random samples were selected from each school. In this research, the researcher intends to use the questionnaire extracted from the qualitative part (made by the researcher). This questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part consists of demographic characteristics including gender, age, education level, and region, etc and the second part will contain specialized questions with a response package prepared on a five-point Likert scale.
A: Reflective measurement model test (cv com test)
B: Structural model tests include:
• Hypothesis significance test (direct path)
• R-squares or R2 test (determination coefficient)
• Structural model quality test (Cv Red)
C: the general fit test of the model at the end (SRMR)
 Findings: According to the data obtained, there are 172 students in the seventh grade and 31.44%, 180 students in the eighth grade and 32.91%, and 195 students in the ninth grade and 35.65% and a total of 547 people answered the questions of the questionnaire in the educational levels of the first secondary school. According to the obtained data, all values of CV com are higher than 0.15. As a result, the quality of the measurement model is medium to high.
The results show that after removing the counseling expertise variable, the paths of the model from antecedents to self-disclosure and from self-disclosure to the consequences of self-disclosure are significant. It can be concluded that the components of trust, internal motivation, experience, being supported, context of acceptance and environmental conditions are the antecedents of students' self-disclosure. And the components of privacy awareness, mutual communication, creative thinking, problem solving, privacy risk, self-belief, optimism, monitorability, empathy, effective listening and learning from According to the obtained data, the effect of internal motivation on self-disclosure is T-Value = 7.509, the effect of trust on self-disclosure is T-Value = 4.632, the effect of having experience on self-disclosure is T-Value = 2.017, the effect of acceptance context on self-disclosure T-Value = 3.461, the effect of environmental conditions on self-disclosure T-Value = 4.343 and the effect of being supported on self-disclosure with T-Value = 4.392 which It is in the range [-1/96, 1/96]. P-Value=0, which is less than 0.05, rejects the H0 hypothesis and accepts the H1 hypothesis at the 95% confidence level. But the effect of consultant's expertise on self-disclosure T-Value = 0.5, which is not outside the range [-1.96, 1.96] and P-Value = 0.617, which is not less than 0.05, at the confidence level of 95 % HO hypothesis is confirmed and H1 hypothesis is rejected. And on the other hand, the value of β, which shows the intensity and direction of the effect, is positive in internal motivation 0.259, trust 0.168, experience 0.065, environment acceptance 0.12, environmental conditions 0.145, and being supported 0.2; therefore, it is predicted that if the research is repeated in a larger sample of the same community, this hypothesis will be confirmed, and on the other hand, the β value that shows the intensity and direction of the effect, the consultant's expertise is 0.015 and its direction is negative; Therefore, this hypothesis is not confirmed.
According to the obtained data, the effect of self-disclosure on mutual relationship T-value= 799.56, the effect of self-disclosure on creative thinking T-value = 252.22, the effect of self-disclosure on problem solving skill T-value = 684.41 Value, the effect of self-disclosure on self-belief, T-Value = 862/55, the effect of self-disclosure on monitorability, T-Value = 228/56, the effect of self-disclosure on empathy, T-Value = 10/911, the effect of self-disclosure on learning from mistakes T-Value = 64.12, the effect of self-disclosure on privacy awareness T-Value = 118.20, the effect of self-disclosure on privacy risk T-Value = 23.5, the effect of self-disclosure on optimism T-Value = 113.19 and the effect of self-disclosure on effective listening T-Value = 15.407, which is outside the range [-1.96, 1.96]. And P-Value = 0, which is less than 0.05, rejects the H0 hypothesis and confirms the H1 hypothesis at the 95% confidence level. And on the other hand, the value of β, which shows the intensity and direction of the effect, is 0.818 in mutual communication, 0.626 in creative thinking, 0.771 in problem solving skill, 0.829 in self-belief, 0.82 in monitorability, in empathy is 0.419, learning from mistakes is 0.468, privacy awareness is 0.591, privacy risk is 0.214, optimism is 0.551, and effective listening is 0.54. Therefore, it is expected that if the research is repeated in a larger sample of the same community, this hypothesis will be confirmed.
According to the findings, SRMR=0.062 is less than 0.08, so it can be concluded that the overall model has a good fit. The quality and fit status of the structural model resulting from the qualitative part of the research, which was one of the objectives of the quantitative part, was also examined.
In the present study, to calculate the goodness of fit (GOF), the average (R2) and (AVE) of the research components were extracted from smartpls software and included in the relevant formula.
GOF = √ 0.628192308× 0.685423077 = 0.656
According to the obtained data and the calculation result of GOF = 0.656, it can be said: the research model has a very good fit.
Conclusion: School is the foundation to all existing structures in society. A teacher is one of the most important role of a society and the first adult person after parents that the way of communicating with them is very important and has a serious impact on the emotional and social performance of students in school. The effective communication between students and the teacher not only gives the teacher a lot of motivation, but also can lead to creativity, satisfaction, academic progress, and better behavior of students in school and society. And finally, it should lead to students and teacher's mental health and create a foundation for establishing beneficial social relationships of students throughout their lives.
Self-disclosure is a process in which people verbally express their personal information or experiences to others. The school is one of the most important organized social institutions that by providing a healthy environment can cause the growth and prosperity of people's body and mind; This is shaped by students' relationships with teachers, counselors, and school administrators, as well as students' emotional growth, and self-disclosure develops this relationship.
 
Full-Text [PDF 746 kb]   (1070 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. /power talk/oAltman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
2. Ammerman, B. A., Wilcox, K. T., O'Loughlin, C. M., & McCloskey, M. S. (2020). Characterizing the choice to disclose nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of Clinical Psychology, n/a(n/a), 14-34.
3. Blau, Ina (2011). "Application Use, Online Relationship Types, Self-Disclosure, and Internet Abuse Among Children and Youth: Implications for Education and Internet Safety Programs". Educational Computing Research. 45 (1): 95-116 [DOI:10.2190/EC.45.1.e]
4. Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Perrewé, P. L., Blass, F. R., & Ferris, G. R. (2008). The roles of self‐disclosure, modesty, and self‐monitoring in the mentoring relationship. Career Development International, 7-24. [DOI:10.1108/13620430810870485]
5. Booth, M. (2012). Boundaries and student self-disclosure in authentic, integrated learning activities and assignments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 131, 5-14. [DOI:10.1002/tl.20023]
6. Brown, R. D., & Weigel, D. J. (2018). Exploring a contextual model of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. The Journal of Sex Research, 55(2), 202-213. [DOI:10.1080/00224499.2017.1295299] [PMID]
7. Capp, G., Berkowitz, R., Sullivan, K., Astor, R. A., Pedro, K. D., Gileath, T. D., Benebenishty, & Rice, E. (2016). Adult relationships in multiple contexts and associations with adolescent. Research on Social Work Practice, 1-8. [DOI:10.1177/1049731515624967]
8. Carolyn Rabin (2019). Cancer-Related Self-Disclosure in the Workplace/School by Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors. Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology.Aug 2020.528-533. [DOI:10.1089/jayao.2019.0159] [PMID]
9. Carpenter, A., & Greene, K. (2015). Social penetration theory. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication, 1-4. [DOI:10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic160]
10. Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher Self-Disclosure: Amount, Relevance, and Negativity. Communication Quarterly, 56(3), 325-341. doi:10.1080/01463370802241492 [DOI:10.1080/01463370802241492]
11. Coker, B., & McGill, A. L. (2020). Arousal increases self-disclosure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103928. [DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103928]
12. Cuadros, O., & Berger, C. (2022). Self-Disclosure, Self-concept, and Friendship's Perceived Functions among Aggressive and Popular Adolescents. Youth & Society, 0044118X221093394.‌ [DOI:10.1177/0044118X221093394]
13. Cuadros, O., & Berger, C. (2022). Self-Disclosure, Self-concept, and Friendship's Perceived Functions among Aggressive and Popular Adolescents. Youth & Society, 0044118X221093394.‌ [DOI:10.1177/0044118X221093394]
14. D'Aniello, C., & Nguyen, H. N. (2017). Considerations for intentional use of self-disclosure for family therapists. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 28(1), 23-37. [DOI:10.1080/08975353.2017.1283147]
15. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self‐disclosure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 102-115. [DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01885.x]
16. Dimond RE, Hellkamp DT(1969). Race, Sex, Ordinal Position of Birth, and Self-Disclosure in High School Students. Psychological Reports.;25(1):235-238. [DOI:10.2466/pr0.1969.25.1.235] [PMID]
17. Downs, V. C., Javidi, M. M., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). An analysis of teachers' verbal communication within the college classroom: Use of humor, self‐disclosure, and narratives. Communication Education, 37(2), 127-141. [DOI:10.1080/03634528809378710]
18. Dutton, H. (2018). Mentor self-disclosure in youth mentoring relationships: a review of the literature about adults disclosing to non-familial adolescents in intervention settings. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 57-66.‌ [DOI:10.1007/s40894-017-0065-0]
19. Dutton, H., Deane, K. L., & Bullen, P. (2020). Opening up: An exploration of youth mentor self-disclosure using laboratory-based direct observation. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104654. [DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104654]
20. Farber, B. A., & Sohn, A. E. (2007). Patterns of self-disclosure in psychotherapy and marriage. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(2), 226. [DOI:10.1037/0033-3204.44.2.226] [PMID]
21. Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., & Pronk, T. (2018). Self-disclosure in relationships: Revealing and concealing information about oneself to others.‌
22. Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., & Pronk, T. (2018). Self-disclosure in relationships: Revealing and concealing information about oneself to others.‌
23. Fisher, S. (1991). A discourse of the social: medical talkppositional talk? Discourse & Society, 2(2), 157-182. [DOI:10.1177/0957926591002002002]
24. Forest, Amanda L.; Wood, Joanne V. (2012). "When Social Networking is Not Working:Individuals with Low Self-Esteem Recognize but do not Reap the Benefits of Self-Disclosure on Facebook". Psychological Science. 23 (3):298-302 [DOI:10.1177/0956797611429709]
25. Forgas, J. P. (2011). Affective influences on self-disclosure: Mood effects on the intimacy and reciprocity of disclosing personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 449. [DOI:10.1037/a0021129] [PMID]
26. Gainau, M. B. (2019). Self-disclosure effect on cultural context of Papuan teenagers. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 62-70.‌ [DOI:10.29332/ijssh.v3n2.293]
27. Goldstein, G. S., & Benassi, V. A. (1994). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student classroom participation. Teaching of psychology, 21(4), 212-217. [DOI:10.1207/s15328023top2104_2]
28. Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40-53. [DOI:10.1080/03634528809378702]
29. Green, T., Wilhelmsen, T., Wilmots, E., Dodd, B., & Quinn, S. (2016). Social anxiety, attributes of online communication and self-disclosure across private and public Facebook communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 206-213. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.066]
30. Hallam, C., & Zanella, G. (2017). Online self-disclosure: The privacy paradox explained as a temporally discounted balance between concerns and rewards. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 217-227. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.033]
31. Hasani, J., & Adineh, M. (2016). The Effect of Written Emotional Disclosure in Aggression and Impulsivity of Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder: A Single Subject Study. Journal of Psychology, 20(3), 328.
32. Heath PJ, Vogel DL, Al-Darmaki FR.(2016) Help-Seeking Attitudes of United Arab Emirates Students: Examining Loss of Face,Stigma, and Self-Disclosure The Counseling Psychologist.;44(3):331-352. [DOI:10.1177/0011000015621149]
33. Heffley, W. (2019). Classical conditioning drives learned reward prediction signals in climbing fibers across the lateral cerebellum. Elife, 8, e46764. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.46764.025]
34. Hill, C. E., Knox, S., & Pinto-Coelho, K. G. (2018). Therapist self-disclosure and immediacy: A ualitative meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 445. [DOI:10.1037/pst0000182] [PMID]
35. Holt-Lunstad, J. (2018). Why social relationships are important for physical health: a systems approach to understanding and modifying risk and protection. Annu Rev Psychol, 69:437- 458A [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011902] [PMID]
36. Hu, Y., Gao, R. C., Sang, N., Wu, L., Shi, P. L., & Wu, G. C. (2022). Influencing factors of self-disclosure and its impact on quality of life in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus, 9612033221143935.‌ [DOI:10.1177/09612033221143935] [PMID]
37. Hunter, S. B.; Barber, B. K.; Olsen, J. A.; McNeely, C. A.; Bose, K. (2011). "Adolescents' self-disclosure to parents across cultures: Who discloses and why". Journal of Adolescent Research. 26 (4): 447-479 [DOI:10.1177/0743558411402334]
38. İbrahimoğlu, Ö., Mersin, S., Açıkgöz, G., Çağlar, M., Akyol, E., Özkan, B., & Öner, Ö. (2022). Self‐disclosure, empathy and anxiety in nurses. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 58(2), 724-732.‌ [DOI:10.1111/ppc.12842] [PMID]
39. Ignatius, E., & Kokkonen, M. (2007). Factors contributing to verbal self-disclosure. Nordic Psychology, 59(4), 362-391. [DOI:10.1027/1901-2276.59.4.362]
40. Jain, S. and Agrawal, S. (2020), "Perceived vulnerability of cyberbullying on social networking sites: effects of security measures, addiction and self-disclosure", Indian Growth and Development Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. [DOI:10.1108/IGDR-10-2019-0110]
41. Krämer, N. C., & Schäwel, J. (2020). Mastering the challenge of balancing self-disclosure and privacy in social media. Current opinion in psychology, 31, 67-71.‌ [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.003] [PMID]
42. Krämer, N. C., & Schäwel, J. (2020). Mastering the challenge of balancing self-disclosure and privacy in social media. Current opinion in psychology, 31, 67-71.‌ [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.003] [PMID]
43. Korry, P. D. P., & Suartini, N. W. (2019). Hedonism and culture toward impact of shopping behavior. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 125-133. [DOI:10.29332/ijssh.v3n1.260]
44. Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of family psychology, 19(2), 314. [DOI:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314] [PMID]
45. Lee, K.; Noh, M.; Koo, D. (2013). "Lonely people are no longer lonely on social networking sites: The mediating role of self-disclosure and social support". Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 16 (6): 413-418 [DOI:10.1089/cyber.2012.0553]
46. Lester, A. M., Goodloe, C. L., Johnson, H. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2019). Understanding mutuality: Unpacking relational processes in youth mentoring relationships. Journal of community psychology, 47(1), 147-162. [DOI:10.1002/jcop.22106] [PMID]
47. Li, C., & Chau, P. Y. (2019). Revealing the Black Box of Privacy Concern: Understanding How Self-disclosure Affects Privacy Concern in the Context of On-Demand Services Through Two Competing Models. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-22784-5_6]
48. Li, K., Wang, X., Li, K., & Che, J. (2016). Information privacy disclosure on social network sites. Nankai Business Review International, 72-97. [DOI:10.1108/NBRI-02-2015-0005]
49. Li, L., Chen, Y., & Liu, Z. (2020). Shyness and self-disclosure among college students: the mediating role of psychological security and its gender difference. Current Psychology, 1-11.‌ [DOI:10.1007/s12144-019-00457-w]
50. Lindly, O., Thorburn, S., Heisler, K., Reyes, N., & Zuckerman, K. (2017). Parent disclosure of complementary health approaches used for children with autism spectrum disorder: Barriers and facilitators. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 35, 47-52 [DOI:10.1016/j.ctim.2017.09.003] [PMID] []
51. Liu, Z., Wang, X., Min, Q., & Li, W. (2019). The effect of role conflict on self‐disclosure in social network sites: An integrated perspective of boundary regulation and dual process model. Information Systems Journal, 29(2), 279-316. [DOI:10.1111/isj.12195]
52. Luo, M., & Hancock, J. T. (2020). Self-disclosure and social media: motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 110-115 [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.019] [PMID]
53. Maltseva, K., & Lutz, C. (2018). A quantum of self: A study of self-quantification and self-disclosure. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 102-114. doi: [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.006]
54. Masur, P. K. (2018). Situational privacy and self-disclosure: Communication processes in online environments. Springer. chapter 4 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-78884-5]
55. Matsushima, R., & Shiomi, K. (2002). Self-disclosure and friendship in junior high school students. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 30(5), 515-525. [DOI:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.5.515]
56. McCarthy M. H., Wood J. V., Holmes J. G. (2017). Dispositional pathways to trust: Self-esteem and agreeableness interact to predict trust and negative emotional disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 95-116. [DOI:10.1037/pspi0000093] [PMID]
57. Mouakket, S., & Sun, Y. (2019). Examining factors that influence information disclosure on social network sites from the perspective of network externalities. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 99-115. [DOI:10.1108/IMDS-02-2018-0060]
58. Munir, F., Leka, S., & Griffiths, A. (2005). Dealing with self-management of chronic illness at work: predictors for self-disclosure. Social Science & Medicine,60(6), 1397-1407. [DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.07.012] [PMID]
59. Nowell, C., Pfeifer, J. H., Enticott, P., Silk, T., & Vijayakumar, N. (2022). Value of Self‐Disclosure to Parents and Peers During Adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. [DOI:10.31234/osf.io/ap9nu]
60. O'Donnell, K. J., Stuart, J., & Barber, B. L. (2021). The impact of social network site use on young adult development: extending the research beyond time use and considering the role of self-disclosure motivations. Psychological Reports, 00332941211054766.‌ [DOI:10.1177/00332941211054766] [PMID]
61. Posey, C., Lowry, P. B., Roberts, T. L., & Ellis, T. S. (2010). Proposing the online community self-disclosure model: the case of working professionals in France and the UK who use online communities. European journal of information systems, 19(2), 181-195. [DOI:10.1057/ejis.2010.15]
62. Rotenberg, Ken; Nancy Chase (1992). "Development of the reciprocity of self-disclosure". The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 153 (1): 75-86. [DOI:10.1080/00221325.1992.10753703] [PMID]
63. Safaei, N., & Shahrokhi, M. (2019). Relationship between teacher self-disclosure and teaching style: Perception of EFL teachers. Cogent Education, 6(1), 17-35. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2019.1678231]
64. Saxena, P. (2015). Johari Window: An effective model for improving interpersonal communication and managerial effectiveness. SIT Journal of Management, 5(2), 134-146.
65. Shaffer, D. R., Smith, J. E., & Tomarelli, M. (1982). Self-monitoring as a determinant of self-disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 163. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.43.1.163]
66. Solano, C. H., & Dunnam, M. (1985). Two's company: self-disclosure and reciprocity in triads versus dyads. Social Psychology Quarterly, 183-187. [DOI:10.2307/3033613]
67. Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers' self-disclosure, students' perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259-276 [DOI:10.1080/03634528909378762]
68. Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., & Kwok, O. M. (2012). Dynamics of teacher-student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children's academic success. Child development, 83(4), 1180-1195. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01761.x] [PMID] []
69. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 860-866. [DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.017]
70. Szczygiel, P. (2021). Navigating student self-disclosure through a relational lens: Examples of increased self-awareness from a social work classroom. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(1), 77-84.‌ [DOI:10.1007/s10615-019-00714-2]
71. Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8038. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202129109 [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1202129109] [PMID] []
72. Taslima, K., & Talukder, M. H. (2020). Personal Factors Influencing Communication among Teachers and Students of Medical Colleges of Bangladesh: Teachers' and Students' Views. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Education, 11(1), 17-25. [DOI:10.3329/bjme.v11i1.49239]
73. Tobin, Lad (2009). "Self-Disclosure as a Strategic Teaching Tool". College English. 73: 196-206.
74. Towner, E., Grint, J., Levy, T., Blakemore, S. J., & Tomova, L. (2022). Revealing the self in a digital world: a systematic review of adolescent online and offline self-disclosure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101309. [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101309] [PMID] []
75. Valkenburg, P. M., Sumter, S. R., & Peter, J. (2011). Gender differences in online and offline self‐disclosure in pre‐adolescence and adolescence.British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29(2), 253-269. [DOI:10.1348/2044-835X.002001] [PMID]
76. West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2018). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis And Appliaction: McGraw-Hill Education.36
77. Willems, YE, Finkenauer, C & Kerkhof, P. (2019). The role of disclosure in relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31:33-37. [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.032] [PMID]
78. Yang, D., Yao, Z., Seering, J., & Kraut, R. (2019). The channel matters: Self-disclosure, reciprocity and social support in online cancer support groups. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. [DOI:10.1145/3290605.3300261] [PMID] []
79. Zhang, S., Kwok, R. C.-W., Lowry, P. B., & Liu, Z. (2019). Does more accessibility lead to more disclosure? Exploring the influence of information accessibility on self-disclosure in online social networks. Information Technology & People, 234-245. [DOI:10.1108/ITP-04-2017-0134]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Human Information Interaction

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb