Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Self-disclosure in social networking sites: The role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence

Open access
Cheung, Christy, Lee, Zach W. Y., Chan, Tommy K. H.·2015·Internet Research

Abstract

Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relative impacts of perceived cost, perceived benefits, and social influence on self-disclosure behaviors in social networking sites under an integrated theoretical framework. Design/methodology/approach: – Building upon social exchange theory and privacy calculus theory, an integrated model was developed. The model was tested empirically using a sample of 405 social networking site’s users. Users were required to complete a survey regarding self-disclosure behaviors in Facebook. Findings: – The results indicate that social influence is the factor which exhibits the strongest effect on self-disclosure in social networking sites, followed by perceived benefits. Surprisingly, perceived privacy risk does not have any significant impact on self-disclosure. Research limitations/implications: – The results inform researchers about the importance to incorporate social influence factors and cultural factors into future online self-disclosure study. Practical implications: – The results suggest that users focus on the benefits as well as social influence when they decide to reveal personal information in social networking sites, but pay less attention to the potential privacy risks. Educators are advised to launch educational programs to raise students’ awareness to the potential risks of self-disclosure in social networking sites. Service providers of social networking sites are encouraged to provide intuitive privacy indices showing users the levels of privacy protection. Originality/value: – This paper is one of the first to develop and empirically tests an integrated model of self-disclosure in social networking sites.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
Cheung, C., Lee, Z. W. Y., & Chan, T. K. H.
Venue
Internet Research
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2015-04-07
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
279-299
ISSN
1066-2243 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1507592641
Cited by
270
References
72
FWCI
64.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Self-disclosure in social networking sites: The role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192
The paper
Cheung, C., Lee, Z. W. Y., & Chan, T. K. H. (2015). Self-disclosure in social networking sites: The role of perceived cost, perceived benefits and social influence. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-09-2013-0192

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.