Disclosure of College Students

Running head: DISCLOSURE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 1
“What Will They Think?”:
Disclosure of College Students With Family Members

DISCLOSURE OF COLLEGE STUDENTS 2
Abstract
The present pilot study focuses on long distance familial relationships of college students.
Communication privacy management (Petronio, 2002) was used as a guiding lens. College
students embark on a journey when distancing themselves from family members, often
encountering new experiences. While previously literature has coined this life stage as the
emergent adult, its relation to disclosure has not been thoroughly analyzed. This study found that
during the stage of emergent adult, college students change their social media patterns as well as
their interpersonal communicational patterns with parents in order to simultaneously experience
autonomy and dependency.
Keywords: long-distance relationship, emerging adult, familial interpersonal relationship

Humans communicate every single day. Interpersonal communication, an arguably
intimate form of communication, occurs when people “are willing and able to maximize the
presence of the personal” (Stewart, Zediker, & Witteborn, 2005, p. 11). Interpersonal
communication is a necessary part of every person’s life because the quality of one’s personal
relationships affects the quality of their physical health (Stewart, 2012). Researching
interpersonal communication is necessary because of the significant role it plays in people’s
lives; it is important for researches to understand the details of this process.
In interpersonal relationships, self-disclosure, or the sharing of personal information with
others, is often present. Stewart (2012) lists various aspects of interpersonal communication, one
of which is involvement through self-disclosure, “I cannot enter a conversation clutching
myself” (p. 16). In order for a relationship to be interpersonal, there must be disclosure between
the two parties. The sharing may vary depending on the relationship, although constant fear of
disclosure will likely not lead to a strong interpersonal bond (Stewart, 2012). This self-disclosure
enhances the health benefits of interpersonal communication as it increases the intimacy that is
vital for the interpersonal quality. While self-disclosure can be a positive aspect of an
interpersonal relationship that increases the intimacy of the relationship, it can also be a negative
factor if an improper amount of information is disclosed (Petronio, 2013)
As previously stated, interpersonal relationships are necessary for positive physical
health. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) described six motives for interpersonal communication.
They are “pleasure, affection, inclusion, escape, relaxation and control” (p. 299). These various
traits likely promote a feeling of content within a person. It may seem that everyone would strive

for interpersonal relationships due to their positive aspects; however, interpersonal relationships
can be more difficult that less intimate relationships (Petronio, 2013). Both positive and negative
conflict can arise between two people and it requires negotiation to continue the relationship.
Interpersonal conflict, described as, “discrepancy in the behavioral expectations of two or more
people in a relationship” can place burden on individuals (Londahl, Tverskoy & D’Zurilla, 2005,
p.447). Personality styles can also create friction and lead to interpersonal problem solving,
which “focuses on the resolution of interpersonal conflicts”(Londahl, et. al. 2005. p. 447). These
aspects vary depending on their management; however, these relationships are vital to a healthy
and positive life.
Interpersonal relationships also vary in distance and membership. All relationships
provide different conflicts and struggles, although being separated by distance often requires a
change in relational norms (Petronio, 2013). This geographical factor is important due to the
large number of long-distance (LD) interpersonal relationships, such as commuter couples or
students away at college. A long-distance relationship (LDR) occurs between people who are
“separated by sufficient distance to make frequent face-to-face interaction difficult” (Guerrero,
Anderson & Afifi, 2013, p. 260). This present study focuses on LD family relationships.
College Life Stage Context
The transition from high school to college comes with increased freedoms for students
(Bearak, 2014; Reid & Carey, 2015). Many students engage in risky behaviors during this time,
including engaging in sexual activity, “substance use and risky behavior”, which can be
dangerous without guidance (Bearak, 2014; Burnett, Sabato, Wagner, & Smith, 2014, p. 330).
1,825 students each year die from alcohol-related injuries (“College Drinking”, 2014, n.p.). The
level of disclosure that students share with their family members may be crucial in encouraging

healthy habits and preventing injury of the student by case of risky behaviors. Over 20 million
American young adults go to college each year. (“Educational Statistics,” 2015, n.p.). While this
large number of students does not all move away form home, the relationship faces challenges
from both geographical factors and actions due to increased freedoms.
LDRs between young adults away at college and family members are important to study.
There is little research on familial LDR’s and college age students are a consistent group to
consider because they likely return home to see family members during breaks. This experience
lets us gain insight about similarities and differences in their communication when together and
apart. As opposed to LD friendships or romantic relationships, the lack of frequent
communication may not erode the relationships; rather remain stagnant until the two members
can reunite (Stahlstein, 2004). In other cases, the relationships function similarly in that the
communication is not constant and intimacy is growing throughout their time apart.
Long-Distance Relationships
The increasing amount of technology enabled LDRs. (Stahlstein, 2004). This study
explores LDRs between college students and their family members. In fall of 2015, an estimated
20.2 million students were enrolled in American universities (“Educational Statistics,” 2015,
n.p.). Not all of these students engaged in LDRs during the transition to college, however, 52%
of college students the same year were attending a college over 50 miles away from their home
(n.p.). While away at school, different steps are taken to maintain an intimate relationship
between children and their immediate family.
Students are living without parental guidance for the first time and often take on more
responsibility in all aspects of their lives, including making choices about food, daily actions,
and decision-making; and perhaps these decisions vary from decisions that would have been

made while living at home (Reid & Carey, 2015). This period of emerging adulthood, the period
when adolescents begin to make life changes that carry them into their adult lives, is associated
with these aforementioned changes (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015). In recent decades,
adolescents are making these changes later in life. As a result, “modern transition to adulthood is
becoming longer and uncertain as well as more “individualized” (Piumatti & Rabagleitti, 2015,
p. 242). The transition to college, however, forces this process to occur at a generally similar age,
around 17 or 18 years old. The relationships of students and their parents likely changes during
this transition period because of the new communicational patterns that occurr as well as the
lifestyle changes of the emerging adult (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015). Therefore, it is plausible
that the control of personal boundaries change.
After having been apart for some time, adolescents are likely be aware of how they
manage privacy with their long distance (LD) family members. They may share more or less
information than when together because the student is experiencing freedoms and may be
experimenting with new things they had not previously tried (Brooks, 2015). When the student
moves out of the home and the relationship becomes LD, the context, or situation, of the
relationship changes. Again, these changes may result in changes in the relationship as a whole
in how much is disclosed between the two parties (Ravert & Gomez-Scott, 2015).
Researchers have given some scholarly attention to LDRs, particularly how individuals
effectively manage them, however, few studies have been conducted on LD family relationships.
Studies show that when relationships become LD, there are communicative changes made that
adjust to the distance between the members. For example, Merolla (2012) argues, “maintenance
behavior enactment can both increase and decrease perceived stress” (p. 775). The actions that
occur between members will strengthen or weaken the relationship.

Intimacy Between College Students and Family Members
Studies on LDR’s have investigated intimacy in these relationships and how it is
conceived, typically as “being developed and sustained through partners verbal and nonverbal
interaction, particularly in the forms of self-disclosures” (Andersen, Guerrero, Buller, &
Jorgensen, 1998, p. 505). The amount of information that a person discloses with others,
therefore, will impact the intimacy of the relationship. While increased disclosure is linked with
increased intimacy, individuals are often uneasy about disclosing information. Individuals may
avoid “disclosing out of fear of being rejected by others, creating a negative impression, losing
autonomy, and / or losing influence in a relationship” (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, Thompson,
Himes, & Clingerman, 2012, p. 666). Especially in a familial relationship where college aged
student’s likely want to make parents proud, they may avoid disclosing private information such
as risky behaviors to their parents. The communicative strategies vary and result in different
levels of intimacy, or connection through sharing information (Stahlstein, 20014).
Communication Privacy Management
This study will be rooted in communication privacy management theory (CPM), a lens
through which scholars have studied the negotiation of private information between interpersonal
relational parties. The theory argues that disclosure, the sharing of information, is both risky and
rewarding, leading people to create rules to guide their disclosure (Petronio, 2013). The theory
makes three assumptions about human nature: first, humans are choice makers. Second, humans
are rule makers and rule followers and humans choices and third, rules are based on a
consideration of others as well as the self (West & Turner 2007 p. 234). People make choices
and rules according to risks and benefits they perceive. According to Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin,
Thompson, Himes, and Clingerman (year), CPM argues, “individuals believe they own their

private information and have a right to control whether the information is disclosed as well as to
whom it is disclosed” (K p. 666). It argues that people have private information, information that
matters to them, and they manage it through different processes. The process of sharing the
information, private disclosure, does or does not occur with specific people based on a variety of
factors. Once this information is shared, the owner no longer has sole ownership over its
distribution. In order to maintain control of the information, rules may be created prior to
disclosure.
To better understand ownership and control, “CPM uses a boundary metaphor to
represent where private information is housed and how revealing and concealing is managed”
(Petronio, Helft & Child, 2013, p. 176). In the present study, we might come to learn that college
students create personal boundaries and manage control of the boundary with those around them.
Boundaries may change, however, when the familial relationships become LD. There are certain
risks involved when disclosing information to others and perhaps there will be increased risk
when the relationship becomes LD (Petronio, 2013). Individuals are less likely to reveal private
information if there are more risks involved, but there are also benefits that could influence them
from revealing, such as seeking advice (West & Turner 2007).
Parents unaware of these risks may assume they wish to have an intimate relationship and
be a part of the collective boundary, the group of co-owners of the information. After receiving
information, however, they may find themselves becoming a reluctant confidant, someone who
receives information and wishes they had not (Petronio, 2013). When information is shared,
boundary coordination often occurs, or the discloser’s co-construction and regulation of rules
surrounding information shared with receivers (Petronio, 2002). In order to maintain control of
the information, rules are set in place to assess who can have access to the information. If the co-

owner is left to make decisions regarding the information, boundary turbulence can occur: when
unwanted audience members gain access to private information (Petronio, 2002, p. 341).
Revealing another’s personal information can damage relationships and affect trust, but family
relationships are regarded as less fragile because they are usually involuntary.
CPM could help us understand the experiences and challenges of family members when
an adolescent member is at college. Stafford and Reske (1990) argue, “frequent communication
and high levels of self-disclosure are equated with relationship development and
intimacy…[and] communication leads to accuracy and understanding, which in turn produces
relational satisfaction” (pp. 274-275). Increased self-disclosure indicating relationship
development and intimacy, proves CPM an effective lens to view this LDR. This study aims to
understand how to college students maintain and negotiate their private information with their
parents while away at college.
Method
The present study is situated within the interpretive paradigm, therefore seeking rich and
detailed understandings of participants’ experiences and perceptions (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). I
conducted qualitative methods of data collection in order to understand participant’s LDR
experience.
Data Collection
This study was a pilot study, an initial investigation studying LDR’s among college
students. This study only focuses on familial relationships. A total of five individuals
participated in the research. In order to participate in the study, individuals had to have a family
relationship that meets the following features: (a) you are now LD from a family member with
whom you once lived, (b) you have experienced being LD for at least three months, (c) the

transition to LD took place no longer than five years ago, (d) your family member lives at least 1
hour away from you for the majority of the year.
Following the approval of our campus’s International Review Board, all participants
completed a brief survey about background material, including their sex, college year, age and
one specific family member to speak about. Of the participants who completed the survey (n=5),
all five were women. The research announcement did not solicit female participants, however,
only females responded to the call and were analyzed for this pilot study. Participant’s academic
studied varied in that four participants were seniors and one was a junior. Three participants were
21, two were 20. When asked to identify a current LD family relationship, all participants listed
their mother. Lastly, the LDR ranged from three months to four years.
Following the completion of the background survey, participants engaged in semi-
structured interviews about their LDR’s. Questions included: what channel of communication do
you use to communicate with your family member, describe any new relationship “rules” you
developed since becoming LD, how do you keep your relationship close when apart, and how, if
at all, did you adjust your privacy settings on your social media since becoming LD. The
interviews were transcribed verbatim and yielded 116 pages, single-spaced.
Data Analysis
I engaged in an individual process of qualitative thematic analysis with the goal of
determining themes or similarities in experiences across the interview. Themes were generated
inductively. To analyze the data, I read one transcript and created a list of patterns in the
communication between the participant and their family member. While reading the other four
interviews, I used the list as a tool for analyzing and finding similarities across the data set.

Following this process, I located exemplars so to support each similarity in order to test the
validity of the confusion as well as offer a rich description of the finding.
Findings
The present study attempted to answer the following research question: How do college
students maintain and negotiate their private information with their parents while away at
college. Analysis concluded that there are two contradicting sectors of the negotiation of private
information that college students take part in with their family members. First, participants
discussed wanting to keep their distance from family members, both with social media and
general conversation, in the attempt to become independent and move into adulthood. This desire
of distance leads to a lack of disclosure. The privacy generally involved topics such as
socializing with friends, drinking, and traveling. Second, participants countered their discussions
of keeping distance with also needing their parents in their lives for support and as friends.
Because students desired to maintain their relationship with parents, they engaged in disclosures
involving life skills, such as deciding factors of their future. Viewing these findings through a
lens of CPM allows for an accurate study of the negotiation of private information with parents
while college students are away at school.
Receiving an Experience
Participants categorized aspects of their lives into subdivisions and negotiating disclosure
based on where the information fit. The first category, keeping distance, showed participants
becoming adults as they transitioned their relationships with their family members. Moving from
living in their home to living on their own, relationships were negotiated and participants wanted
to feel they were prepared to be adults, rather than depend on their parents. The topics that were
kept from parents were mainly socializing with friends, drinking, and traveling. To showcase her

privacy, one participant discussed, “she probably doesn’t know as much about my life than she
did when I was living in the same house as her” (Participant 1). Inevitably, communication
decreased when participants moved away from their family members and began transitioning to
life on their own. Two main choices in the keeping distance sector included social media in
maintaining the experience and feeling the need to be an autonomous adult.
Social media in maintaining the experience. Participants discussed the changes made to
their social media accounts after becoming LD with their family members. All participants made
changes to their privacy settings in one form or another when the geographical change was made,
and the general reasoning for the changes was to prevent their parents from seeing aspects of
their private life. While participants were comfortable sharing information regarding school and
family, they yearned for distance regarding risqué aspects of their lives, such as drinking and
traveling with friends. One participant stated, “I have my mom blocked on Facebook…not
giving her full access to my things because she doesn’t need that” (Participant 1). Participants
felt that while it was necessary to communicate with family members in order to sustain the
relationship, disclosure was not always necessary, especially with aspects that family members
might not approve of. Participants kept their parents outside of the collective boundary with
certain aspects of the participant’s social media platforms and were not give the right of co-
owner of the information.
While the ability to use the social media platforms privacy settings is available, some
participants simply did not post certain things to their pages. For example, one participant
shared,

I won’t post things on Facebook that I don’t want my parents like I’ll…like I went out
with my friends, or went drinking or sometimes I go up to visit my boyfriend and I won’t
tell them so I don’t post anything about it. (Participant 3)
In order to keep their parents from becoming reluctant confidants and allow themselves to
remain autonomous, participants established rules about their social media accounts that gauged
how much information would be revealed to their parents.
Available privacy setting changes were also a way for participants to monitor which
information they disclose to their parents. Participants used a range of settings from blocking
parents to keeping them off of only some sections of their accounts. For example, a participant
who had various levels of monitoring for different platforms of social media stated, “I’m friends
with my mom on Snapchat, but I have her blocked from my story” (Participant 5). Because
Snapchat users can choose which pictures to send to others, but all friends see their story, this
change disclosed only chosen information to her family. One participant who had her mother
blocked from all forms of social media stated it was, ‘because she doesn’t really know me”
(Participant 2). The participant felt so strongly that her actions were different from those when
the relationship was geographically close, that her mother did not even know her. Previously,
when her mother was allowed in the collective boundary, “she always needed to add my friends
and know what they’re doing and then she texts me all of these things like ‘why are you
drinking?,’ ‘why are you doing this,’ ‘why is there a cigarette in your hand’” (Participant 2). In
transitioning to adulthood, participants made life changes they did not want their parents
knowing about.
At times, participants discussed these negotiated rules with their parents for disclosure
that they placed on their social media accounts. Some felt that it was important to make their

parents understand their reasoning behind blocking them or changing their privacy settings. For
example, one participant stated, “I also tell her it’s because she’s a Facebook stalker, so that’s it”
(Participant 5). Here, the private boundary was discussed with family members. Another
participant stated, “she is crazy about Facebook everything she does revolves around Facebook
and I want nothing to do with it” (Participant 4). Here, participants are allowed parents to
understand the boundary they were putting in place on their relationship. This tactic, although
placing parents outside of the collective boundary, may have helped negotiate conflict in that
parents were not upset or wondering why their children would not accept them on various social
media platforms.
Other participants did not discuss the lack of disclosure, avoiding the topic altogether.
For example, one participant described, “I don’t think she like she really doesn’t think I have her
blocked, she thinks I haven’t friended her yet” (Participant 3). While there was a negotiation of
disclosure, the mother did not know of her lack of disclosure, rather that it was something that
had not occurred for whatever reason. In addition to receiving an experience, students changed
their communication patterns to feel autonomous.
Being an autonomous adult. Aside from social media platforms, participants changed
their disclosure patterns in their family relationships because they feel they need to grow up and
become their own, autonomous adult. Participants felt that the transition to adulthood gave them
the ability to engage in actions that they may have previously needed permission for. They also
seemed to feel that they did not want their parents to feel they had control over them. One
participant explained, “sometimes it is easier just to do things under the radar than have
that…constant like barrage of questions and impatience” (Participant 1). In order for the
participants to feel autonomous in their transition to adulthood, it was necessary for them to be

able to do things without letting their parents be informed. If participants were doing something
without receiving permission first, it helped them “keep the stress off” (Participant 4) and allow
them to enjoy the activity more than if their parents were questioning their actions. This feeling
of wanting to grow up strongly relates to the social media aspect of the findings, although it goes
further in that it deals with all types of communication, not only computer-mediated
communication. Participants not only monitored and negotiated rules for disclosure of private
information on social media accounts, they created rules for communicating and deciding which
aspects of their life they would disclose and which aspects they would keep private. There is also
a divide because while the privacy allows participants to feel autonomous, blocking a parent on
social media requires less upkeep than remembering to not mention certain aspects of one’s life.
In addition to remaining autonomous, participants felt they were protecting family by not
disclosing certain information. For example, in terms of the risqué aspects of the participant’s
lives, many participants were afraid of making their parents reluctant confidants. For example,
one participant stated, “they are overprotective of me, but then they worry…she worries a lot”
(Participant 2). These emergent adults represented both sides of the life stage, not only wanting
autonomy, but also connection with family members.
Desiring a Close Relational
Although participants described keeping their parents out of their collective boundaries,
they also expressed they still needed their parents for both guidance and friendship. First, the
most common need that the participants had was for help with their future or with schoolwork. A
participant argued, “I guess now that I’m at school we talk more about school stuff, which is
more relevant, like getting a job (Participant 5). Similar dialogues stated that, “I kind of talk
about grad school with them”, (Participant 1) or email will be used as the form of

communication “if I’m asking her questions about school and want her to read my paper or
something” (Participant 3). These dialogues about school and work are reflective of the alternate
aspect of emerging adulthood that was previously discussed. While participants were striving to
be their own autonomous adults, they simultaneously needed the parental figure in their life to
guide them on important decisions.
Discussion between participants and their parents were not strictly school related.
Participants also disclosed about social issues. For example, one participant stated,
In my other relationships, especially like with my mom, like if my friends are making me
sad or like school is making me sad, you like really want that person there to like hug you
and stuff and that sucks. (Participant 2)
Family members were also described as friends and comforting to the participants, perhaps due
to the increased intimacy through disclosure. While there were conflicting dialogues present as
participants were trying to become adults and keep information from their parents they thought
would be disapproved of, they also treated their parents as confidants and co-owners of
information regarding issue they were having at school or with friends. Further, there were
frequent references to parents as friends. Participants referred to their parents as, “very, very
close. Very, very, very close” and “I’m really good friends with my mom” (Participant 3)
(Participant 1). One participant even shared, “I think she is an extension of myself. Like, there is
no one on this planet who understands me better and I just couldn’t live without her . . . I need
her like I need breathing” (Participant 5) Participants changed their disclosure patterns upon
becoming LD, attesting to the aspects of their life stage.
Additionally, participants felt that the geographical factor in their distance brought them
closer with their family members. While communication was difficult for all those interviewed,

aspects of both the individuals and the relationship grew due to the separation. For example, one
participant felt that although it was difficult to keep in contact with her mother, “I think it
actually benefited me personally because I became a lot less dependent on her when I went away
to school” (Participant 3). Because of the distance between the two people, the participants were
forced to do things on their own that they may have previously depended on a parent for.
Dialogues explained that while the negotiation was difficult when transitioning to a LDR, the
relationships are, “hard, but worth it” (Participant 1) or “sometimes difficult, but somehow
always staying strong” (Participant 3). While participants created rules regarding privacy for
parents, they still seek to keep parents a vital part of the their lives. In both help with schoolwork
and as a friend or companion, parents still played a vital role in their children’s lives and
participants still disclosed pieces of information to their parents, although there were always
steps taken to monitor this disclosure. While participants may not have wanted their parents in
their collective boundary for all information, they revealed that at times, they felt comforted by
having their parents as co-owners of information.
Discussion and Conclusion
While studies have been completed on areas of LD familial relationships, this study
furthers research regarding disclosure between college females and their mothers. Although not
an entirely intentional demographic, the analysis of transcripts regarding these relationships
proved the patterns of disclosure represent the life stage of the emerging adult. Students want to
be their own autonomous adult, although there is still a need for the guidance and companionship
of these significant figures. This finding is impactful in that it demonstrates which information is
shared with parents during college. As previously stated, the risky behaviors that students engage
in are not disclosed, therefore attesting to the need for student resources.

Further, social media played a large role in disclosure patterns. Parents may believe that
they are receiving information about their children behavior through social media accounts,
however, parents may not be aware that there are restrictions on their children’s profile.
Although this is a pilot study, 100% of participants changing their social media preferences for
parents are indicative of the thick boundaries students place with their parents regarding certain
information. There is a clear desire for privacy and viewing this study from the lens of Facework
Theory would be interesting in determining the reasoning behind withholding information.
Students may be trying to protect their positive face while simultaneously protecting their
parents negative face.
Moving forward as a full study, it would be beneficial to interview both mothers and
daughters. Interviewing only students was limiting in that they made assumptions about what
their parents did not know. While students may have thought they were keeping information
private, parents may have obtained the information without discussing it with their parents. In
addition, it would be interesting to learn how parents felt about the lack of disclosure from
students and what kinds of feelings arise from this thick boundary.
This current study has additional limitations. Moving forward, it would be interesting to
include men in the survey. It was not surprising that female participants spoke about their mother
when asked to identify an interpersonal familial relationship, although disclosures between
daughters and fathers as well as sons and fathers and sons and mothers would be an interesting
comparison. Further, it would be beneficial to survey college administrators and faculty
regarding the lack of disclosure. Students are engaging in the risky behaviors without telling
their parents and implementing a program that lists resources for troubled students would be
ideal. In this program, it would be necessary to avoid prohibiting these actions because students

are likely to engage in them regardless, rather to give students a place to seek help if they are
confused or concerned about themselves or their peers.

References
Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., Buller, D. B., & Jorgensen, P. F. (1998). An empirical
comparison of three theories of nonverbal immediacy exchange. Human Communication
Research, 24, 501–535.
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Baxter, L. A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships. Human
Communication Research, 12, 469–493.
Bearak, J. M. (2014). Casual contraception in casual sex: Life-cycle change in undergraduates’
sexual behavior in hookups. Social forces, 93. 483-513.
Blieszner, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brooks, J. E. (2015). The impact of family structure, relationships, and support of African
American students’ collegiate experiences. Journal of black studies, 46. 817-836.
Burnett, A., Sabato, T., Wagner, L., Smith, A., (2014). The influence of attributional style on
substance use and risky sexual behavior among college students. College Student
Journal. 48. 325-332.
Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). The times of uncertainty: predicting the survival of long-
distance relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 581 – 606.
Londahl, E., Tverskoy, A., & D’Zurilla, T. (2005). The Relations of Internalizing Symptoms to
Conflict and Interpersonal Problem Solving in Close Relationships. Cognitive Therapy &
Research. 29. 445-462.
Fehr, B. (1999). Stability and commitment in friendships. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 239–256). New York:

Kluwer Academic.
Guerroro, L., Anderson, P., & Afifi, W. Close encounters: Communicating in relationships. Los
Angelas, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, A., Becker, J., Craig, E., Gilchrist, E., & Haigh, M. (2009). Changes in friendship
commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships.
Communication Quarterly. 57. 395-415
Kennedy-Lightsey, C., Martin, M., Thompson, M., Himes, K., & Clingerman,. (2012)
Communication privacy management theory: Exploring coordination and ownership
between friends. Communication Quarterly. 60. 665-680
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Petronio, S., Helft, P., &Child, J. (2013). A case of disclosure: a communication privacy
management analysis. Journal of Public Health Research. 2. 175-179
Petronio, S., & Martin, J. (1986). Ramifications of revealing private information: A gender gap.
Journal of Clinical Psychology. 42. 499-504.
Piumatti, G., & Rabaglietti, E. (2015). Different types of emerging adult university students:
Role of achievement strategies and personality for adulthood self-perception and life and
educational satisfaction. Informational journal of psychology and psychological therapy.
15. 241-257.
Ravert, R. D., & Gomez-Scott, J. (2015). Why take risks? Four good reasons according to
emerging adult college students. Journal of adolescent research, 30. 565-585.
Reid, A. E. & Carey, K. B. (2015). Interventions to reduce college student drinking: State of the
evidence for mechanisms of behavior change. Clinical Psychology Review, 40. 213-224.

Roche, T., Jenkins, D., Aguerrevere, L., Kietlinski, R., & Prichard, E. (2015). Students’
perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate Facebook disclosures. Psi Chi Journal of
Psychological Research, 20. 86-96
Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1998). Interpersonal communication motives. In J. C.
McCroskey,
J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Personality and communication: Trait
perspectives (pp. 287-307). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Sahlstein, E. M. (2004). Relating at a distance: Negotiating being together and being apart in
long-distance relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 21, 699-710.
Stewart, J. (2012). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Stewart, J., Zediker, K., & Witteborn, Saskia. (2005). Together: Communicating interpersonally
(pp. 8-37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2007). Communication privacy management theory. In Introducing
communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 239-256). New York: McGraw
Hill.
(2015). Fast facts: National center for educational statistics. [Online Article] Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
(2014). College drinking: National institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. [Online Article]
Retrieved from: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-
occurring-disorders/college-drinking

Disclosure of College Students

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Disclosure of College Students

Similar to Disclosure of College Students (20)

Disclosure of College Students