The essence of one disclosing self in an online conversation relay consistency in the current work on computer-mediated communication, disclosure has an important role to play when it comes to impression formation online (e.g. Antheunis, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007), the development of intimacy (Bazarova, 2012) and quality of friendly relationship ( Valkenburg and Peter, 2009a), reciprocal interaction consistently is important online interaction (Walther, 1996), self-disclosure is vulnerable to risk (Jourard, 1964), so social responses to social disclosure should make significant impacts on the social results, also the person that disclosure is a part of, a significant impact of feedback reciprocal is self-esteem on online self-disclosure, an important milestone for young adults is to develop a sense of stability and self-importance and good mental wellbeing(Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger & Vohs, 2003: Sowislo & Orth, 2013) and self-worth is gotten from communications with age groups(Harter, 2012a) and frequently occurs online. Another area of concern has to do with how people respond to feedback to their self-disclosure and what it has to do with their self-worth after all, individuals response to information’s from their interactive partners tend to result to a significant influence in the growth of the communication (Snyder, Tanke, ; Berscheid, 1977) although current research has not been able to explain why feedback to online self-disclosure could affect individuals self-worth, which is the objective of this research.
In changing aspects of reciprocal exchange in online interaction, Jourard (1964) theory of self-disclosure and various theories of disclosures e.g. the social exchange theory (Atman ; Taylor 1973) handled the changing aspect of self-disclosure in face-face interaction, self-disclosure theories explains how the important result of self-disclosure on interpersonal relationship occur theory reciprocal responses between interactive partners, also that the outcome of online feedback on self -worth could occur through the reciprocal feedback. The outcome of feedback on the receiver’s reciprocal feedback, the mutuality principle is significant in deciding individuals positive and negative behavior in relation to others (Fehr & Gahter, 2000) and also the equivalent of intimacy reciprocated in one another’s interaction (Jourard, 1964), when reciprocating a welcoming gesture by others, individuals could act in a positive way that is acting good and cooperative, the equivalence of feedback individuals get, decides the rate of response, the interaction method by which the interaction occurs could affect the intensity of the response, the decrease in audiovisual cues and increased ability to control enables individuals to be very thoughtful in expressing interpersonal affect of online message via uncontrolled, equivocal nonverbal behaviors without underrating the information message (Walther, 1996), so in other words past journals proposed that online message may increase the intensity of the positive and negative reply to feedback compared to face-face interaction. The outcome of reciprocal feedback on self-esteem is the hyper personal communication model proposed in online interaction effects is based on the important role of reciprocal exchanges (e.g. Kiesler, Siegel ; McGuire, 1984, Suler 2004) there are two theoretical explanations on how individual’s response online can affect self-worth. First, the individuals deduce how they feel based on their behavior accordingly to the self-perception theory, in relation to this study, it is likely that positive behavior like provision of positive reciprocal feedback to an interactive companion could induce positive self-worth and vice versa, secondly that the reciprocal feedback could affect self-worth through retaliation, this is a method of coping with unpleasant treatment by another individual (e.g. Gollwitzer & Denzler, 2009) when self-esteem is affected, individuals could result to acting in a negative manner towards another and such retaliation could even restore equity in a relationship and might improve self-worth, in conclusion, negative altitude towards others is regarded as socially undesirable which could rule out the positive effect or purpose of retribution on self-esteem, in an online conversation, the intensity of self-presentation effect could be intense in online communicating than face-face, individuals can view their message consistently on their screen in online communication which increase the resulting effect of their actions and how they perceive themselves, so the hyper personal communication model proposes that online communication provides a beneficial strengthening feedback circle which increases the intensity of positive interpretation of positive cues (Walther, 1996).
This study method was carried out with a 2 by 2 between subject design that is the communication: online as opposed to face-face and feedback valence: confirming as opposed to disconfirming, there were four research conditions that the participants were assigned to randomly to either the first, that is the online disconfirming feedback, face-face disconfirming feedback and a confederate gave feedback, for the participants, individuals younger than 30 years were selected and originated from Netherlands, and data’s were collected in 2013 sept-nov , 149 individuals participated as age was a factor to avoid bias in the confederates feedback since they were in their twenties, they were chosen via ads on their web page and accepted by the ethical committee in the department to be participants, they were told that the research was about people knowing one another, there was money reinforced to it per mins and hour per tests or could exchange it for course credit, participants was selected and paired with same sex confederates, they were briefed ; instructions were given and were consented , now the communication method was either online or face-face they would have a short interaction and fill out a questionnaire, then the participants was involved in an intense self-disclosure to the allied who were neutral in their response, after the feedback, a questionnaire on self-esteem was completed twice, also their demographic date and at the end they were debriefed, suspected( 20 were suspected but didn’t affect self-esteem) and acknowledged and the responses were not real and no following conversation either, the questions that was used for self-disclosure was given by Taylor & Altman (1966) and some examples are “what is the best experience you ever had?, what have you ever worried about? Etc. to influence the conversation mode, it took place in a living kind of laboratory for the online both the confederate and participants were in different rooms, they never met but for face-face they met at the entrance and interactions were audiotaped and for the manipulation of the rate of feedback, it was inspired by (Cissna and Sieburg’s, 1981), e.g. the confirming feedback was “the things you like to do to please me, stuffs about yourself and disconfirming feedback was first impression, not sure, someone I wouldn’t want to be friends with, instruments used include the state self-esteem scale, valence of participants reciprocal feedback and demographic’s, Using Annova for the 4 experimental conditions, for the first hypothesis that receiving confirming feedback to one’s self-disclosure leads to higher self-esteem compared to receiving disconfirming feedback (H1a) was not reinforced in the outcome of communication mode and feedback on self-esteem, also for the effects of confirming and disconfirming feedback are stronger in online communication compared to face-to-face communication (H1b) it was also not reinforced, for the outcome of communication and feedback on participants reciprocal feedback secondly, that receiving confirming feedback leads to more positive reciprocal feedback, while disconfirming feedback leads to additional negative reciprocal feedback (H2a) was reinforced and vice versa, and individuals gave more attention in the face-face interaction mode than online, and the results of confirming and disconfirming feedback on the valence of the receiver’s reciprocal feedback are stronger in online communication compared to face-to-face communication (H2b) was not fully reinforced, an Annova was carried out as the dependent factor been the reciprocal feedback to check the outcome of feedback and communication and individuals showed an increase in the positive feedback that was given to the confederate regardless if it was a conforming or disconfirming feedback and participants gave negative answer to disconfirming feedback than face-face method.
The study on the effect of online feedback on self-esteem can be said that constant feedback from formulation interaction partners on self-disclosure is compulsory to increase self-esteem of the receiver but could not discover the increase the influence of online mode on the interpretation of the cues as stated by hyper personal communication model ( Walter 19960, the study on the e outcome of feedback on the receiver’s reciprocal feedback was expected that the online interaction would make positive and negative feedback intense which shows that the ability of a individual to be willing depends if the response is negative & positive, for online feedback dynamics in online communication shows the coping behavior via retaliation also that individuals in face-face and online interaction could react differently with regards to expressing negatively to another and a limitation in the study is the responses by the confederate is general so to fit the self-disclosure of the participants, also the future study will concentrate on individuals characteristics information’s are received differently and how we interpret information is reliant on our different characteristics and can influence how we also interpret base on selective signs.