RELATIONSHIP OF ONLINE INTIMACY

AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING IN

DIGITALWORLD

In partial fulfilment of the

requirements In Practical Research 2

Submitted by:
Jay Jr. Importante
Frances Elisha Brilantes
Jenny Vee Buison
Dyanna Mae Inventor
Charity Neri
April Joy Legatam
Christine Negroprado

Group 3
Humss-A

Submitted to:
MR ROGIE P. BACOSA
Practical 2 Teacher

August 2019

CHAPTER I
 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Intimacy is closeness between people and a dyadic exchange that involves sharing

what is personal and private (Johnson, 2019; Prager, 1995). Engagement in meaningful

and intimate social interactions and relationships is one of the key components through

which social factors influence general health and well-being (Berkman et al., 2000;

Cohen, 2004; Helliwell and Putman, 2004; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Kawachi and

Berkman, 2001; Ryff and Singer, 2000). The major shift in the mode of human social

engagement is caused by the rise of the digital world or advances in Internet -based

communication and social networking applications over the last decades. (Amichai-

Hamburger, 2013, Steinfield et al., 2012, Zhong, 2011). Let us critically consider how

interpersonal intimacy experience in the context of online world and how can it influence

the health and social well being out comes in the modern digital age with this kind of

information.

According to Kreitzer (2015) study, states that relationships whether social or

intimate make people happier and contribute to joy in our lives, they constitute a vital

part of well-being. Social relationships can be considered to be fundamental to happiness

and well-being (Argyle, 2001; Myers, 2000). Well-being is a positive outcome that is

meaningful for people and for many sectors of society, because it tells us that people

perceive that their lives are going well. Good living conditions (e.g., housing,

employment) are fundamental to well-being. Tracking these conditions is important for

public policy. However, many indicators that measure living conditions fail to measure
what people think and feel about their lives, such as the quality of their relationships,

their positive emotions and resilience, the realization of their potential, or their overall

satisfaction with life—i.e., their “well-being(Diener, Seligman,2004).Well-being

generally includes global judgments of life satisfaction and feelings ranging from

depression to joy(Diener&Scollon, 2009; Frey, 2002). And well being have different

aspects such physical well-being, economic well-being, development and activity,

emotional well-being, psychological well-being, life satisfaction, domain specific

satisfaction, and Social well-being (Frey,2002). Social well-being is the extent to which

you feel a sense of belonging and social inclusion; a connected person is a supported

person in society. Social networking applications can influence on how frequent and

amount of social activity or contact one has with others (Okun, Stock, Haring, &Writer,

1984; Pinquart & Sorenson, 2000) in the characteristics (e.g., size, density, reciprocity),

as well as downstream effect of psychosocial mechanisms of interpersonal behaviour ,

including intimate interactions(Berkman et al,.2000).

These effects ultimately converge at behavioral, psychological and physiological

pathways that are more directly aligned to particular health and social well-being.

Similarly, the social contexts of the Internet can be considered at multiple levels ,from the

explosion in the capacity for social connectivity enabled by online social networking

applications (Dunbar, 2012; Steinfield et al.,2012) While in the field of social

networking sites it increases one's social capital (Ellison et al., 2007; Steinfield et

al.,2008), increased connectivity, but it doesn't directly mean that it has an increase in

meaningful social connections (Dunbar, 2012).

This study will examine how social intimacy influence the social well being of

individuals. impacts, and research gaps, in these areas is an important first step toward
supporting media use that contributes positively to youth’s happiness, life satisfaction,

and prosocial attitudes and feel of belongness in the society.

Statement of the Problem

This study generally aims to examine the relationship between online intimacy and social

well-being in the Digital Age.

Specifically, aims to answer the ff:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. Age

b. Sex

c. Relationship Status

d. Strand

2. What social media platforms they usually used in connecting and building

relationship with other people?

3. What type of communication they usually engage in social media?

4. What is the level of engagement in online intimacy in terms of:

a. Age

b. Sex

c. Relationship Status

d. Strand
5. What is the level of social well-being in terms of:

a. Age

b. Sex

c. Relationship Status

d. Strand

6. Is there any significant difference the level of online intimacy in terms of respondent’s

profile?

7. Is there any significant difference in the level of social well-being in terms of

respondent’s profile?

8. Is there any significant relationship between online intimacy and social well-being?

Theoretical Framework

According to Anthony Giddens (1990, 1991, 1992) it is theoretically possible for the

practice of self-disclosure to occur online, mediated by digital technology, either

generating a fleeting sense of intimacy between hitherto strangers or developing the

intimacy of an already established relationship that began with co-presence. When online

relationships between initial strangers are sustained over long periods of time, they often

start to approximate to friendship developed ‘offline’ (Chan and Cheng 2004), but such

convergence often involves adopting additional means of communication beyond the

initial digital context (Baym 2010). Research indicates that mutual disclosure of personal

troubles in online environments established for this purpose do provide emotional support
(Miyata 2002). However, as I have argued using research evidence about the everyday

lives of friends, lovers, couples, families and kin (Jamieson 1998, 1999, 2005), ‘the pure

relationship’ lives more strongly in talk about relationships than in relationships as they

are lived. In relationships as they are lived, mutual disclosure is not the only way of

establishing intimacy and may not always be a sufficient way to sustain an intimate

relationship. Moreover, while distance relationships can be meaningful intimate

relationships, co-presence is a more integral component of some ways in which people

generate intimacy than ‘disclosing intimacy’, for example, spending time together,

providing care through practical acts and demonstrating affection physically. Moreover,

According to Chobdee, (2014). Social wellness is defined as "one's ability to interact

with people around them. It involves using good communication skills, having

meaningful relationships, respecting yourself and others, and creating a support system

that includes family members and friends. Social wellness includes positive, trusting,

supportive relationships with family, friends, and intimate partners as well as being

involved in the greater community which gives a sense of purpose. Social wellness is

important to mental and physical health. Social integration is defined as "the overall level

of involvement with informal social relationships, such as having a spouse, and with

formal social relationships, such as those with religious institutions and volunteer

organizations," (Umberson & Montez, 2010). Friendship is described as intimacy and

connectedness with supportive confidants and includes one's own ability to provide

support and engage in the community (Myers & Sweeny, 2005, p. 22). People who are

socially integrated tend to live longer, healthier lives than people who are socially

isolated.
The active variables included in the study are online intimacy of the student and their

social wellness they are the selected students of Negros Occidental High School. In a

paradigm, the independent variable is the social intimacy. The dependent parameters to

be obtained in the study is the social wellness of a student, it’s percent coverage and

diversity indices. The process of obtaining will be done with the use of primary tool

which is questionnaire and uses likert scale specifically, customer satisfaction to be

answered by the selected student of Negros Occidental High School. For the conceptual

diagram, refer to the illustration below

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Profile of the respondents

(Senior High School Students of Negros Occidental High School)

a. Age
b. Sex
c. Relationship Status
d. Strand

Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Online Intimacy
Social Well Being

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Scope of the study

The main purpose of this study is to examine the Relationship between online intimacy

and social well-being in Negros Occidental High School. This study considers the

student’s personal information such as their Names (optional), Age, Sex, and Relationship

Status.

The researcher limits the study to Senior High School students of NOHS enrolled in S.Y.

2019-2020.Each of the respondents will be given a standardized questioner to answer.

The selected students came from different strands to avoid bias and objective perception.

Hypothesis

Based on the aforementioned inferential statistical problem, this hypothesis was

forwarded:

For problem number 6, there is no significant difference in the level of online intimacy in

terms of respondent's profile.

For problem number 7, there is no significant difference in the level of social well-being

in terms of respondent's profile.

For problem number 8, there is no significant relationship between online intimacy and

social well-being in this modern digital age.

Significance of the study

This study may be beneficial to the following:

Parent. Taught lesson about dealing procedure and knowledge of prevention in their

children who engage in social intimacy.

School Principals. Having the data at hand, A forum will be conducted in set of students

that focuses in online intimacies and well-being together with the management

-committee of schools for budget allocation so that a long-term sustainable program

might be secured.

Teachers. Knowledge about the effects of online intimacies of learners in deliberation of

awareness to the parents or guardians.

Students. An awareness on social media usage, that learners can learn about online

intimacy and the effects on it in the social well-being of an individual.

Future researchers. Aspects of online intimacy and social well-being not covered by this

study may inspire future researchers to delve on such topics.

Definition of terms:

Online intimacy. According to Quercia, Bodaghi and Crowcroft (2012) online intimacy is

a relationship between people who have met online, and in many cases know each other

only via the Internet. Online relationships are similar in many ways to pen

pal relationships. This relationship can be romantic, platonic, or even based on business

affairs. An internet relationship (or online relationship) is generally sustained for a certain

amount of time before being titled a relationship, just as in-person relationships. The
major difference here is that an internet relationship is sustained via computer or online

service, and the individuals in the relationship may or may not ever meet each other in

person. Otherwise, the term is quite broad and can include relationships based upon text,

video, audio, or even virtual character. This relationship can be between people in

different regions, different countries, different sides of the world, or even people who

reside in the same area but do not communicate in person . Operationally, it is the variable

that affects the dependent variable or the well-being of an individual and the variable

that is needed to be examine.

Online interactions. According to Wagner and Moore (2001) conceptually, online

interaction in distance learning as an interplay and exchange in individuals and group

influence each other. It is a two-way communication among two or more persons for

purposes of explaining and challenging perspective. Operationally, in this study it is the

kind of communication that will going to be used that will be examine.

Online social support. According to Wong and Manroe (2016) conceptually and

operationally, online social support is a new form of social support that produced by

development of internet, the more people are engaging to express and discuss with other

via online community, the more online community getting similar with the social

community and have the similar relation between social support and subjective well-

being.Operationally, it is one factor of online intimacy that might be studied if it have an

influence to the dependent variable .

Social Well-being. According to Keyes (1998) defined SWB as people’s perceptions and

experiences in social circumstances as well as the degree of successful responses to social

challenges. Operationally, it is the dependent variable that will going to be observe on

how online intimacy impacts its nature.

Reference

Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., Haring, M. J., & Witter, R. A. (1984). The social

activity/subjective well-being relation: A quantitative synthesis. Research on

Aging, 6, 45-65.

Pinquart, M., & Sorenson, S. (2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network,

and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis.

Psychology and Aging, 15, 187-224.

Kreitzer,J.(2015).Retrieved from https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/how-

relationships- affect-health and-wellbeing

Wong, E. T. K.; Ma, W. W. K. (2016). "Exploring Relationship between Online Social

Support and Individual..." (PDF). Researchgate.net. Retrieved 2017-07-13

Ignatius, Emmi; Marja Kokkonen (2007). "Factors contributing to verbal self-disclosure".

Nordic Psychology. 59 (4): 362–391. doi:10.1027/1901-2276.59.4.362

Wagner & Moore, (2001). Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/isu2008/online-

interaction-presentation?fbclid=IwAR0GyjjwvszLk

RnzUwzGdDzG2zL6PMQlHtiey1- HaIBVHWIgL5AMo7SDgc

Prager, K.J., (1995).The psychology of intimacy. The Guilford Press, New York, NY

Cohen, S., 2004.Social relationships and health. Am. Psychol. 59, 676–684.

Helliwell, J.F., Putman, R.D., 2004.The social context of well–being. Philo. Trans. R.

Soc.Lond. B Biol. Sci. 359, 1435–1446.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B., Layton, J.B., 2010.Social relationships and mortality risk:

Ameta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 7, e1000316.

Kawachi, I., Berkman, L.F., 2001.Social ties and mental health. J. Urban Health 78,458–

467.

Ryff, C.D., Singer, B., 2000.Interpersonalflourishing: A positive health agenda for the

newmillennium. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4, 30–44. Amichai-Hamburger and

Hayat, 2013 Y. Amichai-Hamburger, Z. Hayat Internet and personality Y.

Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behaviour,

Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013), pp. 1-20

Steinfield et al., 2012 C. Steinfield, N. Ellison, C. Lampe, J. Vitak Online social network

sites and the concept of social capital F.L. Lee, L. Leung, J.S. Qiu, D. Chu (Eds.),

Frontiers in New Media Research, Routledge, New York (2012), pp. 115-131

Zhong, 2011 Z.-J. Zhong The effects of collective MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer

Online Role-Playing Games) play on gamers' online and offline social capital

Comput. Hum. Behave., 27 (2011), pp. 2352-2363

Berkman et al., 2000 L.F. Berkman, T. Glass, I. Brissette, T.E. Seeman from social

integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium Soc. Sci. Med., 51 (2000),

pp. 843-857

Dunbar, 2012 R.I.M. Dunbar Social cognition on the internet: Testing constraints on

social network size Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 367 (2012), pp. 2192-2201

Steinfield et al., 2012 C. Steinfield, N. Ellison, C. Lampe, J. Vitak Online social network

sites and the concept of social capital F.L. Lee, L. Leung, J.S. Qiu, D. Chu (Eds.),

Frontiers in New Media Research, Routledge, New York (2012), pp. 115-131
Joinson and Paine, 2007 A.N. Joinson, C.B. Paine Self-disclosure, privacy and the

Internet A.N. Joinson, K.Y.A. McKenna, T. Postmes, U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The

Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York

(2007), pp. 237-252

Ledbetter et al., 2011 A.M. Ledbetter, J.P. Mazer, J.M. DeGroot, K.R. Meyer, Y. Mao, B.

Swafford Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as

predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness Shim et al.,

2011 M. Shim, J.N. Cappella, J.Y. Han How does insightful and emotional

disclosure bring potential health benefits? Study based on online J. Community.,

61 (2011), pp. 432-454

Ellison et al., 2007 N.B. Ellison, C. Steinfield, C. Lampe The benefits of Facebook

“friends:” social capital and college Students' use of online social network

sites J. Comput. Mediat. Commun., 12 (2007), pp. 1143-1168

Steinfield et al., 2008 C. Steinfield, N.B. Ellison, C. Lampe Social capital, self-esteem,

and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis J. App. Dev.

Psychol., 29 (2008), pp. 434-445

Dunbar, 2012 R.I.M. Dunbar Social cognition on the internet: Testing constraints on

social network size Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B, 367 (2012), pp. 2192-2201

Jiang et al., 2011 L.C. Jiang, N.N. Bazarova, J.T. Hancock The disclosure–intimacy link

in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the

hyperpersonal model Hum. Commun. Res., 37 (2011), pp. 58-77 McKenna et al.,

2002 K.Y.A.
McKenna, A.S. Green, M.E.J. Gleason Relationship formation on the internet: What's

the big attraction? J. Soc. Issues, 58 (2002), pp. 9-31

Valkenburg and Peter, 2011 P.M. Valkenburg, J. Peter Online communication among

adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks J.

Adolesc. Health, 48 (2011), pp. 121-127

Bane et al., 2010 C.M.H. Bane, M. Cornish, N. Erspamer, L. Kampman Self-disclosure

through weblogs and perceptions of online and “real-life” friendships

among female bloggers Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw., 13 (2010), pp. 131-139

Ko and Kuo, 2009 H.C. Ko, F.Y. Kuo Can blogging enhance subjective well-being

through self- disclosure? Cyberpsychol. Behav., 12 (2009), pp. 75-79

Chan, D. K. S. and Cheng, G. H. L. (2004) ‘A Comparison of Offline and Online

Friendship Qualities at Different Stages of Relationship Development’.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21: 305–320.

Baym, N. (2010) Personal Connection in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity.

Miyata, K. (2002) ‘Social Support for Japanese Mothers Online and Offline’ in B.

Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite (eds.) The Internet in Everyday Life.

Oxford: Blackwell: 520-548

Jamieson, L. (1999) ‘Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the Pure Relationship’.

Sociology 33: 77–494.

Jamieson, L. (2005) ‘Boundaries of Intimacy’ in S. Cunningham-Burley and L. McKie

(eds.) Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships (pp. 189–206).

Bristol: Policy Press.

Quercia, Daniele; Bodaghi, Mansoureh; Crowcroft, Jon.(2012) "Loosing friends on

facebook" (PDF). ACM Web Science Conference.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social psychology quarterly, 121-140.

Diener E, Seligman ME. Beyond money. (2004). Toward an economy of well-

being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest;5(1):1–31.

Diener E. Assessing well-being: the collected works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer;

2009.

Diener E, Scollon CN, Lucas RE. The evolving concept of subjective well-being: the

multifaceted nature of happiness. In: E Diener (ed.) Assessing well-being: the

collected works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer; 2009:67–100.

Frey BS, Stutzer A. Happiness and economics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University

Press; 2002.

Chobdee, J. (2014, June 4). Social wellness [Blog Article]. Retrieved from:

https://wellness.ucr.edu/social_wellness.html

Kroenke, C. H., Kubzansky, L. D., Schernhammer, E.S., Holmes, M. D., & Kawachi, I.

(2006). Social networks, social support, and survival after breast cancer

diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(7), 1105-1111.

Myers, J. E., & Sweeney, T. J. (Eds.). (2005). Counseling for Wellness: Theory, Research,

and Practice. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for

Health Policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(Suppl), S54–S66.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501