Translation
Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups amonghigh school adolescents

1, 2

Keywords:
Social networking service, High school adolescents, Similarity, Communication, Interaction process

Shin NAKAMINE3, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba/
JSPS Research Fellow

Shinnosuke TANAKA3, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University ofTsukubaNamiko KAMIJO3, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba/
JSPS Research Fellow

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how high school adolescents interact with a personof the opposite sex acquainted through SNS and what kind of the interactions result in meeting
him or her in real life. A total of 207 high school adolescents who had experienced meeting insomeone of the opposite sex acquainted through SNS reported their SNS interactions before themeetup. Results showed that the successive interaction about a common subject such as local
being the same and hobbies led to meeting the person in real life. In addition, results showed thathigh school adolescents met in person not when he or she wanted to see them but when they want
to see him or her. Based on these results, future contents of crime prevention education are
discussed.

33

Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups among high school adolescents

NAKAMINE et al

As previously described, several studies have

1. Introduction

investigated the relation between individual traits
The number of social networking service

andmeetupswith

opposite-sex

Internet(SNS) users has increased every year, reachingacquaintances. To obtain further information, it

72.16 million (72.1% penetration rate) by the end

is useful to focus on SNS interactions becauseof 2017 (ICT Research Institute, 2018). Since it istheir content is believed to determine thean online service that helps maintain interpersonaloccurrence of a face-to-face meeting. For

relationships, build new ones, and develop

example,interests (Kawaura, Sakata, & Matsuda, 2005), it

Horikawa (2015) found that the most common

can be beneficial if used effectively.

reason high school girls stop interacting with

Hashimoto,Chiba,

Amano,

andHowever, recent years have seen a social

male acquaintances on SNSs is that “the topic

problem involving minors getting into trouble

was boring” (42.5%), followed by “many sexual

because of face-to-face interactions with members

and dirty topics” (38.0%). On the other hand,of the opposite sex whom they have met via

their top reason for interacting with people theySNSs. The National Police Agency (2018)

meet on SNSs, including those of the same sex,

reported an overall increase in the number of

was that they have “common interests andchildren who have been victimized by crimes

preferences” (75.7%). Kato (2013) also analyzed

facilitated by SNS, which necessitates certain

high school girls’ experiences of meeting othersmeasures (Koide, 2008; Ogata, 2014). To

via the Internet, focusing on their states of mind.

conceptualize these measures, one needs to

The results showed that despite having negative

clarify the reasons minors engage in face-to-facefeelings about being acquainted with a partnerinteractions with members of the opposite sex

via the Internet, they found a “positive reason”

whom they meet on SNSs.

(e.g., interaction about a common interest)

Many studies have focused on individual traits

through their interactions with the individual,

regarding these reasons. For example, Hanai andleading to face-to-face meetings.

Oguchi (2005) examined the relation between

Several other studies have been conducted onloneliness among dating site users and theirinteractions leading up to face-to-face meetingsparticipation in dating sites and found that those(Baker, 2000; Walther, 1996), and more researchwith higher levels of loneliness used dating sites

is being done regarding the relation between thefor relationship-building. Caplan (2003) andcontent of SNS interactions and face-to-face

McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) also foundmeetings. However, such an interaction processthat individuals who are more lonely preferred tohas not been sufficiently explained; it remains

communicate with their Internet acquaintances,

unclear what kinds of interactions with opposite-

including those of the same sex, and were more

sex strangers begin on SNSs and how theselikely to meet them face-to-face. Takahira (2009)

interactions lead to face-to-face meetings (or not).

also suggested that individuals who have poorly

Since SNS interactions are assumed to continue

adapted to social life and lacked social resources

before a face-to-face meeting with an opposite-sex

are more willing to form new interpersonalacquaintance, it is necessary to examine not only

relationships online.

the substance of these interactions but also how
34Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 14 No. 1 Sep. 2021

they lead to face-to-face meetings. This study

describe the first time they contacted or wereextends our knowledge on the reasons why

contacted by these individuals.4

minors meet face-to-face with opposite-sex SNS

2.2.2 Content of messages on first contact

acquaintances and may also serve as a resourcefordevising

appropriate

crime

In

preventionanopen-ended

questionnaire,themeasures. Therefore, this study explores theparticipants then indicated the kind of messages

process of SNS interactions (i.e., how these

they received or sent at the time of their firstinteractions lead to face-to-face meetings withcontact.

opposite-sex acquaintances) among high school

2.2.3 Invitations from interactions

students, because 95% of them own and use

Assmartphones (Cabinet Office, 2019).

forinvitations

resulting

from

their

interactions, the respondents were asked to

2. Methods

provide multiple responses to the following
categories: “being asked for contact information

2.1. Participants and proceduresThe

survey,

which

was

outsourced(e-mail address or phone number),” “asking fortocontact information,” “being asked to meet in real

Macromill Inc., was conducted from December

life,” “asking to meet in real life,” “telling his or

22 to 27, 2014. A preliminary survey was sent toher contact information,” “being told interaction

46,300 registered participants who reported thatpartner’s contact information,” or “none of thethey were high school or college students. Of theabove occurred.”

5,000 who responded, 4,103 (1,242 males and2,861 females; Mage = 16.9, SDage = 0.92) stated

2.2.4 Details of interactions prior to invitations

that they were currently in high school or college.

Those who responded with “none of the above

The survey was then distributed to 325 highoccurred” were asked to freely describe the kindschool and college students who have met face-of

to-face with members of the opposite sex withinvitations were made.

interactionthatoccurred

beforesuchwhom they were acquainted through SNSs, and2.2.5 Face-to-face experiences

223 sent back their responses. A total of 207 highschool and college students (112 females and 95

They were then asked if they actually met withmales; Mage = 17.1, SDage = 0.85) participated in

the opposite-sex individual they had been in

the survey. This study obtained approval fromcontact with.

the research ethics committee of the institution

3. Results

to which the authors belonged.

2.2. Measures

A total of 194 individuals were analyzed, 13 of

2.2.1 SNS used on first contact

which were excluded as their answers were

The respondents were asked to recall theirincomplete.

most memorable experiences meeting a strangerof the opposite sex through SNSs and to freely
35

Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups among high school adolescents

3.1 Type of SNS used on first contact

Table 1. Content of SNS interactions with the

There were 14 different types of SNSs throughopposite sex

which the respondents had initial contact with
theiracquaintances.

The

most

NAKAMINE et al

Categories

frequently

ExamplesRates

First contact（n = 194）

mentioned SNS was Twitter (n = 100, 51.5%).

Greetings

SNSs that were mentioned by more than one

Common topics

person included LINE (n = 23, 11.9%), chat sites

Nice to meet you.
We are from thesame hometown.
Would you like to

40.2%

(78)

28.9%

(56)

8.8%

(17)

(n = 10, 5.2%), BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems)

Invitations

such as LINE BBS (n = 10, 5.2%), Facebook (n =Self-introductions

I am XX.

6.7%

(13)

8, 4.1%), Skype (n = 7, 3.6%), Ameba (n = 7, 3.6%),

Chatting

We had a chat.

6.2%

(12)

You are so pretty.

5.7%

(11)

5.7%

(11)

5.2%

(10)

2.1%

(4)

19.6%

(38)

Common hobbies.

50.0%

(84)

Age.

40.5%

(68)

22.0%

(37)

10.7%

(18)

7.7%

(13)

7.1%

(12)

3.0%

(5)

16.7%

(28)

Expression of

and GREE (n = 6, 3.1%) and mixi (n = 6, 3.1%).

5

favor

3.2 Classification of contact content, rate of

Use of BBS

acceptance of invitations during theApproachingcontact, and rate of actual meetings

meet me?

I saw your postingon BBS.
Let’s talk.
We’ll exchangeFree descriptions were classified according toContact exchange

contact
information.

the contents of the first contact and interactions

Other/none/don’t remember

until the invitation. The first author and a

Interactions prior to the invitation（n = 168）

graduate student, who did not know the purpose

Common interestsof the study, performed the kind of KJ method to

Personal

classify the responses based on the similarity of

information

the descriptions (Kawakita, 1986). This generated

Gossip12 categories for the first-contact content and 10

Interpersonal

categories for the content of interactions prior to

relationships

the invitation (Table 1). For the former, the mostcommon category was “Greetings (nice to meetyou, etc.)” while for the latter, the top category

everyday events.
Conversation about
friends.

Personal topics

Consultation.

Hope forWould you like tofriendshipwas “Common interests (common hobbies,

Conversation about

go to a concert?
Where would youetc.).” Many responses were categorized under

Imagination

go if you did meetme?

“other/ none/don’t remember” because most of

Other/none/don’t remember

them fell under “none/don’t remember”; anNote. The figures in parentheses correspond to
the number of people described in the category.

example of a response under “other” was “yes.”
The rate of those who reported invitations that
occurred during interaction is shown in Table 2.

3.3 The interaction process leading up to the

The most commonly reported experience wasface-to-face meeting“being asked to meet in real life.” About 10% of
the respondents reported receiving no invitations

Hayashi’s quantification Method III (Method

while 122 (62.9%) reported actually meeting their

III) was used to examine the kinds of interactions

contacts.

that resulted in face-to-face meetings with36

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 14 No. 1 Sep. 2021

performed using the calculated category scores

Table 2. Rate of invitations that occurred during

up to three axes, and four clusters were extracted6

the contact
Options(Figure 1).

Rates

The first cluster consisted of “Greetings,”

Being asked for contact information

44.3%

(86)

Asking for contact information

20.1%

(39)

“Self-introductions,”

Being asked to meet in real life

53.6%

(104)

Asking to meet in real life

26.8%

(52)

“Gossip,” “Personal topics,” “Being asked for

Telling contact information

33.5%

(65)

30.9%

(60)

12.4%

(24)

Being

told

interaction

partner’s

contact information
None of the above occurred“Personal

contact information,” and “Being asked to meetin real life.” The second cluster had “Common(a)H op e f or friend shipNote. The figures in parentheses correspond to
the number of people described in the category.

Chatting
Com m o n top ics
Invitation

opposite-sex SNS acquaintances.

First axis

When each category of the content of the first

Co m m on interests

Asking to m eet in real life

M eetup

Being to ld interaction p artner’s
contact inf orm ation

Self-introd uctions
GossipGreeting s
Personal inform ation

when not selected, it was 1. In this case, “Contact

Personal to p ics

exchange” and “Imagination” were excluded

real lif e

was selected, the date was quantified as 2, andBeing asked to m eet incontact and the interaction until the invitation

Exp ression of

from the analysis, as well as “Other,” “Don’t

Telling co ntact info rm atio n
Asking for contact

Being asked f or contact
inform atio nInterp ersonal relationship s

Second axis(b)provide data on a category for either the content

Chatting

U se o f BBSof their first contact or the interaction until the

Exp ressio n of favor

invitation were excluded from the analysis as

Invitation

Ap p roachingwell.

GossipInterp erso nal relationship s

Next, the invitation choices that arose from the

Personal inform ation

quantified as 2 if each category was selected andGreeting s

1 if it was not. In that case, “None of the above
occurred” was excluded from the analysis.
Finally, whether or not the two parties actually: First contact: Interactions prior to the invitations
 : Invitations that occurred during the contact: Meetup

met was quantified using a score of 2 if they did

M eetup
Hop e for friend ship
Asking to m eet in real life

Being asked for contact inform ation

Being told interactio n p artner's

categories,

Being asked to m eet in real life

Personal top ics
Telling contact inform ation

as

Second axis

contact inform atio n
Asking for contact inform atio nregarded: First contact: Interactions prior to the invitations
 : Invitations that occurred during the contact: Meetup

Ap p roachingnumber of descriptions. Participants who did not

were

inform ation

Use o f BBS

favor

remember,” and “None” because of the smallinteractions

information,”

Com m on interests

Com m on to p ics

Self -introd uctions
Third axis

and 1 if they did not. For the 21 categories

Figure 1. Plot of the category score of the

included in the analysis through the above

content of the interaction by Hayashi’s

procedure, the 1, 2, and 3 axes of category scoresquantification methods III—(a) plots of

were

The

the first–second axes and (b) the

eigenvalues were 0.12, 0.10, and 0.09, in that

second–third axes. Enclosures (or noorder. Cluster analysis (Ward’s method) was also

enclosures) indicate the same cluster.

calculatedusing

MethodIII.

37

Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups among high school adolescents

topics,”“Commoninterests,”“Hope

NAKAMINE et alforconversations such as “Greetings” or “Common

friendship,” “Asking for contact information,”

topics” and then gradually proceed to deeper“Asking to meet in real life,” “Telling contact

contents such as “Interpersonal relationships” orinformation,” “Being told contact information,”“Personal topics.” This is similar to how offlineand “Meetup.” The third cluster containedromantic“Invitation (first contact)” and “Chatting.” Thefriendly conversations that progressively become

fourth cluster consisted of “Expression of favor,”

more in-depth (Matsui, 2006).

behaviorsdevelop,

starting

with“Use of BBS,” “Approaching,” and “Interpersonal

4.3 
Process of SNS interactions leading torelationships.”

face-to-face meetings
4. Discussion

In our study of interactions that result in faceto-face meetings, we generated four clusters. The

This study examined high school students’interactions

with

their

opposite-sex

results suggest the following typical interaction

SNS

process on SNSs.7
The first cluster consisted of the first-contact

acquaintances and how they ended up meeting

content, the interaction content prior to thethese individuals in real life.

invitation, and the invitation that occurred during

4.1 
Rate of high school students who met
face-to-facewith

opposite-sex

contact. This means the typical process begins

SNSwith a greeting (e.g., Nice to meet you.) and aacquaintances

self-introduction (e.g., I am XX.), and then the

The pilot survey showed that 7.9% of highinvitation to meet is received through personalschool and college students met face-to-face withinformation (e.g., age), gossip (e.g., daily life

their opposite-sex SNS acquaintances. Hashimoto

stories), and personal topics (e.g., consultation),

et al. (2015) reported that about 20% of highin which the person is asked to provide theirschool girls (n = 554) engaged in such face-to-

contact

face meetings, a difference of more than 10%

interaction partner. The second cluster had thefrom the present study. However, the results forfirst-contact content, the contact content up to thethe interaction contents were similar to those ofinvitation, and the invitation between contacts

previous studies (Hashimoto et al., 2015; Kato,and also included the “Meetup” category. In

2013), suggesting that the following discussion

other words, the typical process starts with aabout interaction contents and processes arecommon topic (e.g., We’re from the same

valid for this study.

hometown.) followed by a discussion of common

information

and

meet

with

their

interests (e.g., common hobbies) and hope for

4.2 Contents of SNS interactions

friendship (e.g., Would you like to go to a

The classifications of the interaction contents

concert?), which then leads to an invitation such

indicated that actions on SNSs evolved in theas requests for contact information, being given

same way as those in offline heterosexual

contact

relationships. In other words, the results showed

information, and asking to meet physically.

that SNS interactions begin with friendship

Finally, real-life meetups occur. The third cluster
38

information,

providingcontact

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 14 No. 1 Sep. 2021

contained only the first-contact content; that is,cluster analysis has certain limitations regarding

the typical process begins with an invitation (e.g.,

reproducibility.

Would you like to meet?) and a chat (e.g., We had

generalizability of this study’s results, futurea chat.) but did not proceed with the subsequent

research may examine whether an individual’sinteractions. The fourth cluster consisted of theawareness of “similarity” is linked to face-to-face

first-contact content and the interaction content

meetings and other factors.

Therefore,

to

test

the

prior to the invitation. The typical process begins

In the second process, the participants wantedwith an expression of favor or compliment (e.g.,

to meet their interaction partners (i.e., they asked

You are so pretty.), use of BBS (e.g., I saw yourfor the person’s contact information or asked toposting on BBS.), and an approach (e.g., Let’smeet them). It was suggested that they weretalk.), followed by efforts toward interpersonal

meeting not because they were invited but rather

relationships (e.g., conversation about friends).

because they wanted to do so.

Among these typical processes, the second one
resulted in physical meetups, indicating that face-

4.4 A reflection on crime prevention education

to-face meetings were induced by the parties’

Crime prevention education is one of theconsistent interaction on a common subject, suchmeasures to prevent problems caused by physicalas being from the same hometown and having

meetups with heterosexual SNS acquaintances

the same hobbies.

(Koide, 2008; Ogata, 2014). So far, conducting

Some studies (Hashimoto et al., 2015; Kato,

crime prevention education has been focused on2013) have also suggested that common interests

prohibition in which minors are informed of theand preferences are important reasons forrisks of face-to-face meetings with opposite-sex

meeting physically. The present study obtained

SNS acquaintances and encouraged to avoid

similar results, suggesting that it is especiallydoing so (Koide, 2008; Nishimura, Murakami,

important to continue conversations about

and Fuji, 2014; Sugano, 2011). However, based oncommon interests and preferences.

this study’s results, physical meetups wereThis may be because the topics they have inpromoted by consistent interactions aboutcommon with one another lead to interactions incommon topics, and the participants met with thewhich they discover similarities, which havepartners they wanted to meet, which suggest thatbeen shown to influence interpersonal attraction

minors engage in physical interactions with their(Rubin, 1973). Research has examined the impact

partners as a result of their own choices and thatof similarity on the formation of friendships andthey may not think it is dangerous (or they areromantic relationships in existing social networks

hedging their risk). According to Reyna andsuch as schools (Nakamine, 2015; Rubin, 1973).

Farley (2006), minors (teens) do not perceive

Given the differences between SNSs and such

such risk, but in fact engage in risky behaviors

existing social networks, the results showed that

because while they view these behaviors as risky,

similarity affects not only friendships andthey also judge them as more beneficial. This

romantic relationships formed at school andstudy’s results are consistent with those of Reyna

other places but also face-to-face meetups withand Farley (2006). In light of these findings,

opposite-sex

crime prevention education will need to take aSNSacquaintances.

However,39

Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups among high school adolescents

new form and let go of its prohibitive nature.

NAKAMINE et al

to cause trouble. This may be done by examining
the kind of interactions that have occurred and

4.5 Limitations and future studies

how long they have been interacting on SNSs

This study has three limitations. First, thewhen they decided to meet physically. In addition,

participants were registered panelists of a survey

interviews may be conducted to clarify whatcompany. It has been pointed out that thekinds of trouble they encountered during these

respondents of a web-based survey that uses a

face-to-face meetings, what they thought about

survey company’s registered panelists may be awhen they decided to meet physically (e.g., thelimited group, as they prefer simple interpersonalrisk of engaging in such meetups), and what they

relationships, have a high affinity for the Internet,

should have focused on during the meeting (e.g.,

and so on (Yoshimura, 2001). Therefore, it isbringing along a third attendant). This would

necessary to be cautious about whether thishelp reduce unpleasant incidents caused by face-study’s findings can be applied to high school andto-face meetings between minors and theircollege students who are not registered monitors.

opposite-sex SNS acquaintances, enabling themSecond, the coverage, duration, and frequency of

to enjoy the benefits of heterosexual relationships

interactions were not sufficient. For example,

that originate from SNS interactions. Future

although Hashimoto et al. (2015) showed that

research on these issues will be important forwhile interactions involved sexual and “dirty”

Japan, where SNSs will become increasingly

content, with the participants being asked topopular.

send pictures, such content was not found in thepresent study. It is not possible to examine how

Notes

long and how many times they interacted with

1.	This study was conducted with a 2013 grant fromtheir partners. By covering the content of thethe Japan Internet Safety Promotion Association.

interactions to some extent and examining their

2.	We would like to thank Prof. Yutaka Matsui of theprocesses in detail, including duration andUniversity of Tsukuba for his guidance on thisfrequency, it would be possible to completely

paper. We would also like to express our gratitudeunderstand the reasons for face-to-face meetings.

to Prof. Kei Fuji and Prof. Shintaro Yukawa, also

Third, the survey included only high school andfrom the University of Tsukuba, for their valuable

college students who have met their opposite-sex

comments on this paper. And, we would like to

SNS acquaintances; hence, the content of their

thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English

interactions may be different from those of highlanguage review.

school students and college students who have

3.	Affiliation at the time of research.

never met their respective partners.

4.	All survey participants engaged in face-to-faceFinally, it would be beneficial to conduct ameetings

with

their

opposite-sex

SNSsurvey of cases in which face-to-face meetings

acquaintances. However, the most memorablewith opposite-sex SNS acquaintances haveexperiences of being acquainted with the opposite

actually caused trouble. Focusing on high schoolsex on SNS (outside face-to-face meetings) werestudents who have had such experiences may

requested at the time the questionnaire washelp clarify the interaction process that is likely

answered; therefore, some participants stated that40

Journal of Socio-Informatics Vol. 14 No. 1 Sep. 2021
they did not meet their opposite-sex acquaintanceswithface-to-face. The reason for this inquiry was to

University), 772, pp.1-10. (In Japanese)clarify the interaction processes that led to thesomeone.

GAKUEN(Showa

Women’s

Hashimoto, Y., Chiba, N., Amano, M., & Horikawa, Y.

actual meeting and the nonmeeting.

(2015) Why and how do young women meet men

5.	
Because this study did not aim to examine

through the Internet? Research survey reports indifferences in interactions by type of SNS, andinformation studies (Interfaculty initiative inbecause only a few respondents mentioned SNSs

information studies, the University of Tokyo), 31,

other than Twitter, we did not include the type of

pp.115-195. (In Japanese)

SNS in our analysis.

ICT Research & Consulting (2018) Survey of 2018 SNS

6.	When we checked whether coherence in Method

usage trends. < https://ictr.co.jp/report/20181218.

III and cluster analysis differed between men andhtml > Accessed 2019, May 19. (In Japanese)

women, we found almost the same coherence, so

Kato, C. (2013) Processes about online-dating

we conducted a combined analysis for both sexes.

of adolescent girls: Based on semi-structured

7.	
In a study on street interactions between men

interviews of fifteen girls’ junior and senior highand women (Nakamine, 2015), male–female

school students. Socio-Informatics, 2, pp.45-57. (Ininteractions were typified by Method III, and theJapanese)

process was inferred from that type of interaction.

Kawakita, J. (1986) KJ methods. Chuokoron-Sha. (InThis study used this to interpret the clusters

Japanese)

accordingly. Based on the point that Method III

Kawaura, Y., Sakata, M., & Matsuda, M. (2005)

does not necessarily require the interpretation ofSurvey research on uses of internet social network

axes (Matsui & Takamoto, 2018), we interpreted

services. Journal of Communication Studies, 23,

the domain rather than the axes in this study.

pp.91-110. (In Japanese)
Koide, S. (2008) Cybercrime status and countermeasures.

References

Learning Resources and Informations, 1, pp.22-23.

Baker, A. (2000) Two by tow in cyberspace: Getting(In Japanese)together and connection online. CyberPsychology

Matsui, Y. (2006) The development process ofand Behavior, 3, pp.237-242.

romantic relationships and its changes over times.

Cabinet Office (2019) Survey of internet use

Saito, I (Ed.) Illustration of psychology of romantic

environment for youth in fiscal year 2018. <https://love: From encounters to intimate relationships.

www8.cao.go.jp/youth/youth-harm/chousa/h30/

Seisin Shobo, pp.62-71. (In Japanese)net-jittai/pdf/2-1.pdf> Accessed 2019, July 27. (InMatsui, Y., & Takamoto, M. (2018) Utilizing quantification

Japanese)theorytype

IIIwithinpsychology.

Tsukuba

Caplan, S.E. (2003) Preference for online social

Psychological Research, 56, pp.59-66. (In Japanese)interaction: A theory of problematic Internet use

McKenna, K.Y.A., Green, A.S., & Gleason, M.E.J.

and psychosocial well-being. Communication(2002) Relationship formation on the Internet:

Research, 30, pp.625-648.

What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues,

Hanai, Y., & Oguchi, T. (2005) Computer-dating

58, pp.9-31.

usage and the intensity of loneliness: Those who

Nakamine, S. (2015) Judgments and reactions ofwant to meet someone and those who want to talkwomen being approached by an unknown man in41

Examining the interactions on SNS that result in meetups among high school adolescents
town. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 85, pp.596-

NAKAMINE et alsocial psychology, Holt, New York, 286p.

602. (In Japanese)

Sugano, S. (2011) Lecture on mobile phone safety:

National Police Agency (2018) Current situation and

How to get along with your mobile phone properly.

measures for children victimized on SNS in 2017.

IEICE Communications Society Magazine, 18,<http://www.npa.go.jp/safetylife/syonen/H29_

pp.94-95. (In Japanese)

sns_koho.pdf> Accessed 2018, July 4. (In Japanese)

Takahira, E. (2009) Internet use and mental health.

Nishimura, T., Murakami, T., & Fuji, K. (2014)

Miura, A., Morio, H., & Kawaura, Y. (Eds.)

Encounters via the Internet: What factors facilitate

Frontiers of internet psychology: The individual, theor inhibit dating. <https://www.good-net.jp/files/

group, and society. Seishin Shobo, pp.20-58. (Inoriginal/201711012219288952823.pdf> Accessed

Japanese)

2019, May 19. (In Japanese)

Walther, J. B.(1996) Computer-mediated communication:

Ogata, Y. (2014) Cybercrime status and countermeasures.

Impersonal,

SONPO preventive Journal, 256, pp.26-31. (Ininterpersonal,

andhyperpersonal

interaction, Communication Research, 23, pp.3-43.

Japanese)

Yoshimura, O (2001) The characteristics of the

Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) Risk and rationality inrespondents in the internet survey. Proceedings

adolescent decision making, Psychological scienceof the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 49,

in the public interest, 7, pp.1-44.

pp.223-229. (In Japanese)

Rubin, Z. (1973) Liking and loving: An invitation to42