Ignatius 2007

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]
On: 02 June 2014, At: 09:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T
3JH, UK
Nordic Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnpy20
Factors contributing to verbal

self-disclosure
a a
Emmi Ignatius & Marja Kokkonen
a
University of Jyväskylä, Department of Sport
Sciences
Published online: 11 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Emmi Ignatius & Marja Kokkonen (2007) Factors contributing to
verbal self-disclosure, Nordic Psychology, 59:4, 362-391
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.59.4.362
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form
to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 09:29 02 June 2014
ARTICLE Nordic Psychology, 2007, 59 (4) 362-391
Factors contributing to
verbal self-disclosure
EMMI IGNATIUS University of Jyväskylä
MARJA KOKKONEN Department of Sport Sciences
The phenomenon of self-disclosure has been actively studied in several sub-discliplines of psy-
chology from the 1970s on, and neighbouring disciplines, such as social and communication
sciences, have enriched the psychological understanding of the topic. The psychological litera-
ture on self-disclosure, which is viewed, sometimes as a trait-like construct, varying in degree
from one person to another, and sometimes as an interpersonal process which occurs when
individuals interact with each other, has addressed, in particular, the issues of reciprocity effect,
sex differences, self-disclosure in intimate vs. non-intimate relationships, the benefits to be
derived from disclosing, and the emotional or anxiety-based motives for disclosure. The present
article aims to present a broad and general overview of the self-disclosure literature by integrat-
ing empirical discoveries from different areas of science. Self-disclosure is here approached
by outlining the characteristics of the discloser and the recipient that promote or prevent
self-disclosing, the relationship between the discloser and the recipient, some situational and
cultural factors affecting self-disclosure, and the benefits and risks of self-disclosing.
Keywords: self-disclosure, reciprocity effect, sex differences, characteristics of the discloser,
features of the recipient
Corresponding author: Emmi Ignatius, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40014,
university of Jyväskylä. E-mail: [email protected].
Introduction
Self-disclosure refers to communication behavior through which the speaker
consciously makes him/herself known to the other person (Pearce & Sharp,
1973), sometimes revealing personal information that would otherwise be
unlikely to be known by the other, or which is of such a sensitive or private
nature that the speaker would not disclose it to everyone who might ask for
it (Culbert, 1970). For Wheeless and Grotz (1977), self-disclosure comprises
everything a person tells about him/herself to the other. This includes both
descriptive and evaluative information (Harris, Dersch, & Mittal, 1999). Berg
and Derlega (1987) approach self-disclosure from a personality trait perspective.
Self-disclosure can also be understood from an interpersonal process perspec-
tive: on this view, it is the process which occurs when individuals interact with
each other, rather than any characteristic of either or both participants, which
is then seen as giving rise to self-disclosure (Dindia, 2002).
Self-disclosure is thus a complicated and dynamic process (Harris et al., 1999)
affected by innumerable contextual and cultural factors in addition to individual
NP, 2007 (4) Factors contributing to verbal self-disclosure 363
differences, personal motives and the actual contents of disclosures. Although

the literature on self-disclosure is extensive and complex by nature, most of the
empirical work within psychology, largely conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, has
addressed a small number of self-disclosure phenomena (Collins & Miller, 1994).
To date, little has been done to provide an overarching view of self-disclosure,
which has been described in literature somewhat disparate in nature, in a variety
of scientific fields, such as social or communication sciences, organizational
research or cultural studies. Several perspectives inside psychology have con-
sidered the phenomenon from different points of view: taking account of its
individual, socio-cultural, and clinical aspects. Thus the purpose of this paper is
to integrate empirical evidence from different areas covering four decades, and to
present a broad review of the phenomenon by outlining the characteristics of the
discloser and the recipient that promote or prevent self-disclosing, the relation-
ship between the discloser and the recipient, some situational and cultural factors
affecting self-disclosure, and the benefits and risks of self-disclosing.
Features of the discloser

Individual characteristics
Because self-disclosure involves the communication of typically intimate
material about oneself, there is reason to believe that its patterns might vary
according to individual, or personality-related, differences (MacDonald, Kessel,
& Fuller, 1972). McAllister and Bregman (1985) emphasize the role of the ‘base-
line’; the variable amount of, and tendency towards, self-disclosure that differs
from person to person, and takes (or would take) place without the compelling
influence of interpersonal interaction, which persuades one speaker to match
the disclosures of the other party.
While the effects of the baseline for self-disclosure depend on the individual,
empirical studies have shown that certain personality characteristics in themselves
promote, and others prevent, appropriate self-disclosing. Flexibility in its various
forms is generally seen to ease interpersonal contact-making. It also contributes
to meaningful and adjusted self-disclosure, appearing as an ability to vary the
intimacy of the self-revelation across a number of different targets and situations;
thus it is positively related to both affective empathy and the perception of facilita-
tive responding (Neimeyer, Banikiotes, & Winum, 1979). It seems to be the case
that it is high, rather than low-flexible disclosers, who are more likely to recognize
disclosure that is inappropriately high (Neimeyer & Banikiotes, 1981).
Secondly, shyness, a significant predictor of loneliness, and low sociability
are personality variables generally known to reduce verbal communication and
make it more difficult (Schmidt & Fox, 1995). Many shy individuals have prob-
364 Emmi Ignatius & Marja Kokkonen NP, 2007 (4)
lems meeting people, making new friends and expressing their opinions; these
difficulties, which are especially likely to manifest themselves in large groups and
with strangers, are largely products of the excessive self-consciousness of the shy
(Lawrence & Bennet, 1992). Shy students are reluctant to initiate conversation
activities, ask questions, or add new ideas to ongoing discussions; they talk less
than non-shy students during most interactions and do not engage the teacher on
a personal level (Zimbardo, 1977). In men the role of toughness (defined as an
aspect of, at least Western, masculine ideology; being strong and confident), in
addition to shyness, predicts general difficulties in emotional expression and, in
particular, restricts affectionate behaviour between men (Bruch, 2002).
Whereas self-disclosure as one of the fundamentals of human social behaviour

has often been regarded as a part of a healthy personality (e.g., Jourard, 1971),
neuroticism has often been assumed to be connected to terse (or a small amount
of) self-disclosure; but the evidence for this is conflicting. Sometimes no con-
sistent relationship has been reported between self-disclosure and neuroticism
(e.g., Stanley & Bownes, 1966); occasionally, neurotic women have been found
to disclose less than non-neurotic women (Pedersen & Higbee, 1969), while
neurotic men have been shown to disclose more (Pedersen & Breglio, 1968)
or less (Cunningham & Strassberg, 1981) than non-neurotic men. Perhaps the
most interesting conclusion concerning the effects of neuroticism is that which
links it to an unsuitable, or norm-ignoring, style of self-disclosure rather than to
an excessive, or to an insufficient, amount. Chaikin, Derlega, Bayma and Shaw
(1975) hypothesize that neurotics do not recognize the hints present in the
situation indicating the inappropriate character of their self-disclosure; whereas
Cunningham and Strassberg (1981) attribute inappropriate disclosure, or neglect
of the reciprocity norm either to unawareness of the existence of the norm or to
reluctance to conform to it.
Emotional states
Self-disclosure is also related to an individual’s prevailing emotional state.
A positive mood, if associated with social, expansive, approach motivation,
increases the likelihood of outgoing actions, which may offer the possibility of
either social or intrinsic reinforcement (Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980).
Even though an individual’s positive mood is perhaps a primary accelerator of
social exchange, emotional episodes, also regardless of their tone, may arouse
in us the need for social interaction, usually consisting of some sort of self-
disclosure. If after those emotional episodes we experience recurring thoughts
and images relating to them, a situation called the social sharing of emotion
is created (Rimé, 1989; Rimé, Mesquita, Philippot, & Boca, 1991). It includes
the evocation of the emotion in a socially-shared language, and requires an

addressee at least at the symbolic level – somebody with whom to communi-
cate openly about the circumstances of the emotion-eliciting event and one’s
own feelings and emotional reactions to it (Luminet, Bouts, Delie, Manstead,
& Rimé, 2000). Such incitement to speak about and share the experience with
others is manifested after even relatively minor or moderate emotion-inducing
events (see Rimé, Philippot, Boca, & Mesquita, 1992 for a review).
As far as the secondary social sharing of emotion (the listener will later feel the
need to share the emotional narrative he/she has heard with a third person) is
concerned, Christophe and Rimé (1997) further suggest that there are personal,
interpersonal and collective motives for this: 1) when listening to the emotional
episode of another person people store dense dynamic information that needs to
be verbally processed, and exposure to the emotional narrative challenges aspects
of the self, the reconstruction of which requires interaction with significant others,
2) repeating exciting emotional narratives may enhance the teller’s social visibility
and social interaction, and 3) secondary social sharing contributes to the spread-
ing of emotional knowledge within a community (see also Rimé, 1995).
There is some evidence that exposure to positive emotional episodes acceler-
ates and enhances the social sharing effect (Christophe & DiGiacomo, 1995);
that emotional intensity provides a good explanation for variations in the extent
of social sharing (the stronger emotion, the more social sharing; Luminet et al.,
2000); and that this relation between emotional intensity and social sharing is
not a linear but rather a step function: sharing takes place only after a critical
threshold of emotional intensity is exceeded (Rimé, Finkenauer, Luminet, Zech,
& Philippot, 1998; Luminet et al., 2000).
If positive emotions, or emotional episodes of virtually any kind, enhance self-
disclosures, so do poignantly negative mood states. According to Stiles’ (1987)
fever-model of self-disclosure, people tend to disclose more when steeped in
psychological distress such as fear, depression, anxiety or anger. The postulated
correlation has been found both in psychotherapy clients and psychologically
disturbed groups (e.g., Burchill & Stiles, 1988) and in sound university students
(Stiles, Shuster, & Harrigan, 1992). The fever model argues that disclosure directly
or indirectly helps relieve psychological distress, although this has not been con-
sistently proved. Even though the client’s voluble self-disclosure in psychotherapy
is regarded as an expression of good therapeutic process, it does not necessarily
guarantee that the therapy will end successfully (Stiles et al., 1992).
Loneliness is likewise a negative mood state generally linked to self-disclosure.
But loneliness has often been shown to decrease the self-disclosing tendency
instead of increasing it. Ginter (1982) has found that lonely people negatively
assess their interactional skills, and are not eager to disclose anything personal
about themselves to others. While on the one hand, self-disclosure might well
serve to reduce loneliness, the lack of social skills typical of lonely people may, on
the contrary, serve to exacerbate their state of loneliness (Schwab, Scalise, Ginter,
& Whipple, 1998). The recipient’s reaction mediates the relation of self-disclosure
to loneliness (Stokes, 1987): in particular, rejected disclosures of negative infor-
mation are likely to produce feelings of loneliness.
Lonely and non-lonely individuals do differ from each other regarding self-
disclosure, both self-perceived and actual (Solano, Batten, & Parish, 1982).
Both lonely men and women generally disclosed information pertaining to less
intimate topics to opposite-sex partners (compared to same-sex partners), but
what is more, in regard to same-sex friends, lonely females associated a low

level of self-disclosure with their loneliness, whereas lonely males did not. That
is because females expect to engage in intimate conversation (also) in their same-
sex friendships, but lonely males associate their loneliness specifically with not
having opposite-sex conversation partners (Solano et al., 1982). Davis (1976),
on the contrary, describes how average college students tend to engage in more
intimate self-disclosure to an opposite-sex acquaintance than they do to a same-
sex one. Matsushima and Shiomi (2001) also found that young people who were
non-disclosing about internal aspects of self (e.g., information concerning their
personality and negative experiences) tended to feel lonely – and felt strongly
that they did not and/or could not get along with their friends. Furthermore, it
seems that lonely people are not receptive to cues signalling that a low level of
intimacy is expected that might be present in a conversation: they reported higher
levels of familiarity with the partner after a relatively shallow conversation than
did the non-lonely participants, who apparently reacted to the lower level of
intimacy during the discussion (Solano et al., 1982). One possible explanation for
the reduced level of disclosure of the lonely may be found in the work of Jones,
Freemon and Goswick (1981), who reported that lonely people tended not to rely
on other people much, or to like them.
Motivational aspects
Because reciprocating a partner’s thoughts and feelings is one major way that
we can demonstrate our identification with a conversation partner, people might
have an unconscious need for social integration or identification which they
seek for interlocutors to satisfy (Giles, Coupland, & Coupland, 1991).Validating
one’s self-concept by obtaining the support and understanding of the other
person may be a major function of friendships and love relationships – and
this validation depends on disclosing the relevant information and thus making
oneself vulnerable (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977).
There are, however, many other motivations for self-disclosure than just a basic
need for social relationships and maintaining communication. Disclosers may,
of course, disclose partly out of an unconscious need (Giles et al., 1991), but
it is also usually in a person’s best rational interest to try to convey a particular
impression of him/herself in the presence of others (Goffman, 1956). In the
fields of social psychology and organizational research, the term ‘impression
management’ refers to the attempt to generate as favourable an impression of
ourselves as possible, particularly through both verbal and nonverbal techniques
of self-presentation (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Self-presentation should not
necessarily be understood only as deliberate manipulation, because the broader
understanding of the term comes close to showing oneself (either consciously

or unconsciously) to be a particular kind of person for various audiences (Kelly,
2000). This act could be understood as an aspect of self-disclosure, i.e., disclosing
certain elements of oneself to certain audiences. It has, for example, been noted
that psychotherapy clients cannot avoid trying to construct desirable images of
themselves in the presence of their therapist. Being evaluated favourably by their
therapist is so important to the clients, that the aforementioned positive image
construction happens automatically – much like communication itself – and self-
presentation is an inherent part of interpersonal communication (Kelly, 2000).
Adequate self-presentation is a necessary element in all successful social
encounters (Goffman, 1956), because the maintenance of encounters depends on
the ability to convey an appropriate impression to an audience (Hamid, 1994).
The two main self-presentational motives, according to Baumeister (1982), are to
please the audience (in order to obtain some sort of reward; for example, getting
an audience, such as a psychotherapist, to think favourably of oneself) and to
construct one’s public self congruent to one’s ideal self. Indeed, as Kelly (2000)
notes, the presence of an audience has been found to be a crucial element of
internalizing one’s self-presentations (see e.g. Schlenker, Dlugolecki, & Doherty,
1994) – just like validating one’s self-concept may underlie disclosure processes
more generally. In other words, what people tell others about themselves is likely
to become an important part of who they are (Kelly, 2000). Social scientists have
highlighted six verbal self-presentational behaviours (Gardner & Martinko, 1988)
which could be understood as specific types of direct or indirect verbal disclo-
sure through which individuals willingly present themselves: self-descriptions
(verbalizations concerning personal characteristics, Gardner & Martinko, 1988);
accounts (alleviating explanations of caused predicaments, Schlenker, 1980);
apologies (convincing the audience that an undesirable event was not “the real
me”, Schlenker, 1980); entitlements and enhancements (exploiting a desirable
event by emphasizing its favourability and one’s responsibility for it, Schlenker,
1980); flattery (complimenting others in order to appear perceptive and likeable,
Jones, 1964); and favours (doing pleasant things in order to gain approval, Jones,
1964).
Sex and gender differences

There are more studies on the role of sex (differences) in self-disclosure than
on any other issue regarding self-disclosure (Dindia, 2002). In some studies
females have been found to disclose more than males (e.g., Chelune, 1976a), in
other studies males have seemed to disclose more than females (e.g., Kobocow,
McGuire, & Blau, 1983), and sometimes there has not been any difference at all
(e.g., Shapiro & Swensen, 1977). According to Dindia’s (2002) meta-analysis,

women do disclose slightly more than men; but sex is not a stable individual-
difference variable that would consistently predict the level of self-disclosure
across sex of partner, and the process of self-disclosure itself is more similar
than different for men and women.
Analyzing variations in self-disclosure to same-sex acquaintances, Shaffer,
Pegalis and Cornell (1992) concluded that sex-role identity – femininity, mascu-
linity or androgyny – is a better predictor of individuals’ contextual variations in
self-disclosure than is biological sex per se. Highly feminine individuals disclosed
more intimate information and were more emotionally invested in their revela-
tions when they anticipated informally chatting further with their partners (social/
expressive context). But contrary to the expectations of the researchers, masculin-
ity did not promote meaningful self-disclosure, not even when the participants
anticipated that they would cooperate closely with their partners in a decision-
making task (collaborative/instrumental context). Androgynous participants (who
scored high in both masculinity and femininity), however, were more emotionally
invested, more topically responsive, and somewhat more intimate across contexts
in the content of their disclosures than was any other group of participants. The
authors argue this could mean that androgynous people are flexible individuals
who can, when disclosing personal information, respond appropriately to a wider
variety of situations (Shaffer et al., 1992).
Features of the recipient

Individual characteristics
Self-disclosure requires two (or more) participants. The act of self-disclosure thus
presupposes – and affects – a recipient. In fact, the most reliable finding in the
literature regarding self-disclosure is called the ‘dyadic effect’, or ‘reciprocity
effect’; self-disclosure generates self-disclosure in a recipient (McAllister &
Bregman, 1985), which has also been called ‘reactance’ (Brehm, 1966).
It seems that whether self-disclosure is approached as an interpersonal process

from the viewpoint of reciprocity theory, or from the viewpoint of personality
attributes advancing or hindering it, there is one characteristic that is of crucial
importance: trust. If trust is considered a personality attribute (see Rotter, 1971,
1980), trust facilitates self-disclosure both as a situational experience of the dis-
closer – a trustful atmosphere – and as a felt attribute of the recipient of personal
information. As an attribute of the receiver, trust has two sides: on the one hand,
the recipient of personal disclosures is obviously seen as trustworthy, at least in
the immediate disclosure situation, but on the other hand, and perhaps somewhat
surprisingly, he/she is trustful or seen to trust the person who discloses. Talking
about the nature of this trust, and the reciprocity effect present in all successful
self-disclosure, Rubin’s (1973, 1974) theory of modelling and trust offers one
possible explanation. Rubin (1975) argues that one or both of these processes,
operating also simultaneously, produce reciprocity in self-disclosure. Modelling is
based on situational demands: when modelling, we adapt our degree of intimacy
to the degree of intimacy of the conversational partner – which works as a hint or
a precept for our own choice of the above-mentioned degree. Through trust we
respond to the other’s self-disclosure, by reflecting and expressing our orientation
toward him/her. The process has its roots in the general moral norm of reciprocity
Gouldner (1960) depicts – in that trust is a gift given to the other in return for his/
her expression of trust by disclosing personal information. Confidentiality, as an
expression of trust, plays a part in self-disclosure, too: For example, physicians’
assurances of confidentiality significantly enhance adolescents’ willingness to dis-
close sensitive information about their mental health, substance use and sexuality
as well as their willingness to seek future health care from the same physician
(Ford, Millstein, Halpern-Felsher, & Irwin, 1997). The clinical importance of these
findings will be magnified, if adolescents with higher risks of health problems
become more likely to disclose sensitive information and seek future health care
from physicians who explicitly raise the issue of confidentiality, and assure their
patients that this will be preserved (Ford et al., 1997). Along the same lines,
Woods and McNamara (1980), in a study designed as an analogue to the coun-
selling relationship, showed that calling confidentiality in question influenced
college students’ self-disclosure: if students received instructions which suggested
that confidentiality might be lacking, they were less likely to disclose information
about themselves.
When deciding whether to disclose personal information – whether to trust or
not to trust – we always need to weigh the risks related to disclosing. According
to Yalom (1970), these include the topic and its importance to us, the concern that
the disclosure may not have conveyed the message in the way it was intended,
concern about how the other will react to the disclosed information, and uncer-
tainty about receiving the kind of response that was hoped for.
Besides, as Dindia (2002) aptly sums up the findings of earlier research, self-
disclosure tends not to be reciprocated on a “tit for tat” or a turn-by-turn basis,
and the interpersonally-competent response to one person’s self-disclosure may
or may not consist of immediate reciprocation, and may simply result in offering
an empathic concern, for instance. It can still be said that self-disclosure does
appear to be reciprocal within a given conversation, even though an individual’s
self-disclosure might also have a positive effect on a partner’s self-disclosure in
some general sense that is not manifested by a certain type of response (Dindia,
2002; Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenny, 1997).
In a way, receiving a disclosure and not rejecting it could be seen as a recip-

rocative act itself. We reciprocate disclosure because the conversational partner
has cued us as to what he or she considers appropriate in a given conversation
(Chaikin & Derlega, 1974b). Could it not be said that we listen to disclosures for
the same reason: to fulfill an aspiration to offer an appropriate response? It has
been shown that empathy and altruism have to do with self-disclosure (Brems,
2001). According to Barrett-Lennard (1981; cited in Brems, 2001), in the process
of empathy the persons involved have to be able to fluently switch roles from an
empathic listener to a willing self-discloser and vice versa.
The attractiveness of the conversation partner has its effect on how much we
tell him or her of ourselves. In Rubin’s (1975) study, the experimenter and assistant
thought the male assistants’ physical attractiveness positively correlated with the
amount of both male and female participants’ self-disclosure: the more attractive
a male assistant appeared, the more the participants disclosed. The trend was
not so straightforward among the female assistants. The appearance of a female
assistant who was rated favourable by the experimenters only increased the self-
disclosure of males; it decreased that of females! The experimenters thought that
this had to do not only with a “halo phenomenon” of positive attributes (beautiful
people are easily seen as sensitive, kind, sociable etc.) on the part of men, but
also with the fact that women may perceive other beautiful women as threatening
or unapproachable.
Social relationship with the recipient

The very nature of the social relationship between the discloser and the reci-
pient has its effects on the phenomenon of disclosure. Jourard (1959) and
Certner (1973) have suggested that the amount of our self-disclosure is con-
nected to how much we like the recipient. In their meta-analytic review, Collins
and Miller (1994) have summarized the literature on self-disclosure and liking
as follows: 1) people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more
than people who disclose less, 2) people disclose more to those whom they
initially like, and c) people like others as a result of having disclosed to them.
What this means from the standpoint of the recipient is clear: the recipient is
typically likeable, or liked by the discloser. There may be a U-shaped curvilinear
relationship between the phenomena of self-disclosure and liking, argues Cozby
(1972), whose empirically-supported model suggests that we like a person most
when he or she discloses moderately – that is to say we like least those people
who disclose either very little, or very much.
In the light of the literature discussed above, it would be reasonable to assume
liking to presuppose an emotional rapport of some sort – and consequently a
target who is familiar up to a certain point. People are very frequently led to play
the role of recipient of an emotional disclosure communicated by some other per-
son – and in all age groups these targets are most often recruited among intimates
(parents, siblings, friends, spouse/companion) (Rimé et al., 1992). As Christophe
and Rimé (1997) justifiably note, it is interesting to ask why people so willingly
lend themselves to listening to and sharing in emotional accounts – especially in
view of the avoidance forces often triggered by the narratives. A plausible answer
thus lies in their particular social relationship to the person who shared it with
them – if non-intimates can escape a potentially painful or ego-threatening situ-
ation, commitment and social bonds are usually too strong for intimate receivers
to do so (Christophe & Rimé, 1997). There is also empirical evidence for the view
that the more intimately any stranger introduces him/herself, the more intimately
we are prone to disclose to him/her (Davis & Skinner, 1974).
Altman (1973) has argued that, in general, people tend to reciprocate superfi-
cial, non-intimate disclosures more readily than deep and intimate disclosures.
But despite this, and the obvious relationship between the recipient’s intimacy
and self-disclosure, everyday life offers us plenty of proof of how strangers, in
particular, get to hear openly-told, intimate revelations characterized by a degree
of honesty which a close acquaintance could never expect: the social status of
a previously unknown stranger may sometimes increase the extent to which he/
she may receive personal disclosures. Why is this so? Altman (1973) thinks that
the norm of reciprocity has a special status in the early stages of a social relation-
ship. Derlega, Wilson and Chaikin (1976) claim that a friendship is based on trust
developed previously, and should not be shaken by a single reciprocity-neglecting
“mishap”, whereas all that strangers share may be limited to that moment in time.
Reciprocal self-disclosure seems to be more common in shallow contexts (Cozby,
1972). Even though we do not want to lose our friend’s respect for us by disclosing
something negative (an unnecessary worry as far as a stranger is concerned), that
does not mean we disclose more to strangers. The responsibility for reciprocating
just happens to concern strangers more heavily than friends (Derlega et al., 1976).
However, there is once again some contradictory evidence which suggests that
self-disclosure processes are similar in the beginning and in the more advanced
stages of relationships, and that reciprocity of self-disclosure occurs within con-
versations with both strangers and intimates (Dindia, 2002).
The number and status of the recipients

Broadly understood, self-disclosure presupposes an audience at least at a
symbolic level, such as in information networks or Internet-based chat groups.
Whether the audience receiving the disclosure is one person or a group of
people also matters. Bostrom (1970) gives an illuminating example: moving

from a dyadic interaction to a three-person group results in an increase from
two to nine potential interactions – and it is indeed more usual than theoreti-
cally expected in small groups to address the group as a whole in one’s speech
instead of confining oneself to dyadic or more private comments. Although
this means more communication at the group level, in actual exchanges indi-
viduals have fewer opportunities to communicate in larger rather than smaller
groups because they experience greater competition for time (Bostrom, 1970).
This offers an explanation for Gardner and Martinko’s (1988) observation that
primary and secondary school principals describe themselves more often
during dyadic communication than during any other type of communication,
for example, in group situations. It seems logical that dyadic and small-scale
situations are more fertile for intimate self-disclosures than group situations,
even though the felt cohesion in well-balanced and active small groups may
tempt disclosing to some degree. In line with previous research Gardner and
Martinko (1988) also point out that superiors and high status audiences were
preferred targets for principals’ verbal self-presentation.
From the self-presentational point of view, certain audiences may have special
values or meanings for constructing certain identities, whereas other audiences
(e.g. an audience composed of much younger people than the self-presenter) may
not matter to an individual, even for his/her general public image (Baumeister,
1982). It is often more important to be favourably recognised by one’s supe-
riors than by one’s subordinates when it comes to public relations and career
opportunities. On the other hand, the dogmatic, or evaluative attitudes, and the
feelings of superiority of the recipient, as well as his or her strivings to control
the behaviour of the discloser tend to lessen the probability of disclosure (Gibb,
1965). When it comes to self-disclosure by selective self-presentation, the high
but positively-toned social status of the receiver may enhance it; but arrogant,
“superior” attitudes may not. Furthermore, it seems to be more appropriate for
a person of a lower status to disclose something personal to a person of higher

status than vice versa (Goffman, 1967).
Sex and gender differences

Recipients of different sexes may be treated differently in certain situations. It
seems, for example, that there are differences between sexes when it comes
to disclosing information concerning academic (or some such) performance to
vulnerable others. Heatherington, Burns and Gustafson (1998) found that female
college students predicted their own grade point averages (GPA) to be lower
when talking to a vulnerable other (in real life a confederate of the researcher)
who was worried about his/her academic success, while male students openly
predicted their own GPA to be higher when talking to a vulnerable other. The
lowest predictions that women gave were to the vulnerable male, whereas men
predicted a higher (but not higher than they later earned) GPA to an explicitly
vulnerable male or female – and indicated the most concern for the non-
vulnerable (not worried of his academic success) male partner’s feelings, and
for being perceived by him as likeable and intelligent. In addition to traditional
sex-role behaviour – men may perceive that predicting higher GPA will enhance
their status with women – authors suggested an explanation deriving from self-
in-relation theory (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991): Compared
to men, due to differential developmental influences, women’s identities and
self-definitions are more closely connected to their relationships; they are
supposedly more sensitive to the feelings of others and more concerned with
preserving a sense of harmony and mutual satisfaction in the relationship –
being more collectivist and less individualistic relative to men (Heatherington
et al., 1998).
There are also sex differences in the receipt of self-disclosures itself. Because
traditional sex-role stereotypes suggest that women are more skillful commu-
nicators and are more concerned with issues of intimacy than men, they are
also expected to perceive the role of the recipient of disclosure as more socially
rewarding, whereas men may feel more threatened by unsolicited intimate con-
versation (Collins & Miller, 1994). When one considers simultaneously the sex
of both the discloser and the recipient, the communication acts become more
and more complicated. McGuire, Graves and Blau (1985) reported how men
disclosed more than women to both male and female interviewers. But while the
disclosure of females did not vary according to the sex of the interviewer, males
surprisingly disclosed more to male than to female interviewers. The experiment-
ers concluded that men felt a need to compete or boast about themselves in order
to emphasize their masculinity in the interviews dealing with sexual attitudes and
behaviour (McGuire et al., 1985).

When disclosure to empathically responsive strangers includes emotional
expression, it elicits “challenge”-type (a positive motivational state: effective cop-
ing and perception of sufficient resources) cardiovascular reactivity in same-sex
dyads, but “threat”-type (a primarily negative motivational state: negative affect,
poorer task performance, behavioural inhibition, limited focus) cardiovascular
reactivity in opposite-sex dyads (Mendes, Reis, Seery, & Blascovich, 2003). The
moderating effects of gender context on cardiovascular reactivity may be due
to the greater familiarity of same-sex interaction (reducing uncertainty about the
partner’s expected reactions), participants’ supposedly greater self-perceived
knowledge and abilities in same-sex interaction, or the potential for romantic

undertones inherent in opposite-sex interaction (especially among college-age
students like the participants of the study) (Mendes et al., 2003).
McGuire et al. (1985) found in their interview study that men disclosed most
in videotaped interviews, and women when their disclosures were not taped;
but men disclosed more than women across situations. The results might sug-
gest greater sensitivity to confidentiality issues on the women’s side, but the
experimenters again concluded that this had to do with male socio-stereotypical
inclination for boasting in order to acquire the masculine role.
Situational factors of self-disclosure

Physical environment and contact
In addition to the attributes of the discloser or the recipient of disclosure, factors
concerning communication setting and environment also play a role in self-
disclosure. For example, the physical room environment seems significant. In
the context of an “architecturally soft” psychological counselling room (a rug
on the floor, framed pictures hanging on the wall, an upholstered and cushio-
ned armchair and indirect lighting), clients disclosed significantly more about
themselves than they did in an “architecturally hard” room (brown asphalt tile
floor, bare cement block walls and overhead bright and glaring fluorescent
lighting) (Chaikin, Derlega, & Miller, 1976). The “hard” architecture might be
supposed to illuminate salient status differences between counsellor and cli-
ent, which might reduce the amount of self-disclosure; whereas an attractive,
“soft” and thus warmer room might be more similar to the environment in
which friends interact, thereby facilitating self-disclosure (Chaikin & Derlega,
1974c). Similarly, the size of the room, and the number of people inside it –
the atmosphere of crowding – may have an impact on self-disclosure. When
the effects of intrusion (leaning forward, physical contact and looking directly
into the other person’s eyes) and goal-blocking (interrupting and avoiding eye
contact as participants talked) were studied, it was noticed that the smaller the
room was the less the participants were willing to discuss personal matters
(Sundstrom, 1975).
Physical or bodily contact or touching, on the other hand, may increase the
willingness to self-disclose (Cooper & Bowles, 1973), but taken together, the stud-
ies of the effects of physical touch on self-disclosure have yielded contradictory
findings. Invasion of “personal space” (Sommer, 1969), for example, has various
adverse consequences such as feelings of embarrassment, bewilderment or resist-
ance (e.g. Albert & Dabbs, 1970). Privacy can be viewed as a process of boundary
regulation, and our self-disclosing outputs and inputs manifest our control over
our privacy in social relationships (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977).

Cultures differ when it comes to the effects of physical contact on self-dis-
closing. Jourard and Rubin (1968) explored the relationship of self-disclosure
and touching or being touched by parents or friends of both sexes in American
university students. Touching and verbal contact did not correlate appreciably,
though in females the two styles of intimacy were more closely associated than
in males. Females, who generally touched or were touched more than males,
touched and were touched by their parents and friends in the context of a
verbally-disclosing relationship, whereas in men the verbal intimacy was not
necessarily at all associated with physical intimacy (Jourard & Rubin, 1968). In
a similar study conducted in Israel, males touched more than females, while
females disclosed more verbally. Israeli high school students’ touching and self-
disclosure were clearly connected: people could be more or less touching and
disclosing (Lomranz & Shapira, 1974).
The communication channel

Self-disclosure is also affected by whether we disclose face-to-face, or via
telephone or communication networks. Comparisons between communications
taking place face-to-face and via telephone have usually indicated that disclo-
sing on the telephone is easier. A telephone is “an instrument that is imme-
diate, anonymous, intimate, single-channeled, dyadic, temporal and accessible.
During telephone counseling a telephoner is in complete control of the situation
and can hang up at will” (Bermack, 1989, 260). In addition to this, many may
“find it less embarrassing, anxiety-provoking or shameful to discuss problems
over the telephone” (Lester, 1977, 463).
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is nowadays studied extensively,
and for good reason. When face-to-face conversation and CMC were compared
in Joinson’s (2001) enquiry, the results demonstrated greater computer-mediated
self-disclosure. Visually anonymous participants (no video camera attached to the
computer screen) similarly disclosed more than non-visually anonymous partici-

pants. This is probably due to the interaction between anonymity (i.e., reduced
public self-awareness) and heightened private self-awareness: visual anonymity
as well as a strengthened private self-awareness or reduced public self-awareness
can each influence the results by enhancing the predisposition for self-disclosure
(Joinson, 2001). Patients also seem to admit more symptoms to their doctors
via CMC than they would have admitted face-to-face (e.g., Robinson & West,
1992). Respondents of virtual surveys also seem to reveal more of themselves
than respondents of traditional pencil and paper -surveys, and are less likely to
provide responses designed to enhance their own social desirability (Kiesler &
Sproull, 1986).
Walther (1996, 34) suggests that computer-mediated social interaction is even
“more stereotypically socially desirable or intimate than normal” – in a word
‘hyperpersonal’. Reingold (1993) claims that new, meaningful relationships can
be formed in cyberspace precisely because of, rather than despite its limitations.
According to the hyperpersonal communication framework of CMC, under
certain circumstances, CMC users construct hyperbolic and idealized images
of their virtual partners (Walther, Slovacek, & Tidwell, 2001). In this framework
the senders, the receivers, the channel and the feedback are all involved in the
process of hyperpersonal interaction (Walther et al., 2001): First, message-creating
communicators may engage in selective self-presentation. CMC users may easily
inspect, edit and revise their messages before sending them. There is no acciden-
tal transmission of unintended nonverbal behaviour/physical-appearance cues, or
need to scan the environment or attend to partners’ nonverbal cues, as in face-
to-face situations. It is also noted that de-individuation – a state that is typified
by reduced public and private self-awareness, and one which is often found in
CMC users – subjects any bit of social information transferred (by the context or
content) to over-attribution by receivers. If partners experience a salient group
identity, these attributions work to accentuate assumed similarities and shared
norms, which produces more positive social evaluations. Besides, in contrast to
face-to-face situations, CMC co-participants need not be active at the same time,
so they can concentrate on both the task and the social dimensions; which results
in more intended and desirable message-construction. All of this results in self-
fulfilling prophecies that are substantiated when a message receiver perceives a
partner favourably and then acts toward that partner on the basis of this impres-
sion. Individuals may utilize tactical self-presentations as a means of establishing
particular relationships with others that are congruent with their preferred modes
of dealing with the social world (Leary, 1979).
Although media developers and consultants nowadays advocate using video
or face-to-face situations rather than CMC, Walther et al. (2001) have poignantly
demonstrated that CMC groups that can afford the time are actually better off
interpersonally building affection and social attraction without visual cues.
Researchers namely noted that, although the presence of a photograph prior to
and during computer conferencing had positive effects on intimacy/affection and
social attractiveness in the short-term when communicating with unacquainted
CMC partners, the opposite was true among CMC partners who had known each
other online for a longer period of time – they experienced less affection and
social attraction when a picture was introduced compared to when it was not.
Cultural aspects of self-disclosure

A variety of norms and cultural expectations are concerned with self-disclosure.
In Western societies a certain degree of self-disclosure in the form of individuali-
stic initiation and presentation skills is a prerequisite for a “fair” social exchange
(Hamid, 1994). In cultures of collectivistic orientation, knowledge of the social
situation in which the encounter takes place, and prior knowledge of the rules
of conduct are more influential in determining an individual’s behaviour than
personal dispositions (Hamid, 1994).
According to Chen (1995), cultural differences in self-disclosure derive
from characteristic verbal styles and different cultural values. Americans have
been described as more disclosing than Germans (Lewin, 1984) and Japanese
(Barnlund, 1989). In Steel’s (1991) study, Asian university students in the USA
disclosed less personal information than Caucasian students. The degree of
disclosure is typically evaluated along the dimensions of depth (quality) and
breadth (quantity) (Collins & Miller, 1994). It appears that a greater depth of self-
disclosure is associated with participants of non-Western cultural origin, while
greater amounts of lesser-depth self-disclosure, and more positively-intended
disclosiveness are associated with American participants (Wheeless, Erickson, &
Behrens, 1986).
The styles and rules of self-disclosure vary according to geographical area and
subculture. For instance, the importance of self-presentational concerns may well
vary between cultures (Baumeister, 1982). The predominant political or religious
ideologies of the West define the meaning and purpose of an individual’s life by
his/her relation to external entities, and so the person is in a permanent state of
evaluative dependence on these external entities (Baumeister, 1982).
In addition to cultural differences at the socio- or meta-cultural level, there
are also differences at the individual/behavioural level. Chaikin and Derlega
(1974a) describe a “stranger norm” represented in their study. High school
-aged youngsters in the United States witnessed the videotaped discussions of
couples comprising two women. Some of the women were described as hav-
ing just met each other, and in these cases the amount of their self-disclosure
significantly influenced measures of the degree to which the young participants
liked the women and expressed a willingness to become friends with them: it
was considered inappropriate for two women who had just met to self-disclose
intimately and familiarly – in other words, there was a cultural expectation toward
more low-keyed and controlled conduct. Those people who disclose volubly to
strangers are seen as more emotionally unstable and weaker than the people who
disclose less, at least in most Western societies (Chelune, 1976b). To the extent
to which it is approved at all, more intimate self-disclosure is usually seen more
appropriate for women. Men who disclose intimately to new acquaintances are
more likely to be considered cultural deviants, or even misfits, than women who
exhibit the same behaviour (e.g., Hill & Stull, 1987). The same also holds true the
other way around: scanty male disclosure to an unknown recipient is regarded
not only as more appropriate but also more likeable behaviour than scanty female
disclosure (Chelune, 1976b).
For Middle-Eastern men, self-communication by touching is more allowable
than for men in Western countries such as the USA, and so they have signifi-
cantly greater body accessibility than their U.S. counterparts, whereas in Israel
the cultural norm may limit the use of touching behaviour for women as a com-
municative mode, and basically restrict them to the verbal dimension (Lomranz
& Shapira, 1974).
Advantages and disadvantages of self-disclosing

Research indicates that self-disclosure has both useful and harmful repercus-
sions. The ability to reveal one’s feelings and thoughts that increases trust (Rubin,
1973) and liking (Collins & Miller, 1994) is a fundamental skill in developing and
maintaining social relationships (Chaikin & Derlega, 1976). According to the the-
ory of social penetration (Altman & Taylor, 1973), relationships develop alongside
the gradual deepening and expansion of self-disclosure. The level of reciprocal
self-disclosure can be perceived as a barometer of developing intimacy (Taylor,
1979). Abstaining from self-disclosure while at the same time asking the other
to tell more about himself or herself understandably weakens the capabilities of
the relationship to develop (Sermat & Smyth, 1973). In addition, self-disclosure
seems to facilitate the perception of disclosed features as positive; Fishbein and
Laird (1979) reported that participants who disclosed the results of a supposed
test of their intellectual abilities openly to others saw their own results as more
positive than participants who did not disclose their results.
Horowitz (1976) believes that talking about one’s trauma facilitates the under-
standing of the trauma and helps to organize thoughts relating to it. Further, in
the framework of obtaining clinical information from communication-disorder

patients, it is frequently stressed that the process of (a patient) telling one’s story
in a very personal perspective may be healing, in and of itself (e.g. Ireland &
Wooten, 1996). As someone shares his/her perspectives and others listen to
him/her without advising or judging, it is possible for both the narrator and the
listener to come to a better understanding of the experience (Simmons-Mackie
& Damico, 2001).
Verbal disclosure does not always have to be spoken (i.e., vocal) to be benefi-
cial to well-being; the written verbal expression of emotions has been shown to
improve health by reducing the activity of the autonomic nervous system (Berry
& Pennebaker, 1993); whereas emotional suppression, avoidance, and denial

impairs health (Mayne, 2001). With only a few exceptions (Honos-Webb, Harrick,
Stiles, & Park, 2000; Richards, Beal, Seagal, & Pennebaker, 2000; Stroebe,
Stroebe, Schut, Zech, & van den Bout, 2002), emotionally-invested writing about
trauma (Smyth, 1998) or about intensely positive experience (Burton & King,
2004) appears to be linked to better psychological and physical health.
Pennebaker and his colleagues have developed a simple and easy-to-use
intervention often termed ‘the Pennebaker writing disclosure paradigm’, which
is no doubt the most famous disclosure intervention at the moment. In this
intervention participants are asked to write about a traumatic personal experi-
ence for approximately 15-30 minutes once a day, typically for three to five days
(e.g. Pennebaker, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Glaser, 1988; Pennebaker, Mayne, & Francis,
1997); and even this short intervention has proven beneficial (Sheese, Brown,
& Graziano, 2004). The use of writing (or talking) interventions created e.g. by
Pennebaker is sometimes associated with temporary increases in negative emo-
tions, but the negative effect usually subsides after a while (Pennebaker et al.,
1988; Sheese et al., 2004). There is even evidence to suggest that simply talking
about a traumatic experience into a tape recorder (as if talking to a friend), for
as many minutes or days as writing about this experience would take place in
the actual writing paradigm, is just as beneficial as writing about the experience
(Murray & Segal, 1994).
Pennebaker (1992; Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999) argues that emotional expres-
sion activates traumatic memory in a way that makes possible its cognitive
processing – in which language has an essential role (Pennebaker, Mayne, &
Francis, 1997; see also Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003). According to
the exposure theory, repeated confronting, describing and reliving the negative
thoughts and feelings about one’s negative emotional experience should even-
tually lead to the extinction of those thoughts and feelings. This in turn should
then lead to reductions in posttraumatic stress symptoms (Frattaroli, 2006). The
number and length of disclosure sessions may thus be an important factor in the
effectiveness of disclosure interventions: the higher the “dosage” of disclosure,

the higher the exposure to emotional material, and therefore, the stronger the
alleviation of pain (Frattaroli, 2006).
A recent meta-analysis on experimental disclosure and its moderators
(Frattaroli, 2006) found that when it comes to beneficial health and psychologi-
cal consequences, experimental disclosing seems to be particularly effective, for
example, for participants with clear physical health problems, or for participants
with a history of trauma or stressors. Disclosure is also effective for paid par-
ticipants, or participants who disclose at home or in some other private setting;
for participants, who disclose over at least three disclosure sessions of at least
15 minutes each; for participants, who have follow-up periods of less than one
month; or for participants who write about more recent events or about previ-
ously undisclosed topics (Frattaroli, 2006). Disclosure inventions do not benefit
all people; they seem to be rather inefficient, for instance, for individuals who
grieve, or suffer from eating disorders or dissociative disorders (Frattaroli, 2006).
This is also the case for participants with secure attachment style, since they are
already better able to disclose in ways that further the adjustment process in their
everyday lives (Stroebe, Schut, & Stroebe, 2006).
Regardless of the indisputable advantages of self-disclosure, there are situations
where self-disclosure really does not pay. Personal in nature, self-disclosure car-
ries with it the risk of being misunderstood, criticized, rejected, or even exploited
(Sermat & Smyth, 1973). The risk of manipulation is also the higher, the weaker
the social skills of the discloser (Ginter, 1982). By disclosing themselves, people
expose their weaknesses to others, which may result in their being disliked even
by close friends (Matsushima & Shiomi, 2001). Negative reactions from others
to one’s disclosing might also reinforce feelings of self-blame (Ahrens, 2006).
Hatfield’s (1984) list of the negative effects of self-disclosure includes the fears of
exposure, abandonment, angry attacks, loss of control, destructive impulses and
losing one’s individuality.
Highly intimate disclosure can sometimes be assessed as inappropriate and a
violation of social norms (e.g., Chaikin & Derlega, 1974a), and it thus becomes
more of a liability than a social asset. This might especially be the case, if con-
siderably familiar revelation takes place between strangers: the disclosure might
leave the recipient embarrassed and unsure about how to respond (Collins &
Miller, 1994). The experience of excessive intimacy of disclosure may thus reduce
the likelihood of reciprocal reaction – which is exactly what the discloser is usu-
ally hoping for (Rubin, 1975).
Secrecy, refraining from speaking about something that is essential for one-
self, can be seen as the polar opposite of self-disclosure. The one who does not
disclose has something to hide (Bok, 1989). In certain rare cases, even secrecy
may be seen as a course of action worth considering; most importantly in the

light of escaping some negative consequences. It has still been argued that
especially those people whose identities are to some extent socially marginal or
stigmatized, but concealable from others (e.g., former prison inmates, those with
non-mainstream sexual interests or political views, incest survivors, epileptics
or HIV-positive people) are, due to their identity-concealing, exposed to situa-
tions where they hear negative comments and opinions about the social group
to which the person speaking does not know them to belong. Hearing such
opinions is likely to reinforce the negative effect of the marginalized identity on
the individual’s self-esteem (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). Even though Kelly (1998)
has found that patients, who keep some integral part of themselves (e.g., a more
fragile mental condition than they present outwardly) from their therapist, suffer
from fewer symptoms and lesser anxiety, secrecy is predominantly injurious to us.
Not only does the act of concealment require continuous effort, thus becoming
a long-term stressor, but concealment also prevents the individual from bringing
the aspect out into the open, where (only) it could be dealt with (Pennebaker,
1989). Research and theories on secrecy suggest, as summed up by Finkenauer,
Engels and Meeus (2002), that there are physical (health problems), psychological
(secret-keeping as a stress factor) and social (loneliness, shyness) disadvantages
to secrecy. When it comes to specified health risks, inhibiting or, in some way,
not talking about inescapable, emotional events or major life stressors has been
linked to recurrent unwanted thoughts, higher levels of anxiety and depression,
insomnia, and a variety of psychological, physical and psychosocial health prob-
lems (Pennebaker, 1997).
Discussion
Self-disclosure has been a subject of theoretical and empirical interest for
many scientific disciplines for a long time. In psychology alone, the roots
of the related literature date back to at least the 1950s. The psychological
approach to self-disclosure has traditionally been to recognize it as reciprocal
communication behavior crucial in the dynamics of different kinds of social
relationships and subjective well-being. It has sometimes been viewed as a
trait-like construct, i.e. the degree of self-disclosure varies from person to person
(McAllister & Bregman, 1985). At other times self-disclosure is seen as an entity
mutually invoked in dyadic or communal exchange, as something born out of
the responsibility to return the gift of trust (Gouldner, 1960), or to empathically
model the communication partner’s level of intimacy (Rubin, 1975).
Approaching the phenomenon of self-disclosure from the viewpoints of the
discloser and the recipient, certain conclusions can be made based upon the
existing scientific evidence. The tendency to disclose appears to be connected

with individual characteristics, emotional states and motivations. In addition, sex
and gender differences might also play a role, but the current body of evidence
does not lend itself to secure conclusions about their role. The individual charac-
teristics of the discloser increasing the likelihood of disclosure include a higher
baseline of disclosure (McAllister & Bregman, 1985) and psychological flexibility
(Neimeyer et al., 1979). On the other hand, shyness (e.g. Lawrence & Bennet,
1992) and low sociability (Schmidt & Fox, 1995) restrict self-disclosure in most
cases. The possible effects of neuroticism on self-disclosure are at the moment
unclear. Of emotional states, it can be claimed that both positive and negative
emotional moods or episodes seem to bring about in us a need to socially share

(e.g. Rimé, 1989) the emotion in question, or otherwise increase our emotional
self-disclosure, for example, in order to relieve psychological distress (Stiles,
1987). At least the feeling of loneliness seems to be an exception: it has been
found to generally decrease self-disclosure (e.g. Ginter, 1982). Motivationally
speaking, conscious or unconscious needs for social relationships and integration
(Derlega & Chaikin, 1977; Giles et al., 1991), along with the rational goals of cre-
ating successful social encounters (Goffman, 1956) by selective self-presentation,
also raise the levels of self-disclosure.
The individual characteristics of the recipient, the nature of the social relation-
ship between the discloser and the recipient, and the number and status of the
recipients all play a role in the process of receiving self-disclosures, along with
some sex and gender differences. Trust(worthiness) (Rotter, 1971, 1980; Rubin,
1975), empathy and altruism (Brems, 2001) as attributes of the recipient seem
to encourage disclosure to them. Also perceived attractiveness (Rubin, 1975),
likeability (Collins & Miller, 1994) and familiarity of the recipient (Rimé et al.,
1992) appear to have a similar impact. Intimates are often trusted with emotional
disclosures, but sometimes also strangers (e.g. Derlega et al., 1976) get to hear
intimate disclosures. Atmospheres of trust (Rubin, 1975) and confidentiality (e.g.
Ford et al., 1997), dyadic or small-scale interaction situations (Bostrom, 1970;
Gardner & Martinko, 1988) and non-dogmatic higher-status audiences (Gardner
& Martinko, 1988) generally tempt more disclosure compared to emphasized risks
related to sharing personal information (Yalom, 1970) present in the situation, or
bigger, irrelevant, evaluative or otherwise threatening audiences (Baumeister,
1982; Gibb, 1965). Women are supposed to enjoy receiving disclosures more
than men (Collins & Miller, 1994) and to be more concerned with preserving
a sense of harmony and mutual satisfaction in the relationship (Heatherington
et al., 1998). Men, on the other hand, may feel more threatened by unsolicited
intimate conversation (Collins & Miller, 1994), and may be inclined to competing
or “boasting” communication behaviour, especially with other males (McGuire
et al., 1985). Both sexes tend to experience emotional disclosure in opposite-sex

stranger dyads as threatening (Mendes et al., 2003).
Summarizing the situational factors dealt with in the self-disclosure literature
also allows for certain conclusions. Physical environment or context and the
communication channel chosen also affect self-disclosure. Physical contact or
touching may also affect it, but due to contradictory findings in the area, form-
ing any plausible explanations concerning their relation has to be left to future
studies. “Architecturally hard” (Chaikin et al., 1976), smaller or crowded rooms
(Sundstrom, 1975), as well as experienced intrusion or goal-blocking (Sundstrom,
1975) or the invasion of personal space (Albert & Dabbs, 1970) hinder the self-
disclosure of personal information and beget resistance. Compared to face-to-face

communication, computer-mediated communication (CMC) may lead to greater
self-disclosure levels due to relative anonymity, heightened private self-awareness
(Joinson, 2001), or hyperbolic and idealized constructions of virtual partners
(Walther et al., 2001).
There are also meta-cultural, socio-cultural, and individual/behavioural aspects
influencing self-disclosure. A certain degree of self-disclosure can be seen as a
necessity in a “fair” Western social exchange, whereas in collectivistic cultures,
knowledge of, for example, appropriate rules of conduct in a certain situation
weighs more in communication behaviour (Hamid, 1994). The importance of
self-presentational concerns may vary between cultures (Baumeister, 1982),
and different cultures have different cultural values and verbal styles affecting
self-disclosure (Chen, 1995). It appears that a greater depth of self-disclosure is
associated with individuals of non-Western cultural origin, and greater amounts
of lesser-depth self-disclosure rather with Western, or at least American people
(Wheeless et al., 1986). “A stranger norm” is typical in the West: between recent-
ly-met individuals there is a cultural expectation of more low-keyed conduct
(Chaikin & Derlega, 1974a). More intimate self-disclosure is usually seen as more
appropriate for women in Western countries (e.g. Hill & Stull, 1987), but for at
least Middle-Eastern men, self-communication by touching is more acceptable
that it is for men in Western countries (Lomranz & Shapira, 1974).
When it comes to advantages and disadvantages of self-disclosure, the positive
aspects of the phenomenon cannot be ignored. As one of the fundamental pro-
cesses in human communication, self-disclosure plays a huge part in maintaining,
developing and deepening social relationships, trust and intimacy. Self-disclosure
helps in perceiving the disclosed features as positive (Fishbein & Laird, 1979),
and, in clinical psychology, in understanding one’s situation and organizing
trauma-related thoughts (e.g. Horowitz, 1976). The spoken or written emotional
self-disclosure about one’s trauma or an intensely positive event benefits both
psychological and physiological health (e.g. Burton & King, 2004; Murray &
Segal, 1994; Smyth, 1998), whereas emotional suppression and secrecy impairs
health (Mayne, 2001). On the other hand, it can be argued that self-disclosure
may carry with it the risk of being misunderstood, rejected, or even abandoned
or exploited (Sermat & Smyth, 1973). Highly intimate disclosure, for example
between strangers, may sometimes be interpreted as a violation of social norms
(e.g. Chaikin & Derlega, 1974a). People with marginal or stigmatized identities
may benefit from keeping certain aspects of their identity a secret, thus protecting
their self-esteem (McKenna & Bargh, 1998). In psychotherapy clients, this may
manifest itself via lesser symptoms (Kelly, 1998). The gains from self-disclosure
can thus be huge, but its worth must always be weighed contextually.
As already mentioned in the introduction, the topic of self-disclosure has been

studied rather extensively in psychology and several neighbouring disciplines.
However, current empirical psychological literature is somewhat unsatisfactory in
a number of ways. Most of the studies were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s,
and addressed only a small number of self-disclosure phenomena; including sex
differences in disclosure, the reciprocity effect in self-disclosure, self-disclosure
between intimates or strangers or the emotional or anxiety-based motives to
disclose (Collins & Miller, 1994). More recently conducted self-disclosure stud-
ies in psychology have focused on topics such as the benefits of emotional self-
disclosure (also studied in medicine) and self-disclosure in computer-mediated
communication (also studied in communication science and social sciences).
These newer studies have often been conducted taking delightful advantage of
modern information technology settings, such as e-mail or web-based discussion
groups. Contemporary research has also taken into consideration – more syste-
matically – the differing effects and implications that self-disclosure might have
for marginal groups and identities.
However, there is a clear lack of general, overarching psychological theory
of self-disclosure that would cover the, albeit often effective and creditable, still
rather separate and independent research efforts and interests in different psy-
chological fields. Thus, there is an acute need for more theory-driven research
combining the various components of the already existing research. Sex differ-
ences in self-disclosure, for example, have been studied for a long time now, and
extensively in many areas of research. Nevertheless, a broad general theory of the
ways that sex – or sex-role identity – might or might not influence different aspects
of disclosing, is still lacking. The possible effects of neuroticism and other stable
personality traits on self-disclosure need clarifying as well, not to mention the
interconnections between physical and verbal spheres of closeness: for instance,
the relationship between physical contact and verbal disclosure. It should also
be noted that while this review has focused on verbal self-disclosure, many
psychological studies have set off to unravel other aspects of disclosing as well,
for instance non-verbal expressions (e.g. Hill, Siegelman, Gronsky, Sturniolo, &
Fretz, 1981) or self-disclosure through one’s clothing (e.g. Guy & Banim, 2000)
or body modifications such as tattoos or piercings (e.g. Irwin, 2001). The rela-
tionship between these different modes of disclosing would, no doubt, be worth
investigating more carefully.
The purpose of this article has been to present a broad and general overview
of some of the major contributions to the decades-spanning research literature
concerning self-disclosure, from the viewpoints of personality, social, clinical and
cultural perspectives in psychology and psychologically-relevant neighbouring
sciences, such as social and communication sciences. The emphasis has been
on integrating empirical discoveries to create a multi-dimensional picture of the

subject and shed light on some of the theoretical models (the reciprocity effect,
the baseline of self-disclosure, the social sharing of emotion, the fever-model
of self-disclosure, selective self-presentation, theory of modelling and trust, the
hyperpersonal communication framework of CMC, the theory of social pen-
etration, the Pennebaker writing disclosure paradigm, and the exposure theory)
explaining aspects of it. Despite the current lack of a general disclosure theory,
interdisciplinary study efforts keep increasing in number among the various areas
of modern scientific inquiry, not least in the day-to-day evolving area of virtual
communication that continues to introduce important discoveries regarding self-
disclosure.
REFERENCES
Ahrens, C.E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reactions on the disclosure of
rape. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 263-274.
Albert, S. & Dabbs, J.M. Jr. (1970). Physical distance and persuasion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 15, 265-270.
Altman, I. (1973). Reciprocity of interpersonal exhange. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior;
3, 249-261.
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barnlund, D.C. (1989). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Barrett-Lennard, G. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28, 91-100.
Baumeister, R.F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin,
91, 3-26.
Berg, J.H. & Derlega, V.J. (1987). Themes in the study of self-disclosure. In V. J. Derlega & J. H.
Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research and therapy (pp.1-8). New York: Plenum.
Bermack, E. (1989). Effect of telephone and face-to-face communication on rated extent of self-
disclosure by female college students. Psychological Reports, 65, 259-267.
Berry, D.S. & Pennebaker, J.W. (1993). Nonverbal and verbal emotional expression and health.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 59, 11-19.
Bok, S. (1989). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. New York: Vintage Books.
Bostrom, R. (1970). Patterns of communicative interaction in small groups. Speech Monographs,
37, 257-263.
Brehm, J.W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Brems, C. (2001). Dimensionality of empathy and its correlates. The Journal of Psychology, 123,
329-337.
Bruch, M.A. (2002). Shyness and toughness: Unique and moderated relations with men’s emo-
tional inexpression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 28-34.
Burchill, S.A.L. & Stiles, W.B. (1988). Interactions of depressed college students with their room-
mates: Not necessarily negative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 410-419.
Burton, C.M. & King, L.A. (2004). The health benefits of writing about intensely positive experi-
ences. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 150-163.
Certner, B.C. (1973). Exchange of self-disclosures in same-sexed groups of strangers. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 292-297.
Chaikin, A.L. & Derlega, V.J. (1974a). Liking for the norm-breaker in self-disclosure. Journal of
Personality, 42, 117-129.
Chaikin, A.L. & Derlega, V.J. (1974b). Self-disclosure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Chaikin, A.L. & Derlega, V.J. (1974c). Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 588-593.
Chaikin, A.L. & Derlega, V.J. (1976). Self-disclosure. In J.W. Thibaut, J.T. Spence & R.C. Carson
(Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 177-210). Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Chaikin, A.L., Derlega, V.J., Bayma, B. & Shaw, J. (1975). Neuroticism and disclosure reciprocity.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 13-19.
Chaikin, A.L., Derlega, V.J. & Miller, S.J. (1976). Effects of room environment on self-disclosure in
a counseling analogue. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 479-481.
Chelune, G.J. (1976a). A multidimensional look at sex and target differences in disclosure.
Psychological Reports, 39, 259-263.
Chelune, G.J. (1976b). Reactions to male and female disclosure at two levels. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1000-1003.
Chen, G.M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus Chinese.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 84-91.
Christophe, V. & DiGiacomo, J.P. (1995). Contenu du partage social secondaire suite à un épisode
émotionnel négatif ou positif (Content of the secondary social sharing following a positive or
a negative emotional event). Unpublished manuscript. University of Lille III. In Luminet, O.,
Bouts, P., Delie, F., Manstead, A. & Rimé, B. (2000). Social sharing of emotion following expo-
sure to a negatively valenced situation. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 661-688.
Christophe, V. & Rimé, B. (1997). Exposure to the social sharing of emotion: emotional impact,
listener responses and secondary social sharing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27,
37-54.
Collins, N.L. & Miller, L.C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
Cooper, C.L. & Bowles, D. (1973). Physical encounter and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports,
33, 451-454.
Cozby, P.D. (1972). Self-disclosure, reciprocity and liking. Sociometry, 35, 151-160.
Culbert, S.A. (1970). The interpersonal process of self-disclosure: It takes two to see one. In R.L.
Golembiewski & A. Blumberg (Eds.), Sensitivity training and the laboratory approach (pp.
73-79). Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Cunningham, M.R., Steinberg, J. & Grev, R. (1980). Wanting to and having to help: Separate
motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 181-192.
Cunningham, J.A. & Strassberg, D.S. (1981). Neuroticism and disclosure reciprocity. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 28, 455-458.
Davis, J.D. (1976). Self-disclosure in an acquaintance exercise: Responsibility for level of intimacy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 787-792.
Davis, J.D. & Skinner, A.E.G. (1974). Reciprocity of self-disclosure in interviews: Modeling or
social exchange? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 779-784.
Derlega, V.J. & Chaikin, A.L. (1977). Privacy and self-disclosure in social relationships. Journal of
Social Issues, 33, 102-115.

Derlega, V.D., Wilson, M. & Chaikin, A.L. (1976). Friendship and disclosure reciprocity. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 578-582.
Dindia, K. (2002). Self-disclosure research: Knowledge through meta-analysis. In M. Allen, R.W.
Preiss, B.M. Gayle & N.A. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research. Advances
through meta-analysis (pp. 169-185). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M.A. & Kenny, D.A. (1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and stranger dyads:
A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23, 388-412.
Esterling, B.A., Antoni, M.H., Kumar, M. & Schneiderman, N. (1990). Emotional repression, stress
disclosure responses and Epstein-Barr viral capsid antigen titers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52,
397-410.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R.C.M.E. & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages
and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123-
136.
Fishbein, M.J. & Laird, J.D. (1979). Concealment and disclosure: Some effects of information
control on the person who controls. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 114-121.
Ford, C.A., Millstein, S.G., Halpern-Felsher, B.L. & Irwin, C.E. (1997). Influence of physician
confidentiality assurances on adolescents’ willingness to disclose information and seek future
health care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 1029-1034.
Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 823-865.
Gardner, W.L. & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management: An observational study linking
audience characteristics with verbal self-presentations. Academy of Management Journal, 31,
42-65.
Gibb, J.R. (1965). Defensive communication. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 22, 221-
229.
Giles, H., Coupland, N. & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication context
and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation:
Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 1-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Ginter, E.J. (1982). Self-disclosure as a function of the intensity of four affective states associated
with loneliness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. In
S.H. Schwab, J.J. Scalise, E.J. Ginter & G. Whipple (1998). Self-disclosure, loneliness and four
interpersonal targets: Friend, group of friends, stranger, and group of strangers. Psychological
Reports, 82, 1264-1266.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, UK : University of
Edinburgh Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday-Anchor.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Guy, A. & Banim, M. (2000). Personal collections: women’s clothing use and identity. Journal of
Gender Studies, 9, 313-327.
Hamid, P.N. (1994). Self-monitoring, locus of control, and social encounters of Chinese and New
Zealand students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 353-368.
Harris, S.M., Dersch, C.A. & Mittal, M. (1999). Look who’s talking: Measuring self-disclosure in
MFT. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 405-412.
Hatfield, E. (1984). The dangers of intimacy. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and
close relationships (pp. 207-220). New York: Academic Press.
Heatherington, L., Burns, A. & Gustafson, T. (1998). When another stumbles: Gender and self-
presentation to vulnerable others. Sex Roles, 38, 889-913.
Hill, C.E., Siegelman, L., Gronsky, B.R., Sturniolo, F., & Fretz, B.R. (1981). Nonverbal communica-
tion and counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 203-212.
Hill, C.T. & Stull, D.E. (1987). Gender and self-disclosure. In V.J. Derlega & J.H. Berg (Eds.), Self-
disclosure: Theory, research and therapy (pp. 81-100). New York: Plenum.
Honos-Webb, L., Harrick, E.A., Stiles, W.B. & Park, C.L. (2000). Assimilation of traumatic experi-
ences and physical health outcomes: Cautions for the Pennebaker paradigm. Psychotherapy,
37, 307-314.
Horowitz, M.J. (1976). Stress responses syndromes. New York: Jacob Aronson.
Ireland, C. & Wooten, G. (1996). Time to talk: Counseling for people with dysphagia. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 18, 585-591.
Irwin, K. (2001). Legitimating the first tattoo: Moral passage through informal interaction. Symbolic
Interaction, 24, 49-73.
Joinson, A.N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-
awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192.
Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jones, W.H., Freemon, J.E. & Goswick, R.A. (1981). The persistence of loneliness: Self and other
determinants. Journal of Personality, 49, 27-48.
Jordan, J.V., Kaplan, A.G., Miller, J.B., Stiver, I.P. & Surrey, J.L. (1991). Women’s growth in con-
nections: Writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.
Jourard, S.M. (1959). Self-disclosure and other cathexis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy, 59, 428-431.
Jourard, S.M. (1971). The transparent self (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jourard, S.M. & Rubin, J.E. (1968). Self-disclosure and touching: A study of two modes of interper-
sonal encounter and their inter-relation. The Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8, 39-48.
Kelly, A.E. (1998). Clients’ secret keeping in outpatient therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
45, 50-57.
Kelly, A.E. (2000). A self-presentational view of psychotherapy: Reply to Hill, Gelso, and Mohr
(2000) and to Arkin and Herman (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 505-511.
Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L.S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 50, 402-413.
Kobocow, B., McGuire, J. & Blau, B. (1983). The influence of confidentiality conditions on the
amount of self-disclosure in the early adolescent. Professional Psychology, 14, 435-443.
Lawrence, B. & Bennett, S. (1992). Shyness and education: The relationship between shyness,
social class and personality variables in adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
62, 257-263.
Leary, M.L. (1979). Interpersonal orientation and self-presentational style. Psychological Reports,
45, 451-456.
Lester, D. (1977). The use of the telephone in counseling and crisis intervention. In P.I. DeSola
(Ed.), The social impact of the telephone (pp. 454-472). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewin, K. (1984). Some social-psychological differences between the United States and Germany.
In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics (1935-1946)
(pp. 3-33). New York: Harper.
Lomranz, J. & Shapira, A. (1974). Communicative patterns of self-disclosure and touching behav-
ior. The Journal of Psychology, 88, 223-227.
Luminet, O., Bouts, P., Delie, F., Manstead, A.S.R. & Rimé, B. (2000). Social sharing of emotion
following exposure to a negatively valenced situation. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 661-688.
MacDonald, A.P., Kessel, V.S. & Fuller, J.B. (1972). Self-disclosure and two kinds of trust.
Psychological Reports, 30, 143-148.
Matsushima, R. & Shiomi, K. (2001). The effect of hesitancy toward and the motivation for self-
disclosure on loneliness among Japanese junior high school students. Social Behavior and
Personality, 29, 661-670.
Mayne, T.J. (2001). Emotions and health. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current
issues and future directions (pp. 361-397). New York: Guilford Press.
McAllister, H.A. & Bregman, N.J. (1985). Reciprocity effects with intimate and nonintimate
disclosure: The importance of establishing baseline. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125,
775-776.
McGuire, J.M., Graves, S. & Blau, B. (1985). Depth of self-disclosure as a function of assured con-
fidentiality and videotape recording. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 259-263.
McKenna, K.Y.A. & Bargh, J.A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity ”demar-
ginalization” through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 681-694.
Mendes, W.B., Reis, H.T., Seery, M.D. & Blascovich, J. (2003). Cardiovascular correlates of emo-
tional expression and suppression: Do content and gender context matter? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 771-792.
Murray, E.J. & Segal, D.L. (1994). Emotional processing in vocal and written expression of feelings
about traumatic experiences. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 391-405.
Neimeyer, G.J. & Banikiotes, P.G. (1981). Self-disclosure flexibility, empathy, and perceptions of
adjustment and attraction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 272-275.
Neimeyer, G.J., Banikiotes, P.G. & Winum, P.C. (1979). Self-disclosure flexibility and counseling-
relevant perceptions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 546-548.
Pearce, W.B. & Sharp, S.M. (1973). Self-disclosing communication. Journal of Communication,
23, 409-425.
Pedersen, D.M. & Breglio, V.J. (1968). Personality correlates of actual self-disclosure. Psychological
Reports, 22, 495-501.
Pedersen, D.M. & Higbee, K.L. (1969). Personality correlates of self-disclosure. Journal of Social
Pennebaker, J.W. (1989). Confession, inhibition and disease. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, vol 22 (pp. 211-244). New York: Academic Press.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1992). Inhibition as the linchpin of health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility,
coping and health (pp. 127-139). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York:
Guilford Press.
Pennebaker, J.W., Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. & Glaser, R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and immune
function: Health implications for psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
56, 239-245.
Pennebaker, J.W., Mayne, T. & Francis, M.E. (1997). Linguistic predictors of adaptive bereavement.
Pennebaker, J.W., Mehl, M.R. & Niederhoffer, K.G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural lan-
guage use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547-577.
Pennebaker, J.W. & Seagal, J.D. (1999). Forming a story: The health benefits of narrative. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1243-1254.
Reingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Richards, J.M., Beal, W.E., Seagal, J.D. & Pennebaker, J.W. (2000). Effects of disclosure of traumatic
events on illness behavior among psychiatric prison inmates. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
109, 156-160.
Rimé, B. (1989). Le partage social des émotions (The social sharing of emotion). In B. Rimé & K.
Scherer (Eds.), Les émotions (pp. 271-303). Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Rimé, B. (1995). The social sharing of emotional experience as a source for the social knowledge
of emotion. In J. A. Russell, J. M. Fernandez-Dols, A. S. R. Manstead & J. C. Wellenkamp (Eds.),
Everyday conceptions of emotions. An introduction to the psychology, anthropology and lin-
guistics of emotion (pp. 475-489). Doordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer.
Rimé, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E. & Philippot, P. (1998). Social sharing of emotion:
New evidence and new questions. European Review of Social Psychology, 9, 145-189.
Rimé, B., Mesquita, B., Philippot, P. & Boca, S. (1991). Beyond the emotional event: Six studies
on the social sharing of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 435-465.
Rimé, B., Philippot, P., Boca, S. & Mesquita, B. (1992). Long-lasting cognitive and social conse-
quences of emotion: Social sharing and rumination. European Review of Social Psychology,
3, 225-258.
Robinson, R. & West, R. (1992). A comparison of computer and questionnaire methods of history-
taking in genito-urinary clinic. Psychology and Health, 6, 77-84.
Rotter, J.B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26,
443-452.
Rotter, J.B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35,
1-7.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Rubin, Z. (1974). Lovers and other strangers: The development of intimacy in encounters and
relationships. American Scientist, 62, 182-190.
Rubin, Z. (1975). Disclosing oneself to a stranger: Reciprocity and its limits. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 11, 233-260.
Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity and interper-
sonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Schlenker, B.R., Dlugolecki, D.W., & Doherty, K. (1994). The impact of self-presentations on self-
appraisals and behavior: The power of public commitment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 20-33.
Schmidt, L.A. & Fox, N.A. (1995). Individual differences in young adults’ shyness and sociability:
Personality and health correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 455-462.
Schwab, S.H., Scalise, J.J., Ginter, E.J. & Whipple, G. (1998). Self-disclosure, loneliness and four
interpersonal targets: Friend, group of friends, stranger and group of strangers. Psychological
Reports, 82, 1264-1266.
Sermat, V. & Smyth, M. (1973). Content analysis of verbal communication in the development
of a relationship: Conditions influencing self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Shaffer, D.R., Pegalis, L.J. & Cornell, D.P. (1992). Gender and self-disclosure revisited: Personal
and contextual variations in self-disclosure to same-sex acquaintances. The Journal of Social
Shapiro, A. & Swensen, C.H. (1977). Self-disclosure as a function of self-concept and sex. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 41, 144-149.
Sheese, B.E., Brown, E.L. & Graziano, W.G. (2004). Emotional expression in cyberspace:
Searching for moderators of the Pennebaker Disclosure Effect via E-mail. Health Psychology,
23, 457-464.
Simmons-Mackie, N. & Damico, J.S. (2001). Intervention outcomes: A clinical application of
qualitative methods. Top Lang Disord, 21, 21-36.
Smyth, J.M. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating
variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174-184.
Solano, C.H., Batten, P.G. & Parish, E.A. (1982). Loneliness and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 524-531.
Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Stanley, G. & Bownes, A.F. (1966). Self-disclosure and neuroticism. Psychological Reports, 18,
350.
Steel, J.L. (1991). Interpersonal correlates of trust and self-disclosure. Psychological Reports, 68,
1319-1320.
Stiles, W.B. (1987). ”I have to talk to somebody”: A fever model of disclosure. In V.J. Derlega
& J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research and therapy (pp. 257-282). New York:
Plenum.
Stiles, W.B., Shuster, P.L. & Harrigan, J.A. (1992). Disclosure and anxiety: A test of the fever model.
Stokes, J.P. (1987). The relation of loneliness and self-disclosure. In V.J. Derlega & J.H. Berg (Eds.),
Self-disclosure: Theory, research and therapy (pp. 175-201). New York: Plenum Press.
Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Who benefits from disclosure? Exploration of
attachment style differences in the effects of expressing emotions. Clinical Psychology Review,
26, 66-85.
Stroebe, M., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., Zech, E. & van den Bout, J. (2002). Does disclosure of emo-
tions facilitate recovery from bereavement? Evidence from two prospective studies. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 169-178.
Sundstrom, E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of room size, intrusion, and goal-
blocking on nonverbal behavior, self-disclosure, and self-reported stress. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 645-654.
Taylor, D.A. (1979). Motivational bases. In G.J. Chelune (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns
and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 110-151). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyper-

personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Walther, J.B., Slovacek, C.L. & Tidwell, L.C. (2001). Is a picture worth a thousand words?
Photographic images in long-term and short-term computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 28, 105-134.
Wheeless, L.R., Erickson, K.V. & Behrens, J.S. (1986). Cultural differences in disclosiveness as a
function of locus of control. Communication Monographs, 23, 36-46.
Wheeless, L.R. & Grotz, J. (1977). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure.
Human Communication Research, 3, 250-257.
Woods, K. & McNamara, J. (1980). Confidentiality: Its effect on interviewee behavior. Professional
Yalom, I.D. (1970). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.
Zimbardo, P.G. (1977). Shyness. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Ignatius 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ignatius 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ignatius 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 02 June 2014, At: 09:28

Factors contributing to verbal

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.59.4.362

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

differences, personal motives and the actual contents of disclosures. Although

Features of the discloser

Whereas self-disclosure as one of the fundamentals of human social behaviour

the evocation of the emotion in a socially-shared language, and requires an

what is more, in regard to same-sex friends, lonely females associated a low

understanding of the term comes close to showing oneself (either consciously

Sex and gender differences

(e.g., Shapiro & Swensen, 1977). According to Dindia’s (2002) meta-analysis,

Features of the recipient

It seems that whether self-disclosure is approached as an interpersonal process

In a way, receiving a disclosure and not rejecting it could be seen as a recip-

Social relationship with the recipient

The number and status of the recipients

people also matters. Bostrom (1970) gives an illuminating example: moving

a person of a lower status to disclose something personal to a person of higher

Sex and gender differences

behaviour (McGuire et al., 1985).

knowledge and abilities in same-sex interaction, or the potential for romantic

Situational factors of self-disclosure

our privacy in social relationships (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977).

The communication channel

computer screen) similarly disclosed more than non-visually anonymous partici-

Cultural aspects of self-disclosure

Advantages and disadvantages of self-disclosing

the framework of obtaining clinical information from communication-disorder

& Pennebaker, 1993); whereas emotional suppression, avoidance, and denial

effectiveness of disclosure interventions: the higher the “dosage” of disclosure,

may be seen as a course of action worth considering; most importantly in the

existing scientific evidence. The tendency to disclose appears to be connected

emotional moods or episodes seem to bring about in us a need to socially share

et al., 1985). Both sexes tend to experience emotional disclosure in opposite-sex

disclosure of personal information and beget resistance. Compared to face-to-face

As already mentioned in the introduction, the topic of self-disclosure has been

on integrating empirical discoveries to create a multi-dimensional picture of the

Social Issues, 33, 102-115.

Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyper-

You might also like