Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships

11 Key excerpts on "Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships

  • Anita L. Vangelisti, Daniel Perlman(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  We review evidence for our suggestion that self-disclosure is essential in inter- dependent interactions in different types of relationships, ranging from relationships among strangers to close rela- tionships, and from relationships among adults to rela- tionships between parents and children. We then examine whether and how self-disclosure varies across different channels of communication. Given the increas- ing importance of social media and new communication technologies, the examination of self-disclosure in face-to- face versus online exchanges seems particularly impor- tant. Finally, we explore the implications of our sugges- tions for research on self-disclosure processes in relationships. WHAT IS SELF-DISCLOSURE AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Although many researchers have studied self-disclosure, it has no universal definition. Most definitions, however, agree that self-disclosure indicates the process of revealing personal information to another person (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). “It includes any information exchange that refers to the self, including personal states, disposi- tions, events in the past, and plans for the future” (Derlega & Grzelak, 1979, p. 152). Some researchers consider any form of verbal and nonverbal disclosure as self-disclosure. An artist can, for example, disclose her feelings through a painting or sculpture that may be viewed by others. An adolescent can disclose aspects of his identity through 271 a tattoo or haircut. In everyday life, though, most people disclose information about themselves by verbally reveal- ing personal information about themselves to others (i.e., talking or writing). In the present chapter, we therefore focus on verbal self-disclosure to others. Additionally, rather than considering all verbal revelations as self- disclosure, we center on intentional self-disclosures in line with others before us (e.g., Dindia, 2000; Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006; Jourard, 1971).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Sexting

  Motives and risk in online sexual self-presentation

  • Michel Walrave, Joris Van Ouytsel, Koen Ponnet, Jeff R. Temple, Michel Walrave, Joris Van Ouytsel, Koen Ponnet, Jeff R. Temple(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  McKenna et al. (2002) state that the establishment of trust and liking between relationship partners is a prerequisite to disclose quite intimate information about oneself. By the same token, the reciprocity of self-disclosure is thus based on the reciprocity of trust (Altman & Taylor, 1973 ; Larzelere & Huston, 1980). With online relationships, however, the formation of reciprocal trust and the disclosure of intimate information (e.g., personal textual and visual information), happens over the width of the Internet. In this popular form of Internet communication, trust is inherent to all components of the user experience throughout the online dating trajectory, such as online messaging, telephone conversations and eventually FtF interactions (Cheshire, 2011). Because apart from being an additional means to find a potential partner and build a romantic relationship, online dating offers the opportunity to build online trust over time through various communication forms (Cheshire, 2011). In order to establish interpersonal trust, the communicators must self-disclose personal information to each other in a reciprocal manner. It comes to no surprise that in online dating and other online environments Internet users expect others to not abuse the self-disclosed personal information. Individuals will not disclose personal information unless they have formed a dyadic boundary ensuring no leakages of the shared information (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977 ; McKenna et al., 2002). Previous research has studied the relationship between trust and self-disclosure in the form of textual (i.e.., text messages, emails, iMessage, …) and visual information (i.e.…, multimedia messages, sexting, …) (e.g., Hasinoff & Shepherd, 2014 ; Peterson-Iyer, 2013 ; Zemmels & Khey, 2015)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Information Technology in Organisations and Societies

  Multidisciplinary Perspectives from AI to Technostress

  • Zach W. Y. Lee, Tommy K. H. Chan, Christy M. K. Cheung, Zach W. Y. Lee, Tommy K. H. Chan, Christy M. K. Cheung(Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  174). Self-disclosure is defined as the ‘process of making the self-known to others’ (Jourard & Lasakow, 1958, p. 91). People share things regarding their happiness, sadness, anger, and all sorts of things to someone they know, such as family member, friends, colleagues, or even the stranger on the train. Moreover, people sometimes uncover individual particulars 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 (Cullbert, 1970). Even though they sometimes consciously attempt to hide their emotions and thoughts during communication, they unconsciously divulge (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Although the need to share personal experiences appears to vary across cultures and genders (Rimé, 1995), the need to express oneself to others is suggested as a part of human heritage in the 30,000-year-old Lascaus cave drawing – people are born with a certain need and tendency to disclose because they ‘tend to disclose more about themselves simply because they have more to disclosure’ (Buss, 1980, p. 121). Researchers across different disciplines have studied the concept of self-disclosure from various perspectives. In the psychology discipline, there are two predominant schools of thought regarding the nature and definition of self-disclosure. On the one hand, self-disclosure is viewed as a personality trait and is stable in various situations (Berg & Derlaga, 1987). It, however, varies among different people with different genders, backgrounds, and cultures. For instance, Papini, Farmer, Clark, Micka, and Barnett (1990) reported that female adolescents exhibited greater emotional self-disclosure to parents and peers than did males. On the other hand, other treats self-disclosure as an interpersonal process when individuals interact with each other (Dindia, 2002)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Talk as Therapy

  Psychotherapy in a Linguistic Perspective

  • Joanna Pawelczyk(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 3. Self-disclosure Many times people are attempting to do something all alone and it can’t be done all alone because it’s got to be done in dialogue. Even when you think the same thoughts all by yourself, it’s not the same as engaging in a dialogue. And there is something so healing about it. (Richard Erskine, workshop in 2004) 63 3.1 Introductory remarks Verbalization 64 – revealing, stating out loud and sharing some personally important (be they joyful or traumatic) experiences with others – is an eve- ryday human undertaking. The label self-disclosure was introduced into the psychological and communication literature by the work of Sidney Jourard (1968, 1971; Jourard and Lasakow 1958). Although multiple definitions have been suggested in the literature, self-disclosure is in essence “the process of making the self known to other persons” (Jourard and Lasakow 1958: 91). Similarly, in 1999, Adler and Towne refer to self-disclosure as “the process of deliberately revealing information about oneself that is sig- nificant and that would not normally be known by others” (1999: 358). Jourard 65 (1959: 505) over fifty years ago proclaimed self-disclosure an in- dispensable means of achieving a ‘healthy personality’: “It is through self- disclosure that an individual reveals to himself and to the other party just ex- actly who, what and where he is”. Jourard (1971) has substantially influenced the current research on self-disclosure, the interpersonal framing of which allows individuals to construct intimacy, closeness and love (cf. Petronio 2000: 3). Self-disclosure as a mechanism that facilitates the development of mu- tual understanding and caring (Berg and Derlega 1987) is a significant aspect of interpersonal relationships. Even though self-disclosure can take the form of personal or interpersonal revelation, the present discus- sion will focus mostly on the interpersonal aspect of sharing (sensitive) personal information.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Enhancing Marital Intimacy Through Facilitating Cognitive Self Disclosure

  • Edward M. Waring(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In a series of studies we had developed an operational definition of intimacy as “a multifaceted interpersonal dimension which describes the quality of a marital relationship at a point in time” (Waring et al., 1981b). Intimacy is a composite of 1) affection—the degree to which feelings of emotional closeness are expressed by the couple; 2) expressiveness—the degree to which thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings are communicated within the marriage; 3) compatibility—the degree to which the couple is able to work and play together comfortably; 4) cohesion— a commitment to the marriage; 5) sexuality—the degree to which sexual needs are communicated and fulfilled; 6) conflict resolution—the ease with which differences of opinion are resolved; 7) autonomy—the couple's degree of positive connectedness to family and friends; and 8) identity—the couple's level of self-confidence and self-esteem. Other operational definitions of intimacy are also available (Schaefer & Olson, 1981).

  WHAT IS SELF-DISCLOSURE?

  Jourard and Sasoko (1958) were the first to systematically study the phenomenon of self-disclosure which they believed was a “symptom of health” and a “means to interpersonal effectiveness.” Chelune (1978) defines self-disclosure as “a process of making ourselves known to other persons by verbally revealing personal information.” Self-disclosure can be classified as: 1) expression of emotion; 2) expression of need; 3) expression of thought, attitudes, beliefs, and fantasy; and 4) self-awareness. The latter two are defined here as “cognitive self-disclosure.”

  Now let us return to our operational definition of intimacy. Jourard and Sasoko (1958) demonstrated that the most consistent personal disclosures occurred in the marital relationship. Waterman (1980) reviewed studies which demonstrate a positive relationship between amount of self-disclosure and marital adjustment. Several authors have suggested that self-disclosure may be an important determinant of a couple's level of intimacy (Schaefer & Olson, 1981; Waring & Russell, 1980a). Waring and Chelune (1983) empirically demonstrated that self-disclosure is a significant determinant of the rated levels of expressiveness, compatibility, identity, and intimacy behavior, four of the eight factors which define level of intimacy. Thus self-disclosure determines 50% of the variance of rated level of intimacy in married couples.

  Cognitive Self-Disclosure

  Cognitive self-disclosure refers to the process of making ourselves known to others by verbally revealing personal thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions, as well as developing self-awareness. Waring et al. (1980) found that cognitive self-disclosure was thought by couples in the general population to be the primary determinant of intimacy. This finding supported an earlier observation by Grinker (1967) that cognitive knowledge or “knowing” one's partner may be a primary determinant of a couple's level of intimacy. Is there evidence to support this relationship? Levinger and Senn (1967) demonstrated that there is more disclosure of unpleasant feelings, affective self-disclosure of a negative quality, in unsatisfied couples—disclosure of negative feelings produces distance and is characteristic of disturbed families. Murstein (1974) suggests that a major problem in marriage is a failure to disclose attitudes, values, and beliefs during courtship, which results in a lack of cognitive information that could prevent choices in which conflicting value systems prevent closeness.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Disclosure and Concealment in Psychotherapy

  • Sarah Knox, Clara Hill, Sarah Knox, Clara Hill(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Although it may seem to those who are not digital natives that disclosure via Facebook or other CMC cannot be as intimate or meaningful as face-to-face communication, past work has suggested that there may be some advantages to these newer forms of communication. As many theorists and researchers (e.g. Kim & Dindia, 2011; McKenna & Bargh, 2000) have noted, the very distance, disembodiment, lack of verbal cues, and at times, anonymity, afforded by CMC can, for some people at least some of the time, provide a measure of safety that may facilitate the frequency, breadth, and depth of interpersonal disclosures. For some individuals, then, the absence of interpersonal proximity across forms of CMC facilitates disclosure (i.e. literal “up closeness” increases shame and inhibits disclosure); for some individuals too, an additional advantage afforded by online platforms is immediate access to targets of disclosure.

  Indeed, until recently, most theory and research had indicated that online disclosure was more personal in many respects than offline disclosure. Online communication was often considered “hyperpersonal” (Walther, 1996, 2007), a condition thought to result from the anonymity, comfort, and selective, mostly positive, content of online disclosures. By contrast, more recent meta-analyses (e.g. Kim & Dindia, 2011; Nguyen, Bin, & Campbell, 2012) have found no consistent pattern of results: “contrary to expectations, disclosure was not consistently found to be greater in online [as compared to offline] contexts” (Nguyen et al., 2012, p. 103). However, the offline disclosure measured in past research did not include the specific offline context of psychotherapy, and indeed no prior research has investigated differences in self-disclosure between a specific online platform (i.e. Facebook) and a specific offline context (i.e. psychotherapy).

  While both platforms are popular and offer effective ways of disclosing aspects of oneself to others, there are limitations and problems inherent to both. The Pew Research Center (2014) report on “new facts about Facebook” began with the most common Facebook user dislike: “people sharing TMI about themselves.” As for disclosures in psychotherapy, while clients tend to find the psychotherapeutic setting a safe place to disclose, multiple research reports have indicated that many clients fail to disclose salient clinical information (Farber, 2006; Hill et al., 1993) and/or minimize, distort, or even lie about their histories or current experience (Blanchard & Farber, 2015; Farber & Blanchard, 2014). No means of disclosure – whether through Facebook or psychotherapy or face-to-face communication – entirely attenuates human tendencies to want to avoid shame and create positive impressions (e.g. Goffman, 1956).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Men′s Friendships

  • Peter M. Nardi(Author)
  • 1992(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Interest in self-disclosure has burgeoned in the past two decades with the publication of volumes on this topic. Notable among these are Sidney Jourard's The Transparent Self (1971a) and Self-Disclosure (1971b), which generated interest by social psychologists, sociologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists (e.g., Chelune, 1979; Derlega & Berg, 1987). Jourard's (1971a) classic interpretation of the lethal aspects of the male role in which men suffer physically, psychically, and socially for their reticence was a launching pad for much research on disclosure throughout the seventies and eighties. Friendship as a topic of study has also produced considerable research, and the behavior of men in friend-ships is increasingly under scrutiny as researchers examine the impli-cations of social support and interpersonal behavior for health and well-being. Aspects other than an individual's physical or psychic health have cap-tured the interest of sociologists and social psychologists. Among the major findings of interest to scholars in these areas are gender differ-ences with respect to friendship and self-disclosure in same-gender and cross-gender dyads. Gender-role norms have been cited as mediating fac-tors in self-disclosure (Hill & Stull, 1987). Other factors affecting friendship maintenance or disclosure within friendships are related to location within social structures. These factors include social class, occupation, mobility, stages in the life cycle, and marital status (Allan, 1989; Booth & Hess, 1974; Fischer & Oliker, 1983; Hacker, 1981; Pogrebin, 1987). Op-portunities and normative constraints vary with structural factors, af-fecting the availability and depth of friendships. After reviewing some of the literature on gender effects in self-disclosure, we will focus on the structure of interpersonal relations surrounding friendship dyads, in particular the effect of intimate rela-tionships on the level of self-disclosure in friendships.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Exploring Identities of Psychiatric Survivor Therapists

  Beyond Us and Them

  • Alexandra L. Adame, Matthew Morsey, Ronald Bassman, Kristina Yates(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Good super- vision and consultation with colleagues can help the therapist to sort out what aspects of themselves are useful to draw upon and what parts might get in the way of the client’s healing process. Another way that self-disclosure is often written about in psychologi- cal research is in the context of clinical supervision (e.g., Sweeney & Creaner, 2014; Yourman, 2003). Supervisees have to make choices about how much they disclose about their clinical work, and in turn, how much they ought to say about parallel processes that may also be occurring due to past or ongoing personal struggles. Particularly if supervisees are in graduate training, they may have concerns about the evaluative nature of 5 Self-Disclosure 115 the supervisory relationship. Furthermore, their level of self-disclosure can be influenced by the level of trust and supportiveness provided by their supervisor (Spence, Fox, Golding, & Daiches, 2014). A participant in Spence et al.’s (2014) study on supervisee self-disclosure explained what factors they considered in talking to their supervisor about personal struggles: I suppose is this going to affect my career? [A]s in is that person going to be in an interview panel some day?…[D]o I feel this person has the capability or competency to help me with this issue? Do we think in a similar enough way about things? [O]r even if they think differently Do I think it’s going to be help- ful? [Y]eah What are they going to do with it? (p. 186, italics in original) Although decisions regarding self-disclosure can be anxiety laden, in other instances, disclosing one’s psychiatric history can be empowering. Acknowledging the interconnection between one’s life and work can add a new layer of meaning and purpose to one’s activities.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  An Introduction to Cyberpsychology

  • Gráinne Kirwan, Irene Connolly, Hannah Barton, Marion Palmer(Authors)
  • 2024(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Social penetration theory posits that relationships move from less intimate to more intimate involvement over time, with people disclosing deeper information about themselves as the relationship progresses (Altman & Taylor, 1973). In the initial stages of a relationship people act with caution, disclosing less intimate information, but gradually when they see signs of reciprocity, they begin to open up and share other aspects of themselves. In online dating this dynamic can shift, as dating profiles reveal a lot of the information that people would typically use for getting to know someone, removing the opportunity to gradually learn about each other. Additionally, because of the anonymity of online dating, the online environment can feel like a safer space in which to reveal core aspects of the self, so communications can become intimate very quickly. On the other hand, the information in a dating profile can also halt communication before it has even begun, as decisions about attraction are often made before any interaction has taken place (LeFebvre, 2018). Antheunis et al. (2020) found that the hyperpersonal effect persisted in an online dating context when people moved from text-based CMC to meeting in person. Social attraction was higher for people who communicated via text than for those who communicated through video chat before meeting face to face, and that social attraction remained higher upon meeting for those in the texting condition, particularly for women. Romantic attraction, however, declined for both text and video groups on meeting in person

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Skilled Interpersonal Communication

  Research, Theory and Practice

  • Owen Hargie(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  In a mutually advantageous exchange, each person provides resources that meet the needs and wants of the other at an equal or lower cost to self than the value of the resources received from them. This ensures that the relationship will be maintained. Self-disclosure can be considered as one of the social exchange benefits of a relationship. In terms of the exchange of disclosures, we are also concerned with risk, and so need to be convinced of the bona fides of the interlocutor to repay our initial interpersonal investment. In this way, ‘SET clearly argues that when uncertainty or ambiguity in a social exchange is reduced, the benefits from that exchange are perceived as more likely’ (Proudfoot et al., 2018, p. 23). Furthermore ‘SET is also premised on reciprocity. A person is more likely to disclose information if he or she expects that the other party will reciprocate by sharing similar information about themselves’ (Liu et al., 2016, p. 55). So, in terms of self-disclosure, SET contends that when A discloses to B this is a form of investment in the relationship and, for the relationship to continue in a balanced fashion, there is then an obligation placed on B to reciprocate with a disclosure, to balance the exchange account. As noted by Harper and Harper (2006, p. 251), ‘one feature of self-disclosure is its reciprocity; meaning that a person’s disclosure increases the likelihood that the other party will also disclose’. Indeed, there is evidence that this norm of reciprocity holds even when the recipient of disclosure is a computer pre-programmed to respond in specific ways (Moon, 2000). Social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor, 1973 ; Taylor and Altman, 1987) postulates that relationships progress through the following stages: Orientation. When people meet for the first-time, shallow information about self is disclosed more readily than intimate details. For the relationship to develop, initial disclosures must be reciprocal. Exploratory affective exchange

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Computer Ethics

  • John Weckert(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  This isn’t a problem, however, for Net “friendship” and interaction as such. It is a problem, or set of problems, facing certain sorts of individuals. In the normal run of cases of Net “friendships”, it should be admitted, there is, in the ways outlined above, a lack of relevant disclosure to the other, and so a lack of some of the importantly relevant interaction and self-development that features in friendship. But this thesis depends on facts about our psychologies. It is not a conceptual claim about a virtual world dominated by voluntary self-presentation and interactions. Indeed, it might be argued we could imagine certain individuals who do not suffer the sorts of pitfalls mentioned earlier of diminishing, denying, and omitting relevant character cues given by non-voluntary behaviour in the non-virtual case. Such individuals would seek to compensate and overcome these problems. They would, e.g., voluntarily disclose their failings, and what they feel uncomfortable about, and they would be careful to not block or filter, say, their spontaneous thoughts and reactions to others. They would diligently and carefully report on those aspects of character which ordinarily, as they well know, play a crucial role in the interactive process of self-creation in friendship. Of course not every tiny detail is worthy of disclosure, but only those salient aspects of physical appearance, manner, habit, belief, intention, interest and the rest which, but for the Net, might well be manifestly available to the other, and crucially relevant to the other’s interpretation of character as it effects the shaping of the self in friendship. So let us imagine two people – the diligent disclosers – who with a meticulous and painstaking effort attempt to overcome the internet barriers to friendship in the way described

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book