Reciprocal self-disclosure

Although respondents are reluctant to steal the spotlight, self-disclosers feel validated, understood, and cared for when respondents share comparable experiences

Bibliographic Data

ID2933458
AuthorsZachary A Reese (0000-0003-2567-2471, University of San Francisco, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, corresponding author), Kristin Orrach (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
Year2023
Volume40
Issue11
Pages3485-3514
Publication date2023-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Social and Personal Relationships (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0265-4075 • E-ISSN: 1460-3608
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/02654075231174530
OpenAlexW4376601650
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited34

People often self-disclose news about themselves. Respondents may have similar news and feel conflicted about whether to share that news in the moment - that is, to reciprocally self-disclose. On the one hand, reciprocally self-disclosing could enable them to convey that they understand the recipient's experience. On the other hand, reciprocally self-disclosing could dishonor the recipient's contribution in a manner akin to stealing the spotlight. What contextual variables do respondents consider when navigating this conflict? How do recipients perceive reciprocal self-disclosures (RSDs) relative to non-disclosures - and what contextual variables moderate recipients' perceptions? In this paper, we report four studies ( N = 1200 Reddit conversations, 733 MTurk and 701 Prolific users) examining how people use and perceive RSD across a variety of contexts. We focus principally on context valence (positive vs. negative) and news similarity (similar vs. more extreme). Across experimental and naturalistic studies, respondents were highly context-sensitive and particularly reluctant to reciprocally self-disclose in positive contexts. Yet, recipients were less context-sensitive. Recipients evaluated similar RSDs as comparably responsive as non-disclosures in positive contexts and more responsive than non-disclosures in negative contexts. Furthermore, recipients perceived more extreme RSDs as more responsive than non-disclosures in negative contexts and less responsive than non-disclosures in positive contexts. Exploratory analyses suggested privacy, gender of respondent, and closeness predicted whether respondents used RSD but not whether recipients perceived RSD as responsive. In short, people often refrain from RSD to avoid committing communication errors - but our research suggests RSD can be highly responsive and incurs few costs relative to non-disclosure

Closeness · Context (archaeology · Perception · Reciprocal · Respondent · Self-disclosure · Valence (chemistry · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection · Psychology · Public Relations and Crisis Communication · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOI