CHAPTER FOURTEEN

CONCEPT OF SELF-DISCLOSURE

Self-disclosure is a process of communication by which one person reveals information about himself or herself to another. The information can be descriptive or evaluative, and can include thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, and dreams, as well as one ‘likes, dislikes, and favorites.

Social penetration theory posits that there are two dimensions to self-disclosure: breadth and depth. Both are crucial in developing a fully intimate relationship. The range of topics discussed by two individuals is the breadth of disclosure. The degree to which the information revealed is private or personal is the depth of that disclosure. It is easier for breadth to be expanded first in a relationship because of its more accessible features; it consists of outer layers of personality and everyday lives, such as occupations and preferences. Depth is more difficult to reach, and includes painful memories and more unusual traits that we might hesitate to share with others. We reveal ourselves most thoroughly and discuss the widest range of topics with our spouses and loved ones.

Self-disclosure is an important building block for intimacy and cannot be achieved without it. Reciprocal and appropriate self-disclosure is expected. Self-disclosure can be assessed by an analysis of cost and rewards which can be further explained by social exchange theory. Most self-disclosure occurs early in relational development, but more intimate self-disclosure occurs later.

In intimate relationship, social penetration theory states that the development of a relationship is closely linked to systematic changes in communication. Relationships generally begin with the exchange of superficial information and gradually move onto more meaningful conversations. In order to develop a more intimate relationship, partners must rise the breadth and depth of their conversations. Breadth includes the variety of topics two people discuss and depth is the personal significance of these topics.

Altman and Taylor use a wedge to explain this theory. In this instance, the beginning of a relationship is represented by a narrow and shallow wedge because only a few topics are discussed. However, as the relationship goes on, the wedge should become broader and deeper, including more topics of personal significance. The wedge must drive through three "layers" in order for intimacy to develop. The first is superficial "small talk" with little personal information about the speakers. The next layer is intimate, with increasing breadth and depth and more personal details.

The third is the very intimate level, where extremely private information is shared. Intimacy in these relationships can develop only if the persons involved reciprocate disclosures. Intimacy will not develop if only one partner discloses and the other continues to reveal only superficial information. Reciprocity must be gradual and match the intimacy of the other’s disclosures. Too rapid, too personal disclosure creates an imbalance in a relationship that can be discomfiting. This gradual process varies from relationship to relationship and can depend on the specific partner with whom one is communicating.

Reciprocity and Intimacy

Reciprocity is a positive response from the person with whom one is sharing information, whereby the person who received the disclosure self-discloses in turn. Self-disclosure usually influences whether two people will want to interact again. Research has shown that when one person self-discloses, another person is more likely to self-disclose. Initially, the process is started by one partner’s reveal of personal information to the other partner. In return, the other will disclose something and behave in such a way so as to be responsive to the initial disclosure's content, while also conveying a degree of comprehending and validation for what was revealed.

In relationship it has found that people who consider themselves to be high in disclosure are likely to be good at eliciting more disclosure from those with whom they interact.

Three theories describe reciprocity:

1.     The social attraction trust hypothesis

2.     Social exchange theory and

3.     The norm of reciprocity.

The social attraction-trust hypothesis says that people disclose to one another because they believe the person who disclosed to them likes and trusts them. Social exchange theory explains that people attempt to maintain equality in self-disclosure because an imbalance in this makes them uncomfortable. The third explanation, the norm of reciprocity, argues that reciprocating disclosure is asocial norm and violating it makes a person uncomfortable.

There are two types of reciprocity: turn-taking reciprocity and extended reciprocity. Turn-taking is when partners immediately self-disclose with one another and extended is when disclosure happens over a period of time, in which one partner may be the only one disclosing while the other just listens. Those who engage in turn taking reciprocity are shown to like their interaction partners more than those who engage in extended reciprocity. Turn taking partners are also shown to feel closer and similar to each other and to enjoy the other's company more than extended pairs. This can be explained by the social attraction-trust hypothesis because the partners perceive the discloser as liking and trusting them because they disclosed personal information.

Those who engage in extended reciprocity are affected by the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity which can account for the lower degree of liking. Since extended reciprocity limits reciprocating disclosure, it creates an imbalance in disclosure which violates both of these theories. That said, people usually report that they themselves are disclosing more than is the other partner. This is called perceived partner reciprocity, and it is critical to the self-disclosure process in developing relationships.

Two key components for intimacy are disclosure and partner responsiveness. It is extremely important that when a speaker discloses personal information their partner also discloses something personally relevant. It is also essential that the listener comprehend, validate and care about what the speaker is disclosing. If the speaker does not feel accepted by the listener, then they may not disclose something to them in the future, which stops the development of intimacy. Emotional disclosures are also shown to foster intimacy more than factual disclosures.

Factual disclosures reveal facts and information about the self (e.g., "I am divorced from my husband.") while emotional disclosures reveal a person's feelings, thoughts and judgments (e.g., "My divorce was so painful it has made it difficult for me to trust a romantic partner again").

Emotional disclosures can rise intimacy because they allow the listener to confirm and support the discloser’s self-view. The transition from sharing impersonal to personal facts is crucial to the building of an intimate relationship. One must feel accepted in order to feel comfortable enough to self-disclose. Without acceptance, one partner will withdraw and fail to reveal personal facts within the relationship. Sharing ourselves also brings us out of our imaginary worlds and allows us to see the realities of the world we live in. We are most comfortable sharing with those whom we like and feel like us. There is also evidence that someone who introduces himself with more intimacy is more likely to facilitate self-disclosure and intimacy with the recipient. Thus, self-disclosure breeds intimacy. This is why we reveal ourselves most and discuss the widest range of topics with our spouses and loved ones. We often perceive our own self-disclosure as higher than our partner's, which can lead to ill feelings. It is hard for humans to accurately judge how fully another is disclosing to them.

References

Bellet, 1. Paul S. & Michael J. M. (1991). "The importance of empathy as an Interviewing skill in medicine”. JAMA.226 (13): 1831–1832.doi:10.1001/jama.1991.0347 References0130111039.

Decety, J. (2011). "The neuro evolution of empathy". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.1231 (1): 35–45. Bibcode:2011NYASA1231...35 D. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.201 1.06027.x. PMID 21651564.

Dickert, S &Slovic, P (2009)."Attentional mechanisms in the generation of sympathy". Judgment and Decision Making. 4 (4): 297–306

Gallese, V. (2003). "The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis and the Neural Basis of Inter subjectivity". Psychopathology.36 (4): 171–180. Cutesier 10.1.1.143.2396 doi:10.1159/000072786. PMID 14504450.

Hodges, S.D., & Klein, K.J. (2001). Regulating the costs of empathy: the price of being human. Journal of Socio-Economics.

Lishner, D. A.; Batson, C. D. &Huss, E. (2011). "Tenderness and Sympathy: Distinct Empathic Emotions Elicited by Different Forms of Need". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

.Lowenstein, G. &Small, D. A. (2007). "The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring". Review of General Psychology. 11 (2): 112–126.

Norman, L. R.; Carr, R. &Uche, C. (2006)."The role of sympathy on avoidance intention toward persons living with HIV/AIDS in Jamaica". AIDS Care . 18

Pijnenborg, G.H.M.; Spikman, J.M.; Jeronimus, B.F & Aleman, A. (2012). "Insight in schizophrenia: associations with empathy”. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience.263 (4): 299–307. doi:10.1007/s00406-012-03 73-0 . PMID 23076736

Tear, J & Michalska, K. J. (2010). "Neurodevelopmental changes in the circuits underlying empathy and sympathy from childhood to adulthood”. Developmental Science

Titchener E.B. (2014). Introspection and empathy Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 2014; 7: 25–30