Richard L. Archer

Responses to self-disclosure and interaction goals☆

Abstract Three types of responses to anothers self-disclosure are distinguished: descriptive intimacy (the extent to which intimate facts are revealed), evaluative intimacy (the extent to which strong emotions or judgments are expressed), and topical reciprocity (the extent to which the response addresses the same subject matter as the initial disclosure). Descriptive intimacy was found to be most pronounced in traditional self-disclosure settings emphasizing impression formation and information exchange. Evaluative intimacy was found most often in the replies of subjects attempting to increase their attractiveness after receiving intimate disclosure. Topical reciprocity was pronounced following both intimate and nonintimate disclosure when the demand to exchange information was eliminated. Results are discussed in terms of responsiveness and the nature of interactions.

Avoidance of Self-Disclosure An Experiment under Conditions of Self-Awareness

It was predicted that the assignment of intimate topics for self-disclosure in the presence of self-awareness producing stimuli would lead to negative affect and attempts to avoid actual disclosure. To test this prediction, an experiment was conducted in which male and female subjects described themselves while alone in a cubicle. Self-awareness was manipulated by the presence or absence of a mirror within the cubicle and subjects were assigned either intimate or non-intimate topics. As expected, subjects in the mirror-high intimacy condition enjoyed the task the least, evinced the highest average latencies in responding to the topics, and were seen as having provided the least complete descriptions.

Personalistic Self-Disclosure and Attraction: Basis for Relationship or Scarce Resource

The effects of personalistic self-disclosure on attraction were first predicted from attribution theory as the result of perceptions of a special relationship beginning between revealer and recipient (Jones and Archer, 1976). Recently, a commodity theory explanation has been proposed in which attraction is seen as the result of the delivery of valuable information that is difficult to obtain elsewhere (e.g., Petty and Mirels, 1981). To pit both versions of the hypothesis against each other, a laboratory experiment was conducted in which availability of information (available versus unavailable) about the subjects confederate partner and the attribution for the partners disclosure (personalistic versus situational) were manipulated independently, along with the disclosures intimacy (high versus low). In accord with commodity theory, personalistic disclosure effects on attraction emerged only when the information revealed was unavailable through another source. However, in keeping with attribution theory, inferences about the partners attraction to the subject were also based on the availability of the information.