ArticlePDF Available

Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions ☆

Authors:
  • Facebook NY

Abstract and Figures

Prior research has provided evidence for the self-disclosure reciprocity effect: self-disclosure promotes fur-ther self-disclosure. In this study, we examined a related but distinct issue about self-disclosure reciprocity: the effects of self-disclosure reciprocity (vs. non-reciprocity) on affiliative interpersonal outcomes (e.g., liking) in ini-tial encounters. We manipulated disclosure reciprocity in an experiment that involved pairs of unacquainted indi-viduals participating in a structured self-disclosure activity. Participants in some pairs took turns asking and answering questions in two interactions (reciprocal disclosure). In other pairs, participants either disclosed or lis-tened in an initial interaction (non-reciprocal disclosure) and then switched disclosure roles in a second interaction. Participants who disclosed reciprocally reported greater liking, closeness, perceived similarity, and enjoyment of the interaction after the first interaction than participants who disclosed non-reciprocally. These differences remained after the second interaction, even though participants in non-reciprocally disclosing dyads switched roles (i.e., dis-closers became listeners) and therefore experienced extended reciprocity. We concluded that turn-taking self-disclosure reciprocity in the acquaintance process increases the likelihood of positive outcomes (e.g., liking).
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Taking turns: Reciprocalself-disclosure promotes liking in
initialinteractions
Susan Sprecher
a,b,
,Stanislav Treger
c
,Joshua D.Wondra
d
,Nicole Hilaire
b
,Kevin Wallpe
e
a
DepartmentofSociology & Anthropology,Illinois State University,Normal,IL,61790-4660,USA
b
DepartmentofPsychology,Illinois State University,Normal,IL,61790-4660,USA
c
DePaulUniversity,USA
d
University of Michigan,USA
e
Kansas State University,USA
H I G H L IG H T S
Self-disclosure reciprocity leads to p ositive outcomes in initialin teraction s.
Turn-takin g self-disclosure reciprocity is particularly benecial.
Long-turn taking disclosures lead to less likin g th an immediate tu rn-taking.
Receiving d isclosures leads to more liking than d isclosing in imbalanced disclosures.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Prior research has provid ed evidence for th e self-disclosure reciprocity effect:self-disclosure promotes fur-
Received 4 September 2012 ther self-disclosure.In this stu dy,we examined a related but distin ctissu e aboutself-d isclosure recip rocity:
Revised 21 March 2013 the effectsofself-disclosure reciprocity (vs.non-reciprocity)on afliativeinterpersonaloutcomes(e.g.,liking)in ini-
Available online 9 April2013 tialencounters.We manipulated disclosure reciprocity in an experimentthatinvolved pairs ofunacquainted indi-
viduals participating in a structured self-disclosure activity.Participants in some pairs took turns asking and
Keywords: answering questions in two interactions (reciprocaldisclosure).In other pairs,participants either disclosed or lis-
Acquaintanceship
Liking tened in an initialinteraction (non-reciprocaldisclosure)andthen switched disclosure rolesin a second interaction.
Reciprocity Participants who disclosed reciprocally reported greaterliking,closeness,perceivedsimilarity,and enjoymentofthe
Self-disclosure interaction afterthe rstinteraction than participants who disclosed non-reciprocally.These differencesremained
Socialinteraction afterthe second interaction,even though participants in non-reciprocally disclosing dyadsswitched roles(i.e.,dis-
closers became listeners) and therefore experienced extended reciprocity. We concluded that turn-taking
self-disclosure reciprocity in the acquaintance process increasesthe likelihood ofpositive outcomes (e.g.,liking).
© 2013 ElsevierIn c.Allrights reserved.
Intr oduc t ion
Self-disclosure,the processby which people revealpersonalinforma-
tion aboutthemselvesto others,is importantin alltypesand stages ofso-
cialrelationships (Altman & Taylor,1973;Greene,Derlega,& Mathews,
2006).Self-d isclosure may be especially importantduring in itialin terac-
tions because it likely determines whethertwo people willdesire to in-
teract again and develop a relationship (Derlega,Winstead,& Greene,
2008).In this study,we examined whether self-disclosure reciprocity
in initial interaction leads to more positive afliative interpersonal
outcomes than non-reciprocity.Self-disclosure reciprocity refers to the
process by which one person's self-disclosure elicits another person's
self-disclose (e.g.,Jourard,1971) and also to whether disclosures are
equivalent(e.g.,in breadth,depth;Hill& Stull,1982).
The self-disclosure reciprocity effect
Beginning with Jourard (1971),considerable research has shown
that self-disclosure is reciprocalin existing relationships.Evidence for
both perceived reciprocity (positive correlations between self-reported
disclosure and perceived partner disclosure) and actual reciprocity
(correlations between each partner's self-reported disclosure)hasbeen
found (forreviews,see Dindia,1988,2002).Furthermore,experimental
research has demonstrated thatself-disclosure reciprocity characterizes
initialinteractions between strangers.In a typicalexperiment,partici-
pants receive a high or low levelofdisclosure from a confederate,and
the dependentvariable is the levelofparticipants'reciprocaldisclosure
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology 49 (2013)860866
Allco-authorswere graduate students atIllinoisState University when the research was
conducted.The authors would like to thank Jace Cosentino,Jackie Gray,Michelle McCabe,
Stacey McClellan,Cathy Merrick,Ilyce Miller,Dave Williamsand Jackie Wroblewskiforserv-
ing as research assistantson the project.
Corresponding authorat:Departmentof Sociology & Anthrop ology,Illinois State
University,Normal,IL,61790-4660,USA.
E-mailaddress:Sprecher@ilstu.edu (S.Sprecher).
0022-1031/$ see frontmatter © 2013 ElsevierInc.Allrights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.017
Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirect
JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology
jo u rna l h o m e p a g e : w w w .els e v ie r.c o m /lo c a te/je s p
(e.g.,Cozby,1972;Derlega,Harris,& Chaikin,1973;Ehrlich & Graeven,
1971;Rubin,1975).Participants generally reciprocate the confederate's
levelofdisclosure,including the levelofintimacy.Likewise,experimen-
talevidence also supports the notion that disclosure promotes further
disclosure (Dindia,2002).
Past experimental research on self-disclosu re reciprocity has fo-
cused on reciprocity asthe outcome variable.Alth ough reciprocity gen-
erally characterizes self-disclosure during socialinteractions (Jourard,
1971),disclosure may notalways be equal(i.e.,one person may engage
in more listening than disclosing) and self-disclosure may be reward ing
regard less ofthe d egree ofreciprocity.Therefore,an empiricalquestion
is: Does reciprocaldisclosure lead to more positive interpersonalout-
comes(e.g.liking)than spending the same amountoftime eitherdisclos-
ing aboutoneselforlistening to the otherdisclose?To ourknowledge,no
prior experiments h ave manipulated reciprocal self-disclosure between
interacting participants and examined post-disclosure impressions.Our
laboratory experimentwasdesigned to examine the effects ofreciprocal
disclosure versus one-sided disclosure on severalbasic interpersonalout-
comesexperienced in initialinteraction:liking,closeness,perceived sim-
ilarity,and enjoymentofinteraction.
Differentialeffects ofturn-taking versusextended self-disclosure reciprocity
Two types ofdisclosure reciprocity can be considered in examining
the effects ofself-disclosure reciprocity:turn-taking reciprocity,in which
disclosure partners immediately take turns disclosing,an d extended reci-
procity,in which disclosure reciprocity occurs over a longer period of
time (Dindia,2002;Hill& Stull,1982).In fact,some have proposed that
self-disclosure is rarely non-reciprocalifthe time frame under consider-
ation isextended (e.g.,Hill& Stull,1982).Although disclosure in relation-
sh ipsmay notalways be equivalentwithin a single in teraction,itislikely
to be equivalentover time (e.g.,Altman,1973; Won-Doornink,1979).
Extended reciprocity in self-disclosure can also occur when people are
becoming acquainted.For example,Person A may disclose to Person B,
butPerson B may notdisclose in return untillater in the conversation
or the next time they meet.This may be common when relationship
initiation occurs on the Internet,including at dating websites, where
persons may often engage in asynchronous forms ofcommunication to
become acquainted (Finkel,Eastwick,Karney,Reis,& Sprecher,2012).
In the present study, we not only compare reciprocal versus non-
reciprocal self-disclosure,but also consider the different outcomes of
turn-taking versus extended self-disclosure reciprocity.
Why isself-disclosure reciprocaland why doesitlead to positive outcomes?
Researchers have offered severaltheoretical explanations for the
occurrence ofreciprocity in self-disclosure;these theories also explain
why self-disclosure reciprocity,especially turn-taking reciprocity,should
lead to positive interpersonaloutcomes.First,the socialattractiontrust
hypothesis (e.g.,Dindia,2002) arguesthatpeople reciprocate disclosure
because they inferthatanotherwho hasdisclosed likesand trustthem.
This iterative process builds mutualdisclosure,trust,and liking.Second,
socialexchange theory (Archer,1979)argues thatpeople strive to main-
tain equality or reciprocity in their relationsh ips.Self-disclosure reci-
procity is more rewarding than non-reciprocity because people are
uncomfortable with the imbalance in non-reciprocaldisclosure.Relat-
edly,a third explanation is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner,1960).
This norm may be such a basic human motive (e.g.,Whatley,Webster,
Smith,& Rhodes,1999) that violations make interactions feeluncom-
fortable.Based on these theoreticalframeworks,we predicted that
self-disclosure reciprocity would be more rewarding than non-
reciprocity in in itialinteractions and therefore lead to more posi-
tive interp ersonalou tcomes in the interaction.
The processes suggested by these theoriesmay have differentim-
plications for turn-taking versus extended self-disclosure reciprocity.
The norm ofreciprocity and socialexchange perspectivessuggestth at
by the end of a get-acquainted interaction that is characterized by
extended reciprocity (one partner takes a long turn,and then the
second partner reciprocates later in the interaction),both partners
should experience th e relief of the balance achieved. However,the
iterative process and build up oftru st and liking suggested by th e so-
cialattractiontrust hypoth esis may lead those who are engaged in
turn-taking reciprocity in an initialinteraction to continue to experi-
ence more positive outcomes than those engaged in extended reci-
procity,even atthe end ofthe interaction.
The currentstudy
In this study,dyads ofunacquainted individuals engaged in a two-
interaction structured self-disclosure task. In the reciprocal condition,
dyad members immediately took turn s asking questions and disclosing.
In the non-reciprocalcondition,dyad members engaged in sequentialin-
teractions ofone-sided self-disclosure.One person asked questionsin the
rstinteraction while the otherperson disclosed;then,the two switched
roles forthe second interaction.Thus,extended reciprocity occurred by
the end ofthe two interactions.Aftereach interaction,we assessed liking,
closeness,perceived similarity,and enjoymentofthe interaction.
Following are the hypoth esesand research questions ofthe study:
Hy pot he s is 1. Dyads in the turn-taking reciprocity condition willexpe-
rience greater liking,closeness,perceived similarity,and enjoyment of
the interaction afterthe rstinteraction than the dyadsin the one-sided
disclosure condition.
Re s e a rc h Que s tion 1. Do turn-taking and extended reciprocity equally
affectinterpersonaloutcomesduring th e extended initialacquaintance?
That is,willthe (predicted) differences in liking,closeness,perceived
similarity,and enjoymentofthe interaction between the reciprocaland
non-reciprocalconditions in our study disappear afterthe second inter-
action? Alternatively,doesturn-taking reciprocity lead to more afliative
interpersonaloutcomes th an extended reciprocity i.e.,do the differ-
encesbetween conditionsremain afterthe second interaction?
The nalissue we consideristhe differentialeffects ofreceivin g ver-
sus giving disclosure in the non-reciprocalconditions on th e afliative
interpersonaloutcomes (e.g.,likin g).In a prior experiment(Sprecher,
Treger, & Wondra,in press), in which the two nonreciprocal roles
were compared, we found evidence that receiving disclosure led to
more likin g,closeness,and enjoymen tth an giving disclosure.Although
there are theoreticalreasons foreach side ofdisclosure (giving and re-
ceiving) to lead to likin g and other positive outcomes (e.g.,Collins &
Miller,1994),the theoreticalarguments are strong forthe effects ofre-
ceiving disclosure: it leads to positive beliefs and impressions of the
other,enhanced familiarity,and the reduction ofuncertainty (Collins &
Miller,1994;Reis,Maniaci,Caprariello,Eastwick,& Finkel,2011;Tamir
& Mitchell,2012). We attempted to replicate our prior experimental
ndings with a new sample.The second h ypoth esis was:
Hy pot he s is 2. Participantswh o in itially receive disclosure willreport
more liking,closeness,perceived similarity,and enjoyment ofinter-
action than p articipants who initially disclose.
Me thod
Sample
The p articipants were 156 undergraduate stu dents (82.2% female;
86.0% White), recruited from th e psychology participant pool at a
Midwest U.S.university.
1
The mean age of the participants was 19.58
1
We removed 12 participants who had to be paired with a confederate because the
second particip antdid not arrive and six particip ants (three pairs) who indicated that
th ey had interacted previously.
861S.Sprecheret al./JournalofExperimentalSocial Psychology 49 (2013) 860866
... This greater degree of intimacy makes people feel more obligation to a partner (LeFebvre et al., 2019), which may make the process of rejecting that partner more stressful. Further, reciprocal self-disclosure between individuals promotes positive perceptions of the other in initial interactions (Sprecher et al., 2013). Thus, this study examines self-disclosure of self and others because the success of a relationship is in part influenced by the selfdisclosure of both the rejecter and the rejected (LeFebvre, 2017). ...
... Or, perhaps, the disclosures reported by Machs in this sample were deceptive (Ináncsi et al., 2015;Sanecka, 2017); future research should investigate the content of and deceptiveness of the rejection messages. Further, Machs may have perceived higher selfdisclosure of others due to the pattern that has been established that more self-disclosure of self invites others to increase self-disclosure as well (Sprecher et al., 2013). It is possible that Machs also experience more stress pre-rejection because they feel they have more to lose with the rejection (i.e., a person to manipulate; Moroz et al., 2018), and they may be stressed about losing face and thus perceived power and control in the relational dynamic (Brewer & Abell, 2017b;Horan et al., 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Due to the lack of research on those who reject potential romantic partners in the early stages of dating, this study examines the computer-mediated experiences of females on the dating app Bumble. A survey of female Bumble users investigates how self-disclosure, stress, and Machiavellianism leading up to rejecting a potential partner predicts post-rejecting self-esteem. Using multiple regression, this study shows that when women reject partners who self-disclose a lot to them on Bumble, these women experience high self-esteem thereafter. When women self-disclose more information about themselves on the dating app, are more stressed about rejecting a man on Bumble, and possess Machiavellian tendencies, they experience a more negative self-perception after rejecting men. Those high in Machiavellian traits on average report higher levels of all variables, indicating that women high in Machiavellian traits may reject others with ulterior motives.
... Saffarizadeh et al.'s (2024) study explored how AI voice assistants employ reciprocal self-disclosure to extract information from users. AI's self-disclosure can also utilize this reciprocal social model to prompt users to feel compelled to reciprocate by sharing their own information (Sprecher et al., 2013). However, some studies (Collins & Miller, 1994) indicate that using reciprocal self-disclosure as an interactive strategy can backfire if users perceive themselves as being manipulated into revealing information. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study examines the application of AI voice assistants in Chinese postpartum follow-up phone calls, with particular focus on how interaction design strategies influence users’ self-disclosure intention. A 2 (voice gender: female/male) × 3 (self-disclosure strategies: normal conversation without additional disclosure/objective factual disclosure/emotional and opinion-based disclosure) mixed experimental design (n = 395) was conducted to analyze how the gender and self-disclosure strategies of voice assistants affect users’ stereotypes (perceived warmth and competence), and how these stereotypes, mediated by privacy calculus dimensions (perceived risks and perceived benefits), influence self-disclosure intention. The experiment measured various indicators using a 7-point Likert scale and performed data analysis through analysis of variance (ANOVA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results demonstrate that female voice assistants significantly enhance users’ perceived warmth and competence, while emotional self-disclosure strategies significantly improve perceived warmth. Stereotypes about the voice assistant positively affect users’ self-disclosure intention through the mediating effects of perceived risk and benefit, with perceived benefit exerting a stronger effect than perceived risk. These findings provide valuable insights for the design and application of AI voice assistants in healthcare, offering actionable guidance for enhancing user interaction and promoting self-disclosure in medical contexts.
... In addition to aiming for more responsiveness broadly, chronic boomeraskers might focus on asking questions that they are unable to answer themselves (e.g., someone without children could ask about a friend's children), blocking the possibility of boomerasking entirely. Another antidote may be reaching a norm of reciprocal selfdisclosure (Sprecher et al., 2013). For example, over time, a close pair may develop a norm within their relationship in which they habitually take turns disclosing (in relatively equal amounts), without much responsiveness. ...
Article
Full-text available
Humans spend much of their lives in conversation, where they tend to hold many simultaneous motives. We examine two fundamental desires: to be responsive to a partner and to disclose about oneself. We introduce one pervasive way people attempt to reconcile these competing goals—boomerasking—a sequence in which individuals first pose a question to their conversation partner (“How was your weekend?”), let their partner answer, and then answer the question themselves (“Mine was amazing!”). The boomerask starts with someone asking a question, but—like a boomerang—the question returns quickly to its source. We document three types of boomerasks: ask-bragging (asking a question followed by disclosing something positive, e.g., an amazing vacation); ask-complaining (asking a question followed by disclosing something negative, e.g., a family funeral); and ask-sharing (asking a question followed by disclosing something neutral, e.g., a weird dream). Though boomeraskers believe they leave positive impressions, in practice, their decision to share their own answer—rather than follow up on their partner’s—appears egocentric and disinterested in their partner’s perspective. As a result, people perceive boomeraskers as insincere and prefer conversation partners who straightforwardly self-disclose.
... This difference in findings dovetails with previous research showing the immediate effects of self-disclosure on recipient relationship-based trust processes such as liking (e.g. Cozby, 1972;Huang et al., 2017;Sprecher et al., 2013). Indeed, personal relationship research uses the "disclosure-liking hypothesis" to illustrate that self-disclosure can promote recipients' affection for disclosers (Collins and Miller, 1994). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Drawing on a cognitive attribution approach to charismatic leadership, this study identifies an overlooked influence behavior – supervisor self-disclosure of a traumatic loss as contributing to subordinate charismatic attributions (e.g. idealized influence) and trust toward their supervisor. Design/methodology/approach Employing an experimental vignette method, participants (n = 201) were assigned to one of two conditions: (1) supervisor self-disclosure of traumatic loss or (2) control condition, and then reported on charismatic attributions about the supervisor in the scenario and trust toward the supervisor. Findings The results revealed that supervisors’ self-disclosure to subordinates influences subordinate attributions of charisma toward their supervisors and affective-based, cognitive-based trust. Research limitations/implications While an experimental approach supports causal inference, future research may consider the long-term effects of supervisors’ self-disclosure on subordinates’ attributions and trust. Practical implications Self-disclosure may be used authentically but cautiously to build relationships with subordinates and potentially benefit management development programs. Originality/value This study provides the first empirical insights into how a supervisor’s disclosure of a traumatic loss – an uncharted territory – affects subordinates’ perceptions of the supervisor’s charisma and subsequent trust.
... Because Albert appears to have low self-esteem, this can hinder his rate of self-disclosure, which tends to be low among those with low self-esteem [47], and thereby also hinder his rapport building with the mentor [48,49]. The default user interface of Zoom appears to further preclude such rapport building via disclosure because it draws attention to the design project rather than to the other meeting participants present. ...
Article
Full-text available
Among those for whom there were heightened concerns regarding the pivot to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic were neurodiverse youth. Despite the preponderance of research into online learning during the pandemic, relatively few studies have directly observed the experiences of neurodiverse youth. We present findings from a longitudinal study in which we qualitatively analyzed using an idiographic approach the nearly 2,000 minutes of video recordings of 9 neurodiverse youth learning digital art design via the Zoom platform. The themes we developed from the patterns observed suggest how online learning may both enable and inhibit neurodiverse students’ syncing their communication with ongoing conversations with others, achieving intersubjectivity (shared understanding) with others, coping with frustration, and personal disclosures for building rapport with others. Notably, we observed evidence suggestive of benefits and detriments of online learning for each neurodiverse youth. We discuss implications for the design and implementation of online learning opportunities for neurodiverse youth.
Article
Purpose This study investigates the effects of two types of self-disclosure by influencers (i.e. personal self-disclosure and professional self-disclosure) on followers’ parasocial relationships with them and online engagement with their content, which eventually affect followers’ purchase intentions. Design/methodology/approach This study collected data based on a cross-sectional survey of 823 social media users. Structural equation modeling analysis was used to test the overall structural model and the mediating roles of parasocial relationships and engagement. Findings This study reveals that influencers’ personal self-disclosure has a positive impact on followers’ parasocial relationships with them and online engagement with their content. Interestingly, the results indicate an inverted U-shaped relationship between influencers’ professional self-disclosure and followers’ parasocial relationships, as well as online engagement with the influencers’ content. Furthermore, followers’ parasocial relationships and engagement partially mediate the impact of influencers’ personal and professional self-disclosure on followers’ purchase intentions. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the literature by revealing the underlying mechanisms of the differential effects of influencers’ personal and professional self-disclosure on followers’ purchase intentions. Practical implications The findings will assist marketers in leveraging influencer-generated content to enhance influencer marketing effectiveness. Originality/value This research provides a better understanding of the potential linear and nonlinear effects of influencers’ self-disclosure on followers’ parasocial relationships and engagement in social media marketing.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Research on emotion regulation often focuses on cognitively effortful self-regulation strategies, but exposure to stress has been shown to interfere with the underlying mechanisms supporting such processes. Understanding alternative strategies that potentially bolster emotion regulation under stress is an important topic of investigation. Two potential alternatives involve everyday occurrences of social processing and memory recall. Social support and past emotional experiences may help in guiding us toward appropriate neurophysiological responses through overlapping circuitry with stress and reward systems, while also buttressing cognitive regulation strategies by expanding one’s perspective and allowing multiple opportunities to regulate retrospectively. In recognition that ongoing social and emotional events are often at the beginning of a cascade of both emotion regulation and memory processes, this chapter focuses on the emerging role of social relationships and autobiographical memory recall in regulating emotions under stress, highlighting opportunities and challenges associated with this process.
Article
The extent to which people self-disclose depends on the valence and intimacy of that information. We developed a 16-item measure that features both dimensions to assess participants’ inclination to self-disclose to humans and robots across three studies, i.e., the VISS scale. We hypothesized that participants would prefer a human over a robot conversation partner, independent of the valence and intimacy of the topic. Using the VISS, participants reported equal willingness to self-disclose to a human and a robot. However, in one out of three studies, participants were more willing to self-disclose positive topics that are low in intimacy (PTLI) to a fellow human, whereas in two out of three studies, they were less prone to self-disclose negative topics that are high in intimacy (NTHI) to a human compared to a robot. Two out of three studies provide a plausible explanation for these differences: participants indicated more motives to self-disclose PTLI to a human than to a robot, with relationship development being one central motive that was more strongly indicated in relation to a human. Furthermore, participants perceived more risks to self-disclose NTHI to a human than to a robot, with the risk of rejection being most prevalent for a human.
Article
Full-text available
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships serves as a benchmark of the current state of scholarship in this dynamic field synthesizing the extant theoretical and empirical literature, tracing its historical roots, and making recommendations for future directions. The volume addresses a broad range of established and emerging topics including: theoretical and methodological issues that influence the study of personal relationships; research and theory on relationship development, the nature and functions of personal relationships across the lifespan; individual differences and their influences on relationships; relationship processes such as cognition, emotion, and communication; relational qualities such as satisfaction and commitment; environmental influences on personal relationships; and maintenance and repair of relationships. The authors are experts from a variety of disciplines including several subfields of psychology, communication, family studies and sociology who have made major contributions to the understanding of relationships.
Article
Full-text available
Presents the Relationship Closeness Induction Task (RCIT), a structured self-disclosure procedure for the induction of relationship closeness in the laboratory. The RCIT consists of 29 questions, which become progressively more personal, and requires 9 min to administer. The validity of the RCIT has been previously demonstrated in several experiments, in which it fostered high levels of relationship closeness, induced high levels of group entitativity, and allowed participants adequate privacy and comfort. The RCIT affords the researcher with several advantages, such as theory-testing potential, avoidance of methodological pitfalls, and convenience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
This article reports the results of a study that compared several statistical tests of reciprocity of self-disclosure (SD): the correlation between a subject's perception of his or her SD to the partner and the partner's SD to the subject, the correlation between a subject's perception of his or her SD to a partner and the partner's perception of his or her SD to the subject; the correlation between objective observations of partners' SD and the sequential analysis of partners' SD. The results of the study were as follows. In 30 dyadic conversations between strangers, a subject's perceptions of his or her SD to the partner was positively related to the subject's perceptions of the partner's SD to the subject; a subject's perception of his or her SD to the partner was not positively related to the partner's perception of his or her SD to the subject; there was no positive relationship between partners' observed SD; and one person's SD did not increase the probability of the partner's subsequent SD, and vice versa. Thus little evidence for reciprocity of SD was found.
Article
Full-text available
The norm of reciprocity requires that we repay in kind what another has done for us. This study examined the degree that social (public) and internal (private) consequences of reciprocation helped to explain both the power and the prevalence of the norm. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which they were or were not given a small favor, and then were asked to comply with a request. Participants expected that the favor-doer would either know or not know whether they complied with the request. We found support for both public and private reasons for reciprocation, as the presence of a favor appeared to increase compliance in both public and private conditions. In addition, public compliance was greater than private compliance.
Article
Progress in understanding processes of disclosure exchange has been hindered by confusion about the conceptualization and measurement of disclosure reciprocity. To clarify the issues involved, distinctions are made among three definitions of reciprocity: equivalent exchange, covariant exchange, and turn-taking. A distinction is also made between individuals and dyads as units of analysis, and implications for assessing reciprocity are explored. An additional distinction is made among differing time frames over which reciprocity may occur; it is argued that Altman's (1973) predictions may be qualified by "trading in futures." While the analysis is focused on disclosure exchange, it has implications for research on social exchange processes, relationship development, and dyadic interaction more generally.
Article
The manner in which the concept of reciprocity is implicated in functional theory is explored, enabling a reanalysis of the concepts of "survival" and "exploitation." The need to distinguish between the concepts of complementarity and reciprocity is stressed. Distinctions are also drawn between (1) reciprocity as a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications, (2) the existential or folk belief in reciprocity, and (3) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity as a moral norm is analyzed; it is hypothesized that it is one of the universal "principal components" of moral codes. As Westermarck states, "To requite a benefit, or to be grateful to him who bestows it, is probably everywhere, at least under certain circumstances, regarded as a duty. This is a subject which in the present connection calls for special consideration." Ways in which the norm of reciprocity is implicated in the maintenance of stable social systems are examined.
Article
Online dating sites frequently claim that they have fundamentally altered the dating landscape for the better. This article employs psychological science to examine (a) whether online dating is fundamentally different from conventional offline dating and (b) whether online dating promotes better romantic outcomes than conventional offline dating. The answer to the first question (uniqueness) is yes, and the answer to the second question (superiority) is yes and no. To understand how online dating fundamentally differs from conventional offline dating and the circumstances under which online dating promotes better romantic outcomes than conventional offline dating, we consider the three major services online dating sites offer: access, communication, and matching. Access refers to users' exposure to and opportunity to evaluate potential romantic partners they are otherwise unlikely to encounter. Communication refers to users' opportunity to use various forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) to interact with specific potential partners through the dating site before meeting face-to-face. Matching refers to a site's use of a mathematical algorithm to select potential partners for users. Regarding the uniqueness question, the ways in which online dating sites implement these three services have indeed fundamentally altered the dating landscape. In particular, online dating, which has rapidly become a pervasive means of seeking potential partners, has altered both the romantic acquaintance process and the compatibility matching process. For example, rather than meeting potential partners, getting a snapshot impression of how well one interacts with them, and then slowly learning various facts about them, online dating typically involves learning a broad range of facts about potential partners before deciding whether one wants to meet them in person. Rather than relying on the intuition of village elders, family members, or friends or to select which pairs of unacquainted singles will be especially compatible, certain forms of online dating involve placing one's romantic fate in the hands of a mathematical matching algorithm. Turning to the superiority question, online dating has important advantages over conventional offline dating. For example, it offers unprecedented (and remarkably convenient) levels of access to potential partners, which is especially helpful for singles who might otherwise lack such access. It also allows online daters to use CMC to garner an initial sense of their compatibility with potential partners before deciding whether to meet them face-to-face. In addition, certain dating sites may be able to collect data that allow them to banish from the dating pool people who are likely to be poor relationship partners in general. On the other hand, the ways online dating sites typically implement the services of access, communication, and matching do not always improve romantic outcomes; indeed, they sometimes undermine such outcomes. Regarding access, encountering potential partners via online dating profiles reduces three-dimensional people to two-dimensional displays of information, and these displays fail to capture those experiential aspects of social interaction that are essential to evaluating one's compatibility with potential partners. In addition, the ready access to a large pool of potential partners can elicit an evaluative, assessment-oriented mindset that leads online daters to objectify potential partners and might even undermine their willingness to commit to one of them. It can also cause people to make lazy, ill-advised decisions when selecting among the large array of potential partners. Regarding communication, although online daters can benefit from having short-term CMC with potential partners before meeting them face-to-face, longer periods of CMC prior to a face-to-face meeting may actually hurt people's romantic prospects. In particular, people tend to overinterpret the social cues available in CMC, and if CMC proceeds unabated without a face-to-face reality check, subsequent face-to-face meetings can produce unpleasant expectancy violations. As CMC lacks the experiential richness of a face-to-face encounter, some important information about potential partners is impossible to glean from CMC alone; most users will want to meet a potential partner in person to integrate their CMC and face-to-face impressions into a coherent whole before pursuing a romantic relationship. Regarding matching, no compelling evidence supports matching sites' claims that mathematical algorithms work-that they foster romantic outcomes that are superior to those fostered by other means of pairing partners. Part of the problem is that matching sites build their mathematical algorithms around principles-typically similarity but also complementarity-that are much less important to relationship well-being than has long been assumed. In addition, these sites are in a poor position to know how the two partners will grow and mature over time, what life circumstances they will confront and coping responses they will exhibit in the future, and how the dynamics of their interaction will ultimately promote or undermine romantic attraction and long-term relationship well-being. As such, it is unlikely that any matching algorithm that seeks to match two people based on information available before they are aware of each other can account for more than a very small proportion of the variance in long-term romantic outcomes, such as relationship satisfaction and stability. In short, online dating has radically altered the dating landscape since its inception 15 to 20 years ago. Some of the changes have improved romantic outcomes, but many have not. We conclude by (a) discussing the implications of online dating for how people think about romantic relationships and for homogamy (similarity of partners) in marriage and (b) offering recommendations for policymakers and for singles seeking to make the most out of their online dating endeavors.