Self-Disclosure and Starting a Close Relationship VALERIAN J. DERLECA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, and KATHRYN GREENE oe selFdlsclsure transaction provides an important contest in which decisions are made in beginning a relationship with a new acquaintance. People use “self-disclosure” (ncading ‘what, when, and how thoughts and felings are disclosed or not dissased) as wel as reac tionsby the disclosure recipient and the inal dslser to collect information about a prospective partacr and to make forecasts about the possitility for a fature relationship. 18 also used by new equaintances to infer how much they lke and trust one another and whether they might identify themselves as friends or as an intimate couple. 1h this chapter we examine various topics about seldisclosure and starting a relationship, We ‘xattine how background factors (eg, culture, personality, and gendes) and communiation medium (eg, fce-to-fue versus Internet communication) influence self-dsclorare atthe start of a elaton- Ship. We show how self disclosure is incorporated into conversations to intesiyo restrict itacy and closeness between now acquaintances. We describe how the reactions ofthe disclosure rcip- cent andthe discloser to self-disclosure input asst new acquaintances to assess feelings of intimacy for one another and whether or not seek a loser relationship. We also illustrate bow arlaion ship-building exerise incorporating self-disclosure may increase feelings of loseness between new acquaintances. Fis, lt us define sedisclosure and review influential, early spprosches about the role of self disclosure atthe start of relationship. WHAT IS SELF-DISCLOSURE? People may loosely define sefdiclosure as anything intentional or unintentional that informs ws akout what someone is like. However, theory and research on self isclosure—and this chapter — fous on self-disclosure as a deliberate or voluntary activity whereby people revel information, thoughts, and feelings about themselves to atleast one other person during an interaction (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). There are a number of dimensions ofseldicosure that should be considered (Archer, 1080; Devlega & rela, 1979; Dindia, 1995, Rosenfeld, 1970). Although self disclosure is usually studied as a verbal activity (og, “I think..." of "fel. itmay also refer tononvorbal mesegos that are intonded to communicst information (og, ndicating relationship commitment by wearing ¢ wedding ring oF wearing tattoo on one's arm that sys, “Tove Maisie) Se-lisclosure is a transaction that occurs between two or more persons in the roles of dicoser™ are “dislosure recipient” or “Iistener” at cognitive, emotional, and behavioral levels, What, when, ‘and how self-disclogure occurs on ane occasion or over time influence und are Infenced lv the:VALERIAN J. DERLEGA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRVH GREENE Interaction andor the relationship that unfolds between the participants (Bavelas, Coates, & Job ‘an, 2000; Dindia, 1998; Greene eta, 2006; Pearce & Sharp, 1973) “There are other aspects of disclosure ar nondisclosure that may influence how acose relation ship begins, including privacy regulation (how much control the disclose andthe disclosure rei tent have over the proces of what esa and heard, a well as who owns the information and how “it” will be protected, Aman, Vinsl,& Brown, 1981; Derlega & Chaikin, 1977; Petron, 1981, 2002), truthfulness (the exten to which the dscloser conveys informatio that he ar de subjectively perceives tobe about the "tue" or “authentic sel”), nformatioeness (how much information is con ‘eyed from the discloser’s andthe disclosure recipients behavior, contributing to attributions about the reasons underying each person's behavior), and effectiveness (how successfl the discloser and the disclosure reipint are in accomplishing important goals vi their behaviors, eg, developing a closer relationship o keeping a social distance from the other person) ‘Self disclosure varies in content. It may focus on facts about one's self (descriptive disclosures such a5 “Tate to tallcradio programa’) or subjective opinions and feelings (evaluative disclosures such as “L enjoyed Dan Brown's book, The Da Vincl Cade, but I felt letdown by the movie's Berg {& Archer, 1982; Morton, 1976, 1978) The content of disclosure may also focus entiely onthe self (personal dislosure such as“ feel good about winning the lottery”) or on one's relationship and/or Interactions with others (relational self dislasure suchas “I enjoyed the time I spent with you tis ‘woekend”; Baxter, 1987, Waring, 1987) ‘Self. disclosure may be perceived as personaistic (ie, uniquely intended fora recipient) or non- personalise (ie, intended for anyone) (Taylor, Gould, & Brounstein, 198). The behavior of the {iseloeure recipient and/or the dtcloser may also vary in responsiveness, reflecting bow much each person's rections are perceived as understanding, validating, and caring (Res & Patick, 1996; Reis ‘& Shaver, 1988). Judgments about responsiveness, based on perceptions about how the disclosure recipient and the diseloser responded during and across disclosure episodes, are sed to infer int. ‘macy in an interaction and in relationship (Laurenceau, Barrett, & Pitromonaco, 998) SELF-DISCLOSURE AT THE START OF A RELATIONSHIP: HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT APPROACHES Let us consider historically important theories ad research about the role of self-disclosure at the start ofa close relationship, nchiding social penetration theay (Altman é Taylor, 1973), the “licking model” (Berg & Clark, 1986), and dialectical and privacy model (Altman etal, 1981; Fetronio, 2002) Bach approach proposes a somewhst different role fr self disclosure i beginning a lationship. Social Penetration Theory Social penetration theory (propored by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor in 1973) provided an impor- tant, early perspective about self-disclosure and the development ofa lose relationship. According to this theory, at the start of «relationship, prospective partners may be limited to fay stereotyped and superficial behaviors. But a a relationship progresses, individual ae predicted to increase the range of activites they share with one ancther, including disclosing more personal formation to ‘one another. Prospective partners also compose a mental pieture of one another based on postive tnd negative experiences wth the current partner and thir value in comparison to prior relationship experiences. If this picture ls favorable, based on a favorable benefit-cost ratio from previous interac tions and based on favorable forecast forthe future, then the budding relationship progreses. this picture is unfavorable, then the budding relationship stops or slows down in devlopnent (Altman & ‘Taylor, 1973, pp. 46-47), although self-disclosure isa behavioral component ofthe Social penetration process, socal penetration includes any behavior that is interpersonal verbal (eg elf disclosure nonverbal eg, frowns, smiling, handshakes, hugs, and kissing), or environmental eg, moving chats to sit closer to or farther away from one ancther)—and that affects relationship development.‘SELF-DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP Cote rstionsips develop in vrsle way. But whatever he spc ates soci pene ton theory gives a dtintve empha fo self dalxing behaviors because a rltnshp begins tds matetained by the the gaa overlapping and exploration of tr mats y parties toa relationship" (Altman & Taylor, 1973p. 13). Social penetration thoy identified several dimen. sont of sel dadonre that are aolafed withthe development ocr relationship how many Afferent topes ate dsloned (ope bea, how much information is dcosed bout particular {ope reat regen) bow tic ne pent alling about pstar tpl ope me ane Tinta the velo kone Gop dap ‘soll penetration theory generates miner of predictions abot pattem of li dese that may oor a lationship progesice At each tage of elatnsip developmen, thee i 3 Alsinctve “wedge-shaped patent dadonire ssid wih greser decor a superitl than at nme level ther a gral nea In dacone fem sper fo tints les of exdangs a4 rstonship develops, there sa gradual widening of inbrmatin being exchanged {1 pica lee of tiay ar elton Svs and there sa swing down of lS Clone inthe manner of noted cele cave st moves no or init ops areas ‘Although sel dsdosre preted to be generally nar aa elaonsip develop three lo ‘ertain tops that maybe dented unltrallyor naval as finds to talk abot, nclading ‘Sly srt and tops tat are perceive as to prone Rartor Wino, 1988, wh dite sshd betwen to and dada toi ‘A ary by Tylor 1968 Uutrats how sl uclonure progress during he ery sages of relia predicted by socal penetraton theory. Calle tent, who were eigiaaly Stanger, were sxe as drmtory roommate at the boponing of nscale sence Toy ‘ere administered selfdslsure queatonaie several tines ding the semester oes how ‘mich information the roommates bal Shaed wth one sother, Rsukt insted that breadth of . tin 305), st ‘ell ‘tual iuain- 2601; self Diesa ‘SELF DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP mental representation for a“petive sgnfieakt then.” sich as parent, clan fried, or provous ‘ating partner then unconscious procesies Via transference are activated that incress king for and possibly seldislosure to this person (Andersen & Adil Saibay, 2005), ‘Whether or not someone already has a network of frend andr an intiate prt may alo aot stand how self-disclosure occurs with a prospective relationship partner: I someone has dose feds or intimate partner she ore maybe less motivated to initiate sneer relationship compared to sometne ‘who has no friends or relationship partners (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashear, 2006). A lak ter cst in starting anew relationship may ease someone to restric selEdiscesure with arew aequaintance tt at unresponsive tothe ther persons disse input On the eter hand frends and fy ay affect relationship development, including self-disclosure, in other ways, too. In partic ifthey support the budding relationship we speculate that the relationships mee ley to develep. ‘There are individual diflerencs in traits that influence the desire to start «new relationship and one's willingness to disclose. People witha secure attachment—who combine low attachment ‘sity (ie, those with high self-worth) and low attachment avaidance (ie, those with high regard for others--are motivate to have close and intimate relationships, and they perce new aequain- tances as “safe to get to know andas trustworthy (Mikulincer, 1098; Mikulincer& Brey, 1991). This high level of trst that secure” persons feel toward a prospective partner intro, esacated ith Increased self disclosure to new soquaintances(Mikulincer& Nachshon, 1991; Wei etal, 2005), “There are also inva diflerences in nterpersnal sls hat influence the ikthond of sells closure occuring in conversation betwoen new soquintances. For instance, high openers (eased bythe Opener Seale; Mill, Berg, & Archer, 183) are people who encourage others toself- disclose and {0 engage innit conversations hecaase they are attentive and espansve to wht tho oer person s saying, Mlle et al: (1989; alo see Purvis, Dubbs, & Hopper, 1964) found that high opezrs who endorse statements such a“ eny istening to people “T encourage people to tell me how they are feling” and Tim very accepting of other”), compared to ow openers, were more sucessful in stimaating ono sclera (ati, smeane who scored low on a scale measuring willingness to self-ischse toa same-e« strangest revel persona information abou themschps during apeting acquainted” exercise. ‘Gender diferences may occur in comfort with se-disclesure—especallyameng adolescent boys and gis who have limited experiences with dating and/or romani elationships. recent survey of adolescents in the United States (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006) fund tat boy, compared toils, felt more avkwardin aking about their feelings toa prospective or actual dating parte (eg, “would be uncomfortable having intimate conversations withX or"Sometimes fel Tneed to wate ‘what I sy to X") and have lone confidence in communicating sbout relatonship-bised concerns to the partner (eg, “How confident are you that you could. refuse a date?” or“. tek your gielfiend? boyliend how treat you? p. 265) Giordano etal. (2006) suggested that young ment awhwardnes in talkingto their female partner about relationship-bsed dilemmas may be due, in par, oa discomfort and sans of inadequsy inulin gender tereaypes about the “males nit” tthe beginning fe dating and/or romantic relationship. These findings refet heterosexual assumysions about gen- der rls infooncingslflcosure at tho star ofan intima relationship between en and women eteroserul assumptions about "who initiates” may not necessarily be a barrier to sel-dlsdlosure and/ starting a relationship fr lesbian and gay male couples (Klineber & Rose, 1964; Rose, 2000, Rose ‘ Zand, 2000) For a further description of gender rls and self disclosure ee a ltr scton in this chapter onthe diflerent use of self-disclosure by men and women to init a elaionsip. SELF-DISCLOSURE AND “INTENSIFYING” VERSUS. “RESTRICTING” SCRIPTS FOR INCREASING OR DECREASING ‘THE PACE OF AN INTERACTION AND/OR A RELATIONSHIP ‘Thete are a number of interactional statoges for assesing and making ferecats about te suitability of anew acquaintance fora possible relationship (se Baxter & Wilmot, 1954; Berger & Bradac, 1982, 139,160 VALERIAN J. DERLEGA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE, Berger & Calabrese, 10°; Mie & Duck, 1986; Telhuize, 198). Informtion-secking strategies may Initially focus on gathering general information about the new acquaintance—perhaps asking direct questions about the other person interests and recent activities as well as observing the other’ and one's wn) reactions during conversations. Poople may also draw inferences about someone's potential 15a relationship parte: from the general ton ofa conversation (eg. “Does the other person seem fiiendly and responsive"), Bt people may also hold back and show a deste to play safe in talking ‘nitially with the new partner (eg acting reserved and palit exchanging superficial disclosures, ane limiting soeil contac) avoid appearing “inappropriate” However, when individual identify some- cone who is potentially interesting to get to now, they may adopt an “intensifying script” (Mie & Duck, 1986; also see Klineberg & Rose, 1904) that includes a willingness to talk about a wide range of disclosure tops as wellas a more intimate level of self disclosure to accelerate the level of intimacy in the relationship. The nev partnars may also decide to spend more time together (Miell & Duck, 1986, ‘Tahulzen, 1989). How the partners react tothe intensification ofthe relationship will in turn be used. to farther assss the partner and forocast the future ofthe relationship. ‘On the other hand, individuals may decide, after interacting with someone that they do not want ‘relationship withthe aew partner. The new partner may be perceived as “unacceptable” for any of varity of reasons, indading having different interests and attitudes, already being in an exclusive dating relationship, or being difcat to get along with (Miell & Duck, 1986). If partners want to “end a budding relationship, they may engage in behaviors that ace designed to restrict closeness (Miell& Duck, 1986) The “restricting script” may inlude behaviors that are viewed as appropiate with anew partner (eg, limiting the range of topics in a conversation, disclosing st superficial level, land infrequent or limited social contacts}—at least when the new partners are trying to be polite ‘and not too revealing. Buti aso may include behaviors that are viewed as inappropriate with new partner (eg, acting disinterested, distancing, and nonresponsive). Tho restricting Sript is designed to“trvilize” the partners socal interactions and conversations and to convey the message that the relationship has no future (Miell &x Duck) Hays (1985) reported research consistent with the notion (of arostrcting script insocial interactions. New acquaintances who did not become cose friends by the end ofthe first semester in college restricted interactions (including intimate communication) with thir partner as early asthe third week of school MANAGING THE RISKS (INCLUDING SELF- DISCLOSURE) IN STARTING A RELATIONSHIP Despite the usefulnes of self. disclosure in beginning a relationship, people must weigh the benefits of self-disclosure against its risks, including uncertainty about the other’ reaction, and concerns about trusting the other not to divulge sensitive information to unwanted third parties (Le. gossip [A study by Boon and Pasveer (1998) illustrates, based on college students’ accounts of past dating ‘experiences, concerns tht were reported (in which [they] felt somehow at rik’ p. $20) in starting and/or being in a dating relationship. Based on a content analysis ofthe ris accounts, participants described many fears that were not directly related to selfdisclosue, inclding the following: Is ‘the partner going to judge me negatively? Is ny partner trustworthy, caring, and reliable? Should I be concerned about being romantically involved with someone whom I do nat know very well? But participants also frequently reported risks that were directly associated with self-disclosure 103 relationship partner, including “cjoncerns about the unpleasant consequences that arise when con fidences ae betrayed; and] fears about disclosing feelings forthe partner” (Boon & Paswee, 1998, ‘p.822), Participants alo reported risks linked to deception andor lack of honesty in their dating relationships, including fear thatthe partner is withholding information, Fear ofthe consequences ifthe partner detects the respondent's dishonest" (Boon & Pasveer, 1998, p. $23) esearch by Baxter (1990) indicates how partners may choose different strategies to address the risks associted with disclosure aswell 5 to resolve contradictory demands abou “telling everythingwant ayof sire satto rite pale igmd atthe retin, sdsby tien) ophiog 'SELF-DISCLOSURE: AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONS toapartner" versus “being dsroet and not divulging anything personal about oneself” For instance, prospective partners frequently rely on the strategy af “separation/segmentation to selet topic areas that are acceptable for disclosure and other topic areas that are considered to be “taboo” er “of limits” for disclosure. Partners may also use "neutralization through moderation” where there {s reliance on lots of smal talk while maintaining discretion in dislosing about certain topic areas. ‘Another strategy called sele:tion” involves choosing a strategy focusing on being totally open” with ‘prospective partner versus "totaly withholding” Given concerns about pcsible rejection by disclosing potentially sensitive information (eg, ‘I had an abortion” or “T have low self esteem”, prospective partners may also make the decision fairy ‘arly to “plunge in” and revel personal information as a sort of “relationship test." Consider someore. ‘who is diagnosed with HIV. She or he may disclose information about the seropositive diagnosis a ‘the beginning of a relationship to test the others reactions (eg, “Does this person want to for to have a relationship with me?) Disclosure ofthe HIV diagnosis eary in the relationship wl allow the person wit the disease to find out how the other feels about him or her before ether hes ‘made substantial investment in the relationship (Deelega & Winstead, 2001; Greene, Derlega, Yep, ‘& Petronio, 2003; Winstead al, 2002). An “up-front” strategy of disclosure about the diagnosis s aso consistent with laboratory research indicating that people who delay decosure of disreditable {information (meaning that the stigmatizing characteristic is no visible or known) are liked les han ‘those who reveal this information ealy in a conversation with & new soquaintance (Jones & Arche, 1976; Jones & Gordon, 1972;as0 soe Goffman, 1963) RESPONSIVENESS IN CONVERSATIONS AND. PERCEPTIONS OF RELATIONSHIP INTIMACY ‘The term relational responsioenss refers to partners’ perceptions that each person “demonstrates that he or she is taking anothers ontoomes, ned, wishes intn consideration” (Mille & Berg, 1984, p. 197) Rather than just providing “ewnrds” or benefit for one's partner to repay that partner for benefits previously given or expected to be given (reflecting an exchange orientation), “develop- ing close relationship” is assoclted with partners’ pereeptions that each i doing what is most elp- fal to meet the other persons nosds (reflecting a comrasnal orientation; Clark fe Mil, 1979). How cach partner reacts tothe self-disclosure input in an interaction (eg, isthe listener acting supportive and caring, and/or does the disdoser perceive her or himself to be understood end supported by the listeners response?) contributes to the perception of responsiveness i a conversation and, over 1 mimber of interactions, to perceptions of relational responsiveness and intimacy (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Let us review the evidence linking sel Aisclosure with responsiveness in conversations between new acquaintances and how this interac- tion process may influence the development f an intimate relationship, Partners may use responsiveness in initial interactions witha new acquaintance to assess whether or not they and/or their partner want to start a relationship. This coaversitional responsiveness “refers to behaviors made by th recipient of another's communications through which the recip ‘ent indicates interest n and understanding ofthat communication” (Mille & Berg, 1984, p. 193) I lclides three components: content, style, and timing (Berg, 1987; Davis, 1989; Davis & Perkonit, 1979; Miller & Berg, 1984) Content refers to the extent to which the disclosure recipient's response adresses the dsclosers previous communication (eg. expressing concern about what the speaker ‘aid, matching disclosure topes, atching intimacy, or elaborating on what the initial dscloser sid). ‘Style refers to showing enthusiasm and intrest n what the other person said as opposed to acting sdiseogaged or uninterested (eg, involving “immediacy” cues such as direct eye contact, head nods, standing close tothe speaker, lacger speech responses to the disclose’ input, and saying, "I see") ‘Timing refers to how quickly a response occurs tothe disclose’ input (eg, responding immediatly ‘or delaying one's response)162 VALERIAN. DERLEGA, ARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE [Research by Deborah Davis and William Perkowitz (1979) documents that content responsve- ess in a conversation aflcts liking fn interactions involving strangers. Davis and Teskowie (Stay 2) arranged fora confederate (a strange) to answer the same questions asa research participant in ‘what was described as a study of the “acqualntanoeship process” Based on prearranged responses the confederate answered the same questions asthe research participant ether 80% or 20% of the time. The topes ofthe questions were generally superficial in content (eg, “What would you do i you suddenly inherited a million dollars?) but the proportion of content related responses by the confederate affected liking and how much participants felt that they had become acquainted with ‘the confederate. Davis ad Perkowitz concluded thatthe proportion of cantent-elated responsive- ness (or conversational responsiveness) “affected something more base than attraction, namely the perception of ‘bond’ or relationship’ between the subject and the confederate” (p. 546), avis and Peskowitz(1979) research on conversational espoasiveness supports the notion that self-disclosure is part of transactional proces in the development of a relationship. The disclosure recipient’ reaction are ¢s important as the disclosure input from an inital disloser in infivene. lng what happens in a ceversation and perhaps in influencing a relationships development. But ‘this research does not necessarily support an often held assumption inthe sel dicosure literature that there i a “norm of disclosure reiprocty” in intial conversations between new aequaintances, whereby self-disclosure input by one partner must be matched by self-disclosure output from the other partner (Aliman, 1973; Chaikin & Derlega, 1974; Derlega, Wilson, & Chaikin 1876, Won. Doorn, 1979, 1985). For instance, Borg and Archer (1980) found that people react more fxvorably to expressions of concern and interest in what is said ina conversation andr social interaction than to reciprocation of intimacy of disclosure. Berg and Archer presented research participants with 2 description of an inital meeting between two womea in a student union, where one person rewaled ctther low or high-intimacy information. The second person responded by revealing either low- or high-itimacy informatio, by expressing concern about what the frst person sid, o by combining low or high-intimacy dselosure output along with expressions of concern. Liking for the second person vas higher when the intimacy of the response matched the intimacy ofthe dislosure input But regardless of disclosure input, the highest level of liking forthe second person occurred in the coneition where she simply expressed concern for what the frst person had sid ‘The results of Berg an Archer’ (1980) research are theoretically important because they ind cate that the inital bond between new acquaintances may depend not so much on a "ttforat™ ‘matching of disclosure inot, but in enacting an appropriate expression of concer and/or social Support in response to someone's disclosure input. The recipient of disclosure intimacy ean best communicate interest ina possible relationship by tailoring his or he response tothe needs ofthe inital discloser—maybe by matching disclosure input, if that is perceived to be appropriate, or by listing supportvey (Ber, 1987, Miller & Berg, 1984) ‘The interpersonal provess model of intimacy (Rels eta, 2004; Res & Patrick, 1006; Reis & ‘Shaver, 1986; also soe Prager, 1995; Prager & Roberts, 2004) integrates research on self-disclosure and responsiveness to desert the development of intimacy in iterations and in close relation ship generally. Inthe interpersonal model, iiimacy isan emergent feature in a conversation and/ ‘or close relationship based on one person's self-disclosure input and the other's reactions: The frst person (in the roe of dscbsex) reveals or, more generally, “sell-expreses" thoughts and felings to ‘second person (in the rol of listener. The term self-expression most often refers to voluntary sell disclosures, but it alo encompasses any involuntary andlor unconscious behaviors that reveal some- ‘one’s thoughts and feelings. The intimacy process continues based on the listener's behavior) and ‘emotional responses that may convey either intrest or disinterest nthe initial dislosure. According to Reis and Patrick, the disclser based onthe listener’ response “Tels understood, validated, and cared for, then the interacion is likely to be experionoed as intimate” (. 537) On the other hand, If the disclose feels misunderstood, invalidated, and nonsupported—or ifthe listener's response is inappropriate—then the interaction may be seen as nnintimate, and the budding relationship discontinued. Also, if the listener feels appreciated beeause “his or her response allowed . [the {nital disclose) to eel understood, validated, and eared for (Reis & Patrick, 1996, .537), then thedy tin tha sing pat adi. tat ‘eal the by is & and frst sto SSELP-DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP listener may lao experience the interaction as more intimate ledinghim or ert seldisclose and! or selfexpress On the oter hand, the ‘Istener” does not feel appreciated, hor se may choose {ond the convertion aswel as th budding lationship (Mel & Duck, 1986). “The intimacy process model predicts that emotional disclosures (evealngfecings and opinions) have more impact than deerptive disosures (evealing facts and information about oneself) in acelerating perception of intimacy ina soil ntraction. Emotional o evaluative disclosures ae Considered to present the “innermost aspect ofthe self (Ret & Patrick, 1996,p. 544) and reflect Sndvidualy’ desires to have an authete andor honest relationship with another person, Reactions bya listener to these emotional ar opposed to deveriptive disclosures have been ound oinence {hong celles salts win ssid couples hoping a diay of theirs interstons how much the decover fel understood, valid, and cared fran, in turn, ifthe comvenaion is peceved tobe innate (Lauenceas etal, 1998; Laurenceau, Barret, & Tovine, 2005) ‘Research by Susan Cross and he colleagues illstrates how individ ferences in a personal ttyvarlabl (Le relational elf constua) influence va sel dilosure perception of responsiveness inlateractins andi the development of intimate elationshis—espetlly among persons who are {nally unsequatated o do ot know one ancter very well before being in the esearch The Rela- tional Interdopendent Sef Constr Seaetaps "individual differences inthe extettowhich people define themselves in term of dose relationships" (Gore, Cros, & Mocs, 200, p. 8 Persons who sre high nrelatonlietrdependent se construal identify themseies in terms ef being connected with others, expecially in vabsing the development and maintenane of close restnshis. Typical ems onthe Relational Interdependeot Sel Constraa Seale (Cross, Bacon, Morris, 2000, p78) teetide the following “My close relationships ae an important reflction of who a” and "When establish a close friendship with someone usually develop a strong sense of atifcation with {hat prs" Someone scoring high, compared tol, in lationalselFconstal is perecived by new cqatances as blog more dislosing and as beng expecially caring and espnsve this or her partners concerns (Cross tal, 2000, Stay 3) ‘Arecent giana study among previously unsequainted dormitory roommates (Gore etal, 2006) documents how self-disclosure by persons high in relational self-construl accelerates ree tionship development. Tine 1 results demonstrated that persons who were high, compared t low, In latina slfconstrual were more likely to engage in emotional icosure to thelr new oom tte a the begining ofthe academe semester Higher emotional disclosure predicted higher perceptions of rexponsvenes (eg, “My roommate scems sensitive to my feling”) by the dieo, Sure recipient that, in turn, predicted the recipients perooption of «higher qualty relationship (based on measures of rlatonship strength, commitment, depth, Liking, closeness, and confi) fn the relents own higher emotional disosur. Time 2 ress indicate after one month had elapsed in the roommates relationship, hw the intimacy process sstalcs self overtime ‘The disclosure recipients own emotional disclosure at Time 1 was associated withthe initial ds- lotr’ perceptions of is or her partner’ responsiveness at Time 2, predictngin turn the initial ‘scloser’ perception of the qualty ofthe relationship at Time 2a well sth iia dsclser’s ‘own emotional disclosure st Time 2. ‘Cost and he colleague’ research (Cross ta, 2000; Gore etal, 2006) impressive indo menting the roles of self diclosure and responsiveness atthe beginning of «relationship. I also [rode an iteresting “wit” onthe orginal intimacy process model of Reis nd Shaver (1088): igh levels of emotional disclosure by itself associated with an individual difference variable such 4s scoring high onthe Relational Construal Seale) may inrease perceptions of responsiveness (eg, "My partner cares about me") by dtelosure recipient that, n tur, strengthen Pereepions oftntimaey in an interaction and in close relationship. Ifthe disclosure recent fel closer to ‘the initial ciscloser, then he or she may increase disclosure to the new parte. The disclosure recipients ewn emotional disclosure may, n urn, lead the inital dsclser to reciprocate afer- ‘ences about her or hls patter responsiveness and ikeaiity—leading to the tna dsclsers further emotional disclosure ona later ocason sn tothe development of intimacy between the new acquaintances 163164 VALERIAN J. DERLEGA, BARBARA A, WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE GENDER’S IMPACT ON SELF-DISCLOSURE AT THE START OF A RELATIONSHIP rior research on gender differences in self-disclosure (summarized in a meta-analysis by Dina & Allen, 1992) has found statistically reliable, albeit small, gender differences in disclosure: Women generally disclose more about themselves than men in various kinds of relationships. But the gender difference in self-disclosure toa relationship partner is also greater in close relationships (eg, 2 friend, spouse, or parent) than in interactions With a stranger or new acquaintance (Dindia, 2002, Dindia & Allen; Reis, 1998; also see Giordano etal, 2006) Researchers should not exaggerate the ‘magnitude of gender differences in self-disclosure in ether beginning or ongoing relationships (Din. dia & Allen, 1992; Reis, 1998; Rubin, Hil, Peplau, & Dunkel-Scheter, 1950), But the literature on gender differences in self-disclosure is consistent with earlier finding n “impression rating” studies (Chelune, 1976; Derlegs & Chaikin, 1976; Kleinke & Kahn, 1980) that self-disclosure is perceived as ‘more appropriate for women than for men among new acquaintances, ‘We want to focus briefly on several studies cited in Dindia and Allens (1992) meta-analysis that suggest an exception tothe finding that women tend to exceed men in self-disclosure, These “excep tions” are studies that have focused on intial interactions between men and women in an acqualn- ‘tance erecise, and they found that men ether equaled or exceeded women in self-disclosure. These studies suggest a strategic role for self-disclosure in the fist encounter between a man and woman 4s the partners abide by gender-related expectations about the roe of initiator and reactor, When Someone has the gal of becoming better aoquainted with their oppsit-sex partner, then the man, ‘may be more likely than the women to us “his” self. disclosure input to acelerate “geting to kaow ‘one another"—to et his partner know more about himself and to find out more about his partner by encouraging disclosure reciprocity ‘Consider the following study by Derlga, Winstead, Wong, and Hunter (1985); Male and female research participants who did not previously know one ancther frst met in sinall groups to get ‘soquainted during a group conversation. Then they were assigned to a bogus partner (ether a maa ‘or woman) forthe second phase—someone who purportedly had expressed an interest in geting to know them based on the group conversation, The research participant was asked to prepare a sell: description forthe partner. The results indicated that men disclosed more intimately thin women, to1an opposite-sex partner. The men with a female partner also disclosed more than women peired with a female partner or men with a male partner. Consistent with the idea ofthe men in the rae of Initiator, the men's intimacy of disclosure in the opposite-sex alr was positively coreated with Bow ‘much they perceived that their female partner liked and trusted them; but there was no correlation between the women’s intimacy of disclosure and how much they thought their male partner liked ‘or trusted them, avis (1978) found similar results in a study with male and female college students engaged in ‘an acquaintance exercise with opposite-sex classmates: Consistent with the ea that men take the {initiator role in an intial meeting with an opposite-sex partner, the men selected more intimate top ‘es than the women to talk about, and they reported exerising more influence on the course ofthe Interaction. On the other hand, the women took on a reactive role. Fo instance, the women Were ‘more likly than the men to reciprocate the level of intimacy of thelr partner's disclosure input and ‘the women took on a (srt of) “consensus role” by going along with the intimacy of topics selected by the male partner. The women may have been “a shade reluctant” (Davis, 1978, p. 681) compared to the men to participate inthis acquaintanceship exercise: The women enjoyed the acquaintance exercise less than the men in these mixed geader pairs, There was also no sigifieant association between the women’s enjoyment of the mixed-sex encounters and their male partner’ intimacy of Aislosure, whereas there was a significant postive corelation between the ten’ enjoyment and their female partners intimacy of disclosure. Gender differences in self-disclosure may be more likely to occur when the man and woman {nan opposite-sex interaction aniipate meeting again na future interaction, Shaffer and Ogden2 tes oe REGSeRREEHE S88 EF BSTGARES EY Fe ‘SELP-DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP (196 ss sc Shar, Pegi, Bazin, 1996) condcted an experiment dy where partners to met in an acqaitance exercise eer expected or Gil ot expect Sat subsequently Overt sre of tal, the research priya (an or wor) provided self daclnire a reponse to high orlow daar nat rma confoert a the oppor The revs ind ‘ated that theenGsdased woe inns, abe nonigacanty, when ue nterscton vith {he male partner eas antipted . wertng ogetheron decison aking taskafter an ital toyuuntareship exercise ws nied) wera ot antptd. On the th hand, the wonen ioe ls itinatly when fare interaction with the male partner es atpted vert pot anipted. Consent withthe en that neni he rl of atator ow selene tet osnnted wath woman vo they ed nal, tere asa poste alo between theme tation the female partes a how ch they ed tor se on dg tig of dsr inimacyandemetialinvestent in commana bot fp) when they expected ftueinteracton compare to wen hey i ot expect ture interaction. Porthe roster intresting, there wes netve oelaton tween ter attract fr the wale par eran wc thy dosed to hm, bt thre was nocoreaton between thetic ad Siodonre when no ftre interaction was atiistd Shalfrtd Open (0 speculated that the women wo epee fture interaction may bv been more concerned then the men sot tninalning a professional ltnship" dung the aojesttance exerci adi the flown Study in which they were bth parteating The ween, compared othe es, ay have rece ta-dslooe during the soqeaitance cece onan sn ental tans with tre work rte. ‘commenti worth shot the contrary relevance ofthis eer on pede ferenesn sl oeure,The Sdigy that sen nay exe (rales egal) women in sl Gicomre a the ginning oration beemeen anand woman are eral unepeted then the weigh of tutes nting tat women eempred t men) dow ere, Bo the ce Fe highgt the trator fe clr negating opin ia women Gee Cetin, 109) and inte delet of sees areas Men tne than women fet enouner ny nese sll fo recite geting to knw on src opposes prrtcr, women more than en in an iia counter wah an (opal thre afte frost os -pefesona dase) ny este thir ova selon eal shar fio abet somewhat neta distant lationship wih ter opponte sec pester Shafer & Opler, 1985 testes he in hs section on ender fens in elon in anna cqannce exer ining opposes pres west plished nthe 10s nd 18D thy ae Snsitent ith cnt generated seretypes at mes and women sin ian she rectal ating andr romantic ratonship (exer et al, 200) Neertbel i tinea {hate nthe ole of itor wil scerte “geting to know hs parte” by sledding toan atuetve oppose sex pte Ite man ck the scl ls ore enence ones loses via seifdcsure andor eter inmedney barr (Cacia, tn, der sonnet f Brigg 190; Coare etal, 200) oriaresponse partner inva (ils tal, 1989, then the pte ltinshp may rom he art SELF-DISCLOSURE AND “JUMP STARTING” A RELATIONSHIP ON THE INTERNET Today, many people vse the Internet as « medium for communicating wit fends, famiy, and romante partners (one, 2002) But they may also use the Internet to start personal elation ‘hip Bargh, MeKenns, & Fitzsimons, 2008; Chan & Cheng, 2003; McKenna, Gren, & Gleasn, 202; Puke & Flay, 1996; Paks & Roberts, 1088; Ward & Tracey, 2004; ls sce the chapters by -MeKenna [chapter 12] and Sprecher, Sehwat, Harvey, & atfel chapter 1) in this Handbook 165166 VALERIAN J. DERLEGA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE about starting relationships online) There are features ofthe Internet that may increase self disclo- ‘sre between online, compared to face-to-face, partners in an initial interaction and accelerate the evelopment of a close online relationship (McKenna et al, 2002), First, the relative anonymity of many forms of Internet-based, compared to face-to-fce, communications reduces the risk of rejec- tion, People might disclose fairly intimate information to “strangers on the Internet” (Bargh eta, 2002), based on the expectation that they are unlikely to interact with their online partners ever ‘again, Sond, Internet venues may lack andior fer out the sorts of “gating features” (eg, physical ‘sppearance and/or socal sil defcts such as behavioral shyness and nervousnes) that may inhibit seldieclosure between new acquaintances ina face-to face enoounter (Garcia al, 1901; MeKenna ‘etal, 2009; Parks & Flay, 1996, Ward & Tracey, 2008) Third, individuals may select Internet sites where they are likely to meet others who share similar interests and/or opinions. For instance, if Someone joins a newsgroup focusing on, sy, climate change he or she knows that other persons who coess the ite are likely to have common interests. The perception of common interests may, in turn, Increase self-disslosure (MeKenna et a, 2002) If peopl believe that they are disclosing their “authentic self" on the Internet and thatthe other pereon has the qualities of an “ideal” frlend, then the partners in an online encounter may ‘move more quickly in developing a relationship. Bargh etal (2002) collected data consistent with these prediction. Bargh etal. (2002, Studies I and 2) first demonstrated that an online, compared to face-to-face, interaction is more likely to activate cognitions assoeated with what research participants perceive tobe thei "rue" or “authentic” sel At the beginning ofthese two studies, participants were asked to list characteristics associated with their “actual self” (he, bow they {ypeally present themelves in social settings) as opposed to their "true self” (Le, how they soe themseles but what they usually do not express in social settings). Next, participants interacted ‘with another person either in an Internet chat room or ina face-to-face condition. The results Found thatthe “true self" was more accessible cognitively, based on responses toa reaction time, self-desription task, after interacting in an Internet chat room versus a face-to-face condition. On the other hand, the actual self was more accessible after interacting ina face-to-face condition than in an Internet chatroom. In the nex study, Bargh etal (2002, Study 3) found that research participants were more likely to disclose information about altributes associated with their “true elf” in an Internet cha room than in a face-to-face condition (based on the level of match after the interaction between the other person's description of the participant’ “tue self” and the participant's self-desription of his or her “true self). Participants also expressed greater king for their partner after meeting inthe Internet chat room then in person. Creater liking fr the partner in the Internet chat room but not inthe face-to-face condition was also associated with a greater tendency to project ideal or hoped-for qualities of a elose friend onto the partner. Bargh ft al. argued that “this projection tendency over the Internet, facilitated by the absence ofthe traditional gating features that dominate initial iking and relation formation, isa contributor to the establishment of else relationships over the internet” (p45). Other research by McKenna etal (2002, Study 1 found thatthe tendency to disclose the “real self” over the Internet and, in tra, to accelerate the development of personal relationships via ‘online versus offline iterations is greater among those wo lack the socal skills to communicate fectivelyin face-to-face interactions. The participants for this research were recruited from Usenet newsgroups, Individuals who were more, compared to less, lonely and anxious reported that t was ‘easier to diselose personal information to someone they knew on the Internet than in “real fe" In ‘urn, f participants found that twas easier to disclose to someone on the Internet than in real ie {locating the real me” online versus offline), then they also reported greater intimacy and greater speed of developing intimacy in these online relationship. These online interactions increased to Anche interactions in ofline settings (als soe Parks & Floyd, 1906) Tho more participants reported interacting with someone online (eg, via Internet Relay Chat), the more likely they were to engage in offline activities with these acquaintances suchas writing posal eters, talking onthe telephone, and eventually meeting the other person. Inafallow-up study, MeKenna et al. (3002, Study 2; also see Chan & Cheng, 2008) reported that friendships and romantic relationships started onthe InterREBAR arr ih ted, fer “In Ato ‘ted also ‘SELF-DISCLOSURE: AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSIIP net were durable overtime. After a 2-year period, relationships started online remained relatively ‘stable: 79% of the friendships started onthe Internet were intact, and 71% ofthe romantic partner- ships started on the Internet were stil ntact "A.word of eautio is appropriate about the role of self-disclosure in starting elese relationship ‘ver the Internet. As Bargh et al. (2002) indicated, the self-disclosure transaction may begin in ree tive anonymity on the Internet; and the “projection bias” associated with the tendency to perceive idealized qualities in those initially liked onthe Internet may intensify an online relationship before the “real” qualities ofthe partner are reveled, Given a high motivation to fnd fronds and romantic ‘in an online setting, important questions need tobe addressed about the link betwen sat- Isfaction and stably in relationships thet begin online and how individuals address boundary and privacy issues about the control, protection, and ownership of information disclosed in these settings {cee Irvine, 2006; Petronio, 2002) ‘THE ACQUAINTANCE EXERCISE: A LABORATORY-BASED PROCEDURE (INCORPORATING SELF-DISCLOSURE) FOR DEVELOPING TEMPORARY CLOSENESS Not surprisingly, esearch on new dormitory roommates (eg, Gore etal, 2006; Hays, 1985) and ‘dating copies (eg. Berg & MeQuinn 1986) has connie significant to understanding the evelopment of elatonships This feu on “el” relationship partners atte beginning of rl tionship avoids the pitas of tadying relationship proceses in laboratory stings whore strangers and/or new acquaintances may have limited expectations shout belng in arlationshp, given that {hey expect tontrat for (sual) one Sesion of ss frequent) over Several sess. Nevertheless, there are benefits to studying closenes ina laboratory setting, especially by manipalatig the evel of disdowore input, For instance, Aron, Melia, roo, Vallone, and Bator (107) have eostructed ‘sn acquantance bulding execs tha generates in new partners“ temporary fling of clseness, ‘ot an actual ongoing relationship”. 964, using selédslosure and rlaonship-bulKling tasks Pairs of individual who donot know one another are asigned a series of tasks involving ether self In fee ‘SELF-DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP (MacFarquhar, 2006, Research i necesary on the relevance of slf-islonure for stating and developing closeness in these “arranged” relationships. Second, persons who incorporate values associated with their culture of origin (eg indivdu- alistic inthe United States versus colletvistic in China and Japan) may have diferent expecta- tions about whether or not, what and how much to disclose toa relationship partner (Gudyknt& ‘Nishida 1989, Sel, Matsumoto, &Imahor, 2002; Ting-Toomey, 191; Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006) Kealletivistc societies favor emetional restraint and indvidalistic societies favor self-expression, ‘then it would be worthwhile to study the impact of culture on how prospective partners acqaire Information about one another and te status of ther relationship. “Third, the research on sel lislasure and beginning a frendship or romantic relationship focuses mostly on heterosexual individals as research participants. Tt would be useful to examine the role of self-disclosure in starting a relationship among gay men and lesbians—for whom stereotypical expectations about gender roles and masculinity-femininty affecting self-disclosure may be less important than among heteoserual men and women (Klinkenberg & Rose, 1994; Rose, 2000, Fose {& Frieze, 1998; Rose & Zand, 2000). Fourth, more research is necessary onthe “ebb and flow” of seléiclosire on ano buss as partners begin their relationship. The construction of diary methods for collecting data boat dally experiences and advances in statistical techniques to analyze developmental (Golger, Davis, & Rafael, 2003; Jones, Nagin, & Roeder, 2001; Kash, Campbell, & Haris, 2006, Singer & Willtt, 2008) wil allow researchers to document changes and cyting in self-disclosure (and its association with responsiveness, intimacy, and relationship closeness) over repeated scial {interactions for new relationship partners Filth, experimental and laboratory-based research on self-disclosure atthe start of relationship should be expanded, The aoqualntance procedure incorporsing self-disclosure and relationship boiling (Aron etal, 1997) could be combined with socal-cogaitive manipulations of transererce™ (ie, priming mental representations of significant others Andersen & Adi Sribay, 2005) to exam- ine how mental models and experiences with seEdisclosure jointly affect interactions and feelings ‘of eloseness between new partners ‘Sith, tis chapter has focused on the self-disclosure transaction between prospective partners (inthe roles of disclose and disclosure recipient and how it influences the star oftheir elatonship Butthe development ofthe relationship also depends onthe support and reactions thst the parties receive from members of their social network (including friends, family, and coworkers Leslie Bax ter and her colleagues (Baxter & Eber, 1999; Baxter & Widenmann, 1993) have examined when and how someone reveals information aboot a new romantic relationship to network members It ‘would be appropriate to examine how self-disclosure input to members of the soil network about ew relationships including network members reaction) slso impacts on a relationship’ progress. Rick Archer (1987) wrote « commentary two decades ago arguing that self-disclosure is « “uefa behevios,” particularly for studying the development of close relationships. W agro! Sal disclosure, incding reactions by the disclosure recpint, s useful for prospective partner: to learn about one another, to assess their interes in starting relationship, and o infer how they feel ‘bout cach other and thei relationship, 1s useful in iteusfying or Tay soa aterctins ‘and/or the development of closeness and intimacy. Italo a the crx of major dilemma in start ing new relationship: how to balance the risks of openness (eg, belng rejected, exploited, har, ‘or shunned) agnns its potential benefits (eg, being authentic, accepted, end loved by a fiend or ‘an intimate partner) AUTHOR NOTE, Thanks are expressed to the editors (Susan Sprecher, Amy Wenzel, ad John Harvey) and to an snonymous reviewer for their helpful comments. Appreciation is also exiended to Dawn Braith- waite, James Bliss, and Mate Henson for their input170 VALERIAN J DERLEGA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE REFERENCES AGB, W. A, & Guerero, LK (2000) Motivations wndrying topic avoidance in clo relationships. In. Petrnio (Ed), Boloncing the secrete of pricate dxlosres (pp. 165-170. Maoah, Nf: Lawrence Ebaom ‘Almnan, I (079). Reciprocty of interpersonal exchange. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 3, 240-261, ‘Altman, L (1979, The environment ond socal behavior: Privacy, personal space, teritory, crowing ‘Mostery, CA:BrooksiCole. ‘Altman, 1 (197), Privacy regulation: Culturally universal culturally spect? Journalf Socal evs, 33), ‘6-84 Altman, 1, & Tor, . A. (979). Soil penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York Hot, Rinehart &c Winston, Altman, 1, Viel, A, & Brown, B. H. (198). Diet conceptions n socal psyche: An application to ‘ciel pectration and pvacy rogulation. In Berkownt (Ed), Advances tn experimental otal py chology (Vo. 14 pp. 107-160), New York Academic Press Avorn, SM, & Al Saray, 5. (2005). The relational self and transference Evking tives, self-repul- "in, and emotions through station of mental represeatation of sgalBeant lhe. In MW. Balin (a), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 1-82) New York: Culler Archer, RL 980) Sedeelosre In D. M, Wogne & RR. Vllacher (Bs), The s¥ tn sol pychology (pp. 183-205). New York Orford Univesty Pres Archer RL. (087), Commentary. Self dslnure, sory wefl behavior. nV. Delon & JH. Berg (Eds), ‘Sef dacbaure Theory, research, and therapy (pp. S29-S42) New York: Plenum. ‘Aron, A Aton EN, & Still, D, (1992). Inclusion of Otor in the Seif Scale and thestrctare of sterper sonal cotenes Journal of Peronalty and Soil rychology, 63, 596-612. Aron, Ay Melia, Aron, EN, Valls, RD, Bator, RJ (1997). The experimental generation of inter pteonalloseness A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personal and Socal Pxychalogy Bul- etn, 23,585-977 Bangh,J- A, MeKenna, KY. A. & Fitzsimons, G. M (2002). Can you te te real me? activation and expres ‘ion o th "true sel” onthe Interact Journal of Socal sus, 58, 33-48 Bartholomew, &, & Horowi, L. M. (1981 Attachment ses among young aus A ts of fourctegory ‘model, Journal of Personality and Social Paychology I, 296-244 Bavelas, JB Coats, 1 & Jobason,T. (2000). Litonar as o-narators. Journal of Fersonality nd Socal Paychology, 7, 041-952 Baxter {A (67), Slfdislonure and relationship dlengagement. In VJ. Delega & | H. Berg (ds), Sle ‘discloare: Theory, research nd therapy (p, 155-174) New Yoke Plenum Baxter, L, A 190), islet! contradstons in lationship davelopmont Journal of Social and Personal elation, 7, 69-38. tater Le A G08 Relatonshipe a ialogues. Pezoual Rlatonshp, 1,122 Baster L-A., Dun, T, & Salsa, E. (2001). Rules fr rlating communicated ameng social network me bers. Joural of Socal and Personal Relationship, 18173100. Baxter L.A, fe Esbert LA (100) Pereeptons of dalcial eomtradcions in turing pints of th heternerual mane relationship Journal of Social ond Personal Reltiondis, 15, 547-560 aster L.A. & Widenmann, 8, (1995). Revealing and not evealing tho status of somatic rlatonships to cial nebo, Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 10, 321-857 aster L.A, & Wilmot WW (1984) "Sorex Socal strategie fr aeqirnginfornation about he tate ‘ofthe reltionhip. Human Comeuntcation Research, 1 171-20 Baxter, L.A, & Wilmot, W. W (1985). Taboo topics in clase elaionhips, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 258-200, Berg, JH. (584). The development of feendships between roommates. Journal of Forsonlty and Social Paychology, 46, 346-856. Berg, JH. (1961). Responsiveness and slf issue. lo VJ. Deoga & J. H. Berg (Ed), Slf.tslovur: ‘Theory, esearch, and thoropy (pp. 101-130, New York Peaum. Berg, J. Hf Archer, KL (1980) Dieerore or concern: second okt king or the wrm:-beakr Journal of Personality, 5, 245.257 Berg, J Htc Archer, RL, (1982). Responses to self diclorure and interaction gal. Journal of Experimental Socal Pychology, 18, 501-812.Uy gle Biwin ds) oper yi apres socet sae ‘pment hips to Social tose ‘ural mental ‘SELF.DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP Berg, JH, & Clark, M.S. 1086). Dilforences in social exchange between intimate and othe relationships ‘Gnidually evlvng or quickly apparent nV. Datlage 8. A. Wiastead (Eds), Friendship and socal (nteacion (pp, HOI-1128), New Yor: Springer Vela, Berg, JH, & MeQuina, RD. (1086). Atraction ad exchange in continuing and noncontnuing dating rela ‘onsips. Journal ef Personality and Socal Paycholoy, 5, 042-052 Berge, CR &e Brac} J (1082) Language and social Inoucledge. Londo: Edward Aral. ‘Berger C. Rc Calabrss, RJ. (975). Some explorations inna interetion and beyond: Toward ‘ental theory of interpersonal communtstion. Human Communication Resear, 1, 9-2. Berscuid, Soyer, M, 8 Omot, A M. (1080). The Relationship Coveest Inventory: Assessing the lee ‘es of interpersonal eltionships Journal of Pasonaity and Sotl Psychology, 578, 02-807. Bolger, Davis A, &Rafsl, . (2009, Diary method Capturing oasis ved. Annual Reto of Foy Chol, 54 579-616. Boon, 8: Paseer,K. A. (1998). Charting the topography frisky relationship experiences Personal Ral ionships, 6, 07-336, ‘Caughln, J PA ABS, TD (2004) When i top moidance unetielying? Faariningmodaratrs of th st ‘cation between svldance and dissatisfaction, Humon Communication Research 30, 49-513. ‘Chaikin, AL, de Deco, VJ (1978. Liking fo he nern breaker in sl Slosre journal ofPrsonalty, “43117129, ‘Chao, D.K'S, & Chong, C.-L, (200). A comparison of oie and online friendip quale t different ‘stage of relationship development. Journal of Soll ond Personal Relationship, 21 905-220, (Chelun,G J. (1976) Reactions to male and female disclosure at two levels. Journal f Personality and Socal ‘Pryoholgy 5, 1000-1003. (lark, MS, Mii, J. (79). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships Journal of "ersonliy and Social pT 12k fee Cros, 5 Bato, FL, &e Morr, ML 000). The elation nterpendent secon and elton ‘hip Journal of Prsonalty and Saclay 78, 71-818. ‘vis D8 Detarinunt ef espestees in dynos In W. Is B.C. Knowles (Ed), esonaity rls nd socal Behar (p51) New Yor Spiga eg, Devs, D, & Perot, WT (179). Consequenes of sponses in dle lero: Efe of pob- ‘bly of sponse an proportion of ent ltd responses on terpesonl traction. Jour of Fersoalty ond Sot! Pycholoy, 7534-590 ‘Des, 'D 197 When ny mesa gt Sex ols and the negation of tna an aguante eee "ournaof Personal ond Socal oho, 36, 684-002 DevlegsV], Chaikin, A (176) Norme aflestng ele dalnurein re and women. Journal of Cont god Cla Pachlgy $6 57-380. Dest, WJ, & Chaikin, AL 97). Pray and efile in scl reltionships. Journal of Sail Tove) 102-115 Devoga Vj & Grzla J 1079). Appropriateness dsasre.n .J Chelune (A), Slane Origins, pater, end mpleatans of pennes fr ierperonalreatenhipe (pp 15-18) San Fra ‘oo Jone Base Devog VJ, Wun, Chaikin, A (176) Fsenhip snd dose eipoaty. Journal of esa nd Soll ayy, 94, 579-52 Dero VJ Wise, A (201 HVinited pens struts forthe cose a odo Sore ofthe seropositive dagooxs to sgieant ots In V. Manso & JH Have (Bas) At. ‘on. commaniaton beac, and le relationship p. 285-250, Cambri Cabnge Uneaty Pres. Desa VJ. Winton, B.A. Woag. BT, & Huns 51985. Gender fects in an nil encounter A ‘ue where men exsoed women a discon. Joural of Sct ond Personal Relation 2. 25-44 Devi, Sees, & Fuhran, RW. 185), Coli socal iafarmation proces The can of "pied interaction Journal of Personality and Social Paycholgy,56,680-60, india K (1998) "Goinginto and omg out of he coset The dali gma lorie La. M, Mot funery& L Baer (Es), Dill aproache o studying persona lationship p81) Maa, Nj Lavmence Exc india, X206 Self dnclnre esearch: Koowedge hough mets ana la M Alle, RW. Pres BM ‘Gl, N-A Bar (Es), Inrpersonal cononniation ar: dances Singh mete thals {pp 160-19) Nawab Nf: Lawrence Eb Dial, allo, M: (962 Sx derencsn sel dadasre: A met nas. Pyeolgo! lle, 1 Ts 28 ™m VALERIAN J DERLEGA, BARBARA A. WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYIY GREENE ‘Duck S188, Inrodtion.InS. Duck (Ed), Handbook of personal aon: Theory, retarch nd interwonion gp. ivi Chichester, UX Js Wey debttn RS, cShies, F§ (2000, Avidant tachment: Exploration of a oye nD. Mask ‘4 Aron (Eds), Handboo of eosnes and intimacy (pp 987-412 Matwsl N]. Laver Eine, Fas, B (2004 Intinacy esettons in same-sex enti A prtoypenterctonpttrs woe lof osnaly ond Sal ecg 0, 20a Feb, B 0046. prototype nodal of tiny interactions in sae sex feds. ID. J. Math eA Arn Eds), Handbook ofeosnes and intimacy pp. 8-261 Mah, Nj tosmeees Pas Fiahenats C, & Hezam,H. 000) Discone and ery ln mariage: Do beth consis mea st Ineton journal of Sci ond Perna aleonships 1265-265, arc, Sto, las, W, Bison, V, Brg, 8. (8D Shyness and py tracvenes ia tined-ex dads Joural of ersonlity ond Soil chology 8136-10. ‘Giordano Pongo, M.A Manning, W.D. 006) Cendtand the meanings of decent omante ‘eatinsips A foes on bs. American Soll! Reve 1, 260-287 Gotan, E1860) Stigma: Nes onthe managment of poled deny, Englewood Cif, N} Peace Til Colfnan, E1960 Sratgicinerocton. New Yor: Ballin. (ore 8 Cos, Mor M, (2006) Lt be seas Relational sl constr andthe evelopment boise. erin Relionship 1353-102. ‘Grone, K, DesegsV Je Mithows, A. (2006 Self dilorarein personal reatonship In AL Vangel &D, Fein (Es), the Cambridge handbook of personal eletionshipe ep. S00 a5, Corbet, Cambridge Unies Pre, Greene, K, Datos VJ Yep 0. A & Peso, (200) Prcsy nd lore of HIV in nerpesonal relationship: A sources for researchers ond practioner, Mala, Nf Lavpence aes ‘Gamat WB Nha, 7.0859, Socal pentru in apne an Amen ln cet i 'N. Bostrom (Ed), Communication yearbook 7 pp, 592-610, Bevel Hl, CX Sap assbrauck M, Feb BGO), Dimension ofrlainshp gun Pesonal Rl hips, 925-270 Hays, KB. 94) The development nd manna of eas, ourel of Sst ond Peel Rela ‘hips. 1, 75-98. "ays, RB, 965 gin yf fendi deeopmant. Journal of Personality and Sol Pha ey 4, 909-024 lene M: (006, October 7). Wher ithe face o-fic in gberspce? Virgen Plot pA LS. Jones, BL, Nagi, DS, & Resdr, K. (201) ASAS proce bated on mist odes estimating everett oclolal Methods Research 20,37 393, Jones, EB cAtcher, BL, GOT re thre spl eft of personalities ico Journaof Eyer mental Sot! Pci, 180-158 Jones, BE. Gordon M 72, Tang of wl nlnure ad selects en personel traction, journal ‘of Personality ond Soe Pycholoy $4 355-958. ones, (200) The Itrmt gut college: Has sunt ae Hing the tre th ody technol. ‘Wisbhigton, DC: Few intact Aten Life Prec Reed Oxcer4 0, Fe bee rtteoc ay Cael 1 hr, DW, 2000 ves tn nasacort "esearch: The broad uty at hrachical near modeling Ta AL. Vanglat © Posows tans Re Genbrides handbook of personal relationships (pp. 73-69) Cambridge Cabri Unteaty Pee Kiso, .L, Kahn, M,L (1650) Pereptions of lf doers Effect ss ml peal oneness Journal of Prony 48, 20-205 nba, D.& Hove, 5.1904: Dating segs of gay men and eins, Journalof Homose, 6, SS, noble LK, & CarpeaterTheune, KF. (204 Tope svidance tn developing romani lationship Gomuniation Revorch 2, 13-208 aornces,-, Bare LF, & Patrononao, FR (198) lotimacy aa itepersonl proces: The ‘mpotanes ofl dulnu, partner cleared peeved partacr rapes in spend txchangs Journal of orsnaty and Soc Poco, P1238 125, Laurence, Bare LF Revie, MJ (20) The iterpersoal proces model of ata a mat "age: Adyar and mallee! modsigspponh, our of Fara phology Js oa os ‘evinge, .& toe, }.D, (2) Atraction in eatonsip A new baka teperpealeicn Mat ‘ston Nj Cone Leng Preekt kA tie tice seat The 1.66, ships eral ‘SELF-DISCLOSURE AND STARTING A CLOSE RELATIONS MacParguhar,N (2006, September 191s Musim boy meets gil but dx calli dating. New York Tex Tetris October 4 2008, fam hp sewnytmes con 2008001 Asting mex1600720 fen TobfelSse5861-5070 Margulis, 5.7 (2003). On the stats and contribution of Westin and Akan theories of privacy Journal of ‘Socal pues, 58 411-428 Mokena, K-¥. A, Green, AS, & Gleason, M. EJ (2002) Reutionship formation on the Internet Whats the big atractin? fournal of Socal aut, 58, 9-3, Metherio, M, Smith-Lovi, 1, & Brashear, M. E. (2006, Socal tolaton tn Ames: Changes a core “scsi nett veto decade, Anerion Soild Rese, 71, 958-375 Mil, D, & Duck, (1986) Stato in denying enstip. In Vj. Degs& B.A, Winstead (Eds, "rend nd soll intracton pp 129-143), New York Springe erg Milner M. (100) Aachen wero ol andthe sens frost: An expoation ofinteratongal ‘nd tet repltion Journal of Prsnsity nd Social ahaa, 7 1209-1224, Mills, Mt Ere, 1 (01), tachment style ad the struct of romantic love. Bich Journaof Socal Poyholgy 20, 273-291 ‘Mikuliner Mz & Nechibon ©. (1990, Atachment yes and pateras of sl dlscosure Journal of Peon: ty and Sota rychaagy, 6, 21-33. Mie, LG & Berg. H (1884, Set and wren in interpersonal exchange nV). Deg (Ed, “Communication, intimacy ond clos retatonshipsp.1l-209) Osan, FL: Acaesi ree Miley LC Ber, H, fe Archer RL (185). Openers nvdal eho ei timate relia Jour ‘al of Personality end Socal Payholoy, 4, 1294-1246 ‘Monegoery BM. & Baste, L.A. (Eds) (1008). Dacia approaches to studying personal relationships. Malwa, NJ Lawrence Edam, Morten, 1. (1979 To-dimentonal intimacy coring stom Trtnng manual. Uapablsbed ams, "nvr of Ua Sal Lake Cy. oe Moron (178) Intimacy and ecprocty of xchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers Jornal of ‘Fesoly ond Soil Pyholoy 3612-7 Muthén Be Mutea, (2000) Integrating peros-centered and variable centered anaes: Growth nue deling seth st treo esses Alcohol: Clincel and Experimental eserc, 2, 82-60. akanish, M, (1986) Perceptons of self-dsclosure i nal nection A Japanese sample. Human Com nication Research, 1, 187-100. ark, MM Ply 196), Maing rind in yberspae Journal of Communication, 45, 80-91 Pak, M.R_& Roberts, LD, 908 "Maling MOOse™ The develope personal eatiship on ine and 's comparison other offline conterpars Journal of Socal end Personal Relationships, 1, 917-53 Pearce, W. B. & Sharp, §. M. (1973) Seldiscosing communion. Jourtl of Commanicato, 29, ‘oot Petron, 5 (198). Commenistion boundary management A theoreti! model of managing Alone of Priate information botwoen manta oupes Communication Theory 31-338 Peuoti, 5: (2002. Boundaries of prioay Dialects of diclorure Aba. State Unversty of New York Pros rage, KJ. 198), The psychology ofttinacy New Yorks Guild Prager KJ. & Roberts (208) Deep intimate connection Slf and intimacy in coupe relation. a 'D Maske. Aron ds), Handbook of elves and intimacy (pp. 9-0) Malwa} Lawrence Ea, Purvis J Ay Dabs, JM, Je & Hoppe, ©. M184), The Silled wr of fail sad ‘pet puter Posaty ond Sl acolo Dal 161-6. ee ‘Reis, H- (1908) Gender diferencs in intima aod elated beavis: Contes and pres TnD. J. Canary Dina (Eds), So differences and snare i communtation (pp. £03-25). Mabwab, Nf Laeace Enea ‘eis LT, Clark MS, & Holmes, JG (200 erosive partner eponsbenes aan cgi conract ‘in tho study of intimacy aod closeness. In DJ Mashek& A. Aron (Eds), Handbook of closeness ond ‘intimacy (gp 201-225) Mabwab, NJ: Lawrence Eelbaum. ‘eis HT, &ePurck B.C (1906). Attachment and itimaey: Component process. In E.. Higgins & AW. Kruglans (Eds), Social paychalog Handbook of bast principles (gp $25~56), New York Culler ‘ais, Ht Sher, F. (1988) nsimacy aan nterpenonl proces n SW, Dick (El) Hondo por sonal relationship: Theory research ond iteroertion (gp 570-380). Chichester, UX: John Wiley Rote, § (2000 Heteroersm sd the study of women’ romani ad rend relationships Journal of Scal es, 55, 315-205, v3174 VALERIAN J, DERLEGA, BARBARA A, WINSTEAD, AND KATHRYN GREENE. Rose, & Frias, IH, (109) Young single contemporary dating rips Sx Roles, 28, 490-500 Rows, §& Zand D (2000) Lesbian aig and courtship fom young sda ome Journal of Cay te Lisbon Soctl Series, 11, 7-104 Rosen, LB, (170), Slf-didosteevidance: Why 1am anit ellyou who Iain. Communication ‘Monographs 6, 60-4 Fobin 2; Hil C-. Peplay, L.A. & Dunks Schotr, C. (1960) Sef dsdasre in dating copes: Set oes aud the ethic of opeaness. Journal of Mariage andthe Family, 42, 308°317 Sek; Matsumoto Dy & lmaor (22) the conceptulzaton an expression of iting in Japan andthe United Stes. Journal of Crom-Cultural Payceogy, 33300 0, ‘Stal Dh & Open, |. (1956. On sex dence nse done ring the acqualatzace process The rl ofencipie future etercto. Journal of Personality and Scala ycholoy. os SO Stale DR. Pega LJ» & Haz, D.C, 1990, When boy mets gi rvs). Conder, pate le _tentatin and prospect offre lntericto sdeterminans of elf dvr among a por Soap, Mc Leary, MR. (2000 Hur fings among new acquaintances Modenting effets of tere cl lay, Jorma of Socal and Peron toons Sea oe sa Semalaak MOORE, Predicted ote ao daring nial nrc A efoemultin of ncrtaity ‘hit thon Human Conmuntatn Research, 9-93, Sua, M. (1881 Freed cue valent intratns, Cmmuntaton Resech Report 5 ei Santa, M, Rambea. . J {9004) tft sgh Feat elatonal es fe acqaied camer: sats, Journal of Socal ond Persona Relationships, 20 301-3 Tor: DA. 1968) Same spc te dvlgpmen interpersonal hp: Sol ptt po ‘exes Journal of Sol Phalogy. 8760. “Tiler DA, Could & Bronte, 6). Ets of probit elf dla Fermlty ond Set ‘chlo Bulli, 2181-192. Tole A Whee & Aka, 1 (109, Sloan kn gop, Journal of Foal end Sool Pacholgy, 58 99-17 ‘Tig Toone $86} nimay express in tree cau: France, Jpn ind th Vnled Stats. nena tional Journal of ttrsorel Relation 15.3946 “ToluzesH. (1980, Communication stro or inteasiying dtiog relationship: entation and strustureJoural of Socal and Personal Relatonshipe 3-4 sles C 4 1 Testing eli model femmes openes in tonship deveepnen Too Tegan sais, Communtcton Nonoprphe 58 SF 980 ‘onlear A (908, Dist empissm:Sdenc and elaonship metho In BM Monigomeny ‘Dame: Et) alto ope ody pra ata (10-10) ce Tarence Eun Wang. C-C D.C teMalincaod, B.S. (2006). Drees a Taiwanese ad US cular bao ‘dl tach. ournal of Canaling oychloy 192 268 Ward 6 C, & Taco, T J.C. 004) Relation of syns with apes of nine rlatonhip inves Jourttf Sot and Perna Relationship, 21,61. 88% ‘Warn EM. IGE, Sellar i cognitive marl ergy. In VJ. Deeg fe] H. Brg Ea), el Glulsre Tory, resarch, ond heropy gp. 282-20), Now toc Pou ‘Wei M- Rosell D.W, & Zalaic R.A. (00) Ad staciea osc, slur, sand subsequent depresion fer fesman college tudets A ngs sey Jorelof cone ing Pychology, 0 602-0 Winsoad, 3. A, Date VJ Barbee, A. P, Sach M, Astl,B, & Gteee, (202), Clone lation ships sures of eng octal fo mothers oping ws HIV Joreal fos an hee see ‘Won Doorsak M, J. (1965 Selfdiclorare and vecproctyin comers A ns mato stdy Seed Paycology Quarter 4, 97-101, Yum, Yt Hara K (2005. Computerediated relationship devpmen: A cos-cural compe {oa Journal of Computer Madated Communication, Ide ar 7, Retreved Jamsary 9 2005 an Intpjeme indiana edo Lisuelyum Mind i