We experimentally examined whether giving or receiving self-disclosure leads to greater liking and other positive impressions (e.g., closeness) in initial interactions. We also contributed to a recent debate about the familiarity-attraction link by examining whether knowledge about another leads to greater (or lesser) degrees of liking and perceived similarity. Pairs of unacquainted undergraduates completed a structured self-disclosure task. We randomly assigned one participant to disclose while the other listened in a first interaction; participants switched roles for a second interaction. After the first interaction, listeners (vs. disclosers) reported more liking and other positive interpersonal impressions. These differences disappeared after participants switched roles in the second interaction. Furthermore, listening was associated with greater degrees of perceived similarity.
AltmanI.TaylorD. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
2.
ArcherR. L.BergJ. H.RungeT. E. (1980). Active and passive observers’ attraction to a self-disclosing other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 130–145.
3.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
4.
AronA.MelinatE.AronE. N.ValloneR. D.BatorR. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.
5.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
6.
BemD. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
BergJ. H.ArcherR. L. (1983). The disclosure-liking relationship: Effects of self-perception, order of disclosure, and topical similarity. Human Communication Research, 10, 269–281.
8.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112.
9.
BerscheidE.ReganP. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
10.
BerscheidE.ReisH. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
11.
BurgerJ. M. (1981). Self-disclosure and liking during initial encounters: An attributional approach. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 179–183.
12.
BuunkB. P.DijkstraP.FetchenhauerD.KenrickD. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.
13.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
ChaikinA. L.DerlegaV. J. (1974). Variables affecting the appropriateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 588–593.
15.
CollinsN. L.MillerL. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.
16.
DerlegaV. J.WinsteadB. A.GreeneK. (2009). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 153–174). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
17.
DindiaK. (2000). Sex differences in self-disclosure, reciprocity of self-disclosure, and self-disclosure and liking: Three meta-analyses reviewed. In PetronioS. (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 21–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
FraleyB.AronA. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61–78.
19.
GilbertD. T.JonesE. E. (1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269–280.
20.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (1999). Subgroup differentiation as a response to an overly-inclusive group: A test of optimal distinctiveness theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 543–550.
21.
JourardS. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self. New York, NY: Wiley.
22.
KleinkeC. L. (1975). Effects of false feedback about response lengths on subjects’ perception of an interview. Journal of Social Psychology, 95, 99–104.
23.
LaurenceauJ.-P.KleinmanB. M. (2006). Intimacy in personal relationships. In VangelistiA. L.PerlmanD. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 637–653). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LeonardelliG. J.PickettC. L.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 63–113.
25.
McAllisterH. A. (1980). Self-disclosure and liking: Effects for senders and receivers. Journal of Personality, 48, 409–418.
26.
McKennaK. Y. A.GreenA. S.GleasonM. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922.
29.
NguyenM.BinY. S.CampbellA. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 103–111.
30.
NortonM. I.FrostJ. H.ArielyD. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.
31.
NortonM. I.FrostJ. H.ArielyD. (2011). Does familiarity breed contempt or liking? Comment on Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 571–574.
32.
PennebakerJ. W. (1985). Traumatic experience and psychosomatic disease: Exploring the role of behavioral inhibition, obsession, and confiding. Canadian Psychology, 26, 82–95.
33.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 717–731.
34.
RamirezA.JrZhangS. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287–310.
35.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011a). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.
37.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011b). In live interaction, does familiarity promote attraction or contempt?: A reply to Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 575–578.
38.
ReisH. T.PatrickB. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
39.
RubinZ.HillC. T.PeplauL. A.Dunkel-SchetterC. (1980). Self-disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 305–317.
40.
SchoutenA.ValkenburgP.PeterJ. (2009). An experimental test of processes underlying self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2), article 1. Retrieved fromhttp://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111601&article=1
41.
SedikidesC.CampbellW. K.ReederG. D.ElliotA. J. (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.
42.
SprecherS. (1987). The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate partner and stability of the relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 115–127.
43.
SprecherS. (2009). Relationship initiation and formation on the Internet. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 1–21.
44.
SprecherS.DuckS. (1994). Sweet talk: The importance of perceived communication for romantic and friendship attraction experienced during a get-acquainted date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 391–400.
45.
SprecherS.ReganP. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 436–481.
46.
VittenglJ. R.HoltC. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: The relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53–66.
47.
WaltherJ. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
48.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
