In light of the rising trend of self-disclosing stigmatized identities on social media and the insufficient understanding of its repercussions on societal attitudes, this study employs an intersectional framework to examine the impact of revealing dual stigmas related to sexual identities and health conditions on destigmatization. Drawing upon the intergroup contact hypothesis and social penetration theory, a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,596) participated in a 3 (sexual identity cue: explicit-cue vs implicit-cue vs no-cue) × 5 (coping with mental disorders: good-coping vs balanced-coping vs poor-coping vs no-coping vs control) between-subjects experiment. Results revealed that while dual stigma disclosure occasionally showed enhanced positive impacts, it never exacerbated stigmatized attitudes compared to single stigma disclosure. In addition, the two self-disclosure strategies interacted to influence destigmatization, mediated by perceived competence rather than perceived authenticity. Implications from the findings are provided.
AfifiTSteuberK (2009) The revelation risk model (RRM): factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs76(2): 144–176.
2.
AllportGW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
3.
AltmanITaylorDA (1973) Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
4.
BettinsoliMLSuppesANapierJL (2020) Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science11(5): 697–708.
5.
BrambillaMCarnaghiARavennaM (2011) Status and cooperation shape lesbian stereotypes. Social Psychology42(2): 101–110.
6.
BuehlerEMYoungvorstLJ (2022) Online support-seeking in the context of grief: how support-seeking message content and communication channels shape support providers’ impressions of the bereaved. Computers in Human Behavior137: 107428.
7.
CarpenterAGreeneK (2015) Social penetration theory. In: BergerCRRoloffME (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 1–5.
8.
ChamplinSLiM (2020) Communicating support in pride collection advertising: the impact of gender expression and contribution amount. International Journal of Strategic Communication14(3): 160–178.
9.
ChaudoirSRFisherJD (2010) The disclosure processes model: understanding disclosure decision making and postdisclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin136(2): 236–256.
10.
CipollinaRSanchezDTEgertA, et al (2022) Disclosure style and response engagement during disclosures of concealable stigmatized identities. Social Psychological and Personality Science13(2): 466–475.
11.
CuddyAJFiskeSTGlickP (2008) Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: the stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology40: 61–149.
12.
EliasonM (2017) Lesbian and bisexual women’s health is critically understudied. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology124(3): 403–403.
13.
GilbertSJHorensteinD (1975) The communication of self-disclosure: level versus valence. Human Communication Research1(4): 316–322.
14.
GilbertSJWhiteneckGG (1976) Toward a multidimensional approach to the study of self-disclosure. Human Communication Research2(4): 347–355.
15.
GoffmanE (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
16.
GriffithsKMChristensenHJormAF, et al (2004) Effect of web-based depression literacy and cognitive–behavioural therapy interventions on stigmatising attitudes to depression: randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry185(4): 342–349.
17.
HarwoodJ (2017) Indirect and mediated intergroup contact. In: KimYY (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 1–9.
18.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
19.
JiangLJohnLKBoghratiR, et al (2022) Fostering perceptions of authenticity via sensitive self-disclosure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied28(4): 898–915.
20.
JurcevicIWongLHSchetterCD, et al (2021) Strategies for disclosing a concealable stigma: facts and feelings?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology97: 104187.
21.
LuH (2023) Instagram sober journeys: how relapse narratives and viewing orders influence audience response on social media. Computers in Human Behavior147: 107846.
22.
LuoMHancockJT (2020) Self-disclosure and social media: motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology31: 110–115.
23.
MacInnisCCPage-GouldE (2015) How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspectives on Psychological Science10(3): 307–327.
NeubaumGSobierajSRaaschJ, et al (2020) Digital destigmatization: how exposure to networking profiles can reduce social stereotypes. Computers in Human Behavior112: 106461.
26.
OexleNCorriganPW (2018) Understanding mental illness stigma toward persons with multiple stigmatized conditions: implications of intersectionality theory. Psychiatric Services69(5): 587–589.
27.
PachankisJEHatzenbuehlerMLWangK, et al (2018) The burden of stigma on health and well-being: a taxonomy of concealment, course, disruptiveness, aesthetics, origin, and peril across 93 stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(4): 451–474.
28.
PalamarJJKiangMVHalkitisPN (2011) Development and psychometric evaluation of scales that assess stigma associated with illicit drug users. Substance Use & Misuse46(12): 1457–1467.
29.
PettigrewTFTroppLR (2008) How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology38(6): 922–934.
30.
PinchABirnholtzJKrausA, et al (2021) “It’s not exactly prominent or direct, but it’s there”: understanding strategies for sensitive disclosure online. In: Companion publication of the 2021 conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, virtual event, 23–27 October, pp. 149–152. New York: ACM.
31.
PöyryEPelkonenMNaumanenE, et al (2021) A call for authenticity: audience responses to social media influencer endorsements in strategic communication. In: BorchersNS (ed.) Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication. London: Routledge, pp. 103–118.
32.
QinYChoHLiP, et al (2021) First impression formation based on valenced self-disclosure in social media profiles. Frontiers in Psychology12: 656365.
33.
RainsSABrunnerSR (2018) The outcomes of broadcasting self-disclosure using new communication technologies: responses to disclosure vary across one’s social network. Communication Research45(5): 659–687.
34.
SchacterHLGreenbergSJuvonenJ (2016) Who’s to blame?: The effects of victim disclosure on bystander reactions to cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior57: 115–121.
35.
SilverRCWortmanCBCroftonC (1990) The role of coping in support provision: the self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In: SarasonBRSarasonIGPierceGR (eds) Social Support: An Interactional View. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 397–426.
Tal-OrNBoningerDGleicherF (2002) Understanding the conditions and processes necessary for intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. In: SalomonGNevoB (eds) Peace Education: The Concept, Principles, and Practices around the World. London: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 89–108.
38.
TaniguchiEGlowackiEM (2024) Reactions to depression disclosure on Facebook: evaluating the effects of self-presentation style and peer comments. Stigma and Health9(1): 58–70.
39.
ZhangALLuH (2022) Behind the lab coat: how scientists’ self-disclosure on Twitter influences source perceptions, tweet engagement, and scientific attitudes through social presence. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 12 December 2022. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221141681.
40.
ZhangALLuH (2023) Scientists as influencers: the role of source identity, self-disclosure, and anti-intellectualism in science communication on social media. Social Media + Society9(2): 20563051231180623.
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.
