Disclosure Piece
Attitudes Toward Online Social Connection and Self-Disclosure as Predictors
of Facebook Communication and Relational Closeness
The recent widespread adoption of social network sites influences communication
behaviour in a variety of contexts. Though users appropriate these sites for varied
purposes, the maintenance of networked interpersonal relationships is their central
attraction and function.
The recent emergence of social network sites (SNSs), or “web-based” services that
allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded
system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and
(3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the
system”
Conceptualize self-disclosure as “any message about the self that a person
communicates to another.” - several features of Facebook that foster self-disclosure:
“users post personal information such as pictures, hobbies, and messages to
communicate with fellow students and instructors as well as friends and family.”
Wright and his colleagues further validate the importance of self-disclosure
behaviour via Facebook, finding that breadth and depth of self-disclosure is
associated with increased interdependence and predictability. Thus, as Facebook’s
own slogan claims, the site is indeed a location where users share information about
the self with a proscribed set of others.
Communication researchers have long recognized the role of self-disclosure in
healthy relational development. Evidence from other studies of online
communication suggest that generalized attraction to OSD may be associated with
negative psychological and relational outcomes. Online communication scholars
have long considered the antecedents and outcomes of identity formation and selfpresentation enacted via online disclosure with several studies reporting that
communicators often self-disclose more online than they do when face to face.
Lack of social competence may account for heightened self-disclosure online
because those with poor social skills may prefer the greater control over
communication behaviour that online contexts afford.
Disentangling the Effects of Depression Symptoms and Adult Attachment on
Emotional Disclosure
Sharing information about one’s emotional experiences, referred to as emotional
disclosure, is associated with a number of positive outcomes. Emotional disclosure is
related to increased immune system functioning, decreased pain and medication
use, and fewer doctor visits (Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999). Disclosing an emotional
event also leads to decreased levels of depression, anxiety, distress, and anger
(Frattaroli, 2006); a decrease in the emotional intensity of the event (Zech & Rime,
2005); and a reduction in intrusive thoughts about the event.
In an opposite manner, the active concealment of distressing information is
associated with psychological distress and physical symptoms such as headaches
and backaches (Kelly & Yip, 2006; Larson & Chastain, 1990).
Emotional disclosure appears to be part of the process of emotion regulation (Kahn
& Garrison, 2009; Kahn, Hucke, Bradley, Glinski, & Malak, in press). In particular,
Kahn and colleagues’ findings indicate that emotional disclosure is closely related to
the emotion regulation strategy of suppression. According to Gross and John (2003),
suppression is a common strategy individuals use to decrease negative affect
following an emotional episode. Kahn et al. proposed that the high negative
correlation between emotional disclosure and suppression may signify that, like
suppression, the goal of emotional disclosure is to decrease negative emotions.
Individuals who are high in attachment anxiety tend to have a strong desire to be
overly close to others and fear abandonment. Individuals who are high in
attachment avoidance tend to have a difficult time trusting others in relationships
and are often overly self-reliant.
Attachment theory suggests that the primary means by which individuals attempt to
regulate their emotions is to seek out attachment figures (Bowlby, 1988).
Individuals who are high in attachment avoidance or anxiety, however, have learned
that they cannot always rely on their primary caregivers in this way. Specifically,
avoidantly attached individuals generally have had caregivers who were unavailable
when they were distressed, whereas anxiously attached individuals have generally
experienced inconsistent care giving during times of distress. Due to these early
experiences, these individuals tend to engage in two types of secondary attachment
strategies in an attempt to regulate their emotions when they become distressed.
Individuals who are high in attachment avoidance tend to engage in deactivating
strategies. The primary aim of these strategies is to eliminate the experience of
emotional distress. Repeatedly, these individuals have experienced the
unavailability of their attachment figures and have learned that they cannot depend
on relationship partners when they are distressed. As a result, these individuals
tend to rely on themselves, and they tend not to go to others for support when they
become emotionally distressed. Moreover, these individuals tend to suppress
experiences, thoughts, and emotions that are emotionally distressing. By doing their
best to avoid ully experiencing emotional distress, avoidantly attached individuals
are attempting to reduce the likelihood that they will experience an emotionally
distressing eperience that is too much for them to handle alone.
Conversely, individuals who are high in attachment anxiety tend to engage in
hyperactivating strategies. The primary aim of these strategies is to gain proximity
to their attachment partners, as these individuals have come to expect that people
they have relationships with will inconsistently be responsive to their needs.
Specifically, they tend to demand the attention of others, experience exaggerated
subjective negative emotional reactions to objectively minor threats, and ruminate
over negative emotions. Furthermore, anxiously attached individuals tend to believe
they are not able to regulate their own emotions and depend heavily on others in
this area.
Clearly, both avoidantly and anxiously attached individuals use maladaptive affect
regulation strategies. Moreover, the secondary strategies are evident in the ways
these individuals approach the use of emotional disclosure. Overall, research
suggests that avoidantly attached individuals engage in low levels of emotional
disclosure (Anders & Tucker, 2000; …)
Let’s talk about us: Attachment, relationship-focused disclosure and
relationship quality
Very little attention has been paid to the impact of attachment insecurity in nonthreatening situations, despite the fact that behaviours enacted during these more
routine relationship interactions such also influence relationship quality. For
example, there is good evidence that intimates’ disclosure during everyday
discussion plays an important role in relationship maintenance. When people
disclose personal information to their partners during their daily interactions, and
partners are responsive to these disclosures, this enhances trust, intimacy, and felt
acceptance.
Attachment avoidance: Resisting intimacy and disclosure
Attachment avoidance is characterized by discomfort with intimacy, defensive selfreliance, and a strong motivation to maintain independence. Accordingly, people
high in attachment avoidance employ numerous tactics to maintain psychological
distance from their partners. Greater attachment avoidance is associated with a
more disinterested and cold communication style during observed discussions with
their partners and lower self-reported disclosure and disclosure intimacy.
Importance of disclosure: disclosure to one’s partner communicates trust and
regard and partner responsiveness to disclosure fosters understanding, care, and
validation. Thus, self-disclosure maintains relationships by increasing closeness and
signaling that partners are valued. Accordingly, research has consistently shown
that disclosure and receipt of disclosure increases liking and intimacy and is
associated with higher concurrent relationship.
The restriction of disclosure by people high in attachment avoidance should inhibit
intimacy, and be the one reason why attachment avoidance is associated with
poorer relationship outcomes. Indeed, self-reported disclosure has been found to
mediate the association between greater attachment avoidance.
Attachment anxiety: Desiring intimacy and disclosure
Individuals who are high in attachment anxiety are highly invested in their
relationships, desire strong connections with their partner, and are preoccupied
with maintaining and enhancing intimacy. They are chronically in intimacy-seeking
mode, continually trying to achieve acceptance and emotional closeness with their
partners. Ironically, this hypervigilance tends to produce destructive reactions
within threatening situations. For example, because highly anxious individuals are
concerned about acceptance, they become more distressed and hurt during them to
behave with greater hostility and punishing behaviours.
In the absence of threat, people high in anxiety should be especially motivated to
engage in intimacy-generating disclosures, including greater relationship-focused
disclosure, and do some more than those low in anxiety. Studies using a categorical
approach to assess attachment have tended to find a general pattern of anxiously
attached individuals disclosing a) more than avoidantly attached individuals but b)
approximately the same as securely attached individuals although with a greater
proclivity toward disclosing indiscriminately and excessively to others.
Handbook of Attachment
A core issue in attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) is the involvement of the
attachment system in regulating negative emotions provoked by the appraisal of
threats and dangers. Bowlby noted that reactions to such provocations include not
only the classically emphasized “fight or flight” response, but also seeking proximity
to a “stronger and wiser,” supportive, and protective attachment figure. Main called
this the primary attachment strategy. In adulthood people can seek proximity to and
support from an attachment figure either by requesting actual support from a real,
physically present relationship partner, or by calling upon mental images,
prototypes, schemas, or specific memories of interactions with real or imagined
attachment figures.
Two stages by which threat appraisals lead to activation of the primary attachment
strategy. In the first stage, threat appraisals trigger preconscious activation of the
system, which brings about an automatic increase in the mental accessibility or
attachment-related representations in an associative memory network. In the
second stage, this preconscious activation, if sufficiently robust, results in conscious
thoughts about seeking proximity to attachment figures, behavioural intentions to
seek proximity and support, and actual seeking of proximity and support.
In the case of relatively secure adults, threat appraisals arouse thoughts and feelings
related to positive interactions with attachment figures. In the case of relatively
insecure adults, however, threat appraisals can bring to mind – either consciously or
unconsciously – negative, painful, dispiriting attachment-related experiences.
Insecure people have learned through many painful experiences with unavailable or
unresponsive attachment figures that the primary attachment strategy (proximity
seeking) often fails to accomplish its emotion regulation goal, making it necessary to
consider alternative secondary strategies: hyperactivation or deactivation if the
attachment system.
Secondary (insecure) attachment strategies distort and damage emotion regulation,
and thereby contribute to psychological and social problems. They include
psychological defenses against the frustration and pain caused by attachment
figures’ unavailability. In order to sustain these strategies, a person has to build
otherwise distorted or constraining working models and adopt nonoptimal affect
regulation strategies, which are likely to interfere with subsequent development
and hamper attempts to create rewarding close relationships.
Avoidant people attempt to block or inhibit emotional states associated with threatrelated thoughts because these thoughts can activate unwanted attachment-related
needs, memories, and behaviours. Like secure people, avoidant ones attempt to
down-regulate threat-related emotions. However, whereas secure people’s
regulatory attempts usually promote communication, compromise and relationship
maintenance, avoidant people’s efforts are aimed mainly at keeping the attachment
system deactivated, regardless of the deleterious effects this can have on a
relationship.
Attachment anxious people are guide by an unfulfilled wish to cause attachment
figures to pay more attention to them and provide more reliable protection. One
way to attain this goal is to keep the attachment system chronically activated (state
of hyperactivation) and intensify bids for attention until a satisfying sense of
attachment security is attained. Chronically attachment-anxious tend to exaggerate
the presence and seriousness of threats and to remain vigilant regarding the
possible unavailability of attachment figures. They also tend to overemphasize their
sense of helplessness and vulnerability, because signs of weakness and vulnerability
can sometimes elicit other people’s attention and care.
Attachment Styles and Patterns of Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure refers to the process by which persons let themselves be known to
others. Derlega and Grzelak (1979) define self-disclosure as including “any
information exchange that refers to the self, including personal states, dispositions,
events in the past, and plans for the future. Research on self-disclosure has found
that the ability to reveal one’s feelings and thoughts to another is a basic skill for
developing close relationships. Self-disclosure has been found to facilitate the
development of caring and mutual understandings. Lack of self-disclosure has often
been related to dissatisfaction with one’s social network and feelings of loneliness.
Individual variations in self-disclosure can be variously manifested in the amount,
intimacy level, and content of disclosed information and in the target of the selfdisclosure.
Another basic dimension of self-disclosure is its flexibility which reflects the ability
to adequately attend to situational cues and adapt to one’s disclosing behavior
accordingly. The individual who is able to modulate his or her disclosures across a
wider range of social situations in response to situational and interpersonal
demands will function interpersonally more adequately than the less flexible
indivudal who has not learned the discriminant cues that signal whether disclosure
is appropriate or inappropriate.