J S P R. Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions

Transcription

1 Article Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions J S P R Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) ª The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav DOI: / spr.sagepub.com Susan Sprecher 1, Stanislav Treger 2, and Joshua D. Wondra 3 Abstract 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. Keywords Acquaintanceship, familiarity, liking, self-disclosure, similarity, social interaction Scholars have long recognized the importance of initial interactions in determining the likelihood that relationships develop (Berscheid & Regan, 2005). The first impressions 1 Illinois State University, USA 2 DePaul University, USA 3 University of Michigan, USA Corresponding author: Susan Sprecher, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Illinois State University, Schroeder Hall, Normal, IL , USA. Sprecher@ilstu.edu

2 498 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) that occur in initial interactions can influence not only whether further contact is sought but also the trajectory of relationship development. Even brief one-time interactions are important because they can help satisfy the human need to belong and be connected with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and can elevate positive affect (Vittengl & Holt, 2000). Higher levels of self-disclosure and quality communication generally lead to more liking and closeness (e.g., Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997; Sprecher & Duck, 1994). In the self-disclosure process, however, there are two roles: the role of the discloser and the role of the disclosure recipient (Collins & Miller, 1994; Derlega, Winstead, & Greene, 2009). The discloser shares personal information, whereas the recipient listens and receives information. Turn-taking or reciprocity in disclosure is common in interactions (e.g., Dindia, 2000; Rubin, Hill, Peplau, & Dunkel-Schetter, 1980), but selfdisclosure can also be imbalanced and such situations highlight the distinction between the two roles. Increasing Internet communication, including through dating websites, webcams, personal blogs, and social network forums and posts, can potentially lead to imbalances in self-disclosure and in knowledge exchanged in the get-acquainted process (Sprecher, 2009). In addition, even in interactions that involve relatively rapid switches between the two roles, how the two sides of disclosure differentially impact the development of attraction and the relationship is unknown. Although recent research has begun to explore the effects of communication medium on attraction and the acquaintance process (McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002; Ramirez & Zhang, 2007; Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2009; for a review, see Nguyen, Bin, & Campbell, 2012), how the role in self-disclosure (giving vs. receiving) affects attraction and closeness is relatively unexplored as yet. In the present study, we used the get-acquainted paradigm, which involved two actual participants, strangers to each other, interacting in a controlled situation. Our paired participants took turns being in each disclosure role while they were engaged in a structured self-disclosure exercise that was adapted from previous research (Aron et al., 1997; Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, & Elliot, 1999). After each segment of the interaction, the participants completed measures of liking, closeness, enjoyment of the interaction, and perceived similarity. Systematically separating the discloser and recipient roles allowed us to address two issues. First, we address a gap in the self-disclosure literature on the differential effects of receiving versus giving disclosure on liking (e.g., Collins & Miller, 1994). Second, we contribute to a recent debate in the social psychological literature: whether more information (or knowledge) about another, such as that obtained through the other s self-disclosure, is associated with greater liking and perceived similarity, or alternatively, with less liking and greater perceived dissimilarity (Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007, 2011; Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011a, 2011b). We discuss both of these issues next. The self-disclosure liking effects Self-disclosure is associated with attraction and relationship satisfaction in both developing and developed relationships (for reviews, see Collins & Miller, 1994; Derlega et al., 2009). In a review of disclosure-liking links, Collins and Miller (1994)

3 Sprecher et al. 499 distinguished between the effect of liking those who disclose to us (other s disclosure! own liking; i.e., being in the recipient role) and the effect of liking those to whom we disclose (own disclosure! own liking; i.e., being in the discloser role). They also discussed a third disclosure-liking effect: people disclose to those whom they like. Although Collins and Miller (1994) found support for all three disclosure-liking effects in their meta-analysis, they noted that many studies confounded the effects. In addition, they identified only five studies that provided a test of the effect of own disclosure on own liking, and these studies were limited in various ways. For example, they primarily involved participants exchanging written messages or recordings to a confederate or participants being in the role of a passive observer to a disclosure exchange (Archer, Berg, & Runge, 1980; Berg & Archer, 1983; Burger, 1981; Kleinke, 1975; McAllister, 1980). The design of our study, which involved actual participants taking turns disclosing (and receiving disclosure), offered the ability to examine (in an ecologically valid way) the relative effects of receiving self-disclosure versus giving self-disclosure on liking and other interpersonal impressions. Several theoretical models can explain the effect of receiving disclosure on liking (Collins & Miller, 1994). One may propose, however, that these theories are nested within the general framework of familiarity-based liking or the most basic principle of attraction (Berscheid & Reis, 1998, p. 205). From an uncertainty reduction theory perspective (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), for example, receiving disclosure from another may lead to liking based on the degree to which uncertainty (i.e., ambiguity) about the other wanes throughout the interaction. Using an information-processing perspective, one may predict that the information gained from the other s disclosure, particularly when it is positive, can lead to positive beliefs or impressions of the discloser (Collins & Miller, 1994). From a social exchange perspective, receiving disclosure from another can be rewarding because the disclosure suggests liking from the other (Altman & Taylor, 1973). There are also theoretical explanations for the effect of giving disclosure on liking. As noted by Collins and Miller (1994), the process of self-disclosing can be intrinsically gratifying as well as cathartic, and these feelings can become associated with the target of one s disclosure and generate affectionate feelings toward the other (Jourard, 1971; Pennebaker, 1985). In addition, self-perception theory (e.g., Bem, 1972) suggests that people make inferences about their thoughts and feelings based on their behavior; therefore, the act of disclosing to another can lead to the inference that one likes and trusts the other (e.g., Chaikin & Derlega, 1974). When examined at a closer level, one side of the self-disclosure is likely to be more strongly linked to liking in get-acquainted interactions than the other; this side is receiving self-disclosure. Specifically, upon receiving disclosure from another, one is able to learn knowledge about the other, reduce uncertainty, and gain familiarity; in turn, liking is likely to increase. Being in the role of a discloser can be rewarding and gratifying, but cannot lead to the establishment of familiarity to the same extent. We propose, therefore, that receiving self-disclosure (in comparison to giving self-disclosure) leads to more liking and other positive interpersonal impressions (e.g., feelings of closeness). Findings from a correlational study of dating couples offer some support for this hypothesis. Sprecher (1987) asked both members of a sample of dating couples to indicate how much they had disclosed to their partner and how much they believed their partners had

4 500 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) disclosed to them. Sprecher found that perceived disclosure received explained more unique variance in affection than perceived disclosure given. Could information learned in get-acquainted self-disclosure lead to less liking, on average? We now turn to our second issue, which is to address a controversy in recent literature concerning whether information-based familiarity could lead to less (rather than more) liking. Our prediction that receiving self-disclosure will lead to more liking than giving self-disclosure reflects the idea that familiarity is one of the foundations of liking (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Laurenceau & Kleinman, 2006; Reis et al., 2011a, 2011b) and knowledge about another is one of the key components of having a close relationship (e.g., Miller, 2011). This basic principle, however, has recently been called into question. Norton et al. (2007) proposed that in a majority of initial interactions, learning more information about another will lead to perceptions of dissimilarity and a decrease in liking. Their less is more hypothesis proposes that a lack of knowledge about another person facilitates initial liking due to a lure of ambiguity. That is, initial impressions of others are often positive because limited information can lead to the assumption of similarity. Once information is obtained about the other, however, the lure of ambiguity subsides and perceptions of dissimilarity increase, leading to less liking for the other. As a consequence, the less information people know about a person in get-acquainted interactions, the more they will like him or her, on average. Norton et al. (2007) found support for their less is more hypothesis in five studies. In several trait evaluation studies, for example, people liked a hypothetical person less when they were given more traits describing that person (e.g., polite, reliable, and stubborn ); in another study, the researchers found evidence that this effect was mediated by perceived dissimilarity. In a more naturalistic study, they found that online daters who just went on a date liked the date less and perceived less similarity to that date (although reported more knowledge of the other) than those who were about to go on a date. Norton et al. concluded that greater knowledge of another will lead to perceptions of lesser (vs. greater) similarity and liking for the other. Although Norton et al. acknowledged that the positive association between familiarity and liking may stem mostly from naturalistic relationships such as those between partners and friends, they believed that if two strangers are randomly paired together, they should on average like one another less as they learn more about one another. Norton et al. s (2007) challenge of the classic idea that familiarity leads to attraction led to a debate of their findings. Reis et al. (2011a) questioned Norton et al. s research and conclusions, in part, because evaluating a stranger based on a decontextualized list of traits may misrepresent the impact of information (or familiarity) in naturalistic social interactions. 1 Reis et al. conducted two live-interaction experiments that tested the classic familiarity-liking principle. In their first study, previously unacquainted same-sex dyads reported more liking after discussing six versus two random topics. In their second study, the more times that previously unacquainted dyads briefly chatted online (e.g., 8 vs. 4), the more they liked one another. In addition, a greater number of chats was associated with greater perceived knowledge of the other, greater perception of being known

5 Sprecher et al. 501 by the other, greater satisfaction with the chats, greater desire to get together, and more actual attempts to get together. Reis et al. concluded that familiarity can still be considered the pantheon of social-psychological processes that promote attraction (2011a, p. 567). In a follow-up commentary, Norton et al. (2011) defended their findings by proposing that familiarity will lead to dislike on average but not in every case. They also acknowledged that more research is needed on this topic, including research that focuses on information-based familiarity (in contrast to a feeling of familiarity, which has been the focus of most prior research on familiarity effects; e.g., Zajonc, 1968). The current study In our study, participants took turns disclosing and receiving disclosure in a structured interaction. Participants were in one role (either discloser or recipient) for the first interaction segment; participants then switched roles for a second interaction segment. Because knowledge gained from receiving disclosure should increase familiarity and liking, we predicted that initial recipients would like their partners more than would initial disclosers; likewise, we expected that initial recipients would also report experiencing other positive interpersonal impressions (closeness and enjoyment) to a greater degree (Hypothesis 1). However, we expected that the differences in liking and other positive interpersonal impressions between participants in the two disclosure roles would disappear after the second segment of interaction (Hypothesis 2). We expected the difference to wane after interaction 2 for reasons similar to why we predicted a difference between disclosure roles after interaction 1. Initial disclosers would be unable to learn much about their partners; thus, they would report less liking than initial recipients. When the initial disclosers become recipients, however, they would be able to learn more about their partners and thus establish more liking, whereas disclosers (who were initial recipients) would not be able to learn more about their partners, which should lead their liking to plateau after the second interaction. Our first and second hypotheses reflect the theoretical proposition that familiarity is one of the foundations of interpersonal liking (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Laurenceau & Kleinman, 2006; Reis et al., 2011a, 2011b). However, as noted above, some have recently questioned this familiarity-liking hypothesis (Norton et al., 2007, 2011). The design of our study offers a test of the effects of information-based familiarity on attraction within a live social interaction and with experimental controls. If there is support for Norton et al. s (2007, 2011) less is more hypothesis, then on average, disclosers should be liked less than recipients, given that the recipients are not providing any information about themselves. In addition, initial disclosers should report a decrease in liking for the other when they transition to being recipients, due to the increase in information received. However, we had earlier hypothesized just the opposite that initial disclosure recipients would experience more liking than would initial disclosers; and initial disclosers would increase in their liking when they become recipients. Therefore, we can test these competing hypotheses. To further test Norton et al. s (2007) hypothesis, we also consider how informationbased familiarity influences perceived similarity. Norton et al. (2007) argued that as people learn more information about another, their perception of similarity to the other will

6 502 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) decrease, on average. We expected, in contrast, that learning more information would be associated with increases (not decreases) in perceptions of similarity. We thus hypothesized that self-disclosure recipients would perceive greater similarity with the other than would disclosers (Hypothesis 3a). We also hypothesized that the more information recipients perceived to have received from the other, the more they would perceive that they are similar to the other (Hypothesis 3b). Method Sample Participants were undergraduate students (81.4% females) from a large Midwestern University in the United States, recruited primarily through the psychology participant pool. The mean age of the participants was years (SD ¼ 1.91). A majority (80.2%)of the participants identified themselves as White; 10.3% were Black, 5.2% were Hispanic/ Latino, and 4.3% were Asian. Although our sample was convenient, it was drawn from a student body that is fairly diverse; for example, students come from a Midwest US metropolis and its suburbs, as well as from rural Midwest communities. Procedure Overview. Because a large majority of the participants were female, only female female (n ¼ 37) and female male (n ¼ 22) dyads were formed. Two participants were scheduled to report for the experiment at the same time, each to a different room in a university building. Each participant was greeted by his or her own experimenter, who directed the participant to first read an informed consent form and a set of directions. Then, the experimenters instructed their participants to complete an online survey that asked for the background information (e.g., sex and race) and measured other variables not to be considered in this study. Upon completing the pre-interaction measures, the pair engaged in the first 12-min interaction segment conducted over Skype (web-based communication program). 3 After the first interaction segment, both participants completed a postinteraction survey (PS-1), which assessed their reactions to the first interaction. Then, a second 12-min interaction segment occurred (also over Skype), followed by another post-interaction survey (PS-2), which assessed their reactions to the second interaction. The self-disclosure task. We adapted items from both the Closeness-Generating Inventory (Aron et al., 1997) and the Relationship Closeness Induction Task (Sedikides et al., 1999) for the self-disclosure task used in this study. The questions were presented to the participants in three sets, with each set increasing in degree of intimacy. 4 Participants were given 4 mins for each set of questions; thus, two versions were created with three sets of items that increased in intimacy. One version was used for segment 1 (i.e., the first interaction) and the second version was used for segment 2 (i.e., the second interaction). Example questions included: If you could travel anywhere in the world, where would you go and why? (set 1), Is there something you ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven t you done it? (set 2); and What is one of your biggest fears? (set 3).

7 Sprecher et al. 503 The disclosure role. Random assignment determined which participant in each pair was in the discloser role and which participant was in the recipient role during the first interaction segment. The roles were then reversed in the second segment. Participants read directions about what was expected in each role, including instructions for those in the recipient role to not disclose. Those in the recipient role, however, were told that they could engage in nonverbal communication, such as head nods, eye contact, and smiles. Participants were aware at the beginning of the study that they would be switching roles later in the session. The Skype interactions. When both the participants were ready to begin the interaction, the participant in the initial recipient role was given one version of the self-disclosure questions. The experimenters ensured that their participants were able to see and hear each other through Skype and then left the room to give participants privacy. Participants were given a maximum of 4 mins to interact using each set of questions; they were instructed to notify the experimenter if they completed the questions in less than 4 mins (although most dyads used the full 4 mins). Once the dyad completed a set of questions, an experimenter returned to direct the participant in the recipient role to advance to the second set of questions. 5 After the second set, the experimenter again instructed the recipient to advance to the third set of questions. After the participants had finished with the third set of items, they completed the first post-interaction questionnaire. When each participant had completed the questionnaire, the second interaction segment began. The segment 2 interaction repeated the same procedure, although the participants switched disclosure roles, and a second version of self-disclosure questions was used. At the end of the second interaction segment, participants completed the second post-interaction survey. Finally, they were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Measures The following measures were used in both post-interaction surveys (PS-1 and PS-2). Liking. We assessed liking for the other with three items. One item was: How much did you like the other? (1 ¼ not at all,7¼ a great deal). The other two items were adapted from Byrne s (1971) Interpersonal Judgment Scale. The first item asked about general feelings (1 ¼ I feel that I would probably dislike this person very much, 7¼ I feel that I would probably like this person very much), and the second item asked participants about their desire to work with the person again in an experiment (1 ¼ I believe that I would very much dislike working with this person in an experiment, 7¼ I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this person in an experiment). The a was.78 in PS-1 and.82 in PS-2. Closeness. Closeness to the other was assessed with the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Venn diagram (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). This is a simple, validated, and commonly used scale to measure closeness (e.g., see Aron et al., 1992; Fraley & Aron, 2004). 6

8 504 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) Enjoyment of interaction. We assessed the enjoyment of interaction with four items as follows: (1) How much did you enjoy the interaction in Stage 1 (or 2)? (2) How much did you enjoy your role in the interaction? (3) How much did you and the other laugh during the interaction? ; and (4) How much fun was the interaction? (1 ¼ not at all, 7¼ a great deal). The a was.84 in PS-1 and.85 in PS-2. Perceived similarity. We assessed perceived similarity with two items: How much do you think you have in common with the other person? (1 ¼ nothing or almost nothing,7¼ a great deal) and How similar do you think you and the other are likely to be? (1 ¼ not at all, 7¼ a great deal). The a was.82 in PS-1 and.92 in PS-2. Perceived information received and given. We measured the perceived information received (for those in the recipient role) with three items as follows: (1) How much did the other tell you about himself or herself? ; (2) How much personal or intimate information did the other share with you? ; and (3) How honest and open was the other in his or her responses? (1 ¼ not at all,7¼ a great deal). We measured perceived information given (for those in the discloser role) with a similar set of three items (e.g., How much personal or intimate information did you share with the other? ). The a was.75 for perceived disclosure received and.69 for perceived disclosure given in PS-1. The as were.79 and.75, respectively, in PS-2. Results Preliminary analyses After the first segment of interaction, participants, on the whole, reported a moderate amount of liking for the other (M ¼ 5.59, SD ¼ 0.76), felt at least some closeness to the other (M ¼ 3.60, SD ¼ 1.45), and generally enjoyed the interaction (M ¼ 4.76, SD ¼ 1.07). In preliminary analyses, female female pairs were found to have higher scores on liking, closeness, and perceived similarity than male female pairs, but neither the sex composition of the dyad nor the sex of participant was found to interact with any of the major variables in our analysis, and therefore, we ignore sex in the analyses below. 7 Does self-disclosure received or self-disclosure given lead to more liking? We hypothesized that initial recipients would like their partners more, report more enjoyment, and feel closer to their partners after the first segment of interaction than would initial disclosers (H1). We also predicted that after the participants switched roles, their interpersonal impressions would not differ because initial disclosers would increase in their liking for the other after they became a recipient of disclosure (H2). Thus, we expected a disclosure role interaction segment interaction. Given the statistical interdependence of the recipients and disclosers responses, we treated the dyad as the unit of analysis. Therefore, we tested our hypotheses with a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Initial disclosure role (discloser vs. recipient)

9 Sprecher et al. 505 Table 1. Comparisons of initial disclosure recipients and initial disclosers across both interaction segments. Segment Measure Initial recipient M (SE) Initial discloser M (SE) Effect size (d) 1 Liking 5.73 (0.10) 5.43 (0.11) 0.32 Enjoyment 4.98 (0.14) 4.56 (0.14) 0.34 Closeness 3.95 (0.20) 3.25 (0.18) Liking 5.83 (0.09) 5.77 (0.12) 0.07 Enjoyment 5.17 (0.14) 5.28 (0.12) 0.11 Closeness 4.37 (0.19) 3.98 (0.19) 0.21 Note. The initial recipient during segment 1 became the discloser during segment 2, and vice versa for the initial discloser. In segment 1, all ps.012; in segment 2, all ps.096. Table 2. Increases in the degree of interpersonal impressions from segment 1 to segment 2 for participants in each disclosure role, as identified by effect size d. Measured d (Initial recipient) d (Initial discloser) Liking ** Enjoyment ** Closeness 0.43* 0.73** Note. Initial recipient was the person who received disclosure during segment 1 and disclosed during segment 2. Original discloser was the person who disclosed during segment 1 and received disclosure during segment 2. *p <.01 **p <.001, as indicated by results of a dependent samples test. and interaction segment (segment 1 vs. segment 2) were treated as within-dyad independent variables. Ratings of liking, enjoyment, and closeness were the collective dependent variables. As expected, we found a statistically significant and fairly large interaction effect of disclosure role and interaction segment, Wilks L ¼.80, F(3, 54) ¼ 4.54, p ¼.007, partial Z 2 ¼.20. In support of H1, simple effects analyses revealed that after interaction segment 1, recipients reported liking their partners more, enjoying the interaction more, and feeling closer to their partners than did disclosers (see Table 1). In support of H2, however, these differences disappeared after segment 2. Initial disclosers generally experienced medium-sized increases in the degree of all three interpersonal impressions between segments 1 and 2 (see Table 2). Initial recipients, however, generally experienced relatively small-sized increases in the degree of their interpersonal impressions between segments 1 and 2 (see Table 2). Further supporting the conclusion that the initial disclosers catch up to the initial recipients in their liking after they switch roles, the main effect of initial disclosure role was nonsignificant. That is, there were no differences in the average reports of liking, closeness, and enjoyment, and perceived similarity between initial disclosers and initial recipients across the two interaction segments, Wilks L ¼.89, F(3, 54) ¼ 2.26, p ¼.09, partial Z 2 ¼.11. In addition, the main effect of interaction segment was, as expected, statistically significant and large, Wilks L ¼.53, F(3, 54) ¼ 15.80, p <.001, partial Z 2 ¼.47. The degree of liking and other

10 506 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) measures of interpersonal impressions increased over time. More specifically, compared to the participants scores after interaction 1, participants scores after interaction 2 were higher for liking (Ms ¼ 5.58 vs. 5.80; d ¼ 0.38), closeness (Ms ¼ 3.60 vs. 4.18; d ¼ 0.58), and enjoyment of the interaction (Ms ¼ 4.77 vs. 5.22; d ¼ 0.44). This main effect, however, was qualified by the interaction effect discussed above. Does information-based familiarity lead to more or less liking? The analyses we described above also serve as initial tests of the second purpose of this study, which was to examine whether information-based familiarity leads to greater or lesser liking. Given that initial recipients reported more liking and other positive interpersonal impressions than initial disclosers, our results support the familiarity-based liking hypothesis (Reis et al., 2011a). To further test Norton et al. s (2007) hypothesis, we also considered how informationbased familiarity influences perceived similarity. Norton et al. (2007) argued that as people learn more information about another, their perception of similarity to the other will decrease, on average. We hypothesized, in contrast, that initial disclosure recipients would perceive greater similarity with the other than would initial disclosers (H3a) and that the more information disclosure recipients perceived that they received, the more similarity they would perceive with the other (H3b). In support of H3a, initial recipients (M ¼ 4.29, SD ¼ 0.92) reported more perceived similarity after the first interaction than did initial disclosers (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼ 1.12), t(57) ¼ 3.13, p ¼.003, d ¼ Given the statistical interdependence of the data, we tested H3b by examining the correlation between the recipients perceived disclosure received and perceived similarity (i.e., actor effects) while controlling for disclosers perceived disclosure given and perceived similarity (i.e., partner effects). In support of H3b, the more that those in the recipient condition perceived that the other had disclosed to them, the more they reported being similar to the other, r partial (52) ¼.28, p ¼.043. To examine Norton et al. s (2007) less is more hypothesis in more detail, we conducted a mediation analysis to explore whether perceived similarity mediated the relationship between the degree of information that those in the disclosure recipient condition perceived that they received and their degree of liking for the other. If the less is more hypothesis holds, we should observe that greater degree of disclosure leads to less similarity, which should in turn lead to less liking. If support for the classic, or more is more hypothesis holds, as we expect, then we should observe that the degree of disclosure is positively related to degree of similarity, which in turn should lead to greater liking. We tested these competing ideas with a bootstrapped mediation test using 20,000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Given the statistical interdependence in the data, and given our interest in the actor effects of the recipients, we controlled for partner effects (i.e., degree of disclosers disclosure given, perceived similarity, and liking). The mediation test revealed support for the classic view of familiarity-induced liking. Perceived similarity indeed partially mediated the positive relation between the perceived degree of disclosure received and liking (95% confidence interval of indirect effect: 0.01, 0.19). That is, the more disclosure people perceived to have received from their

11 Sprecher et al. 507 partners, the more similar they perceived them to be (b ¼ 0.24, SE ¼ 0.11, p ¼ 0.038), which in turn bolstered liking (b ¼ 0.29, SE ¼ 0.10, p ¼.004; c path of direct effect: b ¼ 0.25, SE ¼.08, p <.001; c-prime path of direct effect: b ¼ 0.21, SE ¼ 0.08, p ¼.01). Our mediation analysis thus suggests that familiarity may breed liking due in part to greater degrees of perceived similarity. Discussion Self-disclosure and liking In this experiment, we examined the relationship between self-disclosure and liking. Our study extended the literature on the get-acquainted process by examining which side of the self-disclosure process receiving or giving is more positively associated with liking (e.g., Collins & Miller, 1994; Sprecher, 1987). We also examined whether the two sides of disclosure lead to differential degrees of enjoyment of the interaction and closeness to the other. We hypothesized that being in the recipient role would lead to greater liking (and other positive impressions) than being in the role of discloser. In support of our first hypothesis, after the first segment of the interaction, participants who received disclosure liked the partner more, enjoyed the interaction more, and felt closer to the partner than participants who disclosed. We further hypothesized that the differential effects of giving versus receiving disclosure on liking would lead to differences in interpersonal outcomes, and impressions between partners would disappear after switching roles. In support of our second hypothesis, participants who began in the disclosure role experienced greater liking, enjoyment, and closeness after they shifted to receiving disclosure during the second segment of the interaction; those who began in the recipient role and disclosed during the second segment experienced negligible changes in liking and enjoyment. Thus, we found that receiving disclosure leads to more liking than giving disclosure. Our experiment was the first (to our knowledge) to systematically separate the two sides of self-disclosure in a way that did not confound the two roles and that involved actual participants (rather than one side of the disclosure being fabricated written material or presented by a confederate). This was done by randomly assigning participants to one of the two disclosure roles for an initial interaction, with participants switching disclosure roles for a second interaction. We assessed liking and other impressions after each interaction. Our results replicate the findings of previous correlational work (Sprecher, 1987) that receiving self-disclosure is uniquely associated with more liking than giving self-disclosure. Prior self-disclosure literature (e.g., Collins & Miller, 1994) has provided theoretical proposals suggesting that both sides of self-disclosure should be rewarding and lead to liking, closeness, and enjoyment. Likewise, the results of our study indicated that both partners generally experienced high levels of liking for the other and enjoyment of the interaction. Furthermore, replicating previous research on generating closeness within brief social interactions (e.g., Aron et al., 1992, 1997; Fraley & Aron, 2004), at least some closeness was reported by the participants after the structured self-disclosure activity. Although both sides of self-disclosure may be rewarding (Altman & Taylor, 1973), receiving disclosure leads to knowledge and information-based familiarity of the other.

12 508 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) Familiarity has been identified as one of the most essential components in the development of intimacy (Laurenceau & Kleinman, 2006). In addition, the other s sharing of information can lead to liking by increasing positive beliefs about the other, including about the other s similarity to oneself. To further discuss this point, we turn to the less is more hypothesis (Norton et al., 2007, 2011). Does learning more about others lead to more or less liking? Norton et al. s (2007, 2011) less is more hypothesis makes the prediction that more knowledge acquired about another typically leads to less liking due to decreases in perceived similarity. More specifically, they posit that when people first meet others they assume more similarity than may be present. These initial perceptions of similarity lead to strong initial liking (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008), but as one learns more about the other the initial illusion of similarity vanishes and liking decreases. In contrast, we hypothesized that disclosure recipients, who learned more about their interaction partners than disclosers, would report greater perceived similarity with their partners. We also hypothesized that more perceived information received would be related to greater perceived similarity. Our results demonstrated in multiple ways that a greater degree of disclosure (or information) from the other was associated with greater (not lesser) liking and perceived similarity. First, those who were in the initial recipient role perceived greater similarity to the other than those in the initial discloser role. Second, the more that those in the initial recipient role perceived that the other had disclosed to them, the greater their perceptions of similarity to their disclosing partners. In other words, information received from the other was associated with greater and not lesser perceived similarity. Finally, participants who started in the discloser role increased in their degree of perceived similarity and liking as they transitioned to the second segment of the interaction, when they learned more about their partners through the disclosure process. Thus, our findings seem to be incongruent with Norton et al. s (2007) less is more hypothesis. Similar to Reis et al. (2011a), we found that, on average, greater information acquisition about another person leads to greater liking. Reis et al. noted that their study was the first true experiment that examined the familiarity-leading-to attraction effect in a context that involved actual participants interacting. Our experimental study, using the role in disclosure (receiving vs. giving) as the manipulation (rather than the number of chats, as did Reis et al.) provides another strong experimental test that familiarity (particularly information-based familiarity) is associated with greater liking. Limitations and directions for future research Although we found that both sides of self-disclosure generally lead to positive interpersonal impressions, we do not doubt that there may be certain contexts, stages of relationship development, or types of information that could result in a weaker positive association or even a negative association between more information (disclosure) and perceptions of similarity and liking. For example, one question that we did not address is how

13 Sprecher et al. 509 interaction-relevant goals affect perceptions of similarity and liking. More specifically, the standard by which similarity is judged may differ in early interactions with a person considered for a casual acquaintance versus a potential romantic partner. It is plausible that the standards for potential romantic partners, especially committed or long-term partners, are quite stringent (e.g., Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Sprecher & Regan, 2002). There may be few people who approach the standard of similar enough when they are considered as potential romantic partners. Most people may be perceived as too dissimilar to be a compatible romantic partner. Furthermore, the variability in similarity dissimilarity in our sample may have been restricted based on the relative homogeneity of the participants in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, cultural upbringing, and other demographic factors. This homogeneity may have resulted in participants not engaging in conversations that would reveal major degrees of dissimilarity. Nevertheless, it is not clear that our participants were motivated to focus primarily on their similarities during the interaction. People are certainly not only motivated to fit in with a group but are also motivated to maintain a level of distinctiveness (Hornsey & Hogg, 1999; Leonardelli, Pickett, & Brewer, 2010). It is unclear to what extent disclosers would try to relate based on apparent similarities and to what extent they would try to distinguish themselves from those similarities. Our participants were somewhat constrained in their responses by the questions that were provided to add a degree of experimental control; these questions were selected from lists that are intended to induce interpersonal closeness (Aron et al., 1997; Sedikides et al., 1999). Does a relatively homogenous sample respond to structured questions with relatively homogenous answers? Future research can examine the role of connection and distinctiveness motives in initial acquaintance. Given that conversation in ecological settings is reciprocal (which may lead people to experience frustration when interacting with those who talk excessively), our legitimization of one-sided disclosure in an experimental context is another limitation. There are two important points that address this concern. First, we are not trying to tell a story about one-sided disclosure, rather, we were interested in examining the relative effects of giving and receiving disclosure on liking in general. The use of one-sided disclosure was of methodological importance to avoid confounding giving disclosure with receiving disclosure. The convergence of our findings with correlational research in natural communication settings (Sprecher, 1987) favors our interpretation that the effects of receiving disclosure on liking are stronger than the effects of giving disclosure. Second, although one could argue that legitimizing one-sided disclosure experimentally inflated the effects of disclosure on liking, the counterargument could be leveled that the observed effect was artificially weak because of listeners inferences about why their partners were disclosing. More specifically, in natural settings, listeners may feel that disclosers are communicating trust, a desire for intimacy, or liking by disclosing; in our study, listeners may have felt that disclosers were compelled to speak due to experimental demands. Nevertheless, social-psychological research on correspondence bias demonstrates that the participants are often insensitive to the experimental demands placed on the partners in a research setting (Gilbert & Jones, 1986). Therefore, it still may be plausible to study natural disclosure processes in experiments using one-sided disclosure methods.

14 510 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30(4) We suspect that the context in which communication occurs introduces important moderators for the effects of information exchange on liking and general person perception. One conceptual umbrella that might fit this purpose is perceived partner responsiveness (e.g., Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004; Reis et al., 2011a). For example, if the discloser believes that a listener is responsive during an interaction, then the listener s responsiveness may facilitate rapport and even further disclosure (Reis & Patrick, 1996). Notably, the recent controversy surrounding the effects of receiving information on liking (Norton et al., 2007) has treated partner responsiveness and perceived similarity as potential mediators. The mediation models that have been tested imply that receiving information has a direct causal effect on partner responsiveness (Reis et al., 2011a) or perceived similarity (Norton et al., 2007), which in turn has a direct effect on liking. As an alternative, models of moderation could be examined in which the effects of information given or received on liking depend on the degree of responsiveness or perceived similarity in the interaction. As a general point, the effects of disclosure on liking have been presented independent from the content of disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994; Sprecher, 1987). If that content is negative (e.g., disclosures about past problems, statements about things not liked about the other), then it may be the case that receiving disclosure would negatively impact liking more than giving disclosure. In other words, receiving disclosure may affect liking more than giving disclosure regardless of whether the change is positive or negative. In addition, another contextual variable to consider in future research is the medium of communication. All of our dyads interacted over web-based Skype. The Hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) suggests that the levels of self-disclosure can be more intense and impressions formed in interactions can be more idealized in computer-mediated communication than in face-to-face interactions. Although the theory was developed in regard to text-based computer-mediated communication, the same processes may occur in web-based video or audio communication. Future research could thus examine how the differential effects of receiving versus giving self-disclosure are affected by the medium of communication. More generally, future research can examine the many moderators, from medium of communication to content of disclosure, that are likely to affect the disclosure-liking relationship. Conclusion Self-disclosure is a natural and important facet of relationship development and maintenance, as it can promote liking and rapport between relationship partners, regardless of whether the two persons are strangers or acquaintances (Collins & Miller, 1994). Our study suggests that the one who listens to another s disclosure may experience more liking (and enjoyment, closeness) than the one who discloses. Our study also indicates, however, that once there is an opportunity to reciprocate self-disclosure, not only do these differences disappear but also liking further increases. Naturalistic conversations generally entail both sides of disclosure, which allows a target to simultaneously learn about the other while allowing the other to learn more about the target himself or herself. Thus, perhaps more actually is more; the more people know about others, the more they desire to be connected with them.

15 Sprecher et al. 511 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Lyndsey Estes, Jacqueline Gray, Ashley Salzman, and Amy Stupay for serving as research assistants on the project. S.T. and J.D.W. were graduate students at Illinois State University when the research was conducted. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Notes 1. Reis et al. also questioned Norton et al. s comparison (in their final study) of online daters who were about to go on a date with those online daters who had just been on a date. As noted by Reis et al., the second group likely had returned to the website because a date had not gone well; and as a consequence, they were looking for a new partner. 2. This was after deleting 12 participants who had to be paired with a confederate because the other assigned participant did not arrive and deleting one pair because both participants indicated that they had interacted previously. Although the data from participants who were paired with a confederate were not included in the analyses, separate analyses that included these 12 participants yielded similar results to those presented. 3. We decided to have the communication occur over Skype, with the participants in different rooms, to reduce the likelihood that the participants will deviate from their roles and to retain the focus of their reactions on the verbal communication itself rather than on other aspects of face-to-face interactions, such as proximity to each other, the possibility that one would touch the other, and body language. The exchanges were not audio- or video-taped. 4. A few items overlapped between the two versions of disclosure prompts administered in segments 1 and 2. These items were presented in different orders (i.e., last in segment 1 vs. first in segment 2). There were also unique items, which were randomly assigned to the different versions. Thus, the intimacy level of the sets in two versions can be considered to be approximately equivalent. 5. We instructed participants to answer the disclosure-prompting questions in the order that they were presented; however, in order to give participants privacy, the experimenters were not present in the room when participants interacted and could not monitor the order in which participants answered questions. Still, we have no reason to believe that participants went out of order or skipped any questions in the set. 6. A general question on closeness was also included: How close do you feel toward the Other? (1 ¼ Not at all,7¼ A great deal). Because the reliability of the two-item composite was lower than desired (a was.55 in PS-1 and.66 in PS-2), we decided to conduct the analyses with the more common and validated Aron et al. s (1992) IOS. However, similar results were found when analyzing the IOS or a composite of the two items. 7. In supplementary analyses, we found that female female and male female dyads differed collectively in liking, enjoyment of the interaction, and closeness, Wilks L ¼.77, F (3, 53) ¼ 5.44, p ¼.002, partial Z 2 ¼.24. Collapsing across dyads and over both interaction segments, female female pairs (when compared to male female dyads) reported higher scores on liking (Ms ¼ 5.89 vs. 5.37; d ¼ 0.91) and closeness (4.15 vs. 3.47; d ¼ 0.68). The difference between female female and male female dyads in enjoyment of interaction, however, was small (5.05