Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Ahead of Print.
People often self-disclose news about themselves. Respondents may have similar news and feel conflicted about whether to share that news in the moment – that is, to reciprocally self-disclose. On the one hand, reciprocally self-disclosing could enable them to convey that they understand the recipient’s experience. On the other hand, reciprocally self-disclosing could dishonor the recipient’s contribution in a manner akin to stealing the spotlight. What contextual variables do respondents consider when navigating this conflict? How do recipients perceive reciprocal self-disclosures (RSDs) relative to non-disclosures – and what contextual variables moderate recipients’ perceptions? In this paper, we report four studies (N = 1200 Reddit conversations, 733 MTurk and 701 Prolific users) examining how people use and perceive RSD across a variety of contexts. We focus principally on context valence (positive vs. negative) and news similarity (similar vs. more extreme). Across experimental and naturalistic studies, respondents were highly context-sensitive and particularly reluctant to reciprocally self-disclose in positive contexts. Yet, recipients were less context-sensitive. Recipients evaluated similar RSDs as comparably responsive as non-disclosures in positive contexts and more responsive than non-disclosures in negative contexts. Furthermore, recipients perceived more extreme RSDs as more responsive than non-disclosures in negative contexts and less responsive than non-disclosures in positive contexts. Exploratory analyses suggested privacy, gender of respondent, and closeness predicted whether respondents used RSD but not whether recipients perceived RSD as responsive. In short, people often refrain from RSD to avoid committing communication errors – but our research suggests RSD can be highly responsive and incurs few costs relative to non-disclosure.