On sex differences in self-disclosure during the acquaintance process: The role of anticipated future interaction.

Shaffer, David R.; Ogden, Jane

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.92

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, it would seem that the literature provides some evidence (though at times it is inconsistent) that anticipation of future interaction is an antecedent of tolerance for uncertainty that operates in a manner at least somewhat consistent with theoretical expectations as outlined in Hypotheses 1 through 7. It should also be noted that persons anticipating future interaction with a target other typically try to present themselves in positive, friendly, and socially appropriate ways (Douglas, 1990a;Kiesler, 1969;Shaffer & Ogden, 1986;Shaffer, Ogden, & Wu, 1987) and tend to like the target other more (Berscheid et al, 1976;Darley & Berscheid, 1967;Layton & Insko, 1974) even if that person is negative or obnoxious (Berscheid, Boye, & Darley, 1968;Mirels & Mills, 1964;Tyler & Sears, 1977). Therefore, with some qualifications, some support exists for Hypotheses 1 through 7 for the antecedent of anticipation of future interaction.…”

Section: Anticipation Of Future Interactionmentioning

confidence: 88%

When Ignorance Is Bliss The Role of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies were conducted with the goal to articulate and test models for integrating the concept of motivation to reduce uncertainty into the axiomatic structure of uncertainty reduction theory. Multiple models were considered, each model defining motivation to reduce uncertainty in a different way. Motivation to reduce uncertainty was dtfined as a scope condition (Model 2), as tolerance for uncertainty (Model 3), as a weighted function of uncertainty by its importance (Model 4), and as the diflerence between one's uncertainty level and one's tolerance for uncertainty (Models 5a and 5b). Each of these models was compared to the baseline model (Model I ) derived from the original presentation of the theory where leuel of uncertainty, by itself, serues as a determinant of various communication behaviors. Tests of these models in terms of their ability to predict information seeking and attraction reveal that none of the models provides a consistent integration of motivation to reduce uncertainty into uncertainty reduction theory. Rather, folerance for uncertainty (Model 3) isone of threedeterminants of information seeking, while level of uncertainty (Model I ) is one of three determinants of attraction. This inability to integrate motivation to reduce uncertainty into uncertainty reduction theory can be attributed to the consistent failure to find support for deviance and incentive value as determinants of tolerance for uncertainty, the rejection of Axiom 3 in uncertainty reduction theory (which specifies a positive relationship between uncertainty and information seeking), and the rejection of Theorem 17 (which specifies a negative relationship between information seeking and liking). ncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) was put forth over a decade ago as an explanation for certain U interpersonal communication behaviors displayed during initial interactions. The inability to predict and explain others' actions was offered as the central motivating force guiding behavior in first

show abstract

Section: Anticipation Of Future Interactionmentioning

confidence: 88%

When Ignorance Is Bliss The Role of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been noted for some time that individuals expecting future interaction with other parties typically try to present themselves in socially appropriate ways and try to appear as more positive and friendly (Kellermann and Reynolds, 1990;Shaffer and Ogden, 1986;Shaffer et al, 1987). More specifically, in situations in which individuals had to make award allocations and expected future interactions, Shapiro (1975) found that the images individuals projected to others became more salient.…”

Section: Pre-negotiation Behavioral Influencesmentioning

confidence: 92%

The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes

Patton

Balakrishnan

2010

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dindia and Allen (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of sex differences in self-disclosure and found that women self-disclosed more than men (d = .18). Although this difference is small (Cohen, 1969), Shaffer and Ogden (1986) have shown that anticipated future interaction differentially affects the self-disclosure of women and men. Sex differences are maximized when informal social interaction is expected to follow from an initial encounter.…”

Section: Sex Differences In Selfdisclosurementioning

confidence: 94%

Self-Disclosure in Spouse and Stranger Interaction A Social Relations Analysis

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine self-disclosure as both a personality trait and an interaction process. Fmty men and women engaged in dyadic conversations with three same and three opposite-sex strangers and their spouses on each of three occasions. The wnversations were wdedfir type of self-disclosure (descrzptive us. evaluative) and level of intimacy. The data were analyzed using Social Relations Analysis. The results of the study provided little supportfor individual differences in self-disclosure. In general, individuals were inconsistent in how much they self-disclosed to others and in how much self-disclosure they elicited from others. There were no sex drffrrolces in self-disclosure. There was qualz$ed supportfor the p c e s s model of self-disclosure. The level of the relationship (spouse vs. stranger) affected self-disclosure, and self-disclosure was reciprocal for both spouses and strangers. However, there were no relationship diferences in self-disclosure and self-disclosure was not related to liking.

show abstract

On sex differences in self-disclosure during the acquaintance process: The role of anticipated future interaction.

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

When Ignorance Is Bliss The Role of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory

When Ignorance Is Bliss The Role of Motivation to Reduce Uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory

The impact of expectation of future negotiation interaction on bargaining processes and outcomes

Self-Disclosure in Spouse and Stranger Interaction A Social Relations Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About