Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Personal Relationships
- 1 The Tides of Change: Recent Trends and Developments in Close Relationships Research
- 2 Theories and Research in Personal Relationships
- 3 Lift Every Voice: An Inclusive Perspective on Considering Methodological Trade-Offs in Relationships Research
- 4 Dyadic Data Analysis: Current Issues and Directions
- 5 Relationship Beginnings: Selection and Initiation
- 6 Relationship Development and Growth
- 7 The Longitudinal Course of Couple Relationships
- 8 Recent Advances in Research on Children’s Friendships
- 9 Personal Relationships with Parents and Peers in Adolescence
- 10 Close Relationships in Middle and Late Adulthood
- 11 Family Systems and Family Relationships: Family Subsystems Across Diverse Families
- 12 Personality Influences in Relationships: How Self-Esteem, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness Affect Hurt Feelings
- 13 Internal Working Models of Attachment: A Lifespan Perspective
- 14 Ethnicity, Culture, and Close Relationships:
- 15 Relationship Neuroscience
- 16 Interpersonal Social Cognition and Relationship Evaluation
- 17 Communication: Basic Properties and Their Relevance to Relationship Research
- 18 How Communal Relational Contexts Shape (and Are Shaped by) Emotional Lives
- 19 Self-Disclosure in Relationships: Disclosure Dynamics as a Seismograph of Relationship Quality
- 20 Social Support in Close Relationships
- 21 Understanding Couple Conflict
- 22 Sexuality in Relationships: Highlights and Oversights from Recent Research
- 23 Transgressions, (Un)forgiveness, and Revenge
- 24 Stress and Dyadic Coping
- 25 Aggression and Violence in Romantic Relationships
- 26 Understanding the Problem of Loneliness and the Challenge of Addressing It
- 27 Relationship Dissolution
- 28 Love in Relationships
- 29 Relationship Satisfaction
- 30 Commitment Processes in Close Relationships
- 31 Relationships and Physical Health
- 32 Social Networks and Personal Relationships
- 33 Friendships and Acquaintanceships
- 34 Technology and Personal Relationships
- 35 Examining Intimate Relationships across Black Populations with a Focus on Context
- 36 Promoting Healthy Couple Relationships
- 37 Maintaining Relationships
- 38 Treating Relationship Distress
- 39 Teaching Relationship Science
- 40 Relationship Science: A Hard Look at the State of the Science and an Agenda for Moving Forward
- Index
- References
19 - Self-Disclosure in Relationships: Disclosure Dynamics as a Seismograph of Relationship Quality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 February 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Personal Relationships
- 1 The Tides of Change: Recent Trends and Developments in Close Relationships Research
- 2 Theories and Research in Personal Relationships
- 3 Lift Every Voice: An Inclusive Perspective on Considering Methodological Trade-Offs in Relationships Research
- 4 Dyadic Data Analysis: Current Issues and Directions
- 5 Relationship Beginnings: Selection and Initiation
- 6 Relationship Development and Growth
- 7 The Longitudinal Course of Couple Relationships
- 8 Recent Advances in Research on Children’s Friendships
- 9 Personal Relationships with Parents and Peers in Adolescence
- 10 Close Relationships in Middle and Late Adulthood
- 11 Family Systems and Family Relationships: Family Subsystems Across Diverse Families
- 12 Personality Influences in Relationships: How Self-Esteem, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness Affect Hurt Feelings
- 13 Internal Working Models of Attachment: A Lifespan Perspective
- 14 Ethnicity, Culture, and Close Relationships:
- 15 Relationship Neuroscience
- 16 Interpersonal Social Cognition and Relationship Evaluation
- 17 Communication: Basic Properties and Their Relevance to Relationship Research
- 18 How Communal Relational Contexts Shape (and Are Shaped by) Emotional Lives
- 19 Self-Disclosure in Relationships: Disclosure Dynamics as a Seismograph of Relationship Quality
- 20 Social Support in Close Relationships
- 21 Understanding Couple Conflict
- 22 Sexuality in Relationships: Highlights and Oversights from Recent Research
- 23 Transgressions, (Un)forgiveness, and Revenge
- 24 Stress and Dyadic Coping
- 25 Aggression and Violence in Romantic Relationships
- 26 Understanding the Problem of Loneliness and the Challenge of Addressing It
- 27 Relationship Dissolution
- 28 Love in Relationships
- 29 Relationship Satisfaction
- 30 Commitment Processes in Close Relationships
- 31 Relationships and Physical Health
- 32 Social Networks and Personal Relationships
- 33 Friendships and Acquaintanceships
- 34 Technology and Personal Relationships
- 35 Examining Intimate Relationships across Black Populations with a Focus on Context
- 36 Promoting Healthy Couple Relationships
- 37 Maintaining Relationships
- 38 Treating Relationship Distress
- 39 Teaching Relationship Science
- 40 Relationship Science: A Hard Look at the State of the Science and an Agenda for Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
Research has advanced our understanding of the role of self-disclosure in the initiation, development, maintenance, and ending of relationships. In this chapter, we review theoretical and empirical milestones in our understanding of self-disclosure, particularly its role in relationships. We show that research on self-disclosure has shifted from a focus on the individual to a focus on the interpersonal nature of disclosure processes. Self-disclosure occurs between people and triggers a cyclical process that is specific to a particular relationship with a particular partner. Self-disclosure processes fluctuate over time. They shape, and are shaped by, relationships. We propose that self-disclosure serves as a seismograph of relationship quality. It is essential in interdependent relationships and key to unraveling how people perceive the quality of their relationships. Throughout the chapter, we identify unanswered questions that offer promising avenues for future research.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 399 - 418Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Afifi, T. D., & Steuber, K. (2010). The Cycle of Concealment model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(8), 1019–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afifi, W. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships. In Petronio, S. (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 165–180). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Alberts, J. K., Yoshimura, C. G., Rabby, M., & Loschiavo, R. (2005). Mapping the topography of couples’ daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almas, A. N., Grusec, J. E., & Tackett, J. L. (2011). Children’s disclosure and secrecy: Links to parenting characteristics and children’s coping skills. Social Development, 20(3), 624–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00602.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Arican-Dinc, B., & Gable, S. L. (2023). Responsiveness in romantic partners’ interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 53, 101652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101652CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babcock, J. C., Gottman, J. M., Ryan, K. D., & Gottman, J. S. (2013). A component analysis of a brief psycho‐educational couples’ workshop: One‐year follow‐up results. Journal of Family Therapy, 35(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the ‘‘true self’’ on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baruh, L., Secinti, E., & Cemalcilar, Z. (2017). Online privacy concerns and privacy management: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Public intimacy: Disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01664.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedrov, A., & Gable, S. L. (2024). Keeping and sharing secrets at the interpersonal level. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, e12942. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12942Google Scholar
Berg, J. H., & Derlega, V. J. (1987). Themes in the study of self-disclosure. In Derlega, V. J. (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 1–8). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Billedo, C., Kerkhof, P., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The use of social network sites for relationship maintenance in long-distance and geographically-close romantic relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buhrmester, D., & Prager, K. (1995). Patterns and functions of self-disclosure. In Rotenburg, K. J. (Ed.), Disclosure processes in children and adolescents (pp. 10–56). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, J. J., Holmes, J. G., & Vorauer, J. D. (2009). When self-disclosure goes awry: Negative consequences of revealing personal failures for lower self-esteem individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campione-Barr, N., Lindell, A. K., Giron, S., Killoren, S. A., & Greer, K. B. (2015). Domain distinctions in adolescent and emerging adult disclosure to mothers and siblings. Developmental Psychology, 51(9), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of relational maintenance strategies: A comparison among lovers, relatives, friends, and others. Communication Research Reports, 10(1) 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099309359913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Sharabi, L. L. (2013). A communicative interdependence perspective of close relationships: The connections between mediated and unmediated interactions matter. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12046Google Scholar
Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and romantic relationships. In Oetzel, J. & Ting-Toomey, S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 129–157). Sage.Google Scholar
Choi, H., Oishi, S., Shin, J., & Suh, E. (2019). Do happy events love company? Cultural variations in sharing positive events with others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218789071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, M. S., Mills, J., & Corcoran, D. (1989). Keeping track of needs and inputs of friends and strangers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-Disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696813479782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. G., & Tabri, N. (2023). The secrets that you keep: Secrets and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 30(2), 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derlega, V. J., & Grzelak, J. (1979). Appropriateness of self-disclosure. In Chelune, G. J. (Ed.), Self-disclosure: Origins, patterns, and implications of openness in interpersonal relationships (pp. 151–176). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Sage.Google Scholar
Derlega, V. J., Wilson, M., & Chaikin, A. L. (1976). Friendship and disclosure reciprocity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 578–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan-Kicken, E., & Caughlin, J. P. (2010). A multiple goals perspective on topic avoidance and relationship satisfaction in the context of breast cancer. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751003758219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. C. (1997). Human conversational behavior. Human Nature, 8(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02912493CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, R., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines the enjoyment of face-to-face interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkenauer, C., & Buyukcan-Tetik, A. (2015). To know you is to feel intimate with you: Felt knowledge is rooted in disclosure, solicitation, and intimacy. Family Science, 6(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2015.1082012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkenauer, C., & Hazam, H. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to marital satisfaction? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407500172005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00013.x-i1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkenauer, C., Frijns, T., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Kerkhof, P. (2005). Perceiving concealment in relationships between parents and adolescents: Links with parental behavior. Personal Relationships, 12(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00122.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Righetti, F., & Branje, S. (2009). Living together apart: Perceived concealment as a signal of exclusion in marital relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1410–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209339629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkenauer, C., Kubacka, K. E., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Kerkhof, P. (2009). Secrecy in close relationships: Investigating its intrapersonal and interpersonal effects. In Afifi, T. D., & Afifi, W. A. (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 300–319). Routledge.Google Scholar
Forest, A. L., Kille, D. R., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2014). Discount and disengage: How chronic negative expressivity undermines partner responsiveness to negative disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 1013–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J., Osborn, J. L., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., & Keijsers, L. (2013). Shared secrets versus secrets kept private are linked to better adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescence, 36(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.09.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frijns, T., Keijsers, L., & Finkenauer, C. (2020). Keeping secrets from parents: On galloping horses, prancing ponies, and pink unicorns. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409–427). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyon, R., Fernet, M., & Hébert, M. (2021). Relational and sexual experiences of betrayal from the point of view of sexually victimized young women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP11506–NP11530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hales, A. H., Dvir, M., Wesselmann, E. D., Kruger, D. J., & Finkenauer, C. (2018). Cell phone-induced ostracism threatens fundamental needs. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(4), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1439877CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helgeson, V. S. (1991). The effects of masculinity and social support on recovery from myocardial infarction. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53(6), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199111000-00004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality: A meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 7(7), e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, S. B., Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. A., McNeely, C. A., & Bose, K. (2011). Adolescents’ self-disclosure to parents across cultures: Who discloses and why. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26(4), 447–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411402334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, K., Mojaverian, T., Masuno, K., & Kim, H. S. (2017). Cultural differences in motivation for seeking social support and the emotional consequences of receiving support: The role of influence and adjustment goals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(9), 1442–1456, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117731091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzchakov, G., & Reis, H. T. (2023). Listening and perceived responsiveness: Unveiling the significance and exploring crucial research endeavors. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzchakov, G., Reis, H. T., & Weinstein, N. (2022). How to foster perceived partner responsiveness: High‐quality listening is key. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1), e12648. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, A. E., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). The consequences of revealing personal secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kito, M., Yuki, M., & Thomson, R. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross‐cultural differences. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as a process: The importance of self-disclosure and responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurenceau, J. P., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., Park, H., & Kim, J. (2013). Why do people share their context information on social network services? A qualitative study and an experimental study on users’ behavior of balancing perceived benefit and risk. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 71(9), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litt, E., & Hargittai, E. (2016). The imagined audience on social network sites. Social Media + Society, 2(1), 205630511663348. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maisel, N. C., Gable, S. L., & Strachman, A. M. Y. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad. Personal Relationships, 15(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00201.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. (2018). Technoference: Longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84(2), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0052-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, S. L. (2023). Regulating relationship risk: Partner responsiveness as a safety signal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naaman, M., Boase, J., & Lai, C. H. (2010). Is it really about me?: Message content in social awareness streams. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Association for Computing Machinery) (pp. 189–192). ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naslund, J. A., Aschbrenner, K. A., Marsch, L. A., & Bartels, S. J. (2016). The future of mental health care: Peer-to-peer support and social media. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 25(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796015001067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, M., Bin, Y. S., & Campbell, A. (2012). Comparing online and offline self-disclosure: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niedermyer, A. J. (2011). An investigation of the association between secrecy characteristics, trust, and the reasons romantic partners report for discussing expectations regarding secrecy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/4f34ef9d-ebe4-40bd-8c46-f03bae532604/contentGoogle Scholar
Noller, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Marital communication in the Eighties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 832–843. https://doi.org/10.2307/353305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2011). Expressive writing: Connections to physical and mental health. In Friedman, H. S. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of health psychology (pp. 417–437). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petronio, S. (2007). Translational endeavors and the practices of communication privacy management. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880701422443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prager, K. J., Shirvani, F., Poucher, J., Cavallin, G., Truong, M., & Garcia, J. J. (2015). Recovery from conflict and revival of intimacy in cohabiting couples. Personal Relationships, 22(2), 308–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos Salazar, L. (2015). The negative reciprocity process in marital relationships: A literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24(2015), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2006). The relationship context of social psychology. In van Lange, P. A. M. (Ed.), Bridging social psychology (pp. 253–260). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck, S. W. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Wiley.Google Scholar
Rimé, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., & Philippot, P. (1998). Social sharing of emotion: New evidence and new questions. In Stroebe, W. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 145–189). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, S. R. (2014). We’ll only see parts of each other’s lives: The role of mundane talk in maintaining nonresidential parent–child relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(8), 1134–1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514522898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of explicit agreements to declare a topic taboo in dating relationships. Personal Relationships, 5(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00167.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppel, E., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B., Allen, M., & Kim, S. (2016). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 22(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safran, C. (1979). Troubles that pull couples apart: A Redbook report. Redbook, 83, 138–141.Google Scholar
Schouten, A., Boiger, M., Kirchner-Häusler, A., Uchida, Y., & Mesquita, B. (2020). Cultural differences in emotion suppression in Belgian and Japanese couples: A social functional model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1048, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1471–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610382786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slepian, M. L., & Greenaway, K. H. (2018). The benefits and burdens of keeping others’ secrets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2009). Early and middle adolescents’ disclosure to parents about their activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (2000). Romantic partners’ perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions. Personal Relationships, 7(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00020.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn‐taking reciprocal self‐disclosure in get‐acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22(3), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 860–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(21), 8038–8043. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1202129109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teo, A. R., Choi, H., Andrea, S. B., Valenstein, M., Newsom, J. T., Dobscha, S., K., & Zivin, K. (2015). Does mode of contact with different types of social relationships predict depression among older adults? Evidence from a nationally representative survey. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 63(10), 2014–2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., … Visserman, M. L. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), 7521–7526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713191115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tichon, J. G., & Shapiro, M. (2003). The process of sharing social support in cyberspace. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103321640356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Towner, E., Grint, J., Levy, T., Blakemore, S. J., & Tomova, L. (2022). Revealing the self in a digital world: A systematic review of adolescent online and offline self-disclosure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social networking sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increases the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., & Bush, A. L. (2012a). The reciprocal cycle of self-concealment and trust in romantic relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 844–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., Knee, C. R., & Bush, A. L. (2012b). The association between self-concealment from one’s partner and relationship well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211429331CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model on its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vangelisti, A. L., & Banski, M. A. (1993). Couples’ debriefing conversations: The impact of gender, occupation, and demographic characteristics. Family Relations, 42(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/585448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijayakumar, N., Flournoy, J. C., Mills, K. L., Cheng, T. W., Mobasser, A., Flannery, J. E., Allen, N. B., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2020). Getting to know me better: An fMRI study of intimate and superficial self-disclosure to friends during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(5), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000182CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalobos Solís, M., Smetana, J. G., & Comer, J. (2015). Associations among solicitation, relationship quality, and adolescents’ daily disclosure and secrecy with mothers and best friends. Journal of Adolescence, 43(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinkers, C., Finkenauer, C., & Hawk, S. (2011). Why do close partners snoop? Predictors of intrusive behavior in newlywed couples. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01314.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, J. B., Heide, B., Van Der Ramirez, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Peña, J. (2015). Interpersonal and hyperpersonal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. In Sundar, S. S. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 3–22). Wiley.Google Scholar
Williamson, H. C. (2024). Innovative strategies for increasing sample size and diversity in family science research. Journal of Marriage and Family. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features.
We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is
not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions,
please contact
accessibility@cambridge.org.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.