Personal Disclosure to Strangers Intuitively,

Personal Disclosure to Strangers

Intuitively, one would expect that it is always easier and more appropriate to discuss personal issues with close friends and acquaintances and to do so much less with relative strangers. Sometimes and in certain contexts that is true; however, there are also frequent situations in which the exact opposite is true: sometimes, people are more comfortable talking to strangers about highly personal matters. Generally, that is a function of the fact that the stranger does not have the necessary status in one's mind for his or her opinion to matter to the speaker. Naturally, that is not always true because there are also understandable reasons why people would still prefer to discuss highly personal matters only with close relations and friends.

The Cause of the Phenomenon of Increased Disclosure to Relative Strangers

The principal cause of the apparent phenomenon that people sometimes prefer to discuss personal matters with relative strangers is that people are usually much more concerned with the way they are perceived by people who know them than they are about how they may be perceived by complete strangers (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). Typical manifestations of this would include the fact that many people engage in behavior in the company of strangers (as well as privately) that they would not do in front of their peer groups or their primary social group. That is not to say that there are no limits to lack of concern over embarrassment in the eyes of strangers; it simply means that it is common for individuals to feel more inhibited about certain types of behavior in front of people who know them than in front of strangers (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007).

Another cause of the phenomenon is that people often compartmentalize their social lives, maintaining specific aspects of different behaviors or "personalities" in different social circumstances or when in the company of certain different groups of people (Myers & Spencer, 2004). That means they cannot necessarily share certain conversational topics with everyone equally in their lives. On the other hand, when talking to a complete stranger, there is no such concern; the stranger has not established any previous perception about the person. That means the individual is free to express himself or herself spontaneously and without the "filter" that people often employ in discussions with different groups of people. In that regard, when talking to anybody who already has a specific perception or set of perceptions about the speaker, the speaker is limited to interactions and exchanges that are consistent with that (presumably positive) perception. Conversely, when interacting or communicating with a perfect stranger, the speaker is free to express any aspect of his or her persona or identity spontaneously (Myers & Spencer, 2004).

Perhaps the best illustration of the psychological freedom from criticism that many people experience in discussions with strangers as opposed to in conversations with acquaintances would be the common patterns of Internet communications. Specifically, the extent to which people do, in fact, disclose information in anonymous conversations on the Internet that they withhold from people who know them is directly associated with their relative lack of inhibitions from their concerns about what the other person (or people) is thinking about them. In many cases, that is much less important with respect to strangers than it is with respect to close acquaintances (Myers & Spencer, 2004).

The Effect of the Phenomenon of Increased Disclosure to Relative Strangers

There can be both positive and negative effects of the tendency of many people to feel more comfortable disclosing personal information to relative strangers. In many respects, those positive and negative effects would be functions of the underlying reasons that any specific individual chooses (or feels compelled) to make the distinction. For example, a person who is originally from a conservative religious community may be more comfortable living an openly gay lifestyle elsewhere but not when returning to his or her community of origin. If the differential degree of personal disclosure allows the person to enjoy the fullest and most satisfying relationships in both scenarios, that differential degree of disclosure serves and helps achieve a beneficial purpose for the individual.

Meanwhile, a person who is from a law abiding and socially, ethnically, and culturally inclusive community of origin may express virulent racist or other biased viewpoints elsewhere that he would be (rightfully) ashamed to exhibit in his community of origin. A person who has always been known for being responsible and considerate in one community may choose to "experiment" or "let loose" another aspect of his personality when outside of that community. In both of those instances, the effect of the differential degree of disclosure would be serving and helping to achieve a goal that is negative. Specifically, it means that the individual has not really ever fully accepted or identified with those elements of his or her personality or behavior that is known to be expected in the community (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007).

In the first example, differential disclosure allows the individual to express aspects of personality or belief that are inherently perfectly acceptable but threatening to established social relationships that the individual prefers not to jeopardize or complicate. In the second set of examples, differential disclosure allows the individual to behave in ways that the individual (probably) understands are wrong. However, regardless of the different outcomes of effects, the mechanism is a function of the fact that people often feel more comfortable disclosing certain things to strangers than to close relations or acquaintances.

Counterargument