Table 1.
Summary of dimensions of self-disclosure.
Table 2.
Mental verbs.
Fig 1.
The six-dimension proposed ontology of self-disclosure.
The proposed ontology illustrates that self-disclosure is a highly nuanced process, and interpreting it requires socioemotional, situational, and personal context.
Fig 2.
Full experimental overview for Phases I and II.
A demonstration of the workflow and data flow for Phases I and II. Each phase involved different groups of participants; one group (Phase I) generated conversational data, and one group (Phase II) evaluated transcripts of those conversations.
Table 3.
Correlation of frequency of self-disclosure and LIWC characteristics in dialogues.
Fig 3.
LIWC measures of authenticity and analytical language vs. frequency of self-disclosure.
A: The LIWC authenticity measure is significantly positively correlated with frequency of self-disclosure. B: The LIWC analytical measure is significantly negatively correlated to frequency of self-disclosure. Note the values on the x axes differ.
Fig 4.
Workflow for Phase II patings.
Participant workflow in evaluating stimulus pairs, including the seven rating items.
Fig 5.
Linguistic profiles of self-disclosure in conversational context: LIWC summary measures.
Trends among the four LIWC summary measures (analytical language, authenticity, clout, and emotional tone) in relation to preceding and succeeding dialogue turns. “Control before” and “control after” utterances are included in the leftmost two bars, high self-disclosure utterances are in the middle two bars, and low to moderate self-disclosure are in the rightmost two bars. A: Analytical language. B: Authenticity. C: Clout. D: Tone. Note: Values on the y axes differ between plots. SD = self-disclosure, Mod. = Moderate, Agree. = Extent of across-rater agreement in classifying the dialogue instance as involving self-disclosure.
Table 4.
Linguistic characteristics of self-disclosure in ongoing conversational context: LIWC summary variables.
Fig 6.
Further linguistic profiles of self-disclosure in conversational context: “I” and cognitive processes.
“Control before” and “control after” utterances are included in the leftmost two bars, high self-disclosure utterances are in the middle two bars, and low to moderate self-disclosure are in the rightmost two bars. A: Use of “I” is highest in instances of self-disclosure compared to control dialogue. B: Language related to cognitive processes is higher in instances of self-disclosure compared to control dialogue. Note: Values on the y axes differ between plots. SD = self-disclosure, Mod. = Moderate, Agree. = Extent of across-rater agreement in classifying the dialogue instance as involving self-disclosure.
Table 5.
Linguistic characteristics of self-disclosure in ongoing conversational context: Personal pronouns (“I”) and cognitive processes.
Fig 7.
Further linguistic profiles of self-disclosure in conversational context: Motivational drives and social references.
“Control before” and “control after” utterances are included in the leftmost two bars, high self-disclosure utterances are in the middle two bars, and low to moderate self-disclosure are in the rightmost two bars. A: Language related to motivational drives is higher in rater-agreed instances of self-disclosure than in the control dialogue segments. B: Social references are highest in both high intimacy instances of self-disclosure and high rater agreement. Note: Values on the y axes differ between plots. SD = self-disclosure, Mod. = Moderate, Agree. = Extent of across-rater agreement in classifying the dialogue instance as involving self-disclosure.
Table 6.
Linguistic characteristics of self-disclosure in ongoing conversational context: Motivational drives and social references.
Table 7.
Linguistic characteristics of self-disclosure in ongoing conversational context: Positive and negative emotions.
Table 8.
Sample stimulus pairs and ratings.
Table 9.
Samples of rater-provided inferences drawn from self-disclosure.
Table 10.
Example categorization of inferences for one stimulus pair.