The Esping Andersens Welfare Regime Typology

The Esping Andersens Welfare Regime Typology This assignment will be analysing precisely on the Esping-Andersens welfare regime typology along with its illustration. In order for a better understanding of the illustration, three countries will be used as ideal examples for the different typologies, namely the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany. In addition to the illustration using the three countries stated, the Esping-Andersens welfare regime will also be assessed further in depth. CONTENT There are two major paradigms of the explanation of the welfare state expansion which are the social and economic factors, and also the political factor. The social and economic factors are usually the main driving force of welfare state expansion which is also based on the logic of industrialisation. The industrialism is a long term and inevitable effect of economic development in which when the economic productivity increases, the resources for the welfare will necessarily increase too. Additionally, industrialism will bring in many other factors such as urbanisation and peoples relocation effects, population growth and their changing composition together with the growth of the nation states bureaucratic capability in terms of delivering their welfare (Quadagno, 1987). Another major explanation of expansion of the welfare is the political factors. The structure and generosity of welfare state can only be explained if we take into account the power resources of social classes and th e fusions between them. In addition, powerful and trade union movements also the social democratic parties are also recognised as decisive political actors for the development of universal social rights. These two major theories of the development of the welfare state all have its relevance and are inter-related to each other (Castles, 2010). This is also what Esping-Andersen believes in. In Esping Andersens major and most influential work, written in The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, he stated that de-commodification and also social stratification of a country are the key issues in terms of assessing the welfare state. These two are also known as the main indicators as measurements of quality of the welfare state provided. The first indicator, de-commodification in this perspective is actually the degree to which a social service is being rendered to the people of the country as a matter of right and to the degree which a person can maintain his livelihood without relying on the market (Pierson and Castles, 2006). Different typologies of welfare state have different degrees of de-commodification it offers to its people. The level of this de-commodification can be measured by three sets of dimensions which are the rules that govern peoples eligibility to welfare benefits, level of income replacement for those on benefits and the range of entitlements provided (E sping-Andersen, 1990). As for the other indicator, social stratification is the degree to which welfare state differentiates between different social groups, for instance on the basis of occupational status or gender (Cochrane et al, 2001). The welfare states vary considerably with respect to those two principles; the de-commodification or social rights and stratification. As the welfare state variations are not linearly distributed as it is dependent on the different arrangements among the state, market and the family, Esping-Andersen stated that welfare states can then be divided into three different ideal welfare regime typologies. They are the liberal regime, conservative regime and finally, the social-democratic regime type (Kolberg, 1992). The liberal welfare state is characterised by means-tested assistance, modest universal transfers, or modest social insurance plans that predominate. These cater mostly to people of low income (usually those in the working-class and are state dependents). This model of welfare state created entitlement rules that are strict and are also often associated to stigma although the benefits given out are in general modest. For this reason, the state will then encourage the market to guarantee and subsidise private welfare schemes. Subsequently, this welfare state regime minimises de-commodification effect and encourage a higher degree of social stratification due to the private schemes predominating and also the different welfare state recipients which will clearly result in inequality (Kolberg, 1992). An archetypical example of this welfare regime model is the United Kingdom which will be used in order to illustrate and assess this welfare state regime better, although it was identified to be more of a hybrid-liberal regime before this. In accordance to the Esping-Andersens indicators for welfare state, the United Kingdoms de-commodification is fairly low and thus fit into the Esping-Andersen ideal model of liberal regime. According to him, the United Kingdom has a low index of de-commodification of 23.4 which is the combination of the following individual de-commodification indexes; pensions of 8.5, sickness benefits of 7.2 and unemployment insurance of 7.7 (Bambra, 2006). As for the countrys social stratification, the score is 6 within the liberal scale which is deemed to be medium-low (Scruggs and Allan, 2006). This aspect however does not fit into the ideal liberal welfare regime of Esping-Andersen which is supposedly to be high. In addition to that, unlike the traditional lib eral countries such as the United States (which is known as the prototype of liberal regime), the United Kingdom has a National Insurance system which was introduced by Beveridge in 1942 (Spicker, 2012). Included in this system is the National Health Service (NHS) which is provided to all on a free of charge basis which is not a character of a typical liberal regime. Along with that, the United Kingdom consists of four different constituent countries which have their own devolved self-government such as that in Scotland which its education structure is different to that in the other part of the country. This is also one of the main criticisms of Esping-Andersens welfare regime as it cannot be found in pure form such as in this case. However, the United Kingdom can still be categorised to be a liberal regime as the country generally only provides social security to its people based on their need which this can be referred to act only as a safety net. Additionally, this social securit y offered by the state funded by taxation are only very limited and are highly stigmatised due to its means-tested distribution such as the Working Tax Credit even though they do give out benefits to those who need it most (Schifferes, 2005). Moreover, as the recent current policy reforms in the United Kingdom that affect the social security such as the NHS, which its principle of universality and future is subject to change, only sums up to push the country further in becoming more into the liberal regime. All the discussed aspects of the United Kingdoms welfare system pretty much tally up the countrys regime of being in the liberal typology. The second welfare regime identified by Esping- Andersen is the conservative welfare state regime. This regime is typified by a moderate level of de-commodification. This regime type is shaped by the twin historical legacy of Catholic social policy, on the one side, and corporatism and total control of the state over individual citizen (etatisme) on the other side. This blend had three important consequences in terms of stratification. The first one is the direct influence of the state will be restricted to their provision of income maintenance benefits related to the peoples occupational status which means that the sphere of unity remains quite narrow and corporatist. Moreover, in this regime labour market participation by married women is strongly discouraged, because the corporatist regime which is highly influenced by the Church are committed to the preservation of traditional family structures (the classic male breadwinner model). Social rights as reflected in the degree of de-c ommodification produced by state policies and program however, did not include the gender dimension of women who perform unpaid labour which is another main criticism of Esping-Andersens welfare regime from feminist view (Sainsbury, 1999). Another important characteristic of this regime model is the principle of subsidiarity, a situation where the state rather than the market will interfere when the familys capacity to meet its family members need is unmet (Arts and Gelissen, 2002). Due to these reasons, the degree of stratification this welfare regime produce is fairly high. An example of the conservative welfare regime is the country Germany, which is the prototype illustration of this regime. Following Esping-Andersens indicator of de-commodification, Germany score 27.7, in which it is considered to be as medium. This score combined the three individual de-commodification indexes of the following; 8.5 of old age pensions, 7.9 for the sickness benefits and finally, the unemployment insurance of 11.3 (Bambra, 2006). This is in accordance to Esping-Andersens suggestion of conservative regime that has a medium degree of de-commodification. The welfare for the people in Germany is based on their occupational scheme and is funded through their personal contribution. As stated, the old age pension score in the de-commodification index for Germany is low as it requires the people to contribute for quite a period of time for their pension rights together with a large amount of individual financial contribution. As a result, the replacement rate of contribution for the people will be different as it is dependent on the occupation. This consequently results in a high social stratification for the country at a score of 8 in the conservative scale (Scruggs and Allan, 2006). In addition to that issue, the country made familial obligations its priority and thus, practise the principle of male breadwinner model in which only the male in the family are allowed to be in the labour market. The vindication for this is that if women are allowed to be working, the countrys social security will then have to be re-constructed, as traditionally their welfare is highly dependent to that of their spouses or male family member as their welfare source. Due to this reason of oppressing womens right, the gender inequality is remarkably high in Germany particularly, in terms of income as women are usually performing unpaid labour work such as childcare in their households as expected with the feminist criticism view on the Esping Andersens regime typology. The social welfare of women is tied up to their spouses instead of on their own. Also, it is the market (employers) itself that organise the employees social insurance instead of the state (they are also known as the social partners). All of these factors of Germany discussed correspond to the characters of an ideal conservative model as per discussed by Esping-Andersen himself. A reason of why as suggested by Arts and Gelissen (2002) that Germany is definitely the ideal type conservative regime. Finally, Esping-Andersen recognises a social democratic world of the welfare capitalism. In this model, the level of de-commodification is high, and the social-democratic principle of stratification is directed towards achieving a system of generous universal and highly distributive benefits not dependent on any individual contributions, thus the degree of social stratification is ideally low. Contrary to that of the liberal regime of welfare states, this welfare model crowds out the market and, consequently, constructs an essentially universal solidarity in favour of the welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990). The social policy within this model of welfare state is focused at maximising the capabilities of individual independence. Women in particular regardless of their status of whether having to provide childcare or not, are also encouraged in participating in the labour market, especially in the public sector. This type of welfare state regime is generally dedicated to full employment for its entire people in order to support the welfare state. Only by making sure tha t as many people as possible are in employment, is it possible to maintain such a high level unity welfare system as suggested by Arts and Gelissen (2002). In order to further analyse this welfare regime better, Sweden will be used as an illustration in order to discuss this in greater depth as many of the aspects of the social democratic model are indeed identified in the Swedish welfare state. This country has the most progressively redistributive welfare states under capitalism as it spends a great proportion of its national income on their welfare benefits and services than any other capitalist state, comparatively with particular emphasis on the concept of universality and participation of its citizen unlike the liberal and conservative models. This explains why Sweden has a profoundly high level of de-commodification of 39.1 with the pensions of old-age of 17.0, sickness benefits of 15.0 and also unemployment insurance of 15.0 as stated by Esping-Andersen (Bambra, 2006). Also, this is the reason why Sweden has a low degree of social stratification of 8 in the socialist stratification score (Scruggs and Allan, 2006). Swedens focus on the equality of its citizen is due to the path dependence of the strong social-democratic political dominance along with the fact that for several decades over 80 per cent of the Swedish workers have been organised in trade unions (Cochrane et al, 2001). The key element of this countrys generous welfare policies is full employment to its entire citizen including women which this also contributes to the low degree of stratification. Additionally, childrens welfare state is also fully taken care of throughout their lives (not just at certain age only) by the state instead of the family also as a right of citizen similar to that of women. Although the recent welfare reforms in Sweden has been happening due to the economic crisis (such as increase in income inequality and market instead of state welfare provider), Sweden is still in its own distinct group of social democratic model of welfare state (Kautto et al, 1999). This proves that the criticism of other scholars such as that of Kangas (1994) on the stability of Esping-Andersens typology over time is found ungrounded in this case of Sweden. CONCLUSION The Esping-Andersens welfare state regimes along with its two main indicators have been analysed above in order to better understand the illustrations of the welfare regime models provided by the three countries chosen to represent the regime. Although the country chosen for liberal welfare model is not the usual prototype country which is the United Kingdom, it has given a better understanding on how it is actually a hybrid before turning more into a liberal regime during the recent years now following the latest reforms. Additionally, it also shows that not all regimes come in pure form which is also one of the criticisms of this regime typology. As for the other two countries, Germany and Sweden, they are the prototype countries in representing their respective welfare regimes; conservative and the social democratic which gives a further, better explanation for the other two Esping-Andersens welfare regimes along with highlighting the problem of his regime typology that excluded t he female gender dimension.

Brown v. Board of Education and Multiculturalism Essay -- Education

On May 17, 1954, in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, the High Court, for the first time in American legal history, challenged the â€Å"separate but equal† doctrine previously established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and outlawed racial segregation in public schools. The decision, igniting fierce debates throughout the country, was met with violence and strong defiance in the South. The years after Brown, however, saw the passing of several important Acts: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Today, Americans remember Brown v. Board of Education as a success in African Americans’ struggle for equal rights, a change of sea tide for the civil rights movement. While Brown deserves its place in American History Books, its direct product – desegregation – is not the ultimate solution to the education for African Americans. Desegregation only amends the system of education. America h as to reassess the word â€Å"education,† for black Americans and other minority groups to achieve a real equal education. In Supreme Court’s opinion on Brown v. Board, Chief Justice Earl Warren says, â€Å"We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal† (â€Å"Brown v. Board of Education† 307). While scholars may argue that Supreme Court’s reversal on its previous ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson was abrupt and unexplained (Balkin 11), Supreme Court’s position that segregation in education is â€Å"separate and unequal† was irrefutable. Segregation in education had a long history against the interests of African Americans. For numerical examples, in 1898, the state of Florida spent $5.92 on every ... ...for Education Statistics. Long-Term Trends in Student Reading Performance. Jan. 1998. Web. 2 May 2009. . United States. National Center for Education Statistics. Long-Term Trends in Student Mathematics Performance. Sep. 1998. Web. 2 May 2009. . United States. National Center for Education Statistics. Long-Term Trends in Student Science Performance. Sep. 1998. Web. 2 May 2009. . United States. National Center for Education Statistics. NAEP Data Tool v3.0. Web. 4 May 2009. . â€Å"Vital Statistics.† The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education Winter 2003/2003. Web. 3 May 2009. . â€Å"What Negroes Want Now.† U.S. News & World Report 28 May 1954: 54-59.

Self in Interpersonal Communication

THE SELF IN INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SELF Definition of one's identity, character, abilities, and attitudes, especially in relation to persons or things outside oneself or itself. There are three fundamental aspects that make up the self: 1. Self-concept: Your self-concept is the way that you view yourself. 2. Self-awareness: Your self-awareness is your knowledge about yourself, including your insight. 3. Self-esteem: Your self-esteem is how much value you place on yourself. SELF CONCEPT The term self-concept is a general term used to refer to how someone thinks about or perceives themselves.The self concept is how we think about and evaluate ourselves. To be aware of oneself is to have a concept of oneself. Baumeister (1999) provides the following self concept definition: â€Å"The individual's belief about himself or herself, including the person's attributes and who and what the self is†. SELF-CONCEPT means your own view of yourself and it can include: * How you see your self * Your thoughts about yourself * Your beliefs about yourself * How you feel about yourself SOURCES: 1. Others' images: If you want to find out how you look to other people, then you would at how other people treat you.According to DeVito (2009), we look to people who are important to us to see how they treat us. He states, â€Å"If these important others think highly of you, you will see this positive image of yourself reflected in their behaviors; if they think little of you, you'll see a more negative image† 2. Your interpretations and evaluations: Naturally, we evaluate and interpret our own behaviors. If we look back at a certain communication event and find that the behavior we used goes against our beliefs, we will feel guilty. Let's say you are out with friends. Your friend asks you for your honest opinion.If you tell them a lie, you might later feel guilty because you value yourself as an honest person. 3. Cultural teachings: Our culture teaches us how to think, believe, and act and much more. So how you define yourself is developed from your culture. In addition to your interpretations and evaluations, if you go against your cultural teachings, you may feel a sense of guilt or failure. For example, it is common to be married at a young age in the state of Utah. This is a cultural belief and attitude. If you were to be married after 30 years old, it might be seen as against the cultural teaching to this area. . Social comparisons: For example, if you want to find out if you  are seen as a positive person, you could ask your friends if they think you act like a positive person. When we reach out to others to find out how we look, we usually go to those people that we find close to us and important; This would include people like family members or close friends. We do this because we know we are more likely to get an honest answer from these people. The three sources of self-concept are: * Social information and interactions:- The positive and negative messages we receive from others that shape our beliefs. social comparisons:- How we think we measure up to other people; * self-observation:- Being able to monitor our thoughts which affect our behavior and our own interpretations and evaluations. Self Esteem and Self Worth (The extent to which you value yourself) Refers to the extent to which we like accept or approve of ourselves or how much we value ourselves. Self esteem always involves a degree of evaluation and we may have either a positive or a negative view of ourselves. HIGH SELF ESTEEM i. e. we have a positive view of ourselves. This tends to lead to * Confidence in our own abilities Self acceptance * Not worrying about what others think * Optimism LOW SELF ESTEEM i. e. we have a negative view of ourselves. This tends to lead to * Lack of confidence * Want to be/look like someone else * Always worrying what others might think * Pessimism FACTORS: There are 4 major factors that influence self esteem. 1) THE REA CTION OF OTHERS. If people admire us, flatter us, seek out our company, listen attentively and agree with us we tend to develop a positive self-image. If they avoid us, neglect us; tell us things about ourselves that we don’t want to hear we develop a negative self-image. ) COMPARISON WITH OTHERS. If the people we compare ourselves with (our reference group) appear to be more successful, happier, richer, better looking than ourselves we tend to develop a negative self image BUT if they are less successful than us our image will be positive. 3) SOCIAL ROLES. Some social roles carry prestige e. g. doctor, airline pilot, TV. Presenter, premiership footballer and this promotes self-esteem. Other roles carry stigma. E. g. prisoners, mental hospital patient or unemployed person. 4) IDENTIFICATION. Roles aren’t just â€Å"out there. † They also become part of our personality i. . we identity with the positions we occupy, the roles we play and the groups we belong to. S ELF AWARENESS Self Awareness is having a clear perception of your personality, including strengths, weaknesses, thoughts, beliefs, motivation, and emotions. Self Awareness allows you to understand other people, how they perceive you, your attitude and your responses to them in the moment. The Johari Window The Johari window is a technique created by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham in 1955 in the United States, used to help people better understands their relationship with self and others. –  Johari region 1 is also known as the ‘area of free activity. This is the information about the person – behavior, attitude, feelings, emotion, knowledge, experience, skills, views, etc – known by the person (‘the self') and known by the group (‘others'). You are open about your thoughts and feelings;  you are aware of your behaviors and  have an understanding of your skills can capabilities. Others that you are interacting with are aligned and under stand your thoughts and feelings that you are  communicating, either verbally or non-verbally.They also have visibility and awareness around your skills and capabilities or other knowledge or information. 2-Johari region 2 is what is known about a person by others in the group, but is unknown by the person him/herself. The Blind Spot is the area that is known to others but not to you. There may be behaviors that you are exhibiting or things that you are communicating that are affecting others in a particular way. You may be unaware or perceive yourself as not having the ability to perform in a certain situation.However, those that you are interacting with can see exactly how you feel or know from your behavior  or prior experience  that you do have skills and abilities to  perform in a particular situation. 3- Johari region 3 is what is known to us but kept hidden from, and therefore unknown, to others. This hidden or avoided self represents information, feelings, etc, anyth ing that a person knows about him/self, but which is not revealed or is kept hidden from others. The hidden area could also include sensitivities, fears, hidden agendas, manipulative intentions, and secrets – anything that a person knows but does not reveal, for whatever reason.It's natural for very personal and private information and feelings to remain hidden, indeed, certain information, feelings and experiences have no bearing on work, and so can and should remain hidden. There may be some things that you know or are thinking in your head, or you may feel a particular way, however you decide to conceal this information and not share it with others. You may know that you have certain skills or abilities, but choose to not show this to others. Those around you do not know what you are experiencing in terms of thoughts and feelings, and may not know or your capabilities.It is hidden from them 4- Johari region 4 contains information, feelings, latent abilities, aptitudes, exp eriences etc, that are unknown to the person him/herself and unknown to others in the group. These unknown issues take a variety of forms: they can be feelings, behaviors, attitudes, capabilities, aptitudes, which can be quite close to the surface, and which can be positive and useful, or they can be deeper aspects of a person's personality, influencing his/her behavior to various degrees.Large unknown areas would typically be expected in younger people, and people who lack experience or self-belief. The Unknown is the area that is blind to both yourself and to those around you. There may be things about yourself that you do not know, such as your own skills and abilities, even your own thoughts and feelings. Others around you might also have no visibility or knowledge of these. Using the Johari Window for Self-Awareness If you are living with purpose and striving to reach your goals, where do you want to be in the Johari Window?You will want to be playing within the OPEN SELF! The more open and honest you are in your thoughts and feelings, your communications and your behaviors, the more that those around you will have a clear understanding around what it is that you value, what you are trying to achieve and therefore will actually have the ability to help you reach where it is that you want to go. When you’re playing in the Arena, you are completely aware of your skills and abilities and you will become more effective and productive as your interactions and communications with those around you.The Arena is the playing field where trust and relationships are established and cooperation is at its highest. Let’s move to the HIDDEN SELF. This is where you are potentially hiding or concealing thoughts or feelings or any other information that  is unknown to others. Now, there’s nothing wrong with concealing information and holding private thoughts and feelings to you. However, for someone to be able to help you in a certain situation, they will need to know where you currently stand and what your thoughts, feelings or knowledge is  on the subject.The more you can be open and honest and reveal certain things about yourself, the more those others will be able to gain an insight into who you are and how you operate. By doing this, you will build trust, enhance your relationships and when it comes to pursuing your goals, those around you will be able to start helping you get there! The more you can reveal about yourself, the more you will expand yourself into the Arena and start enhancing your relationships, communicate more effectively and perform at higher levels.Similarly when it comes to skill sets and capability, the more you can openly share and reveal around these, the more that others will have an awareness of where they can help you through coaching, mentoring, teaching or providing support or guidance. Now onto the Blind Spot. This is the fun area! This is the area that you really need to minimize to ensure yo u are self-aware around your behaviors and impact on others, and to ensure you can perform at your highest ability. What don’t you know about yourself? Aren’t you curious to find out? How do you find out something about yourself when you don’t know what you need to find out?Feedback! Ask for feedback. Don’t be afraid to request feedback from others whenever or whoever that may be. There may be things that you are doing that you do not know that you are doing! This is not a productive space to be in. Feedback is essential for building your self-awareness and can help you learn and discover how to communicate or perform in a more effective and productive way. When it comes to skill and ability, asking for feedback is essential for learning and development and helping you make your way into the Arena where you can be more effective at pursuing your goals.The Unknown area is the area you want to try stay out of. People with low self-belief or that are inexper ienced may fall into this quadrant. You may not know what your skills and capabilities are, and others may not have had any opportunity to witness any of these. Self-limiting beliefs or feelings or attitudes that hold  you back can prevent  you from discovering certain things about yourself. Perhaps it’s a fear of entering into the unknown. On many occasions, and individual that spends time in this area may need to break out of their comfort zone to start entering one of the other quadrants.Trying new experiences and testing your limits can help you discover more about yourself and your skills and abilities. Working closely and building relationships with others may help them identify certain traits that they can point out for you. Similar to the blind spot, seeking feedback can help you identify certain traits and build your self-awareness. In addition to using the Johari Window, there are five other ways in which we can increase our self-awareness. 1. Ask yourself about yourself. 2. Listen to others. 3. Actively seek information about yourself. 4. See your different selves. . Increase your open self. SELF DISCLOSURE Self-disclosure is both the conscious and subconscious act of revealing more about oneself to others. This may include, but is not limited to, thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, dreams as well as one's likes, dislikes, and favourites. Factors Influencing Self-Disclosure Many factors influence whether or not you disclose, what you disclose, and to whom you disclose. Among the most important factors are who you are, your culture, your gender, who your listeners are, and your topic and channel.Who You Are Highly sociable and extroverted people self-disclose more than those who are less sociable and more introverted. People who are comfortable communicating also self-disclose more than those who are apprehensive about talking in general. Competent people engage in self-disclosure more than less competent pe ople. Perhaps competent people have greater self-confidence and more positive things to reveal. Similarly, their self-confidence may make them more willing to risk possible negative reactions.Your Culture Different cultures view self-disclosure differently. Some cultures  view disclosing inner feelings as a weakness. Among some groups, for example, it would be considered â€Å"out of place† for a man to cry at a happy occasion such as a wedding, whereas in some Latin cultures that same display of emotion would go unnoticed. Similarly, it’s considered undesirable in Japan for workplace colleagues to reveal personal information, whereas in much of the United States it’s expected. Important similarities also exist across cultures.For example, people from Great Britain, Germany, the United States, and Puerto Rico are all more apt to disclose personal information—hobbies, interests, attitudes, and opinions on politics and religion—than information on finances, sex, personality, or interpersonal relationships. Similarly, one study showed self-disclosure patterns between American males to be virtually identical to those between Korean males. Your Gender The popular stereotype of gender differences in self-disclosure emphasizes males’ reluctance to speak about them.For the most part, research supports this view; women do disclose more than men. Women disclose more than men about their previous romantic relationships, their feelings for close same-sex friends, their greatest fears, and what they don’t like about their partners. Women also increase the depth of their disclosures as a relationship becomes more intimate, whereas men seem not to change their self-disclosure levels. In addition, for women, there are fewer taboo topics. Finally, women self-disclose more to members of their extended families than men. One notable exception occurs in initial encounters.Here, men will disclose more intimate information than wom en, perhaps â€Å"in order to control the relationship’s development†. Still another exception may be found in a study of Americans and Argentineans; here males indicated a significantly greater willingness to self-disclose than females. Your Listeners Self-disclosure occurs more readily in small groups than in large groups. Dyads, or groups of two people, are the most hospitable setting for self-disclosure. With one listener you can monitor your disclosures, continuing if there’s support from your listener and stopping if not.With more than one listener, such monitoring becomes difficult, because the listeners’ responses are sure to vary. Research shows that you disclose most to people you like and to people you trust. You also come to like those to whom you disclose. At times, self-disclosure occurs more in temporary than in permanent relationships—for example, between strangers on a train or plane, in a kind of â€Å"in-flight intimacy†. In this situation two people establish an intimate, self-disclosing relationship during a brief period of travel, but they don’t pursue the connection beyond that point.You are more likely to disclose when the person you are with discloses. This dyadic effect (what one person does, the other person also does) probably leads you to feel more secure and reinforces your own self-disclosing behavior. Disclosures are also more intimate when they’re made in response to the disclosures of others. This dyadic effect, however, is not universal across all cultures. For example, although Americans are likely to follow the dyadic effect and reciprocate with explicit, verbal self-disclosure, Koreans aren’t.As you can appreciate, this easily results in intercultural differences; for example, an American may be insulted if his or her Korean counterpart doesn’t reciprocate with self-disclosures that are similar in depth. Your Topic and Channel You also are more likely to disclose about some topics than others. For example, you’re more likely to self-disclose information about your job or hobbies than about your sex life or financial situation. Further, you’re more likely to disclose favorable rather than unfavorable information. Generally, the more personal and negative the topic, the less likely you are to self-disclose.SELF DISCLOSURE REWARDS: 1. Self-knowledge. One of the benefits of self-disclosure is that we gain new perspectives about themselves and a deeper understanding about our own behavior. In therapy, for example, views into the often arise when the client is doing self-disclosure. Clients may be aware of aspects of behavior or relationships which have not know it. Because, through self-disclosure, we can understand ourselves in depth. 2. Ability to Overcome Difficulties. Another closely related argument is that we will be better able to overcome our problems or difficulties, in particular feelings of guilt, through self-d isclosure.One big fear is present in many people is that they are not environmentally acceptable because of a certain secret, because of something they once did, or because of certain feelings or attitudes they have. Because we believe that these things are the basis of rejection (rejection), we build a sense of guilt. By expressing such feelings and receive support, not rejection, we become better prepared to cope with feelings of guilt and perhaps reduce or even eliminate them altogether. 3. Even self-acceptance (self-acceptance) becomes difficult without self-disclosure.We accept ourselves largely through the eyes of others. If we feel other people reject us, we tend to deny ourselves as well. Through self-disclosure and supports that come, we put ourselves in a better position to capture the positive response to us, and we will be more likely to react by developing a positive self-concept. 4. Efficiency of Communication. Disclosure of self-improving communication. We understand the messages from other people as far as we understand most of the others individually. We can better understand what someone says if we know the better person.We can know what the meaning of certain nuances, if that person is being serious and when he was joking, and when he became sarcastic or when I'm angry. Self-disclosure is a necessary condition to get to know other people. You can only examine a person's behavior or even live with him for years, but if that person never reveals himself, you do not understand the person as a whole person. 5. Depth Communications. Perhaps the main reason for the importance of self-disclosure is that it is necessary to foster a meaningful relationship between two people.Without self-disclosure, meaningful and deep relationships are not possible. Through self-disclosure, we tell others that we trust them, respect them, and they will care enough and will link us to express ourselves to them. It then will make others want to open up and establish a t least the beginning of a relationship that is meaningful, honest and open relationship and that relationship just improvise. SELF DISCLOSURE DANGERS: In weighing any decision to self-disclosure, consider the potential dangers: Personal RisksThe more you reveal about yourself to others, the more areas of your life you expose to possible attack. Especially in the competitive context of work (or even romance), the more that others know about you, the more they’ll be able to use against you Relationship Risks Even in close and long-lasting relationships, self-disclosure can cause problems. Parents, normally the most supportive people in most individuals’ lives, frequently reject children who disclose their homosexuality, their plans to marry someone of a different race, or their belief in another faith.Your best friends—your closest intimates—may reject you for similar self-disclosures. Professional Risks Sometimes self-disclosure may result in professional or material losses. Politicians who disclose that they have been in therapy may lose the support of their own political party and find that voters are unwilling to vote for them. Teachers who disclose disagreement with school administrators may find themselves being denied tenure, teaching undesirable schedules, and becoming victims of â€Å"budget cuts. In the business world self-disclosures of alcoholism or drug addiction often result in dismissal, demotion, or social exclusion. Remember too that self-disclosure, like any other communication, is irreversible. You cannot self-disclose and then take it back. Nor can you erase the conclusions and inferences listeners make on the basis of your disclosures. Remember, too, to examine the rewards and dangers of self-disclosure in terms of particular cultural rules. As with all cultural rules, following the rules about self-disclosure brings approval, and violating them brings disapproval.

Linda Lowen - ThoughtCo