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

There may be specific situations in which...

Even if people often maintain different identities or personas in different social groups, they still disclose information (such as within those specific group environments) more to people they know better and comparatively less to people they know less well. While there may be a measure of psychological "freedom" that comes from expressing one's thoughts completely spontaneously to a stranger, it is a less fulfilling exchange than discussions with acquaintances (Baron & Byrne, 2003). Moreover, the reason is directly related to why the exchange is sometimes easier: namely, the opinions and perceptions of the stranger do not matter as much to the individual as do the opinions and perceptions of close friends (Baron & Byrne, 2003).
Ultimately, it may be that conversations with strangers are most helpful when the nature of the exchange allows the individual to solicit meaningful advice from a reliable source of information on issues that the individual might not be comfortable discussing with closer friends. That is because the main purpose of the conversation is to solicit valuable information or analyses from the other person. However, where the main purpose of the conversation is the social fulfilment of the exchange, conversations with strangers are less likely to satisfy that purpose for the very same reason that they are sometimes easier to initiate.

Bibliography

Aronson, E., Wilson, T., and Akert, R. (2007). Social Psychology. New York: Longman.

Baron, B.A. And Byrne, D.B. (2003). Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Allyn and Bacon.

Gerrig, R.J., and Zimbardo, P.G. (2008). Psychology and Life. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Myers, D. And Spencer, S. (2004). Social Psychology. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill

Ryerson.