Self-disclosure of Indonesian and Malaysian communities regarding COVID-19: A multicultural study

Abstract

This study aims to determine to what extent adult Indonesians and Malaysians self-disclose COVID-19 related information during the pandemic. Using an online survey, the study obtained quantitative data in understanding the five dimensions of self-disclosure—amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy as suggested by Devito. Using descriptive statistics and analysis (mean scores, percentages, and frequencies), the findings demonstrate the patterns and behaviours of Indonesians and Malaysians in self-disclosing COVID-19 related information against the demographic background of respondents’ academic qualification, gender, employment, education, ethnicity, and age. Findings indicate that, generally, Malaysians are more open than the Indonesian when it comes to disclosing sensitive information during the pandemic. Several unique findings seem to indicate the potential of a new understanding of self-disclosure, as well as of altering theories in this field. Nevertheless, more studies are needed before making a strong claim on theorizing of a new way of framing self-disclosure.

Keywords:

• self-disclosure
• Covid-19
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• multicultural

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global emergency against the COVID-19 Virus Pandemic in January 2020, whereby 216 countries were infected. Naturally, this has prompted governments in various countries to make policies to address and control the COVID-19 pandemic by enacting certain rules. These rules include maintaining distance, wearing masks, washing hands, avoiding crowds, and reducing mobility, among others (Majid, 2021). In addition to these several popular prevention methods that have been carried out, it is also very important to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus by ensuring self-disclosure, especially for people who are infected with the COVID-19 virus (Chen et al., 2021; Nabity-Grover et al., 2020).

According to DeVito (Devito, 2011), self-disclosure is a form of communication in which a person conveys information about oneself that is kept secret. Self-disclosure has five dimensions—amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy. The amount dimension shows the frequency of a person doing self-disclosure and the duration of self-disclosure messages or the time it takes to make self-disclosure. The valence dimension offers the positive and negative qualities of self-disclosure. Individuals can do self-disclosure well and pleasantly (positive) or unfavourably and unpleasantly (negative). As for the dimensions of accuracy, honesty of self-disclosure will be limited to how individuals know and know themselves. The dimension of intention or purpose and intention of the individual doing self-disclosure is indicated by the individual disclosing what is intended to be informed so that the individual can consciously control his self-disclosure. The intimate dimension or intimacy is characterized by individuals being able to reveal personal and private things in their lives or things considered impersonal.

In terms of combatting COVID-19, self-disclosure could be seen as the key and crucial strategy. In limiting the spread of COVID-19, disclosing, and sharing of information of patients’ symptoms, potentials exposure (contacts) and actual status would be needed and important (Lv et al., 2022). Such sharing of information is also important in reducing negative stigmization, and simultaneously facilitating sympathy and empathy and thus, creating a supportive environment for the patients and their families (Lee & Lee, 2020). Hence, in curbing the spread of COVID-19, self-disclosure could have a monumental impact on reducing the spread of COVID-19. In the context of this paper, self-disclosure refers to individuals disclosing relevant information, especially of those who are infected with the virus (Atinga et al., 2022; Economou, 2021).

However, one key issue in self-disclosure of information during COVID-19 is the honesty of individuals. Honesty in this case refers to how reliable are the information that divulges their symptoms, exposure, and adherence to preventive measures (such as wearing masks and social distancing) so that “contact tracing” could be done (Ahmed et al., 2020). Accurate information, in amalgamation with an efficient mechanism of contact tracing, means that quicker isolation and containment of infected individuals could be made, and thus, minimize the spread (Rodríguez et al., 2021). Hence, encouraging, and prioritizing levels of honesty when self-disclosing COVID-19 related information is extremely important in aiding governments’ collective efforts in reducing and eventually stopping the dangers of COVID-19.

Therefore, this study attempts to answer the following research question: How do adults self-disclose COVID-19 related information in terms of the five dimensions of self-disclosure i.e., amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy? Addressing this question is important as the answers would offer valuable and meaningful insight into how adults would engage in communication with others concerning a global health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This would assist health agencies and other relevant government agencies in drawing up plans and measures to manages individual’s stress and create appropriate networks that would allow sharing of personal experiences and giving and receiving of support from each other. The study’s focus on amount, valence, accuracy, intention, and intimacy would give us the needed information that would be meaningful in drawing the above plans and measures. Hopefully, the well-being and resilience of adults during COVID-19, as well as during other crisis and emergencies, could be better understood, and appropriate actions could be planned and taken.

2. Literature review

In understanding how adults’ disclosure COVID-19 related information, we use Devito’s (2011) definition as the framework i.e., self-disclosure has five dimensions—amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy. However, as a concept, self-disclosure is embedded and cemented in the realms of interpersonal communication that directly engages one to share information with others (Devito, 2011). The five aspects of Devito’s (2011) framework enables one to grasp and understand the dynamism and complexities of self-disclosure and how it affects communication (Masur, 2018), especially in terms of facilitating a more mutual and open sharing of information (Yeo & Marquardt, 2015).

In self-disclosure, the term “amount” refers to the quantity of information an individual reveals about themselves (Acquisti et al., 2015). Whereas “valency” reflects the nature of the information disclosed i.e., positive or negative (Gauvin et al., 2019). However, merely the amount and valency of self-disclosure would be insufficient as truthfulness and authenticity (i.e., accuracy) of the information disclosed are also highly valued (Beer & Brooks, 2011). Again, these three elements lack direction and intention i.e., the purpose behind self-disclosure—what is the purpose? Is it to deepen intimacy, seek advice, or manage impressions? Or are there any other hidden reasons and agendas? (Photiadis & Papa, 2023). To connect and tie the above four dimensions together, the element of intimacy is needed. It is central to the concept of self-disclosure and involves sharing of information that are deeply personal and emotionally charged (Bridges, 2001).

In understanding Devito’s (2011) framework, we need to concur that culture is very influential on an individual’s self-disclosure across the five dimensions. For example, in the traditional practices of Javanese ethnic in Indonesia, individuals being secretive, quiet, and silent to issues and surroundings are considered practical, while self-disclosing is widely seen as an attitude of arrogance, pride, etc (Suseno & Reksosusilo, 1983). These are based on the premise that individuals should not cause conflicts but live according to the principles of co-existing harmoniously with others. The second rule demands individuals to speak and carry themselves respectfully and thus, should not be open too much to others around them. On the contrary, the recent culture of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community is a stark contrast of the traditional Javanese values above. In a study of Malaysian LGBTQ community in a social media platform, participants’ actual intentions of self-disclosure are self-acceptance and self-actualization, in which they also use Twitter as it is seen as “a private space where they can be themselves and be safe, supporting the notion of Twitter as a safe space for LGBTQ” (Tuah & Mazlan, 2020, p. 436). The two communities at the two ends of the spectrum have different views on self-disclosure due to the different cultural beliefs that they hold and practice (see Posey et al., 2010; Toukmanian & Brouwers, 1998). Hence, it is clear that in understanding the five dimensions of self-disclosure, the cultural elements play a huge role and should interpreted accordingly.

From the perspective of “amount” dimension of self-disclosure, research shows that the way adults divulge COVID-19 related information reflected individual differences (Muro et al., 2021; Pinchoff et al., 2020) and situational factors (Theron et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). They may divulge different amount of information at a different levels of frequency. These “amount” of self-disclosure may involve the symptoms they have (or have had) and precautionary measures they have taken. These, according to Matthes et al. (2021) function as a coping mechanism for emotional support and validation of by some adults with COVID-19. While others my disclose minimal information by just giving the necessary information such as basic health status and safety guidelines. This is because people tend to “maintain and coordinate privacy boundaries, which indicate limits to information they are willing to share with their communication partners, depending on the perceived benefits and costs of disclosing information” (Koponen & Julkunen, 2022, p. 217)

In terms of “valence” adults prone to relating COVID-19 information with the intentions of expressing a myriad range of both positive and negative attitudes and feelings or emotions towards the COVID-19 pandemic. These may include the sharing of stories of successful recoveries from COVID-19 and acts of kindness and resilience during the pandemic (Polizzi et al., 2020; Slavich et al., 2022), as well as negative feelings such as anxiety, frustration, and fear (Nutley et al., 2021; Polizzi et al., 2020). Such valence (positives or negatives), if poorly disclosed, “combined with the experiences of stigma, discrimination and social avoidance”, is said to have undesirably affected COVID-19 survivors (Atinga et al., 2022, 1812).

As for disclosing COVID-19 related information, adult may vary in terms of providing honest and accurate information. Kim and Lee (2011) find that honest self-disclosure is found to be positively related to social support while individuals’ shallow and self-promoting disclosure is found to have little emotional attachment (Mehdizadeh, 2010) Some adults disclose accurate information as they see it as their responsibilities to foster trust by sharing truthful materials and news (Jaramillo & Felix, 2023). Adults, in their capacity as leaders, have much higher levels of responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, as they must “share information with empathy and optimism: in their communications, leaders should understand the uncertainty and anxiety employees are facing, especially when leaders have to communicate decisions that are likely to increase employee stress” (Chen & Sriphon, 2021, p. 13). Even at the state level, evidence-based disclosures are also integral in ensuring a public-health recommendations that are accepted by majority of the population, if not all (Hyland-Wood et al., 2021).

The “intention” dimension refers to the motivation and goals of adults in disclosing COVID-19 related information. Studies show that the sharing of information are done with the intent of (i) raising awareness of COVID-19 (Quiles et al., 2023); ii) educating others (Quiles et al., 2023); (iii) circulating new preventive and protective measures (Vignoles et al., 2021); (iv) seeking support and empathy (Matthes, et al., 202) and; (v) learning COVID-19 safe behaviours (Wong et al., 2021), among others. Such self-disclosure are valuable information for the authorities in drawing and implementing effective plans and programs in reducing negative impacts of COVID-19 of multiple aspects of community such as sustainable development (Tonne, 2021), health (Coccia, 2022) and stress (Khosravi, 2020).

The dimension of “intimacy” means adults divulge COVID-related information that are very emotional (Buchanan et al., 2021; Fischer et al., 2021) and shows vulnerability (Blix et al., 2021; Chandra et al., 2020). These forms of sharing may create a close relationship among family members, as well as with other out of this circle, especially among others who are in the same predicament during COVID-19 (Atinga et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Studies on the above elements would enrich the understanding of the role of self-disclosure in “social feedback acquisition during the COVID-19 pandemic” as well as “on practical strategies to optimize social support exchange and user engagement by leveraging post-level attributes” (Lee et al., 2022, p. 26) in both online and face-to-face environment and settings.

Despite the above studies, scholars have stipulated that more studies are needed especially in terms of “self-disclosure levels of adolescents in different regions, and study different perspectives such as culture, region, ethnicity, and age” (Chen et al., 2021, p. 6). Though adolescents are emphasized in Chen et al. (2021), literature indicates that studies of adults and young adults in different settings and of different areas of research (whether COVID-19 related or otherwise) have contribute significantly to the existing literature (see Marciano et al., 2022; Rada & Lungu, 2023; Wang et al., 2022). Hence, this study, which is based on adults with COVID-19 from Indonesia and Malaysia, would contribute to the body of knowledge on the issues of self-disclosure and address some of the gaps identified above.

Guided by the research question, we have provided, in this literature review, a landscape of self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information using the Devito’s (2011) framework that has five dimensions—amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy. In doing so, we have also identified some key areas that this study would address. In particular, the data obtained would be examined and discerned from the five dimensions mentioned.

3. Methods

3.1. Research instrument, data collection, and analysis

The study collected quantitative data that was obtained from an online survey that carried out in Indonesia and Malaysia. The Self-Disclosure Scale by Wheeless and Grotz (1976) was adapted and used as the questionnaire in this study. The five dimensions (Devito, 2011) were integrated into the adapted questionnaire, in which some of the items were revised to reflect the current context and situations of the pandemic, especially in terms of self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information. The questionnaire had a 5-level Likert scale—very low (SR), low (R), moderate (S), high (T) and very high (ST). The revised questionnaire was validated by two experts, and it was agreed that the 23 items from the original 33 items found in Wheeless and Grotz (1976) were suitable for the current study. The 23-item questionnaire showed a high reliability Cronbach alpha score of 0.812.

Data obtained from this questionnaire was analysed using descriptive statistics i.e., frequencies and percentages and mean scores with the help of SPSS version 25. Data for “very high” level and “high” level, as well as “very low” level and “low” level would be collapsed, respectively, so that the patterns and behaviours of participants’ self-disclosure would be obvious (Kabilan & Embi, 2004). We particularly examined the five dimensions i.e., amount, valency, accuracy, intention, and intimacy against the different demographic data with the aim of having a greater understanding of the participants’ self-disclosure. Descriptive statistics that include mean scores, percentages and frequencies were used in analyzing the data. The demographic variables include academic qualification, gender, employment, education, ethnicity, and age.

3.2. Population, sampling procedures and sample size

The developed questionnaire was distributed in the shape of Google Form to respondents who had contracted COVID-19 or who were close contacts of COVID-19 cases. First, the Google Form link, together with an email stating the aims of this research and the research approval letter obtained, was sent to local health authorities (such as clinics and hospitals) and related agencies (such non-governmental organizations or NGO and local councils) in Malaysia and Indonesia. The location of these agencies and organizations were within 10 km radius of the universities that were involved in this research, specifically Medan (Indonesia) and Penang (Malaysia). These authorities and organizations had contact information on residents who had contracted COVID-19 or those who were just recovering or had completely recovered from COVID-19, as well as close contacts of COVID-19 cases. The contact information was obtained from the agencies and organizations as we highlighted the importance of the research to the respective nations and health authorities in devising strategies and policies in curbing COVID-19.

The link was then forwarded to the respondents of the study by the authorities and organizations via WhatsApp. The researchers explained to the potential respondents of the nature of this research, how their contact information was obtained and the significance of the study. The researchers also ensured the potential respondents that their details would not be revealed or made public. The link was sent to 3442 individuals in Indonesia, and 1561 individuals in Malaysia. Out of these figure, 240 Indonesians and 222 Malaysians responded and returned the questionnaire. This total of 462 respondents fulfilled the minimum number required for this study (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).

4. Results

From Table 1, it is discernible that more Malaysian participants (39.1%) have high levels of valence (i.e., positive-negative qualities) when it concerns the self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information compared to the Indonesian participants (4.11%). Malaysians also have high level of accuracy (honesty) (47.62%) as compared to the Indonesian (2.38%). It is also the same pattern for intimacy—Malaysians (38.74%) and Indonesians (16.88%).

Table 1. Description of the self-disclosure of the Indonesian and Malaysian respondents

Self-Disclosure Components	Qualifications										Total
	SR		R		S		T		ST
	Ind.	Mly.	Ind.	Mly.	Ind.	Mly.	Ind.	Mly.	Ind.	Mly.	Ind.	Mly.
Intent	22	16	35	57	116	70	62	65	5	14	240	222
Amount	15	8	58	40	94	99	58	60	15	15	240	222
Positive-Negative	18	2	55	6	85	31	63	51	19	132	240	222
Depth-Intimacy	18	5	70	13	65	25	78	101	9	78	240	222
Honesty-Accuracy	26	1	31	0	83	1	89	2	11	218	240	222
Total	13	0	66	1	92	0	50	8	19	213	240	222

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

Table 2 shows that the male participants have gained a higher mean score compared to the females in the dimensions of intent (3.21), intimacy (3.73) and accuracy (4.20). The females have a higher mean score in the amount dimension (3.21). They were also tied with the males in the valence dimension with a mean score of 3.80.

Table 2. Description of self-disclosure of the Indonesian and Malaysian respondents by gender

Self-Disclosure Components	Gender	Qualifications										Total		Mean Scores
		SR		R		S		T		ST
		Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly
Intent	Male	2	4	8	5	16	17	9	15	1	4	36	45	3.21
	Female	20	12	27	52	100	53	53	50	4	10	204	177	3.04
	Total	22	16	35	57	116	70	62	65	5	14	240	222
Amount	Male	2	3	11	9	13	15	10	16	0	2	36	45	3.14
	Female	13	5	47	31	81	84	48	44	15	13	204	177	3.21
	Total	15	8	58	40	94	99	58	60	15	15	240	222
Positive-Negative	Male	5	0	7	0	11	9	11	12	2	24	36	45	3.80
	Female	13	2	48	6	74	22	52	39	17	108	204	177	3.80
	Total	18	2	55	6	85	31	63	51	19	132	240	222
Depth-Intimacy	Male	3	2	7	2	8	6	18	17	0	18	36	45	3.73
	Female	15	3	63	11	57	19	60	84	9	60	204	177	3.62
	Total	18	5	70	13	65	25	78	101	9	78	240	222
Honesty-Accuracy	Male	1	0	4	0	15	1	13	44	3	45	36	0	4.20
	Female	25	1	27	1	68	1	76	174	8	177	204	1	4.02
	Total	26	1	31	1	83	2	89	218	11	222	240	1
Total	Male	3	0	11	0	11	0	9	1	2	44	36	45
	Female	10	0	55	1	81	0	41	7	17	169	204	177
	Total	13	0	66	1	92	0	50	8	19	213	240	222

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

In Table 3, it can be derived that 52.81% of the research participants are employed while 5.41% were not employed. The remaining 42% were students. From these statistics, regardless of the countries, employed indicated the highest level of intent (38.11%). Unemployed indicated the highest level of valence and intimacy, both with 64.0%. It is also interesting to note that accuracy has the highest percentage of high level of self-disclosure. It is the dimension whereby all three groups have more than 60% of its participants who have stated high levels of self-disclosure.

Table 3. Description of the Indonesian and Malaysian respondents’ self-disclosure based on employment

Self-Disclosure Components	Employment	Qualifications										Total		% of High Level
		SR		R		S		T		ST
		Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly
Intent	Employed	5	3	18	24	68	33	39	42	3	9	133	111	38.11
	Students	15	13	13	31	41	33	19	22	2	4	90	103	24.35
	Unemployed	2	0	4	2	7	4	4	1	0	1	17	8	24.00
	Total	22	16	35	57	116	70	62	65	5	14	240	222
Amount	Employed	7	4	35	19	52	52	34	28	5	8	133	111	30.74
	Students	8	4	19	18	35	44	19	30	9	7	90	103	33.68
	Unemployed	0	0	4	3	7	3	5	2	1	0	17	8	32.00
	Total	15	8	58	40	94	99	58	60	15	15	240	222
Positive-Negative	Employed	10	0	27	4	48	14	38	21	10	72	133	111	57.79
	Students	8	1	23	2	34	17	17	27	8	56	90	103	55.96
	Unemployed	0	1	5	0	3	0	8	3	1	4	17	8	64.00
	Total	18	2	55	6	85	31	63	51	19	132	240	222
Depth-Intimacy	Employed	9	0	38	9	39	16	42	40	5	46	133	111	54.51
	Students	9	4	27	4	23	9	28	55	3	31	90	103	60.62
	Unemployed	0	1	5	0	3	0	8	6	1	1	17	8	64.00
	Total	18	5	70	13	65	25	78	101	9	78	240	222
Honesty-Accuracy	Employed	11	0	18	0	53	0	47	0	4	111	133	111	66.39
	Students	11	1	11	1	26	2	36	1	6	99	90	103	73.58
	Unemployed	4	0	2	0	4	0	6	0	1	8	17	8	60.00
	Total	26	1	31	1	83	2	89	1	11	218	240	222
Total	Employed	5	0	38	1	49	0	29	0	12	110	133	111
	Students	8	0	25	6	34	0	18	1	5	96	90	103
	Unemployed	0	0	3	1	9	0	3	0	2	7	17	8
	Total	13	1	66	8	92	0	50	1	19	213	240	222

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

In Table 4, in terms of academic qualification and intent of self-disclosure, participants with a master’s degree have the highest level with a mean score of 3.31, followed by PhD holders (3.20), Bachelor (3.07) and high school (2.70). In terms of amount, there is not much difference of mean scores among the four levels of education: 3.21 (high school), 3.24 (bachelor). 3.05 (masters) and 3.10 (PhD). In terms valence, however, the PhD holders and high school leavers appear to high levels, which are mean scores of 4.60 and 4.18, respectively. Similarly, high school leavers (3.88) and PhD holders (3.80) have the highest mean score for intimacy but not as high as the mean scores attained for valence and in reversed order. This trend seems to continue with the accuracy dimension, whereby PhD holders and high school leavers have a mean score of 4.70 each, (4.697) and master’s holders (4.093) gain high mean scores. In terms of the differences between Malaysian and Indonesians, the similar pattern as stated for Table 1, is also apparent n Table 4.

Table 4. Description of the Indonesian and Malaysian respondents’ self-disclosure based on education

Self-Disclosure Components	Education	SR		R		S		T		ST		Total		Mean Scores
		Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly
Intent	Sen Hi Sch	4	14	4	31	5	33	2	23	0	3	15	104	2.70
	Bach.Degree	12	2	10	20	39	19	19	21	2	7	82	69	3.07
	Mast.Degree	5	0	21	5	71	16	41	16	3	4	141	41	3.31
	Doct.Degree	1	0	0	1	1	2	0	5	0	0	2	8	3.20
	Total	22	16	35	57	116	70	62	65	5	14	240	222
Amount	Sen Hi Sch	3	4	5	16	3	44	1	32	3	8	15	104	3.21
	Bach.Degree	4	2	16	11	35	31	22	23	5	2	82	69	3.24
	Mast.Degree	8	12	36	12	56	18	34	4	7	5	141	41	3.05
	Doct.Degree	0	0	1	1	0	6	1	1	0	0	2	8	3.10
	Total	15	18	58	50	94	99	58	60	15	15	240	222
Positive-Negative	Sen Hi Sch	0	1	5	2	6	17	2	29	2	55	15	104	4.18
	Bach.Degree	10	1	19	3	30	10	17	15	6	40	82	69	3.66
	Mast.Degree	8	0	31	1	48	4	43	6	11	30	141	41	3.63
	Doct.Degree	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	7	2	8	4.60
	Total	18	2	55	6	85	31	63	51	19	132	240	222
Depth-Intimacy	Sen Hi Sch	6	4	4	2	0	9	4	57	1	32	15	104	3.88
	Bach.Degree	4	1	25	4	23	11	28	25	2	28	82	69	3.66
	Mast.Degree	8	0	40	6	41	5	46	14	6	16	141	41	3.45
	Doct.Degree	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	5	0	2	2	8	3.80
	Total	18	5	70	13	65	25	78	101	9	78	240	222
Honesty-Accuracy	Sen Hi Sch	4	0	3	0	3	1	4	2	1	101	15	104	4.70
	Bach.Degree	8	0	10	0	25	0	35	0	4	69	82	69	4.09
	Mast.Degree	14	1	17	0	55	0	49	0	6	40	141	41	3.61
	Doct.Degree	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	8	2	8	4.70
	Total	26	1	31	0	83	1	89	2	11	218	240	222
Total	Sen Hi Sch	4	0	6	0	3	0	1	6	1	98	15	104
	Bach.Degree	4	0	22	0	31	0	20	1	5	65	82	69
	Mast.Degree	5	0	37	1	58	0	28	0	13	40	141	41
	Doct.Degree	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	8	2	8
	Total	13	0	66	1	92	0	50	8	19	213	240	222

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

In Table 5, the Chinese has the highest mean scores in intent (3.30), intimacy (3.20) and honesty (3.40) amongst all of the eight ethnicities when it concerns self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information. Melayu and Mandailings have the highest mean score for amount of self-disclosure i.e. 3.32 and 3.30 respectively. As for valence, Mandailings obtains a mean score of 3.22, while the Javanese display a slightly higher mean score i.e., 3.23. They are the two communities with the highest mean scores in this dimension. It is interesting to note some “indifferent” mean scores. For example, Mandailings seem to have the lowest mean scores of intimacy. It is also the lowest mean scores obtained by an ethnic for any of the five dimensions. The Melayu is the only ethnicity that has attained a minimum mean score of 3.0 in all five dimensions.

Table 5. Overview of the Indonesian respondents’ self-disclosure based on ethnicity

Self-Disclosure Components	Ethnicity	Qualifications					Total	Mean Scores
		SR	R	S	T	ST
Intent	Acehs	2	1	24	8	0	35	3.09
	Karonese	2	2	8	1	0	13	2.62
	Mandailings	2	7	11	2	1	23	2.70
	Batak Toba	7	9	25	19	0	60	2.93
	Chinese	0	1	5	4	0	10	3.30
	Javanese	3	4	10	9	0	26	2.96
	Melayu	2	3	13	5	2	25	3.08
	Minangkabaus	2	7	15	10	2	36	3.08
	Total	20	34	111	58	5	228
Amount	Acehs	1	10	18	6	0	35	2.83
	Karonese	1	2	7	3	0	13	2.92
	Mandailings	1	5	5	10	2	23	3.30
	Batak Toba	5	16	24	11	4	60	2.88
	Chinese	1	4	4	0	1	10	2.60
	Javanese	0	2	16	7	1	26	3.27
	Melayu	2	5	6	7	5	25	3.32
	Minangkabaus	3	9	11	12	1	36	2.97
	Total	14	53	91	56	14	228
Positive-Negative	Acehs	5	8	12	10	0	35	2.77
	Karonese	1	1	7	3	1	13	3.15
	Mandailings	1	6	7	5	4	23	3.22
	Batak Toba	2	17	23	14	4	60	3.02
	Chinese	1	2	4	3	0	10	2.90
	Javanese	3	3	8	9	3	26	3.23
	Melayu	1	10	5	6	3	25	3.00
	Minangkabaus	4	7	15	8	2	36	2.92
	Total	18	54	81	58	17	228
Depth-Intimacy	Acehs	4	15	6	10	0	35	2.63
	Karonese	1	3	3	6	0	13	3.08
	Mandailings	1	5	9	6	2	23	1.57
	Batak Toba	6	15	15	21	3	60	3.00
	Chinese	1	1	3	5	0	10	3.20
	Javanese	1	8	8	8	1	26	3.00
	Melayu	2	6	7	8	2	25	3.08
	Minangkabaus	2	11	12	10	1	36	2.92
	Total	18	64	63	74	9	228
Honesty-Accuracy	Acehs	2	6	13	11	3	35	3.20
	Karonese	2	2	4	5	0	13	2.92
	Mandailings	2	3	7	11	0	23	3.17
	Batak Toba	8	9	23	18	2	60	2.95
	Chinese	0	2	3	4	1	10	3.40
	Javanese	3	2	13	8	0	26	3.00
	Melayu	4	1	8	10	2	25	3.20
	Minangkabaus	4	5	9	15	3	36	3.22
	Total	25	30	80	82	11	228
Total	Acehs	1	12	16	6	0	35
	Karonese	2	2	5	4	0	13
	Mandailins	1	7	5	6	4	23
	Batak Toba	7	17	21	10	5	60
	Chinese	0	4	2	4	0	10
	Javanese	0	3	15	7	1	26
	Melayun	0	4	15	3	3	25
	Minangkabaus	2	13	9	8	4	36
	Total	13	62	88	48	17	228

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

Some ethnicities were omitted from this table since they had one or two participants only. Hence, the new total is 228.

It is interesting to note in Table 6 that the Chinese attained the perfect mean scores in the intimacy dimension of self-disclosure but scored lowly against the other two ethnicities in all other dimensions. The Indians gained the highest mean scores in all dimensions except for intimacy, which the Malays attained the highest mean score of 4.07.

Table 6. Description of self-disclosure of the Malaysian respondents by ethnicity

Self-Disclosure Components	Ethnicity	Qualifications					Total	Mean Scores
		SR	R	S	T	ST
Intent	Chinese	6	7	6	8	1	28	2.68
	Indian	0	1	3	4	2	10	3.70
	Malay	10	49	59	53	11	182	3.03
	Total	16	57	68	65	14	220
Amount	Chinese	1	2	11	8	6	28	1.79
	Indian	0	2	4	3	1	10	3.30
	Malay	7	35	83	49	8	182	3.09
	Total	8	39	98	60	15	220
Positive-Negative	Chinese	1	1	8	5	13	28	2.00
	Indian	0	0	2	1	7	10	4.50
	Malay	1	5	21	45	110	182	4.42
	Total	2	6	31	51	130	220
Depth-Intimacy	Chinese	1	0	4	15	8	28	2.02
	Indian	0	2	0	6	2	10	3.80
	Malay	4	11	21	79	67	182	4.07
	Total	5	13	25	100	77	220
Honesty-Accuracy	Chinese	0	0	0	0	28	28	5.00
	Indian	0	0	0	0	10	10	5.00
	Malay	1	0	1	2	178	182	4.96
	Total	1	0	1	2	216	220
Total	Chinese	0	0	0	2	26	28
	Indian	0	0	0	0	10	10
	Malay	0	1	0	6	175	182
	Total	0	1	0	8	211	220

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

Some ethnicities were omitted from this table since they had one participants only. Hence, the new total is 220.

In Table 7 below, middle adult participants have stated a higher level of self-disclosure compared to early adult participants in all five dimensions. For example, in the amount dimension, 82.35% indicated high level of amount as compared to 54.26% by the early adult participants. This is the biggest difference (28.10%), followed by the accuracy dimension with a difference of 21.33%.

Table 7. Overview of the Indonesian and Malaysian respondents’ self-disclosure based on age

Self-Disclosure Components	Gender	Qualifications										Total
		SR		R		S		T		ST
		Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly	Ind	Mly
Intent	Early Adult	21	15	34	50	113	53	59	49	5	12	232	179
	Middle Adult	1	1	1	7	3	17	3	16	0	2	8	43
	Total	22	16	35	57	116	70	62	65	5	14	240	222
Amount	Early Adult	15	6	54	26	92	82	56	51	15	14	232	179
	Middle Adult	0	2	4	14	2	17	2	9	0	1	8	43
	Total	15	8	58	40	94	99	58	60	15	15	240	222
Positive-Negative	Early Adult	18	2	53	6	81	28	62	42	18	101	232	179
	Middle Adult	0	0	2	0	4	3	1	9	1	31	8	43
	Total	18	2	55	6	85	31	63	51	19	132	240	222
Depth-Intimacy	Early adult	17	4	68	10	63	18	75	84	9	63	232	179
	Middle Adult	1	1	2	3	2	7	3	17	0	15	8	43
	Total	18	5	70	13	65	25	78	101	9	78	240	222
Honesty-Accuracy	Early Adult	25	1	30	0	79	1	87	2	11	175	232	179
	Middle Adult	1	0	1	0	4	0	2	0	0	43	8	43
	Total	26	1	31	0	83	1	89	2	11	218	240	222
Total	Early Adult	13	0	63	1	90	0	48	8	18	170	232	179
	Middle Adult	0	0	3	0	2	0	2	0	1	43	8	43
	Total	13	0	66	1	92	0	50	8	19	213	240	222

Ind = Indonesians; Mly = Malaysians

SR=Very low; R=Low; S=Medium; T=High; ST=Very high.

5. Discussion

This study is aimed at analyze the self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information of Indonesians and Malaysians. The results show that in the general self-disclosure Malaysians seem to have a higher level of self-disclosure in the dimensions of valence accuracy and intimacy. This may indicate that the Malaysian respondents are more willing to disclose information to others about their conditions with regard to COVID-19, especially health status, quarantine, and close contacts, as compared to the Indonesians (Devito, 2011).

The findings of this study follow the statement by Albertia and Emmons (Alberti & Emmons, 2002) which states that self-disclosure behavior is influenced by the environment in which the individual behaves. Also, several factors such as parenting, culture, stereotypes, socioeconomic, gender, and education may also have influenced the findings of the study. Cunningham (1981) points out that self-disclosure in women is more related to feelings of fear, strength, and weaknesses. They are also more emotional, compared to men, who are more self-controlled. Berry et al. (1999) concurs that men are more self-confident, achievement-oriented, and more dominant than women, who are more socially responsive, passive, and relentless. However, the findings of this study seem to be different from the above literature. The study finds that in terms of valence and intimacy, the men in this study seem to be on a higher level or equal to women.

In terms of employment, employed participants tend to display the intent dimension of self-disclosure, while unemployed participants are more of valence and intimacy. All participants also showed high levels of accuracy (honesty) in sharing COVID-19 related information. Though these can be very complex and difficult to understand, especially when looking from the perspective of employment, Nabity-Grover et al. (2022) suggest that such “issues can be addressed by properly contextualizing self-disclosure, critically assessing the quality of our self-disclosure measures, and striving for more consistent measurement across studies” (p. 35)

Academic qualification seems to pose an influence on intent of self-disclosure. Those with postgraduate degrees seem to have a higher level of valence, but those with only high school certificates are more prone towards intimacy as a way of disclosing information related to COVID-19. It is a surprise that in the accuracy dimension, whereby PhD holders and high school leavers appear to be more honest in providing information related to COVID-19. This shows that honesty and accuracy have little to do with academic qualification but rather the nature and moral values of self is prevalent towards providing accurate information so that it would meaningfully benefit the surrounding communities.

The different ethnicities in this study enriches the findings of this study, whereby they have demonstrated different inclinations of self-disclosure dimensions. One glaringly contrastive finding is that the Chinese ethnic in Malaysia and Indonesia display or have a tendency to have self-disclosure dimensions that are different. It just shows that the influence of local culture is immense and may influence how one might self-disclose information related to COVID-19. This could be understood by Alibakhshi and Srivastava’s (2022) explanation that culture “characterizes a specific aspect of the collective understanding of individuals within a community, group, team, or nation and is instrumental in shaping individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and reactions in their relationship with others” (p. 579).

The study also confirms that middle adult participants have stated a higher level of self-disclosure compared to early adult participants in all five dimensions of self-disclosure concerning COVID-19 related information. It is difficult to separate age from other personal elements of an individual because, self-disclosure, which is a psychological dimension, “captures the amount of personal, emotion-related, and rather intimate information on individuals’ feelings and experiences in their daily life during the COVID-19 pandemic” (Ostendorf et al., 2022, p. 2). Hence, we feel that age does not act alone in determining one’s self-disclosure but in tandem with other aspects such as culture and gender.

6. Conclusion

The five dimensions of self-disclosure as postulated by Devito (2011) is framed in this study in investigating the Indonesians and Malaysians’ behaviours of self-disclosure of COVID-19 related information against the demographic background of respondents’ academic qualification, gender, employment, education, ethnicity, and age. The findings show some interesting patterns and behaviours that may have theoretical implications regarding our understanding and conceptualization of self-disclosure. However, it would be too early to claim such implications without further extensive and intensive studies, considering different variables and settings. More extensive and intensive studies are needed before such a strong claim on theoretical implications is included and discussed in detail. Nevertheless, researchers may want to consider and view the variables, factors, or elements differently, i.e., how they are reified in this study from how it is accepted in the current literature.

Nevertheless, this study highlights that in terms of valence and intimacy, the men in this study seem to be on a higher level or equal to women, a behavior, or trend that goes against the norm (see DeForest & Stone, 1980; Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998; Sukhanova et al., 2022). We are unable to determine the reasons why this is so in this study. Therefore, we suggest that future studies should integrate qualitative research that could explain and unravel the reasons as to why men show higher levels of valence and intimacy as compared to women. Findings from such research would facilitate our understanding of self-disclosure, as well as contribute to the re-examination and re-conceptualization of related theories, including Devito’s framework.

This study has also generated findings that should be explored further to evidence and explain its meaning. One is the relation of age and self-disclosure, which we could not determine for sure its sources nor how they are related to each other (or determine one another). Hence, future studies could focus on these aspects, as well as related to other demographic factors that we have attempted to investigate in this study. It is recommended that considering COVID-19 and perhaps future contexts of disasters and emergencies, more attention is paid to how members of the community could react better and have the willingness to self-disclose honestly, accurately of related information to others. In relation to this setting, appropriate networks, communities, and communication lines (in whatever forms—online and face-to-face) should be of paramount importance. Hence, self-disclosure should not be seen as individual act but an initiative that could be systematically planned, organized and implemented so that the challenges of another pandemic (and disasters alike) could be met and surmounted much easier and faster than we did for COVID-19.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Sumatera Utara Research Grant under Penelitian WCU Universitas Sumatera Utara – WCU Pembentukan Kluster Keilmuan Number 14594/UN5.1.R/PPM/2021, date October 22, 2022

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Universitas Sumatera Utara [Number 14594/UN5.1.R/PPM/2021].

Notes on contributors

Raras Sutatminingsih

Raras Sutatminingsih is a permanent lecturer at the USU Faculty of Psychology. Her specialization and expertise are Clinical Psychology and Religious Psychology. This mother of two children is an active speaker in various scientific forums. She is also a consultant for psychological assessment in various institutions, both public and private.

Iskandar Zulkarnain

Iskandar Zulkarnain He has been a permanent lecturer at the Department of Communication at USU since 1990. His expertise and interest are in the study of Communication Psychology and Political Communication. Apart from teaching at USU, he is also a guest lecturer at several universities in North Sumatra.

Robert Sibarani

Robert Sibarani was born and raised in Toba Samosir on February 12, 1964. In 1982-1986, he continued his higher education (S1) at the Universitas Sumatera Utara, and the university has been his teaching place since 1987 until now. Currently, he is chairman of the Research Institute (Lembaga Penelitian) Universitas Sumatera Utara.

Nor Shafrin Ahmad

Nor Shafrin Ahmad is an Associate Professor in counselling psychology attached to the School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She specialises in crisis and trauma counselling, child and adolescent counselling, counsellor education and mental health. Her research interests currently are child sexual abuse, anger management, crisis intervention, psychological trauma and mental health.

Zulkifli Hussain

Zulkifli Hussain is a counsellor in the Secondary Education Division, Majlis Amanah Rakyat. His main interests are in counselling psychology, mental health and school counselling. He developed an academic apprehension module with a Cognitive Behavioural approach.

Zuhda Husain

Zuhda Husain is a counsellor in the Counseling Program Faculty of Business, Economic and Social Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Malaysia. His specialization and expertise are Psychology in Family and Students and Therapy.