Validating “announcer” and “confessor” styles of mental health self-disclosure through use of archived qualitative data

Nicola L. Coe

Research & Innovation, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.

DOI: 10.4236/health.2013.53A070                

Abstract

Two new conceptual styles of self-disclosure were identified in a previous study—“announcers” and “confessors”. The styles and characteristics of each had been derived from disclosures made during Somerset Health Panel discussions in 2001 on attitudes to stress and depression. The aim of this article is to validate and refine the concepts of “announcer” and “confessor” styles of self-disclosure. Data from archived qualitative data of seven focus groups collected in 2006 for the Cultural Context of Youth Suicide study was analysed. The results validated the concept of two styles of self-disclosure (announcers and confessors) and highlight additional factors that impact on disclosure. This study adds new insights in how people disclose personal or sensitive information and the impact of specific factors (contextual, individual and methodological) on the disclosure style used. Importantly, this article also demonstrates that qualitative data can be reused successfully in the development of models in communication and social interaction theory.

Keywords

Self-Disclosure; Qualitative Research; Mental Health; Announcers; Confessors

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks.
[2]	Williams, J.K. and Ayres, L. (2007) “I’m like you”: Establishing and protecting a common ground in focus groups with Huntington disease caregivers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12, 655 doi:10.1177/1744987107083514
[3]	Coe, N. (2013) Announcers and confessors: How people self-disclose depression in health panels. Health, 5, 79-88. doi:10.4236/health.2013.51011
[4]	Hollander, J.A. (2004) The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33, 602-637. doi:10.1177/0891241604266988
[5]	Kitzinger, J. (1995) Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299-302. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
[6]	Hyden, L.-C. and Bulow, P.H. (2003) Who’s talking: Drawing conclusions from focus groups-some methodological considerations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 305-321. doi:10.1080/13645570210124865
[7]	Frith, H. (2000) Focusing on sex: Using focus groups in sex research. Sexualities, 3, 275-297. doi:10.1177/136346000003003001
[8]	Wilkinson, C.E., Rees, C.E. and Knight, L.V. (2007) From the heart of my bottom: Negotiating humor in focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 411-422. doi:10.1177/1049732306298375
[9]	Coe, N. (2009) Exploring attitudes of the general public to stress, depression and help seeking. Journal of Public Mental Health, 8, 21-31. doi:10.1108/17465729200900005
[10]	Bowie, C., Richardson, A. and Sykes, W. (1995) Consulting the public about health service priorities. British Medical Journal, 311, 1155-1158. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1155
[11]	Department of Health (2008) Real involvement: Working with People to improve health services. Crown Copyright, London.
[12]	Coe, N. (2012) Health Panels: The development of a meaningful method of public involvement. Policy Studies, 33, 263-281 doi:10.1080/01442872.2012.694267
[13]	Coe, N.L. (2009) Critical evaluation of the Mental Health Literacy conceptual framework using qualitative data. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 11, 3444. doi:10.1080/14623730.2009.9721798
[14]	Jorm, A.F., Korten, A.E., Jacomb, P, A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B. and Pollitt, P. (1997) “Mental Health Literacy”: A survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. Medical Journal of Australia, 166, 182-186.
[15]	Roen, K., Scourfield, J. and McDermott, E. (2008) Cultural context of youth suicide: Identity, gender and sexuality. UK Data Archive, Colchester.
[16]	Roen, K., Scourfield, J. and McDermott, E. (2008) Making sense of suicide: A discourse analysis of young people’s talk about suicidal subjecthood. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 2089-2097. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.019
[17]	Scourfield, J., Roen, K. and McDermott, L. (2008) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people’s experiences of distress: Resilience, ambivalence and selfdestructive behaviour. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16, 329-336. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00769.x
[18]	Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
[19]	Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959) The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[20]	Morgan, D.L. (1995) Why things (sometimes) go wrong in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 516-523. doi:10.1177/104973239500500411
[21]	Moore, N. (2007) (Re)Using qualitative data? Sociological Research Online, 12. doi:10.5153/sro.1496
[22]	Heaton, J. (2004) Reworking qualitative data. Sage, London.
[23]	Moore, N. (2006) The context of context: Broadening perspectives on reuse. Methodological Innovations Online, 1. http://erdt.plymouth.ac.uk/mionline/public_html/viewarticle.php?id=27&layout=html