Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses
Graduate School
1977
Self-Disclosure and Interviewer Reciprocity.
Debra Jean Inman
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation
Inman, Debra Jean, "Self-Disclosure and Interviewer Reciprocity." (1977). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3117.
http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3117
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of th e original docum en t. While
the m o st advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this do cum ent
have been used, the quality is heavily dep en d en t upon the quality of the original
subm itted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1 .T h e sign or " ta rg et” for pages apparently lacking from the do cu m ent
photographed is "Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
pagefs} or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you com plete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black m ark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite m etho d in
"sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again
beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual c o n te n t is of greatest value,
however, a som ew hat higher quality reproduction could be m ade from
"ph o to g ra p h s" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "p ho to g ra p h s" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order D epartm ent, giving the catalog num ber, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE
received.
NOTE:
Some pages m ay have indistinct print. Filmed as
University M ic ro film s In te rn a tio n a l
iU-'f r-j.-.'!*
A I r, Am
' .1
M
I'
■■ j r
f
,1
r
w -J.j
M •
■.
if. m -
■ ■
■■ ■
f I* -
1 •g . i r
!
T T
H
U< If i f .
■■
.
i- ■ ■ f
i‘ , A
'■ J r r - n ■■
' ■ i
i 1
. ?
-1 1
' i ■
i- 1 1 j *
77- 28,682
INMAN, D e b r a J e a n , 1 9 5 0 SELF-DISCLOSURE AND INTERVIEWER RECIPROCITY.
The L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a nd
A g r i c u l t u r a l and M e c h a n i c a l C o l l e g e ,
P h . D . , 1977
Psychology, c l i n i c a l
Xerox University M icrofilm s,
Ann Arbor
M if b i g . i n 481 0 6
SELF-DISCLOSURE AMD INTERVIEWER RECIPROCITY
A D issertatio n
Subm itted to the G raduate F a c u lty of th e
L o u isia n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and
A g r i c u l t u r a l and M echanical C o lleg e
In p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the
requirem ents fo r th e degree of
D octor o f P h ilo s o p h y
in
The D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y
by
D ebra J e a n Inman
B . A . , M i d w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y , 1972
M . A . , L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 197 4
A u g u s t , 1977
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I w ould
like
a d v ic e and a s s i s t a n c e
t o t h a n k t h e m e m b e r s o f my c o m m i t t e e f o r t h e i r
in the p re p a ra tio n of th i s d i s s e r t a t i o n :
J o s e p h Dawson, V i r g i n i a G l a d ,
D octors
F e l i c i a P r y o r , A r t h u r R i o p e l l e , and David
Yang.
A p p reciatio n
U niv ersity
i s a l s o due th e s t a f f o f the L o u isia n a S ta te
C o u n s e lin g C e n te r , and e s p e c i a l l y D r.
p e r m i t t i n g tne t h e u s e o f t h e i r
facilities.
g u i d a n c e o f D r . K e n n e t h K oo nc e i s
w ish t o r e c o g n iz e
S ue J e n s e n ,
In a d d itio n ,
the
g r a t e f u l l y acknow ledged.
for
statistic al
F in ally ,
I
t h e y e a r s o f s u p p o r t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t g i v e n me b y my
f e l l o w g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s who a l m o s t a l w a y s u n d e r s t o o d a n d c a r e d .
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE P A G E .....................................................................................................................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................................
11
L I S T OF T A B L E S ..................................................................................................................................
v
LI ST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................
vl
A B S TR A C T ...................................................................................................................................................
v ll
CHAPTER
I .
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................
S ta te m e n t o f Problem and H y p o th eses
II.
III.
................................................
3
METHO D ..................................................................................................................................
8
S u b j e c t s .........................................................................................................................
8
A ssessm ent M easures
..........................................................................................
8
C ovariant
....................................................................................................................
9
Procedure
....................................................................................................................
9
D a t a A n a l y s i s .........................................................................................................
10
RESULTS.......................................................................................................................
C o r r e l a t i o n s ........................................................................................
D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x .
IV .
1
. . . . .
................................
12
12
. . . .
12
C o n c e r n I n d e x ...............................
15
A n t i c i p a t e d L i k i n g ...............................................................................................
19
D I S C U S S I O N .........................................................................................................................
25
C o n c l u s i o n ....................................................................................................................
31
R E F ER E NC E S ...................................................................................................................................................
111
33
PAGE
A P P E N D I C E S ..............................................................................................................................................
43
A p p e n d i x A ....................................................................................................................
44
....................................................................................................................
58
A ppendix
A p p e n d i x C ..............................................................
62
A p p e n d i x D ....................................................................................................................
64
A ppendix E . .
65
. . . . . . .
.....................................................................
A p p e n d i x F .........................................
VITA
........................................................................................................................................................
lv
66
67
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
Su ra n ar y o f A n a l y s i s o f D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x ..................................
2.
S c o r e s on D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x
3.
Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f C o n c e r n I n d e x
...............................
18
4.
S c o r e s on C o n c e r n I n d e x .........................................................................................
20
5.
S u r a n a r y o f A n a l y s i s o f A n t i c i p a t e d L i k i n g ..........................................
22
6.
S c o r e s on A n t i c i p a t e d
23
L iking
v
................................................
. . .
..........................................................................
13
14
LIST OP FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
1.
G r a p h o f M a i n E f f e c t f o r T a p e ..........................................................
16
2.
G raph o f I n t e r a c t i o n o f S ta te m e n t
16
3.
G raph o f I n t e r a c t i o n S ta te m e n t
4.
G rap h o f I n t e r a c t i o n Tape x I n t e r v i e w e r ' s
x T a p e ...........................................
x S u b j e c t s * Sex
. . . . . .
Sex x
S u b j e c t s ’ S e x ...............................................................................................................
5.
G raph o f M ain E f f e c t
for
G raph o f I n t e r a c t i o n
G raph o f M ain E f f e c t
21
o f S t a t e m e n t x T a p e on
C o n c e r n I n d e x ...............................................................
7.
17
I n t e r v i e w e r S e x on
C o n c e r n I n d e x ...............................................................................................................
6.
16
21
f o r S t a t e m e n t on A n t i c i p a t e d
L i k i n g V a r i a b l e ....................................................
vi
24
ABSTRACT
Two m e a s u r e s o£ s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d a r a t i n g
l i k i n g w ere em ployed In a s tu d y of s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e
student
su b jects.
statem ent
H alf of the
from th e
T w o-thirda of the
betw een a m ale s t u d e n t
in terv iew er.
item s
from one t o e l e v e n
S ubjects
circled
w ith t h e i r
The r e m a i n i n g o n e - t h i r d d i d n o t h e a r a t a p e .
for intim acy
only those
much t h e y a n t i c i p a t e d
F in ally ,
a c tio n did
In d icate,
did not In c re a se
(1966) pool o f item s s c a le d
( t h e D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x ) .
t h e y w ould be w i l l i n g
In terv iew er
to d iacu ss
t o a s s e s s how
(on a one t o n i n e
a fem ale I n t e r v i e w e r .
for th i s
from th e
scale).
however,
v ariab le
The s i g n i f i c a n t
p resen ted confusing
lim ited range of sc o re s .
th at
su b ject d isc lo su re
considers a p o ssib le
Th ey
from th e C oncern I n d e x i n d i c a t e d more c o n c e r n
in teractio n
possibly a ris in g
( th e Concern I n d e x ) .
s u b j e c t s w ere r e q u e s t e d
th e ir
by s u b j e c t s a n t i c i p a t i n g
statem ent x tap e
resu lts
lev el
item s th a t
lik in g
R esu lts derived
listin g
l i s t any problem s th e y w ished t o d i s c u s s
from T a y l o r and A ltm a n 's
in terv iew er.
(in both
c l i e n t and a d i s c l o s i n g o r a n o n ­
i n t e r v i e w e r on a p i e c e o f p a p e r
then c i r c le d
su b jects
c o n d i t i o n s ) h e a rd a segment o f ta p e d e p i c t i n g
S u b je c ts were ask ed t o
w ith t h e i r
72 c o l l e g e
s u b j e c t s w ere g iv e n a s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e
them.
s t a t e m e n t and no s t a t e m e n t
d isclo sin g
in volving
f i c t i t i o u s m a l e o r f e m a l e p s y c h o l o g i s t who t h e y
b e l i e v e d w ould i n t e r v i e w
an in te rv ie w
of a n tic ip a te d
In terv iew er d isc lo su re
The i n t e r ­
recip ro city
over c o n tro l c o n d itio n s .
p r e d i s p o s i t i o n on t h e p a r t o f s u b j e c t s
recep tio n of re c ip ro c a l d isc lo su re
v ii
D iscussion
for
from p r o f e s s i o n a l s o u r c e s .
the
R esu lts
from t h e D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x r e v e a l e d
low ered d i s c l o s u r e a f t e r
esp ecially
in
if
hearing a n o n -d isc lo sin g p o te n tia l
t h e y had n o t r e a d t h e
t h e s e no s t a t e m e n t
cond itio n s
self-d isclo su re
in d icated
than under n o n -d is c lo s in g
These r e s u l t s ,
those
su b jects
su b jects
in terv iew er,
statem en t.
g re a te r w illingness
clo se under c o n tro l
lik e
th at
S ubjects
to d i s ­
in terv iew er co n d itio n s.
from th e C oncern I n d e x , a l s o
suggested th a t
h ad a n e x p e c t a t i o n o f i n t e r v i e w e r d i s c l o s u r e w h i c h n o n ­
reciprocal
tape c o n d itio n s v i o l a t e d .
The D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x p r o d u c e d a d d i t i o n a l
rev ealin g d if f e r e n tia l
A sig n ifican t
r e s p o n d i n g due t o
statem ent x su b ject
s u b j e c t and i n t e r v i e w e r s e x .
sex i n t e r a c t i o n dem o n strated d ec re a se d
d i s c l o s u r e d e p t h by f e m a l e s u b j e c t s u n d e r n o s t a t e m e n t
sig n ifican t
in d icated
tw o way t a p e
th at
in teractio n s
x in te rv ie w e r sex x su b je c t
conditions.
A
sex i n t e r a c t i o n
b o t h m a le and fe m a le s u b j e c t s a n t i c i p a t i n g a s a m e - s e x
in te rv ie w e r d ecre ased d is c lo s u r e depth a c ro ss
reciprocal d isclo su re,
in te r v ie w e r c o n d itio n s of
n o n - r e c i p r o c a l d i s c l o s u r e and c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s .
When a n t i c i p a t i n g a n o p p o s i t e
sex i n t e r v i e w e r ,
th is
Female s u b j e c t s a n t i c i p a t i n g a m ale p s y c h o l o g i s t
depth under c o n tro l
cond itio n s
p a tte r n changed.
Increased d isclosure
to a level eq u iv alen t to d isclo su re
depth
u n d er d i s c l o s i n g i n t e r v i e w e r c o n d i t i o n s , w h ile p ro d u cin g an a p p r o x i ­
m ately
13 p o i n t d r o p u n d e r t h e n o n - d i s c l o s i n g
Male s u b j e c t s w e re w i l l i n g
b eh av io r of the
to d is c lo s e a t a high
fem ale i n t e r v i e w e r
d iscussed as a p o ssib le
in terv iew er co n d itio n .
reflectio n
lev el
they a n t i c i p a t e d .
of c u l tu r a l
r e g a r d l e s s o f the
These
re su lts are
c o n s t r a i n t s on m a l e d i s ­
c lo sin g behavior.
A nalysis of ra te d
expected
to
lik e
th eir
an ticip ated
lik in g
i n t e r v i e w e r more i f
v ili
revealed
th at
t h e y had r e a d
su b jects
the d is c lo s u r e
statem ent.
As l i k i n g d i d n o t
sio n concluded
th at
flu c tu a te w ith d is c lo s u re
scores,
d iscu s­
l i k i n g had n o t b een a n e c e s s a r y component o f
d isclo su re.
The p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n d i d n o t p r o v i d e
the
facilitativ e
effects
of recip ro city
s tu d y s u g g e s te d , how ever,
decreased d is c lo su re
th at
lev els
d isclo su re con d itio n s.
found in
stro n g evidence fo r
the
from th o s e
sex.
T his
n o n -d isc lo sin g in te rv ie w e r behavior
o f b o th c o n t r o l and r e c i p r o c a l
These r e s u l t s w ere q u a l i f i e d
o f s u b j e c t and i n t e r v i e w e r
literatu re.
by th e i n t e r a c t i o n
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
S eIf-d isclo su re
know ledge t o a n o t h e r ,
process.
The
late
for p sy ch o lo g ical
in In te rp e rs o n a l
(SD), t h e co m m u n ica tio n o f n o n - p u b l i c
is an e s s e n tia l
S idney J o u ra rd
of p s y c h o lo g ic a l m aladjustm ent
S u lliv an ,
Lasakov
1 9 5 0 ; Fromm,
(Jourard,
1947; R o g e r s ,
1974; M aslow ,
(1958) v i t a l i z e d
experim ental
first
d isclo su re
each of s ix content a re a s.
V alid ity
(Lubin & H a r r i s o n ,
& D erlega,
19 74 a , b ;
1964).
fem ale
(W orthy, G ary & Kahn,
su b jects'
w illin g n ess
to d i s c u s s
thro u g h r a t i n g s
in
1969),
sp ecified
to m other,
has f r e q u e n t ly been
1971).
of taped
et a l.,
1963;
O ther i n v e s t i ­
or w ritte n
1973 a , b ;
Chalken
through n o te p assin g
1969; C e r t n e r ,
1
J o u ra rd and
as a sim ilar
past d isclo su re
frien d
1970; D e r l e g a ,
exercises
1965;
f r e q u e n t l y em ploys J o u r a r d ' s
1964; H i m e l s t e l n 6 K im brough,
T aylor, e t a l . ,
S elye,
o f te n item s
(JSDQ), a v e r s i o n o f i t
g a t o r s have m easured d i s c l o s u r e
source
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f SD w i t h p u b l i c a ­
1968; E h r l i c h & G ra e v e n ,
(Burhenne A M i r e l s ,
1967;
self-
1955; T ruax & C a r k h u f f ,
o f JSDQ w h i c h a s s e s s e s
H im elstein 6 P ederson,
m aterials
1 9 6 8 ; Wol man ,
1954; M owrer,
SD r e s e a r c h
b e s t m ale f r i e n d and b e s t
questioned
Lack o f t r a n s p a r e n c y
q u estio n n aire co n sistin g
S e lf-D isc lo su re Q uestionnaire
instrum ent.
SD a n e c e s s i t y
co n sid era tio n as a p o ssib le
1953; A r i e t i ,
tio n of the
fath er,
(1964) c o n s id e r e d
o f t e n accom panied by in a d e q u a te
know ledge, h as r e c e iv e d e x t e n s i v e
1950; H o rn e y ,
component o f t h e r a p e u t i c
h e a l t h and p e r s o n a l g r o w t h .
relatio n sh ip s,
self-
1 9 7 3 ) a n d by d e t e r m i n i n g
topics
(Edelman 6 S n e a d ,
2
1972; Bundza & S im o n so n ,
1973; E l l i s o n & F i r e s t o n e ,
(1969)
last
q u estio n n aire,
em ploying Item s
(1966)
list
of intim acy scale d
statem ents,
c a te p a s t d is c l o s u r e and w ill in g n e s s
Jourard
(1964,
tio n a l p sy ch o th erap y ,
1968,
a s a means o f m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t r o l
"If au th en tic
to d is c lo se
th erap ist
that
su b jects
in d i­
to a stra n g e r.
the n a tu re o f t r a d i ­
rem a in s a l o o f and d e t a c h e d ,
over c l i e n t s .
then i t
Jourard
made s e n s e
a n e x e m p l a r o f t h e way h e was i n v i t i n g h i s
352).
Turax
o th ers
to d is c lo s e
(1971)
(1970) d e c l a r e d ;
of them selves
ourselv es?"
(p.
in th e ra p e u tic
for a th e ra p ist
clien t
stated a sim ilar p o sitio n ;
to
follow
.
.
t o be
."(p .
"How c a n we e x p e c t
t o u s , w he n we i n t u r n a r e u n w i l l i n g
352).
t h e s e a u t h o r s a n d ma ny o t h e r s , a r e
experience.
req u ests
s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e w as a f a c t o r i n m e n t a l h e a l t h , a n d i f
d isc lo su re begets d is c lo s u re ,
to d isc lo se
J o u r a r d 1s
from T a y l o r and A l t m a n 's
1971) h a s s t r e s s e d
i n w hich th e
1974).
E ffectiv e
th era p ists,
according
to
t h o s e who a r e s p o n t a n e o u s a n d g e n u i n e
relatio n sh lp s--risk in g
them selves in a m utual sh a rin g
( F o r a c o m p l e t e r e v i e w o f SD r e s e a r c h Bee A p p e n d i x A ) .
The p r e s e n t
In v estig atio n
sought
to determ ine th e e f f e c t s
o f an
e x p r e s s e d c o a i a l t m e n t t o s e I f - r e v e l a t i o n made b y a p s y c h o l o g i s t in terv iew er in
d isclo se.
the
first
e n c o u n t e r upon s u b j e c t s '
T h i s com m itm ent was e i t h e r
"dem onstration" In terv iew
je c t s ' w illin g n ess
was t h e n a s s e s s e d .
observed or v io la te d
segm ents w ith a h y p o th e tic a l
t o d i s c l o s e and a n t i c i p a t e d
SD r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t e d
th at
lik in g
to
in taped
clien t.
Sub­
fo r the i n t e r v ie w e r
s u b j e c t s would be m ost
responsive to a d is c lo s in g p sy ch o lo g ist e s p e c ia lly
closing
w illin g n ess
if
they expected d i s ­
b e h a v i o r from h i m / h e r .
D i s c l o s u r e a s s e s s m e n t w a s made t h r o u g h a D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x
3
composed o f i t e m s
scaled
from T a y l o r and A l t m a n 's
statem en ts.
d iscu ss.
S ubjects c irc le d
list
listed
dependent v a r ia b le .
A n ticip ated
of Intim acy-
Ite m s t h a t t h e y w ould be w i l l i n g
A Concern In d ex a l s o m easured d i s c l o s u r e .
c o n ce rn s o r problem s
je cts
(1966)
to
The number o f
on a b l a n k s h e e t o f p a p e r s e r v e d a s
th is
l i k i n g w as d e t e r m i n e d b y a s k i n g s u b ­
t o I n d i c a t e how mu ch t h e y e x p e c t e d
to
like
th eir
i n t e r v i e w e r on a
s c a l e o f one t o n i n e .
S ta te m e n t o f P roblem and H y po th eses
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s
of su b jects'
effects
exp ectan cies
i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o m a n i p u l a t e o n e a s p e c t
re g a rd in g in t e r v ie w e r b e h a v io r and d e te rm in e
o f t h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n upon s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e , a component o f
th e ra p e u tic
process.
C onceptions of " a p p r o p r ia te " r o l e and s i t u a t i o n a l
b e h a v io rs have f r e q u e n t l y been e n l i s t e d
research
(H eilbrun,
Bundza a n d S im o n s o n ,
through s u b j e c t s '
1973; Sim onson & B a h r,
1 9 7 3 ; Mann & M u r p h y ,
A sp ects o f the
statu s
recip ro city .
statu s
study co n sid ere d
of In terv iew er,
T y p ically ,
by d i s c l o s u r e ,
197Z)
Sim onson & B a h r ,
In hypotheses
form ulation
s i t u a t i o n a l dem ands, m odeling and
therapy/counseling s itu a tio n s
a p p a r e n t l y due t o
r e g a r d i n g how h l g h - s t a t u s
1974;
1973; W e ig e l, e t a l . ,
1974;
as an independent v a r i a b l e .
I n t e r v i e w e r s whose e f f e c t i v e n e s s ,
lim ited
1974; D o s te r & B rook,
i n SD
p e r c e p t i o n o f " o p e n n e s s " a s a mode o f c o u n s e l o r
beh av io r has not been tr e a te d
Included:
as ex p lan ato ry p rin c ip le s
SD r e s e a r c h
statu s
perso n s should behave
1974; B rooks,
1974).
Involve high
I n d i c a t e s , may be
I t s e l f a n d /o r conceptions
(E lliso n & F iresto n e,
I n o r d e r to exam ine what
e f f e c t an e x p e c ta n c y o f I n te r v i e w e r openness m ight h av e,
in terv iew ers
4
fo r h a l f th e
s u b j e c t s w ere d e s c r ib e d
in a p rin ted
Th e o t h e r h a l f r e c e i v e d no s t a t e m e n t .
In
statem ent as d is c lo s in g .
lig h t of th is
co n sid eratio n ,
h y p o t h e s i s o n e p r e d i c t e d g r e a t e r d i s c l o s u r e d e p t h w he n a n I n t e r v i e w e r
was p r e s e n t e d a s d i s c l o s i n g and t h e n m o d e le d d i s c l o s u r e .
Interview er
because
r e c i p r o c i t y , a s n o t e d , may a f f e c t d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s
su b jects are
sources.
not accep tin g
reciprocal
exchange
and
forthcom ing,
low er t h e i r
SD l e v e l
(W orthy, Gary & Kahn,
( T a y l o r , A ltm an & S o r r e n t i n o ,
produces
said
O thers note th a t
he
1967).
b eh av io r through t h e i r
Truax,
s u b j e c t s had not
the s ta te m e n t,
indeed,
in eq u ity .
sty le
own b e h a v i o r
relativ ely
all
t o be w i t h him "
(Rinm & M a s t e r s ,
1971; M a ta r a z z o ,
1965;
Based on e q u i t y t h e o r y , h y p o t h e ­
statem en t but sp ecu la ted t h a t , w ithout
low er th a n i n s t a t e m e n t ,
reciprocal
H ypotheses th r e e and fo u r d e a l t w ith c o n d itio n s
H ypothesis
in
1974;
h i g h SD i n r e c i p r o c a l c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h
SD w o u l d b e s o m e w h a t
would r e s u l t
(p. 6 4 ).
s o c ia l behaviors are c o n tra c ­
(Bandura,
1976).
read a d is c lo s u re
tape c o n d i tio n s .
A ccording to s o c i a l
I n te r v i e w e r s c o n t r o l and rew ard I n te r v ie w e e s
1966; W ex ler A B u t l e r ,
two p r e d i c t e d
rela­
( c l i e n t ) w i l l become a s o p e n ,
in n a t u r e - -In v o lv in g m utual rew ard exchange
Tooley A P r a t t ,
in the
Speaking of t h e r a p e u t i c e n c o u n te r s ,
"I suspect th at
th erap y and,
1965).
inequity
1 9 6 9 ) , SD f u n c t i o n s a s a r e w a r d a n d
t r u s t i n g , a n d v u l n e r a b l e a s I am w i l l i n g
sis
s u b j e c t s who h e a r d a n o n -
1969) o r s o c i a l p e n e t r a t i o n t h e o r y
l i k i n g and d i s c l o s u r e .
(1969)
(Adams,
from p r o f e s s i o n a l
i n t e r v i e w e r was
i n t e r v i e w e r were e x p e c te d t o e x p e r i e n c e
t i o n s h i p and
tu al
behavior
G i v e n a n a t m o s p h e r e i n w h i c h SD f r o m t h e
e s ta b lis h e d as d e sira b le
Jourard
of th is
th ree p red ic ted
less w illin g n ess
th a t a non-disclosing
to d is c lo s e .
of
in terv iew er
H ypothesis
four
5
an ticip ated
t h a t an In te rv ie w e r p re s e n te d a s d i s c l o s i n g and
a s n o n - d i s c l o s i n g w ould e l i c i t
m ental c o n d itio n s
v io lated
h is/h er
(except c o n tro ls )
im p lies p r e - e x is te n t h ig h
1971) o r t h e e m b ie n c e o f
jects
behave in an u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
In a d d itio n
Brook,
elicito r
1971).
d isclo sin g
fashion
(O rne,
In th is
stu d y ,
the
sub­
p re se n t study
1974; D o s te r A
1 9 7 4 ; D o s t e r 6. S l a y m a k e r ,
1972;
s u b j e c t s h e a r d a d i s c l o s i n g and a n o n t h a t h e / s h e would
C lient-m odeled d is c lo s u r e
c o n d itio n s, acco rd in g ly ,
was e x a m in e d i n c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s
from t h e
(Hood &
1962; R o s e n t h a l ,
(D avis A S k in n e r ,
in te rv ie w e r w ith or w ithout e x p ec tin g
in a l l
statem ent
o f SD w i l l i n g n e s s
M o d e lin g h a s b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be
of d isclo su re
behave in a d i s c l o s i n g m anner.
constant
levels
t o p o s s i b l e dem and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
1974; E l l i s o n & F i r e s t o n e ,
M arlatt,
r e s e a r c h may be s u c h t h a t
l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h may b e s u c h t h a t
a l s o em ployed m odeled d i s c l o s u r e .
an e f f e c t iv e
o th er e x p e ri­
b e c a u s e su c h a n i n t e r v i e w e r had
of d is c lo s u re
Back,
1966).
than a l l
consul tine n t t o SD a s a p r i n c i p l e .
Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
v o lu n teerin g
less d isc lo su re
th e n m odeled
rem ained
s u b je c ts ' w illin g n ess
t o SD
i n w hich n e i t h e r m odeling nor any
i n t e r v i e w e r w as p r e s e n t e d .
C ontrol c o n d itio n s
for
in t e r v i e w e r s ta t e m e n t a l o n e , w ith o u t t a p e s , w ere a l s o em ployed.
H ypothesis
f iv e p r e d i c t e d m inim al d i s c l o s u r e
in c o n tro l c o n d itio n s .
An a d d i t i o n a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s t h e
betw een s t a t e d w i l l i n g n e s s
Research in d ic a te d
t o SD a n d a c t u a l e x t e n t
th at w illin g n ess
a c t u a l d i s c l o s u r e when p o t e n t i a l
1974; J o u r a r d A J e f f e ,
Sim onson & B a h r ,
to d is c lo se
ta r g e ts a re the
1970; J o u r a r d & R e s n ic k ,
1974; Cash A S o llo w a y ,
1975).
relatio n sh ip
of d is c lo s u r e .
c lo se ly corresponds
same
to
(W ilson & R a p p a p o rt,
1970; D o s t e r ,
Measurement o f
1975;
6
w illin g n ess
to d is c lo s e has received e x ten siv e use
1972; Bundza & S im o n so n ,
1973; E l l i s o n & F i r e s t o n e ,
l a s t SD q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s f o r m u l a t e d
rep orted d isclo su re
pred ict d isclo su re
to ta rg e t
(1966) in t im a c y - s e a le d
1974),
J o u ra rd 'a
the r e a l i s a t i o n
th at
p e r s o n s m e n t i o n e d i n h i s JSDQ d i d n o t
in experim ental
w i 1l i n g n e s s - t o - d i s c l o s e
subsequent to
(Edelman & S n ead ,
s itu a tio n s w ith s tr a n g e r s .
q u estionnaire
A 40 ite m
em ploying T a y lo r and A ltm a n 's
s t i m u l i w as t h e r e f o r e
developed
(Jourard,
1969).
The p r e s e n t s t u d y p r e s e n t e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x a m i n e m o d e l e d
r e c i p r o c a l and n o n - r e c i p r o c a 1 in te r v ie w e r b eh av io r as a fu n c tio n o f su b ­
j e c t expectancy.
S pecific
hypotheses re g a rd in g s u b j e c t s '
SD w e r e a s
fo llo w s:
1.
There w i l l
be g r e a t e r d i s c l o s u r e d e p t h w he n a n i n t e r v i e w e r
p r e s e n t e d a s d i s c l o s i n g a n d t h e n m o d e l s SD o n t a p e
is
than in any o th e r
co nd itio n .
2.
L e s s d i s c l o s u r e d e p t h w i l l be d e m o n s t r a t e d i n c o n d i t i o n s i n
w hich no s ta te m e n t
regarding in terv iew er s ty le
is given, but d isc lo su re
i s m o d e led on t a p e .
3.
T here w i l l be s t i l l
l e s s SD d e p t h i n c o n d i t i o n s p r e s e n t i n g no
s t a t e m e n t o f i n t e r v i e w e r s t y l e and a m odeled
lack of d is c lo s u re
recip ro ­
city .
4.
L e a s t SD d e p t h w i l l be d e m o n s t r a t e d
in terv iew ers
in co n d itio n s co u n ittln g
to a d is c lo s in g s ty le but p aire d w ith a n o n -d isc lo sin g
t a p e d mode 1 .
5.
d isclo se
C on tro l c o n d itio n s p r e s e n tin g only a s ta te m e n t of I n t e n t i o n to
o r no s t a t e m e n t o r t a p e d model a r e e x p e c t e d t o p r o d u c e m in im a l
d isclo su re
depth.
7
6.
Fem ales a r e e x p e c te d
t o be m o r e d i s c l o s i n g
H ypotheses re g a rd in g a n t i c i p a t e d
lik in g
than m ales.
fo r I n t e r v i e w e r were aa
f o 1lowb :
1.
M aximal
reciprocal
lik in g
fo r In te rv ie w e r is expected under s ta te m e n t,
tape c o n d i t io n s ,
f o l l o w e d b y no s t a t e m e n t ,
non-reciprocal
tape c o n d i tio n s .
2.
S t a t e m e n t , n o n - r e c i p r o c a l a n d no s t a t e m e n t ,
d itio n s a re hyp o th esized to r e s u lt
presum ably v i o l a t e
tan cies
in the
tape co n ­
l e a s t amount o f l i k i n g a s t h e y
ex p erim en tally e s ta b lis h e d
regarding ap p ro p riate
reciprocal
ex p ectan cies or expec­
in te rv ie w e r behavior.
CHAPTER I I
METHOD
S ubjects
S u b j e c t s w ere
fem ales.
72 u n d e r g r a d u a t e v o l u n t e e r s ,
S u b j e c t s were p a id
36 m a l e s a n d
36
$2.00 fo r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
ABBeBsment M e a s u r e s
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e w as m e a s u r e d i n t w o w a y s - - t h r o u g h a D i s c l o s u r e
D epth I n d e x and t h r o u g h a C oncern I n d e x .
1.
scaled
T ay lo r and A ltm an 's
for in tim acy
(1966) Item p o o l c o n s i s t i n g o f s ta t e m e n t s
l e v e l by c o l l e g e
a s a " D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x . "
item s i n
six categ o ries
sex ," "P aren tal
and
s t u d e n t s a n d s a i l o r s was em p lo y ed
S u b je c ts w ere a sk e d t o c i r c l e
f a m i l y , " " P h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n and a p p e a r a n c e , " "Ibnotlona
to d iscu ss.
form r e l i a b i l i t i e s
2.
th e y w ere
T a y l o r and A ltm an o b t a i n e d s p l i t - h a l f and a l t e r n a t e
of
.82 an d
.86 r e s p e c t i v e l y
(A ppendix B ).
A "Concern In d ex " c o n s i s t i n g o f a b la n k s h e e t of p aper w ith
in stru ctio n s
p rin ted at
the
top,
"P lease
list
below any a r e a s o f c o n c e r n ,
p e rs o n a l problem s, d i f f i c u l t i e s
or w orries th a t
w i t h D r. M a r k s ," was e m p lo y e d .
A count
you would l i k e
to d iscu ss
o f t h e number o f p ro b le m s
listed
provided a m easure of w r i t t e n d i s c l o s u r e .
3.
72
o f "Own m a r r i a g e a n d f a m i l y , " " L o v e - - d a t i n g - -
f e e lin g s " and " R e la tio n s h ip s w ith o th e r p eo p le" t h a t
w illin g
any o f
A nine p o in t r a tin g
an ticip ated
lik in g
s c a l e was em ployed t o a s c e r t a i n d e g r e e o f
for an in terv iew er
8
(A ppendix D ) .
9
C ovariant
M arlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e
to a l l
su b jects
(1960).
(MCSDS) w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d
T his in s tr u m e n t a s s e s s e s need a p p ro v a l th ro u g h
responses
to
33 t r u e - f a l B e
content.
Endorsem ent of c u l t u r a l l y ap proved b u t u n l i k e l y
" I'm alw ays w i l l i n g
high score
statem en ts d escrib e d as
to adm it i t
free of p athological
w h en I make a m i s t a k e , "
item s,
resu lts
such a s
in a
(A ppendix C ).
Norms a r e a v a i l a b l e
S p l i t - h a l f and t e s t - r e t e s t
f o r b o th male and fe m a le c o l l e g e
reliab ility
stu d en ts.
c o e f f i c i e n t s w ere b o th
.88.
T h i s I n s t r u m e n t was em ployed a s a c o v a r i a n t .
Procedure
In a p r e l i m i n a r y e x p e r i m e n t , a g ro u p o f 20 s u b j e c t s Judged th e
l e v e l o f SD d e m o n s t r a t e d o n two t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s .
the
level
o f i n t e r v i e w e r SD s h o w n o n t h e s e
None o f t h e s e
s u b j e c t s w as e x p o s e d
V o lu n te e r s w ere a s k e d
interview s
in
an i n i t i a l
therapy se ssio n .
p atio n .
t w o t a p e s w as n o n - o v e r l a p p i n g .
to experim ental c o n d itio n s.
to p a r t i c i p a t e
in a study of i n i t i a l
th e ra p y in w hich th e y r o l e - p l a y e d
C o n fid en tiality
inform ed o f t h e i r
S u b j e c t s w ere p a id
in d iv id u als atten d in g
$2 . 0 0 f o r
th eir p a r tic i­
o f i n f o r m a t i o n was a s s u r e d a n d s u b j e c t s w ere
freedom to
leave a t any tim e w ith o u t p e n a l t y .
A l l s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n MCSDS.
was a n " a t t i t u d e
They d e te rm in e d t h a t
They w ere t o l d
th at
the s c a le
q u e s t i o n n a i r e " b e i n g g i v e n by t h e P s y c h o lo g y D e p a rtm e n t
to a l l v o lu n te e rs.
Two m a j o r e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s w e r e t h e n f o r m e d w i t h
an e q u a l nunber o f m a les and fem a les i n e a c h g ro u p and s u b se q u e n t
sub-group.
10
H alf of th e
fictitio u s
E ).
s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n a SD s t a t e m e n t
Bigned by a
p s y c h o l o g i s t "D r. Jo a n M arks” o r "D r. James M arks"
(A ppendix
T h e y t h e n h e a r d a Be gm ent o f t a p e d e p i c t i n g a n i n t e r v i e w
betw een a
m ale s t u d e n t c l i e n t and a m ale o r fem a le t h e r a p i s t
d e m o n s t r a t i n g SD a t
l e v e l one o r
(A ppendix F ) .
j e c t s w ere
level
to ld
them w i t h t h e i r
f o u r a s d e f i n e d by Gazda
(1973)
Sub­
t h a t b o th s ta t e m e n t and ta p e w ere d e s ig n e d t o a c q u a i n t
i n t e r v i e w e r and h i s / h e r
sty le .
C ontrol s u b je c ts
heard
no ta p e .
The o t h e r h a l f o f t h e
h e a r the
same t a p e s .
s u b j e c t s w ere n o t g iv e n a s ta te m e n t but d id
C ontrol s u b je c ts
n eith er
read a statem en t
nor
heard a ta p e .
A l l s u b j e c t s w ere th en g iv e n th e Concern In d e x .
concerns
(if any),
s u b j e c t s were a sk ed
D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x
t h e y w ould be w i l l i n g
described as
g ist."
to c ir c le
(T aylor and A ltm a n 's
to d isc u ss w ith t h e i r
any item s
in terv iew er.
" g u id e " by t h e i r
any item u n le s s
F in ally ,
purposes o n ly ,"
that
th eir
in t e r v ie w e r and th a t
th e y were w i l l i n g
v isits
listin g
from th e
Intim acy sc a le d
" ty p ic a l concerns d iscu ssed in i n i t i a l
S u b j e c t s w ere t o l d
A fter
item s)
th at
Item s w ere
to a psycholo­
i n d i c a t i o n s m ig h t be em ployed a a a
th e y should n o t,
to d is c u s s
s u b j e c t s w ere r e q u e s te d
th e re fo re,
circle
it.
to in d ic a te ,
the e x te n t of t h e i r a n t ic ip a te d
lik in g
" fo r experim ental
fo r the
in ter­
v iew er.
S u b je c ts were d e b r i e f e d .
D a t a f r o m a n y s u b j e c t who I n d i c a t e d
h a v in g d o u b te d t h a t an i n t e r v i e w w ould o c c u r w ere o m i tte d
from a n a l y s i s .
D ata A n a ly s is
C o r r e l a t i o n s w ere com puted b e tw e e n a l l
dependent v a r ia b le s .
11
Ana l y s i s
o f c o v a r i a n c e was em p lo y ed t o p e r m i t a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f d e p e n d e n t
v a r i a b l e means a d j u s t e d
ity
v ariab le.
for d iffere n ces
S e p a ra te a n a l y s e s o f c o v a r ia n c e were co nd ucted
of the dependent v a r ia b le s .
D epth I n d e x s c o r e
item c i r c l e d
obtained
in each o f the
These w ere a s
by s u n n i n g t h e
six areas
th e number o f p e r s o n a l problem s
an ticip ated
i n s c o r e s on t h e s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l ­
liking ra tin g .
a l l analyses.
listed
A .05
fo llo w s:
ranking
fo r each
a t o t a l D isclo su re
of th e most i n t i m a t e
from t h e T a y l o r a n d A ltm an l i s t ,
on t h e C o n c e rn I n d e x , a n d t h e
l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e w as a c c e p t e d on
CHAPTER I I I
RESULTS
The 2 4 e x p e r i m e n t a l
c o n d i t i o n s w i l l be r e f e r r e d
S , NS ( s t a t e m e n t , n o s t a t e m e n t ) ;
and no t a p e ) ; MI, FI
FSs
(male and
code ord ered
(m ale and fem ale p s y c h o l o g i s t
fem ale s u b j e c t s ) .
SD a s
H ypothesized o rd e r
R, NR, NT ( r e c i p r o c a l ,
follow s:
for
to as
follow s:
non-reciprocal
i n t e r v i e w e r ) ; MSs,
H ypotheses r e s t a t e d
according to
le tter
S , R ; N S , R ; NS,NR; S ,N R ; S ,N T ; a n d NS,NT.
rated a n tic ip a te d
l i k i n g was a s
fo llo w s:
S,R ;
NS,NR; a n d S,NR o r N S , R .
D ata
front a n a l y s e s o f c o v a r i a n c e r e p r e s e n t means a d j u s t e d
for
MCSDS s c o r e s .
C o rrelatio n s
T h e re w ere no s i g n i f i c a n t
ables.
lik in g
c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een dependent v a r i ­
T h e c o v a r i a n t , MCSDS, w a s c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r a t e d a n t i c i p a t e d
for in terv iew er
(r» .4 8 ,
p“ < .0 0 0 1 ).
D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x
A n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e o f t h e s e SD s c o r e s r e v e a l e d
cant F 's
(Table
1).
M ea n s g i v e n i n T a b l e 2 r e f l e c t
upon sum m ation o f th e h i g h e s t
related
co n d itio n s.
score obtained
to tal
four s i g n i f i ­
sco res based
in each of the s ix
theory-
SD s c o r e s w e r e h i g h e s t u n d e r c o n d i t i o n S , R f o l l o w e d
b y N S , R ; S,N R; NS,NT; S , N T ; a n d NS,NR,
A s i g n i f i c a n t m ain e f f e c t
dem onstrated g r e a t e r w illin g n e s s
fo r tape
(P -5 .7 6 2 , p - <.006)
to d isclo se
12
under r e c ip r o c a l
(F igure
1)
f o l l o w e d by
13
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF DISCLOSURE DEPTH INDEX
Source
DF
MS
F
Statem ent
1
386.788
2.254
.14
Tape
2
988.914
5.762
.006*
IS
1
300.073
1.748
.19
SsS
1
310.780
1.811
.18
.04*
P<
S tate,
x Tape
2
581.715
3.390
S tate,
x IS
1
66.600
.388
S t a t e . x SsS
1
1081.532
6.302
.02*
Tape x IS
2
210.256
1.225
.30
T a p e x SaS
2
41.240
.240
.79
I S x S bS
1
106.305
.619
.43
S tate,
x Tape x IS
2
302.483
1.763
.18
S tate,
x I S x Ss S
1
17.555
.102
.75
T a p e x I S x SsS
2
557.510
3.249
.05*
S tate,
x Tape x SsS
2
395.667
2.306
.11
S tate,
x Tape x IS x SsS
2
46.573
.271
.77
47
171.610
ERROR
.54
14
TABLE 2
SCORES ON DISCLOSURE DEPTH INDEX
NS
S
R
55.34
51.91
NR
48.61
33.37
NT
40.89
45.59
NS
S
MSS
FSS
MSS
FSS
MI
59.47
51.30
58.20
44.59
FI
49.45
61.12
52.28
52.58
MI
31.57
50.15
42.63
17.75
FI
55.28
57.43
49.15
23.97
MI
39.64
51.04
37.54
42.99
FI
42.90
29.98
59.34
42.50
R
NR
NT
15
no t a p e and n o n - r e c i p r o c a l
low er
(10 p o i n t s )
tape c o n d itio n s ,
than r e c ip r o c a l
the tap e e f f e c t
action;
reciprocal
th ree.
t a p e c o n d i t i o n s o n l y w h en s u b j e c t s d i d n o t
t o be s e I f - r e v e a l i n g
T h ere was a s i g n i f i c a n t
( F * 6 . 302 , p » < . Q 2 ) .
F igure
(F—2 , 3 0 6 ,
w hich s u g g e s ts
th at
the curve
statem ent x s u b je c t
3 g rap h ically
read
that th e ir
sex in te ra c tio n
illu strated
that
fem ale s u b ­
T h e r e was a n o n ­
p" < .1 1 ) s t a t e m e n t x t a p e x s u b j e c t
the s ig n if i c a n t
under non­
(F igure 2 ) .
l o w e r e d SD u n d e r m o s t n o s t a t e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s .
sig n ifican t
in ter­
t h e n t h e no t a p e c o n d i t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n
D i s c l o s u r e w as l o w e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
in te rv ie w e r intended
jects
fu n c tio n o f the
statem ent c o n d itio n been s tu d ie d ,
would have changed somew hat;
low est o f th e
(F ^3.390, p- < .04) I n d ic a te d
n o t e d a b o v e w as p r o b a b l y a
and had o n ly th e
l a t t e r w e r e much
tape c o n d itio n s .
The I n t e r a c t i o n s t a t e m e n t x t a p e
that
both of th e
sex i n t e r a c t i o n
s t a t e m e n t x t a p e I n t e r a c t i o n w as m o s t
i n f l u e n c e d b y l o w e r e d SD o f f e m a l e s u b j e c t s u n d e r n o n - r e c i p r o c a l , n o
statem ent c o n d itio n s.
The s i g n i f i c a n t
su b ject
sex
tw o-w ay i n t e r a c t i o n
(F -3 .2 4 9 , p » < .05; F ig u re 4) r e f l e c t s
under n o n -re c ip ro c a l co n d itio n s
tin g
to
o f tape x In te rv ie w e r sex x
l o w e r e d SD s c o r e s
f o r b o th m ale and fem ale s u b j e c t s e x p e c ­
be i n t e r v i e w e d b y a m a l e p s y c h o l o g i s t ; w h e r e a s , u n d e r t h e f e m a l e
in t e r v ie w e r c o n d i tio n o nly fem ales
l o w e r e d t h e i r SD s c o r e s .
S c o re s w ere
lo w ered by s u b j e c t s u n d e r b o t h n o n - r e c i p r o c a l and no t a p e c o n d i t i o n s .
Concern Index
Table
Index s c o re s .
3 contains
the
resu lts
The m ea n d i s c l o s u r e
of a n a ly s is
scores
of covariance
fo r th e s ix
o f Concern
th eo ry -related
16
DISCLOSURE DEPTH INDEX
Tape
60
50
NR
NT
53.63
40.99
43.24
40
30
20
10
NR
R
F igure
1.
Graph o f H a in E f f e c t
NT
f o r Tape
60
S t a t e m e n t X Tape
50
R
NR
NT
S
55.34
48.61
40.89
NS
51.91
33.37
45.59
40
S
30
NS
20
10
NR
R
F igure 2.
NT
G raph o f I n t e r a c t i o n o f S t a t e m e n t x Tape
S t a t e m e n t x Ss S ex
50
S
46.39
50.17
NS
49.86
37.40
30
20
10
S
F igure
3.
Graph o f I n t e r a c t i o n
Sex
NS
S tatem ent x S u b je c t* '
17
00
60
H ale D r,
50
40
R
NR
NT
Mb 8
58 , . 8 4
37.. 1 0
38,. 5 9
F bs
4 7 , .95
33,. 9 5
47 , .01
30
20
10
R
NR
NT
NR
NT
(b)
60
Female D r.
50
40
R
NR
NT
Mss
50.87
52.22
51.12
Fss
56.85
40.70
36.24
30
20
10
F igure 4.
G raph o f I n t e r a c t i o n Tape x I n t e r v i e w e r ' a
Sex x S u b j e c t s 1 Sex
18
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF CONCERN INDEX
Source
Df
F
P<
Statem ent
1
.331
.148
.70
Tape
2
.384
. 173
.84
I n t e r v i e w e r Sex
1
8.696
3.905
Ss Sex+
1
.366
.164
.05*
.68
S tate,
x Tape
2
7.482
3.360
S tate,
x IS
1
1.133
.509
.48
S tate,
x Ss S
1
.144
.064
*
00
O
MS
Tape x IS
2
2.481
1.114
.34
Tape x SsS
2
.270
.121
.88
I S x SsS
1
3.994
1.794
.19
S tate,
x Tape x IS
2
1.999
.898
.58
S tate,
x I S x SsS
1
.142
.064
.80
T a p e x I S x SaS
2
.521
.234
.79
S tate,
x T a p e x SaS
2
1.792
.805
.54
S tate,
x T a p e x I S x SsS
2
1.841
.827
.55
47
2.226
ERROR
+
IS - In te rv ie w e r's
SsS- S u b je c ts '
S ex
Sex
.04*
19
co n d itio n s
( T a b l e 4 ) I n d i c a t e m o s t p r o b l e m a d m i s s i o n u n d e r NS,NT f o l l o w e d
by S,NR; NS,R;
S , N T ; S , R a n d NS,NR.
c o n d itio n s a re a ls o g iven
th eir
p" < . 0 5 ) .
to tal
24 e x p e r im e n ta l
(Table 4 ) .
A s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t
(P -3 .9 0 5 ,
Means f o r t h e
f o r i n t e r v i e w e r s e x was o b t a i n e d
Mor e c o n c e r n s w e r e
i n t e r v i e w e r would be f e m a le
The s t a t e m e n t x t a p e
listed
(F igure
by s u b j e c t s who t h o u g h t
5).
i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t
p a < :.0 4 ).
F igure 6 i l l u s t r a t e s
reciprocal
tape c o n d itio n s only i f
(F -3 .3 6 0 ,
low ered p ro b lem a d m is s io n u n d er n o n su b je c ts did not
S u b j e c t s who r e a d t h e SD s t a t e m e n t i n c r e a s e d
r e a d t h e SD s t a t e m e n t .
p r o b le m a d m i s s i o n somewhat
under n o n -re c ip ro c a l tape c o n d itio n s .
A n ticip ated
L iking
A nalysis of covariance
in T able 5.
are
listed
Means f o r
for
(F -l 1.374,
lik in g
is
presented
th e s i x t h e o r y - r e l a t e d and 24 t o t a l c o n d i t i o n s
in T able 6.
S u b j e c t s who r e a d
lik in g
for rated a n tic ip a te d
th eir
t h e SD s t a t e m e n t a n t i c i p a t e d
in terv iew er
p -< .0 0 1 5 ;
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more
th a n d id no s ta te m e n t c o n d i t i o n s u b j e c t s
F igure 7 ).
20
TABLE 4
SCORES ON CONCERN INDEX
S
NS
R
1.74
2.49
NR
2.59
1.41
NT
1.84
2.67
S
NS
MSS
FSS
MI
1.33
1.65
.64
2 .02
FI
2 .68
1.30
3.66
3.66
MI
2 .33
2.67
1.67
.99
FI
3.36
2.00
1.34
1.65
MI
1.35
1.67
2.36
2.65
FI
2,02
2.32
3.66
2.03
MSS
FSS
R
NR
NT
CONCERN INDEX
In te rv ie v e r's
Sex
3.0
2.5
2 .0
1.5
M
F
1.0
1.78
' 2.2TT
0
F igure 5
S ta te m e n t x Tape
3 .0
2.5
R
NR
NT
1.7*
2.59
1.84
2
1 .4 1
2 .6 7
.5
0
F igure 6
22
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF ANTICIPATED LIKING
Source
DF
MS
F
P <
Statem ent
1
23.239
11.374
.0015*
T ap e
2
4.380
2.144
.13
IS
1
1.488
.728
.40
SsS
I
.343
.168
.68
S tate,
x Tape
2
.902
.441
.65
S tate,
x IS
1
2 .858
1.399
.24
S tate,
x Ss S
1
.435
.213
.65
Tape x IS
2
.247
.121
.89
T ap e x S s S
2
3.122
1.528
.23
I S x Ss S
1
2.993
1.465
.23
S tate,
x Tape x IS
2
2.576
1.261
.29
S tate,
x I S x SsS
1
3.838
1.878
.18
T a p e x I S x Ss S
2
.168
.082
.92
S tate,
x T a p e x SaS
2
1.520
.744
.52
S tate,
x T a p e x I S x SsS
2
.603
.295
.75
47
2.043
ERROR
23
TABLE 6
SCORES ON ANTICIPATED LIKING
S
NS
R
6.56
5.87
NR
7.55
6.23
NT
6.80
5.40
NS
MSS
FSS
MSS
FSS
MI
6.65
5.92
6.24
5.60
FT
7.49
6.19
5.09
6.53
MI
7.98
7.54
6.31
4.70
FT
7.99
6.70
6.82
7.08
MI
6.82
7.26
5.22
4.86
FI
5.82
7.30
5.26
6.28
NR
NT
24
STATEMENT
9.0
8.5
S
6.97
NS
5.83
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4 .0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
0
F igure 7.
G ra p h o f Main E f f e c t
L i Icing V a r i a b l e .
S
NS
f o r S ta te m e n t on A n tic ip a te d
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The p r e s e n t
s t u d y w as d e s i g n e d
v ario u s m anipulations
w illin g n ess
were p la c e d i n
to the e x te n t
disclosure
w ritten
of in terv iew er d is c lo su re
to d is c lo se
(Concern I n d e x ) ,
to in v e s tig a te
and a n t i c i p a t e d
lik in g of in terv iew er.
statem ent
problem l i s t i n g
A ll s u b je c ts
ta p e c o n d i t i o n s w hich d i f f e r e d
to w hich a d e m o n s tr a tio n i n t e r v i e w
in terv iew er.
H alf o f th e s e
of
upon s u b j e c t s '
( D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x ) , w r i t t e n
one o f t h r e e
by t h e
the e f f e c t s
w ith re s p e c t
involved s e l f ­
s u b j e c t s w ere g iv e n a
i n w hich t h e i r p ro p o sed i n t e r v i e w e r d e s c r i b e d h i m s e l f /
h e r s e lf as d is c lo s in g .
The s u b j e c t s e x p e c t e d
had r e a d
ment
the d is c lo s u r e
(F igure
7).
to
statem ent
T h i s was n o t
like
th eir
than i f
i n t e r v i e w e r more a f t e r t h e y
th e y had n o t r e a d th e
the p a t t e r n o f s ig n if i c a n c e
dependent m easures of d is c l o s u r e ,
th u s
found f o r
li k in g and d i s c l o s u r e d id not
n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r c o n j o i n t l y a s would be p r e d i c t e d
K ahn ( 1 9 6 9 ) , T a y l o r , A l t m a n a n d S o r r e n t i n o
by W o r t h y , C a r y a n d
(1969) and J o u r a r d
T h e s e r e s u l t s m a y , h o w e v e r , h a v e some r e l e v a n c e i n c l a r i f y i n g
statem ent x tape
In teractio n
G raeven,
of h ig h ly
1971; C o rb y ,
(1959).
the
f o u n d i n b o t h m e a s u r e s o f SD.
O ther i n v e s t i g a t o r s have concluded t h a t
recip ro city
state­
Intim ate m a te ria l
l i k i n g d e c r e a s e s whe n
i s dem onstrated
1972; D e r l e g a , e t a l . ,
1973a.).
(E h rllch &
The s e l f -
i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n b y p s y c h o l o g i s t i n t e r v i e w e r s o n r e c i p r o c a l t a p e s w as
not h ig h ly In tim a te
in content
(A ppendix F ) .
25
A u th o rs have o c c a s io n a lly
26
hypothesized
th at
loss o f s ta tu s
or v io la tio n
s io n a l behavior
1974).
p r o f e s s i o n a l SD s o u r c e s a r e n o t w e l l r e c e i v e d d u e t o
of su b je c ts'
(E llison & F iresto n e,
In th e p re se n t
expectations
1974; Simson & B a h r ,
lik in g
A lso s u b j e c t s d id n o t te n d
tap es did not
fo r in te r v ie w e r than did
to w a rd more o r
less
in t e r v ie w e r c o n tin g e n t upon t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n
th at
h e / s h e would be d i s c l o s i n g .
statem ent
Influenced
R ather,
lik in g w ithout
sure
effects attrib u tab le
to
to
lik in g
( g i v e n by t h e
tape
tapes.
SD s t a t e m e n t )
of a d is c lo su re
con d itio n s.
o f b o t h SD m e a s u r e s I n d i c a t e s
t h e w r i t t e n SD s t a t e m e n t .
D isclo ­
s c o r e s on b o th t h e C o n c e rn I n d e x and t h e D i s c l o s u r e D ep th I n d e x
On b o t h m e a s u r e s ,
is
t h e d r o p i n SD s c o r e s u n d e r t h i s
very sh arp .
Index because
there
No m a i n e f f e c t
for
t a p e w a s sh o wn on t h e C o n c e r n
thus c a n c e llin g th e e f f e c t s
n o n - r e c ip r o c a l c o n d i tio n drop i n s c o re s
d ifficu lt
to ex p lain but as i t
statem ent c o n d itio n s
for th is
v ariab le.
it
is
less
su b jects
(F igure 6 ) .
This peak is
t h a n one p o i n t h i g h e r
may b e d u e m e r e l y t o t h e s m a l l s c o r e s
1,4 7 ,
than o th e r
recorded
f o r Concern Index
resp ectiv ely .
A p p aren tly having read t h a t
in d iv id u al,
statem en t, non-
o f t h e no s t a t e m e n t ,
The mean a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n
s c o r e s w ere 2 ,1 2 5 and
(F igures 2 & 6 ) .
experim ental c o n d i­
i s a p e a k i n SD s c o r e s u n d e r t h e
re c ip ro c a l co n d itio n
did
in
o f the r e c i p r o c a l
d e c r e a s e d u n d e r no s t a t e m e n t , n o n - r e c i p r o c a l c o n d i t i o n s
tion
resu lt
reciprocal
th e a d d itio n
regard
The s t a t e m e n t x t a p e I n t e r a c t i o n
d iffere n tial
1974; B rooks,
s t u d y no c o m p a r is o n s w i t h n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l t a r g e t
p e r s o n s were made; h o w e v e r, n o n - r e c i p r o c a l
g reater an ticip ated
regarding p ro fe s ­
th eir
s u b je c ts did not respond to a
in no s ta te m e n t c o n d i t i o n s .
i n t e r v i e w e r w as a n o p e n , s h a r i n g
la c k o f m odeled r e c i p r o c i t y a s
As t h e r e w a s n o g r e a t e r
liking
27
under the sta te m e n t,
d isclo su re
non-reciprocal co n d itio n ,
scores suggest
estab lish in g
recip ro city .
p repotency.
itse lf
In
A l e n g t h i e r e x p o s u re t o m odeled n o n ­
s t y l e may h a v e e l i m i n a t e d
H owever, a s t h e r e was g r e a t e r
v e r s u s no s t a t e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s ,
the
sig n ific a n tly greater
the p rep o ten cy of the statem en t
r e c ip r o c ity or an a c tu a l ex p erien ce w ith t h i s
th is
the
lik in g
s u b j e c t s may h a v e f e l t
in a l l
th at
statem ent
they
lik ed
i n t e r v i e w e r and c o n s e q u e n t ly behaved in a manner c o n s i s t e n t w ith
those
feelin g s d esp ite a
Lack o f r e c i p r o c i t y .
w ith c o g n itiv e disso n an ce
S u b je c ts 1 response
th eo ry
(F estin g er,
This e x p la n a tio n acc o rd s
1957).
to th is n o n -re c ip ro c a l
m o s t p a r t i c u l a r l y Adams ( 1 9 6 5 ) e q u i t y t h e o r y ,
slmpLy s t a t e s
v arious
jects
th a t a balance
ty p es o f exchange.
co n d itio n
however.
between o u tp u t and in p u t
In th e present
stu d y ,
supports
E quity th e o ry
is
sought in
i t appears that
sub­
l o w e r e d SD w h en t h e y r e c e i v e d n o i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i r p r e s u m e d
p a rtn e r in th e dyad.
by a n o n - r e c i p r o c a l
the in te rv ie w e r.
The d i s c l o s u r e
s t a t e m e n t , e v e n when c o n t r a d i c t e d
ta p e d d e m o n s t r a t i o n , was a form o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
A group of ap p ro x im a te ly
15 i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y
s t u d e n t s p r e s e n t e d w ith t h i s e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n w ere a b l e
p red ict
t h a t no s t a t e m e n t ,
l e a s t a m o u n t s o f SD.
to c o rre c tly
n o n - r e c l p r o c a 1 c o n d i t i o n s w ould r e s u l t
They e x p r e s s e d t h e i r
own r e l u c t a n c e
in the
to ta lk w ith
s o m e o n e a b o u t whom t h e y c o u l d know n o t h i n g .
I f e q u i t y p r i n c i p l e s w ere in o p e r a t io n
tio n ,
then th e
a non-issue.
statu s
in
the
present in v e s tig a ­
o f a d i s c l o s i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l a p p e a r s t o have been
T h e r e was a n a s s u m p t i o n t h a t b y d e s c r i b i n g
a s a " d o c t o r ” a n d a " p s y c h o l o g i s t , 11 a n e x p e c t a t i o n
r e s e r v e d b e h a v i o r w o u l d be e l i c i t e d
from s u b j e c t s .
the
In terv iew er
of non -d is c l o s i n g ,
In tro d u c tio n o f the
28
SD s t a t e m e n t was i n t e n d e d
have a lre a d y had,
th eo ry is v a lid
i.e .,
t o d e v e l o p a n e x p e c t a t i o n w h i c h s u b j e c t s may
that
of p sy ch o lo g ists as d is c lo s in g .
in the p re s e n t in s ta n c e ,
t h e n h i g h SD l e v e l s u n d e r
c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s can be e x p l a i n e d a s s u b j e c t s
tab le,
m ent,
underm ined.
I f e q u i t y t h e o r y p r i n c i p l e s were n o t
to n o n -re c ip ro c ity w hile provid ing
effects
Under no s t a t e ­
e x p e c t a t i o n s may h a v e b e e n s e r i o u s l y
d a t a c a n be s e e n a s p r o v i d i n g e v i d e n c e
ttve
responding to the e q u i­
b a l a n c e d ex ch a n g e w hich th e y w ere a n t i c i p a t i n g .
non-reciprocal co n d itio n s,
I f eq u ity
fu n ctio n in g ,
for d isc lo su re
le ss evidence
then the
s u p p r e s s i o n due
r e g a r d in g any f a c i l i t a -
o f r e c i p r o c i t y on SD. The d a t a d e m o n s t r a t e d
l e s s SD u n d e r
n o n - r e c i p r o c i t y b u t n o p a r t i c u l a r m a j o r i n c r e a s e s i n SD u n d e r r e c i p r o c a l
a s compared to c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s
No s i g n i f i c a n t
d ifferen ces
betw een r e c i p r o c a l and c o n t r o l
(F igure 2 & 6 ) .
in s e If-d is c lo s u re
cond itio n s w ith in e ith e r
t h e n o s t a t e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s on t h e C o n c e r n I n d e x .
the
freq u en tly c ited
d isclo su re
facllitativ e
(Jourard & R esnick,
effects
1973;
J o u r a r d , 1939; J o u r a r d a n d l a n d s m a n ,
1970)
W o rth y , Gary &
were n o t d e m o n s t r a te d .
found
statem ent or
Thus on t h i s v a r i a b l e ,
on s u b j e c t
1970; P a s t e r n a c k & LandIngham , 1972;
& S lo a n , 1974; D e r le g a , e t a l . ,
1973;
the
o f SD r e c i p r o c i t y
D avis
Panyard,
s c o r e s w ere
Kahn,
1973; Cosby,
1972;
1960; J o u r a r d
1969; C e r t n e r ,
B eck er & Munz,
& Richm an,
1963;
1 9 7 3 ; G a r y & Hammond,
On t h e D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x , r e c i p r o c a l
t a p e s , e s p e c i a l l y u n d e r s t a t e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s , p ro d u c e d more d i s c l o s u r e
than did c o n tr o l c o n d itio n s
it
seems p r o b a b l e
d isclo su re
that
scores.
in tim ate d isclo su re
(F igure 2 ) .
C onsidering
r e c i p r o c i t y was a n i m p o r t a n t
C haiken and D e rle g a
betw een s t r a n g e r s
is
(1974 a . b . )
th is
factor
SD v a r i a b l e ,
in in c re a s in g
have d em o n strated
p erceived as in a p p ro p ria te ,
th at
29
though o th e r r e s u l t s
th o se
al ,,
situ atio n s
th at
1 97 3 a . b . ) -
"fairn ess"
in d icate
th at
s u b j e c t s m ight judge a s
Thu s t h e e v i d e n c e a p p e a r s
or equity as
the
s c o r e s u n d e r no s t a t e m e n t ,
have been i n f l u e n t i a l
s u b j e c t s were e s p e c i a l l y
d itio n s;
how ever, o th e r
to suggest a p rin c ip le
in teractio n s
suggest
that
sex i n t e r a c t i o n s
sen sitiv e
suggest
th at
s e x may
T h e r e w e r e no
to dem onstrate
t o no s t a t e m e n t ,
in teractio n s
su b ject
th at
fem ale
non-reciprocal con­
f e m a l e s u b j e c t s may
in fo rm atio n gaps.
D isclosure
as m e asu re d by t h e D i s c l o s u r e D epth I n d e x , d e c r e a s e d u n d e r a l l
no sta te m e n t
and D erleg a
co nditions
(1974 b . )
f o r fem ale s u b j e c t s
discovered
s t r a n g e r s a s more i n a p p r o p r i a t e
that
only
(Figure
fem ale s u b j e c t s
than did m ales.
c o u n s e l o r b e h a v i o r s w ere more i n t e n s e l y
counselees.
J o u r a r d and Friedm an
more s e n s i t i v e
to the
(1970) co n c lu d e d
lack of I n t e r e s t
A sig n ifican t
reveals
conditions;
the
looking a t
tape x
p attern
for
(1975) found t h a t
p e r c e i v e d by f e m a le
th at
f e m a le s were
f e m a l e s u b j e c t s whe n
them .
in terv iew er
ofdecreased
sex x s u b je c t sex i n t e r a c t i o n
SD s c o r e s u n d e r n o n - r e c i p r o c a 1
how ever, m ale s u b j e c t s a n t i c i p a t i n g a
Ignored n o n - r e c i p r o c ity
Chaiken
i m p l i e d by n o e y e c o n t a c t b e c a u s e
t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t r u s t a n d SD w as z e r o
the ex p e rim e n te r avoided
3).
saw SD t o
W right
facilitativ e
again
of
low d i s c l o s u r e
perception of in e q u ity .
h av e b e e n more a c u t e l y aw are o f p a r t i c u l a r
scores,
(D erlega, e t
non-reciprocal co n d itio n s.
in the
x tape x s u b je c t
o ccu rs even in
in ap p ro p riate
probable d e te rm in a n t o f
A d ditional s ig n if ic a n t
statem ent
recip ro cal d isclo su re
(F igure 4 b , ) .
SD t o
a
fem ale I n te r v ie w e r r e g a r d l e s s
Index
a
m ild tre n d
fem ale
interview er
M a le s u b j e c t s w e r e w i l l i n g
to
o f r e c i p r o c i t y . On t h e C o n c e r n
tow ard ani n t e r v i e w e r sex x s u b j e c t sex i n t e r a c t i o n
30
I n d i c a t e d g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s o f m ale s u b j e c t s
psychologist
(F " 1 . 7 9 4 ,
in terv iew er
sex x su b je c t
Brooks
(1974)
p «
found t h a t
.1 9 ).
sex i n t e r a c t i o n
tant
in d is c lo s in g
th a t a l l
su b jects
S tatu s of
behavior.
in
a n t i c i p a t i n g a fem ale i n t e r v i e w e r
d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t male
fem ale c o u n s e l o r s a p p e a re d u n im p o r­
study
listed
w ere u n w i l l i n g
doctor;
resu lts
F igure 4 b,
a t a high
in d icates
lev el
o f t h e i r know ledge a b o u t h e r .
to d is c lo s e
in d icate
m o r e c o n c e r n s when
(F igure 5 ).
t h a t male s u b j e c t s w ere w i l l i n g t o d i s c l o s e
interview er reg ard less
s u b j e c t s d i s c l o s e d more t o
On t h e C o n c e r n I n d e x ,
the p re s e n t
tape x
on t h e D i s c l o s u r e D e p t h I n d e x .
b o th m ale and fem a le
low s t a t u s .
t o a fem ale
These r e s u l t s com plim ent th e
fem a le c o u n s e l o r s , w h e re a s m ale s u b j e c t s
co u n selo rs of
to d is c lo se
to a fem ale
Female s u b j e c t s
t o a n o n - r e c i p r o c a 1 o r a n un k no w n f e m a l e
w hereas t h e i r d is c l o s u r e
scores
rose
(from th e d e c r e a s e u n d er
n o n - r e c i p r o c i t y ) g iv e n no in f o r m a tio n ab o u t
th e m ale d o c t o r .
(1973) h y p o th e s iz e d
low i n a s s e s s e d " c o u n s e l i n g
th at
fem ale c o u n s e l e e s ,
r e a d i n e s s , " were f r u s t r a t e d
readiness
fem ales re p o rte d
high re a d in e s s
study re a c te d
jects
fem ales.
to
(F igure 4 a . ) .
by n o n - d i r e c t i v e m a l e t h e r a p i s t s .
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p a s t
o th erw ise,
scores.
the
feom le s u b ­
s c o r e s a g a i n u n d e r t h e no t a p e c o n d i t i o n
Fem ales had v e r y
to d isc lo se
low
in the p resen t
th e n o n - r e c i p r o c i t y o f th e m ale d o c t o r but
low d i s c l o s u r e
s c o r e s u n d e r no t a p e
c o n d i t i o n s w he n a n t i c i p a t i n g a f e m a l e p s y c h o l o g i s t .
w illin g
These
SD t o m a l e s t h a n d i d
Both m ale and fem ale s u b j e c t s
increased d isc lo su re
H eilbrun
t o a n un k no w n m a l e b u t n o t
t o a n unknown f e m a l e ;
th ey responded to n o n - r e c ip r o c ity w ith
H a le s , how ever, d id not
low ered d i s c l o s u r e
seem t o d i s c r i m i n a t e
fem ale p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s b e h a v i o r .
Thus fe m a le s w ere
on t h e b a s i s
P o s s ib ly fem ales a r e
of
predisposed
to
31
d isclo se
ness.
to a m ale a u t h o r i t y ,
J o u r a r d * s work
(1964)
unless
confronted w ith h is
in d icated
t h a t m a l e s may e x p e r i e n c e
c u ltu ra l c o n stra in ts against d isclo sin g
d isclo se
in tim ate
in fo rm atio n
c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e y may be
e s p e c ia lly in
the
d isclo sin g
th is
in general
c o n c lu s io n due to
t o o t h e r m aleB .
In order to
to anyone th e y must d i s c l o s e
le ss concerned w ith
th erap eu tic
p ro d u c e d no m ain e f f e c t
lack of open­
context.
th a n were m a l e s .
fem aleB ,
recip ro city
The r e s u l t s
fo r sex of s u b je c ts .
failu re
the
to
o f the
of the dyad,
present
study
F e m a le s w e r e n o t more
O t h e r r e s e a r c h may h a v e r e a c h e d
to m anipulate
in te rv ie w e r sex as a
v ariab le.
C onclusion
Future
b ly
r e s e a r c h m ig h t em ploy e x t e n d e d a c t u a l
f o c u s i n g on t h e m o s t I n t i m a t e
to render v io la tio n
failed
to c l a r i f y
topics
study
t h e r a p i s t s was t o o b r i e f o r
s h o u ld exam ine th e e x p e c t a t i o n s
F uture
h e l d by
I f p a r ti c u la r p o p u la tio n s e n te r a counseling
s itu a tio n a n tic ip a tin g a degree
ta n t.
to dlscusB
of d i f f e r e n t ages re g a rd in g the b e h av io r of p r o f e s s io n a l
m ental h e a lth r e s o u r c e s .
view ers,
p o ssi­
on d i s c l o s u r e - -
p r e - e x p e r i m e n t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s w ere unknown.
i n v e s t i g a t i o n most c e r t a i n l y
In dividuals
The p r e s e n t
o f commitment v i o l a t i o n
p o ssib ly because exposure to p o te n tia l
because s u b je c ts
su b jects are w illin g
o f ccx m nit m ent m o r e s a l i e n t .
the e f f e c t s
in terv iew s;
of re c ip ro c a l d is c lo s u r e
then the n o tio n o f v i o l a t i o n
from i n t e r ­
o f c o o n ltm e n t becomes v e r y im p o r ­
An I n t e r v i e w e r may w a n t t o c l a r i f y
h is/h er
sty le
as
n o n - r e c i p r o c a l i n o r d e r t o a v o id c l i e n t d r o p - o u ts due t o v i o l a t e d
expectancies.
D is c o v e rin g what p r e c o n c e p tio n s c l i e n t s
have
regarding
32
p ro fessio n al
behavior could
view s in a d d i t i o n
serve
to enhance the v alu e
to d e c re a sin g the
of in itia l
incid en ce
of
failed
fu rth er in v estig atio n
is
the
in ter­
second a p p o i n t ­
m ents.
A lso w a r r a n ti n g
su b jects are w illin g
co n d itio n s).
th e ra p is t's
to t e l l
a stranger
in fo '-m a tio n g iv in g v ia
tape
the e f f e c t s
of the
of h i s / h e r ex p ressed d is c lo s in g view s,
co u ld a l s o exam ine w h e th e r c o n t r o l
still
( n o s t a t e m e n t a n d / o r no t a p e
Extended i n t e r v i e w s , w h ile c l a r i f y i n g
behavioral v io la tio n
i B s u e o f how much
co nditions
recorder
(perhaps
to a p o te n tia l
in the
form o f
i n t e r v i e w e r ) would
p r o d u c e c o m m e n s u r a t e l y h i g h SD l e v e l s .
F u rth er c l a r i f i c a t i o n
en tial
responding
d isclo su re
sty le
of sex d if f e r e n c e s ,
t o m ale and fem a le t h e r a p i s t s
s h o u l d be a t t e m p t e d .
p articu larly
in r e la tio n
d iffer­
to th e ir
Some t y p e o f p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t s 1
e v a l u a t i o n c o u ld be em ployed i n a n a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e
the
nature of
these d if f e r e n c e s .
The C o n c e r n I n d e x r e s u l t s
effect
clearly
fail
to
in d icate
a facilitativ e
f o r r e c i p r o c i t y w h i l e d e m o n s t r a t i n g a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t o n SD whe n
a to tally
un kno w n i n t e r v i e w e r
recip ro cal.
the valu e
greater
(no s t a t e m e n t c o n d i t i o n )
D i s c l o s u r e D epth In d e x r e s u l t s a r e
of re c ip ro c ity .
It
appears th a t
is a lso non­
less c le a r
recip ro city
regarding
d id produce
SD e s p e c i a l l y when s u b j e c t s w e r e e x p e c t i n g t h e r a p i s t
2) and th u s
the com bination of c l a r i f y i n g
th e ra p eu tic
SD ( F i g u r e
process as sh arin g
e x p e r i e n c e a n d d e m o n s t r a t i n g SD may I n c r e a s e d i s c l o s i n g b e h a v i o r .
This
conclusion
sex
In teractio n
l a r g e l y h o l d s w he n t h e t a p e x I n t e r v i e w e r s e x x s u b j e c t
is
considered
fem ales to d i s c l o s e
su b jects
(Figure U a . b . )
except
t o a n u n k n ow n m a l e a n d t h e
for
the w il l i n g n e s s
in sen sitiv ity
t o n o n - r e c i p r o c i t y o f a fem ale p s y c h o l o g i s t .
o f m ale
of
REFERENCES
In eq u ity in so c ia l exchange.
In L. B erk o w its (E d .),
Adam s, _r. S .
Advances in e x p e rim e n ta l s o c i a l p s y c h o lo g y . V ol. 2 .
New Y o r k :
Academ ic P r e s s , 1965.
I m p lic a tio n s of r e s e a r c h In s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e fo r group
A1 len, J , G.
psychotherapy.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o f Group P s y c h o t h e r a p y ,
1 9 7 3 , 23,, 3 0 6 - 3 2 1 .
S u p e rv is o r's p erce p tio n s
A n c h o r , K. N . , S t r a s s b e r g , D. S . , & E l k i n s , D.
o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een t h e r a p i s t s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e and
c lin ic a l effectiv en ess.
C l i n i c a l P a y . . 1 9 7 6 , 32^, 1 5 8 .
S ocial d e s i r a b i li t y as
A n c h o r , K. N . , V o j t i s e k , J . E . , & B e r g e r , S . E .
a p r e d ic to r of s e lf - d is c l o s u r e In groups.
Psychotherapy:
T h e o r y . R e s e a r c h & P r a c t i c e , 1 9 7 2 , 9^, 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 .
In terp retatio n
A r i e t i , S.
1974.
of S ch izo p h ren ia.
New Y o r k :
B asic Books,
P s y c h o th e r a p y b a se d upon m o d e lin g p r i n c i p l e s .
I n A. E.
B a n d u r a , A.
B e r g i n & G a r f i e l d , S. L. ( E d , ) , Handbook o f P s y c h o t h e r a p y and
B e h a v i o r C h a n g e . New Y o r k :
J o h n W ile y & S o n s , 1971.
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r p s y c h o t h e r a p y i n
Ba l d w i n , B. A.
r e p r e s s o r s and s e n s i t i z e r s .
J o u rn a l of C ounseling P sy c h o lo g y .
1974, n , 455-456.
Se I f - d i s c l o s u r e : r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o s e l f ­
B a t h , K . E . 6. D a l y , D. L .
d e s c r i b e d p e r s o n a l i t y and sex d i f f e r e n c e s .
P sychologies 1
R e p o r t s . 1 9 7 2 , 3_1« 6 2 3 - 6 2 8 .
B e c k e r , J . F , & M u n z , D. C.
view er d i s c l o s u r e s .
4 3 , 593.
E x t r a v e r s i o n and r e c i p r o c a t i o n o f i n t e r ­
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g & C l i n i c a l . 1975,
Comments on " i n f l u e n c e o f a n i n t e r ­
B l o c k , IE. L . & G o o d s t e i n , L . D.
v i e w e r ' s d i s c l o s u r e on th e s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g b e h a v i o r o f I n t e r ­
v iew ees."
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 1 , 18^, 5 9 5 - 5 9 7 .
B r o d s k y , S . L. & K o m a r i d i s , G. V.
S elf-d isclo su re
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 1 9 6 8 , 2_3, 4 0 3 - 4 0 7 .
in p riso n e rs.
I n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s o f s e x and s t a t u s o f s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e .
B r o o k s , L.
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 4 , 2_1, 4 6 9 - 4 7 4 .
33
34
B u n d z a , K. A. A S i m o n s o n , N. R.
T herapist s e lf - d is c l o s u r e : I t s e f f e c t
on I m p r e s s i o n o f t h e r a p i s t a n d w i l l i n g n e s s t o d i s c l o s e .
Psycho­
therapy:
T h e o r y . R e s e a r c h a n d P r a c t i c e . 1 9 7 3 , _10, 2 1 5 - 2 1 7 ,
B u r n e n n e , D. A M i r e l s , H. L .
S e If-d is c lo s u re In s e lf - d e s c r i p tiv e
essays.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y . 1970,
409 -4 13.
C a s h , T.
35.
F . A S o l l o w a y , D.
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e c o r r e l a t e s o f p h y s i c a l
attractiv en ess:
an e x p lo ra to ry study.
P sy ch o lo g ies1 R e p o rts.
1975, 36, 579-586.
C e r t n e r , B. C.
The e x c h a n g e o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s i n s a m e - s e x e d g r o u p s o f
stran g ers.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y . 1973,
4 0 , 292 - 2 9 7 .
C h a i k e n , A. L , & D e r l e g a , V. J .
L iking for th e norm -breaker in s e l f d isclo su re.
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1 9 7 4 , 42^, 1 1 7 - 1 2 9 .
C h a i k e n , A. L . & D e r l e g a , V. J .
V a r ia b le s a f f e c t i n g the a p p r o p r ia te n e s s
o f s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l , 1 9 7 4 ,
4 2 , 588-593.
C h a i k e n , A. L . , D e r l e g a , V. J . ,
d isclo su re re c ip ro c ity .
1975, 43, 13-19.
B a y m a , B. & S h a w , J .
N euroticiB m and
J o u r n a l of C o n s u ltin g and C l i n i c a l .
C h i t t i c k , E. V. & H i m e l s t e i n , P .
The m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .
J o u r n a l of P sy c h o lo g y . 1967, 85, 117-121.
C o a e n tin o , S.
P e rf o rm a n c e d i f f e r e n c e s a s a f u n c t i o n o f M arlowe-Crowne
S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a le B cores I n a s i t u a t i o n w here g a i n i n g
e x p e r i m e n t e r a p p r o v a l and m a i n t a i n i n g s e l f - e s t e e m a r e i n
co n flict.
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t , 1 9 7 0 , 30 ( 1 0 - B ) , 4 7 8 8 .
Cozby, P .
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , r e c i p r o c i t y and
35, 151-160.
Cozby, P.
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e :
1973, 79, 7 3 -9 1 .
a
literatu re
lik in g .
review .
S o c io m e try . 1972,
P sychological B u l l e t i n .
C r o w n e , D. P . , 6* M a r l o w e , D. A new s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y
o f C o n s u lti n g P s y c h o lo g y . 1960, 2 4, 349 -3 54 .
scale.
Journa 1
C r o w n e , D. P . A M a r l o w e , D.
S o c ia l d e s i r a b i l i t y and re s p o n s e to
p e r c e iv e d s i t u a t i o n a l dem ands.
Jo u rn a l of C onsulting P sych o lo g y .
1961, 25, 109-115.
C r o w n e , D. P . , A S t r i c k l a n d , B. R.
The c o n d i t i o n i n g o f v e r b a l b e h a v i o r
a s a f u n c t i o n of th e need f o r s o c i a l a p p r o v a l .
Jo u rn al of
A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 1 , 6_3, 3 9 5 - 4 0 1 .
35
R ecip ro city of s e lf - d is c lo s u r e in
D a v i s , , '. D. & S k i n n e r , A. E . G.
interview s:
m odeling or s o c i a l exchange?
Jo u rn al of P erso n ­
a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 4 , 29, 7 7 9 - 7 8 4 .
The b a s i s o f i n t e r v i e w e r m a t c h i n g o f i n t e r ­
D a v i s , . . D. & S l o a n , M. L .
v i e w e r s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l a n d C l i n i c a l
P s y c h o lo g y . 1974,
359-367.
A v a lid a tio n study of
D e L e o n , P . H . , D e L e o n , J . L. & S h e f l i n , J . A.
s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e . P r o c e e d i n g s , 7 8 th A nnual C o n v e n t io n , A m eric an
P s y c h o lo g ic a 1 A s s o c i a t i o n . 1970, 473-474.
D erlega
V. J . , H a r r i s , M. S . & C h a i k e n , A. L .
S eIf-d isclo su re
r e c i p r o c i t y , l i k i n g and the d e v i a n t .
Jo u rn a l of Experim ental
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1973, j), 2 7 7 - 2 8 4 .
D er l e g a
V. J . , W a l m e r , J . & F u r m a n , G. M u t u a l d i s c l o s u r e i n B o c i a l
in te ra c tio n s.
The J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 3 , 9 0 .
159-160.
In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s a f f e c tin g in terv iew ee e x p ec tan cies
D o s t e r , J . A.
and p e r c e p t i o n s o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e lin g
P s y c h o lo g y , 1975. 2 2 . 192-198.
In te r v ie w e r d is c l o s u r e m odeling, in fo rm a ­
D o s t e r , J . A. & B r o o k s , S . J .
t i o n r e v e a l e d and in t e r v i e w e e v e r b a l b a h a v i o r .
Journal of
C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l . 1 9 7 4 , 42^, 4 2 0 - " 4 2 6 .
N ee d a p p r o v a l , u n c e r t a i n t y , a n x i e t y , a n d
D o s t e r , J . A. & S l a y m a k e r , J .
e x p ec tan cies of in terv iew b eh av io r.
J o u rn a l of C ounseling
P s y c h o l o g y . 1972 , l j l , 5 2 2 - 5 4 6 .
D o s t e r , J . A. & S t r i c k l a n d , B. R.
D isclosing of verbal m a te ria l as a
f u n c t i o n o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i n t e r v i e w e r and i n t e r v i e w e e
d ifferen ces.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a nd C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y .
1971, 37, 187-194.
S e I f - d is c lo s u r e in a sim ulated p s y c h ia tr ic
E d e I m a n , R. I . & S n e a d , R.
in terv iew .
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l . 1972, 3 8 ,
354-358.
R e c i p r o c a l s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e i n a d y a d .
E h r l i c h , H. J . & G r a e v e n , D. B.
J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 1 , 7_, 3 8 9 - 4 0 0 .
E 11 i s on , C. W . , & F i r e s t o n e , I . J .
Developm ent o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t
a s a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m , t a r g e t s t a t u s , and t a r g e t s t y l e .
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o lo g y . 1974, 2 9 .
655-663.
36
F i s c h e r , M. J . , & A p o s t a l , R. A .
S e le c te d v o c a l cues and c o u n s e lo r s '
p e r c e p t i o n s o f g e n u i n e n e s s , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , and a n x i e t y .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 5 , 22^ 9 2 - 9 6 .
F i t z g e r a l d , M. P.
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and e x p r e s s e d s e l f - e s t e e m , s o c i a l
d i s t a n c e and a r e a s of s e l f - r e v e a l e d .
J o u rn a l of P sychology.
1963, 56, 40 5-41 2.
Fromm, E.
Man f o r H i m s e l f .
G a z d a , G. M.
Human R e l a t i o n s
New Y o r k :
R inehard & C o .,
D evelopm ent.
G i a n n a n d r e a , V. & M u r p h y , K. C.
fo r a second in te rv ie w .
20, 545-548.
B oston:
1947.
A lly n & Bacon,
1973.
S i m i l a r i t y a e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e and r e t u r n
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e li n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1973,
H a l v e r s o n , C. F . , J r . , & S h o r e , R. E,
S e I f - d i s c 1o s u r e a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l
fu n ctio n in g .
J o u rn a l of C o n su ltin g and C li n ic a l P sy ch o lo g y .
1969, 33, 21 3 -2 1 7 .
H e i l b r u n , A. B.
H i s t o r y o f s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e i n f e m a le s and e a r l y d e f e c ­
t i o n from p s y c h o th e r a p y .
J o u rn a l o f C ounseling P sy ch o lo g y .
1973, 2 0 , 2 5 0 -2 5 7 .
H e k m a t , H. A T h e i s s , M.
S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n o f
a f f e c t i v e s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e s d u r i n g a B o c i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g i n t e r ­
view .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e lin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1971, 18, 101-105.
H i m e l s t e i n , P . & K i m b r o u g h , W. W . , J r .
A s tu d y o f s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e
the classroom .
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 3 , 55^, 4 3 7 - 4 4 0 .
H i m e l s t e i n , P . , & L u b i n , B.
A ttem pted v a l i d a t i o n of th e S e l f D i s c i p l i n e I n v e n t o r y by t h e P e e r n o m i n a t i o n t e c h n i q u e .
o f P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 5 , 6_1, 1 3 - 1 6 .
in
Journa1
H o l d e r , T . , & C a r k h u f f , R. R.
D if f e r e n t ia l e f f e c t s of the m an ip u latio n
o f t h e r a p e u t i c c o n d i t i o n s upon h i g h - a n d - l o w - f u n c t i o n i n g c l i e n t s .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 7 , 14^ 6 7 - 7 2 .
H o m an s , G. C.
S o cia l B ehavior:
I t s E lem entary Form s.
H a r c o u r t B race J o v a n o v i c h , 1974.
Hood, T.
New York*
C . , & B a c k , K. W.
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d t h e v o l u n t e e r :
A source
of b ia s in la b o ra to ry ex p erim en ts.
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and
S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 1 , 1.7_, 1 3 0 - 1 3 6 .
H o r n e y , K.
N e u r o s i s a n d Human G r o w t h .
1950.
New Y o r k :
W. W. N o r t o n & C o . ,
J a c k s o n , R. H . , 6 P e p i n s k y , H. B.
I n t e r v i e w e r a c t i v i t y and s t a t u s
e f f e c t s upon r e v e a l i n g n e s s i n t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w .
Jo u rn al of
C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1972 , 2fJ, 4 0 0 - 4 0 4 .
37
J a n o f s k y , A. E.
A ffe c tiv e s e I f - d i s c lo su re in te lep h o n e v e rsu s f a c e - t o face in te rv ie w s.
J o u r n a l of H u m an istic P s y c h o lo g y , 1971, 11,
93-103.
J e n n i n g s , F. L.
R e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .
R e p o r t s . 1971, 2 8 , 193-194.
P sychologies 1
J o h n s o n , D. W . , & N o o n a n , M. P .
E f f e c t s o f a c c e p t a n c e and r e c i p r o c a ­
t i o n o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t r u s t .
Journal
of C o u n se lin g P s y c h o lo g y , 1972, ljl, 41 1 -4 1 6 ,
J o h n s o n , D. L . , & R i d e n e r , L. R.
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e , p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and
p e rce iv ed co h esiv e n ess in sm all group i n t e r a c t i o n .
P sychologies 1
R e p o r t s . 1 9 7 4 , 3j>, 3 6 1 - 3 6 2 .
Jones,
E . E . , 6 G o r d o n , E . M.
T im in g o f s e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e and i t s e f f e c t s
on p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n .
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c ia l
P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 2 , 24^ 3 5 8 - 3 6 5 .
Jourard,
S.
M.
S e l f - d i s c l o a u r e and o t h e r c a t h e x i s .
a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 5 9 , 5_9, 4 2 8 - 4 3 1 .
Journal
Jourard,
S.
M.
R e lig io u s denom ination and S e I f - d i s c l o s u r e .
l o g l c a l R e p o r t s . 1 9 6 1 , 8^ 4 4 6 .
Psycho-
Jourard,
S.
M.
The T r a n s p a r e n t S e l f .
R e i n h o l d , 1964.
P rinceton, N .J.:
N ostrand-
Jourard,
S . M.
D i s c l o s i n g Man t o H i m s e l f .
N o s t r a n d - R e in h o l d , 1968.
P rin ceto n , N .J.;
Jourard,
S . M. The i n f l u e n c e s o f e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s d i s c l o s u r e on s u b j e c t ' s
behavior in p sy ch o lo g ical ex p erim en ts.
I n C, S p e l b e r g e r ( E d . ) ,
C u r r e n t t o p i c s i n c l i n i c a l a n d c o m n u n i t y p s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k :
Academic P r e s s , 1969.
Jourard,
S.
M.
The B e g i n n i n g s o f s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e .
S c i e n c e o f P s y c h o t h e r a p y , 1 9 7 0 , 6_, 4 2 - 5 1 .
Jourard,
S. M.
S e I f - d i s c l o s u r e ; An E x p e r i m e n t a l A n a l y s i s o f t h e
T r a n s p a r e n t S e l f . New Y o r k :
W ile y , 1971.
Van
o f Abnorma
Van
V oices;
The A r t a n d
J o u r a r d , S . M . , & F r i e d m a n , R.
E x p e r i m e n t e r - s u b j e c t " d i s t a n c e " and
self-d isclo su re.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y .
1 9 7 0 , _15 , 2 7 8 - 2 8 2 .
Jourard,
S. M ., & J a f f e , P .
In flu en c e of an in te r v ie w e r 's d is c lo s u r e
th e s e lf - d is c l o s u r e behavior of In te rv ie w e e s .
Jo u rn al of
C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 0 , 1_7, 2 5 2 - 2 5 7 .
on
38
Jourard,
S . M . , & L a n d s m a n , M. J .
C o g n it io n , c a t h e x i s and th e " d y a d ic
e f f e c t " in m an’s B e l f - d i s c l o s i n g b e h a v io r.
M e r r l 11-PaImer
Q u a r t e r l y . 1960, 6 , 178-186.
Jourard,
S. M ., & Lasakow, P.
Some f a c t o r s i n s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e .
o f A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 5 8 , 56_, 9 1 - 9 8 .
Jourard,
S . M ., 6 R e s n ic k , J . L.
Some e f f e c t o f s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e among
c o l l e g e women.
J o u r n a l o f H u m a n istic P s y c h o l o g y . 1970, 1 0 ,
84-93.
Jourard,
S . M ., & Richman, P .
D i s c l o s u r e o u tp u t and in p u t in c o l l e g e
stu d en ts,
M e r r i l 1-P alm er Q u a r t e r l y . 1963, 9 , 141-148.
Journal
K a h n , M. H . , & R i d e s t a m , K. E .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l i k i n g a n d
p e r c e i v e d s e 1 f - d i s c 1o s u r e i n s m a l l g r o u p .
Jo u rn a l of P sychology.
1971, 78, 8 1 -8 5 .
K n e c h t , L . , L i p p m a n , D . , & S w a p , W.
S i m i l a r i t y , a t t r a c t i o n , and s e l f ­
d isclo su re.
P r o c e e d i n g s . 8 1 s t A nnual C o n v e n tio n . A m erican
P s y c h o lo g ic a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1973, 205-206.
Kohen, J . A. S.
The d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e c i p r o c a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n
opposite-sex in te ra c tio n .
J o u rn a l of C ounseling P sy ch o lo g y .
1 9 7 5 , 22^, 4 0 4 - 4 1 0 .
K uiken,
D . , R a s m u s s e n , R. V . , & C u l l e n , D.
Some p r e d i c t o r s o f v o l u n t e e r
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n human r e l a t i o n s t r a i n i n g g r o u p s .
P sychologies 1
R e p o r t s , 1 9 7 4 , .35, 4 9 9 - 5 0 4 .
L aw le ss, W ., & N o w ic k i, S,
Role o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l
attractio n .
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l , 1972 , 3(1, 3 0 0 ,
Levy,
Lew is,
S . J . , & A t k i n s , A. L .
An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f d i s c l o s i n g
behavior in a v erb al encounter group.
P ro c e e d in g s , 79th Annual
C o n v e n tio n . A m erican P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 1971, 2 9 7 -2 8 0 ,
P . , & K r a u s , H. H,
P erceived th e ra p e u tic regard as a fu n ctio n of
i n t e r v i e w e e s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e . P r o c e e d i n g s . 7 9 t h A nn u a 1 C o n v e n t i o n .
APA, 1 9 7 1 , 5 8 1 - 5 8 2 .
Lom ranz, J . , & S h a p i r o , A.
C om m unicative p a t t e r n s o f s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e
and to u c h in g b e h a v io r.
The J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 4 , 8 8 ,
223-227.
L u b i n , B . , & H a r r i s o n , R. L .
P r e d i c t i n g sm all group b e h av io r w ith the
S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e I n v e n t o r y , P s y c h o lo g ic a l R e p o r t s . 1964, 15,
77-78.
M a c D o n a l d , A . P . , 6 G a m e s , R. G,
Pilm -m ediated f a c i l i t a t i o n of s e l f d i s c l o s u r e and a t t r a c t i o n t o s e n s i t i v i t y t r a i n i n g .
P sychologies 1
R e p o r t s . 1972, 30, 8 4 7 -8 5 7 .
39
M a c D o n a l d , A . P . , & K e s s e l , V. S .
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d two k i n d s o f
tru st.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 1 9 7 2 , ^30, 1 4 3 - 1 4 8 .
M a n n , B , , & M u r p h y , K. C.
Tim ing o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , r e c i p r o c i t y o f
s e I t - d i s c l o s u r e , and r e a c tio n s t o an i n i t i a l in te r v ie w .
Journa1
o f C o u n s e l i n g , 1 9 7 3 , 22^, 3 0 4 - 3 0 8 .
M arlatt,
G. A.
Exposure to a model and t a s k a m b ig u ity a s d e t e r m in a n ts
of v e rb a l beh av io r in an in te rv ie w .
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u lti n g and
C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y . 1971,
268-276.
M a s l o w , A. H.
M o tiv a tio n and P e r s o n a l i t y .
New Y o r k :
H arper,
1954.
M a t a r a z z o , J , D.
The i n t e r v i e w .
I n W ol ma n, B. B. ( E d , ) , H a n d b o o k o f
C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k :
M c G r a w - H i l l Book C o . , 1 9 6 5 .
M a t e l l , M. S . , & S m i t h , R . E .
A p prov al m o tiv e and academ ic r e i n f o r c e ­
ment h y p o t h e s i s .
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y ,
1970, 35, 229-232 .
M ay, 0 . P . , & T h o m p s o n , C. L .
P erceived le v e ls of s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e ,
m e n ta l h e a l t h , and h e l p f u l n e s s o f g ro u p l e a d e r s .
Journal of
C o u n selin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1973, 2 0 , 349-352.
M c A l l i s t e r , A . , & K i e s l e r , D. J ,
Interview ee d is c lo su re as a fu n ctio n
o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , t a s k m o d e lin g and i n t e r v i e w e r s e l f d isclo su re.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y .
1975, 4 3 , 428.
M c G u i r e , D . , T h e l e n , M. H . , & A m o l s c h , T .
I n t e r v i e w se I f - d i s c l o s u r e a s
a f u n c tio n of le n g th of m odeling and d e s c r i p t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s .
j o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 5 , 43^, 3 5 6 - 3 6 2 .
M o w r e r , 0 . H.
The New G r o u p T h e r a p y .
P rin ceto n :
Van N o s t r a n d ,
M u r p h y , K. C, , 6> S t r o n g , S . R.
Some e f f e c t s o f s i m i l a r i t y s e l f
d isclo su re.
J o u r n a l o f C o u n se lin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1972,
1964.
121-124.
O m e , M. T .
On t h e s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p e r i m e n t :
w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o d em an d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d t h e i r
im p lic atio n .
A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t . 1 9 6 2 , L7, 7 7 6 - 7 8 3 .
Panyard,
C. M.
Journal
S e I f - d i s c l o s u r e betw een f r i e n d s :
A v alid ity
of C o u n se lin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1973, 20, 6 6 -6 8 .
study.
P a s t e r n a c k , T . L . , & L a n d i n g h a m , M. V.
A com parison o f the s e l f ­
d i s c l o s u r e b e h a v i o r o f f e m a l e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s a n d m a r r i e d women.
J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 2 , 82_, 2 3 3 - 2 4 0 .
P e a r c e , W. B . , & W i e b e , B.
R e l a t i o n s h i p w ith and s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e
frien d s.
P e r c e p t u a l and M otor S k i l l s , 1973,
810.
to
40
P e d e r s o n , D. M . , & B r e g l i o , V. J .
P e rs o n a lity c o rr e la te s of a c tu a l
d isclo su re.
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 1 9 6 8 , 22^ 4 9 5 - 5 0 1 ,
Persons,
self­
R. W . , &. M a r k s , P . A.
S e lf - d is c lo s u re w ith r e c i d i v i s t s :
O pti m um i n t e r v i e w e r - i n t e r v i e w e e m a t c h i n g .
J o u r n a l o f Abnormal
P s y c h o lo g y , 1970,
387-391 .
P o w e l l , W. J .
D if fe re n tia l e ffe c tiv e n e s s of in terv iew er in te rv e n tio n s
in an e x p e rim e n te r in t e r v ie w .
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g and C l i n i c a l
P s y c h o lo g y , 1968, 32, 2 10-215.
R i b n e r , N. G.
E f f e c t s o f a n e x p l i c i t g ro u p c o n t r a c t on s e I f - d i s c l o a u r e
and group c o h e s i v e n e s s .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e lin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1974,
2J_, 1 1 6 - 1 2 0 .
Rinm, D. C . , & M a s t e r s , J . C.
B ehavior Therapy:
T echniques and E m p iric a l
F i n d i n g s . New Y o r k :
Academic P r e s s , 1974.
R o g e r s , C. R.
The c o n c e p t
m a n u s c r i p t , 1955.
of the
fu lly
functioning
person.
U npublished
R o g e r s , C. R.
The n e c e s s a r y a n d s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e r a p e u t i c
p e rs o n a lity change.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u ltin g P s y c h o lo g y . 1957, 2 1 .
95-103.
R o s e n t h a l , R.
Experim enter e f f e c t s in b eh av io r r e s e a r c h .
A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1966.
New Y o r k :
R y c k m a n , R. M . , S h e r m a n , M. F . , & B u r g e s s , G. D.
Locus o f c o n t r o l and
s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e o f p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e i n f o r m a t i o n by c o l l e g e men
a n d women:
a b r ie f n o te.
J o u r n a l of P s y c h o lo g y . 1973, 8 4,
317-318.
Sarason,
I . G . , G a n z e r , V. J . , & S i n g e r , M.
E f f e c t s o f modeled s e l f ­
d i s c l o s u r e on t h e v e r b a l b e h a v i o r o f p e r s o n s d i f f e r i n g i n
d efen siv en ess.
J o u r n a l o f C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l . 1972, 3 9 .
483-490.
S e l y e , H.
P h y s io lo g y and p a th o lo g y o f e x p o s u re
A cta P r e s s , 1950.
Serm at,
to s t r e s s .
M ontreal:
V . , & S m y t h , M.
C ontent a n a l y s i s o f v e r b a l com m unication i n th e
developm ent o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p :
C onditions in flu e n c in g s e l f ­
disclo su re.
J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y . 1973,
26 . 3 3 2 - 3 4 6 .
S h a p i r o , J . G . , K r a u s s , H. H . , & T r u a x , C. B.
T herapeutic c o n d itio n s
and d i s c l o s u r e beyond t h e t h e r a p e u t i c e n c o u n t e r .
Journal of
C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 9 , JJ&, 2 9 0 - 2 9 4 .
41
S h i m k u n a s , A. M.
Demand f o r i n t i m a t e s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e a n d p a t h o l o g i c a l
v e r b a l iz a t io n s in s c h iz o p h re n ia .
J o u r n a l of Abnormal P s y c h o lo g y .
1972, 80, 197-205.
S ilv er,
R. J .
E f f e c t s o f s u b j e c t s t a t u s and i n t e r v i e w e r re s p o n s e program
on s u b j e c t s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e i n s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t e r v i e w s .
P ro­
c e e d i n g s , 7 8 t h C o n v e n t i o n . APA. 1 9 7 0 , 5 3 9 - 5 4 0 .
S i m o n s o n , N. R . , & B a h r , S .
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e by t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l and
p arap ro fessio n a1 th e ra p is t.
J o u r n a l of C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l .
1974, 4 2 , 350-363.
S o t e , G. A . , & G o o d , L. R.
S i m i l a r i t y o f s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e and i n t e r ­
personal a ttr a c tio n .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1 9 7 4 , 34^ 4 9 4 - 4 9 4 .
S o u s a - P o z a , J . F . , S h u l m a n , E . , 6. R o h r b e r g , R.
F i e l d d e p e n d e n c e and
s e 1 f - d i s c l o s u r e . P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , 1 9 7 3 , 36^, 7 3 5 - 7 3 8 .
S t a n l e y , G . , & B o v m e s , A. F .
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and n e u r o t i c i s m .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s . 1 9 6 6 , 1_8, 3 5 0 .
S u l l i v a n , H. S.
The i n t e r p e r s o n a l T h e o ry o f P s y c h i a t r y .
W. W. N o r t o n & C o . , 1 9 5 3 .
New Y o r k :
T a y l o r , D. A . , & A l t m a n , I .
In tim a c y -s c a le d s tim u li for use in s tu d ie s
of in terp erso n al re la tio n s .
P s y c h o lo g ic a l R e p o r t s , 1966, 19,
729-730.
T a y l o r , D. A . , A l t m a n , I . , 6 S o r r e n t i n o , R.
I n te r p e r s o n a l exchange as a
f u n c t i o n o f re w a rd s and c o s t s and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ;
expec­
tancy c o n f ir r a a tio n - d is c o n f ir m a tio n . J o u rn a l of E xperim ental
S o c i a 1 P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 9 , 5^, 3 2 4 - 3 3 9 .
T aylor,
D, A . , & O b e r l a n d e r , L .
P e r s o n - p e r c e p t i o n and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e :
M o t i v a t i o n a l m echanism s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p r o c e s s e s .
Journal of
E x p e r im e n ta l R esearc h i n P e r s o n a l i t y . 1969, 4 , 1 4-28 .
T a y l o r , D. A . , W h e e l e r , L . , & A l t m a n , I .
S e 1f - d i s c l o s u r e i n i s o l a t e d
groups.
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c ia l P s y c h o lo g y . 1973, 2 6 .
39-47.
T o o l e y , J . T. & P r a t t , S.
An e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e e x t i n c t i o n
o f smoking b e h a v i o r .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e c o r d , 1 9 6 7 , 1_7, 2 0 9 - 2 1 8 .
Truax,
C. B.
R ein fo rc e m e n t and n o n r e in f o r c e m e n t i n R o g e ria n p s y c h o ­
th erap y .
J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 6 6 , 7_1, 1 - 9 ,
T r u a x , C. B.
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , g e n u in e n e s s and th e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a ­
tio n sh ip .
C o u n selo r E d u c a tio n and S u p e r v i s i o n . 1971, 1 0 .
351-354,
42
Truax,
C. B . , & C a r k h u f f , R. R.
C lie n t and t h e r a p i s t tra n s p a r e n c y in
the p sy ch o th era p eu tic e n c o u n te r.
J o u r n a l of C ounseling P sy ch o lo g y .
1965, 12, 3 - 9 .
T r u a x , C. B . , & W i t t m e r , J .
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p e r s o n a l i t y a d ju stm e n t.
J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l . 1 9 7 1 , 2_7, 5 3 5 - 5 3 7 .
V o n d r a c e k , S . F . W . , & M a r s h a l l , M. J .
tru st;
An e x p l o r a t o r y s t u d y .
235-240.
W eigel,
S e1f - d i s c l o s u r e and i n t e r p e r s o n a l
P s y c h o lo g ie s 1 R e p o r t s . 1971, 2 8 .
R. G . , D i n g e s , N . , D y e r , R . , & S t r a u m f j o r d , A . A.
Perceived
s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e , m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d who i s l i k e d i n g r o u p t r e a t ­
m ent.
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e l i n g , 1972 ,
47-52.
W e x l e r , D. A. & B u t l e r , J . M.
T h erap ist m o d ificatio n of c lie n t e x p re s­
siveness in c lie n t-c e n te re d therapy.
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s u ltln g and
C l i n i c a l P s y c h o lo g y , 1976, 4 4 , 261-265.
W i l s o n , M. N . , & R a p p a p o r t , J .
P e rs o n a l s e I f - d i s c l o s u r e ; E xpectancy
and s i t u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s .
J o u r n a l of C o n s u lti n g and C l i n i c a l
P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 4 , 42^, 9 0 1 - 9 0 8 .
Wolraan, B. B.
P sychoanalytic T echniques.
New Y o r k ;
B asic Books,
1967.
W o r t h y , M . , G a r y , A. L . , & K a h n , G, M.
S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e as an exchange
process.
J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1969,
±3, 59-63.
W r i g h t , W.
C o u n s e lo r dogm atism , w i l l i n g n e s s to d i s c l o s e , and c l i e n t s '
em pathy r a t i n g s .
J o u r n a l o f C o u n s e lin g P s y c h o l o g y . 1975, 2 2 .
390-340.
a p p e n d i c e s
44
APPENDIX A
A t t r a c t i o n V a r i a b l e s a n d SD
Review o f r e s e a r c h
be c o r r e l a t e d
to
lik in g
J o u r a r d and Landsman,
Female s e l f - r a t i n g s
were n e g a t i v e l y
attractiv en ess
the p a rt o f
fem a le th a n m ale s u b j e c t s
1971).
Perhaps a t t r a c t i v e
co n strain ts
not co rrela ted
These r e s u l t s
th at
so cial
l i k i n g and t h e r e f o r e
(1973)
in a group o f c l i n i c a l
found d e g r e e
sk ills
(BLRI) i t e m s .
(1969)
s o c i a l exchange
theory in
outcome w hich p ro d u c e s
Over t e n t r i a l s
of note p a s s in g ,
c o r r e l a t e d and s u b j e c t s
to those
lik in g
tended
f r o m whom t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d
and S o rre n tln o
(1969) p ro p o sed an e x p a n s io n of s o c i a l e x c h a n g e ,
proceeds
from
f r i e n d was
(W orthy, e t a l . ,
theory,
on
(K ah n & R u d e a t a m ,
com m unications
p en etratio n
for
psychology
o f SD t o b e s t
p erceived as a p o s itiv e
s u b s e q u e n t SD.
inform ation
of m ales
rein fo rcers
p r e s u m e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n SD a n d
l i k i n g a n d SD w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
more I n t i m a t e
1971).
upon m ale d i s c l o s u r e .
p o s t u l a t e d by W orthy, Gary and K a h n 's
w h i c h r e c e p t i o n o f SD i s
1959;
m ales w ere d i s i n h i b i t e d
to B arrett-L en n ard R e la tio n sh ip In ventory
co n trad ict
to
(physical a ttr a c tiv e n e s s )
s t u d e n t s w as n o t b a s e d on s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n
P e a r c e a n d Wiebe
(Jourard,
le ss developm ent o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l
R e la tio n s h ip developm ent
graduate
lik ely
The o p p o s i t e w a s t r u e
A uthors sp e c u la te d
in
i s more
1975; E h r l i c h & G ra e v e n ,
t o SD, h o w e v e r .
1975).
fem ales.
that d isclo su re
of an a t t r a c t i o n v a r ia b le
resu lted
assumed c u l t u r a l
for
1960; Kohen,
related
(Cash & S o l l o w a y ,
In d icates
1969; C e r t n e r ,
1973).
i n w hich grow th o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l
to send
In tim ate
T aylor,, A ltm an
so cial
relatio n sh ip s
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and g r a d u a l l y a s a f u n c tio n o f re w a r d /c o s t
us
facto rs,
perso n ality
A ccording
al.
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s i t u a t i o n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s .
t o D e r le g a , H a r r i s and C h alk en (1973) r e s u l t s
( 1 9 6 9 ) c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d s u p p o r t i v e
because a u th o rs did
not
prove th a t
o u t p u t w as d e p e n d e n t u p o n
sized n e c e s s ity
duced extrem e
lik in g .
o f s o c i a l exchange
D erlega, e t a l . ,
b e t w e e n SD i n p u t a n d
To s p e c i f i c a l l y
exam ine th e h y p o t h e ­
a u t h o r s have i n t r o ­
l e v e l s and " d e v i a n t " c o n f e d e r a t e s
1973 a , b ) .
theory
the c o r r e l a t i o n
f o r SD t o b e a c c o m p a n i e d by l i k i n g ,
in tim acy
o f W orthy, e t
D erlega, e t a l .
(C ozby, 1972;
(1973a) p a ir e d
fem ale
u n d e r g r a d u a t e s w i t h s a m e - s e x c o n f e d e r a t e s who r e v e a l e d
hav in g been
c a u g h t by m o t h e r i n a s e x u a l a c t w i t h e i t h e r a m a l e o r
fem ale
condition)
p artn er.
in fo rm atio n
to the d e v ia n t o th e r ,
as n o n -d ev ian t,
suggested,
b u tiv e
attractio n ,
in tim ate
m ediates
p artn ers.
(1965) e q u i t y
o th er.
S im ilarity ,
lik in g alo n e,
ratio s.
closure
N ow icki,
1973).
is
S ubjects
tend
a t a com parable
1972;
S o te A Good,
A ttractio n
l i k e h e r a s much
R e c i p r o c a l SD,
t h e o r y o r Homans
the a u th o rs
(1974) d i s t r i ­
o f outcom es, r a t h e r
than
is
SD t o
SD.
possibly
S i m i l a r S D ' s may c u e i n d i v i d u a l s
cost
though th e y d id not
t o SD c o n t i n g e n t u p o n l i k i n g
o f the
than
t o d i s c l o s e more i n t i m a t e
f o r m u l a tio n i n w hich e q u a l i t y
R elated
factors
high
f o l l o w s Adams
Ju stice
sim ilarity
S u b j e c t s were w i l l i n g
(deviant
for
exam ined by a s k i n g s u b j e c t s
observing a s itu a tio n .
fo llow ing T a y lo r, e t a l .
to p o s s i b i l i t y
of p ro fita b le
lik in g
( S e r m a t 6> S m y t h ,
1 9 7 4 ; Murphy & S t r o n g ,
in ap p ro p riate
lin k in g
h o w e v e r , may i n v o l v e m o r e c o m p l e x
tow ard g r e a t e r
lev el
the a re a
(1969).
rew ard/
f o r one whose d i s ­
1973;
1974;
law less 6
K necht, e t a l . ,
or unusual d i s c l o s e r has been
t o make j u d g e m e n t s a f t e r
D l s c l o s e r s were b e t t e r
liked
reading about or
if
they delayed
in
46
r e v e a l i n g good f o r t u n e w h e th e r r e s p o n s i b l e
bad f o r t u n e ,
l i k i n g w as g r e a t e r
e a r l y , w hile v ic tim s
G ordon,
1972).
C haiken and D erleg a
between s t r a n g e r s
it
low i n t i m a t e
follow ed
for so cial
p en etratio n
dem onstrated
in p u t,
but
A uthors
theory;
th at w illin g n ess
e v e n when t h a t
s tra n g e r's
liked
if
(1974 a , b )
was v i e w e d a s
"w a r m " when n o n - r e c i p r o c a l .
how ever,
in case o f
I f a re sp o n sib le person rev ealed
o f f a t e w ere b e t t e r
inform ation
or not;
they delayed
found t h a t
it
(Jones &
high in tim a te
in a p p ro p riate, esp ecially
p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere p e r c e iv e d a s
In terp reted
how ever,
these r e s u lts
D erlega, e t a l ,
if
less
as su p p o rt
(1971 a , b )
t o SD t o a s t r a n g e r c o u l d b e v e r y h i g h
b eh av io r, as according
to
these
s t u d i e s , would
be se e n a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e .
Trust
d isclo sin g
su b jects
has been c o r r e l a t e d w ith
behavior.
SD a n d m e a s u r e d a s a f u n c t i o n
T r u s t may n o t b e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
em ploying r a t i n g
scales;
consequently,
fro m l i k i n g by
tru st
is
probably b e t t e r
a s s e s s e d by p e r f o r m a n c e o r i e n t e d
in stru m en ts such as P r is o n e r 's
game
SD h a s b e e n sh own c o r r e l a t e d
(M acDonald, e t a l . ,
1972).
d e p e n d e n t upon p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p h y s i c a l
(J o u ra rd & F riedm an,
"d istan ce"
1970; Jo h n so n & Noonan,
of
Dilemma
to t r u s t
of the o th e r
1972),
T h e ra p y and T h e r a p y A n a lo g u e s
SD on t h e p a r t
ta n t,
role
if
not v i t a l ,
of help seek ers
Interview ers
Rogers
situ a tio n s
param eters
o f SD a n d / o r
seem t o e l i c i t
process.
R e s e a r c h on t h e
or analogues atte m p ts
p o ssessing a f a c i l i t a t i v e
(1957),
f r e q u e n t ly c o n s id e re d an im por­
component o f t h e r a p e u t i c
o f SD i n t h e r a p e u t i c
p re c is e ly d efin e
is
facilitate
its
t o more
occurrence.
m a n n e r , a s o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d by
g reater clien t
tran sp aren cy
(S hapiro, e t a l . .
47
1969; H o l d e r , e t a l . ,
1967);
however,
Lewis and K rau s
I n d u c t i o n o f SD by a s k i n g p e r s o n a l q u e s t i o n s
resu lted
in hig h er ra tin g
(1971)
of th e ir
found t h a t
fem ale s u b j e c t s
o f i n t e r v i e w e r s on BLRl, t h u s
cause and e f f e c t
rem ain u n d e te rm in e d .
M odeling o f s e I f - e x p l o r a t i o n h a s p ro v e n an e f f e c t i v e means o f p r o ­
ducing or
in creasin g
levelB
o f SD.
E f f e c t s a r e v a r a i b l e w hen c o u n s e l o r /
in te rv ie w e r v a ria b le s are considered a p a rt
Jourard
(1959,
1964,
c lie n t d isclo su re.
interview er
sio n .
1971) f e l t
There i s
in tru d es h im self,
t o SD t o r e f l e c t i v e
in terv iew ee v erb al
how ever,
that
the
l e s s an
t h e more p e r s o n a l w i l l be c l i e n t d i s c u s ­
(1974)
rath er
found fem a le c o l l e g e
than
in tru siv e
s t u d e n t s m or e
tap ed m odels.
Rated
b e h a v i o r was p e r c e i v e d a s more d i s c l o s i n g g i v e n
im personal p r e - in te r v ie w
w ith
r o le m odeling.
t h e r a p i s t d i s c l o s u r e was a means t o
some e v i d e n c e ,
E l l i s o n and F i r e s t o n e
w illin g
from c l i e n t
ta p es of the e x p erim e n ter;
low r e p o r t e d SD h i s t o r i e s w e r e a t t r a c t e d
how ever,
subjects
t o p e r s o n a l model
(D oster
& S trick lan d ,
1971).
Simonson and Bahr
these
finding
SD g r e a t e r when t h e r a p i s t m o d e l l e d d i s c l o s u r e w as
resu lts
dem ographic;
h o w e v e r , when m o d e l l e d SD w as p e r s o n a l i n n a t u r e ,
p ro fesalo n al th e ra p is t e lic ite d
E l lis o n and F ir e s to n e
not m a n ip u la te h i s
a "clin ical
(1974) e s s e n t i a l l y d u p lic a te d
SD l e v e l .
counselor"
para-
m o r e SD t h a n p r o f e s s i o n a l .
(1974) v a r i e d
in terv iew er
s t a t u s but did
They found g r e a t e r w i l l i n g n e s s
to d isc lo se
th a n an u n d e rg ra d u a te p sychology m a jo r.
and Snead
( 1 9 7 2 ) d i s c o v e r e d no d i f f e r e n c e s
according
t o w h e t h e r t h e r a p i s t was d e s c r i b e d a s p s y c h i a t r i s t , p s y c h o l o ­
g ist
or p s y c h i a t r i c
d isclo su re
to
s o c ia l w orker.
fem ale c o u n s e lo r s
Brooks
in w illin g n ess
Edelman
(1974) a l s o
of d if f e r in g
statu s
to d isc lo se
found e q u i v a l e n t
le v els.
M a le
48
counselors,
esp ecially
how ever,
if
d ifferen ces,
s u b j e c t s were m a le .
it
T elephone in te r v ie w s
t h o u g h s t a t u s w as n o t m a n i p u l a t e d
T herapist
paring
r e c e i v e d g r e a t e r SD u n d e r h i g h s t a t u s
SD m o d e l l i n g w a s s e e n a s
t o c o n t r o l s a n d w ar m ,
a n d t o no m o d e l c o n t r o l s
found n e g a t i v e
only
s e 1f - r e f e r e n c e s
C ounselor d i s c l o s u r e
freq u en tly
(Mann & M u r p h y ,
& Pepinsky
(1972) v a r i e d
i n t e r v i e w e r SD, a n d
In a d d itio n
on d i s c l o s i n g
or
were
D o s t e r and S la y m a k e r
sh ift
When s u b j e c t s w e r e a s k e d
(1971)
given
w ithout
too
Jackson
regard
to
d isclo su re.
is
found s u p e r i o r
(1975)
found
o f SD.
to in s tr u c ­
long
than sh o rt
A uthors concluded
c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y and t h e r e ­
(1972) co n clu d ed
a taped
t o SD o v e r i n s t r u c t i o n s a l o n e
but did
l e s s SD w i t h i n c r e a s i n g
to d isc lo se
on a r e a s
topic
o th e r th a n those
f o u n d m o r e p r o b l e m a d m i s s i o n t h a n w h en s u b j e c t s
t o m odelled t o p i c s .
attitu d es
if
th at
tow ard
g r o u p e x p e r i e n c e s was f a c i l i t a t e d
tive
(1968)
1973).
p ro d u c e d more s e l f - r e f e r e n c e s
long and s h o r t d e s c r i p t i o n s
i n a more g r a d u a l
lim ited
how ever,
lev el,
M cG uire, e t a l .
model d id no t i n c r e a s e w i l l i n g n e s s
m odelled, M a rla tt
1973)
by i n t e r v i e w e r r e f l e c -
to produce d i f f e r e n t i a l
in c re a s in g a dem onstration in creased
Intim acy.
Pow ell
19 7 3 ; G i a n n a n d r e a & M u r p h y ,
behavior.
dem onstrative
resu lt
1974).
not e f f e c t i v e ,
In g e n e ra l, m odelling
in stru ctio n s
fore re sp o n siv e n e ss.
com­
t o i n t e r v i e w e r p a r a m e t e r s , SD r e s e a r c h a l s o e x a m i n e s
dem onstrative
th a t
in s tu d ie s
b u t n o t by a p p r o v a 1 - s u p p o r t i v e
in terv iew er a c t iv it y
failed
a sp e c ts of m odelling.
tions
is
1971).
(Bundza & S im o n s o n ,
be i n c r e a s e d
L i o n - r e s t a t e m e n t and open d i s c l o s u r e
rem arks.
facilitativ e
(D o ster & Brook,
could
p ro d u ced no sex
(Janofsky,
s u p p o r t i v e model
co n d itio n s,
D esire to p a r ti c ip a te
by e x p o s u r e t o
film s
in d isclo sin g
presen tin g p o s i­
t o w a r d SD v e r s u s n e u t r a l o r n e g a t i v e o p i n i o n s ;
how ever,
49
view ing t r u s t
e x e r c i s e s a l o n e was j u s t
as e ffe c tiv e
(M a c D o n a ld & Games
<1972).
D isclosing
ences.
i n d i v i d u a l ’s p e r c e p t i o n o f e x p e r i ­
P erceiv ed group co h e siv e n e ss has been r e l a t e d
in group
(1971),
behavior in flu e n c e s
(Johnson & R id e n e r,
however,
19 6 4 ;
S ilv er
(1970) r e p o r t e d d i f f e r e n t i a l
s u b je c ts ’ p ercep tio n of th e ir
sta tu s as co n trib u to rs
C o u n selin g psychology s tu d e n ts
d i s c l o s i n g when t h e y e m p l o y e d u n f i l l e d
(F ischer & A p o sta l,
more c o m p e te n t and
d isclo sin g
Levy and A t k i n s
f o u n d m o re n e g a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f e n c o u n t e r g r o u p b y
high d i a c l o s e r s .
train in g .
R ib n e r, 1974).
to high d is c l o s i n g
1975).
T rainees
so p h isticated ,
in th erap y
rated
rath er
SD a c c o r d i n g t o
to in te rv ie w e r's
f e m a le c l i e n t s a s more
than f i l l e d
in c lin ic a l
pauses
p s y c h o lo g y w ere jud g ed
b u t n o t more m a t u r e , when t h e y w ere
(A nchor, e t a l . ,
1976).
D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f SD i n t h e r a p y i n v o l v e s a n i n t e r w e a v i n g o f many
factors a risin g
o th e r and the
P erso n ality
from c l i e n t s ,
co u n selo rs,
each o n e 's p e rc e p tio n of the
situ atio n .
C o r r e l a t e s o f SD
Due t o e q u i v o c a l
resu lts
of s tu d ie s m anipulating
m e t e r s o f SD, r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s o u g h t p e r s o n a l i t y
o f the
g ic a lly closed
about
co rrelates
s t u d i e s m i g h t be c a t e g o r i z e d a s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
psychological defense as re la te d
in d iv id u als are
them selves
(Sarason,
(H alverson & S hore,
passin g e x e rc ise
1969).
th at
to d isclo su re.
lik ely
to rep o rt
e t a l , f 1972) and
D efensive
less
less
o f SD.
para­
Many
o f m odels o f
or p sycholo­
negative
inform ation
r e p o r t e d SD i n g e n e r a l
W o r t h y , G a r y a n d Kah n ( 1 9 6 9 )
SD w a s n o t r e l a t e d
situ atio n al
found i n a n o te
to a u th o rita ria n ism
but th at
50
au th o ritarian s
tended to in c r e a s e
t h e y had eye c o n t a c t w i t h th e
lik in g w ith d is c lo s u r e s
source.
C ounselees tend
dogm atic c o u n s e lo r s a s p o s s e s s in g g r e a t e r co n g ru e n c e ,
p o sitiv e
r e g a r d and em pathy
(W right,
1975).
to see
if
low
u nconditional
R e s u l t s may b e c o n t r a r y
h y p o t h e s i s w h en s u b j e c t s a r e o n l y i m a g i n i n g w h a t
1974).
received
t h e y m i g h t do
(Baldw in,
I n d i v i d u a l s who d e n y p r o b l e m s m i g h t a l s o d e n y t h e e x i s t e n c e
a r e a s a b o u t w hich th e y a r e
not w illin g
to d isc lo se
to
of
in an Im aginary
s i t ua t i o n .
Need a p p r o v a l h a s b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d
flictin g
resu lts:
S trick lan d ,
jects
m ediate
1971), g r e a t e r
1975), g r e a t e r
SD i f
n e e d a p p r o v a l was h i g h o r
SD i n h o s p i t a l i z e d
1963).
ch aracteristics
su b jects are
(E lliso n & F iresto n e,
A ffectiv e
by v e r b a l
co ntrolled
persons
H a l v e r s o n and S h o re
to reported
personal
SD.
tru st,
1974).
I t m ight
(V ondracek & M a r s h a l l ,
be e x p e c t e d
th at
t o be m o r e a c t u a l i z e d a n d i n n e r p e rs o n s were not m a n ip u la te d
(Hekmat & T h e i s s ,
1971) and I n t e r n a l l y
(Ryckman, e t
(1969) s u c c e s s f u l l y c o r r e l a t e d
was n o t c o r r e l a t e d
1970).
c o m p l i c a t e d by t a r g e t
r e p o r t g r e a t e r JSDQ s c o r e s
A nother p o s i t i v e
less w ritte n
fo u n d t o be more d i s c l o s i n g
SD' s o f s e l f - a c t u a l i z e d
co n d itio n in g procedures
1972), and
(Burhenne & M ire l a ,
S elf-esteem r e s u lt s are
p e r s o n s h i g h i n s e l f - e s t e e m would te n d
directed .
low a n d s u b ­
p s y c h o tic s having i n t e r ­
(Anchor, e t a l . ,
SD a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h n e e d a p p r o v a l
High s e l f - e s t e e m
(D oster &
on a m e a s u r e o f u n c e r t a i n t y a n x i e t y
s c o r e s on n e e d a p p r o v a l
(F itzg erald ,
t o SD w i t h c o n ­
n o c l e a r p a t t e r n o f SD w i t h n e e d a p p r o v a l
had a m a tc h in g p o s i t i o n
(D oster,
related
a l.,
co n cep tu al com plexity
p erso n ality c h a ra c te ristic ,
to reported
past
1973).
SD t o b e s t
in ter­
friend
1971) n o r j u d g e s e v a l u a t i o n s o f i n t e r v i e w
SD
51
(M cA llister & K ie s le r ,
salien t
1974).
O th e rs found p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s
t o SD t h a n s i t u a t i o n a l m a n i p u l a t i o n
B e c k e r & Muzz,
(C h ittic k & H im elstein ,
of p erso n ality ,
such as
o f SD,
less
s p e c i f i c a l l y determ ined as
in carceratio n ,
relig io u s
p e r c e p t u a l modes and v o l u n t e e r i n g h a v e b e e n s t u d i e d .
(1970)
m atched
found g r e a t e r
JSDQ s c o r e s w e r e u n r e l a t e d
to d iag n o sis
a s human h a v e b e e n p o s i t i v e l y
related
T aylor
These
& O b erlander,
1969).
of high d i s c l o s e r s .
g o in g and g r e g a r i o u s ,
to
1968).
r e c o g n i z e am biguous
t o SD ( S o u s a - P o z a , e t a l . ,
findings
suggest a c e rta in
fig u res
1973;
sen si­
F ie ld d ep en d en ts have been d e s c r ib e d as o u t ­
T a y lo r and O b e r l a n d e r 's
w ere n o t o n l y more p r o f i c i e n t a t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g
to p e rc e iv e anim ate
or offen se category
(Brodsky & K o m a rld ls ,
BoLh f i e l d d e p e n d e n c y a n d a b i l i t y
lik e ly
P e r s o n s a n d Marks
In m a te p a t h o l o g y was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g r e a t e r
in an o th er study w ith p ris o n e rs
tiv ity
b eliefs,
i n t i m a c y when i n t e r v i e w e r MMPI c o d e e l e v a t i o n s
those of in m ates.
d isclo su re.
1967;
1975).
M ore " s i t u a t i o n a 1" a s p e c t s
q u alities
less
than inanim ate
(1969) d i s c l o s i n g
facial
su b jects
c u e s b u t a l s o more
f i g u r e s w he n t h e
tw o w e r e
superim posed.
M ale v o l u n t e e r s
fem ale v o l u n t e e r i n g
(Hood & B a c k ,
is
1971).
f o r a weekend T -g ro u p
R eligious
r e p o r t more p a s t
related
SD t h a n n o n v o l u n t e e r s , w h e r e a s
t o SD d e p e n d e n t u p o n t y p e o f e x p e r i m e n t
JSDQ r e s p o n s e s w e r e f o u n d u n r e l a t e d
(K uiken, e t a l . ,
to v o lu n teerin g
1974).
l i b e r a l i s m was n o t r e l a t e d
t o JSDQ ( J e n n i n g s ,
1971) n o r
was r e l i g i o u s d e n o m i n a t i o n , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n t h a t J e w i s h m a l e s w e re more
d isclo sin g
th an B a p t i s t , M eth o d ist and C a th o lic m ales
S tudy o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p
(Jourard,
1961).
b e t w e e n SD a n d p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s
52
w o u l d p r o b a b l y b e n e f i t by m a k i n g SD s i t u a t i o n s m o r e r e a l i s t i c
a n d b y m e a s u r i n g SD i n w ay s o t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h r e p o r t e d
tic a lly ,
It
in flu en ce
seems t h a t a s p e c t s
SD i f
and p o te n t
p a s t SD.
P rac­
o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l d e f e n s i v e n e s s w ould
such d e f e n s i v e n e s s were s u c c e s s f u l l y a r o u s e d .
Sex D i f f e r e n c e s
One o f t h e e a r l y
is
th at
fem ales
fin d in g s
i n SD r e s e a r c h ,
r e p o r t more d i s c l o s u r e
th a n m ales
1 9 5 8 ; Hood & B a c k ,
1971; Ryckman, e t a l . ,
Lomranz & S h a p i r o ,
1974; H i m e l s t e i n & L u b i n ,
1960;
1974;J o u r a r d & Richm an,
1968).
Sote & Good,
1973;
w hich i s
still
(JourarJ
& Lasakow,
Bath & D aly,
1965;
1963;
Jourard
f e m a l e s d o n o t d i f f e r among t h e m s e l v e s b y r e l i g i o n
1961);
SD t o
how ever,
S t a n l e y & Bownes
fem ale o r m ale
fem ale S D ),
gested
for
DeLeon, e t a l .
sc o re s accounted
according
frien d
for in a b ility
sex d if f e r e n c e s
fem ale s u b j e c t s
of peers
reported
a s do m ales
(thus
th at
there
SD l e v e l ,
(Jourard,
SD l e v e l .
SD r e f l e c t
upon m ale b e h a v i o r w hich a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
is
to
range in
le ss d is p e rs io n of
to d i f f e r e n t i a t e
low r e p o r t e d
in re p o rte d
&B regleo,
found n e u r o tl c is m c o r r e l a t e d
(1970) co n clu d ed
t o h i g h , m e d iu m o r
th at
(1966)
1970;
& Landsman,
Pederson
Perhaps because of a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y h ig h e r
current,
fem ale s u b j e c t s
Jourard
cu ltu ral
(1964) s u g ­
co n strain ts
l e s s em pathy and i n s i g h t and
even e a r l i e r d e a th .
Sex d i f f e r e n c e s
For I n s ta n c e ,
in a ctu al d isc lo sin g
b o th D avis and S lo a n
found t h a t m ales d e s c r ib e d
n or m t h a n d i d
th eir
s i t u a t i o n s a r e more v a r i a b l e .
( 1 9 7 4 ) a n d S e r m a t a n d Smy th
(1973)
own d i s c l o s u r e a s b e i n g m o r e b e y o n d t h e
fe m a le s t h o u g h f e m a l e s a c t u a l l y w ere more d i s c l o s i n g .
P erh ap s m ales a r e
less
s e 1f - r e v e a l i n g
in
fam iliar
so cial s itu a tio n s ;
53
h o w e v e r , K oh en
recordings
B reglio
(1975)
found no s e x d i f f e r e n c e s
o r i g i n a l l y made f o r a s t u d y o n a t t r a c t i o n .
(1968) co n c lu d e d
of s im ila r
length but
C ertner
th at
f e m a l e s w ere more p e r s o n a l .
(1973)
More f r e q u e n t l y ,
f o u n d no s e x d i f f e r e n c e s
lik in g
is
1975; J o u r a r d & Landsm an,
self-ratin g s
d isclo sin g
correlated
1960).
liking
Cas h a n d S o l l o w a y
for
passing
(1975)
or in
study.
su b jects
(Kohen,
found t h a t
t o SD f o r m a l e s
s e l f was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
d isclo sin g
conditions.
(1970)
found
fem ale s u b j e c t s had
i n t e r v i e w c o n d i t i o n s moved f r o m d i s c l o s i n g
w ith eye c o n t a c t ;
to an i n t e r v i e w e r
w hereas m ales
Brooks
(1974)
that
Both m a le s and
f e m a l e s w ere more d i s c l o s i n g
view ers e l i c i t e d
found fem ale
g reater
but
that
sex of In te rv ie w e r
no e f f e c t
on m a l e o r
fem ale
situ atio n s
more r e v e a l i n g
than
are
su b jects.
to
( E d e l m a n &. S n e a d ,
1972).
to d isc lo su re
these
of in terv iew er.
fem ale i n t e r v i e w e r .
co n d itio n s.
statu s
in
(w ithout
was h i g h .
telephone
Male i n t e r ­
Janofsky
(1971)
in te rv ie w s w ith
s ta tu s m anip u latio n )
A pparently d if f e r e n t
s a li e n t according to su b ject
f e m a l e s when t o l d
to a tape
tim e a c r o s s
w ith s ta tu s
under high s t a t u s
s u b j e c t s w ere more d i s c l o s i n g
strangers
co n fid en tial
sex i n t e r a c t e d
SD when t h e i r
less d i s ­
f e m a l e s w ere n o t more d i s c l o s i n g
th at
M a le s w ere more d i s c l o s i n g
roam,
increased d is c lo su re
found
su b ject
in another
than m ales but
d isclo sin g
fem ale
level
behavior.
tim e a s
recorder,
in a note
t o SD f o r
or a t t r a c t i o n
J o u r a r d and Friedm an
closure
received
in in tim acy
o f p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s were r e l a t e d
th u s a type o f
P e d e rs o n and
fem a les and m a le s w ro te s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s
lik in g as a fu n c tio n of d is c lo s u r e s
only,
i n j u d g e d SD o n t a p e
sex.
asp e c ts of
M ales were
i n f o r m a t i o n m i g h t n o t be k e p t
C haiken and D e rle g a
h ad
(1974 b)
54
concluded
p riate,
th a t alth o u g h both
f e m a l e s w e r e e v e n m o re r e s p o n s i v e
F urther support
finding
gent
sexes perceived
that
for th is
SD t o a s t r a n g e r a s i n a p p r o ­
to s i t u a t i o n a l c o n tin g e n c ie s .
t h e o r y comes from S o t e and G o o d 's
(1974)
f e m a l e s p e r c e i v e a s i m i l a r d i s c l o s i n g o t h e r a s more i n t e l l i ­
than a n o n - s i m i l a r
o th er;
w h e r e a s m a l e s d o n o t mak e t h i s
d ifferen tia­
tio n .
R eciprocity/D yadic E ffect
Jourard
(1964) o u t l i n e d
o c c u r r i n g when b o t h p a r t i e s
W o r t h y , G a r y a n d Kahn
l i k i n g and t r u s t
feel
the dyadic e f f e c t
s a f e and a r e
(1969) d e s c r i b e
SD l i t e r a t u r e .
equ ilib riu m
(Jourard,
Panyard
frien d
in r e la tio n s h ip
strongest
s tr o n g e r than i t
sure p a tte rn s
is.
experim ental
fem ales tend
1975).
ov erd isclo su re
to
r-,6 3 .
find
d e p t h by
of
to reach an
to
to re c ip ro c a te
1963).
f r i e n d and amount
recip ro city
co rrela­
t o be e v e n
( T a y lo r, W heeler & A ltm an,
in tim acy
lev els
in
low d e p t h p a r t n e r a n d u n d e r d i s c l o s u r e
low a n d h i g h d i s c l o s e r s
low d i s c l o s e r s
in
personal co n sisten cy in d is c lo ­
p a rtn e r has been a s s o c ia te d w ith n e u ro tic lsm
Pairing
fin d in g s
When s u b j e c t s ’ r e p o r t e d
i n d i v i d u a l s may p e r c e i v e
than r e c i p r o c i t y
F ailu re
R ecip ro city
j u d g e m e n t o f SD f r o m f r i e n d ,
Some a u t h o r s
rath er
rew ard i n d i c a t i n g
1960; J o u r a r d and R ichm an,
r e c e i v i n g and o b t a i n e d
.95 i n d i c a t i n g
to d is c lo s e .
of d is c lo s u re .
(1973) c o r r e l a t e d amount r e p o r t e d d i s c l o s e d
t i o n was
SD) a s
d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n SD r e c e i v e d a n d g i v e n
1959; J o u r a r d & Landsm an,
reported
free
SD a s a s o c i a l
A p p a r e n tly b o th m ales and
o u t p u t was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e i r
Kohen,
thus
and p ro d u c in g r e c i p r o c a t i o n
o f SD i n some f o r m s e e m s o n e o f t h e
(SD b e g e t s
(Jourard & Resnick,
the
1973;
forms o f
to high in tim a te
(C haiken, e t a l . ,
has dem onstrated
1975).
increased
1970) w h ic h c a r r i e s o v e r t o
55
encounters w ith o th e r
There
is
low d i s c l o s e r s
( P a s t e r n a c k & Landingham,
Bome e v i d e n c e t h a t d e p t h o f d i s c l o s u r e c a n be i n c r e a s e d
p a ir in g w ith a high d is c l o s i n g
(S erm at & Smyth,
partn er i f
1973).
a dependent v a ria b le
and measured r e s u l t i n g
experimenter behavior.
J o u r a r d and F r i e d m a n
time
spent d is c lo s in g as
flu c tu a tio n s according
(1970)
" d i s t a n c e " wa s
M anipulations
(Jourard & J a f f e ,
of
interview er disclosure
and ti m e and d e p t h
( B e c k e r & Muzz,
J o u r a r d and J e f f e
firm ation of M atarazzo's
Goodstein
(1965)
(1971) c r i t i c a l l y
t o do w i t h q u a n t i t y
Im itation
elim inated as
interview
note
that
1971).
In
fact,
D o s t e r and S lo a n
l e v e l s when i n t e r v i e w e r
wa s
less
Interested
suggested,
of both
th e ir data as con­
f i n d i n g s w h i l e Block and
s p e e c h d u r a t i o n may h a v e n o t h i n g
s o u r c e s o f SD i n s e v e r a l
1974).
1970)
i n r e s e a r c h em ploying c o n f e d e r a t e s have been
subjects
in
spoke
them.
behaved
analyses
(Davis & S k in n e r ,
1974;
g r e a t e r d i s c l o s u r e d e p t h h a s been
n e g a tiv e ly c o rre la te d with im ita tio n
& Sloan,
less.
1 9 7 5 ) h a v e s h own r e c i p r o c i t y
(1970) c o n s i d e r e d
time
or q u a l i t y of tra n s p a re n c y .
effects
E h rlich & Graeven,
time
to
found i n c r e a s e d
d i s c l o s i n g i n two g r o u p s where p s y c h o l o g i c a l
o f SD.
beyond
probing q u e s tio n s a r e asked
J o u r a r d and a s s o c i a t e s have c o n s i d e r e d
aspects
1972).
( D o s t e r and S k i n n e r ,
(1974)
on a l l
Doster
found h i g h e s t d i s c l o s u r e
ten topics
In order
1974;
though s u b j e c t s
felt
to m aintain equity, authors
r e c i p r o c a l l y but r e c i p r o c i t y ,
contrary
to
W o r t h y , G a r y a n d Kahn ( 1 9 6 9 ) wa s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e w a r d i n g ,
SD a n d M e n t a 1 H e a 1 t h
Current
fashion.
thinking re la te s
Neither
t o o much n o r
SD t o m e n t a l h e a l t h
too
little
in a c u rv ilin e a r
transparency is
considered
he
56
psy ch o lo g ically h ealth y
th a t v e ry high
according
et a l.,
levels
(Jourard,
1964; Cozby,
of d isc lo su re are
to c o n t e x t and t a r g e t
1975; C h a ik e n & D e r l e g a ,
person
1973).
perceived as
1971;
Cozby,
1973).
1974 a , b ;
Cozby,
lack th e r e o f
(1965) and Shimkunas
Truax and C a rk h u ff
(1965)
adjustm ent a s s o c ia te d w ith p a tie n t
th erap ist
transparency.
by p a r t i c i p a n t s
in stab ility
in to
p o p u l a t i o n s made
in
SD w h i c h ,
in tu rn ,
w as r e l a t e d
s t a b i l i t y and
DeLeon a n d a s s o c i a t e s
f r a t e r n i t y and s o r o r i t y
1973),
B reg lio ,
1 9 6 8 ) a n d w i t h SD t o b e s t
p e rh a p s due
(1970)
f o u n d no
p o sitiv e
group members.
o f n e u r o ti c is m have been a s s o c i a t e d w ith g r e a t e r d i s c l o s u r e
in a r e a s
to
have been p e rc e iv e d
1 9 7 2 ; May a n d T h o m p s o n ,
subjects
th is
f o u n d m o v e m en t t o w a r d s i m p r o v e d
f o r a s s u m e d r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n SD a n d v a r i o u s
so n ality a ttr ib u te s
(Jourard,
(1972) a p p ea r to avoid
as d e m o n stra tin g both p s y c h o lo g ic a l
(W eigel, e t a l . ,
co n sid eratio n
determ ined
D is c lo s in g group t h e r a p i s t s
to m ethodological d if f e r e n c e s .
support
take
is
1973; C h a ik e n ,
1972).
I n v e s tig a tio n s w ith h o s p ita liz e d
by T ru a x and C a r k h u f f
d ifficu lty .
or
in a p p ro p riate
(T aylor, e t a l . ,
R e s e a r c h on m e n t a l h e a l t h a n d SD s h o u l d
th e means by w hich a d j u s t m e n t
R esearch in d ic a te s
o f p e r s o n a l i t y and p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e
per­
M easures
by m a l e
(Pederson &
f r i e n d s by f e m a l e s u b j e c t s
(S tanley
& Bownes, 1966).
A t t e m p t s t o a s s o c i a t e MMPI a b n o r m a l i t y a n d SD a r e
use o f u n s u i t a b l e
detailed
sta tistic al
d efin itio n s
research d em onstrating
n ecessarily in d icativ e
and W ittm er
found t h a t
th at
of "d ev ian cy ."
c o n f o u n d e d by
Jourard
" n o r m a l " MMPI p a t t e r n s
of s t a t i s t i c a l l y
"average"
lev els
(1971)
are not
o f SD.
Truax
( 1 9 7 1 ) d e t e r m i n e d d e g r e e o f a d j u s t m e n t b y MMPI s t a n d a r d s a n d
least
adjusted
In div id u als
reported g r e a te s t
disclo su re
for
57
in tim a te,
s e m i - p e r s o n a 1 and o v e r a l l
A ccording to J o u r a r d 's
"norm als” d is c lo s e
There i s
less
(1971) d a t a ,
th at
ment th a n h a s m a l a d j u s t m e n t ,
m easures
C o zb y
(1973) h y p o th e s i z e d
p arallel
fash io n .
SD i s
related
far
1971;
a s MMPI
th at
to p o s itiv e adjustm ent
F itzg erald ,
1963).
l e s s q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and m e a s u r e ­
(1973)
s u g g e s t e d m o re w o r k w i t h
such a s P e rs o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n
In a review c o n s id e r in g
A llen
was t a r g e t .
re s u lts are d isto rte d
1 9 6 9 ; Hekmat & T h e i s s ,
P s y c h o lo g ic a l h e a l t h has undergone
ap p ro p riate
these
frien d
than c o n t r o l s .
some e v i d e n c e
(H alverson & Shore,
SD w he n b e s t
SD r e s e a r c h
Inventory.
in r e l a t i o n
SD a n d a d j u s t m e n t
to group th e ra p y ,
probably develop
in
He s t a t e d ;
. . . l a c k o f SD m i g h t l e a d t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f o n e ' s c o n f l i c t s ,
f e a r s , and in a d e q u a c ie s as u n iq u e; c o n c o m ita n tly , s e lf - e s te e m
w o u l d b e l o w e r e d a n d SD w o u l d b ec o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y r i s k y a n d
u n l i k e l y due t o f e a r o f r e v e a l i n g i n a d e q u a c y .
On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
SD may l e a d t o c o n s e n s u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g , I n c r e a s e d s e l f - e s t e e m ,
a n d a n i n c r e a s i n g c a p a c i t y f o r SD.
In v estig ato rs
I n t o SD a n d m e n t a l h e a l t h m i g h t c o n t i n u e
Truax and C arkh uff
(1965),
to exam ine, as d id
how t r a n s p a r e n c y c o n t r i b u t e s
f u n c t i o n i n g w h ile d e v e l o p i n g means t o
facilitate
th is
t o im proved
process.
58
APPENDIX B
P le a s e i n d i c a t e w hich of th e
t o d i s c u s s w i t h Dr. M ark s.*
career,
drunk.
past .
1.
What i s m o r e i m p o r t a n t
(6 .1 0 )
2.
My f e e l i n g s a b o u t
3.
The a g e s
sexy m ovies.
foods a r e b e s t
feel
that
6.
What
7.
T opics of c o n v e rs a tio n
th at
th at
11.
Why some p e o p l e d i s l i k e m e .
13.
most asham ed.
The t h i n g s i n my p a s t
(9.9 7 )
How many h o u r s o f s l e e p
15.
How s a t i s f i e d
w a is t, w eight, c h e s t, e tc .
I have d o n e.
like
th at
people w atching
I u su a lly enjoy.
en th u siastic.
or p r e s e n t
I need to
W h eth er o r n o t I would
(2 .3 8 )
life
(4.10)
a b o u t w h i c h I am
f e e l my b e s t .
of sexual
lie
(2.1 3 )
p a r t s o f my b o d y - - l e g s ,
W h e r e my p a r e n t s a n d g r a n d p a r e n t s came f r o m .
stan d ard s
(8 .75)
(8 .0 0 )
I am w i t h d i f f e r e n t
(8 .5 0 )
17.
My f e e l i n g s a b o u t
m arriage.
(3.83)
18.
felt
(3.27)
th at
I d o n 't
in the
(1 .9 2 )
b o r e me.
of group a c t i v i t i e s
T i m e s when I h a v e
I e v e r saw my m o t h e r
f o r ray h e a l t h .
The k i n d s
12.
(1 .3 2 )
I h a d w i t h my a p p e a r a n c e
10.
16.
if
T h in g s w hich I have b e e n s o r r y
9.
The k i n d s o f t h i n g s
(8 .8 5 )
14.
(4.5 0 )
and s i s t e r s .
or m ight
5.
P ro b lem s and w o r r i e s
(7.42)
8.
me d o .
felt
i t e m s y o u w o u l d be w i l l i n g
to m e --e a rly m arriag e or a s u c c e s s fu l
o f my b r o t h e r s
4 . How I h a v e
(9 .7 5 )
follow ing
(2 .56)
behavior before
t o my w i f e / h u s b a n d . ( 8 . 9 3 )
♦Scaled in tim a cy valued
fo llo w each item in p a r e n t h e s e s .
P o s s i b l e v a l u e s r a n g e from one t o e l e v e n .
59
19.
W h e th e r o r n o t I would w e a r a w e d d in g r i n g .
20.
My s e x
21.
Th e a g e o f g i r l s / b o y s
22.
How may g i r l s / b o y s
23.
How o f t e n my a u n t s a n d u n c l e s a n d
24.
Things I d i s l i k e
a b o u t ray m o t h e r .
(9 .15)
25.
Lies th a t
t o l d my p a r e n t s .
(9.2 9 )
26.
W h e t h e r o r n o t my p a r e n t s
life.
(10.25)
I have
that
I
28.
W hether or not
(5 ,63)
to d a te .
lik e
I have d a te d .
(5 .2 5 )
fam ily g e t
to g eth er.
(2.89)
(3 .29)
I co u ld change som ething
I have e v e r w o rrie d a b o u t h a v in g "bad
29.
What a n i m a l s mak e me n e r v o u s .
30.
What a n n o y s me m o s t i n p e o p l e .
31.
T i m e s whe n X h a v e
32.
L ies
33.
T i m e s when I h a v e
34.
W hether or not
35.
S i t u a t i o n s w h i c h make me i m p a t i e n t .
th at
(3 .6 2 )
s p a n k e d me a s a c h i l d .
2 7 . T i m e s when I h a v e w i s h e d t h a t
a b o u t my p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e .
(7 .8 3 )
b re a th ."
(3 .0 7 )
felt
(3.4 4 )
(5 .8 9 )
quarrelsom e.
X h a v e t o l d my f r i e n d s .
felt
(9.29)
l i k e w a l k i n g away from som eone.
X have e v e r
l e t down a
36.
What s p e c i a l e f f o r t , i f a n y ,
and a t t r a c t i v e , e . g . , c a l i s t e n i c s , d i e t .
felt
(5 .0 0 )
like
frien d .
(8.0 5 )
(4.42)
I mak e t o k e e p
(6 .1 7 )
fit,
r u n n i n g aw ay f r o m h o m e .
health y
37.
T i m e s w hen I
38.
How o f t e n
39.
W h eth er o r n o t I would m a rry an o n - v i r g i n .
40.
How f r e q u e n t l y I
to d a te .
(4.11)
41.
What my p a r e n t s d i d w e l l w h i l e
raisin g
me.
42.
The p a r t s o f my b o d y I am m o s t
ashamed
fo r anyone to
43.
The m o s t e m b a r r a s s i n g
I m astu rb ate.
like
(5 .6 0 )
(6.7 8 )
(10.70)
(9 .50)
(6 .6 0 )
see.
(8 . 8 8 )
situ atio n
I have e v e r been i n .
(8.08)
60
44.
How much I
enjoy ta lk in g w ith o th e r p eo p le.
45.
How I
f e e l a b o u t b e i n g th e one t o " t h r o w a p a r t y . "
46.
Times
w hen I h a v e b e e n d i s s a t i s f i e d .
47.
The k i n d s
of c lo th e s
th at
I
48.
Bad h a b i t s my f a t h e r o r m o t h e r h a v e .
49.
How o f t e n
I have had s e x u a l
feel
51.
What k i n d
(3.00)
of
fu rn itu re
l o o k b e s t o n me .
like
i n my l i f e .
53.
The p h y s i c a l a p p e a r a n c e o f my m o t h e r a n d
54.
How w e l l I c a n h e a r .
(2 .2 9 )
55.
What i t
h u r t my f e e l i n g s d e e p l y .
56.
W h e t h e r o r n o t Xl i k e
to
te ll
my
to have a f t e r
My f e e l i n g s a b o u t b l i n d d a t e s .
to
(9.97)
sex w ith
52.
takes
(5.00)
(9 .29)
relatio n s
I would
(3.3 2 )
(4.9 4 )
50.
How f r e q u e n t l y I w o u l d w a n t t o e n g a g e i n
w ife/h u sb an d .
(1 0 .4 2 )
m arried.
(4 .2 1 )
I get
(3,46)
am using
fath er.
(5 .3 5 )
(9 .3 7 )
jo k e s and s t o r i e s .
(2 .8 0 )
57.
know ledge.
My f e e l i n g s a b o u t p e o p l e who t r y
(5.5 0 )
to
58.
W hether or no t X t e l l
59.
How I
60.
How much e d u c a t i o n my p a r e n t s h a v e .
62.
W hether o r no t
m arried.
(6 .4 2 )
63.
p e o p l e o f f w he n I g e t a n g r y .
feel about g e ttin g
61.
G u ilt fe e lin g s ,
sexual behavior.
(10,35)
The a g e
if
I m p r e s s me w i t h
any,
o ld .
th at
th eir
(5.83)
(6.36)
I have
(5.5 6 )
(or have
h a d ) a b o u t my
I w a n t t o h a v e a n y c h i l d r e n when I g e t
a t w hich X would
lik e
to m a rry .
(4 .2 5 )
64.
W hether o r n o t I have necked o r m a d e-o u t w ith ag i r l / b o y
a t a movie o r a d r i v e - i n .
(6 .5 0 )
65.
The n u m b e r o f c o l d s I u s u a l l y h a v e p e r y e a r .
66.
How o f t e n X l i k e
t o s e e my f r i e n d s .
(5 .5 0 )
(1 .9 1 )
61
67.
The k i n d o f p e r s o n I
lik e
to d a te ,
6 8 . How i m p o r t a n t X t h i n k s e x w i l l
good o n e .
(8 .6 1 )
69.
Who I
70.
W he re I w o u l d
W hether or not
I
fam ily d e c is io n s .
to spend a honeymoon.
7 1 . W h e th e r I would l i k e
a f te r g e ttin g m arried.
(3 .09)
72.
b e i n m a k i n g my m a r r i a g e
t h i n k s h o u l d make i m p o r t a n t
like
(6.40)
to
live
(5 .0 0 )
(5 .9 2 )
in an apartm ent
lik e being the
a
or a house
le a d e r of a group,
(4 .8 8 )
62
APPENDIX C
PERSONAL REACTION INVENTORY
L i s t e d below a r e a number o f s t a t e m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n a l
a t t i t u d e s and t r a i t s .
Read e a c h i t e m a n d d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t
i s t r u e o r f a l s e a s i t p e r t a i n s t o you p e r s o n a l l y .
of a l l
1.
Before v o tin g I th o ro u g h ly i n v e s t i g a t e
the c a n d id a te s .
(T)
2.
tro u b le.
I never h e s ita te
(T)
t o g o o u t o f my way t o h e l p s o m e o n e i n
3.
I t I s som etim es hard
not encouraged.
(F )
4.
5.
in
life.
the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
f o r me t o g o on w i t h my w o r k i f
I have n e v e r i n t e n s e l y d i s l i k e d
anyone.
(T)
On o c c a s i o n I h a v e h a d d o u b t s a b o u t my a b i l i t y
(F)
som etim es
6.
I
7.
I am a l w a y s c a r e f u l a b o u t my m a n n e r o f d r e s s .
(F)
(T)
home a r e a s g o o d a s when I e a t o u t
9.
I f I c o u l d g e t i n t o a movie w i t h o u t p a y i n g and
n o ts e e n I would
p ro b ab ly do i t .
(F)
I
to succeed
f e e l r e s e n t f u l when I d o n ' t g e t my w a y .
8.
My t a b l e m a n n e r s a t
restau ran t.
(T)
I am
be s u r e
in a
I was
10. Cn a few o c c a s i o n s , I h a v e g i v e n up d o i n g s o m e t h i n g b e c a u s e
t h o u g h t t o o l i t t l e o f my a b i l i t y .
(F )
11 .
people
I
lik e
to gossip a t
tim es.
(F)
1 2 . T h e r e h a v e b e e n t i m e s whe n I f e l t l i k e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t
i n a u t h o r i t y e v e n t h o u g h I knew t h e y w e r e r i g h t .
(F)
1 3 . No m a t t e r who I ' m
talk in g
to ,
14. I c a n r e m e m b e r " p l a y i n g s i c k "
I 'm alw ay s a good l i s t e n e r .
to g et out
of som ething.
15. T h e r e h a v e b e e n o c c a s i o n s when I t o o k a d v a n t a g e
16. I 'm a lw a y s w i l l i n g
17.
I alw ays t r y
to adm it i t
t o p r a c t i c e what I p r e a c h .
18. I d o n ' t f i n d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t
loud m o u t h e d , o b n o x io u s p e o p l e .
(T)
(F)
o f someone.
when I make a m i s t a k e .
(T)
(T)
(T)
to get along w ith
(F)
63
19.
I
som etim es t r y
to g e t even r a t h e r
t h a n f o r g i v e and f o r g e t .
20.
When I d o n ' t
21.
I am a l w a y s c o u r t e o u s , e v e n t o p e o p l e who a r e d i s a g r e e a b l e .
(F )
it.
know s o m e t h i n g I d o n ' t a t
a l l mind a d m i t t i n g
(T)
(T)
way.
22.
(F)
23.
At t i m e s I h a v e r e a l l y
in sisted
on h a v i n g
T h e re h a v e b e e n o c c a s i o n s when I
felt
t h i n g s my own
like
sm ashing t h i n g s .
(F)
24.
I w ould n e v e r t h i n k
my w r o n g d o i n g s .
(T)
2 5.
of
lettin g
I never re s e n t being asked
s om eo n e e l s e
be p u n i s h e d
to r e tu r n a fav o r.
26.
I h a v e n e v e r b e e n i r k e d whe n p e o p l e e x p r e s s e d
d i f f e r e n t f r o m my own.
(T)
my c a r .
27.
I n e v e r make a l o n g t r i p w i t h o u t
(T)
fortune
28.
T h e r e h a v e b e e n t i m e s when I w a s q u i t e
of o t h e r s .
(F)
29.
I have a lm o st n e v e r
30.
I am s o m e t i m e s i r r i t a t e d
31.
I have n ev er
felt
felt
that
checking
the
(T)
id eas very
safety
jealo u s
the urge to t e l l
b y p e o p l e who a s k
of
o f th e good
someone o f f .
(T)
f a v o r s o f me.
I was p u n i s h e d w i t h o u t
cause.
32.
I s o m e t i m e s t h i n k when p e o p l e h a v e a m i s f o r t u n e
g o t what t h e y d e s e r v e d .
(F)
33.
I have n e v e r d e l i b e r a t e l y
so m eo n e's f e e l i n g s .
(T)
for
Baid s o m e th in g t h a t
(T)
th e y only
hurt
(F)
64
APPENDIX D
CONFIDENTIAL RATING SCALE FOR ANTICIPATED LIKING OF INTERVIEWER
In d icate
th at
you w i l l
by c h e c k i n g one o f th e
like
your in te rv ie w e r.
p u rp o s e s o n ly and w i l l
s p a c e s b e l o w how much y o u e x p e c t
This r a t i n g
is
fo r experim ental
n o t b e s e e n by y o u r i n t e r v i e w e r .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 = I
do n o t e x p e c t
t h a t w i l l l i k e my i n t e r v i e w e r
5 = 1
expect th a t
I
w ill
l i k e my i n t e r v i e w e r s o m e w h a t
9 = 1
expect th at
I
w ill
l i k e my i n t e r v i e w e r v e r y much
65
APPENDIX E
Self-disclosure
s t a t e m e n t by f i c t i t i o u s
I h a v e come t o b e l i e v e
that estab lish in g a helpful
ship w ith an o th er person re q u ire s
beliefs
as
have I d ecid ed
helpful
to
frankness
that
that
Although I have always
seeking help,
only r e c e n tly
s e l f with others
i s most
I have w r i t t e n and s i g n e d t h i s
I intend
relation­
I c o m m u n i c a t e my f e e l i n g s a n d
from c l i e n t s
s h a r i n g my p e r s o n a l
t h e m a n d t o me,
t o a s s u r e my c l i e n t s
com pletely.
that
o p e n l y and h o n e s t l y a s p o s s i b l e .
expected complete
Dr. Marks;
statement
t o s h a r e m y s e l f w i t h them
66
APPENDIX F
COUNSELOR TAPE
Both D r s :
J:
Both D rs:
J :
R-DR:
NR-DR:
J:
B o t h DR s:
J :
R-DR:
NR-DR:
J:
R-Dr :
NR-Dr:
H ello, John.
I understand
yo u w a n t
t o t a l k w i t h me .
Yes.
I ' v e b een t h i n k i n g a b o u t com ing h e r e t o r a lo n g ti m e .
I ’v e a l w a y s h a d d i f f i c u l t y m a k i n g f r i e n d s a n d i t ' s b e e n
b o t h e r i n g me m o r e t h a n e v e r l a t e l y .
I t seems h a rd t o e v en
approach people.
C o u l d y o u t e l l me m o r e a b o u t
I 'v e been h ere a t
se e m t o be a p a r t
th at.
school for alm ost
of things.
one s e m e s t e r b u t
I d o n 't
Yes, I t h i n k I u n d e r s ta n d .
T h e r e w a s a t i m e w he n I f i r s t
w e n t t o c o l l e g e w he n I h a d t r o u b l e m a k i n g f r i e n d s .
That
was a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t i m e .
Yes, I th in k I u n d e r s ta n d .
m aking f r i e n d s .
L o ts o f p e o p le have
tro u b le
I g u e s s w h a t r e a l l y b o t h e r s me i s t h a t I ' v e n e v e r h a d a g i r l
frien d .
Oh, I ' v e h a d d a t e s b u t I ' v e n e v e r b e e n o u t w i t h
an y o n e more t h a n once o r t w i c e .
Some g u y s my a g e a r e
m a r r ie d or engaged o r a t l e a s t g o in g w it h someone.
You f e e l
you a r e m i s s i n g o u t on a more
W e l l , m a y be I j u s t d o n ' t s e e m t o
e l s e seems t o be p a r t o f a p a i r .
fit
lastin g
relatio n sh ip ?
in because everyone
When I was a c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n I r e m e m b e r b e i n g w o r r i e d t h a t
I w a s n ' t a s p o p u l a r w i t h g i r l s a s some o f my f r i e n d s .
It
s o u n d s l i k e we b o t h t e n d e d t o c o m p a r e o u r s e l v e s w i t h o t h e r s .
Many c o l l e g e f r e s h m e n w o r r y a b o u t t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y w i t h g i r l s .
I t sounds l i k e you te n d t o com pare y o u r s e l f w ith o t h e r s .
Y eah, and I g u e s s I r e a l l y f e e l on t h e n e g a t i v e end of t h i n g s
because of being an only c h i l d .
I t ' s like I never r e a lly
h a d t o g e t a l o n g w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e n e a r my own a g e l i k e I
h a v e t o now t h a t I ' m a w a y f r o m h o m e .
You k n o w , y o u r e x p e r i e n c e s o u n d s s o m e t h i n g l i k e
f a t h e r was i n t h e s e r v i c e .
M oving a ro u n d a l o t
r e a l l y had a chance t o g e t e s t a b l i s h e d anyw here
co lleg e.
Maybe we c a n t h i n k a b o u t t h i s p r o b l e m
You n e v e r r e a l l y h a d t o t h i n k a b o u t
t h i n k a b o u t t h i s problem f u r t h e r .
th is
before.
m ine.
My
meant I n e v e r
t i l l I went to
to g eth er.
Maybe we c a n
V IT A
Debra J e a n
Inman r e c e i v e d
p s y c h o lo g y and a m in o r i n E n g l i s h
W ichita
ported
F alls,
Texas,
i n May,
from M id w e s te rn S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1972.
T h i s u n d e r g r a d u a t e w o r k was s u p ­
by a n H o n o r s P r o g r a m S c h o l a r s h i p .
was a w a r d e d
in December,
a candidate
fo r the
m ajor
t h e B.A, d e g r e e w i t h a m a j o r i n
in c l i n i c a l
awarded
1974,
H er M.A. d e g r e e
from L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Ph.D. d e g r e e
from L o u i s i a n a
p sy ch o lo g y and a m inor in
in A ugust,
197 7.
In stitu te
of M ental
in te rn at
Napa S t a t e
H ealth F e llo w s h ip .
in Im ola,
She i s
S ta te U n iv e rs ity w ith a
B e h a v i o r a l N e u r o l o g y t o be
H e r g r a d u a t e w o r k was s u p p o r t e d
H o sp ital
in psychology
C u r r e n t l y Ms.
C alifo rn ia.
by a N a t i o n a l
In m a n i s a n
EXAMINATION
Candidate:
Debra Jean Inman
M.ijnj field:
P sy ch o lo g y
I nit (il l Ik'mv S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e
AND THESIS R EP OR T
and I n t e r v i e w e r
Reciprocity
A \ )[)[ o w ' d :
M a)ol
IV.iJ)
i 'l ( i l f - v n t
u(
ttsi-
I X AM IN I N C
(.
L
i* *
itlii
C h airm an
U ialH iale
S c Ih m i I
COMM I I I I I
“
V
^c<„. a (P
I
D a l e <>l E x a m i n a t i o n :
D ecem ber
17,
1976